Life Advocacy Briefing

May 23, 2022

Reflections / Slippery Slope Wedges / Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks
Self Exposure / You Can’t Make This Stuff Up / Model Response
Distressing Reality / Extremism on Full Display


WE ARE CATCHING UP TODAY on a couple of commentaries which we find timely and worthy of reflection, as we approach the day when the Supreme Court – after 49 years of a Court-imposed culture of death leading to the pre-birth deaths of more than 60 million little Americans – likely will at last overturn the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton edicts, along with the tragic Casey decision. We hope you will benefit from these analyses, which you will find at and near the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing.

Much of our content today focuses on the rhetoric involved in the growing tussle over abortion policy, as the Left grows increasingly frantic. We hope you will enjoy these peeks into the abortion lobby’s angst and perhaps gather rhetorical tactics toward building increasingly needed support for the paramount cause of Life.


Slippery Slope Wedges

WE TRANSCRIBED TWO JAW-DROPPING QUOTES from Fox News last Wednesday which we think will be instructive to our readers. Both these quotes come from Democratic Members of Congress, and both show a disturbing effort to attach the coming abortion issue – pending the Supreme Court’s expected return of authority to the states in the abortion arena – to voter distress over the inflationary policies of the Biden Regime and its backers in the Congress. Fox News’s Harris Faulkner likened these remarks to the divisive, hateful rhetoric which led to World War II. See what you think these two US Representatives are thinking out loud:

Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) to a Democratic conference: “Has anything done more to help women gain the footing in the workplace and advance professional careers in advancement which has been great for the American economy? Roe v. Wade has benefited everyone in America, whether they know it or not, whether they even appreciate it or not.”

Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) in an MSNBC interview: “The fact that things like inflation can happen, and it can be more expensive to feed your kids and to fuel your car is exactly why people need to be able to be in charge of how many mouths they’re going to have to feed.”

Read that Porter quote again and think through its full implications. Who are these people, and how did they get to the nation’s Capitol?


Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks

 MEMO FROM THE HOUSE ‘PRO-CHOICE’ CAUCUS, published by Politico and reported by Ashley Sadler for LifeSiteNews, appears to be advising abortion-advocating incumbent candidates “to trade out a slew of popular pro-abortion talking points for less politically charged phrases,” notes Ms. Sadler, in the lead-up to the political explosion expected to be touched off within the next six weeks, as the Supreme Court deliberates how to phrase its long overdue vacating of the federal right to abortion.

The pro-abortion lawmakers are being advised by co-chairmen Representatives Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Barbara Lee (D-CA), notes Ms. Sadler, “to avoid using ‘harmful’ language like ‘choice’ and ‘unwanted pregnancy’ when discussing abortion, or referring to dangerous ‘back-alley abortions.’”

Wait, what? What are they going to say if not such terms as they are warning against? This has been their euphemistic language for nearly 50 years!

“Instead, the memo urged Democrat lawmakers,” reports Ms. Sadler, “to exchange the word ‘choice’ for ‘decision,’ and use the phrase ‘safe, legal and accessible’ instead of ‘safe, legal and rare.’ Rather than ‘unwanted pregnancy,’ lawmakers are advised to say ‘unexpected pregnancy.’ …

Twitter users have been quick to point out the irony,” writes Ms. Sadler, “that the so-called ‘Pro-Choice Caucus’ would consider the word ‘choice’ to be harmful to the abortion debate.”

(Could it be that voters have succeeded in pointing out the irony of vaccine-mandate demanders advocating “choice” in “health care” when it comes to aborting a baby?)

Meanwhile, the advice to update politically damaging rhetoric on abortion,” writes Ms. Sadler, “does not appear to have been met with universal approbation on the left. Politico noted that some Democrats are ‘privately raising concerns about rebooting the party’s messaging on abortion at such a critical time,’ when the Supreme Court appears ready to overturn the nationwide ‘right to abortion.’”


Self Exposure

ANOTHER AMAZING CLAIM by a pro-abortion official was rebuffed by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) during an astounding appearance by the Biden Regime’s Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, reports Clare Marie Merkowsky for LifeSiteNews.

On May 10, “while testifying before the Senate Banking Committee,” writes Ms. Merkowsky, Secretary “Yellen claimed that [the] Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which imposed abortion on demand across the USA, increased women’s participation in the workplace,” and said so approvingly.” In response, Sen. Scott “asked [Secy.] Yellen to clarify if she meant that ‘ending the life of a child is good for the labor-force participation rate,” reports LifeSiteNews.

“‘One aspect of a satisfying life,’” replied the Treasury Secretary, “‘is being able to feel that you have the financial resources to raise a child, that the children you bring into the world are wanted, and that you have the ability to take care of them.’” If that was not bad enough, the former Federal Reserve chairman stirred the ire of Sen. Scott by elaborating, “‘In many cases abortions are of teenage women, particularly low income and often black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability, often, to continue their education.’”

Retorted Sen. Scott, “‘I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I am thankful to be here as a United States Senator.’” (We are thankful he is there, too!)

“He stressed,” reports Ms. Merkowsky, “‘the importance of understanding the reality that even during tough financial times, in households like the one where I was raised, there is still hope. My circumstance,’” Sen. Scott said to Secy. Yellen, “‘is like so many others … millions of kids being raised in poverty by single-parent households who happen to be black. Telling black teenage moms that there is only one alternative for them is a depressing and challenging message,’ he continued.” It is also a sales pitch for Planned Parenthood and its fellow-traveling abortionists. 

“Abortion significantly affects the African-American population,” notes LifeSiteNews, “with 38.4% of US abortions in 2019 committed on black babies, although they are only around 14% of the population.” Secretary Yellen appears to think that is a positive statistic.


You Can’t Make This Stuff Up

IT AMAZES US SOMETIMES how transparently foolish are the statements of abortion advocates, and we’ve published several examples in this Life Advocacy Briefing. Here is yet another!

“In a recent interview responding to the Supreme Court draft opinion leak,” writes Clare Marie Merkowsky for LifeSiteNews, “an NBC report slated the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade, saying it would ‘force’ women ‘to have pregnancies that will then turn into children.’” Who writes this stuff?

The LifeSiteNews reporter goes on to quote a “tweet” by NBC reporter Yamiche Alcindor, “recount[ing] the events at Mississippi’s last abortion center. ‘While conservatives are celebrating the possible end of Roe v. Wade,’” she tweeted, quoted by Ms. Merkowsky, “‘some women here tell me they feel “gutted,” “devastated” and’” – wait for it – “‘“like someone has died.”’”


Model Response

THE MOBS THAT MARCHED RECENTLY on the otherwise peaceful home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito were rebuffed in their anger by a gentle neighbor, reports Clare Marie Merkowsky in LifeSiteNews.

Though Justice Alito and his family had been moved from their home after their address was published on the Internet, their neighbors had to put up with hundreds of demonstrators in their quiet Alexandria, Virginia, neighborhood.

It is highly doubtful that the 200-some chanting demonstrators expected to be greeted as they were, by an Alito neighbor, playing on the piano the peaceful hymn ’Tis So Sweet to Trust in Jesus.

“‘I wanted to do something to counter the noise, the chaos, the sadness of those protesting Life in front of an empty house,’ [Justice] Alito’s neighbor told Standing for Freedom Center editor-in-chief John Wesley Reid,” reports Ms. Merkowsky. “‘There is nothing more steadfast than the joy of worshipping our Savior through precious hymns,’ the neighbor continued” in the LifeSiteNews story.


Distressing Reality

April 20, 2022, End of Day commentary by Campaign for Working Families president Gary Bauer

             Those of us in the pro-life movement have long argued that the Supreme Court’s legal embrace of abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case created a “culture of death” in America. That culture of death not only poisons the minds of those in the abortion industry, it also corrupts others as well, to the point that they become “pro-abortion.”

             Many liberals object to that term. “No one is ‘pro-abortion,’” they insist. Really? Joe Biden is trying to force you to pay for abortions with your tax dollars, and he is trying to force Christian doctors and nurses and Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. That’s not “pro-choice.” That’s pro-abortion!

             In recent years, the left has fully embraced its pro-abortion activism with a movement called “Shout Your Abortion.” In other words, don’t be ashamed about killing an innocent baby, brag about it. That’s pro-abortion!

             One [woman] took to social media recently to “shout her abortion.” She tweeted: “Abortion is health care. And also traumatic, so if you have one, gather all your closest friends after to celebrate. Be around endless love and happiness for your decision. Thanks for everyone who came last night.”

             To emphasize her point, she posted a photo of the cake they had when she and her friends celebrated the death of her innocent preborn child. “It’s a boy” was written in blue icing on the top of the cake. But there were additional letters on top of that in black icing, so the whole message read, “It’s aborted.”

             I am saddened and angry that for some Americans “freedom” today means the right to destroy innocent preborn life and to party afterwards. That’s pro-abortion. And that callous attitude toward life is what the culture of death has wrought in America.

             They claim it’s just health care. It’s not. Health care is about saving life. Abortion is the exact opposite – it’s meant to guarantee death. It’s the taking of an innocent life. It should be a matter of serious soul searching, not celebration.

             Very soon, we’ll find out whether the Supreme Court is willing to begin reversing the damage of Roe v. Wade by providing some protection for innocent preborn children. I’m praying it will. If it does, not only will innocent babies be saved but we can begin to reverse the culture of death that prevails today and begin to restore a culture of life in America. [Amen.]


Extremism on Full Display

April 14, 2022, commentary by National Right to Life News Today editor Dave Andrusko

             I have long believed that a critical point of vulnerability for the any-and-all-abortion-at-any- time-throughout-pregnancy crowd are abortions performed for the specific reason that the baby has been diagnosed with Down syndrome. We’ve posted and reposted literally dozens of stories on the subject.

             NRL News Today has often included excerpts from Circuit Court opinions which support a law, such as Ohio’s HB-214, that “prohibits a doctor from performing an abortion if that doctor knows that the woman’s reason for having the abortion is that she does not want a child with Down syndrome,” as stated by Judge Alice M. Batchelder in her majority opinion.

             Pro-abortionists have long since said adios to their once-preferred public posture: those abortions ought to be “safe, legal and rare.” However, “discrimination-motivated abortions,” as pro-life Wyoming State Rep. John Romero-Martinez puts it, require “progressives” to abandon any pretenses.

             Enter LosAngeles Times we’re-not-fooling-around editorial: “The right to an abortion means the right to have it for any reason.” The editorial laments, of course, the “hundreds of unjustified restrictions that state legislatures have passed in the last decade to curtail a woman’s right to an abortion up to the point when a fetus is viable outside a woman’s body (roughly 24 weeks into a pregnancy).”

             But they are particularly angry over the “recent passel of laws that bar women from having an abortion for certain reasons – for example, to select the child’s gender or to avoid a genetic anomaly like Down syndrome,” even though these laws “have often been blocked by courts.”

             To be clear, as Judge Batchelder made clear, until and unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise, a woman can abort a child because she learns her unborn child has Down syndrome. Period. One of the “passel” of laws, in this instance, says only that the abortionist cannot abort the child if he knows that is the reason this life will be “terminated.” Needless to say, getting an abortion under these circumstances requires a wink and a nod.

             The Times editorial feigns sorrow about how the law may work against protecting people with Down syndrome from discrimination “And did it occur to state legislators and the appellate judge that the more deeply and candidly a woman can discuss her options and possible decision with her doctor – who may also be the one performing the abortion – the more information she may get about Down syndrome, which could help to overcome the stigma the law cites?” Really? Are we supposed to believe that hard-core pro-abortionists, such as the op-ed page writers for the LosAngeles Times, are really concerned that these laws are “counterproductive”? Please.

             Indeed, having pretended for a whole paragraph that this had anything to do with anything other than erecting fortifications around abortion-on-demand, in the very next sentence we read, “But at the end of the day, it is still an unconstitutional ban on abortion … .” At the end of the day, the end of an “unwanted” child’s life is all that matters.

             Let’s take a moment to refer back to Judge Batchelder’s majority opinion that upheld Ohio’s Down Syndrome Non-Discrimination Act, HB-214. Judge Batchelder summarized the state of Ohio’s view of the benefits of the law in this manner. “Ohio asserts that HB-214 furthers three valid and legitimate interests by protecting: (1) the Down syndrome community from the practice of Down-syndrome-selective abortions and the stigma associated with it; (2) pregnant women and their families from coercion by doctors who advocate the abortion of Down-syndrome-afflicted fetuses; and (3) the integrity and ethics of the medical profession by preventing doctors from becoming willing participants in Down-syndrome-selective abortions. These are legitimate interests.”

             As for whether the law imposes an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, she concludes: “We hold that the restrictions imposed or burdens created by HB-214 do not create a substantial obstacle to a woman’s ability to choose or obtain an abortion. Moreover, those restrictions are reasonably related to, and further, Ohio’s legitimate interests. Therefore, HB-214 is valid in all conceivable cases, and the plaintiffs cannot succeed on the merits of their claim.”

             Judge Stuart Sutton in his concurrence asked, “How did it happen that an anti-eugenics law is not the kind of law that reasonable people could compromise over in the context of broader debates about abortion policy? … The national Constitution permits states to convey their interest in the dignity of all human beings in all manner of ways. Most basic of all, a state may seek to avoid the stigma that comes with publicly acknowledged discrimination against the born and the unborn based on disability, sex and race.”

             Of course, the LosAngeles Times editorial board would cry foul. The “right” to abortion is absolute, without room for any limitation, no matter what, they’ve proudly announced. That may be the viewpoint in the lofty corners of elite (and one-time elite) newspapers. It is not the view of a growing number of states and public opinion.