Life Advocacy Briefing

June 15, 2020

Which Black Lives Matter? / Consider the Source
Stop the Slide! / Will Truth Have Consequences?
Taking It to the Voters / Suicide’s Slippery Slope

Which Black Lives Matter?

THE AMERICAN LEFT’s CURRENT ACTIVIST GROUP DU-JOUR Black Lives Matter (BLM), reports (LSN), “has an alarming pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and anti-family agenda at the core of its mission to remake America.

“In its online manifesto titled ‘What We Believe,’ the BLM organizers Patrice Khan-Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi say,” reports LSN, “they and their followers ‘disrupt’ the ‘Western-prescribed’ family. They also say they have freed themselves from ‘heteronormative thinking’ and demand ‘reproductive justice.’

“‘We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable,’ they wrote,” LSN has discovered.

What is more, the manifesto declares, reports LSN, “‘We foster a queer-affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, that belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise),’ they continued.

“‘We deserve and thus we demand reproductive justice [i.e. abortion] that gives us autonomy over our bodies and our identities while ensuring that our children and families are supported, safe and able to thrive.’”

They do not appear to have any awareness or caring about the “black lives” that are snuffed out by abortion. In New York City, for example, more babies of “black” mothers are aborted annually than the number who are born. And “reproductive justice” leader Planned Parenthood consistently targets minority neighborhoods when siting new baby-chop-shops. Black lives matter to the Left, but only certain “black lives.”

In a June 5 commentary on BLM, the Radiance Foundation’s Ryan Bomberger, who is of mixed-race ancestry, stated, writes the LSN staff, “that the youngest black lives do not seem to matter to the authors of the BLM manifesto. ‘Aborted children don’t thrive,’” he wrote. “‘BLM groups announced “solidarity” with “reproductive justice” groups back in February 2015. You cannot simultaneously fight violence while celebrating it,’ he stated.”

What is more, Mr. Bomberger wrote, according to LSN, “‘They completely ignore fatherhood. Every “village” that has fatherless families is a village that suffers higher crime rates, higher drug usage, higher abortion rates, higher drop-out rates, higher poverty rates and so much more.’”


Consider the Source

IT IS NOT ENOUGH, APPARENTLY, THAT STATES in the USA have to put up with ACLU attacks in US courts on their efforts to protect their future citizens from being slaughtered before birth. Now the United Nations misnamed “Human Rights Council” has “formally cited several US states that attempted to limit abortion – among many elective procedures – in order to stem the coronavirus outbreak,” reports Alexandra DeSanctis in National Review.

The UN HRC’s Office of the High Commissioner “elaborated,” writes Ms. DeSanctis, on a Twitter message in late May which declared, “‘UN experts are concerned some US states – such as Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Iowa, Ohio, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee – appear to be manipulating Covid-19 crisis measures to restrict access to essential abortion care.’”

Said the vice chairman of the UN’s working group on discrimination against women and girls, reports Ms. DeSanctis, “‘We regret that the above-mentioned states, with a long history of restrictive practices against abortion, appear to be manipulating the crisis to severely restrict women’s reproductive rights. … This situation is also the latest example illustrating a pattern of restrictions and retrogressions in access to legal abortion care across the country. … We fear that, without clear political will to reverse such restrictive and regressive trends, states will continue pursuing this pattern.’”

And the above-quoted vice chairman added, reports Ms. DeSanctis, that the high commissioner’s office is “‘extremely concerned’ at the US insistence on removing abortion from the UN’s Covid-19 response plan. ‘We reiterate that sexual and reproductive health services, including access to safe and legal abortion, are essential and must remain a key component of the UN’s priorities in its responses to the Covid-19 pandemic.’”

Meanwhile, the Catholic News Agency (CNA) reports 434 human rights groups from 16 countries “have released a manifesto condemning the push from external groups to promote abortions in their nations during the coronavirus pandemic. The ‘International Manifesto for the Right to Life’ … repudiates the UN’s Humanitarian Response Plan Covid-19 for Ecuador, which requires ‘safe, legal abortion’ as a condition for aid,” notes CNA. “The plan claims to be ‘humanitarian aid’ but ‘includes a $3 million allocation to train healthcare personnel in so-called “safe and legal abortion,” in violation of the Constitution and Ecuadoran laws,’ the manifesto says.”


Stop the Slide!

TEN STATES HAVE FILED A MOTION TO INTERVENE in a lawsuit brought by the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists seeking federal Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approval for telemed abortions using RU-486 chemical abortion drug.

The states’ motion in court follows a letter to the FDA from 159 Members of Congress, on which we reported last week, seeking to tighten enforcement of the FDA’s restrictions on RU marketing. The states seeking to intervene in the lawsuit are, reports Martin Burger for, Indiana, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma.

In their motion, Mr. Burger writes, the states claim “‘a strong interest in protecting their citizens from the health and safety consequences that may result from unsupervised administration of mifepristone.’”

The letter declares – again quoting from the LifeSiteNews report – “‘Mifepristone can have serious complications, including hemorrhaging, infection and even death. These complications can be exacerbated if the physician does not perform an in-person examination. An in-person meeting also facilitates informed consent and prevents the diversion of drugs and mitigates the possibility of complications, which may in turn yield Medicaid claims.’” Aha, there, in that last phrase, lies the states’ financial burden claim. Whatever it takes to block the abortion cartel’s bid to take off even the modest restrictions to their drug marketing scheme!

The abortion lobby is using the Covid-19 pandemic and its upheaval of traditional medical care to excuse its efforts to cut its own expenses while expanding its anti-human pogrom. The plaintiffs in the RU-expansion lawsuit, notes Mr. Burger, “used the fact that the coronavirus pandemic led to what they claim is ‘a massive, nationwide effort to meet patients’ medical needs without unnecessary travel and in-person interactions that facilitate viral spread’ to demand easier access to the abortion pill.”

In our opinion, it is bad enough that Americans are falling for routinizing telemedicine as an adequate avenue of medical care without adding to that fear-driven regression the expansion of baby-killing by the home-alone administration of RU-486. We applaud the states’ attorneys general who have stepped forward to defend their citizens through this motion to intervene.


Will Truth Have Consequences?

June 10, 2020, BreakPoint commentary by John Stonestreet & Roberto Rivera

            A new video released by the Center for Medical Progress, the group behind the 2015 undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood negotiating the sale of fetal body parts, has the nation’s largest abortion provider once again denying, hedging and using phrases like “doctored” and “heavily edited.”

            Five years ago, Planned Parenthood denied what videos clearly showed, executives at varying levels of leadership negotiating prices for fetal body parts. They denied it in media and in Congressional testimony. When unedited videos debunked their denials, they insisted that all money received for fetal body parts was really for “shipping and handling.”

            Finally, they decided to sue the messengers. That decision may turn out to be a big mistake on their part, since it gave the Center for Medical Progress a chance to question Planned Parenthood employees under oath. That questioning was recorded and has now been released. Thus, viewers can now watch people who had denied all wrongdoing squirm when confronted with the evidence.

            One segment of the video features an official from Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast who is shown a proposed contract for the purchase of fetal body parts. When the original video was released five years ago, Planned Parenthood officials told The New York Times that the offer had been rejected. The deposition, however, tells a different story. Under oath, the official acknowledged wanting to pursue the deal and communicating this desire to another Planned Parenthood official.

            In another part of the video, the claim that any money received by the organization was only for reimbursement of expenses, which federal law allows, is actually not true either. In fact, the contract with the biomedical company Stem Express stipulated that payment was contingent on Planned Parenthood providing “usable body parts,” in addition to accounting for time and transportation costs. The deposed official did not deny any of this. Well, she could not deny any of this. It was in writing.

            As for any attempt at a “rogue affiliate” defense, as if these officials were acting on their own, Planned Parenthood’s medical director, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, testified under oath that she was aware that the LosAngeles affiliate was being paid for fetal body parts.

            In his statement accompanying the video release, Center for Medical Progress director David Daleiden said what is clear: “Planned Parenthood lied to the public and to Congress” about selling “fetal body parts, commodifying living children in the womb and treating pregnant women like a cash crop.” He added, “The time has come for federal consequences for Planned Parenthood,” and for the Justice Department to “escalate the enforcement of laws against fetal trafficking to the highest level of priority.”

            If the past few years are any indicator, this is unlikely to happen. In the past two years, Planned Parenthood not only hasn’t been defunded, as was promised repeatedly – its federal funding went up from $555 million in the last year of the Obama Administration to $617 million in the most recent fiscal year.

            That amounts to an 11% increase in federal funding, the largest increase in Planned Parenthood’s history. Adding insult to injury, Planned Parenthood affiliates reportedly received $80 million in forgivable Paycheck Protection loans, which were intended to help small businesses and non-profits weather coronavirus-related shutdowns.

            Several lawmakers have called for an investigation, and the Trump Administration has demanded Planned Parenthood return the money. At the risk of repetition, that’s not likely to happen.

            Because of the important work of the Center for Medical Progress, Planned Parenthood’s guilt in selling fetal body parts and lying about it consistently couldn’t be clearer. What happens next, however, is out of David Daleiden’s and CMP’s hands.

            The ability of Planned Parenthood to literally and figuratively get away with murder for so long leads me to believe that it is somehow protected by supernatural evil forces. I don’t say that lightly.

            So, if there are going to be “federal consequences,” pro-life Christians must demand more than political theater from our elected officials. If there are going to be permanent temporal consequences, the Spirit of God will have to break the strange, deadly strongholds Planned Parenthood and abortion have on America’s moral imagination.

            What we can be sure of is, there will be eternal consequences. God will not hold guiltless those who take innocent life, nor those who enable it by their silence.


Taking It to the Voters

June 9, 2020, Washington Update commentary by Family Research Council president Tony Perkins

            It took 4,000 extra signatures, 1,500 volunteers and two deadlines, but Colorado pro-lifers can finally breathe a sigh of relief. After a rollercoaster few months, the state will finally put Initiative 120 on the ballot – and voters, not the government or the courts – will be deciding the future of the unborn.

            They survived the coronavirus lockdown and a deficit of signatures, but Due Date Too Late’s Lauren Castillo never gave up. “This is an incredible victory,” she said when the state’s office finally certified the names. Finally, she celebrated, “Coloradoans will have the chance to vote to save lives from late-term abortion in November.” And judging by the outpouring of support, which brought in 28,572 more signatures than the drive needed, the state’s pro-lifers have a crack at doing exactly that. Now, after spending so much time to see the language on the ballot, Castillo and company can gear up for the next step in the campaign: persuading the public.

            Judging by the poll numbers, that shouldn’t be too difficult to do. Second- and third-trimester abortions are hugely unpopular in America, even among self-described “pro-choicers” – which bodes well for this 22-week ban. When Gallup asked Americans last year, they were surprised to discover just how conservative the country’s views are. Only 13% think the procedure should be legal in the third trimester, and not many more – 28% – agree on the second.

            And Coloradoans aren’t the only ones who have a chance to make policy. In Louisiana and (hopefully) Washington State, voters will be heading to the polls with the rare chance to have the final say on abortion. As Dr. Michael New has said before, these opportunities don’t come along every day. “Since the Roe v. Wade decision, pro-life activists have made relatively little use of direct democracy. The costs of qualifying a proposal for the ballot and running an effective campaign have discouraged many state and local pro-life groups from using the initiative process.” Fortunately, some people – like Lauren Castillo – refuse to be discouraged.

            In Louisiana, pro-lifers also won’t have to rely on the Supreme Court to make changes in their state’s abortion law. While the country waits for a ruling on their new clinic requirements, voters will be the ultimate voice in whether an amendment is added to the state constitution that says, “To protect human life, nothing in this constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion.”

            Over in Michigan, where pro-lifers are trying to outlaw the gruesome dismemberment abortion procedure this November, Planned Parenthood is going to the mat to strip the question off the ballot. Despite [pro-life petition circulators having reached] the 373,000-signature threshold in December, liberal activists insist the names are fraudulent and the petition is “defective on its face.” Planned Parenthood’s Angela Vasquez-Giroux told the press, “We’ve said all along that we would challenge this initiative at every opportunity, because we know how dangerous it is for politics to dictate medical care.” But just because they oppose the effort doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. Hopefully, fairness wins out.

            In the meantime, our congratulations to all of these pro-lifers for showing other states that it doesn’t matter who’s in power! The people will always have a say as long as dedicated pro-lifers given them one. Now, get out and vote!

            Meanwhile, if you are wondering where your state stands on late-term abortion, check out FRC’s Pro-Life Map. []


Suicide’s Slippery Slope

June 2, 2020, National Review column by Wesley J. Smith

            It’s always been baloney. As sold, assisted suicide was supposed to only be engaged between doctors of long standing and patients well known to the prescriber.

            That was violated in the very first legal assisted suicide in Oregon. The doctor in that case – referred by an assisted-suicide organization – only met the patient two weeks before she received her poison pills.

            Very quickly, death doctors began to assist the suicides of patients they have never treated. In California, a part-time E.R. doctor – who spent most recent years as a photojournalist – quickly set up a suicide practice after assisted suicide was legalized. There have also been many cases of oncologists assisting the suicides of ALS patients, and other similar out-of-specialty death facilitations.

            Now, death doctors are assisting suicides of patients they may never have met, via Zoom and other tele-health – talk about an oxymoron in this circumstance! – means of communication. From “Dying Virtually” published in The Conversation []: “[Dr. Carol] Parrot says she sees 90% of her patients online, visually examining a patient’s symptoms, mobility, affect and breathing. ‘I can get a great deal of information for how close a patient is to death from a Skype visit,’ Parrot explained. ‘I don’t feel badly at all that I don’t have a stethoscope on their chest.’ After the initial visit, whether in person or online, aid-in-dying physicians carefully collate their prognosis with the patient’s prior medical records and lab tests. Some also consult the patient’s primary physician.”

            Did you catch the last bit there? Some “consult” the patient’s primary physician. That also means some don’t. And that means some people are assisted in suicide by doctors they have never met in the flesh and who have never examined them.

            This is a breach of all the assuring promises that were made when assisted suicide was legalized. But those promises were never meant to be kept. Only to give false assurance.

            It is amazing to me how legalizing assisted suicide transforms peoples’ thinking. Making people dead quickly becomes the overriding imperative, and suicide prevention for the seriously ill goes into total eclipse. The easier it is to get people dead the better.

            Those with eyes to see, let them see.