Life Advocacy Briefing

Step Toward Defunding Planned Parenthood

THE PRESIDENT HAS ENDORSED FOR FINAL IMPLEMENTATION a rule change which has been crafted by the Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) to disqualify abortionists from federal funding under Title X (Ten) “family planning.”

Planned Parenthood is a major recipient of Title X funding and would have to stop committing – or even referring for – abortions in order to continue to qualify; the more likely result is that Planned Parenthood will suffer a major pinch in resources, though the abortion goliath will surely seek court action to block implementation of the rule.

The Title X cutoff is modeled after – though not entirely identical to – a regulation promulgated by Pres. Ronald Reagan, a rule which was upheld in lengthy court battles which delayed implementation until 1991, when the Clinton Regime yanked it. Those court rulings will no doubt be used by the Trump Administration in the litigation Planned Parenthood is likely to bring.

The pending rule requires that Title X recipients have no financial relationship – including facility sharing or staff sharing – with entities which commit abortions. Since Planned Parenthood is unlikely to divest itself of its abortion business which realistically comprises the PP empire, America’s leading abortionist is likely to lose tens of millions in federal tax dollars, pending final approval by the Office of Management & Budget (OMB).

The Title X defunding move is only a deposit on the Trump Administration’s promise to protect federal taxpayers from having to subsidize Planned Parenthood, as 85% of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding flow stems from other accounts, such as Medicaid and community health grants. Still, Planned Parenthood, according to the Washington Post, receives about 40% of the annual Title X funds and would no doubt face significant financial consequences, should the proposed rule take effect.

Defunding Shrinks the Abortion Cartel

THE EXCLUSION OF ABORTIONISTS from US foreign aid spending – ordered by Pres. Donald Trump as one of his first acts in taking office in January 2017 – is bearing fruit, according to a report last Wednesday by Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews.com.

“Two of the world’s most prolific abortion performers have been forced to partially shut down their operations in Africa,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “thanks to” the Trump executive order reinstating Pres. Ronald Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy,” which disqualifies from Agency for International Development (USAID) funding not only those entities which commit abortions but also those which lobby for changes in pro-life laws overseas.

“The UK-based Marie Stopes International (MSI) has closed 22 of its 62 Madagascar-based outreach teams,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “17 of its 35 in Uganda and 600 of its 1,200 in Zimbabwe, Church Militant reported. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has closed 22 programs in sub-Saharan Africa,” writes Mr. Freiburger. “Both groups will also be canceling programs in Togo, Ethiopia, Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso. …

“The policy requires foreign aid recipients to certify,” explains Mr. Freiburger, “that they will not ‘perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in foreign countries or provide financial support to any other foreign [non-government organization] that conducts such activities.’”

Another One Down

FOLLOWING THE LEAD of her Planned Parenthood colleague, Cecile Richards, the 23-year president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation announced in mid-May that she will retire a year from now. NAF is a trade association of baby-killing “providers.”

The news release announcing the change, quoted by Dave Andrusko in National Right to Life  News Today (NRL/NT), claims that Vicki Saporta has “‘led NAF in setting the standards for quality abortion care in the Americas and expanded the organization’s ability to conduct site visits and provide education and training to help ensure the highest quality of care.’

“Every time I read something like this from a high-profile pro-abortion leader,” comments Mr. Andrusko, “I think of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell is currently serving three life sentences for murdering babies he deliberately delivered alive and then slit their spinal cords, and one count of involuntary manslaughter in the 2009 death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar.

“According to the grand jury report,” notes Mr. Andrusko, “‘Gosnell submitted an application to become an NAF member in November 2009 – apparently and astonishingly the day after Karnamaya Mongar died.’” Though the grand jury noted that NAF denied Gosnell admission to its membership, the report also noted that, according to the NAF evaluator who spent two days at the Gosnell death mill before recommending the rejection, “‘this was the first time in her [the evaluator’s] experience that NAF had outright rejected a provider for membership. … Gosnell’s clinic … was deemed beyond redemption.’

“But,” asks Mr. Andrusko, “who did NAF tell? What medical board or agency or authority? None.”

Heartbeat Law Taken to Court

NOW THAT THE INK HAS BARELY DRIED on the Iowa governor’s signature of the recently passed Heartbeat Law, Planned Parenthood and the misnamed American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have, predictably, rushed into court to block the July 1 effective date.

Said the ACLU’s Iowa legal director, quoted by Claire Chretien for LifeSiteNews.com, “‘Iowa politicians have tried to ban virtually all abortions for women in our state.’” Well, yes. The new law bars the contract killing of babies whose heartbeats can be detected while gestating in the womb (as early as six weeks into the development of the new life). And in the process, debate over this new law – and even coverage of the predictable lawsuit – enlightens young people and vulnerable expectant mothers to the reality that a significant other person is involved whenever an unborn child is attacked via abortion.

Though Iowa’s attorney general, Tom Miller (D), has “‘disqualified himself from representing the state’” in the court battle, according to the state’s solicitor general, quoted by LifeSiteNews writer Calvin Freiburger, the state’s governor, Kim Reynolds (R), said, in Ms. Chretien’s report, “that defending the life-saving legislation is a ‘fight worth fighting.’ … We’re not slowing down, we’re not going to stop,’ she said. ‘We know that our work is not done, that we must continue to work together to change the hearts and minds. As governor,’” she said in the Chretien report, “‘I pledge to you to do everything in my power to protect life.’”

Two pro-life pro-bono law firms, the Thomas More Society and Liberty Counsel, reports Ms. Chretien, “have already offered to defend Iowa’s Heartbeat Law in court for free.’” (Actually, through the beneficence of their own contributors.)

“The US Supreme Court is unlikely to uphold the Heartbeat Law and overturn Roe v. Wade under its current membership,” comments Mr. Freiburger. “But, pro-life leaders such as Rep. Steve King (R-IA) have argued for enacting similar laws anyway, because it takes more than a year for a state law to reach the Court, by which time many expect Pres. Donald Trump to have appointed another pro-life Justice, securing a clear pro-life majority.”  

Rep. King is sponsoring a Heartbeat bill at the federal level along with 170 co-sponsors. HR-490 has been in a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee since its filing in February of 2017.

Suicide Abetment Overturned in California

CALIFORNIA’s LAW AUTHORIZING DOCTORS TO ABET SUICIDE has been struck down by Riverside Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia on the basis that it fell outside the call for the special session in which it was enacted.

Attorneys for Life Legal Defense Foundation argued before the judge that the “End of Life Option Act” was “not related or even incidental to the stated purpose of the special session,” notes a Life Legal news release. The limited scope legislative session was supposed to deal with health care. “Suicide,” declares Life Legal, “is not health care.”

Judge Ottolia “agreed,” reports Life Legal, “holding that ‘the End of Life Option Act does not fall within the scope of access to healthcare services’ and that it ‘is not a matter of healthcare funding.’”

The judge disagreed with California’s radical attorney general, Xavier Becerra (D), who stated, according to the Life Legal release, “that legislation passed during special sessions is presumed to be constitutional,” an argument which we would suggest is ridiculous on its face.

Said Life Legal’s executive director, Alexandra Snyder, “We are thrilled by today’s ruling, which reinstates critical legal protections for vulnerable patients. … The court made it very clear that assisted suicide has nothing to do with increasing access to health care and that hijacking the special session to advance an unrelated agenda is impermissible.”

The legal team’s news release also quoted Stephanie Packer, who, Life Legal states, “has been diagnosed with a terminal illness” and who was in the courtroom for the hearing. “After the End of Life Option Act was implemented,” notes Life Legal, “Stephanie’s insurance company denied coverage of life-saving chemotherapy treatment but said it would pay for ‘aid-in-dying’ drugs, which would cost $1.20.

“Stephanie has spoken out against assisted suicide in California and other states,” notes Life Legal, “saying, ‘I am so grateful that California’s assisted suicide law was overturned today. The bill’s proponents tout dignity, choice, compassion and painlessness. I am here to tell you that nothing could be further from the truth. Choice is really an illusion for a very few. For too many, assisted suicide will be the only affordable “treatment” that is offered them.’”

Quoteworthy

Pres. Donald Trump at the May 22, 2018, Susan B. Anthony List 11th annual Campaign for Life Gala in Washington, DC, quoted by Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews.com: “We can’t be complacent. What happens historically, a tremendous percentage of the time, is that you win the election and become complacent. … We sit back, the other side has energy, and they win. … When we stand for Life, we stand for the true source of America’s greatness: it’s our people. It’s the people who grace our lives, who sustain our communities and who make America a nation, a home and this magnificent land we all love so much. … Vote for family, vote for love, vote for faith and values, vote for country and vote for Life.”

Just the Beginning

May 23, 2018, commentary by Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews.com

            The pro-life movement is rightfully praising Donald Trump for disqualifying abortion facilities from receiving Title X family planning funds. The welcome change is the latest in a long line of actions that make Trump arguably the strongest pro-life President America has ever had. That said, it’s important not to oversell the accomplishment, or let a marginal improvement lull us into a sense of complacency.

            Reading through the various statements from pro-life groups celebrating Trump’s recent move, a troubling theme emerges:

o          “Pres. Trump has kept his promise to protect the lives of the unborn and to ensure the abortion industry is no longer supported by taxpayers.”

o          “The pro-life grassroots will be pleased to see Pres. Trump deliver on yet another pro-life promise … .”

o          “Pres. Trump has shown decisive leadership, delivering on a key promise to pro-life voters who worked so hard to elect him … .”

o          “Donald Trump pledged to defund Planned parenthood because of its involvement in promoting and performing abortions. Today he has kept that promise…”

            All these statements make it sound like Trump has completed his promise to defund Planned Parenthood, when in reality, Title X only accounts for around a tenth of its federal funding. You know, the funding our pro-life Congress and White House agreed to continue just two months ago.

            That’s not to say they meant to suggest otherwise, of course; obviously they’ll continue to support cutting the rest. But the fact remains that language like “has kept” or “has delivered” conveys a distinct sense of completion, as if this is the most progress we can expect for the time being.

            But it’s not the most we can do right now. Not even close.

            Multiple versions of full defunding legislation have been introduced in the current session of Congress, one of which has already passed the House of Representatives. Yet it’s barely even discussed any more, largely because the powers-that-be decided that attaching defunding to Obamacare repeal was our only shot to get it done – and we all know how that turned out.

            Making those two causes depend on each other was a mistake, and there’s no reason not to correct it in the current session.

            The Obamacare-linked efforts failed because in each case, at least one pro-life Republican objected to the healthcare side of the bill, not the abortion side. And as we saw when the Senate approved legislation allowing states to kick Planned Parenthood out of their own Title X programs, pro-life bills can withstand two GOP defectors and still get a majority, thanks to Mike Pence’s tie-breaking vote.

            Of course, that brings us to another problem: the fact that the Senate’s ostensibly pro-life leadership chooses to give the pro-abortion minority veto power over most bills, via filibuster rules that require 60 votes for passage. Never mind that those rules aren’t in the Constitution, violate the Founders’ intentions and, as Ted Cruz points out, Democrats will almost certainly abolish them anyway once they regain power.

            Did you know that in the very first month of Trump’s presidency, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told House pro-lifers not to even bother sending him abortion bills, because they wouldn’t get 60 votes and he wasn’t willing to change the filibuster? You might not, because it went almost completely ignored by professional pro-lifers. Worse, after months of Congressional failure, several leading organizations confirmed they were still either neutral on or opposed to filibuster reform.

            Really? Our first pro-life united government in a decade, and we’re not going to use every tool at our disposal to save as may lives as we can, defund Planned Parenthood as much as humanly possible, before the very real possibility of the abortion lobby retaking at least part of Congress this fall?

            Pro-life groups recognized that pro-life voters are dissatisfied with Congress’s lack of results through predictions that the Title X change would “energize the grassroots as we head into the critical midterm elections.” But it would be suicidal to assume marginal regulations will be enough, after years of promising that pro-lifers would finally see laws changed if they gave the GOP Congress and the White House.

            Now’s not the time to hang a “Mission Accomplished” banner and hope the current session’s middling results somehow deliver a Senate supermajority in 2018. Now’s the time to press forward on the bills they touted on the campaign trail, fight for the rule reforms to give them a fighting chance and confront whether our current leaders are up for the job.

            In other words, now’s the time to demand that our leaders truly fulfill the promises that won them their last election.