Life Advocacy Briefing

Getting Ready

FOCUS ON THE FAMILY HAS TAKEN ITS ‘SEE LIFE’ PROGRAM to a livestream presentation on the Internet. This year’s presentation will feature commentators Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens and will air live on June 14. Those wishing to view the program – and perhaps share it with others – may register at https://www.focusonthefamily.com/seelife22. As June approaches, so does the likely announcement of the Supreme Court’s abandonment of its 1973 edict mandating the tolerance throughout America of the intentional killing of unborn boys and girls.

Brace Yourself

AS THE NATION AWAITS THE LONGED-FOR JETTISONING of the decades-long Supreme Court embrace of unfettered abortion, the Biden Regime is preparing to keep abortion legal and celebrated with our public policy and our tax dollars.

On May 15, Live Action’s Bettina diFiore reported, based on a Reuters news story, “Pres. Biden is considering a variety of measures – including executive orders – to support so-called abortion ‘access’ in a post-Roe America.”

She relates an announcement May 10 by then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki “that the President has asked the White House Gender Policy Council, the Dept. of Health & Human Services and the White House Counsel’s Office to draft a plan ‘to protect women’s rights. … It may not all be executive orders,’” said Ms. Psaki, according to the Live Action report. “‘A lot of this is ensuring that we have increased access and funding so that women who are living in the states, if Roe were to be overturned, would be able to have expanded access and capabilities, and some of that could be from the Dept. of Justice.’”

Ms. Psaki “explained,” reports Ms. DiFiore, “that the DOJ is being prepped to defend abortionists, pharmacies that dispense the abortion pill and women who obtain abortions from criminal cases and lawsuits,” though, as the Live Action reporter notes, the US Dept. of Justice does not have jurisdiction to interfere with the jurisprudence of state law.

But the developing storm goes on. “One measure being considered by the Administration,” reports Ms. DiFiore, “is pressuring the Food & Drug Administration to make the abortion pill more readily available, perhaps by making it easier for people to order it online, across state lines and from overseas,” a practice already developing despite current FDA guidelines restricting its dispensing. And, notes Ms. DiFiore, “making the pill available by mail is a system that has been repeatedly abused by predators.

“The Biden Administration,” she warns, “is also considering asking HHS and the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to allow Medicaid funds to be used for travel expenses for low-income women seeking abortion outside of their home states. This would require American taxpayers to subsidize abortion, regardless of their personal convictions.”

Ms. Psaki indicated, notes Ms. DiFiore, “the White House would not detail the specifics of its plans until after the Supreme Court issues its final decision” in the pending Dobbs case. Plots like these are among the reasons we are so grateful to our founders that they established a republic, when they could have chosen the more traditional governance framework of monarchy.

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: While typing this distressing item, your editor was blessed by remembering continually the words from a spiritual song she first heard – and sang – in 1980 in a church on the south side of Chicago, pastored by the late Rev. Hiram Crawford: “Nobody told me the road would be easy – And I don’t believe He’s brought me this far to leave me.” Looking up those words on the Internet, we found they are in the chorus to a song called “Can’t Give Up Now,” by Curtis Burrell, Warryn Campbell, Tina Campbell & Erica Campbell.]

The Winner Is:

THOUGH HE STILL MUST FACE A GENERAL ELECTION OPPONENT, we congratulate US Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) on his narrow victory in last Tuesday’s runoff contest with a left-wing woman backed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

Though his voting record on Life is not at the 100% level, Rep. Cuellar is considered the sole pro-life Democrat in the US House; most of his contrary votes have come on procedural questions, not on actual policy matters.

With an apparent margin of just 177 votes, the contest could yet become mired in recount, and his opponent did not concede after he declared victory around midnight. But for now, we express our delight that Rep. Cuellar appears to have survived the massive left-wing onslaught that sought to dominate his Laredo-area district.

Stateside

• CONNECTICUT IS PREPARING for the overturning of Roe by hanging out a welcome sign for abortionists and for mothers who are seeking abortions. Gov. Ned Lamont (D) signed a new law in early May that will, reports Nancy Flanders for Live Action, “allow non-doctors to commit abortions while also protecting any Connecticut-residing abortionist or resident who assists in an illegal abortion in another state and faces a lawsuit because of it.” The new law also “‘protect[s] … patients seeking abortion care in Connecticut who may be traveling from other states that have outlawed abortion,’” notes Ms. Flanders, quoting from a governor’s office news release. Commented the Live Action reporter, the new law “could work to protect groomers, sexual abusers and sex traffickers.” She further notes, “Allowing non-doctors to commit abortions makes the already dangerous practice of abortion even more dangerous for women.”

• ILLINOIS GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D) gave a speech May 11 at the Fairview Heights Planned Parenthood, a short drive from the Mississippi River which borders Illinois on the west, “celebrat[ing] Illinois as an abortion destination,” reports the Illinois Federation for Right to Life. “‘More than 75% of this clinic’s patients are from out of state,’” bragged the governor. Notes IFRL: “The Fairview Heights Planned Parenthood clinic was constructed secretly under the name of a shell company. The primary reason for its creation was to combat pro-life policies enacted in Missouri. Since then,” IFRL reports, “the clinic has also created a national call center to connect women with abortion resources.” Also in Illinois, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) announced early this month she has earmarked $500,000, reports LifeSiteNews writer Matt Lamb, “to help women abort their babies,” calling the proposed expenditure “‘reproductive health investments,’” with the line item to go, stated the mayor, quoted by Mr. Lamb, “‘to support transportation, lodging, follow-up care and if necessary, the safe and legal procedure of abortion.’”

• MICHIGAN COURT OF CLAIMS JUDGE Elizabeth Gleicher on May 17 “issued a preliminary injunction,” reports Ashley Sadler for LifeSiteNews, “against the state’s 1931 pro-life law that would have functioned to protect Michigan’s unborn babies in the event Roe v. Wade is overturned.” The injunction had been sought by Planned Parenthood of Michigan. The suspended law, notes Ms. Sadler, “had made it a felony to commit abortions except to save the life of the mother, and banned the advertisement or sale of abortion-inducing drugs.” Though unenforceable during the Roe regime, it is still on the books, and pro-life policymakers have been expecting it would activate the minute the Supreme Court vacates the Roe “It remains to be seen,” writes Ms. Sadler, “whether attorneys will seek to challenge Gleicher’s preliminary injunction against Michigan’s 1931 pro-life law. [The] decision came in spite of previous calls from Christian attorneys to throw out Planned Parenthood’s challenge to the pro-life law.” Given that the Michigan constitution does not offer the abortion trade a particle of protection, the judge’s action appears to be without legal foundation.

• NEBRASKA GOV. PETE RICKETTS (R) HAS DECLARED, reports Ashley Sadler for LifeSiteNews, “he plans to call a special legislative session to immediately outlaw all abortions … if the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. … Asked whether the intended pro-life legislation … would also ban abortions in cases of rape or incest, Ricketts replied, ‘They’re still babies, too. Yes.’” Amen!

• OKLAHOMA GOV. KEVIN STITT (R) IS EXPECTED soon to sign HB-4327, which, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “bans any procedure that ‘cause[s] the death of an unborn child’ except in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life. Like the Texas Heartbeat Act, it would be enforced via civil suits brought by Oklahoma residents, punishable by at least $10,000 per abortion.” The President’s new press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, has already attacked the pending bill, calling it, notes Mr. Freiburger, “‘part of a growing effort by ultra-MAGA officials across the country to roll back the freedoms we should not take for granted in this country.’” Gov. Stitt, notes Mr. Freiburger, “has previously signed a law making abortion a felony, without rape or incest exceptions.” That law cannot be enforced until the Supreme Court vacates the Roe v. Wade edict. “By contrast,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “the Texas law’s enforcement mechanism has so far been allowed to take effect.” This new Oklahoma law provides a second track for driving abortion out of the state while waiting for the criminal statute to become ripe.

Hilarious!

May 12, 2022, report by Ashley Sadler for LifeSiteNews

             The Pro-Choice Caucus [in Congress] is advising Democrat lawmakers to trade out a slew of popular pro-abortion talking points for less politically charged phrases, as the US Supreme Court appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

             In a memo sent to House Democrats and obtained by Politico, the Pro-Choice Caucus led by Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette and California Rep. Barbara Lee advised lawmakers to avoid using “harmful” language like “choice” and “unwanted pregnancy” when discussing abortion, or referring to dangerous “back-alley abortions.”

             Instead, the memo urged Democrat lawmakers 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.”

             Democrats are also encouraged not to refer to laws protecting the religious rights of healthcare providers as a “conscience clause” or “conscience protections,” instead referring to such legislation as the “refusal” or “denial” of “care.”

             Despite advocating for lawmakers to drop the use of the word “choice” in their abortion messaging, the Pro-Choice Caucus has not announced any plans to change its own name.

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

             “Pro-Choice Caucus decides its own name is harmful LOL,” tweeted Washington Examiner reporter Jeff Dunleavy on Thursday. “The ‘pro-choice’ caucus doesn’t want Democrats to say ‘choice’… or for abortion to be rare,” Republican Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana also pointed out.

             Meanwhile, the advice to update politically damaging rhetoric on abortion 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.”

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: We have long known the abortion cartel uses lies to disparage pro-life candidates and boost their own apologists. We find the massaging of the messaging being promoted by abortion advocates on Capitol Hill to be hilarious and look forward to seeing how pretzel-like their candidates become when they attempt to take this advice seriously.] soon to sign HB-4327, which, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “bans any procedure that ‘cause[s] the death of an unborn child’ except in cases of rape, incest or to save a mother’s life. Like the Texas Heartbeat Act, it would be enforced via civil suits brought by Oklahoma residents, punishable by at least $10,000 per abortion.” The President’s new press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, has already attacked the pending bill, calling it, notes Mr. Freiburger, “‘part of a growing effort by ultra-MAGA officials across the country to roll back the freedoms we should not take for granted in this country.’” Gov. Stitt, notes Mr. Freiburger, “has previously signed a law making abortion a felony, without rape or incest exceptions.” That law cannot be enforced until the Supreme Court vacates the Roe v. Wade edict. “By contrast,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “the Texas law’s enforcement mechanism has so far been allowed to take effect.” This new Oklahoma law provides a second track for driving abortion out of the state while waiting for the criminal statute to become ripe.

Facing Reality

May 17, 2022, BreakPoint Daily commentary by John Stonestreet & Stephanie Gray Connors

             Last week at our annual Wilberforce Weekend conference, we held a pre-event on Thursday evening to discuss what it means to prepare for a post-Roe future. The presentations were exceptional across the board. Today, I want you to hear from my friend Stephanie Gray Connors. She responded throughout the evening to various slogans used in our culture to promote abortion. Here’s one of the short talks she gave in response to the slogan, “legal abortion saves women’s lives.” Here’s Stephanie Gray Connors:

             Legal abortion saves women’s lives. Why is that claim made? It’s made to imply that if abortion becomes illegal, it will be unsafe. And the question we want to ask is this, “For who? Abortion will be unsafe for who?” Because abortion is always unsafe, whether legal or illegal, for the pre-born child.

             Another point we want to make is to ask this question: “Even if abortion, when legal, is safer for women than illegal – even if we were to concede that – is it ethical to legalize homicide just to make it safer for those who participate in it?”

             We could come up with a little parable and say, imagine you’re a nurse in an emergency room and a man comes in with broken, bruised, swollen, bloodied knuckles. And so you begin bandaging his wounds, and you say, “Sir, what happened that caused this to you?” And he replies, “I was beating my wife tonight, and this resulted.” Would it make sense for the nurse to say, “You know, we really need to legalize spousal abuse and give men boxing gloves so that when they beat their wives, they don’t hurt themselves”? Now, we would never say that. Why? Because we recognize what brought on the infliction of harm to the man was infliction of harm to another.

             And so, the question is, “When an abortion occurs, does that abortion inflict harm on the most vulnerable to the human child or human beings – … the pre-born child?” And if the answer is yes, then we may not legalize it.

             But when I hear that false claim from abortion supporters – legal abortion saves women’s lives – what I’m hearing is a concern for women’s lives, and on that, I can agree. As a woman, most particularly, I too am concerned about my life and the lives of other women. But my concern is not just that women survive. I want women to thrive.

             So, we have to ask the question, “What makes a woman thrive?” And I would suggest the answer is what makes a woman or anyone thrive is, they live to the fullness of who they were created to be. And the ultimate fulfillment, biologically, the greatest level of maturity for a woman is maternity, is having offspring. A woman is called to motherhood, whether that is lived out through the physical reality of biological mother or the spiritual reality of spiritual motherhood. But the point is, all women at the heights of their maturity are called to motherhood.

             What is abortion? It is a rejection of that. I have worked full-time in the pro-life movement for 20 years. I have seen a lot of people on both sides of the debate, and I can tell you the most bitter people I have met over the last two decades are people who have rejected their maternity, and the happiest, most thriving women I have met are those who have embraced their femininity in the form of maternity, whether that is biological mothers or spiritual mothers in the form of nuns I’ve met who are happier than most people I know.

             There are two paths ahead of our world today. One says, “This is my body, given for you.” And the other one says, “This is your body, given for me.” As we reflect on those two choices, I would suggest the great tragedy of abortion: It’s not just that it destroys the body of a baby, but it destroys the very nature of a woman.

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: The above represents one approach, and a worthy one indeed. We would like to add, however, that the approach by Mrs. Connors appears to be one to be taken by women. We are of the strong conviction that men have a critical role to play in this debate; indeed, the disdaining of men by the abortion crowd is designed to exclude them because they have a worthy place in persuasion. So, we ask men to reflect on their God-given role as protectors of women and children and to answer the call to be defenders of the vulnerable, no matter the age or stage of development of abortion’s victims. We call upon men and women to stand on the ramparts together in this fight.]

Extremism in Defense of Abortion Is No Virtue

May 19, 2022, commentary by former Reagan domestic policy chief Gary Bauer

             There was an unbelievable hearing yesterday in the House Judiciary Committee on the potential impact of overturning Roe v. Wade. According to Democrat Chairman Jerry Nadler, overturning Roe would be “devastating.”

             It would be “devastating” that babies might be spared from the violence of abortion?! But Nadler’s comments were nothing compared to the extreme witnesses the Democrats called to testify in support of abortion.

             Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) pressed the pro-abortion witnesses, some of whom were abortionists, on whether they were killing a living human being. They refused to answer his questions.

             Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) asked one unapologetic abortion advocate whether men “can become pregnant and have abortions.” She said, “Yes.” Rep. Johnson asked the same abortion activist to explain “at what point is it not okay to abort a child,” whether the child is “a week old, an hour old or further up the birth canal.” She refused to answer, saying that she trusts “all people to determine what they can and can’t do with their bodies. Full stop.”

             This is not Bill Clinton’s Democrat Party that said abortion should be “rare.” In fact, the House Pro-Choice Caucus now says that using the word “rare” with respect to abortion is “harmful language.” If they don’t want abortion to be rare, they clearly want more abortions. That’s pro-abortion, pro-death. Abortion on demand at any point, for any reason – and pregnant “men.” This Democrat insanity must be defeated!