Life Advocacy Briefing

The Biden Abortion Obsession

DESPITE THE RULE FLOUTING which the mega-network Planned Parenthood practiced in applying for and receiving Covid-emergency small business loans, the Biden Regime has now “determined,” writes Sam Dorman for Live Action, “that Planned Parenthood did not flout Covid relief rules when its various affiliates obtained small business loans.”

The rule governing these emergency loans limited them to organizations with fewer than 500 employees. After all, it was administered by the Small Business Administration, and Planned Parenthood was (and is) anything but a “small” business.

In a statement to Live Action, National Right to Life Committee commented on the Biden SBA’s whitewashing of Planned Parenthood’s obvious ineligibility for the $80 million it received in the Covid-panic program: “‘Those funds were used to prop up Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, with over $1 billion in assets.’ The Committee added, ‘The Paycheck Protection Program was designed to protect small businesses – not the nation’s largest abortion provider with over 16,000 employees.’”

The Live Action report also quoted Tessa Longbons, senior research associate at the Charlotte Lozier Institute: “‘Does an organization with almost $2 billion in revenue really need pandemic relief from the government?’ She added, ‘… Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion chain in the US, used this funding to achieve record profits during the pandemic, with over $1.7 billion in revenue, including more than $633 million in taxpayer dollars. According to their data for that time period,’” she continued, quoted by Mr. Dorman, “‘almost 97% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy resolution activities were abortions.

“‘Think about the contrast,’ [Ms.] Longbons noted. ‘In the same year that Americans were making sacrifices in order to protect the vulnerable and the elderly from Covid, Planned Parenthood performed the largest number of abortions ever.’”

And the Biden Regime is just fine with that.

Macabre Competition

IN A GUBERNATORIAL CONTEST THAT IS TIGHTENING by the day, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) announced Oct. 12 “spending of $13 million in taxpayer cash,” reports Ashley Sadler for LifeSiteNews, “to bankroll abortion access,” declaring “that the Democrat-led Empire State ‘is committed to protecting reproductive rights, and as other states wage a war on abortion access, we will continue to be a safe haven.’”

Just to show how radical she is, the unelected governor declared, reports Ms. Sadler, “‘I will not stand by and allow women to be subjected to government-mandated pregnancies.’” Notes the LifeSiteNews writer, “It’s unclear what specific legislation Hochul was referring to that would mandate pregnancy. None of the laws outlawing the murder of preborn babies require a woman to become pregnant.” Touche, Ms. Sadler. Nicely done!

Gov. Hochul, though, is competing for abortion radicalism with notorious Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and now with Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), whose leadership over a Democratic legislature has achieved in just one term the wiping out of virtually every pro-life law from his state’s books, resulting in a plot just announced by Planned Parenthood to dispatch a mobile abortuary to “roam the border of Illinois,” as Family Research Council’s Joy Stockbauer reports for The Washington Stand, “in hopes of raking in clients from neighbor states that legally protect unborn lives.” That mobile abortuary is expected to begin with dispensing baby poison and eventually to add surgical abortion to its business plan.

Quoteworthy

Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams (D), transcribed by Life Advocacy Briefing from an Oct. 20 report by Fox News Channel: “Abortion is an economic issue. It’s been reduced to this idea of a culture war. But for women in Georgia, this is very much a question of whether they’re going to end up in poverty in the next five years. Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas.”

Looking Beneath the Surface

IT GRIEVES US TO READ THE ABORTION-EXPERIENCE ACCOUNT of Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO), and we do not normally publish such first-person reports, leaving those to pro-life organizations that are more oriented toward these stories. We do, however, publish the Live Action report of Rep. Bush’s story, based on a PBS interview, at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing as a source of helping her colleagues, and helping citizens acquainted with her radicalism, to understand what abortion can do to a mother.

The Tragedy of Cori Bush

Oct. 7, 2022, Live Action report by Nancy Flanders

             Congresswoman Cori Bush (D-MO) has revealed that she underwent a second abortion at age 19. During the procedure, she says she had a change of heart, but when she asked to get up from the table, the nurse and abortionist refused and forced her to undergo the abortion against her will. In a PBS Firing Line with Margaret Hoover interview, Bush spoke about her book in which she discusses her abortions. She spoke to Hoover about her second abortion. “I was thinking back to the first abortion, ‘OK, you’ve done this before. You know the rooms. You know what it looks like. You know what it feels like in this place. You know what to expect. You know that you may experience even some harm or racism in this space,’” she said. “Like, I thought I was ready.”

             Despite believing that she was “ready” for her second abortion, Bush has said her first abortion, following a rape, was “the beginning of a very, very dark period … that was the darkest period of my life.” At the facility for that first abortion, she says, she was told that she would “wind up on food stamps and welfare” if she kept her baby. She said the abortion counselor was “almost angry” and spoke to her in “belittling and degrading” ways. She also said she wasn’t given the chance to make a decision but was pushed toward abortion while hoping for one voice to tell her she could keep her baby. But she never heard that voice.

             For these reasons, she knew that with her second abortion, she would likely face the same “racism” she alluded to facing during the first abortion. She said she went through the “assembly line” of rooms, but when she got to the last room in which the actual abortion would take place, she had second thoughts. Again, she needed a voice – a person – to help her.

             She explained: “And I lay there, and I started to think. Well – 1) – I didn’t tell the father that that was about to happen, and I just, I just felt like I needed more time. So I said, ‘No, you know what, I’m not ready.’ And the nurse, just, ya know, wouldn’t listen to me. And I said, ‘No, I’m not ready.’ And as I’m saying, ‘No,’ they continue to pull the instruments and, you know, get everything ready, and it was just like, ‘No, calm down,’ you know, ‘No, you’re gonna be okay.’ … They absolutely ignored me, even to the point of ‘calm down,’ as if I was the problem. … And so I remember laying there looking to see if there was someone else in the room that would listen to me. And they ended up putting, during this time, they put the instrument inside me and started the instrument … and I’m saying, ‘No,’ but it was too late, because you couldn’t stop once it started.”

             That instrument was likely the catheter used in a first-trimester d&c abortion, which uses high suction power to remove the baby from the uterus in pieces. The abortionist then uses tools to scrape the lining of the uterus to remove any remaining parts.

             Bush told Hoover that she thinks the nurse and abortionist ignored her because she was a young, black woman, and most medical professionals didn’t listen to her for that same reason. “Multiple times, I felt it was, ‘oh well, we know better. You don’t know what you need. You don’t understand. We know better.’”

             Bush isn’t alone. Women’s medical concerns are often ignored by medical professionals, and this is even more common for black women. And in the abortion industry, coerced and forced abortions are tragically common practices. Women and girls have been told they have to meet certain criteria in order to be worthy enough to give birth to and raise their babies. Women are told they must be a certain age, with a certain financial status and a certain educational status – otherwise, abortion is their only option. When girls and women change their minds on the table, there have been times when the staff take advantage of their vulnerability and won’t let them leave…

             Sadly, Bush is pro-abortion despite her experiences, and it is because of this that she has inadvertently helped to push more women into abortions they don’t want. Instead of touting abortion as necessary and justifying her own abortions, perhaps one day Bush will seek healing for the trauma she endured from her abortions and begin to help other women avoid the same fate.

Don’t Let This Happen, in Michigan or Anywhere

Oct. 14, 2022, LifeSiteNews report by Calvin Freiburger

             A proposed amendment to the Michigan Constitution to enshrine a state-level right to abortion would also create a right to sterilize and potentially even transition minors [to opposite gender] without their parents’ knowledge or consent, warn legal experts and religious authorities in the Great Lakes State.

             Michigan Proposal 3, the so-called Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (RRFI), would enshrine a state constitutional right to “reproductive freedom,” defined as the “right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management and infertility care.”

             When the US Supreme Court recognized in June’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that the US Constitution “makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” it restored states’ ability to decide their own abortion laws. Pro-abortion activists hope to prevent state legislatures from doing so by establishing new “rights” to abortion in state constitutions.

             Michigan is one of three states voting on such initiatives next month. (Other states are working to establish the opposite with pro-life initiatives.) According to an analysis by the Great Lakes Justice Center (GLJC), as well as an article by former Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch, published by the Michigan Catholic Conference, the implications reach far beyond the expansive text.

             “Proposal 3 goes much farther than merely codifying Roe v. Wade, invalidating more than two dozen Michigan pro-life laws and authorizing minors to obtain abortions without a parent’s consent or even notice,” Bursch writes. And “because Proposal 3 grants this right to ‘every individual,’ without age limits, that means the proposal – on its face – authorizes a minor to obtain a sterilization without parental consent or even notice, such as when a minor desires to change his or her gender.”

             GLJC notes that because the proposal does not define any of its terms, it “guarantees many new rights will be ‘created’ by activist courts […]. What about gender-reassignment surgeries (i.e., the sterilization of men and women) and related medical care? The possibilities are unconstrained and endless.”

             The group further warns that the amendment’s drafters “have deliberately crafted language which subverts and narrows” the “strict scrutiny analysis” test by which conflicts between statutes and constitutional language are adjudicated, “in a manner that will produce manifestly unjust results. …

             “Under normal circumstances, a law prohibiting sexual conduct between adults and minors, for example, would be characterized as advancing the state’s interest in protecting minors from sexual exploitation and abuse by predatory adults,” GLJC explains. But the amendment declares that a state interest is only “compelling” if “it is for the limited purpose of protecting the health of an individual seeking care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making.”

             This, GLJC warns, means that “all other legitimate and well-recognized compelling state interests such as the protection of minors, the protection of parental rights, as well as many others, will never be adequate to uphold a law if challenged under the RRFI.”

             Proposal 3 and the other state abortion referenda will be among the first major tests of how public opinion will react to America’s new abortion status quo. A proposed amendment to clarify [that] the Kansas Constitution does not protect abortion failed at the ballot in August, thanks in part to pervasive misinformation about the impact pro-life laws have on women facing medical emergencies.

             Properly gauging public opinion on abortion has long been hobbled by inconsistently or inaccurately framed poll questions, popular misconceptions about what abortion laws and rulings have and have not done, and discrepancies between what voters think of the issue and how they prioritize it. Ultimately, a more accurate read of the issue will likely not become clear until voters’ reactions to newly enforced state laws start being reflected in elections.

The Pro-Life Advantage

Oct. 18, 2022, The Washington Stand commentary by Dan Hart, senior editor for the Family Research Council publication

             With the midterm elections 21 days away [at the time of original publication of this column], Pres. Biden and lawmakers in his party are using abortion as their primary talking point to convince voters to pull the lever for Democrats on Nov. 8. At the same time, a swath of recent polls of likely voters indicate that most Americans are primarily concerned with economic uncertainty and inflation, immigration, and education and parental rights, with abortion ranking below numerous other issues.

             As the latest inflation numbers last week indicated that core consumer prices are at a 40-year high, numerous polls reflected growing economic worries among voters. A Siena/New York Times poll asked likely voters an open-ended question about what the country’s biggest problem is, with 24% saying the economy, 18% saying inflation and just 5% saying abortion. The same poll showed that 64% think the country is headed in the wrong direction, with 58% disapproving of Biden’s handling of the Presidency, 39% approving.

             Another new poll of registered voters by Harvard/Harris found that the top three issues facing the country are inflation (37%), the economy (29%) and immigration (23%). When asked what the top concerns of Republican Party leaders are, 37% said immigration, 24% said inflation and 21% said the economy, which largely match up with the voters’ top concerns. In contrast, when asked what the Democratic Party’s top concerns were, 27% said January 6, 25% said women’s rights and 23% said climate change. The same poll found 37% of voters saying the country is on the right track, with 57% saying the economic situation is getting worse.

             The issue of education is also emerging as a significant concern among likely voters. A recent survey by Rasmussen Reports found that 77% believe that education is an “important” issue, with 45% saying it is “very important.” The poll further found that 68% of voters are worried about public schools pushing “controversial beliefs and attitudes,” with 49% saying they are “very concerned” about the issue.

             Meanwhile, an Associated Press analysis found that Democrats have spent approximately $124 million on TV advertising focused on abortion, a 20-fold increase in ad spending on the issue compared to the 2018 midterms. The study found that one out of three advertisement dollars spent by Democrats during the current election cycle focused on abortion.

             Brent Keilen, vice president of FRC Action, says he is unconvinced by the Democrats’ and the media’s messaging that the abortion issue will hurt the GOP in the midterms.

             “A narrative is being pushed in the media that the abortion issue is going to be the issue that puts progressives over the top in November,” he told The Washington Stand. “However, some recent polling is telling a different story. The fact that governors who have recently signed meaningful pro-life legislation are doing so well in the polls in very competitive states is significant. This shows that pro-life policies are not just good public policy; they also appeal to voters.”

             The latest polling in races involving gubernatorial candidates who have signed robust pro-life bills into law indicates that the abortion issue does not appear to be hurting them. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), who signed a bill protecting unborn babies who have a detectable heartbeat in 2019, is currently up seven points over Stacy Abrams (D). Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R), who signed a similar heartbeat bill in 2019, is currently up 18 points over Nan Whaley (D). Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R), who also signed a heartbeat bill in 2018, is currently up 17 points over Deidre DeJear (D).

             In addition, Republican governors Kay Ivey (AL), Ron DeSantis (FL), Brad Little (ID), Chris Sununu (NH), Kevin Stitt (OK), Henry McMaster (SC), Bill Lee (TN) and Greg Abbott (TX) have all signed pro-life bills in the last three years, ranging from measures protecting unborn babies at conception to a detectable heartbeat to 15 weeks to viability. “There is a very good chance that all of them get re-elected,” said Keilen.