Life Advocacy Briefing

Miss Us?

OUR ABSENCE HAS RESULTED FROM ILLNESS, and we covet the prayers of our readers for complete recovery. Thank you.

Bearing Fruit

A REPORT OUT OF TEXAS IS CONFIRMING: The Texas Heartbeat Act is saving lives. The report is from the state’s Health & Human Services Commission and was published in the Feb. 2 National Right to Life News (NRL News).

“The state agency reported a total of 2,197 abortions in Texas, compared to just one month before, which had an astonishing 5,404 abortions committed. The 2,197 abortions in September,” notes NRL News, “represent a 60% decrease in abortions.” Texas Right to Life estimates, based on the emerging reports, that the groundbreaking law “saves around 100 babies each day from the horrors of abortion.”

Give ’Em a Break!

LEGISLATION HAS BEEN FILED in the US House and the US Senate, reports Emily Mangiaracina for LifeSiteNews.com (LSN), to “financially assist mothers and discourage abortion by allowing mothers to claim tax credits for their unborn children.” Chief sponsor in the Senate is Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT); the House bill has been filed by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO). We list their co-sponsors below.

“The Child Tax Credit for Pregnant Moms Act … would allow mothers to save up to $2,000 in taxes through retroactive claims,” explains Ms. Mangiaracina, “for each unborn child who was either born alive, miscarried or stillborn. Live Action News,” she writes, “reported that ‘for mothers who choose adoption after birth, the biological mother and the child’s guardian would split the tax credit for the year of the child’s birth.’ …

“‘Expecting parents begin providing and preparing for their child the minute they learn they’re having a baby,’” Sen. Daines told the Daily Signal, quoted by the LSN reporter. “‘The child tax credit should reflect the fact that unborn children are children too. … From prenatal care to stocking up on baby supplies, this tax relief will help parents prepare for the arrival of their baby.’”

Co-sponsoring S-3537 with Sen. Daines are GOP Senators John Boozman (AR), Marco Rubio (FL), Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS), Josh Hawley (MO), Deb Fischer & Ben Sasse (NE), Kevin Cramer (ND), Jim Inhofe & James Lankford (OK), Tim Scott (SC), Mike Lee & Mitt Romney (UT).

Joining Representatives Jason Smith and Doug Lamborn as sponsors of HR-6505 are GOP Representatives Gosar & Schweikert (AZ); Mast & Salazar (FL); R.Davis & Miller (IL); Feenstra & Miller-Meeks (IA); LaTurner (KS); Graves (LA); Kelly & Palazzo (MS); Long, Luetkemeyer & Wagner (MO); Bacon (NE); Herrell (NM); Budd & Cawthorn (NC); Carey (OH); Mullin (OK); Babin, Burgess, Elizey, Granger & Weber (TX); Rodgers (WA), and McKinley (WV).

Lining Up at the Trough

PRES. BIDEN WON A RULING last week from the Cincinnati-based 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing him to reinstate taxpayer-funded abortion referrals in the so-called “family planning” program. He has been seeking to reinstate those subsidies since taking office; his predecessor had barred such referrals.

When Mr. Biden reversed the Trump policy, a coalition of 12 state attorneys general filed suit to block the referral policy, and the coalition had sought to suspend the Biden policy while the suit pends. The 6^th Circuit’s denial of their request makes it unlikely that the new rule can be blocked now before the federal government rolls out its next round of grants in March.

Joining Ohio Attorney General David Yost in seeking protection for conscientious taxpayers are the attorneys general of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and West Virginia.

It is widely expected that the 1,300 “family planning clinics” which withdrew from Title X funding during the Trump reform will likely now return to the federal government’s largesse.

Tennessee Given Grace to Protect the Vulnerable

THOUGH THE 6^th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REPORTEDLY SIGNALED it would not take up a hearing on Tennessee’s law banning discriminatory abortions – committed on the excuse of race, gender or a Down Syndrome diagnosis – until after the Supreme Court hands down its anticipated ruling on the Mississippi 15-week abortion ban, the appeals court meanwhile reinstated Tennessee’s law on a temporary basis.

The anti-discrimination law has seen multiple rulings since it was enacted in 2020, and though the most recent appellate ruling is just one step along the pro-life law’s journey, its reinstatement offers protection to the most vulnerable among us.

Alabama Persisting

AFTER BEING DENIED THE RIGHT TO ENFORCE ITS PARENTAL CONSENT LAW, the state of Alabama has won a rehearing of the case in the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

A three-judge panel of the 11^th Circuit blocked enforcement of Alabama’s family protection law last June, but Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall filed for a rehearing before the full court. In late January, 10 of the court’s 11 judges voted to grant a rehearing, vacating the injunction.

Using ‘the Pandemic’ to Circumvent the Rules

Jan. 28, 2022, Live Action report by Cassy Fiano-Chesser

             Michele Gomez, an abortionist and self-proclaimed “activist physician,” has talked to Ms. Magazine about her career and described how she prescribes abortion pills via telemedicine conferences that can be as short as 10 minutes.

             Gomez said her abortion facility began offering the abortion pill shortly after it was approved by the FDA and began offering telemedicine abortions when the pandemic started: “During the pandemic, a lot of us were horrified when some states deemed abortion a ‘non-essential’ service when we knew it was a time of great uncertainty and there might be even more people who would feel unsure about continuing a pregnancy. As clinicians who have known and cared for patients for many years, we could actually feel the fear and confusion and wanted to do what we could to help. I’m incredibly fortunate to live in California, where reproductive rights are protected, so I helped our office start providing telemedicine abortions to make it easier and more accessible to patients.”

             Inspired by Plan C and Aid Access, Gomez set up her own system for dispensing the abortion pill through telemedicine, following the “no test” protocol frequently promoted by Dr. Daniel Grossman. This means a woman seeking to take the abortion pill at home will not receive a blood test or an ultrasound first, making it impossible to determine her [baby’s] true gestational age, if she has an extrauterine pregnancy or has any contraindications for the abortion pill. Gomez, however, argued that giving women the abortion pill without doing any testing whatsoever is a positive thing. “It was really heartening to see so many people in the world of abortion care, each with their own expertise, working together to help each other expand access wherever and however they could,” she said. “It was a sanity-saving contrast to so many other terrible things that were happening at the time.”

             To commit a telemedicine abortion, Gomez said she has patients fill out a questionnaire before their video conference and told Ms. Magazine that the video chats can often be quick. “I think the last patient I saw was under 10 minutes to go over everything, answer their questions and let them know I’d be available,” she said. “I’ve also had some video visits that are 20-30 minutes long, because the patient either really wanted to talk about their feelings or things that were going on or had a lot of questions.”

             This is concerning for numerous reasons. First, there is no way a 10-minute online chat, without a blood test or ultrasound, can rule out any of the numerous things that can make the abortion pill a higher risk. One of those risks is ectopic pregnancy, which is life-threatening for women, and even without this potential complication, the abortion pill has already been found to be four times more dangerous than first-trimester surgical abortions. Without an ultrasound, Gomez can’t do proper gestational dating, so if the woman ends up being wrong about how far along she is, it can have dire consequences. The abortion pill is not meant to be taken past 10 weeks of pregnancy; doing so led to the deaths of two women in the United Kingdom, and a 28-week preborn child also died last year when a woman took the abortion pill without supervision. Numerous other women, per a leaked National Health Service e-mail, had serious complications.

             Second, this kind of situation is rife with the potential for abuse. With a mere video conference, and a short one at that – there is no possible way for Gomez to properly assess if the woman is seeking the abortion pill of her own volition. Coerced abortions are not rare, despite what the abortion industry may claim, and abusers often use abortion as a tool to cover up their crimes. Even abortionists have admitted that abortion does not help solve the issue of domestic violence, and a 10-minute telemedicine conference will do nothing to protect a potential victim from an angry abuser lurking off-screen, threatening her is she doesn’t go through with the abortion.

             Furthermore, Gomez said she doesn’t perform any follow-up care afterward, assuming that “most people understand what’s supposed to happen, know their bodies and know how to get help if they need it.” … Yet many women have no idea what can happen when they undergo a chemical abortion. Women have spoken of how unprepared they were for the pain and trauma of the abortion pill process, including copious amounts of bleeding, and have described it in words like “horrific,” “terrifying,” “humiliating” and “like the scene of a murder.” Yet Gomez assumes women should know how painful a chemical abortion should or should not be, and whether they need to get medical attention later.

             The lack of in-person medical help during a chemical abortion not only kills a child – it puts women at even greater risk.

No Respect

Feb. 2, 2022, report by Dave Andrusko in National Right to Life News

             For the second time in a year, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Alison Hatheway issued a preliminary injunction blocking an Ohio law (SB-17) that required fetal remains from surgical abortions to be cremated or buried. Judge Hatheway first blocked SB-17 last April, just days before the law was to go into effect. In December of 2020, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed the fetal tissue into law.

             Beyond the usual huffing and puffing, … the litigants, represented by the ACLU, basically argue that the state “singles out” the remains of aborted babies for treatment different than the way other “infectious waste” is disposed. The abortion clinics also maintain that the law is an unconstitutional obstacle in women’s legal right to an abortion.

             The injunction Judge Hatheway “granted will stand until a lawsuit against the Ohio Dept. of Health and others determines the permanent fate of the law,” says the Associated Press’s Julie Carr. “The litigation challenges the law as an unconstitutional hurdle to women’s legal right to an abortion, as well as ‘frivolous and medically unnecessary.’”

             In Wednesday’s order, Judge Hatheway said the bill would not go into effect until she makes her final judgment on the case, said Oriana Gonzalez. “Providers would have been required to be compliant with the law by Feb. 8.”

             Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, said, “The calloused actions of the abortion industry truly know no bounds. …

             “Requiring the broken bodies of abortion victims to be humanely buried is simply common decency. The abortion industry’s desire to deny the innocent unborn even the right to a proper burial reveals where their allegiances lie: Not with basic decency but with their bottom line. Regardless of all obstacles thrown in our way, Pro-Life Ohio will never cease our advocacy until the dignity of every precious and irreplaceable human life is both respected and protected under law.”

Blindsiding America?

Feb. 4, 2022, End-of-Day Memo commentary by Gary Bauer

             As we noted yesterday, Joe Biden went to New York City to deliver remarks about crime. He didn’t say one word about left-wing prosecutors coddling criminals or our revolving-door justice system that releases thugs with no bail required. Instead, he pushed plans to restrict the 2^nd Amendment, insisting that “no right is absolute.”

             Here’s what you must understand: When it comes to our rights, and especially those articulated in the Constitution, there is a presumption that they are not to be restricted. Any government official who wants to restrict our rights should be viewed with considerable suspicion, and they bear a heavy legal burden to demonstrate an extreme need to limit our rights.

             In spite of what Biden said, he and the entire left-wing juggernaut actually does believe there is a right that is absolute and unlimited. More absurdly, this right is not even in the Constitution. To them, it’s the most precious right of all – the right to destroy innocent pre-born children.

             Unlike the 2^nd Amendment right in the Constitution, which often results in lives being saved, the so-called “right” they cherish is always intended to result in death.

             The Left worships at the altar of abortion on demand. Democrats oppose every commonsense restriction to abortion. They believe abortions must be allowed at any time for any reason or no reason at all, up to the moment of birth and even after birth.

             Democrats support abortion if the baby’s gender is “wrong.” They support abortion to continue the genocide of individuals with Down Syndrome. They won’t restrict abortions when the baby can feel pain or when the baby has a heartbeat.

             Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi can’t name one abortion they would prevent. In fact, Democrats are so pro-abortion, they want to force you to pay for other people’s abortions.

             The Left wants to erase rights explicitly stated in the Constitution, but they are absolutists about a right that isn’t in the Constitution. And it is not there. No one found a right to abortion in the Constitution from 1787 to 1972.

             When they claimed there was a constitutional right to abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, they were simply wrong. It is an error that, hopefully, will soon be corrected.