Life Advocacy Briefing

Look in the Mirror, Senator

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER CHARLES SCHUMER (D-NY) CAME RIGHT OUT and said it, after the election in mid-November. He claimed “mass immigration is vital for the survival of the US,” reports Ashley Sadler for LifeSiteNews, “because not enough Americans are having children.”

This from one of the most consistent and virulent backers of the prebirth killing of American babies.

The senator has cause to be concerned about America’s birthrate, since the CDC released a report last year showing that US births had dropped to the lowest level since 1979. He did not, however, identify the principal cause in that decline.

“‘Schumer and the Dems argue,’” notes radio host Mark Levin, quoted by Ms. Sadler, “‘for open borders and citizenship for infinite numbers of illegal aliens, arguing Americans aren’t reproducing enough while pushing partial-birth abortion and infanticide. … They are truly sick.’”

About Time!

FOUR NATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS HAVE SUED the federal Food & Drug Administration, along with four plaintiff doctors, all represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, documenting, reports ADF senior counsel Julie Marie Blake, “how the FDA illegally authorized harmful chemical abortion drugs, then stripped away even the few flimsy safeguards in place to protect women and girls. …

“Chemical abortions now represent the majority of abortions in the US,” notes Ms. Blake. “For years, Americans recognized that chemical abortion drugs were too untested and too dangerous to approve. But in 2000, just before Pres. Bill Clinton left office, he pushed the FDA to approve the drugs despite inadequate testing. The FDA chose politics over science,” charges the ADF.

“This mail-order abortion regime is carelessness bordering on malpractice,” Ms. Blake asserts. “The FDA itself acknowledges that 26 women have died from complications after taking chemical abortion drugs since 2000 – an estimate that is likely woefully low, considering the lack of reporting and tracking requirements around these drugs. Some of those deaths occurred because the women had an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy that ruptured. Had those women received a simple ultrasound in an OBGYN’s office,” she writes, “they may not have died.”

The lawsuit is, claims ADF, the first of its kind. It will no doubt produce voluminous documentation of both the circumstances of RU-486’s approval and of the ongoing, ugly results.

‘Back Off!’

ATTORNEYS GENERAL FROM 15 STATES have sent a lengthy letter to Dennis McDonough, Veterans Affairs Secretary, outlining their vehement objections to the Department’s new rule which, as the letter says, “purports to authorize taxpayer-funded abortions and abortion counseling for certain veterans and beneficiaries.” The VA move is one more example of the Biden Regime’s flaunting of the law via regulatory fiat.

“The rule replays what we … have come to expect,” notes the letter, “from this Administration’s lawless and hasty executive actions taken at the behest of its political base. The rule is unlawful.

“It will not stand in the way of the duly enacted laws of our states,” the warning letter continues, “or our commitment to enforcing those laws.”

Citing the protection imposed in the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, a federal law, the AGs note, “Before the VA adopted the rule at issue, VA regulations [implementing that law] expressly excluded ‘abortions and abortion counseling’ from the medical benefits package offered to qualifying veterans. … These regulations aligned with statutory limitations directing the secretary to provide veterans with ‘healthcare services’ that cover ‘general reproductive health care … but not … abortions.’ …

“The VA has now changed course,” notes the letter. “On Sept. 9, 2022, the VA adopted the interim rule greenlighting taxpayer-funded abortions and abortion counseling for certain veterans and beneficiaries. … The rule also provides for abortion counseling,” the letter says, “‘to aid a pregnant individual in making a decision about an unwanted pregnancy’ and ‘to help the pregnant individual implement the decision.’ …The VA claims that the rule preempts any ‘state or local civil or criminal law that restricts, limits or otherwise impedes a VA professional’s provision of care permitted by’ the rule.”

And that is where the 15 AGs come in. They are charged by their own oaths of office in enforcing the statutes of their respective states, and the law in those states prohibits abortion. At length, the letter details both the federal statutory limits on abortion and the state-level prohibitions in their respective states. The letter further sets forth pertinent US Supreme Court ruling which “for decades” have “‘decisively rejected the argument that any state regulation which indirectly regulates the federal government’s activity is unconstitutional,’” specifically citing a 1988 ruling in South Carolina v. Baker which notes “that this theory ‘has been thoroughly repudiated.’ …

“The fact that states already soundly legislate on this subject tends to confirm,” assert the AGs, “that the real motivation behind the rule is to create a mechanism for allowing purely elective abortions that states have appropriately prohibited or to send a political signal to the Administration’s political base – or both. …

“We will not allow you to use this rule,” declare the AGs, “to erect a regime of elective abortions that defy state laws. We stand ready to move decisively against departures from the rule’s terms or its promises. And we will enforce our duly enacted state laws and hold you accountable for violations of federal law.”

The letter concludes with a quote from the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, by which Roe v. Wade was overturned: “‘Abortion presents a profound moral question’ that is entrusted to ‘the people and their elected representatives’ to address. … Like many of the Administration’s abortion-related efforts,” the letter states, “this new rule is an unlawful attempt to wrest that authority from the people. That attempt,” they warn, “will fail.”

The letter was signed first by Mississippi’s attorney general, Lynn Fitch, and by Mark Brnovich, attorney general of Arizona. They were joined by AGs Leslie Rutledge (Arkansas), Ashley Moody (Florida), Christopher Carr (Georgia), Todd Rokita (Indiana), Daniel Cameron (Kentucky), Douglas Peterson (Nebraska), Drew Wrigley (North Dakota), Dave Yost (Ohio), Alan Wilson (South Carolina), Jonathan Skrmetti (Tennessee), Ken Paxton (Texas), Sean Reyes (Utah) and Patrick Morrisey (West Virginia). All are Republicans.

California’s Slippery Slide

ALREADY KNOWN AS A SHRINE OF THE ABORTION CULT, the state of California has recently taken further steps to ensure the life-taking of the most innocent among human lives.

National Right to Life News editor Dave Andrusko reported in late October that California Gov. Gavin Newsom “just a few weeks [earlier] … signed 13 bills ‘streamlining’ the process for women – in state and out – to obtain abortions.”

But to make matters worse, a ballot proposition (Prop. 1) cements abortion into the California constitution, just as a constitutional amendment approved in Michigan has done. California’s was proposed by the legislature, whose members have already made California the wild, wild west in the killing of preborn children.

Here is what voters were told by the ballot’s published summary: “Amends California Constitution to expressly include an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which includes the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This amendment does not narrow or limit the existing rights to privacy and equal protection under the California Constitution. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect because reproductive rights already are protected by state law.” Note the term “individual,” a gender-neutral term, rather than “woman’s.” Only females can become pregnant, but women are increasingly disrespected and discounted by America’s left wing.

The ballot also contained an official prescription of “What Your Vote Means,” as follows: “Yes. A YES vote on this measure means: The California Constitution would be changed to expressly include existing rights to reproductive freedom – such as the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and use contraceptives.”

There was also a “No” explanation: “A NO vote on this measure means: The California Constitution would not be changed to expressly include existing rights to reproductive freedom. These rights, however, would continue to exist under other state law.” Note: The ‘no’ language contains nothing about protection of the lives of unborn children.

There was also a ballot segment called “arguments,” supposedly setting forth the arguments for and against Prop. 1. We choose not to bother our readers with the gobbledygook represented as “Pro” arguments. But read the “Con” statement and assess whether it would have moved anyone who is not already deeply convicted about the right to life: “Proposition 1 is an extreme law that allows late-term abortions at taxpayer expense up to the moment of birth – even if the baby is healthy and the mother’s health is not threatened. Current California law already guarantees a woman’s right to choose, making this extreme and costly proposal unnecessary.” (Note especially that last sentence.)

The vote on California’s Proposition 1 was running 67% to 33% as of Nov. 28. (California ballots are counted through weeks after election day.)

What Are They Thinking?

PROTECTING THE TINIEST AMERICANS FROM ABORTION did not fare well in ballot propositions this November, and many observers believe “the abortion issue” facilitated the Democratic Party’s near-escape from the “red wave” of GOP congressional victories which had been predicted. The electoral disappointments could have been predicted, as the incessant pounding of pro-life candidates by distortion ads went largely unanswered by candidates who continue to be poorly served by professional consultants, themselves neutral at best in this critical issue arena. An issue will nearly always bring success to the party using it when it is not engaged effectively by the other party.

Still, the November disappointment does not reflect the attitude of the American people on issues surrounding abortion law, so hope remains that the political arena can some day be engaged effectively by pro-life candidates and proposition managers. (One of the successful pro-life candidates who participated this summer in a Life Advocacy seminar made a point of thanking me for bringing her strategic communication insight and told me, with respect to her campaigning, “It’s really making a difference.”)

What brings this sharply to mind is a report we read this week which was published by LifeSiteNews on Oct. 25 titled “Two-thirds of Americans Polled Reject the Democratic Party Platform on Abortion.”

The story by Matt Lamb details results from a poll by SurveyMonkey, commissioned by the University of Pennsylvania, which surveyed 21,730 Americans in September and October “to ask them for their views on abortion.

“‘Do you think a pregnant woman should be able to legally have an abortion in the second or third trimester of pregnancy under any circumstance, as a matter of choice?’ one question asked,” reports Mr. Lamb. “By a 2-to-1 margin, respondents said ‘no’ to this question which represents the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion. Only 34% of respondents said there should be absolutely no limits on abortion. Furthermore,” writes Mr. Lamb, “46% of Democrats rejected this stance.”

Notably, the poll found, according to Mr. Lamb, “support for allowing fathers to have a veto over a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Respondents were nearly split down the middle (49% against, 52% [sic] for) when asked if a married woman in the first trimester should be allowed to abort her baby if the ‘partner’ objects. In cases of unmarried women, 44% supported the right of a father to object and stop the abortion,” a proposal which has not even been attempted in more than 20 years, to our knowledge.

“This is the latest poll,” writes Mr. Lamb, “to find that most Americans want at least some restrictions on abortion. A May 2022 poll of 1,000 likely voters,” he notes, “found 67% of respondents said they ‘believe abortion should not be legal past the first three months of pregnancy,’ including 24% who think ‘all abortions should be illegal.’ Another May 2022 poll concluded,” he adds, “that only 15% of Americans support the Democratic Party’s no-limits stances on abortion.”

Confirming the polling, Mr. Lamb reports an e-mail to LifeSiteNews from Students for Life of America spokesman Kristi Hamrick in late October stated, “‘Students for Life of America’s polling shows that Americans are tired of elitists dictating abortion policy.’ … She criticized a ‘predatory and aggressive abortion industry’ for exploiting the issue of rape and incest. ‘We know that it will take loving effort to draw attention to the humanity of people, no matter how they were conceived,’ [Ms.] Hamrick wrote. ‘We need to hear from people conceived in rape, talking about their lives, and women who suffered rape discussing how the violence of abortion was not a cure to their pain. … Each life has value,’” she asserted, “‘for the simple reason that each life is a unique human being. We don’t issue birth certificates with a ratings system based on the events of conception. A birth certificate celebrates that a unique new life has entered the world – valuable before birth as well as after.’”

A Bridge Too Far

IN AN UNBELIEVABLY CRASS MOVE, National Public Radio recently aired an abortion on live radio, reports Mary Zwicker for LifeSiteNews. NPR is a taxpayer-owned broadcasting network.

Priests for Life has responded to the atrocity by publicizing the event, organizing a prayer event observed on Dec. 3 and drafting an open letter for pro-life advocates to sign, “addressed to the mother of Amanda Marie,” writes Ms. Zwicker, “the abortionist who performed the murder, the NPR broadcasters involved and all those who heard the broadcast, condemning the murder and calling for repentance. …

“In concluding their emotional letter, the priests addressed those who listened to the NPR broadcast,” writes Ms. Zwicker. “‘Our hearts should break over any child abuse, even over one child. Our hearts should break even more over the murder of even one child! And this is done under cover of ‘law’ (it is an unjust ‘law’ so not real ‘law’ anyway).”

Reflecting on the horrific broadcast, Priests for Life’s message continued, reported by LifeSiteNews, “‘In the abortion of Baby Amanda, we most grotesquely heard one of these murders; we heard the murder of a real, living baby, who sadly is no longer with us because of what happened to her in that abortion; she was unjustly killed, … murdered by the abortionist … .’”

We call on our Representatives in Congress to challenge NPR on this obviously intentional and grotesque act when next the public broadcasting outfit attempts to justify taxpayer funding in the appropriation process and in whatever venues are appropriate.

In the Courts

• A JUDGE IN KANSAS on Nov. 23 blocked enforcement of the state’s law barring doctors from prescribing abortion pills remotely via telemedicine without in-person consultation. Judge Teresa Watson, notes Jack Bingham, reporting for LifeSiteNews, “had previously refused to grant the abortion-providing plaintiff [Trust Women Foundation] an injunction, but the higher-ranking Kansas Court of Appeals ruled in June that [Judge] Watson’s initial decision was incompatible with ‘well-established Kansas case law,’ and sent the case back to Watson.”

• GEORGIA’s SUPREME COURT HAS REINSTATED ENFORCEMENT of the state’s “LIFE Act,” which, bars abortion of children whose heartbeat can be detected. The action came soon after a superior court judge had stayed the law, reports Cassy Fiano-Chesser for Live Action, “claiming two parts of the law were ‘plainly unconstitutional when drafted, voted upon and enacted.’” When state Attorney General Chris Carr appealed the lower judge’s ruling, the state’ highest court “quickly ruled in the state’s favor … with a one-page order … reinstating the pro-life law.” Chesser notes the order reinstating the law is temporary “while the state’s appeal … is fully reviewed. [But] seven of the nine justices agreed with the order of reinstatement.”

• THE AMERICAN ASSN. of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists has filed suit challenging a 1998 decision of the Mississippi Supreme Court, reports Nancy Flanders for Live Action, “that ruled abortion is a right in the Mississippi Constitution;” that “right” was based, she writes, “on the US Supreme Court decisions of Roe v. Wade & Doe v. Bolton,” which are no longer in effect. Mississippi has a trigger law “protecting most preborn children in the state from abortion,” she writes, and that law is in effect. But further court action apparently needs to be taken to ward off challenges under that 1998 ruling.