Life Advocacy Briefing

An Editorial

BY OUR EDITOR, former Illinois State Representative Penny Pullen: We mainly report the news as we find it, concerning the right to Life. We do not claim to be unbiased when it comes to Life as a fundamental American principle, an inalienable right derived from our Creator, the God of the Universe. Our readers, we hope, find this principle in our news reporting and in the items we reprint from opinion leaders. Today, though, we cannot hold back from editorializing directly about the media response to the Tuesday, April 4, election in Wisconsin, where a left-wing radical woman defeated an incumbent conservative justice of the state supreme court, a true and inestimable tragedy.

Watching a favorite Fox News program on April 9, we must respond to a couple of points. Host Trey Gowdy, a former Congressman from South Carolina, interviewing Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel, established that the reason the incumbent Republican justice lost was “abortion.” Nothing was said about the massive out-of-state funding of the progressive candidate and the mostly in-state, much lower fundraising for the incumbent. Nothing was said about the disparity of voter turnout between the massively leftwing home county of the state’s principal university and the balance of the state. Instead, the two opinion leaders discussed the depth of the problem the abortion issue presents to the Republican Party because of how deeply the younger generations desire abortion to be legal.

Mr. Gowdy declared he knows no women voters who believe a woman who conceives through rape should be required to carry the baby to term. (These are not his exact words, but we have stated here the point he made.) I would like Mr. Gowdy to meet even one of the several articulate women who were conceived in rape and have taken to lawmakers and the general public the following question: What is there about me that makes me less entitled than you to the right to be born and to live? And I would like to ask Mr. Gowdy how a political candidate or lawmaker can claim to be pro-life while excluding such human beings from the protection of the law. There is a word for rape/incest-exception politicians, and it is not “pro-life.”

In reality, the fact that the Republican Party and its professional political consultants are uncomfortable with the cause of Life as a political issue massively contributes to the hill a pro-life candidate has to climb.

Some voters are ferociously pro-abortion; we all know that. And some of us are determinedly pro-life. But the reality is that most voters are in the middle on this issue and make voting decisions on other issues, on the viability (financially and otherwise) of the respective campaigns, on their own history of partisan voting patterns and on the effectiveness of the respective candidates in articulating their position on a variety of issues, including Life.

Talking GOP and other conservative candidates into wobbling on the abortion issue is not a winning tactic. If such a tactic picks up even a handful of on-the-fence voters in a given race, it will surely sacrifice support from massive numbers of committed pro-life voters, who are looking for principled candidates who will fight for justice.

We will say again, as we have said before, it is critical that pro-life candidates speak in sentences, not just two-word labels. And in the current environment, it would be helpful if pro-life candidates would assert the fact that abortion is not health care; that it is the intentional killing of a developing human baby. And we reject the claim that “the abortion issue” is the sole determining factor in an election outcome. We speak from experience. We pray others will take heed and give voters a choice for a principled public official in whatever office is next contested on “the abortion issue.”

Stay Tuned on RU-486

THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE ABORTION DRUG, RU-486 a/k/a mifepristone, is in flux, with media analysts predicting eventual resolution by the US Supreme Court to resolve conflicts in lower courts.

A Texas-based federal judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, issued an order on April 7 which was slated to take effect April 14. His order would apply to all 50 states, according to LifeSiteNews writer David Bjornstrom, “including those where abortion is currently legal.” The order bars sale of the baby poison. A quick appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans produced a ruling suspending the district court decision but barring distribution of the drug in the mail.

The US Justice Dept. is appealing the Kacsmaryk ruling, and in another federal district court, just hours after the Texas victory, Spokane-based US District Judge Thomas Rice issued an order maintaining the drug’s marketing, reports Mr. Bjornstrom, “in the states of Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Michigan and the District of Columbia. …

“It is noteworthy,” writes Mr. Bjornstrom, “that the judge in Washington admitted there were serious issues with the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug and ‘potentially internally inconsistent FDA findings regarding mifepristone’s safety profile.’”

The ruling out of Texas is based in part on inappropriate procedures within the FDA at the time the drug was approved for marketing in the US, in late 2000, just as Pres. Bill Clinton was leaving office and just before he was being succeeded by a GOP President, George W. Bush.

It appears a principal issue in the case is whether the FDA overlooked its own safety protocols, especially in view of numerous reports of medical complications among aborting mothers taking the drug. Other news reports have noted that the FDA dropped its requirement for reporting of such complications during the Obama Regime. At least 26 American women are known to have died after ingesting the drug.

Clearly the unleashing of the French abortion pill on the American public has, from the beginning, been a political campaign rather than a serious performance of public duty on the part of the FDA.

Life-Saving Information

REP. DOUG LAMBORN (R-CO) HAS FILED a bill requiring chemical abortionists to inform their customers about the possibility of reversal of the abortion pill’s effects once a customer has ingested it.

HR-983 is titled the “Second Chance at Life Act” and has 35 co-sponsors. It has been assigned to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce.

Co-sponsors are GOP Representatives Jerry Carl/AL; Debbie Lesko/AZ; Doug LaMalfa/CA; Lauren Boebert/CO; James Baird & Jim Banks/IN; Gus Bilirakis, Matt Gaetz, Anna Paulina Luna, Franklin Scott & Gregory Steube/FL; Ron Estes/KS; Clay Higgins & Mike Johnson/LA; John Moolenaar/MI; Michael Guest & Trent Kelly/MS; Blaine Luetkemeyer/MO; Patrick McHenry & Gregory Murphy/NC; Brad Wenstrup/OH; Kevin Hern/OK; John Joyce/PA; Jeff Duncan & William Timmons/SC; Charles Fleischmann & David Kustoff/TN; Brian Babin, Michael Cloud, Ronny Jackson, August Pfluger & Randy Weber/TX, Bob Good/VA; Glenn Grothman/WI and Alex Mooney/WV.

We encourage our readers who live in one of the districts of the co-sponsors to call and thank their representative for their leadership in this important issue. And we encourage others to call their home-district lawmakers and ask them to add their names as co-sponsors and to vote for HR-983 to give babies and their mothers a second chance. Capitol switchboard: 1-202/224-3121.

Newsom Takes It Back

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D) IS BEING THWARTED in his grandstanding boycott of the Walgreens drug chain, initiated when Walgreens announced the company would abide by the law in some 20 states whose laws, notes Jean Mondoro for LifeSiteNews, “restrict the mailing of the drugs.” (Longstanding US law also restricts the mailing of such substances anywhere in the nation, but the Biden Regime is attempting to ignore that law.)

When in March the abortion fanatic announced “his state ‘won’t be doing business’ with the pharmacy chain,” reports Ms. Mondoro, he did not take into account that his boycott “would violate Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program, which provides public health insurance for low-income residents and enables them to have access to drugs from authorized pharmacies. …

“‘California has no intention of taking any action that would violate federal Medicaid requirements or that could undermine access for low-income individuals,’ Tony Cava of the state’s Dept. of HealthCare Services told Kaiser Health News in a statement,” reports LifeSiteNews.

“A spokes[man] for Newsom also told the outlet,” writes Ms. Mondoro, “that the governor won’t take any action that hurts people who need access to care.’” Nice try, Mr. Newsom!

Dismemberment Ban Reinstated in Indiana

INDIANA HAS BEEN GRANTED AUTHORITY by the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to enforce its ban on dismemberment abortions, the most common tactic for surgical abortion to kill babies who have gestated past the first trimester.

US District Judge Sarah Evans Barker ruled on March 31, reports LifeSiteNews writer Calvin Freiburger, citing Bloomberg Law as source, “that Roe’s overturn meant that abortionist Caitlin Bernard cannot prevail in her argument that the ban violates the US Constitution’s guarantee that individuals cannot be deprived of ‘life, liberty or property without due process of law’ in the 14^th Amendment.” How ironic, that an abortionist would attempt to use the 14^th Amendment as a weapon against the right to life of a developing human baby! Yet, before the Dobbs decision last June, that is the sort of rubbish that routinely flowed from the courts of America because of the cruel manipulation of the law and Constitution by seven Justices of the US Supreme Court in 1973 and thereafter.

Idaho Acts to Protect Its Progeny

IDAHO GOV. BRAD LITTLE (R) HAS SIGNED A NEW LAW to make it a crime to take a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental consent, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews.

“The Washington Examiner reported,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “that the new law establishes the ‘crime of abortion trafficking,’ under which any ‘adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion … or obtains an abortion-inducing drug’ will face up to five years in prison.

“‘It’s already illegal to get an abortion here in the state of Idaho,’ Republican State Rep. Barbara Ehardt said,” in the LifeSiteNews report. “‘So, it would be taking that child across the border, and if that happens without the permission of a parent, that’s where we’ll be able to hold accountable those that would subvert a parent’s right.’”

Idaho borders Oregon and Washington, both states where the abortion cartel is welcomed by state officials.

West Virginia Moves Ahead to Uphold the Right to Life

WEST VIRGINIA GOV. JIM JUSTICE (R) HAS SIGNED A LAW establishing “a new program,” writes Matt Lamb for LifeSiteNews, “to support pregnancy help centers and expand the adoption tax credit as part of a pro-family law.”

Among its provisions is an increase in the state’s adoption tax credit from $4,000 to $5,000 and a new program to provide funding to pregnancy resource centers. The legislation was opposed, reports Mr. Lamb, by the ACLU of West Virginia, “because money might go to organizations that are religious and are pro-life. …

“‘Nearly 3,000 pro-life pregnancy centers nationwide serve millions of women and men each year and offer a wealth of material assistance and vital services – including care provided by over 10,000 licensed medical workers – typically at no cost to the client,’ Moira Gaul with the Charlotte Lozier Institute previously told LifeSiteNews,” writes Mr. Lamb. “‘In contrast, Planned Parenthood performs nearly 200 abortions for every adoption referral, receives a whopping $2 million on average per day in taxpayer funding and carried out a record 383,460 abortions in their last reported year.

“‘The real-world data is clear,’” said Ms. Gaul, quoted by Mr. Lamb. “Pregnancy centers offer the tangible support women and families need to choose life. Planned Parenthood is just an abortion business.’” A business, indeed, which exists to reduce and resist parenthood.

Whither Go Ye, Rep. Mace?

April 11, 2023, commentary by Joy Stockbauer for The Washington Stand

             This week, Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R-SC) once again brought shame on her party by vocally advocating for the White House and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to ignore a ruling from a Texas federal judge that revokes FDA approval for the chemical abortion regimen.

             The federal court sided with the plaintiff in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine vs. US Food & Drug Administration, who argued that the FDA bypassed significant safety concerns for women and girls when approving the abortion drugs through a highly politicized process in 2000. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is represented by the top-notch legal minds at Alliance Defending Freedom, who similarly assisted in winning the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. case in 2022.

             According to Mace in several interviews this week, however, the Texas ruling is “unconstitutional,” adding that “it’s not up to us to decide as legislators … whether or not this is the right drug to use or not, number one.* I agree with ignoring it at this point.” She also argued, “The other thing that we’re missing, too, is that [Republicans] are not on the right side of history if we’re going to take the extreme position on this issue, because the vast majority of Americans are not with us on that. They’re just not.”

             Notably, by suggesting that the Biden Administration ignore the Texas federal judge’s ruling, Mace joins the ranks of such extreme leftists as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) in fighting for special privileges for the abortion industry.

             By contrast, however, even some of the most high-profile pro-abortion voices in the United States have contradicted the call to ignore the federal judge’s ruling. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated in a briefing on Monday that “it will also set a dangerous precedent for this Administration to disregard a binding decision,” though she added that the Administration is “ready to fight this.” Even Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson told MSNBC in an interview that she disagrees with the calls to ignore the federal judge’s ruling.

             Of course, this is not the first time that Mace has outspokenly sided with pro-abortion radicals rather than the GOP. Prior to the 2022 midterms, she claimed, “Somewhere in the middle is where we’ve got to meet” when it comes to abortion, also stating that she “insists that we do not listen to the most extreme voices among us on either side of the aisle.” Due to tragically experiencing a sexual assault earlier in her life, Mace frequently demands that the GOP support exceptions to pro-life protections in cases of rape and incest and perpetuates the debunked concept of medically necessary abortions.

             At first glance, Mace may appear to be offering a legitimate middle ground between Democrats and Republicans on one of the most heated topics facing our nation today. After all, who doesn’t love a compromise? And, for many other issues in public policy, diplomacy and the search for a middle ground is certainly ethically feasible. Not so, however, when it comes to the matter of whether human children should be killed in their mothers’ wombs.

             The issue of abortion is morally unique, because it is rooted in the fundamental equal value of every human being – an immutable principle that exists only in black and white, never in shades of gray. …

*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: This comment by Rep. Mace is beyond comprehension. The question before the court is whether the FDA violated its own protocols in a clearly political approval of a drug which could not meet its own safety standards. No one, to our knowledge, is seeking intervention by “legislators” to suspend this miscarriage of the FDA’s duty. The challenge is in the courts, and it is long overdue.