Life Advocacy Briefing

Breakthrough

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP ANNOUNCED A BREAKTHROUGH for abortion survivors Wednesday in a speech to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast. He stated, reports Martin Burger for LifeSiteNews.com, “he will be signing a Born-Alive Executive Order ‘to ensure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve.’”

Medical care for babies who survive an abortion attempt and are born in the process is a goal which the President raises frequently in public speeches. He often cites shocking statements by Gov. Ralph Northam (D-VA), who is a doctor, explaining to a radio interviewer in January, 2019, that in the event a baby being aborted survives and is born, acceptable medical practice, in his view, is for the doctor to consult with the aborting mother to determine the child’s disposition.

Pro-life policymakers advocate legislation – the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act – which would require immediate medical intervention in such cases, treating the born baby as a distinct patient with rights and needs. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-SanFrancisco) has steadfastly refused to bring HR-962 to a vote in the House.

Now the President has announced he will act, calling the executive order “‘our sacrosanct moral duty,’” according to Mr. Burger. 

“‘We believe in the joy of family, the blessing of freedom and the dignity of work,’” said the President, reports LifeSiteNews, “‘and the eternal truth that every child born and unborn is made in the holy image of God. … I will always protect the vital role of religion and prayer in American society, and I will always defend the sacred right to life.’”

Playing Catch-up

THOUGH OUR PUBLICATION BEARS A MONDAY DATE each week, it is nearly always written by Friday, so the passing away of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg on Sept. 18 caught us off-guard to be able to report that news on Sept. 21, the date of our most recent Life Advocacy Briefing. (We have confidence in our readers that you all were informed by other sources!)

As we write this “Monday” Briefing, we know we’ll be caught amidst dramatic events again this week, as the President has announced he will nominate a Supreme Court replacement for Justice Ginsberg on Saturday, again between our writing and our publication date. Forgive us!

Whatever decision President Trump has made in the interim, we are pleased with the names which have surfaced and pray the appointment will be moving forward as America moves toward Election Day. We reprint a BreakPoint commentary including the abortion aspect of the nomination fight near the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing.

Truth to Power

IN AN ADDRESS TO THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY last Tuesday, President Donald Trump declared to the world’s diplomats: “America will always be a leader in human rights. … My Administration is advancing religious liberty, opportunity for women, the decriminalization of homosexuality, combating human trafficking and protecting unborn children.” The quote is taken from a LifeSiteNews.com report by Calvin Freiburger, who cites National Catholic Register as his source.

“The President further called on the international body,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “to ‘focus on the real problems of the world,’ such as ‘human and sex trafficking, religious persecution and the ethnic cleansing of religious minorities.’”

The LifeSiteNews reporter calls the President’s comments “the latest volley in the abortion war of words between the United States and the UN, which has repeatedly asserted a ‘right’ to abortion. Earlier this month,” Mr. Freiburger notes, “UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres declared that the UN would ‘fight’ governments such as the Trump Administration, which have moved to ‘further restrict access to abortion’ during the Covid-19 outbreak.”

Daleiden Fights Back

THE UNDERCOVER JOURNALIST WHO BLEW THE WHISTLE on Planned Parenthood’s involvement in the trafficking of unborn-baby body parts has filed a defamation lawsuit against Planned Parenthood in New York District Court, even while he continues to defend himself against charges in California.

David Daleiden is being represented in the New York case by the Chicago-based Thomas More Society, which is providing his defense in the California cases. TMS issued a news release from which we will quote here in reporting the countersuit developments.

Mr. Daleiden is “taking the abortion giant to task,” reports TMS, “for telling the media that he and the Center for Medical Progress ‘manufacture[d]’ and ‘created’ a ‘false smear campaign’ by releasing videos showing clear evidence of high-level Planned Parenthood officials candidly discussing the PPFA network’s participation in illegal harvesting and selling of aborted fetal body parts. PPFA’s statements,” declares TMS, “are provably false and betray their own admissions about the veracity of the videos.”

The TMS report quotes Tom Brejcha, TMS president and chief legal counsel: “Planned Parenthood is not content to make obscene financial profit by killing off America’s next generation and endangering pregnant women. Additionally,” he said, “they feel that they must obliterate the reputation of anyone who dares to challenge them and suggest that what they are doing is not the great philanthropic work that they pretend it is. Planned Parenthood’s very existence,” declared Mr. Brejcha, “is an anathema to America’s pursuit of the most basic of human rights and they know it.”

The release also quotes TMS vice president and senior counsel Peter Breen, who is a former Illinois State Representative: “Instead of coming clean about its ruthless pursuit of profit from selling the remains of aborted children, Planned Parenthood tried to smear David Daleiden, the man who blew the whistle on its dirty secret. … This new lawsuit puts Planned Parenthood’s grisly business practices front and center, to prove the truth of the conclusions of David’s investigation, which were also confirmed and echoed by the US Congress and other government officials.”

Peeling the Mask

THOSE AMONG OUR READERS WHO HAVE NOT YET CAUGHT ON to who Dr. Anthony Fauci actually is are invited to read a LifeSiteNews special report by Calvin Freiburger at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing. We find it revealing and important.

The True Root of Controversy

Sept. 23, 2020, BreakPoint commentary by John Stonestreet

            Pres. Trump has promised that his nomination to replace the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be announced on Saturday. And, now that Sen. Mitt Romney [R-UT] has committed to support the process, it looks probable – perhaps likely – that [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell could succeed in seating a new justice before the November election. Democrats will, of course, fight against this with, to quote [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi, “every arrow in their quiver.”

            The death of Justice Ginsburg raises an incredible number of questions on a ton of issues, from the rules and norms of Supreme Court nominations to the legacy of this historic member of the Court, to just how a Justice becomes a pop-culture icon, to the future of Roe v. Wade. Earlier this week, Kim Colby, director of the Center of Law & Religious Freedom for the Christian Legal Society, joined me on a special edition of the BreakPoint Podcast to talk through each of these questions. Come to BreakPoint.org to listen … . Justice Ginsburg was truly a historic figure as a pioneer for women’s rights and women’s equality.* A towering intellect who relentlessly followed her worldview, she was also among the political Left’s most effective champions. As Dr. Albert Mohler put it recently on The Briefing, “This is for the Left as big a loss as was several years ago experienced by the Right with the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia.”

            Her legacy, however, will always be, to quote Kim Colby, “very much tarnished by the fact that she equated women’s advancement” with abortion, something “not good for women or little girls who are aborted.” Deeply committed to the sexual revolution’s version of feminism, in which the procreative capacity of women is seen not as a good to be celebrated but as a problem to be solved, Ginsburg fiercely protected legalized abortion, including later-term, sex-selective and disability-targeted abortions. In 2019, she even chided Justice Clarence Thomas on the topic, saying “A woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’.”

            Ginsburg was very much a protector of the dark and destructive legacy of Roe v. Wade, at least part of which has become the kind of brutal, decisive and cruel confirmation hearings we are now all bracing for. As the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson has said, not only are abortion and Roe great evils against children, but they poison our entire political and judicial systems. Like the dreadful Dred Scott decision on slavery, Roe is a decision that deals with the very heart of what it means to be human. And like Dred Scott, the Court got Roe wrong. This country, especially African-American communities, are still paying the price for getting Dred Scott wrong, as we’ve seen even this summer. And this country is still paying the price for the Court getting Roe wrong, both in terms of millions of lives lost and families destroyed, as well as our deeply poisoned political system.

            Both Republicans and Democrats will appeal to “principle,” selective histories and suddenly important so-called “norms” in order to blame the other side for the awful vitriol called “Senate confirmation hearings.” But make no mistake, it wasn’t about principle in 2016 when Republicans refused to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland, and it’s not about principle now when Democrats wish they could refuse to consider the nomination of Ginsburg’s replacement. There’s nothing unconstitutional about bringing a nominee before the Senate 40-some days before an election, any more than changing the 60-vote rule to 50, or refusing to consider a nomination in an election year.

            It’s never been about principle. It’s always been about politics. And our politics have been deeply poisoned by abortion. Amy Coney Barrett, thought to be among the finalists for the nomination, already experienced just how poisonous the nomination process is when her Catholic faith was attacked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] during her confirmation hearings for the 7^th Circuit Court. “When you read your speeches,” said the liberal Senator from California, “the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.”

            At a 2006 speech to the graduating class of Notre Dame’s law school, Barrett said, “Your legal career is but a means to an end, and … that end is building the Kingdom of God … . [I]f you keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer but to know, love and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.”

            That’s the kind of loudly living dogma that alarms her critics.

            … Pray for the nominee, whoever she** is, as she will face personal attacks and blistering opposition. But most of all pray for our nation – and for the lives at stake.

* Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Though the late Justice is acclaimed for championing “women’s equality” – even here in BreakPoint – the reality is that women are equal under the law, as the Constitution assures “equal protection” to all “persons” in the United States of America. Despite the claims of campaigners for the so-called Equal Rights Amendment to that Constitution (including Justice Ginsburg, who should have known this and could have pointed it out), women are persons.

** Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: The pronoun “she” is used here because Pres. Trump has announced his intention to nominate a female.

Highest Stakes

Sept. 21, 2020, Washington Update commentary by Family Research Council president Tony Perkins

            Just when many thought the stakes of the 2020 election couldn’t get any higher, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away after a long battle with cancer, leading to an immediate opening on the nation’s highest court.

            The political implications of this are as important in the near term as the judicial philosophy of whoever fills it will be in the long term. It’s not lost on many that Pres. Trump was propelled to victory in 2016 by conservatives and evangelicals who seized on the importance [of] his publicly released list of potential Supreme Court nominees to fill Justice Scalia’s vacant seat. Now, two Supreme Court justices, many lower federal court confirmations and a number of key rulings later, Trump’s legacy in the courts is almost already confirmed. On top of all this, the seat occupied by the Court’s arch-liberal just opened up – paving the way for Pres. Trump to make judicial nominations a bigger issue in 2020 than in 2016.

            The constitutional and legal implications – and the stakes for the Court’s judicial philosophy and impact on the many landmark cases it will decide in the coming years – have only increased. Roe v. Wade is obviously on the minds of many, and a pro-life movement committed to its abolition is as close now as it has ever been. Add to this the impending religious liberty threats by those who want to use the levers of government power to punish Americans holding beliefs about marriage and sexuality out of date with “elite” opinion, and the attacks on a host of other constitutional rights like gun rights and free speech – it’s no wonder that the Court is so important to conservatives.

            Many in the media will lament the politicization of the Supreme Court. I agree with them. But the Court has been politicized not by social conservatives but by activist judges and justices who lack an originalist approach and for 50 years have issued expans[ive] policymaking rulings, taking power out of the hands of legislatures and disenfranchising the voters behind them. Without the last five decades of Supreme Court activism, judicial nominations wouldn’t be that big of a deal politically. It’s that simple. When Americans see their voices and their elected leaders’ policies sidelined by activist judges – whether on immigration, affirmative action or other issues – their political interest in the Court only increases, and the stakes in the voting booth only get higher.

            The impact the Court’s decisions have on our country in these cases alone would be sufficient reason for Pres. Trump to immediately nominate a solid originalist to fill the vacancy that is now on the Court. But there is further reason to do so at this unique moment in history.

            The Court will likely play a key role in any litigation or other legal disputes over the 2020 Presidential election. As the nation is on edge, having a sufficient number of justices on the Court to avoid a deadlock on key legal issues will be important.

            For all these reasons, Pres. Trump should immediately nominate a solid originalist, with sufficient backbone and character to withstand the likely withering criticism that will be thrown their way, both in the confirmation process and when they are on the Court. We know it is coming soon from the same purveyors of elite opinion who look at the Court to do their bidding on social policy. We should simply disregard it, and Leader McConnell should swiftly advance the President’s nominee to a floor vote in the Senate.

            One note of caution as we consider a nominee: Social conservatives have been told to “trust us” when supposedly originalist nominees have been put forth before. Yet as Chief Justice Roberts slides toward the liberal wing of the Court, and Justice Gorsuch botched the supposedly textualist ruling in Bostock vs. Clayton County earlier this year (which will have religious liberty implications for years to come), we can no longer afford to merely “trust” anyone on Ginsburg’s open seat. Some constitutional rights hang by a thread, and the lives of the unborn matter too much and our religious freedom is too dear to us to simply trust. We must fill this seat with a nominee who we are assured has a backbone and will deliver an unimpeachably originalist record on the High Court.

            The Constitution provides for a Supreme Court nominee and their confirmation. Conservatives rightly demand it. And as we head into this election, our nation needs it.

Dr. Fauci Unmasked

Sept. 21, 2020, LifeSiteNews report by Calvin Freiburger

            Combating future infectious diseases such as Covid-19 will require “rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence,” including greater submission to international authority, controversial coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci wrote recently in a prominent medical journal.

            “Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues,” Fauci and National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases scientific senior advisor David Morens wrote in the September 3 edition of Cell.

            “In such a transformation, we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases,” Fauci and Morens continued. “Chief among them are reducing crowding at home, work and in public places, as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization and intensive animal farming. Equally important are ending global poverty, improving sanitation and hygiene, and reducing unsafe exposure to animals, so that humans and potential human pathogens have limited opportunities for contact.”

            The duo also suggested that “global biosafety cooperation” should be improved “by strengthening the United Nations and its agencies, particularly the World Health Organization [WHO]” (among other measures).

            “Fauci and Morens’s prescription should give every lover of liberty and national sovereignty great pause,” responded the Discovery Institute’s Wesley Smith. “At the very least, the gargantuan task would require unprecedented and intrusive government regulations and the transferring of policy control from the national to international level – nothing less than an international technocratic and authoritarian supra-governing system – with the power to direct how we interact with each other as family, friends and in community.”

            Fauci’s critics also find his advice alarming in light of the WHO’s various statements legitimizing the false claims coming out of the [Communist] Chinese government in the early days of the outbreak, which downplayed the gravity of the outbreak is similarly contentious. In February he said there was “absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask” in the United States; by July, he was suggesting that Americans wear not only masks but goggles and face shields. Critics have also faulted him for floating the idea of requiring Americans to carry “certificates” documenting their immunity to Covid-19 and suggesting that handshaking should be abolished but sex with strangers remains all right if “you’re willing to take a risk.”

            Contact information for respectful communication: President Donald Trump, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500; WhiteHouse.gov/contact