Life Advocacy Briefing

A Great Lady, RIP

WITH SORROW WE THANK GOD for the life of US Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-IN), who was killed in an auto accident in her home area of northern Indiana last Wednesday. A devoted Christian and talented lawmaker, who had served with distinction in the Indiana legislature before going to Congress, Rep. Walorski was nearing the end of her fifth term and had compiled a perfect pro-life voting record. She will be missed.

Warning to Pro-Life Candidates & Debaters

WE ARE PUBLISHING at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing a BreakPoint commentary which is based on a National Review story. We commend it to our readers, especially to those who face possible contention from abortion advocates, whether in conversation or debate. We commend it especially to pro-life candidates and officeholders who may be facing unfair “extremist” charges from the organized abortion political cartel in the coming months. The full National Review story can be found on the Internet at nationalreview.com/2022/07/how-every-state-pro-life-law-handles-ectopic-pregnancy-and-miscarriage.

Here is why we believe the point discussed in the BreakPoint commentary and its source report is particularly important to pro-life front-liners: The chief tool used by the abortion political machine is the charge that the pro-life candidate, official or other front-liner is “an extremist.” This has been the case for years. As noted by the National Review writers, a new supposed rationale for such a charge has sprung up since the Dobbs ruling was handed down inviting state lawmakers to build abortion-free states via pre-Roe criminalization of abortion. That rationale is that blocking the availability of abortion is a physical threat to the abortion-minded mother. The need for medical treatment in the event of a miscarriage (in which the baby has already died) or an ectopic pregnancy (in which baby-sacrificing surgery is absolutely necessary in every case to prevent the death of the mother) is long established in law in states which have previously outlawed abortion or do so now.

Abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn child. It is not health care. And protecting the lives of our already developing progeny is anything but extreme.

The Biden Abortion Obsession

• NOW THE PRESIDENT HAS ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER unconstitutionally (without appropriation by Congress) setting up a system of taxpayer subsidy for interstate travel expenses aiding mothers in the killing of their own developing babies in states allowing abortion. In so doing, he vowed we would never go back. Apparently, that remark was meant to say he and his apparatchiks will persist in doing all in their power – even beyond their power – to stymie the God-given right to Life on which American government is based. Bring on the lawyers!

• THE BIDEN REGIME SUED THE STATE OF IDAHO last Tuesday to invalidate its ban on “most abortions,” reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews. The ban was enacted in 2020 as a trigger law to take effect upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Now in effect, the law exempts abortions committed on the basis of the baby’s conception having occurred during the commission of a sex crime, unfortunately, and, of course, excludes prosecutions of doctors acting to save the life of the mother; the latter is rare but can occur in, for example, cases of ectopic pregnancy. Life-of-the-mother exemptions are common in laws proscribing abortion, as there is no criminal intent. The Idaho law provides for punishment of up to five years’ imprisonment and medical license suspension. The LifeSiteNews story quotes Gov. Brad Little (R-ID): “‘The US Justice Department’s interference with Idaho’s pro-life law is another example of Biden overreaching yet again while he continues to ignore issues that really should demand his attention – like crushing inflation and the open border with Mexico.’ [Gov.] Little vowed,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “to ‘continue to work with’” the state’s attorney general “to ‘vigorously uphold state sovereignty and defend Idaho’s laws in the face of federal meddling.’”

• EARLY IN JULY, PRES. BIDEN ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER seeking, reports Emily Mangiaracina for LifeSiteNews, “to crack down on the speech of pro-life pregnancy centers by directing the US Dept. of Health & Human Services ‘to address’ their so-called ‘deceptive … practices.’” The order directs the HHS Secretary to consult with the Attorney General and the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), notes Ms. Mangiaracina, “to consider options to address deceptive or fraudulent practices’ in relation to ‘people seeking reproductive health care.’” (Note: By using “people,” the Biden executive order falls in line with the current craze of referring to expectant mothers in gender-generic newspeak.) “The radical pro-abortion Ms. Magazine noted,” writes the LifeSite reporter, “that this provision ‘could potentially lead for the first time to federal regulation of’ crisis pregnancy centers, which [Ms.] called ‘fake abortion clinics.’”

Wrong-Way Baker

MASSACHUSETTS GOV. CHARLIE BAKER (R) SIGNED A NEW LAW in late July, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “to insulate abortion-on-demand in the Bay State from out-of-state enforcement actions and to make abortion pills easier to obtain for everyone in the state.”

Based on an imaginary scenario, the bill “shields anyone in Massachusetts who helps facilitate an abortion that would be legal in Massachusetts for someone in another, pro-life jurisdiction from extradition,” writes Mr. Freiburger, citing the Washington Times as source.

Though the legislation does not have the weight of a constitutional amendment, it “declares ‘access’ to abortion and ‘gender-affirming’ procedures are rights under the Massachusetts constitution, mandates abortion coverage under the MassHealth state Medicaid program, lets over-the-counter emergency contraception be sold in vending machines and requires state-funded colleges and universities to establish student ‘medication abortion readiness plans.’

“It also clarifies,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “that abortions may be committed past 24 weeks for fetal anomalies or diagnoses ‘incompatible with sustained life outside of the uterus’ or cases where a physician deems the abortion medically necessary for a patient’s physical or mental health.”

Bleeding Kansas

KANSAS VOTERS LAST TUESDAY REJECTED a proposed state constitutional amendment intended to clarify that the state constitution “does not contain a right to abortion in order to prevent state courts from interfering with the people’s right to set abortion policy in a post-Roe v. Wade world.” The state’s supreme court has repeatedly constructed an abortion right where one does not exist.

Since the 59-41% vote rejecting the proposal, the buzz around the pro-life community has been that the amendment was confusing at best and should not be viewed as a true reflection of the views of Kansans. Still, its rejection could present a discouragement to pro-life lawmakers seeking to protect the lives of innocent developing babies. We hope they will persist.

Here is the wording of the referendum proposition, quoted from the LifeSite story: “Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstance of necessity to save the life of the mother.”

We heartily recommend that future draftsmen of constitutional amendment proposals look to Kansas only as an example of how not to write a ballot proposition. And we mourn the lives lost to confusion within a state where life is cherished.

Pressing Forward in Kentucky

A STATE APPELLATE JUDGE IN KENTUCKY has reinstated the state’s Heartbeat Abortion Ban and an abortion trigger law which had been suspended by a county circuit judge. Attorney General Daniel Cameron responded to the suspension by filing an emergency request in the appeals court.

“‘I appreciate the [appeals] court’s decision to allow Kentucky’s pro-life laws to take effect while we continue to vigorously defend the constitutionality of these important protections for women and unborn children across the Commonwealth,’ [Mr.] Cameron tweeted,” reports Clare Marie Merkowsky for LifeSiteNews.

The litigation seeking to overturn the laws was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Planned Parenthood almost immediately after the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in the Dobbs case invalidating Roe v. Wade.

Their Latest Fallacy

July 28, 2022, BreakPoint commentary by John Stonestreet

             So far, the most common response from pro-abortion advocates since Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court is misinformation. One of the most common pieces of misinformation that’s been floated by media outlets, politicians and cultural commentators alike is that certain pro-life laws triggered by the Dobbs decision place the lives of pregnant women at risk, especially those facing an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage. These pro-life laws are not clear, the argument goes, so doctors could face legal reprisals for offering the life-saving treatments that women with at-risk pregnancies need. In some versions of this scenario, hospitals and doctors are frozen with fear and confusion, unsure of what they can and cannot do.

             However, as Alexandra DeSanctis wrote recently at National Review, “This is simply not the case.” What her article offers is exactly what pro-lifers need to answer this pro-abortion talking point and exactly what the title promises: “How Every Pro-Life Law Handles Ectopic Pregnancy and Miscarriage.”

             Here’s the summary of what DeSanctis’s deep dive into state law revealed: Abortion supporters have argued that state abortion limits aren’t clear about whether these types of health care are permitted – and they have argued that, as a result of this supposed lack of clarity, doctors have declined to perform necessary and potentially life-saving procedures out of fear of reprisal from officials enforcing state pro-life laws.

             This is simply not the case. If doctors are doing so – and abortion supporters have offered little evidence of a systemic problem in this regard – it is the fault of the doctors themselves, not the fault of the pro-life laws, which are eminently clear. The pro-life worldview has always held that both lives matter, that of the mother and that of her unborn child. It is always permissible to act to care for a pregnant mother whose life is at risk.

             Neither miscarriage care nor treatment for ectopic pregnancy has anything to do with an induced-abortion procedure, which intentionally kills an unborn child. Every successful elective abortion has a single aim: to end the life of the child growing in his or her mother’s womb. What’s more, medical professionals acknowledge that induced abortion is never medically necessary to treat a pregnant mother; modern medicine can treat the mother without intentionally killing the child.

             [Quoting Ms. DeSanctis] “For instance, miscarriage care treats a woman whose unborn child has already died, and ectopic pregnancy treatment removes an unborn child who cannot develop or survive, in order to save the life of the mother. Neither of these types of health care bears any resemblance to directly and intentionally killing the child. The only people confused about this – or pretending to be confused – are supporters of abortion on demand. And their aim is clear: to cause confusion for the sake of undermining pro-life laws. …

             “To put a fine point on the issue: Until just last week, even the website of Planned Parenthood explicitly stated that ectopic-pregnancy treatment is not an abortion. But then the abortion business erased that clarifying information in an effort to perpetuate the tide of misinformation, intentionally blurring the lines between actual health care aimed at saving a mother’s life and abortion procedures, which intend to cause the death of an unborn child.”

             DeSanctis then provides a summary and a quote of the relevant portion of the law from every state in question: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.*

             I highly recommend that you read the whole thing, especially if you encounter this particular talking point that has been repeated so often that many have begun to actually believe it.

             And I recommend Alexandra DeSanctis’s book, co-authored with Dr. Ryan Anderson, Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing. In it, Anderson and DeSanctis describe what’s really behind this particular talking point. Legalized abortion has taught us to see the God-given and good ability to procreate as a barrier to full humanness as women. Along the way, fertility is treated as a problem to be overcome, not a good thing to be embraced.

             If Christians are going to build a culture of Life, we must understand all the ways in which this legal travesty poisoned our understanding of life, sex and children. That’s what Tearing Us Apart offers: the understanding we need to continue to uphold the dignity of life.

*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: The point is still relevant in states not listed. The reason these states have been singled out is that they are states with pro-life laws on the books which explicitly exempt “life of the mother” – that’s life, not life and health – from potential prosecution for abortion. Such an exemption explicitly takes miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy treatment out of any erroneously inferred definition of abortion.

More Ivy League Nonsense

July 15, 2022, BreakPoint commentary by John Stonestreet & Shane Morris

             The moment Roe v. Wade was overturned last month, desperate activists began to dust off the oldest and oddest arguments for abortion. These “gotcha” scenarios are supposed to prove that pro-lifers don’t really value human life or consider preborn babies from the earliest stages of development to be human. Instead, these pretend scenarios demonstrate that pro-lifers are simply hypocrites.

             On closer inspection, however, these scenarios fail to convince. For example, there’s the so-called “burning fertility clinic” scenario. A friend e-mailed me recently and asked for a response to this one, which as best I can tell, was invented by author Patrick Tomlinson.

             It goes like this. You’re in a burning fertility clinic and hear a five-year-old child crying for help. Across the room is a container marked “1,000 viable human embryos.” The flames are rising, smoke is filling the air and you can save only one: The child or the container of embryos. According to Tomlinson, if you would choose to save the crying child, you’re betraying the fact that, whatever you may say, you really believe embryos aren’t equivalent to human beings. How, otherwise, could you justify saving one over 1,000?

             “Gotcha,” right? Not really. First, this argument has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. In no instance does a woman or her doctor ever choose between saving the life of one child at an advanced stage of development, or 1,000 at an earlier stage. Abortion involves the intentional killing of one or more multiple children who, in most cases, would have lived if left alone. There’s no analogy, here, which means as an argument for abortion, the burning fertility clinic is toast.

             But even setting that important point aside, the decision to save the imaginary five-year-old over the embryos – which for the record, I would make – doesn’t necessarily reflect my view of the embryos’ humanity. It only reflects what I would do with limited time in a no-win situation. Perhaps, I would be acting on an impulse to stop conscious suffering, or to prevent parents from losing a child whose face and voice they know, or from a spur-of-the-moment instinct to answer a cry for help. None of these actions has any equivalence to an intentional killing, and none of them means I consider embryos less than human.

             Of course, the abortion activists continue to repackage this flawed scenario, again and again, with help from media sources. Last week in the Washington Post, another and even more bizarre form of this argument surfaced. Harvard ethics professor Daniel Wikler and Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman argued that if state lawmakers who are now outlawing abortion really believe embryos are human beings, they should be panicking over the sudden statistical spike in their states’ infant mortality rates.

             As these professors write, “30% of human embryos spontaneously self-abort” – or are miscarried. These deaths aren’t normally counted in infant mortality statistics, which only account for deaths after birth. But if embryos are human persons, these profs argue, infant mortality rates should include miscarriages. If we did that, though, we would be looking at mortality rates more than twice those of the most dangerous countries on earth – a true public health crisis! They conclude: “The fact of spontaneous abortion shows that opponents of abortion do not themselves believe what they are saying.”

             This “gotcha” scenario has nothing to do with abortion, which is, once again, the intentional killing of unborn babies. Their use of the term “spontaneous abortion” instead of “miscarriage” may be medically acceptable but muddies this crucial distinction.

             And consider their logic: Lots of miscarriages tragically do happen. If pro-life lawmakers aren’t adequately panicking about this, they must not really think intentionally killing unborn babies is wrong? That is like saying if you aren’t panicked about children dying during a pandemic, you can’t be against a shooter gunning them down in a school. It’s an absurd line of thinking yet, in the frenzy of a post-Roe abortion movement, passes for Ivy-League level ethical reasoning.

             None of these “gotcha” arguments should intimidate pro-lifers, especially Christians. We have the truth on our side, and now, thank God, the law in an increasing number of states. Bizarre hypothetical scenarios cannot change the moral reality that elective abortion is evil. On close inspection, the “gotcha” scenarios, like the imaginary fertility clinic in which they so often take place, just go up in smoke.