Life Advocacy Briefing

October 4, 2021

Joe to the Rescue? / Battle Lines Drawn / Hope in the Senate
Going All Out / Reaching Minds, Raising Questions
Who Benefits? / House Voting Record

Joe to the Rescue?

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV) THREW ONE MORE WRENCH into the Congressional Democrats’ wrangling over their massive spending bill, which “had to pass” by Friday, Oct. 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year.

While reports were circulating about Pres. Joe Biden (D) visiting with lawmakers and even crashing the annual House/Senate baseball game, Sen. Manchin was offering Washington’s gang of reporters a steady stream of content for their stories. And late Wednesday, reports The Hill’s Caroline Vakil, he said “an expansion of Medicaid that Democrats are seeking to pass as part of their massive reconciliation bill must include the Hyde Amendment to get his support.”

Killing the long-standing Hyde Amendment which bars federal tax funding of abortion is one of this session’s top goals for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-SanFrancisco) and other radical Democrats. Exclusion of “Hyde” is considered a pillar of the massive spending bill which Ms. Pelosi has characterized as some sort of culmination of her career. (Let us pray.)

“‘Yeah, we’re not taking the Hyde Amendment off. Hyde’s going to be on,’ [Sen.] Manchin told National Review when asked about a proposed Medicaid-like program in the reconciliation bill,” writes Ms. Vakil. “‘It has to be. It has to be. That’s dead on arrival if that’s gone,’” he added.

“Some Democrats are pushing,” explains Ms. Vakil, “to include a Medicaid-like program in the reconciliation package in which the federal government would step in and provide coverage in the 12 GOP-led states that have so far declined to expand Medicaid under [ObamaCare]. The Democrats’ proposal does not include language reflecting the Hyde Amendment. …

“[Sen.] Manchin is a critical vote on the budget reconciliation package,” notes Ms. Vakil, “and has called for the measure to be reduced from the $3.5 trillion size favored by liberals.”


Battle Lines Drawn

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON SEPT. 24 PASSED the most extreme pro-abortion bill yet to be considered – among many, over the years – by the US Congress.

The “Women’s Health Protection Act” (WHPA) claims to “protect women’s health” by enacting US law authorizing the intentional killing of little girls and boys before birth, essentially codifying the radical Roe v. Wade Supreme Court edict.

Even before the Supreme Court issues a ruling in the Mississippi Dobbs case, now pending before it with a plea from the State of Mississippi asking for overturning of the 1973 abortion-floodgates edict, the abortion cartel and its political fellow-travelers are determined to quash state abortion regulatory legislation by federal statute.

We publish the House roll call at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing. The roll call shows just one Democratic Member in the entire 435-seat House caring enough about the life of his future constituents and the views of his current voters to cast a “no” vote. Thank you, Rep. Cuellar. For those to whom it matters, the Biden White House endorsed the bill.


Hope in the Senate

THE OUTCOME OF THE ABORTION LOBBY’s WHPA is much in doubt in the Senate, where it would likely need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster to come to a final passage vote and where it appears unlikely the cartel can rely on its two GOP fellow travelers.

“Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) will not support a bill that would protect the legal right to an abortion, she told the Los Angeles Times,” according to, “likely killing Democrats’ hope of using the legislation to block Texas’s near-total abortion ban and other state restrictions.

“[Sen.] Collins told the Times on Tuesday,” reports Forbes, “she opposes the Women’s Health Protection Act because it goes ‘way beyond’ enshrining the right to an abortion in federal law, and she finds its language ‘extreme.’ … [Sen.] Collins said she believed the bill would … ‘severely weaken’ the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which allows healthcare professionals to opt out of facilitating abortions if they object to the procedure.”

Before our readers get too excited about Sen. Collins, we should note that Forbes reports also, “The moderate Republican … is speaking with other Senators about introducing a more narrow bill that ‘truly would codify Roe,’ she told the [LosAngeles Times] newspaper. …

“Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the other major pro-abortion rights Republican in the Senate,” reports Forbes, “told the Times she’s ‘looking at’ the bill but hasn’t decided yet whether to support it.”


Going All Out

A HERITAGE FOUNDATION POLICY ANALYST has “outlined many of the dangers” of the WHPA, notes Bridget Sielicki for Live Action.

“While the White House claims it wants to ‘codify the constitutional right’ to abortion,” writes Ms. Sielicki, Heritage analyst Melanie Israel, “says that the bill would actually do much more than that. ‘The bill would effectively repeal existing state laws, expressly prohibit future laws that regulate abortion and the abortion industry and place at risk long-standing federal policies that reflect more than 40 years of bipartisan consensus,’ she writes.”

The Heritage analyst “notes,” writes Ms. Sielicki, “that the passage of the WHPA would do the following:

  • Prevent state protections that restrict abortion based on sex, race or diagnosis of a genetic abnormality such as Down syndrome;

  • Prevent states from enacting policies that protect children after they are old enough to survive outside the womb;

  • Prevent states from enacting critical informed-consent policies that enable women to be fully informed about their decisions;

  • Prevent states from implementing safety restrictions regarding chemical abortion (despite the fact that these abortions are four times more dangerous than surgical abortions);

  • Prevent states from regulating abortion facilities;

  • Threaten conscience protections for medical professionals, forcing them to partake in abortions;

  • Threaten policies that restrict taxpayer funding of abortion.

“To sum it up, [Ms.] Israel writes,” reports Live Action, “If enacted, the WHPA would threaten hundreds of state and federal pro-life policies that have been enacted by duly elected representatives in response to the wishes of their constituents. Broadly supported consensus policies, including restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortions and policies that protect both women and unborn children from inhumane late-term abortion procedures, would be put in jeopardy.

“Despite claims that it simply codifies Roe v. Wade,” which would be bad enough, “the bill,” notes Ms. Sielicki, “mandates an abortion regime that would be far more radical than the status quo.”


Reaching Minds, Raising Questions

WHEN LIFE ADVOCACY’s COMMUNICATOR STRATEGY TEAM meets with pro-life front-liners, we note the value of assessing an unaffiliated or even hostile audience by what motivates those who claim to be satisfied with unfettered abortion in America. It is our conviction that self-identified “pro-choice” voters reach their attitude on abortion from a variety of motivations and that an opening of their minds can be sought via a tailored approach.

Among our examples is the “radical feminist” point of view, which typically dominates the audience in forums staged by such groups as the League of Women Voters, American Assn. of University Women and Business & Professional Women. We suggest pro-life candidates and officials facing such a crowd use a tailored answer to “the choice question.” We suggest such speakers seek to avoid labels and focus instead on the “who benefits” question. [Answer: Those who benefit most from abortion are irresponsible men, who get to sow their wild oats all over town and do not have to pay child support. With such an answer, the pro-life communicator sides with the feminist audience without having to bow to their abortion idol.]

It is in light of this communications approach – tailored to feminist-influenced audiences – that we publish below a blog which strikes at the root of who benefits most from abortion.


Who Benefits?

Sept. 23, 2021, Commentary by Jonathan VanMaren, published by

             As Roe v. Wade heads toward a Supreme Court reckoning, the abortion wars are heating up. We don’t know if Roe will go, of course – some watchers think yes, others no – but abortion activists certainly think so. There are already plans to put an underground abortion network in place; to distribute abortion pills to states with pro-life laws; to defy any legislation enshrining rights for pre-born children.

             In the process, the masks are coming off and abortion activists are beginning to admit what we always knew: The right to kill children in the womb is necessary for sexual liberation. 

             Sure, most activists and media figures will use the tiny number of cases where sexual assault has occurred or other heartbreaking circumstances in order to pretend that “pro-choice” is about compassion rather than convenience. But that has never been true, and that is becoming increasingly obvious. 

             Consider, for example, the outrage in the media right now over a US Supreme Court brief observing something that previous generations of human beings understood: Sex makes babies.

             From The Huffington Post: The key architect of the radical new Texas anti-abortion law has argued in a US Supreme Court brief that women can avoid pregnancy by simply avoiding sex. 

             The stunning argument was presented by attorney Jonathan Mitchell in a friend-of-the-court brief this summer supporting a restrictive Mississippi law denying women the right to an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The brief also argued that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. 

             “Women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse,” Mitchell, a former Texas solicitor general, lectured in the brief, which was first reported by The Guardian

             Despite decades of sex education in public schools, it is apparently “stunning” to observe the obvious. It is indisputably true that sex makes babies. It is also true that pregnancy can be avoided if sex is avoided (and, of course, through a variety of other practices). The brief noted that an “individual can simply change their behavior … if she no longer wants to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy,” observing that the only times this is not the case is in instances of sexual assault. 

             The abortion debate, as you can see, is not about difficult circumstances. It is about sexual freedom. My only objection to that wording would be the fact that it puts too much onus on the woman – a better wording would be that “people” or “men and women” can control their reproductive lives without abortion, as the abortion rate would plunge overnight if men agreed to care for and support the children they fathered. Abortion allows men and women to use each other. Adults get the sex; children pay the price; the abortion industry makes a killing. 

             Perhaps the only humorous part of the backlash to the Texas Heartbeat Act was the number of abortion activists furiously demanding that pro-lifers be consistent in their beliefs by ensuring that men cannot abandon women and their children. Which, as it turns out, is precisely what pro-lifers want. There have been plenty of dry rejoinders from pro-lifers: “Congratulations, you’ve invented marriage.” 

             Liz Plank, for example, tweeted: “Behind millions of successful men is an abortion they don’t regret getting with their partner. I urge men to go beyond solidarity and talk about how they’ve personally benefited from abortion rights, too. Not because it’s the right thing to do, because it’s true!” All right, deadbeat dads – you’re up! 

             As pro-life ethicist Charlie Camosy put it on Twitter: “We should talk as much as possible about how much prenatal violence is driven explicitly by men and structurally serves the interests of those who do not get pregnant. Not just because it is true, but because it’s an important way into the issue for many, many folks.” 

             The best response to the Heartbeat Act was abortion activists suggesting that pro-abortion women go on a sex strike – as if that would teach pro-lifers a lesson? Democrat Pam Keith tweeted: “It would be AWESOME if all over TX, there was a mass exodus of women from all dating apps. By the million, TX women should delete Bumble, hinge, tinder, match and all the others. TX men need to see the women’s profiles go dark.” 

             One response to Keith’s stroke of genius summed it up perfectly: “Periodically progressives reverse-engineer healthy sexual behavior, and they act like they’ve discovered Atlantis.” In other words, we agree with Keith that it would be fantastic if that were to happen.


House Voting Record

HR-3755 – Final Passage – “Women’s Health Protection Act” (Enacting Roe by Statute) – Sept. 24, 2021 – Passed 218-211 (New Member in ALL CAPS; Democrats in italics)

Voting “no”/pro-Life: Aderholt, Brooks, Carl, Moore, Palmer, Rogers/AL; Young/AK; Biggs, Gosar, Schweikert/AZ; Crawford, Hill, Westerman, Womack/AR; Calvert, Garcia, Issa, Kim, LaMalfa, McCarthy, McClintock, Nunes, Obernolte, Steel, Valadao/CA; Boebert, Buck, Lamborn/CO; Bilirakis, Buchanan, Cammack, Diaz-Balart, Donalds, Dunn, Franklin, Gaetz, Gimenez, Mast, Posey, Rutherford, Salazar, Steube, Waltz, Webster/FL; Allen, Carter, Clyde, Ferguson, Greene, Hice, Loudermilk, A.Scott/GA; Fulcher, Simpson/ID; Bost, R.Davis, Kinzinger, LaHood, Miller/IL; Baird, Banks, Bucshon, Hollingsworth, Pence, Spartz, Walorski/IN; Feenstra, Hinson, Miller-Meeks/IA; Estes, LaTurner, Mann/KS; Barr, Comer, Guthrie, Massie, Rogers/KY; Graves, Higgins, Johnson, Letlow, Scalise/LA; Harris/MD; Bergman, Huizenga, McClain, Meijer, Moolenaar, Upton, Walberg/MI; Emmer, Fischbach, Hagedorn, Stauber/MN; Guest, Kelly, Palazzo/MS; Graves, Hartzler, Long, Luetkemeyer, Smith, Wagner/MO; Rosendale/MT; Bacon, Fortenberry, Smith/NE; Amodei/NV; Smith, VanDrew/NJ; Herrell/NM; Garbarino, Jacobs, Katko, Malliotakis, Reed, Stefanik, Tenney, Zeldin/NY; Bishop, Budd, Cawthorn, Foxx, Hudson, McHenry, Murphy, Rouzer/NC; Armstrong/ND; Balderson, Chabot, Davidson, Gibbs, Gonzalez, Johnson, Jordan, Joyce, Latta, Turner, Wenstrup/OH; Bice, Cole, Hern, Lucas, Mullin/OK; Bentz/OR; Fitzpatrick, Joyce, Keller, Kelly, Meuser, Perry, Reschenthaler, Smucker, Thompson/PA; Duncan, Mace, Norman, Rice, Timmons, Wilson/SC; Johnson/SD; Burchett, DesJarlais, Fleischmann, Green, Harshbarger, Kustoff, Rose/TN; Arrington, Babin, Brady, Burgess, Carter, Cloud, Crenshaw, Cuellar, ELLZEY, Fallon, Gohmert, T.Gonzales, Gooden, Granger, Jackson, McCaul, Nehls, Pfluger, Roy, Sessions, Taylor, VanDuyne, Weber, Williams/TX; Curtis, Moore, Owens, Stewart/UT; Cline, Good, Griffith, Wittman/VA; Herrera-Beutler, Newhouse, Rodgers/WA; McKinley, Miller, Mooney/WV; Fitzgerald, Gallagher, Grothman, Steil, Tiffany/WI.

Voting “yes”/anti-Life: Sewell/AL; Gallego, Grijalva, Kirkpatrick, O’Halleran, Stanton/AZ; Aguilar, Barragan, Bass, Bera, Brownley, Carbajal, Cardenas, Chu, Correa, Costa, DeSaulnier, Eshoo, Garamendi, Gomez, Harder, Huffman, Jacobs, Khanna, Lee, Levin, Lieu, Lofgren, Lowenthal, Matsui, McNerney, Napolitano, Panetta, Pelosi, Peters, Porter, Roybal-Allard, Ruiz, Sanchez, Schiff, Sherman, Speier, Swalwell, Takano, Thompson, Torres, Vargas, Waters/CA; Crow, DeGette, Neguse, Perlmutter/CO; Courtney, DeLauro, Hayes, Himes, Larson/CT; Blunt-Rochester/DE; Castor, Crist, Demings, Deutch, Frankel, Murphy, Soto, Wasserman-Schultz, Wilson/FL; Bishop, Bourdeaux, Johnson, McBath, D.Scott, Williams/GA; Case, Kahele/HI; Bustos, Casten, D.Davis, Foster, Garcia, Kelly, Krishnamoorthi, Newman, Quigley, Rush, Schakowsky, Schneider, Underwood/IL; Carson, Mrvan/IN; Axne/IA; Davids/KS; Yarmuth/KY; Carter/LA; Golden, Pingree/ME; Brown, Hoyer, Mfume, Raskin, Ruppersberger, Sarbanes, Trone/MD; Auchincloss, Clark, Keating, Lynch, McGovern, Moulton, Neal, Pressley, Trahan/MA; Dingell, Kildee, Lawrence, Levin, Slotkin, Stevens, Tlaib/MI; Craig, McCollum, Omar, Phillips/MN; Thompson/MS; Bush, Cleaver/MO; Horsford, Lee, Titus/NV; Kuster, Pappas/NH; Gottheimer, Kim, Malinowski, Norcross, Pallone, Pascrell, Payne, Sherrill, Sires, Watson-Coleman/NJ; Leger-Fernandez, Stansbury/NM; Bowman, Clarke, Delgado, Espaillat, Higgins, Jeffries, Jones, C.Maloney, S.Maloney, Meeks, Meng, Morelle, Nadler, Ocasio-Cortez, Rice, Suozzi, Tonko, Torres, Velazquez/NY; Adams, Butterfield, Manning, Price, Ross/NC; Beatty, Kaptur, Ryan/OH; Blumenauer, Bonamici, DeFazio, Schrader/OR; Boyle, Cartwright, Dean, Doyle, Evans, Houlahan, Lamb, Scanlon, Wild/PA: Cicilline, Langevin/RI; Clyburn/SC; Cohen, Cooper/TN; Allred, Castro, Doggett, Escobar, Fletcher, Garcia, V.Gonzalez, Green, Jackson-Lee, Johnson, Veasey, Vela/TX; Welch/VT; Beyer, Connolly, Luria, McEachin, Scott, Spanberger, Wexton/VA; DelBene, Jayapal, Kilmer, Larsen, Schrier, Smith, Strickland/WA; Kind, Moore, Pocan/WI.

Not voting: Lesko/AZ, Pelosi/CA, Lawson/FL, Cheney/WY.