Life Advocacy Briefing

October 19, 2020

Death Toll / Confirm Judge Barrett in Pursuit of Justice
Cuomo for A.G.? / Raising the Issue / He’s Gone All the Way Over
High Court Lets RU-486 Floodgate Stand / High Court Blows It Again
Dismemberment Ban Struck Down at Appellate Level
A.M.A. Asks Supreme Court to Strike Down ‘Protect Life’ Rule
Judge Blocks Tennessee’s RU-info & Heartbeat Abortion Ban Law
High Stakes

Death Toll

LOUD CRIES ARE BEING RAISED in the nation’s political debate over the some 219,000 Americans who have died with China virus complications. The same voices are silent about the more than 500,000 Americans who have died at the hands of abortionists in the same time frame.

Both death tolls are tragedies. One of them could have been avoided through proper reading and application of the Constitution. Confirm Judge Barrett.


Confirm Judge Barrett in Pursuit of Justice

AFTER SEVERAL DAYS OF OFF-SUBJECT HARRANGUING of Judge Amy Coney Barrett before the Senate Judiciary Committee – exceeded only by Judge Barrett’s superb handling of every challenge thrown at her – we fully expect the Senate will, as early as sometime this week, confirm the 7th Circuit appellate judge to take the vacant seat on the US Supreme Court.

We encourage readers – particularly in states which will undertake Senate elections next month – to contact your two home-state US Senators and request that they vote to confirm Judge Barrett. [Capitol switchboard: 1-202/224-3121] Take your own place in history by weighing in on this critical appointment.


Cuomo for A.G.?

RUMORS ABOUND, according to Calvin Freiburger of, that “if former Vice Pres. Joe Biden defeats President Donald Trump in next month’s Presidential election, … he will select New York’s Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo to head his Justice Department.”

Let that sink in. “Axios reports,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “that Democrats are pushing [Mr.] Cuomo for the position, and [Mr.] Biden is open to the idea, according to Democrat donors. The possibility is rumored to be strong enough,” he warns, “that the National Governors Assn. is currently looking into contingency plans to replace Cuomo as chairman. …

“The possibility of Cuomo being the man to enforce Biden’s vow to direct the Justice Dept. to ‘do everything in its power’ to block state pro-life laws is noteworthy in light of Cuomo’s pro-abortion record,” declares Mr. Freiburger, “which includes legalizing effectively unlimited abortion.” Pro-lifers can well remember the gleeful celebration led by Mr. Cuomo upon his signature on New York’s pogrom on unborn children, among other horrors he has superintended.


Raising the Issue

VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE (R) CAME AWAY from his one face-to-face debate against his Democratic opponent with kudos from many fronts. Among the points he scored – though many candidates are counseled to treat the right to Life as a political “third rail” – was his advocacy of the right to Life. He appeared to relish the advantage of his stand for Life, contrasted with his opponent’s advocacy of the abortion cartel. Life is a winning issue, when it is communicated.

On the topic of the pending Supreme Court nomination, for example, Mr. Pence “praised [Judge] Barrett’s ‘lifetime of experience and a sizable American family,’” reports Catholic News Agency (CNA). “‘We particularly hope that we don’t see the kind of attacks on her Christian faith that we saw before,’ Pence said of Barrett, noting that the Democratic chair[man] of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), told Barrett to her face at her 2017 confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit that ‘the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.’ [Mr.] Pence then turned to [Sen.] Harris. “‘Senator, I know one of our judicial nominees, you actually attacked because they were a member of the Catholic Knights of Columbus, just because the Knights of Columbus holds pro-life views and pro-marriage views.’”

Moderator Susan Page brought up the perennial Roe v. Wade question, and though the Vice President at first seemed to ignore the question – in the interest of getting across some points Ms. Page had neglected to raise – he quickly pivoted back to the question of legalizing abortion, declaring, notes CNA, “‘I couldn’t be more proud to serve as Vice President to a President who stands without apology for the sanctity of human life.’” He soon declared, “‘I am pro-life; I don’t apologize for it.’ He then,” reports CNA, “highlighted the Biden-Harris ticket’s support for taxpayer-funded abortion and increased funding of Planned Parenthood.”

Said Sen. Harris, the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, quoted by CNA, “‘There’s the issue of choice, and I will always fight for a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body. It should be her decision and not that of Donald Trump and the Vice President Mike Pence.’”


He’s Gone All the Way Over

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE JOE BIDEN HAS REITERATED “his pledge,” reports Catholic News Agency (CNA), “to codify a right to abortion into federal law, should the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision be overturned by the Supreme Court.

“Speaking at an outdoor townhall event airing on NBC Monday [Oct. 5], [ex-Vice Pres.] Biden was asked what he would do to protect ‘reproductive health rights,’ should Judge Amy Coney Barrett be confirmed to the Supreme Court,” notes CNA.

“‘Number one,’” he said, reports CNA, “‘we don’t know exactly what [Barrett] will do, although the expectation is that she may very well move to overrule Roe, and what the only thing – the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation making Roe the law of the land,’ said [Mr.] Biden. ‘That’s what I would do.’”

Said Pres. Trump, quoted by CNA, “‘Joe Biden just took a more liberal position on Roe v. Wade than Elizabeth Warren at her highest,’” warning also that his opponent “‘wants to pack our great United States Supreme Court.’” Packing the Court is a tactic of adding – by statute – seats on the nation’s highest court in order to overcome a developing conservative, constitutionalist majority.


High Court Lets RU-486 Floodgate Stand

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REFUSED early this month “to reinstate a federal requirement,” reports Adam Liptak in the New York Times, “that women seeking to end their pregnancies using medications pick up a pill in person from a hospital or medical office. A judge had blocked the requirement in light of the coronavirus pandemic, saying that a needless trip to a medical facility during a health crisis very likely imposed an undue burden on the constitutional right to abortion.”

The high court’s ruling called, notes Mr. Liptak, for “‘a more comprehensive record [to] aid this court’s review.’ The justices instructed the trial judge to take a fresh look at the case and to rule within 40 days. In the meantime,” reports the New York Times, “the disputed requirement will remain suspended.”

The ruling was unsigned but accompanied by a dissent authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. In that dissent, reports Mr. Liptak, the two justices “accus[ed] the majority of inconsistency in its rulings on cases arising from the pandemic and of effectively deciding the case by failing to act. Justice Alito wrote,” notes the Times reporter, “that the Court had restricted religious liberty by refusing to exempt churches from state shutdown orders but had expanded abortion rights in the face of a government safety regulation.

“‘In response to the pandemic, state and local officials have imposed unprecedented restrictions on personal liberty, including severe limitations on 1st Amendment rights,’ he wrote,” reports Mr. Liptak. “‘Officials have drastically limited speech, banning or restricting public speeches, lectures, meetings and rallies. The free exercise of religion also has suffered previously unimaginable restraints, and this court has stood by while that has occurred. … In the present case, however,’ Justice Alito wrote, ‘the district court took a strikingly different approach. While Covid-19 has provided the ground for restrictions on 1st Amendment rights, the district court saw the pandemic as a ground for expanding the abortion right recognized in Roe v. Wade.’

“He added,” writes Mr. Liptak, “that six weeks had passed since the Trump Administration had asked the Supreme Court to intercede. ‘For all practical purposes, there is little difference between what the Court has done and an express denial of the government’s application,’ Justice Alito wrote.”

Confirm Judge Barrett.


High Court Blows It Again

THE SUPREME COURT LAST WEEK REJECTED A SOUTH CAROLINA APPEAL, reports Calvin Freiburger for, “to reinstate its ability to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds.” The exclusion was attempted via a 2018 executive order by Gov. Henry McMaster (R) disqualifying abortion facilities.

On Oct. 13, “the Supreme Court denied the state’s appeal in an order list that gave no indication of where individual Justices fell on the question,” Mr. Freiburger notes. Confirm Judge Barrett.


Dismemberment Ban Struck Down at Appellate Level

A THREE-JUDGE PANEL of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals last Tuesday struck down the Texas law banning dismemberment abortions. The panel was split 2-to-1.

Writing for the majority, Judge James Dennis, a Clinton appointee, declared, reports Calvin Freiburger for, that the statute’s “‘burdens substantially outweigh its benefits.’ …

“Pro-lifers note,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “that in 2000’s Stenberg v. Carhart, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens admitted that partial-birth abortion and dismemberment abortion were ‘equally gruesome,’ and that it was ‘simply irrational’ to conclude that one was ‘more akin to infanticide than the other.’ … Pro-abortion activists have objected to the ‘dismemberment’ label as inflammatory and misleading,” Mr. Freiburger notes, “but the abortion industry itself has effectively admitted its accuracy.

“The National Abortion Federation’s own instructional materials,” reports LifeSiteNews, “describe ‘grasping a fetal part,’ then ‘withdraw(ing) the forceps while gently rotating it’ to achieve ‘separation,’ and notorious late-term abortionist Warren Hern has written, ‘there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator (of D&E procedures). It is before one’s eyes. The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current.’” Confirm Judge Barrett.


A.M.A. Asks Supreme Court to Strike Down ‘Protect Life’ Rule

THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSN. LOBBY PETITIONED THE SUPREME COURT Oct. 1 to overturn an appeals court ruling upholding the Trump Administration’s “Protect Life Rule,” which, notes the Catholic News Agency (CNA), “bars Title X [Ten] fund recipients from referring women for abortions, prevents participating groups from co-locating with abortion clinics and requires financial separation of government-funded programs from those that carry out abortions.”

The Protect Life Rule has become a target of Democratic Presidential nominee Joe Biden, who, CNA reports, “has promised to rescind the Protect Life Rule and resume Title X funding eligibility for abortion providers.”

The petition addresses a split among federal appellate circuits, with the Virginia-based 4th Circuit upholding a preliminary injunction against the rule in early September, splitting from the February ruling by the SanFrancisco-based 9th Circuit, which upheld the Trump Administration’s rule. Confirm Judge Barrett.


Judge Blocks Tennessee’s RU-info & Heartbeat Abortion Ban Law

JUST AS TENNESSEE’s RU-486 REVERSAL INFORMATION ACT WAS SET to take effect, US District Judge William Campbell enjoined its enforcement, leaving RU-486 customers in the dark about methods to save their babies in the event they change their minds in time. The suspended law also banned abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected.

The preliminary injunction, issued Sept. 29, suspends the law while legal proceedings continue. Said a spokesman for the Tennessee Attorney General’s office, quoted by CBN News, “‘We look forward to presenting evidence at the [mid-October preliminary injunction] hearing to support the constitutionality of the statute.’” Confirm Judge Barrett.


High Stakes

Oct. 6, 2020, National Review commentary by US Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL)

            If Democrats and abortion activists have their way in the next Congress, this will be the last year that taxpayers are not forced to bear the burden of funding abortions.

            Last week, Congress passed a spending bill to keep the government open. While our budget and appropriations processes are broken – and these massive spending bills are riddled with excess and waste – one previously bipartisan hallmark has come under scrutiny, a frightening reflection of the leftward shift of today’s Democratic Party on the issue of abortion.

            In 1976, Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois first offered an amendment to the appropriations package to prevent elective abortions from being funded by federal taxpayers through Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs. This amendment was accepted on a bipartisan basis and has enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support for the past 44 years. It has been included in every annual spending package, including this year’s.

            But if House Democrats and abortion activists on the radical Left have their way in the next Congress, this will be the last year that taxpayers are not forced to bear the burden of funding abortions. Liberal Democrats in the House, with the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), have signaled that they no longer will include the Hyde Amendment in funding packages starting next year.

            Speaker Pelosi intends to strong-arm Americans into using their tax dollars to fund this life-ending procedure that Democrats once said should be “safe, legal and rare.” Support for taxpayer-funded abortion has become a litmus test among Democrats of one’s adherence to the party’s new radical orthodoxy on the issue. It is no longer enough for Democrats such as Speaker Pelosi to support a woman’s “right to choose.”

            Some adherents of this new orthodoxy, which I completely disagree with, argue that abortion is a right and that it is unfair for governments to withhold funding for elective abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court answered this very question in Harris v. McRae in 1980. A majority of the Court, along with Justice Byron White’s concurring opinion, referenced the Court’s decision in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, which made clear that the State has an “important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.”

            The Court concluded, “It follows that the Hyde Amendment, by encouraging childbirth except in the most urgent circumstances, is rationally related to the legitimate government objective of protecting potential life.”

            Americans should believe in the sanctity of life, that all human beings have equal dignity and worth because they are endowed with rights from our Creator. As a father and a grandfather, I value all life, including the unborn. My mom was a single mom to two little boys before she met my adopted dad. We were very poor, and we struggled, but my mom always figured out how to make ends meet. And she taught me the importance of always choosing life.

            I want to make sure that expectant mothers facing difficult circumstances have the resources and support they need to carry their children to term.

            That’s why, as governor of Florida, I signed legislation to authorize permanent funding for crisis pregnancy centers, which support mothers and fathers every step of the way. It’s why I signed legislation to limit state funding for abortion funding, such as Planned Parenthood, which do not share the common belief that all life is valuable. And it’s why I required physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals – a reasonable standard to protect health and safety.

            Congress should not throw away the Hyde Amendment and force American taxpayers to fund the widespread destruction of innocent life. Congress should instead find ways to cut taxes, cut spending and support priorities important to all American families – and that certainly doesn’t include requiring every American to fund abortions.