Life Advocacy Briefing

October 25, 2021

Desperation? / Secret Weapon? / Seems Like Good News
Doubling Down on Despair / Backward Thinking
Treading Lightly? / Determined to Destroy


ANYONE WHO DOES NOT THINK THE TEXAS HEARTBEAT ACT could be a game-changer in the fight to acknowledge the humanity – and, yes, personhood – of even the tiniest unborn children need only note how desperate the Biden Regime appears to be in attempting to stifle its very existence.

Though the Supreme Court turned back an attempt by the Justice Dept. to block it when it took effect Sept. 1, the Biden Justice Dept. has returned to the high court with “an emergency application” last Monday, reports Calvin Freiburger for (LSN), “urging the … Court to halt enforcement” of the law “banning abortion once a heartbeat is detectable.” This after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had refused to block the now-seven-week-old law.

The Dept. of Justice plea “argues that abortion centers are currently suffering real-world harm due to the uncertainty the law forces on them; this was equally true in September, however,” writes the LSN reporter, “so it is unclear if the Supreme Court will respond any differently this time.” We offer perspective from Family Research Council at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing.


Secret Weapon?

WE CONFESS: THOUGH WE KNEW the Texas Heartbeat Act was a leap ahead in pro-life legislative strategy, we did not realize until now just where it came from. And we are eager to give credit where due.

First of all, proposals to peg abortion law to the medical community’s ability to detect a growing baby’s heartbeat early in pregnancy can be attributed to Janet Porter; that we have known since soon after she began to circulate the idea, and though we do not generally prefer legislation that implies abortion is ever permissible, we have been intrigued by the value of the Heartbeat approach because it so beautifully draws in Americans who have been on the fence about abortion, and it is very challenging for the abortion lobby to challenge – both logically and emotionally. It also has the value of outlawing abortion so early in pregnancy that it effectively eliminates almost all abortions.

But the Texas approach goes beyond the “if-its-heart-is-beating-it’s-obviously-a-baby” approach to the question of enforcement. And that is where new ground is being plowed at a vigorous rate.

The Texas law, after all, is enforceable civilly, not criminally. That has thrown a monkey wrench into the cottage industry known as abortion-lobby dominance in the courts, and though the Biden Regime is attempting to find a way around it, the Texas Heartbeat Law has so far – across more than six weeks now – all but shut down the abortion industry in one of America’s largest states.

The uniqueness and brilliance of the legal framework of what the media continue to call Texas SB-8 (because they don’t want to refer to the baby’s heartbeat) is outlined in an analysis which appeared in The Atlantic on Sept. 1, the date the law took effect. We read it the other day and, from all we have observed, it is still applicable and enlightening. Readers can check it out at

In the Atlantic analysis, credit for the unique, civil approach to ending abortion is given to Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics. When we read that, we mused: that explains it! We have long admired Mr. Crutcher’s ministry for the unborn, both because of his dedication and because of his unique giftedness in breaking new ground. We thought you would like to know and invite you, our readers, to join us in continuing to pray that the Texas Heartbeat Law will stand and protect Texas mothers and their babies for all time to come. We pray, too, that its design will be picked up in states across America.


Seems Like Good News

THE THREAT OF COURT-PACKING championed by the Biden Regime and its leftwing Congressional allies diminished earlier this month, according to a report by Raymond Wolfe.

“The Biden Administration’s commission on the Supreme Court dealt a blow to left-wing court-packing proposals in a report last week,” Mr. Wolfe reported Oct. 18, “arguing that expanding the number of justices on the nation’s highest court ‘is likely to undermine, rather than enhance, the Supreme Court’s legitimacy.’

“The White House Supreme Court Commission, established by [Pres.] Biden in April,” he writes, “warned in preliminary findings on Thursday [Oct. 14] that ‘the risks of court expansion are considerable,’” noting further, “‘Court expansion today could lead to a continuous cycle of future expansions.’ … 

“The 34-member Supreme Court commission primarily draws from liberal academics,” notes Mr. Wolfe, “including several appointees of Pres. Barack Obama and a previous legal director of abortion lobby group NARAL. … The commission’s final report is expected next month.”

And we at Life Advocacy will not be surprised if some fallback “reforms” are pushed in that final report. “The commission findings appeared more favorable,” notes Mr. Wolfe, “on 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices, who hold life-time appointments according to Article III of the US Constitution.” Such an amendment would need a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress and subsequent ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures, a high hurdle indeed.

In any case, the report is likely to be more cautious than originally expected. “The Supreme Court Commission,” reports Mr. Wolfe, “tamped down on various reform ideas last week … . Another report published by the panel on [Oct. 14] stressed the risks of Congressional override of Supreme Court decisions and limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts.”



Doubling Down on Despair

CALIFORNIA GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D) HAS SIGNED the state legislature’s latest assault on the right to Life – a new law which, reports Patrick McGreevy for the LosAngeles Times, “make[s] it easier for terminally ill patients to end their own lives by speeding up and simplifying the state process for those close to death to get prescriptions for lethal doses of drugs.” The new law takes effect Jan. 1.

The new law, reports “Bay City News” via, “will reduce the current mandatory minimum 15-day waiting period between requests for assisted suicide medication to 48 hours and will require healthcare providers to post their assisted suicide policies on their websites.”

New Mexico also has a 48-hour waiting period for doctor-prescribed suicide, reports the LATimes.

“The measure is opposed by groups including the California Family Council, the California Catholic Conference and Disability Rights California,” writes Mr. McGreevy. The California Medical Assn. and California Hospital Assn. were neutral on the measure, according to the LATimes, despite its advancing a deadly policy which already has a profound effect on their industry.

Appearing at the legislature’s hearing, Disability Rights California’s senior policy advocate, Sawait Seyoum, told lawmakers, quoted by Mr. McGreevy, “‘SB-380 lacks sufficient consumer safeguards and has the potential to undermine the safety of people with disabilities.’ … She cited a study published in the Lancet, a medical journal indicating that the opinions of patients considering ending their lives often fluctuate in a 12-hour period.

“‘Many people requesting assisted suicide have changed their minds, some living decades beyond their prognosis,’ [Ms.] Seyoum testified during the legislative hearing,” reports the LATimes.


Backward Thinking

NEW JERSEY GOV. PHIL MURPHY (D) HAS APPROVED A REGULATORY CHANGE offering physicians’ assistants, nurses and midwives a new source of revenue for their careers: authorizing them to commit abortions without the supervision of a licensed physician. The measure also, reports Bridget Sielicki for Live Action, removes a statutory limit which stated that abortions after 14 weeks could not be committed outside a licensed hospital.

“‘At a time when other states are creating roadblocks to reproductive health and abortion care,’” declared Gov. Murphy in a statement quoted by Ms. Sielicki, “‘New Jersey is working to expand access to these vital services, especially for communities facing systemic, economic and logistical barriers to care.’”

Apparently, the protections stripped by the governor were not provided in statute but only in regulations, and “the new regulations,” Ms. Sielicki writes, citing as source, “were approved unanimously by the state’s Board of Medical Directors. In approving the [stripping of] the regulations, the Board found ‘that over-regulation of abortion creates public health “harms” by disrupting access to care.’”


Treading Lightly?

Oct. 15, 2021, Friday Fax report by Stefano Gennarini JD for the Center for Family & Human Rights

             Despite making progress for abortion and LGBT rights in the UN bureaucracy, the Biden Administration faces an uphill battle to get the General Assembly to explicitly endorse abortion and LGBT issues in UN resolutions.

             US diplomats are deep in negotiations of over a dozen UN resolutions touching on human rights and women’s issues, but the negotiations promise to remain deadlocked when it comes to abortion and LGBT rights as in past years.

             During negotiations over UN strategic plans last summer, where western donor countries’ influence is at its height, UN member states accepted language on “sexual orientation and gender identity” as well as “sexual and reproductive health and rights” for the first time, albeit with disclaimers and asserting national prerogatives. The US supported the language and opposed any disclaimers. It remains to be seen if the Biden Administration and its allies can carry either of those terms into UN resolutions, where they have been repeatedly rejected in the past and traditional countries feel more able to influence the outcome.

             Neither abortion nor LGBT rights are popular subjects in UN negotiations. Explicit language on these issues usually fails to make it into UN agreements. Traditional countries in Africa and Asia are not comfortable in debates about these issues, and do not think it is appropriate for western countries to impose their views.

             Since taking over the White House from Donald Trump, the Biden Administration has ramped up LGBT advocacy in UN negotiations but has been less aggressive on abortion. US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield was open about the commitment of the Biden administration to the LGBT cause in a video message ahead of the General Assembly’s general debate with world leaders last month. “The United States is using our diplomacy, our foreign assistance and every tool we have to protect human rights, empower civil society and support local LGBTQI+ movements,” she said.

             When it comes to abortion the United States is relying on its partners to do the heavy lifting, and it is relying on euphemisms like “sexual and reproductive health and rights” rather than openly asserting that abortion is an international right. US diplomats merely aligned with the European Union and Canada when language on “sexual and reproductive health and rights” was debated during negotiations on women’s issues and the work of UN agencies in the spring and summer.

             According to UN insiders who spoke with the Friday Fax, US diplomats did not appear to have their own priorities and targets when it comes to promoting abortion as they did with LGBT issues. They never openly promoted abortion as an international right, as some other nations have in the past, including Nordic countries, Canada, France, the United Kingdom and Germany.

             The relative silence of US diplomats on abortion may change once the Biden Administration’s Gender Policy Council begins to churn out directives for the US State Department. The Gender Council has broad authority to direct efforts to promote women’s rights throughout all federal agencies. Biden designated the Gender Council as the point of contact for the abortion industry last month.

             Biden promised to protect and promote “sexual and reproductive health and rights” in the United States and globally through a Presidential Memorandum [in] January 2021, a term commonly used by the abortion industry in UN policies and programming to promote abortion.

             The White House “strongly” endorsed the Women’s Health Protection Act last month, which declares abortion an international human right based on the views of UN experts regarding the application of UN terms like “sexual and reproductive health.”


Determined to Destroy

Oct. 19, 2021, Washington Update by Mary Szoch, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity

             In the latest iteration of the Biden Administration’s anti-Texas temper tantrum, the US Dept. of Justice (DOJ) has asked the US Supreme Court to place a hold on Texas Heartbeat Act (SB-8) until the legal challenges against the law have been decided.

             The DOJ is asserting that their request relies on different arguments than those already considered by the Court, claiming that the federal government has the authority to challenge SB-8 and that the Texas law is unconstitutional because it “interferes with the federal government’s own activities” and violates the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Texas has until Thursday to respond, and Christians everywhere should pray that the DOJ’s appeal fails.

             The Texas Heartbeat Act, which is estimated to save the lives of 150 babies every day, protects an unborn child in the womb after that child’s heart begins to beat. As the DOJ points out in its brief, an ultrasound can detect “cardiac motion [otherwise known as a heartbeat] beginning at approximately six weeks … but an embryo is not viable at six weeks, and many women do not even know they are pregnant at six weeks.”

             Under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, courts have typically declared pre-viability bans on abortion to be unconstitutional. However, the US Supreme Court has allowed the Texas Heartbeat Act to go into effect because, rather than relying on the government to enforce the law, SB-8 relies on private citizens to bring civil lawsuits against those who perform an abortion procedure or aid or abet one. Women cannot be held liable for attempting to obtain an abortion, but abortionists, clinic workers and people besides the woman paying for the abortion – anyone who performs an abortion on a woman’s baby or assists in that abortion in any way – can be sued for at least $10,000.

             Furthermore, under this law, “federal government employees and contractors who are required to facilitate abortion care cannot do so within the state.”

             In other words, the law allows Texans to stand up for the rights of their neighbors – including the unborn and women being coerced into having abortions – and it protects Texans who correctly believe abortion ends the life of an innocent unborn child in the womb from paying for this atrocity with their tax dollars.

             The DOJ’s frustration with the novel enforcement mechanism of SB-8 is evident, as they argue it was specifically designed to “evade ordinary constitutional review,” essentially admitting that Jonathan Mitchell, the attorney who designed the enforcement mechanism, outsmarted the pro-abortion industry. As Mitchell said, “It is practically impossible to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to statutes that establish private rights of action, because the litigants who will enforce the statute are hard to identify until they actually bring suit.” Basically, until someone sues a person who aids or abets an abortion, there is no one for pro-abortionists or the pro-abortion Biden Administration to bring a legal charge against. Of course, an abortionist could defy the law, but he risks a $10,000 penalty if he does so.

             Texas SB-8 recognizes the truth that each person is his brother’s keeper. The fact that the unborn child whose heart is beating has not yet reached the point of viability and cannot survive outside his mother’s womb does not make him any less of a person than a newborn child, who is also unable to survive without the aid of adults. What’s more, the fact that the unborn child is not yet “viable” does not make him any less of a human being created in the image and likeness of God with incalculable dignity and the right to life.

             The Biden Administration seems determined to reverse the life-saving Texas Heartbeat Act. Let’s pray for the President and his Administration to have a complete conversion of heart and for the US Supreme Court to once again protect the lives of the littlest Texans.