Life Advocacy Briefing

December 6, 2021

Quizzing the Lawyers / Is It ‘Build Better’ or ‘Kill More’?
Dangerous Retread / More Dropouts / Quotable
Language as a Powerful Political Tool / Prepare for Change
Musings from the Bench

Quizzing the Lawyers

THE SUPREME COURT QUESTIONED LITIGANTS last Wednesday in the Dobbs case, by which abortion businesses are suing to block enforcement of Mississippi’s post-15-week abortion ban. The state has appealed to the Court not only to uphold the groundbreaking law but also to vacate its stench-drenched Roe v. Wade edict.

Following the hearing, the high court, as expected, took the case under advisement for closed deliberations and discussions over the next several months. Increasing political pressure on the Court and on our elected officials is expected during those deliberations, and pro-life citizens should take this season to press candidates – for Congress and especially for state legislative offices – during the 2022 campaigns.

Fox News covered the Supreme Court’s oral arguments hearing by airing voice recordings of the various Justices questioning the parties after their presentations. We have transcribed certain of those recordings and publish them at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing, hoping to give our readers insight from the Justices as to the directions they seem – at this early stage – individually to be taking.


Is It ‘Build Better’ or ‘Kill More’?

READERS OF LIFE ADVOCACY BRIEFING ARE ASKED TO CALL their home-state US Senators now to urge a “no” vote on the massive Biden spending bill which the Regime has dubbed its “Build Back Better” bill. [Capitol switchboard: 1-202/224-3121]

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has repeatedly mentioned the lack of “Hyde” among his reasons for withholding a commitment to vote for the budget buster. Whether he continues to stand under massive media and lobby pressure remains to be seen. Calls to Sen. Manchin, as well as to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), another reputed holdout, urging them to stand strong against “Build Back Better” would be helpful along with calls to home-state Senators.

Six leaders in the US Conference of Catholic Bishops declared in an early November letter to Congress, reported by Kevin Jones for the Catholic News Agency (CNA), “‘It is completely unacceptable that the current House version of the Build Back Better Act expands taxpayer funding of abortion.’” That defect was not corrected before the massive measure narrowly passed the House; it is now pending in the Senate and continues to be pushed by the White House as a major White House objective.

“‘We have been consistent in our position,’” noted the bishops, reported by Mr. Jones, “‘and reiterate that it would be a calamity if the important and life-affirming provisions in this bill were accompanied by provisions facilitating and funding the destruction of unborn human life. … No proposal to support individuals needing affordable healthcare coverage should compel Americans to pay for the destruction of human life through their tax dollars.’ …

“The bishops emphasized,” reports CNA, “the need for funding protections that have traditionally been included in the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal funding for most abortions. …

“Language to exclude abortion in Medicaid is ‘insufficient and must be clarified,’ said the bishops,” writes Mr. Jones. “Language requiring a proposed healthcare affordability fund for states needs Hyde language, as do provisions for several public health grants. … The Catholic bishops,” notes Mr. Jones, “also voiced concern that no funding encourage assisted suicide. … [And] new funding rules could also exclude faith-based childcare providers and pre-K programs, the bishops said.

“‘Specifically,’” they wrote to the Congress, “‘while expanded access to early childcare and pre-K would be beneficial for many working families, we are concerned that the current provisions to do so – in a departure from the approach in existing federal programs – explicitly make providers recipients of federal financial assistance and attach new and troubling compliance obligations.’ These would ‘effectively exclude many faith-based providers’ and provide significant limits for families’ choices, said the bishops,” as reported by Mr. Jones.


Dangerous Retread

PRES. JOE BIDEN (D) HAS NOMINATED a former head of the federal Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to come back and head the agency.

It was under the administration of Robert Califf in 2016 that the FDA “enabled several modifications to a safety requirement for the abortion pill,” notes Carole Novielli, reporting for Live Action.

Those modifications included changes in the dosage, a change in the means of administration and changing the interval between the first and second drug in the two-drug cocktail.

Under Mr. Califf’s leadership, the FDA also changed its regulations to allow aborting mothers to take the abortion pills at home or wherever they wish, rather than requiring the chemicals to be administered in the abortion shop where they were dispensed.

Critically, the changes also lengthened the time frame when the abortion drug can be taken. When it was first approved for sale in the US, its dispensing was limited to the first seven weeks of a baby’s gestation. Under Mr. Califf, the FDA extended that time to 10 weeks.

Readers are asked to call their home-state Senators and request a “no” vote on any motion leading to confirmation of Robert Califf to head the FDA. [Capitol switchboard: 1-202/224-3121]


More Dropouts

SINCE WE PUBLISHED NAMES, in our most recent edition, of Democratic Members of Congress who have announced they are moving on to retirement or to run for other offices, a few more have said they will not seek re-election.

Additional Democratic Members bowing out at the end of this term are Representatives Tom Suozzi (NY), G.K. Butterfield (NC), Peter DeFazio (OR), E.B. Johnson (TX) and Peter Welch (VT). All are abortion advocates, as will be seen in our upcoming 2021 House Voting Record Index. Bye!



DEFINING THE UNBORN CHILD, from a sermon by Dr. Colin Smith, pastor of The Orchard Evangelical Free Church, Arlington Heights, Illinois, from his Unlocking the Bible radio broadcast: “This is not a potential life. This is a life, with great and eternal potential.”


Language as a Powerful Political Tool

Autumn, 2021, Update newsletter from Patients Rights Council, Steubenville, Ohio

             It’s been said that “All social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering.” How true that is. And no more is it evident than in the words used to promote assisted suicide.*

             A perfect example of this is a recent bill that expanded California’s assisted suicide law, euphemistically called the “End of Life Option Act.”

             Sen. Susan Eggman authored the California law when she was in the California Assembly. Modeled on Oregon’s law that permits doctors to prescribe a lethal overdose of drugs to certain patients, the California law went into effect in 2016. And it took fewer than five years for her and her colleagues to proclaim that the “safeguards” were actually “barriers” and “roadblocks” that prevented patients from accessing the law.

             Because virtually all assisted-suicide laws and proposals hearken back to Oregon’s law, Eggman did so when she proposed the expansion. She stated, “There’s been over 30 years of data from the state of Oregon that says there’s been no abuses.” That sounds good, but it’s not true.

             In fact, the truth is that there have not been any reports of abuses. Lack of reports of abuse does not equal lack of abuse any more than lack of reports of shootings in Chicago neighborhoods means that no shootings are occurring.

             From the time the Oregon law was implemented, Oregon officials have acknowledged that they have no way of being certain what is taking place. Although prescribing doctors are supposed to report to the Board of Medical Examiners if complications occur, nothing in the law gives anyone authority to investigate.

             Dr. Katrina Hedberg, who was the lead author of many of Oregon’s official reports, explained that there was no way to investigate whether reports were accurate or complete. Data for official reports is provided by prescribing physicians. And from the very beginning of implementation of Oregon’s law, the state department responsible for formulating Oregon’s official reports acknowledged that there was no way of knowing if reports provided by prescribing physicians were accurate or complete. “For that matter the entire account [received from prescribing doctors] could have been a cock-and-bull story. We assume, however, that physicians were being their careful accurate selves.” [Oregon Health Division, CD Summary, Vol. 48, No. 6 (March 16, 1999) pg. 2]

             Yet, Eggman based her claim on the need to expand California’s law on the fact that there had not been any abuses in Oregon. And California lawmakers fell for it. The expanded “End of Life Option Act” passed on Friday, Sept. 10, 2021, and was signed into law on Oct. 5th by Gov. Gavin Newsom [D].

             Note: In a November, 2018, article, Newsom, who was then California lieutenant governor, acknowledged he had helped his mother commit suicide in 2002. [The New Yorker, Nov. 5, 2018]

*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: We prefer to use the term “doctor-abetted suicide.”


Prepare for Change

Dec. 1, 2021, commentary by Bradley Mattes, president, Life Issues Institute

             Oral arguments for the Dobbs late-term abortion case took place today. Never before has there been such optimism that we will see the reversal of Roe v. Wade, or that it will be dramatically impacted by the Supreme Court’s ruling.

             There are a number of “firsts” that fuel the momentum for reversing Roe.

             Even abortion advocates sense that they are struggling against inevitable change, ushered in by the Dobbs late-term abortion case. Roe is nearly 50 years old. It was foisted upon Americans based on antiquated science and medicine and raw political extremism.

             Here are some of the reasons why we believe the landscape of abortion until birth will experience a judicial sea change.

             Viability – the ability to keep a baby alive outside the womb – was about 28 weeks in 1973. Today it is 22 weeks, with the occasional baby surviving at 21 weeks. Just last year Curtis Means set a world record for being the youngest premature baby to survive, born just 21 weeks and one day after conception.

             Ultrasound has flung open the window to the womb for all to see. Two generations of Americans have had their first baby picture taken while still in the womb. These images have been shared widely among family members and co-workers, etc. Millions of Americans are now aware of the beauty and awe of the unborn child.

             Substantial advancements have been made in understanding the preborn baby. At 15 weeks, 26 quarts of blood are daily pumped through their bodies by fully developed hearts. At 12 weeks, science reveals babies can have a conscious experience of pain, including the excruciating pain of a violent abortion.

             Based on the countless personal testimonies of men and women, we now know that abortion can inflict devastating psychological baggage. After-abortion counseling for both mothers and fathers has exposed an added dark side of “choice.”

             Physical complications of abortion can include infertility, premature birth, fast-spreading infections, sepsis and death. The continued presence of ambulances at abortion centers demonstrates that legal abortion isn’t health care, nor is it safe.

             Abortion facilities make added money by dissecting and selling the body parts of aborted babies. The Mississippi legislation would curtail a significant amount of this ghoulish industry, reminiscent of Nazi experimentation on Jews.

             These seedy dark sides of abortion speak volumes to the legitimacy of what radical feminists consider a sacred right.

             Women facing an unexpected pregnancy have not and will not be abandoned during their most desperate time of need – even when Roe is reversed. A nationwide network of over 2,700 pro-life pregnancy help centers offer free resources to support them throughout pregnancy, birth and beyond. Assistance with family mentoring, education and job training empowers women to say yes to life and enjoy productive lives. Women don’t have to choose between fulfilling careers or the lives of their babies.

             A majority of Americans believe compassion and commonsense should be woven into our laws on abortion. 80% believe abortion should be limited to the first three months. They oppose extreme legislation that ignores medical realities and allows abortion on demand until birth.

             Their desire for a kinder, gentler nation is reflected in the over 100 pro-life laws that were enacted this year alone. Americans hunger for a culture that respects and protects all of its citizens, including the most vulnerable among us.

             The collective effort of the pro-life movement has opened the eyes of millions of Americans to the reality of abortion, and they don’t like what they see.

             These documented findings have exposed Roe as a scientifically, medically and morally bankrupt decision. It’s time our laws reflect science that isn’t a half-century old.

             Reversing Roe will not ban all abortions in America, but once again allow states to enact laws that reflect the conscience of their citizens. Grassroots activism is where the pro-life movement excels. We understand that the battle to save babies and protect their mothers doesn’t end with the demise of Roe. It’s when the real work begins.

             America’s pro-life citizens are up for the challenge, ready to defend life and come to the aid of those who struggle in its aftermath.


Musings from the Bench

Life Advocacy Briefing’s transcription of Supreme Court Justice comments and questions aired via audio on Fox News on Dec. 1, 2021 (ellipses were employed by Fox News)

Justice Clarence Thomas: In the old days, we used to say it was a right to privacy that the Court found in the due process, substantive due process clause. … What are we relying on now?

Chief Justice John Roberts: I’d like to focus on the 15-week ban, because that’s not a dramatic departure from viability. It is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. … Not a prohibition; it’s a 15-week ban.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: How is your interest anything but a religious view? The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It’s still debated in religions. … So when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect the life, that’s a religious view, isn’t it?

Justice Sotomayor: Will this institution* survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? [*the Supreme Court]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh: If we think that the prior precedents are seriously wrong, if that, why then doesn’t the history of this Court’s practice with respect to those cases tell us that the right answer is actually return to the position of neutrality and not stick with those precedents in the same way that all those other cases didn’t? [Citing past cases where the Supreme Court has overturned long-standing precedents.]

Chief Justice Roberts: So, if viability, it seems to me, doesn’t have anything to do with choice – but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?

Chief Justice Roberts: When you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the People’s Republic of China and North Korea. And I don’t think you have to be in favor of looking to international law to set our Constitutional standards to be concerned … .

Justice Stephen Breyer: Feelings run high, and it is particularly important to show what we do in overturning a case is grounded in principle and not social pressure. Not political pressure.