Life Advocacy Briefing

Right On, Sen. Cotton!

LAST WEEK WE EDITORIALIZED AGAINST THE DISTRACTION which Sen. Lindsey Graham (D-SC) and Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) – no doubt at the behest of certain so-called strategists – have launched with their proposal for a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks. We are not about to repeat our arguments against that tactic but encourage readers who missed it to check out the Sept. 19 Life Advocacy Briefing at www.lifeadvocacy.com; it will be posted after Oct. 1.

Our point in mentioning this again this week is to commend Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on the way he addressed the “Democrats-say-Republicans-are-extreme-on-abortion-what-do-you-say?” question addressed to him by Fox News anchor Sandra Smith – and to so many other candidates on the campaign trail every day by so many reporter-types since the Dobbs ruling leaked last spring. We commend Sen. Cotton particularly because his fellow Senators and Representatives are clearly ill-served by professional consultants and by those who have sent Sen. Graham and Rep. Smith into the fray to put their colleagues on the spot.

Here, now, is our transcript of Sen. Cotton’s deft reply:

“The Democrats want to portray Republicans as extreme on abortion, but it’s really the Democrats who are the extremists on abortion. Take two critical battleground elections for Senate in New Hampshire and Nevada. The people in those states have both chosen to have abortion permissible up to 24 weeks but impose reasonable restrictions on late-term abortion. That’s the choice that the people of those states made for their own states. But Democratic Senators are so radical and so extreme that they would override their own states’ laws to mandate and require late-term, partial-birth abortion funded by taxpayer dollars. That’s not speculation. That’s not hypothetical. That’s what Democratic Senators like Cathy Cortez-Masto and Maggie Hassan actually voted for earlier this year.

“It’s the Democrats who are extreme on abortion, in addition to being extreme or out of the mainstream on things like simple border security or getting tough on criminals or trying to stop this runaway inflation that is harming so many families.”

A Bridge Too Far

JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU’d READ IT ALL, along comes California Gov. Gavin Newsom to drive you to your knees.

On Sunday, Sept. 18, the left-wing Democrat signed legislation to authorize the composting of human remains to make soil. The law, notes Ashley Sadler for LifeSiteNews, “will allow the material derived from the decomposed bodies to be sold and used to grow food for human consumption,” according to the news outfit SFGATE.

“The Cemetery & Funeral Act (AB-351),” writes Ms. Sadler, “will implement regulatory methods for the state to approve so-called ‘reduction facilities,’ in which dead human bodies are broken down in a process not dissimilar to a household composting system. The measure is slated to take effect in January 2027,” unless the so-called golden state walks away from its disgusting tribe of public officials before then.

But wait. California is not pioneering this offensive process. LifeSiteNews tells us the far-west state is the fifth in the nation to adopt the scheme, joining Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Vermont.

“SFGATE noted,” writes Ms. Sadler, “that California’s law strays from Colorado’s in that it doesn’t forbid the sale of composted human remains or the use of the ‘soil’ for growing fruit and vegetables for human consumption.

“Democratic Assembly Member Cristina Garcia, who authored the bill,” notes Ms. Sadler, “said in June the legislation was meant to help address ‘climate change and sea-level rise’ by giving California residents ‘an alternative method of final disposition that won’t contribute emissions into our atmosphere.’”

We are not kidding.

Life Advances in West Virginia

WEST VIRGINIA GOV. JIM JUSTICE (R) HAS SIGNED A NEW LAW banning abortion, reports Ashley Sadler for LifeSiteNews, “from the moment of implantation except to save the life of the mother or for [sic] babies conceived in rape or incest.”

The law takes effect immediately, according to Ms. Sadler, “with criminal penalties for violators enforceable in 90 days. Doctors who break the law will have their licenses revoked. Anyone other than a licensed physician who commits an abortion will face felony charges and between three and 10 years in prison.”

The exception permitting the disposal of babies conceived in sex crimes is worded to limit such abortions to eight-week-old babies and only in cases where the crime has been reported to authorities; apparently it is considered lawful to kill those particular babies.

The new law in West Virginia was passed in response to a judge having invalidated, this summer, a law criminalizing abortion which had been on the books for 173 years, predating even West Virginia’s statehood. That law was unenforceable for 49 years under the Roe v. Wade edict, reactivated in late June and then blocked by a circuit judge. “After weeks of deliberation,” reports Ms. Sadler, “lawmakers drafted a bill that easily passed both the House and the Senate” on Sept. 13.

“State Sen. Patricia Rucker told LifeSite,” writes Ms. Sadler, “‘It is the intent of pro-life legislators in West Virginia to continue to tighten our law and do all we can to support mothers and encourage adoption or support so mothers can keep their children, in addition to making abortions rare.’”

Abortion Retreats in West Virginia

WEST VIRGINIA’s ONLY ABORTUARY WILL CEASE abortions in response to the state’s new pro-life law, reports Jean Mondoro for LifeSiteNews.

The Women’s Health Center of West Virginia will attempt to continue in business, according to a statement issued on its behalf soon after the new abortion ban was signed. But its offerings will no longer include one of its most lucrative “services” – abortion – so its future could be uncertain.

The sex shop will now offer “‘many other essential services’ besides abortion,” reports Ms. Mondoro, “including STD testing, contraception and ‘gender-affirming hormone therapy’” [read: gender-destroying drugs].

The executive director of the “clinic,” quoted in the LifeSite story, called the abortion ban “‘devastating.’”

Lucrative Sanctuary for Abortionists

AT A TIME WHEN ‘SANCTUARY CITY’ HAS BECOME A JOKE with respect to the welcoming of illegal immigrants, the Chicago City Council has declared the Windy City a “Bodily Autonomy Sanctuary City” – offering anything but sanctuary to the endangered bodies of unborn children.

The Sept. 21-passed ordinance – which would be a farce if it were not so deadly – “forbids government agencies and staff from helping other states enforce their abortion laws” reports Matt Lamb for LifeSiteNews, “or laws against the genital and chemical mutilation of children.”

The language of the ordinance affirms the radical absence of state law in Illinois, where abortion is allowed, notes Mr. Lamb, “up until the moment of birth.” The ordinance codifies an executive order Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) signed “earlier in the year. …

“‘I pledged that we will always be a city that respects the dignity of bodily autonomy for women,’” said the mayor, who prides herself on being a lesbian. “‘That we’re always gonna make sure our providers are able to serve women, wherever they reside, that are coming to our city to access reproductive [sic] healthcare [sic] services because that, to me, is a fundamental right,’ Lightfoot said, according to the Chicago Sun-Times,” reports Mr. Lamb.

“‘So, Chicago is always gonna be an oasis for justice for all,’” she said, reports Mr. Lamb. “‘Not only do we make that pledge. We put our [sic] money where our mouth is. I immediately allocated $500,000 to make sure that our providers could take care of women that were traveling from other states,’ she said. ‘Travel, lodging, aftercare. And we’re gonna be making another big commitment as we go into budget season. We have to make sure that women in this country are not taken back to the pre-Roe years where they had no control over the circumstances under which they had children.’” [sic]

Notes Mr. Lamb: Mayor Lightfoot “has also used heated rhetoric against social conservatives, urging a ‘call to arms’ upon the leak of the Roe v. Wade reversal draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito.” She is expected to seek re-election in the spring of 2023.

Taking Up the Cause

SOME OF OUR READERS MIGHT CONTEMPLATE “What can I do?” – besides identifying a good pro-life candidate and talking him or her up among voters. (Frankly, talking our candidates up among friends and neighbors – and even walking door-to-door with our candidates’ campaign literature – is more than valuable. So, we don’t mean to take away from that!)

One speak-up method which might not have occurred to such readers but is a good way to get the word out is the old-fashioned method of submitting a brief, cogent letter to the editor of a local newspaper, giving the neighbors something to think about.

We are publishing at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing a good example of a letter – written by one of Life Advocacy’s support team members – which was published in the widely read Bloomington (Illinois) Pantagraph. We commend it to your attention.

Warning to Michigan

Sept. 21, 2022, LifeSiteNews report

             On this week’s episode of The VanMaren Show, Jonathon [VanMaren] chats with Anna Visser of the Michigan Right to Life on the state’s upcoming ballot initiative to enshrine abortion as a “constitutional right.”

             … Visser warns that the ballot initiative, if passed by voters on Tuesday, Nov. 8, would make Michigan among the most radically pro-abortion states in the US.

             “This amendment doesn’t just codify Roe in Michigan. It doesn’t just make abortion legal in Michigan. It would change essentially everything related to pregnancy,” she says. “So, it would get rid of our parental consent laws. It would change the definition of fetal viability to possibly not include infants or the unborn that need extraordinary medical prevention, such as NICU babies or babies that need oxygen after they are born. It would allow abortion to be unregulated in Michigan, so any medical healthcare professional would be able to perform or refer for abortions, and essentially anyone that are not doctors would be able to perform abortions.”

             Although the state’s top leadership – i.e., Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and her administration – are firm pro-abortion liberals, Visser notes that most Michiganians don’t support extreme measures like late-term or partial-birth abortions. But she also voices concern that the language of the proposed amendment could be “confusing” to many voters, and that Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion activists aren’t exactly forthcoming on just how radical the initiative is.

             “There’s a lot of unintended consequences … written into this language,” Visser says. “And this isn’t just a piece of legislation that can get opined on in the future and people can interpret it how they will. This is something that is going into our state constitution. It is amending our constitution, and it is going to be written in permanent ink into our state.” [If ratified at the polls.]

Letter to the Editor – a Model

Written by central Illinois businessman Perry Klopfenstein, published Aug. 17, 2022, in the Bloomington Pantagraph

             The issue of abortion is the most divisive one in our nation and shows no sign of letting up. It’s possible it might be the greatest issue in all of history due to the millions upon millions* of lives that have been eliminated, intentionally.

             Language and slick phraseology tend to obscure the harsh taking of life. Indeed, language can provide a linguistic camouflage that can hide abortion’s deadliness.

             The opposite of pro-life should correctly/honestly be termed as “pro-death.” Yet, to smother the tragedy of abortive death, the phrase is mellowed into “pro-choice.” It amounts to inconsistency and cushions the repulsiveness of slaughtering innocent babies.

             There are other deceits in the realm of language falsehoods. One is the term, “reproductive rights.” Abortion has no connection with reproduction. Rather, abortion is better termed as destruction. How can an educated nation continue to wallow in such a devious rhetorical manipulation?

             Another phrase is reference to a “safe” abortion. Safe for whom? Surely, it is anything but safe for the hapless and defenseless baby that has no means of defense to combat this act that will destroy 70 or more years of potential life.**

             Pro-life adherents need to turn argumentation in to action. In a morally weak-kneed nation, they should work tirelessly in hastening support to turn abortion into adoption, even if it takes billions (or trillions) of dollars in the form of private, governmental and church assistance.

             [Signed – Perry Klopfenstein, Gridley, Illinois]

*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Current, generally accepted abortion death toll since 1973’s Roe v. Wade Supreme Court error is 62 million. Indeed, year after year, in state after state, abortion is the leading cause of human death in America.

**This is a great point which Mr. Klopfenstein made – projecting the loss of life into the future, leaving to the imagination what mankind has been denied in the intentional taking of each developing baby. We would change the phrasing to “will destroy 70 or more potential years of life,” because the life lost was never a potential life but, as we are confident Mr. Klopfenstein would heartily acknowledge, each was a life with potential.