Life Advocacy Briefing

Another Winning Confirmation

THE SENATE VOTED LAST TUESDAY TO CONFIRM Britt Cagle Grant to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Atlanta. The vote was 52 to 46; we publish the voting record at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing, along with the voting record on the “cloture” motion, by which debate on her confirmation was ended.

Among the lurch-Left groups opposing her nomination to the post was the Alliance for Justice (AFJ), which declared, “As [Georgia] Solicitor General, Grant defended a ‘fetal pain’ law passed by the Georgia legislature in 2012. The law made it illegal for doctors to perform abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with a few exceptions. … In January 2013, a Fulton County judge dismissed the [ACLU] lawsuit. Grant, then solicitor general, commented to the judge, ‘We think your order was correct and we expect it will be upheld.’ …

“While working for the Office of the Georgia Attorney General,” notes AFJ, “Grant also worked on an amicus brief supporting an Indiana law that blocked Medicaid reimbursements for health providers that provide abortion care.”

And further, warns the Left-leaning group, “Grant filed an amicus brief on behalf of Hobby Lobby in the case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. Similarly, Grant assisted with an amicus brief in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius (which was linked with Hobby Lobby). The cases,” writes AFJ, “sought to establish a right of for-profit corporations to cite religious grounds for denying employees insurance coverage for contraception.” The analysis fails to note that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood were given the relief they sought by none less than the US Supreme Court.

Other comments by AFJ make clear the fear the Left has that Judge Grant will one day land on the Supreme Court, and it is clear also that they fear her youthful age (40) could give her long tenure. She is, they warn, on President Trump’s “short list” of prospective Supreme nominees.

Cuomo Threatens to Sue

WITH HIS REPUTATION AS A LEFTISH RADICAL BEING THREATENED in 2018 by, of all things, a Democratic primary challenger from his Left, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is courting what he calls “the women’s vote” by threatening to sue the Trump Administration to block its disqualification of Planned Parenthood and other abortionists from federal “family planning” funding.

In a letter to Health & Human Services (H.H.S.) Secretary Alex Azar, Gov. Cuomo charged the Protect Life Rule, now pending final adoption after public comment, would “‘decrease the quality and availability of Title X [Ten] services and impeded the rights of New Yorkers’ to ‘access the full range of reproductive health care,’” reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews.com.

The rule, Gov. Cuomo claimed, “‘violates long-standing principles limiting the interference of Congress in the sovereignty of individual states and impairment of private contracts,’” quotes Mr. Freiburger, “and ‘demonstrate a profound disregard for science and medical best practices.’” Yes, he actually claimed that.

The embattled two-term governor “concluded the letter by threatening,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “that New York would ‘explore all legal avenues available to us to ensure that the proposed rule’s attack does not threaten the health and wellbeing of New Yorkers and the integrity of New York’s Family Planning Program.’”

Our hunch is that the federal government would not attempt to apply standards to any state’s own “family planning program.” The hitch: Title X is a federal program, administered by the federal government through contracts with states, paid for by federal taxpayers. If New York desires to exercise sovereignty over its “family planning program,” the solution is simple: Turn down the federal cash and go it alone!

More Medical Mischief

THE AMERICAN BOARD OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY IS ASKING the American Board of Medical Specialties to approve a new sub-specialty certification, reports Charlie Butts for OneNewsNow.com, “to legitimize abortionists who perform late-term abortions.”

The new certification would be called “‘Complex Family Planning,’” Mr. Butts reports, but “the request for [such] a medical specialty is a smokescreen for training doctors to do late-term abortions.” And the classification is a euphemism typical in the misleading abortion debate.

Notes Dr. Donna Harrison of the American Assn. of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Mr. Butts reports, “there is no place in Hippocratic medicine to justify that. ‘And there is no reason,’ she tells OneNewsNow, ‘why there should be a board certification for doctors to be able to kill babies.’”

She further noted that in the late stages of a baby’s gestation, writes Mr. Butts, “a baby can survive outside the womb. ‘But see, the point of an abortion at that gestational age,’ says [Dr.] Harrison” in the OneNewsNow report, “‘is to make sure that the baby is dead. So it’s to produce a dead baby. It’s not to save a mother’s life.’ If that were the case, [Dr.] Harrison says the doctor would perform a C-section so the mother and child would have a chance at life.”

Protecting Our Children

INDIANA HAS ENACTED NEW PARENTS’ RIGHTS LEGISLATION related to sex education in the public schools.

Rather than offering parents the placebo of an opt-out provision, as happens in many school districts across America, Indiana law now requires school districts, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews.com, “to attempt to obtain written consent from a parent or guardian before teaching a child about various topics pertaining to sexuality.”

The new law took effect last month and was sponsored by GOP State Sen. Dennis Kruse, who said, quoted by Mr. Freiburger, “‘We have teachers who are going beyond the standards and are getting into what I call more sensual, more nitty-gritty stuff, almost to the area of pornography. … We thought, “wow, this is creeping in now” so we better do something so that it doesn’t take over the curriculum.’”

The notice to parents now required by law not only summarizes the content of the proposed instruction but also informs parents of their right to examine the materials to be used, advises parents that their child is “entitled,” reports Mr. Freiburger, “to ‘alternative academic instruction’ during the same time frame” as their colleagues are undergoing sexuality instruction, and gives parents the option of expressly consenting or “‘nonconsent[ing]’ to the instruction,” reports LifeSiteNews.

Liberty Counsel has taken on a campaign to inform school districts about the new law and has, Mr. Freiburger indicates, “produced a sample non-consent form to help parents express their opposition to problematic materials and request alternative instruction.”

More detailed information about the new Indiana law is available on the Internet via Liberty Counsel at https://www.lc.org/newsroom/details/071718-indiana-parents-must-consent-to-curriculum.

One to Watch & Pray Over

IN A PENNSYLVANIA CONGRESSIONAL RACE that Real Clear Politics rates as a “toss-up,” according to Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews.com, a wealthy devotee of worldwide abortion advocacy is challenging mostly pro-life first-term Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R) and touting the challenger’s abortion advocacy on his campaign website.

The grandson of Pres. Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious former Vice President Henry Wallace, who later founded the Progressive Party, Scott Wallace (D) “is under fire,” reports Mr. Freiburger, “over revelations that he donated heavily to radical, pro-abortion population control groups. … His campaign website advertises a long pro-abortion history,” notes LifeSiteNews, “including his parents’ leadership of Planned Parenthood of Bucks County and his own work early in his law career to overturn a state pro-life law. If elected, he vows to support ‘reproductive rights’ and ‘full funding of Planned Parenthood for family planning and reproductive health services.’”

Through his Wallace Global Fund, whose control he inherited, Mr. Wallace, reports Mr. Freiburger, “has donated almost $7 million to various population control groups since 1997, Fox News reports, including $420,000 to Zero Population Growth (ZPG) … .

“Co-founded by Paul Ehrlich, the radically pro-abortion father of the modern population control movement,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “ZPG considers abortion a ‘highly effective weapon in the armory of population control’ and in a 1968 brochure argued that ‘no responsible family should have more than two children.’ Larger families guilty of ‘irresponsible breeding’ should be ‘taxed to the hilt’ as a deterrent, it added.”

Election of the wealthy abortion radical to Congress is a priority for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, according to LifeSiteNews. And it would surely deepen the plunge of the Democratic Party into the dark politics of the abortion cartel. Truly one to watch.

Remarkable Hysteria

July 17, 2018, Washington Update commentary by Family Research Council president Tony Perkins

            If the Brett Kavanaugh nomination had a subtitle, it could easily be The Great Democratic Freakout of 2018. For now, the hysteria over the President’s Supreme Court pick seems to have shifted to the states, where governors are tripping over themselves to make their abortion laws as SCOTUS-proof as possible. They wail that Kavanaugh’s confirmation would mean medieval values, millions dead, Sharia law and – this beauty from Hillary Clinton – a return to slavery. It’s doomsday politics at its best. And, like so many things politicians say, has absolutely zero basis in reality.

            While New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) declares a state of abortion emergency, the reality is, there’s no Roe v. Wade 911 with Kavanaugh’s nomination – or anyone else’s. Within days of the announcement, the state’s leading Democrat was trying to call lawmakers back into session to showcase New York’s commitment to the legal killing of innocent unborn children. “The bill is on your desk,” Cuomo said to lawmakers. “You either come back and protect a woman’s right to choose and respect a woman’s reproductive health rights or the voters are going to say to you in November … “Well, you’re fired from the New York State Senate.” If Roe v. Wade is overturned, he railed, “women lose their right to choose in the state of New York today.”

            Not true, the New York Daily News fired back:

            “Roe or no Roe, state law holds abortion legal until 24 weeks of gestation, same as the landmark ruling. … Never mind the fearmongering: New York women can get the reproductive health services they need today and tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. … Now tell that to Gov. Cuomo, who’s been barnstorming with the fervor of an end-times preacher warning of women’s return to the proverbial pre-Roe alley, while saying he’ll sue (who? On what grounds?) if the High Court up-ends the decision.”

            Amazingly, Cuomo is willing to bet his re-election that New Yorkers care more about destroying innocent lives than their daily worries over money, employment, health care, taxes and national security. He’s so convinced that women are sitting at home stewing over where they’ll end their next pregnancy that he’s sinking thousands of dollars into an ad campaign focused squarely on an issue that, surveys show, doesn’t even crack the top 10 of voters’ concerns! That doesn’t mean people on both sides don’t have strong opinions on abortion. They do. And it certainly doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court won’t have a say in the matter. It will. But mark my words: If the Democrats pin their midterm hopes on this irrational obsession with abortion, it will be a very disappointing November for them.

            But then, Cuomo isn’t the only one trying to convince people that Kavanaugh’s confirmation would mean the automatic criminalization of abortion. In at least more than a half-dozen governor’s races, Democrats are ratcheting up their panicky rhetoric. “This issue has been at the forefront of my campaign, because down the road I see that it is not only possible but probable that Roe v. Wade would be overturned,” said Florida candidate Gwen Graham. Others, like Illinois’s J.B. Pritzker and Colorado’s Jared Polis, are going all-in on abortion ad blitzes, designed to reach deep into the pockets of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. What it may not reach, though, is voters – including, to most people’s surprise, women.

            Democratic pollster Celinda Lake had a word of warning for Cuomo & Co., who are making feminism the midterm cause celebre. “Women,” she told The Hill’s Joe Concha, “are much less likely to be pro-choice.” She explained that women are “more religious than men,” and so they are “slightly less pro-choice than men.”

            Meanwhile, politicians like Cuomo want voters to believe that the Supreme Court is as preoccupied with Roe v. Wade as he is. But of the 63 cases decided by the Supreme Court last year, do you know how many actually dealt with legality of abortion? One. That’s 1.6% of the entire 2017-18 SCOTUS docket. And that was a summary opinion on the pregnant immigrant teenager in Garza – not a major ruling. Another case, NIFLA (and its related suits), tackled the free-speech issues surrounding abortion but not the procedure itself.

            Obviously, our hope would be that the Supreme Court has a chance to reconsider Roe or Casey v. Planned Parenthood with men and women who view the issue not in the shadows but in the light of the Constitution’s clear text. Until then, Brett Kavanaugh and his colleagues will be dealing with a lot of significant cases that have nothing to do with life. That’s why, in some ways, Democrats are doing us a favor by bringing this battle to the states. As Colorado’s Jared Polis said (and we agree), “[I]t really shines [a light on] the importance of governorships and state legislatures. …” If conservatives want to defend life, they need to get engaged – and stay engaged – on the local level.

Senate Voting Records

Cloture motion (ending debate) on Appointment of Britt Cagle Grant to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals – Adopted – July 30, 2018 – 52 to 44 (Democrats in italics; “Independent” marked “I”)

Voting “yes” / pro-Life: Shelby/AL, Murkowski & Sullivan/AK, Boozman & Cotton/AR, Gardner/CO, Rubio/FL, Isakson & Perdue/GA, Crapo & Risch/ID, Young/IN, Ernst & Grassley/IA, Moran & Roberts/KS, McConnell & Paul/KY, Cassidy & Kennedy/LA, Collins/ME, Hyde-Smith & Wicker/MS, Blunt/MO, Daines & Tester/MT, Fischer & Sasse/NE, Heller/NV, Burr & Tillis/NC, Heitkamp & Hoeven/ND, Portman/OH, Inhofe & Lankford/OK, Toomey/PA, Graham & Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Alexander & Corker/TN, Cornyn & Cruz/TX, Hatch & Lee/UT, Capito & Manchin/WV, Johnson/WI, Barrasso & Enzi/WY.

Voting “no” / anti-Life: Jones/AL, Feinstein & Harris/CA, Bennet/CO, Blumenthal & Murphy/CT, Carper & Coons/DE, Hirono & Schatz/HI, Duckworth & Durbin/IL, Donnelly/IN, King(I)/ME, Cardin & VanHollen/MD, Markey & Warren/MA, Peters & Stabenow/MI, Klobuchar & Smith/MN, McCaskill/MO, Cortez-Masto/NV, Hassan & Shaheen/NH, Booker & Menendez/NJ, Heinrich & Udall/NM, Gillibrand & Schumer/NY, Brown/OH, Merkley & Wyden/OR, Casey/PA, Reed & Whitehouse/RI, Leahy & Sanders/VT, Kaine/VA, Cantwell & Murray/WA, Baldwin/WI.

Not voting: Flake & McCain/AZ, Nelson/FL, Warner/VA.

Confirmation of Britt Cagle Grant to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals – Confirmed – July 31, 2018 – 52 to 46 (Democrats in italics; “Independent” marked “I”)

Voting “yes” / pro-Life: Shelby/AL, Murkowski & Sullivan/AK, Boozman & Cotton/AR, Gardner/CO, Rubio/FL, Isakson & Perdue/GA, Crapo & Risch/ID, Young/IN, Ernst & Grassley/IA, Moran & Roberts/KS, McConnell & Paul/KY, Cassidy & Kennedy/LA, Collins/ME, Hyde-Smith & Wicker/MS, Blunt/MO, Daines & Tester/MT, Fischer & Sasse/NE, Heller/NV, Burr & Tillis/NC, Heitkamp & Hoeven/ND, Portman/OH, Inhofe & Lankford/OK, Toomey/PA, Graham & Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Alexander & Corker/TN, Cornyn & Cruz/TX, Hatch & Lee/UT, Capito & Manchin/WV, Johnson/WI, Barrasso & Enzi/WY.

Voting “no” / anti-Life: Jones/AL, Feinstein & Harris/CA, Bennet/CO, Blumenthal & Murphy/CT, Carper & Coons/DE, Nelson/FL, Hirono & Schatz/HI, Duckworth & Durbin/IL, Donnelly/IN, King(I)/ME, Cardin & VanHollen/MD, Markey & Warren/MA, Peters & Stabenow/MI, Klobuchar & Smith/MN, McCaskill/MO, Cortez-Masto/NV, Hassan & Shaheen/NH, Booker & Menendez/NJ, Heinrich & Udall/NM, Gillibrand & Schumer/NY, Brown/OH, Merkley & Wyden/OR, Casey/PA, Reed & Whitehouse/RI, Leahy & Sanders/VT, Kaine & Warner/VA, Cantwell & Murray/WA, Baldwin/WI.

Not voting: Flake & McCain/AZ.