Life Advocacy Briefing

Start Making Calls

THOUGH THE PRESIDENT’s NOMINEE FOR THE SUPREME COURT – Appellate Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett – has yet to begin the grueling process of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is not too early for our readers to call home-state Senators and ask for a “yes” vote on Judge Barrett. [Capitol switchboard: 1-202/224-3121]

Judge Barrett is unusually well qualified – and well suited – to the post of Supreme Court Justice. Though we may be naïve in hoping so, we ought all to take the approach that at least some Senators in the Schumer caucus might – having already voted for Mrs. Barrett to be confirmed for the 7^th Circuit just three years ago – give her honest consideration and might care what the voters back home think of the President’s choice.

How About Enforcing the Law We Have?

REP. ROGER MARSHALL (R-KS) HAS SENT A LETTER to Attorney General William Barr, co-signed by 48 of his House colleagues, asking for a Justice Dept. probe of possible violations of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act based on a Center for Medical Progress video.

“As a pro-life American and obstetrician/gynecologist who worked for over 25 years to save the lives of both mothers and babies,” Rep. Marshall said in a news release announcing the letter, “it is beyond sickening to see and hear confessions of such heinous acts being committed in our country. … We must hold these physicians and the organizations backing and supporting them accountable for their actions.”

Having waited a long time to see prosecutions – or even investigations – under the hard-won federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, we publish the text of the letter, together with the names of the signers, at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing.

Debate Nugget

THOUGH PRES. TRUMP CALLED HIS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE “a phenomenal nominee” and “good in every way” during the first Presidential debate last Tuesday, his opponent Joe Biden used the reference to nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a “dog whistle” to his abortion-fanatic supporters, warning that the distinguished judge’s confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice would put Roe v. Wade “on the chopping block,” reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews.com.  Let us hope so.

Standing for Life on the International Stage

IN A RECENT U.N. VOTE ON A COVID-19 POLICY RESOLUTION, the United States voted “no,” reports Stefano Gennarini for the Center for Family & Human Rights (C-Fam), “citing concerns about abortion.”

When the UN General Assembly “adopted a long-awaited resolution on the coronavirus” in early September, reports Dr. Gennarini, “the US cited a long list of concerns, including the insertion of the controversial term ‘sexual and reproductive health.’”

US diplomat Jason Mack, notes Dr. Gennarini, explained, “‘We do not accept references to sexual and reproductive health.’” He pointed, writes the C-Fam reporter, “to the use of the phrase to legitimize abortion as a ‘health service.’” He declared, “‘There is no international right to abortion, nor is there any duty on the part of states to finance or facilitate abortion.’ … Only the US and Israel ended up voting against the resolution,” writes Dr. Gennarini, after some seven months of negotiations over policy and language.

“From the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic,” reports Dr. Gennarini, “the World Health Organization [WHO] has maintained that sexual and reproductive health – and abortion specifically – should be an essential part of government responses to the health crisis.”

Marching for Life in Warsaw

TAKING A CUE FROM AMERICA’s PRESIDENT, the president of Poland, Andrzej Duda, “joined 5,000 people in a recent pro-life demonstration in Warsaw,” reports Dorothy Cummings-McLean. The theme for this year’s March for Life & Family – the fifteenth such demonstration in Poland – was “‘Let’s defend the family together,’” notes the LifeSiteNews.com writer.

“According to online Polish news magazine Polonia Christiana,” she reports, “the march ‘affirming family, life and love’ was ‘sunny and joyful’ and made special by the presence of the Polish president. It was the first time any president of the Polish Republic had taken part in the event.”

Our Solemn Duty

Sept. 22, 2020, BreakPoint commentary by John Stonestreet

            In the 2016 election, only about 61% of voting-age Americans cast a ballot. The percentage of self-identifying Christians who voted, both evangelical and non-evangelical, was pretty similar. In other words, though faith does seem to greatly influence the voting decisions of American Christians who vote, it doesn’t seem to make much of a difference in whether or not American Christians vote. Of course, if our faith should make a difference in every aspect of our lives (and it should), it should shape how we think about and live out citizenship, too. To put it bluntly, Christians have both a civic and a Christian responsibility to vote. As my friend Tim Goeglin, vice president of external and governmental relations for Focus on the Family, put it recently, to vote is the beginning of our civic duty of Christians.

            Here are three reasons why:

• First, voting is an act of obedience. Both Jesus and St. Paul described our responsibility to defer to the governing authorities and to “render to Caesar” what is due to Caesar. Both Jesus and Paul navigated the realities of the various political authorities they faced differently, depending on the nature of their political authority and their rights as citizens. For example, Jesus never went to Rome, but He often confronted Jewish political powers and structures. Paul claimed and appealed to Roman citizenship when he was arrested. In our context, the people are the political authorities. We don’t submit to political authority; we grant political authority to the representatives we elect. So, in our context, voting is the most fundamental way there is to “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.”

• Second, Scripture describes sin not only as doing wrong but also failing to do the good we can. Voting is an opportunity to do some good. Christians should see voting as an opportunity to steward what is good.

• Finally, voting is a way to fulfill both what Jesus called the greatest commandment and “the second one like unto it.” To love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength means, to some degree, loving what God loves: Justice, righteousness, truth and hospitality are all things that God loves, and they can be reflected in law and policy. And, to love our neighbors as ourselves means more than person-to-person niceness. Voting in ways that will limit or end abortion is a way to love our preborn neighbors. Voting in ways that will uphold the family and stop sexual experimentation on children is a way to love kids. Voting for policies that provide real opportunities for the poor and needy is a way to love them.

            Of course, fulfilling our civic and Christian duty involves not only voting but voting in a right way. While I don’t think there’s just one right way to vote in every election, on every race, about every issue, there are certainly wrong decisions to be made.

            Because voting between candidates, whether for President or for dog-catcher, will always involve choosing between the better of imperfect options, the best we can do is make comparisons.

• First, we should compare their worldview, because that is the basis of both their personal character and their public policy. A candidate’s worldview, by the way, is not the same as their professed faith. For too many candidates, faith is not only personal, it’s private. A candidate’s worldview, on the other hand, reveals those beliefs fundamental to how they will govern, specifically what they think needs to be fixed and whose job they think it is to fix it.

• Second, we should compare their company, because every candidate comes with others. In particular, every President comes with a few thousand others: appointees who run departments, advisors who offer counsel and judicial nominees who will be on the bench for decades. And just about every candidate comes with a political party, which has its own set of rules and expectations, not to mention a platform that party intends to advance.

• Finally, we should compare candidates’ stated policies, because policy matters. Policies are based on ideas. Ideas have consequences. Bad policies built on bad ideas have victims.

            Of course, most Americans will not just choose who will be President. We won’t just be choosing between Congressional candidates. Choosing on ballot initiatives is every bit as important as choosing between candidates. In Colorado, we’ll be choosing whether to end the over 200 later-term abortions that occur in this state every year.

            Finally, while it is critical and necessary, Christian involvement in the public square cannot stop at voting. The issues we face – such as abortion, assisted suicide, religious freedom, loneliness and so many others – cannot be solved by government alone. The Church has plenty of work to do upstream from politics, in communities and families, not to mention plenty of praying to do, too.

            Though our responsibilities certainly include more than voting, they certainly do not include less.

Letter to Atty. Gen. Barr

Caution: Content of this letter is explicit and may sear the conscience of readers. It is presented here because Americans need to know the truth of what occurs in abortuaries. Readers are encouraged to pray while reading.

Dear Attorney General Barr:

            We write in response to a video published on Aug. 24, 2020 by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) including recently unsealed sworn testimony in which Planned Parenthood executives make several concerning statements which merit further investigation. We particularly wish to draw your attention to assertions suggesting that abortion providers within Planned Parenthood may be violating the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

            As you know, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, signed into law on Nov. 5, 2003, makes it a crime for physicians to:

• “deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and

• [perform] the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus”

            A physician who violates this law faces a fine or imprisonment. The prohibition does not apply to a situation in which a procedure is done in order to save the life of the mother.

            Tram Nguyen, vice president of abortion access at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, appears on a previous CMP undercover video stating that she has seen aborted babies come out “a little too intact.” In the Aug. 24 CMP video, Ms. Nguyen explained under oath that by “too intact” she meant “that all the limbs were completely attached to the torso” and that the “calvarium” [head] may also be attached. Ms. Nguyen also confirmed that her clinic does not use digoxin during an abortion, a chemical used to kill the baby in utero by inducing cardiac arrest.

            Grotesquely, in the most common method of abortion used in the late second trimester, the abortion provider uses a long steel tool to tear off the arms and legs of the developing baby, then crushes the baby’s skull. The baby is then removed from his or her mother in pieces. It is possible, therefore, that in some of the cases in which the baby was born “a little too intact,” the baby did not die until he or she was delivered or partially delivered from the body of the mother.

            This information is deeply troubling and necessitates further inquiry. We respectfully ask that in light of the recently unsealed testimony, the Department investigate whether Planned Parenthood has violated the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

            Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Signed, “Sincerely,” by Rep. Marshall and GOP Representatives Andy Biggs & Paul Gosar (AZ); Doug LaMalfa (CA); Doug Lamborn (CO); Gus Bilirakis, Neal Dunn, Matt Gaetz, Russ Spano & Ted Yoho (FL); Rick Allen, Doug Collins & Jody Hice (GA); Russ Fulcher (ID); Jim Banks & Larry Bucshon (IN); Steve King (IA); Ralph Abraham (LA); Bill Huizenga (MI); Tom Emmer & Jim Hagedorn (MN); Vicky Hartzler (MO); Greg Gianforte (MT); Chris Smith (NJ); Dan Bishop, Ted Budd & Mark Walker (NC); Steve Chabot & Jim Jordan (OH); Kevin Hern (OK); John Joyce, Mike Kelly & Guy Reschenthaler (PA); Jeff Duncan, Ralph Norman & William Timmons (SC); Chuck Fleischmann (TN), Mark Green & David Kustoff (TN); Brian Babin, Michael Cloud, Louie Gohmert, Chip Roy, Randy Weber & Ron Wright (TX); Ben Cline (VA); Carol Miller & Alex Mooney (WV); and Glenn Grothman (WI).

Letter from Pres. Trump to Pro-Life Leaders & Activists

Sept. 3 letter on letterhead of campaign division called “Pro-Life Voices for Trump,” signed by the President personally

Dear Pro-life Leaders and Activists:

            In 2016, I ran as a pro-life candidate for President, and with your support, we won the White House. Since my inauguration, I have proudly governed as the most pro-life President in our nation’s history. Together, we have accomplished so much for unborn children and their mothers during my first term in office by:

• Transforming the federal judiciary with the confirmations of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court and over 200 lower-court judges

• Fighting for the unborn around the globe by enacting the Protecting Life & Global Health Assistance policy which prevents tax dollars from funding the international abortion industry, and combating efforts at the United Nations to make abortion an international right

• Stopping taxpayer funding of the big abortion industry, such as Planned Parenthood, through the Title X Protect Life Rule

• Fighting for the conscience rights of the Little Sisters of the Poor and for medical professionals such as nurses from being forced to participate in abortions

• Ending taxpayer funding for new medical research using aborted baby body parts at the National Institutes of Health

• Becoming the first President ever to address the March for Life and the Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Gala in person

            As I seek re-election this November, I need your help in contrasting my bold pro-life leadership with Joe Biden’s abortion extremism. The Democratic Party unequivocally supports abortion on-demand, up until the moment of birth, and even infanticide – leaving babies to die after failed abortions. Joe Biden’s embrace of this extreme position is most evidenced by his support for taxpayer funding of abortion on-demand. Forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions is an abhorrent position that must be defeated at the ballot box. Joe Biden has doubled down on these positions with his selection of abortion extremist Kamala Harris as his running mate.

            With your help, I will win re-election, ensuring we have another four years to fight in the trenches for unborn children and their mothers. Together we will work to:

• Continue our transformation of the federal judiciary, filling the Supreme Court and lower courts with judges who will respect the Constitution and not legislate an abortion agenda from the bench

• Overcome Democratic filibusters in Congress to finally pass and sign into law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the No-Taxpayer-Funding for Abortion Act, and the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

• Fully defund the big abortion industry such as Planned Parenthood of our tax dollars

            I thank Marjorie Dannenfelser and Christina Bennett for co-chairing my Pro-Life Voices for Trump coalition. I urge every pro-life American to join this effort and do your part to defeat abortion extremism this November. Instead, we can score a major, historic victory for unborn children and their mothers.