Life Advocacy Briefing

Thank God for You

IF YOU ARE A MILITARY VETERAN or a relative of one who gave his or her life in defense of America, we thank you and ask the Lord’s blessing upon you on this Memorial Day. Amen.

Game On!

RADICALS IN CONGRESS ANNOUNCED LAST WEEK reintroduction of their so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” to shelter the abortion cartel under federal statute. It has been filed several times before, with no result. This time the sponsors cited the peril of the Supreme Court’s agreement to consider Mississippi’s post-15-week abortion ban, which has sent the abortion lobby into more than customary hysteria.

The proposed legislation is not yet listed in the Congressional Record, so we cannot yet cite bill numbers, but we can report, based on a LifeSiteNews.com story by Calvin Freiburger, that the chief sponsors are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) in the Senate and, in the House, Representatives Judy Chu (D-CA), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Veronica Escobar (D-TX).

“‘This week’s news out of the Supreme Court was an urgent call to action,’” the sponsors declared in a news release quoted by Mr. Freiburger. “‘Reproductive rights are under direct, imminent attack. Our bill … would protect against unconstitutional laws like Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban,’” they said, citing “‘laws that attack people’s freedom to make decisions about their own bodies and which directly contradict decades of Supreme Court precedent.’”

Abortion is not a “decision” about one’s “own body” but a deliberate act of violence intended to kill an innocent human being.

The proposal, notes Mr. Freiburger, “has been repeatedly introduced over the past several years without being acted upon; [it] establishes a federal statutory right to perform and obtain abortions, including after fetal viability (under the broad cover of ‘health’) and specifically,” he notes, “forbids states from subjecting abortion to ultrasound requirements, mandatory waiting periods, informed consent requirements and other health and safety requirements, such as admitting privileges. It also,” reports LSN, “protects so-called ‘webcam’ abortions (i.e. dispensing abortion pills without an in-person doctor’s visit), forbids banning abortions on the basis of a baby’s race, sex or disability, and forbids banning particular techniques such as dilation and evacuation (D&E) or ‘dismemberment’ abortions, where unborn babies are literally ripped apart in the womb and removed from the uterus limb by limb.”

In view of the party composition of the two houses of Congress – together with the official Democratic Party endorsement of extreme radical abortion policy and the embrace of unfettered tax-funded abortion by the Biden-Harris Regime – the federal codification of abortion is dependent on whether the Senate Democrats’ radical leadership secure the votes needed to overturn the Senate filibuster rule, which requires an extraordinary majority to bring substantive legislation to a vote. Readers who wish to weigh in on “no change to the filibuster rule” are urged to contact Democratic Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly of Arizona and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, all of whom are under intense pressure to drop their resistance to changing the Senate filibuster rule. [Capitol switchboard: 1-202/224-3121]

Breakthrough!

PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAS DROPPED ITS LAWSUIT against the State of Texas over its cutoff of the outfit from the state’s Medicaid funding. The state’s action had resulted in part from the release by David Daleiden’s Center for Medical Progress of undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood’s involvement in the trafficking of fetal baby body parts.

The unusual move came after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the federal District Court in Texas the lawsuit seeking reinstatement of eligibility for the state’s tax dollars. The District Court had found in favor of Planned Parenthood, but the 5^th Circuit found credibility in the findings of an inspector general (OIG) that acknowledged the undercover journalist’s findings.

“‘The [Texas] agency based this decision [to disqualify Planned Parenthood] largely on undercover video footage of graphic discussions with Planned Parenthood personnel,’” notes the 5^th Circuit opinion, quoted by Andrew Bath, general counsel of David Daleiden’s law firm (the Thomas More Society), “‘concerning the prospective sale of liver, thymus and neural tissue from fetuses aborted during the second trimester of pregnancy. …

“‘The OIG further concluded, based on the videos,’” notes the Circuit Court, quoted by Mr. Bath, “‘that the Provider Plaintiffs [Planned Parenthood] at a minimum violated federal standards regarding fetal tissue research and standards of medical ethics by allowing doctors to alter abortion procedures to retrieve tissue for research purposes or allowing the researchers themselves to perform the procedures.’

“After the 5^th Circuit ruled that David’s videos constituted good evidence,” Mr. Bath explains, “they sent the lawsuit back to the district court. And just days ago, Planned Parenthood [withdrew] its lawsuit – acknowledging their defeat at the hands of David Daleiden’s historic undercover footage.

“David Daleiden caught them in their own words haggling over the prices of aborted baby parts,” writes Mr. Bath, “and altering abortion procedures to extract and sell more ‘intact’ fetuses – even if it meant putting pregnant women [mothers] in even more danger.”

Planned Parenthood Pal Confirmed as Medicaid Chief

THE SENATE HAS CONFIRMED THE NOMINATION of Chiquita Brookes-LaSure to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, despite revelations of her past as a political consultant involving Planned Parenthood’s connections with the Democratic Party. We published cautions about her nomination in a previous edition. Today we publish the Senate voting records on motions to bring forward the motion to confirm the key bureaucrat and the confirmation itself, at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing.

Supreme Court Pondering Dilemma?

May 18, 2021, Washington Post column by Henry Olsen, senior fellow at Ethics & Public Policy Ctr.

             The Supreme Court’s decision to review the constitutionality of Mississippi’s ban on almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy will likely be a watershed in the nearly 50-year battle over Roe v. Wade. The Court should ignore the inevitable whirlwind of elite opinion and do its constitutional duty: uphold the law and overturn Roe.

             Roe has been reviled by legal commentators from all political persuasions as a constitutional monstrosity. Noted liberals such as Laurence H. Tribe and Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox denounced it upon its release, and even the late progressive icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg called it “heavy-handed judicial activism.” The ruling was so lacking in constitutional grounding and so deficient in providing clear, justiciable standards that it has shackled judges nationwide to a never-ending exercise in deciding the minutia of abortion policy.

             The post-Roe abortion jurisprudence is perhaps the best example of a judicial system run amok, replacing democratic debate and judgment with the will of lawyers. For defenders of abortion access, this alone should be troublesome. Almost every other developed country has made abortion legal, and they did so almost uniformly through democratic debate and law. The time frame during which abortions are allowed differs from country to country, with some such as France and Norway limiting it to about 14 weeks or less of pregnancy, while others such as Australia and Britain allow it for longer periods – even up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. But in all of these nations, abortion law is largely settled and does not roil politics. The matter was decided by open democratic debate, and as such, the resultant settlement is supported by all major political actors. This fact has given secure access to abortions for women who want them.

             Overruling Roe would return abortion policy to where it was previously: the people of each state. Liberal states such as California or New York would surely pass bills allowing abortion well into a pregnancy; indeed, New York has already passed a liberal abortion law. Meanwhile, conservative states such as Mississippi would pass laws banning or severely restricting abortion. Even conservative states, however, would likely retain exceptions for cases such as those that threaten a mother’s life. This surely will distress activists on both sides, but over time, democratic compromise will win out.

             As my Ethics & Public Policy Center colleague Ed Whelan points out, return of abortion policy to the states will be both “tumultuous” and “very likely to yield a mix of results that most people will find satisfactory.” The alternative – upholding Roe and finding Mississippi’s law unconstitutional – would have serious moral consequences.

             Let’s not shy away from saying what those who want to strike down the law support: the killing of a separate human life contained within the mother. A 16-week-old unborn child has developed its own brain, heart and limbs. It may even hear sounds in the mother’s body. By week 16, the risk of miscarriage is less than one percent. A 55-to-64-year-old man has a higher chance of dying in the next year. The argument in favor of killing that unborn human life must thus rest on the contention that the mother has no moral obligation to keep it alive. If we accept that argument, one must then ask how far it extends.

             Viability outside the womb cannot suffice as a limiting principle, since infants are as dependent on other people to stay alive as the unborn child. If it is morally acceptable to cause a human’s death by refusing to keep it alive inside the womb, then it must also be morally acceptable to refuse to act to keep it alive during its dependent, infant state outside the womb. One cannot avoid this moral conundrum by simply contending that abortion is a matter of rights and not a democratic discussion.

             The undeniable fact that the unborn child is a separate human being leads some pro-life thinkers to use the language of rights themselves. These people contend that the unborn child’s right to life trumps the woman’s right to liberty and as such, the 14^th Amendment’s prohibition on depriving a person of the right to life should be interpreted to bar virtually all abortions nationwide. This is an extreme authority view among pro-lifers, but if a 6-to-3 Court majority cannot summon the energy in this case to uphold Mississippi’s law, expect support for that view to grow.  

             Legislating morality through judicial fiat can only encourage extreme thinking on both sides, as extremists can see a path to victory once the messy problem of public opinion is dispensed with. The Supreme Court has for too long turned a blind eye to law and life. Upholding Mississippi’s law and overturning Roe would strike a strong blow for both.

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: We expect Mr. Olsen was appealing to the leftwing readers of the Washington Post to open their eyes to the extremism of Roe and the consequent inevitability of its eventual rejection by the Supreme Court. As for our own view, we fall on the side of those “pro-lifers” who hold the “extreme authority view” that the deliberate taking of innocent human life has no place within American jurisprudence under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, regardless of how “settled” abortion law may be in other countries; only in America are the people expected – required, even – to respect the right to life of all other innocent human beings. Still, we do appreciate Mr. Olsen’s attempt to soothe the hysteria of those who idolize Roe above our heritage and the inalienable rights given us by our Creator and secured by our founding charter. We reprint his commentary for the benefit of our readers’ interest in the developing debate over what the Supreme Court has taken on in agreeing to consider Mississippi’s appeal to uphold its pro-life law.]

Getting Ready

May 17, 2021, News Release from Americans United for Life

             Americans United for Life is pleased that the US Supreme Court has decided today to hear Mississippi’s appeal to defend state law protecting the human right to life at 15 weeks.

             Mississippi’s House Bill 1510, passed in 2018, preserves the human right to life and limits abortion when “the probable gestational age of the unborn human being” is “greater than” 15 weeks, “except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality … .”

             Mississippi’s defense of HB-1510 gives the US Supreme Court the opportunity to finally rein in the Court’s extreme abortion doctrine, which, under the regime of Roe v. Wade, marks the US as one of only seven nations across the globe that allow abortion for any reason after 20 weeks of gestation.

             The Court, as it sometimes does, has decided to hear only one of the three questions presented to the Court by Mississippi: “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

             By addressing the first question, the Court has signaled that it is focused on the key issue of the constitutionality of legal limits on late-term abortions. Some federal courts have held that the Court’s viability rule adopted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey is “categorical,” such that no legislative prohibition of any abortion before viability is enforceable.

             The case also allows the Court to consider the States’ interest in protecting maternal health, since a well-regarded medical study from 2004 by Dr. Linda Bartlett and others found that the risk of maternal mortality increases considerably after 14 weeks. Specifically, the study found “[c]ompared with women whose abortions were performed at or before eight weeks of gestation, women whose abortions were performed in the second trimester were significantly more likely to die of abortion-related causes.” Mississippi cited the Bartlett study in its legislative findings.  

             The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Sup. Ct. No. 19-1392, is likely to be scheduled for hearing sometime this fall.

             “That the Supreme Court is considering this Mississippi law is a promising signal that perhaps a majority of Justices wish to give states greater power to regulate abortion,” said Steven H. Aden, AUL chief legal officer and general counsel. “At the same time, if the Court rejects Mississippi’s commonsense HB-1510 protections, the pro-life movement will face a fundamental reckoning.”

             “Every few years since Roe, the Supreme Court finds itself grappling with abortion,” said Katie Glenn, AUL government affairs counsel. “The Justices must ultimately choose whether their jobs are endlessly adjusting America’s abortion policies or the restoration of Constitutional human rights.

             “The protection of the human right to life is the true Constitutional business of the Court,” continued [Ms.] Glenn, “and Americans United for Life sincerely hopes that Mississippi’s HB-1510 serves to guide the moral conscience of all Americans, particularly those Justices who presently wield untold power over death and life.”

Senate Voting Records

Cloture Motion to end debate on Nomination of Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to head Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services – May 24, 2021 – Adopted – 52-43 (Democrats in italics; “Independent” marked “I”)

Voting “no”/pro-Life: Shelby & Tuberville/AL, Sullivan/AK, Boozman & Cotton/AR, Rubio & Scott/FL, Crapo & Risch/ID, Braun/IN, Ernst & Grassley/IA, Marshall/KS, McConnell & Paul/KY, Cassidy/LA, Hyde-Smith & Wicker/MS, Hawley/MO, Daines/MT, Fischer & Sasse/NE, Burr & Tillis/NC, Cramer & Hoeven/ND, Portman/OH, Inhofe & Lankford/OK, Toomey/PA, Graham & Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Blackburn & Hagerty/TN, Cornyn/TX, Lee & Romney/UT, Capito/WV, Johnson/WI and Barrasso & Lummis/WY.

Voting “yes”/anti-Life: Murkowski/AK, Kelly & Sinema/AZ, Feinstein & Padilla/CA, Bennet & Hickenlooper/CO, Blumenthal & Murphy/CT, Carper & Coons/DE, Ossoff & Warnock/GA, Hirono & Schatz/HI, Duckworth & Durbin/IL, Collins & King(I)/ME, Cardin & VanHollen/MD, Markey & Warren/MA, Peters & Stabenow/MI, Klobuchar & Smith/MN, Blunt/MO, Tester/MT, Cortez-Masto & Rosen/NV, Hassan & Shaheen/NH, Booker & Menendez/NJ, Heinrich & Lujan/NM, Gillibrand & Schumer/NY, Brown/OH, Merkley & Wyden/OR, Casey/PA, Reed & Whitehouse/RI, Leahy & Sanders/VT, Kaine & Warner/VA, Cantwell/WA, Manchin/WV and Baldwin/WI.

Not voting: Young/IN, Moran/KS, Kennedy/LA, Cruz/TX, Murray/WA.

Confirmation of Chiquita Brooks-LaSure to head Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services – May 25, 2021 – Adopted – 55-44 (Democrats in italics; “Independent” marked “I”)

Voting “no”/pro-Life: Shelby & Tuberville/AL, Sullivan/AK, Boozman & Cotton/AR, Rubio & Scott/FL, Crapo & Risch/ID, Braun & Young/IN, Ernst & Grassley/IA, Marshall/KS, McConnell & Paul/KY, Cassidy/LA, Hyde-Smith & Wicker/MS, Hawley/MO, Daines/MT, Fischer & Sasse/NE, Tillis/NC, Cramer & Hoeven/ND, Portman/OH, Inhofe & Lankford/OK, Toomey/PA, Graham & Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Blackburn & Hagerty/TN, Cornyn & Cruz/TX, Lee & Romney/UT, Capito/WV, Johnson/WI and Barrasso & Lummis/WY.

Voting “yes”/anti-Life: Murkowski/AK, Kelly & Sinema/AZ, Feinstein & Padilla/CA, Bennet & Hickenlooper/CO, Blumenthal & Murphy/CT, Carper & Coons/DE, Ossoff & Warnock/GA, Hirono & Schatz/HI, Duckworth & Durbin/IL, Moran/KS, Collins & King(I)/ME, Cardin & VanHollen/MD, Markey & Warren/MA, Peters & Stabenow/MI, Klobuchar & Smith/MN, Blunt/MO, Tester/MT, Cortez-Masto & Rosen/NV, Hassan & Shaheen/NH, Booker & Menendez/NJ, Heinrich & Lujan/NM, Gillibrand & Schumer/NY, Burr/NC, Brown/OH, Merkley & Wyden/OR, Casey/PA, Reed & Whitehouse/RI, Leahy & Sanders/VT, Kaine & Warner/VA, Cantwell & Murray/WA, Manchin/WV and Baldwin/WI.

Not voting: Kennedy/LA.