Life Advocacy Briefing

Celebrating the New Day, Post Dobbs

A ‘NATIONAL CELEBRATE LIFE DAY’ RALLY & GALA are being planned for Washington, DC, on this Saturday, June 24, to commemorate the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade and restoring the authority of states to protect their developing progeny.

A rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall is set for 10:30 a.m. to noon, led by Students for Life of America (SFLA) and co-hosted by 40 Days for Life, Live Action and Pro-Life Partners Foundation. Among the speakers at the rally, according to a report by Peter Pinedo for the Catholic News Agency (CNA), will be Live Action’s Lila Rose, Daily Wire podcaster Michael Knowles and SFLA president Kristan Hawkins.

An evening gala will be held Saturday evening at the Renaissance Hotel in the nation’s capital; tickets will be required for the gala. Information about the gala and an opportunity to make a reservation can be found on the Internet at https://studentsforlifeofamerica.givingfuel.com/national-celebrate-life-gala.

SFLA’s executive vice president, Tina Whittington, “told CNA,” writes Mr. Pinedo, “that the [June 24] rally will be ‘laying out a vision of where to go next in the pro-life movement: achieving national protection for preborn Americans under the 14^th Amendment of the Constitution.’” She added, “‘As long as Planned Parenthood is funded through our federal government and pro-abortionists fight for Life-ending bills in Congress, there’s a fight to be had in Washington.’”

She further said, in the CNA report, “‘We celebrate the fact that half of all states prevent abortions after 12 weeks one year after Roe’s reversal, but we’re just getting started, and far more can be done at the federal level to protect innocent lives from the violence of abortion.’”

Good News

A NEW GALLUP POLL, cited by Dave Andrusko in National Right to Life News (NRL/News), shows a growing conservatism among Americans on “social” issues.

“‘For most of the past eight years,’” states Gallup’s summary, quoted by NRL/News, “‘Americans were about as likely to say they were liberal as conservative on social issues. This year, there is a more obvious conservative advantage. The shift is mostly due,’” says the Gallup conclusion, “‘to increasing social conservatism among Republicans at a time when social issues – such as abortion and other hot-button concerns – are prominent in the national public debate.’”

A bit of detail, reported by Gallup’s Jeffrey Jones and quoted by NRL’s Dave Andrusko: “‘More Americans this year (38%) say they are very conservative or conservative on social issues than said so in 2022 (33%) and 2021 (30%). At the same time,’” he adds, “‘the percentage saying their social views are very liberal or liberal has dipped to 29% from 34% in each of the past two years … . The last time this many Americans said they were socially conservative was 2012, during a period when consistently more US adults identified as conservative rather than liberal on social issues.’”

Whither the Hippocratic Oath?

THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSN. (A.M.A.) HAS JUST UNDERSCORED its support for its physician/members turning aside from struggling infants born alive mid-abortion.

At its annual mid-June meeting in Chicago, a Virginia doctor who calls himself “‘pro-choice,’” reports Matt Lamb for LifeSiteNews, proposed a resolution asking the major medical group “to ‘advocate for availability of the highest standard of neonatal care to [an] aborted fetus born alive at a gestational age of viability,’ which occurs at approximately 22 weeks’ gestation.

“‘This position is not to argue the woman’s right to choose. … The decision to abort is still between the patient and the physician,’ [Dr.] Eppes said,” writes Mr. Lamb. “‘It does not imply the woman’s responsibility for the fetal life, but this resolution places the burden of care on the physician, who now has to care for two patients once the fetus is viable.’”

That is the least standard of care expected by the vast majority of Americans, but it seems to be  unacceptable to the majority of AMA members who bothered to attend the annual meeting. The vote was 476 to 106, according to Mr. Lamb, who cited MedPage as source for the report.

“The ‘no’ vote,” notes Mr. Lamb, “came after advocacy against the resolution from the pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG).” And this is why most pro-life mothers, when seeking obstetric care, have to ask their potential doctor which side of this debate he or she is on. The chief professional organization of those doctors who should be first in the profession to advocate for the lives of their littlest, most dependent patients is, it turns out, dominated by those who put profit before saving lives.

And the perfidy of ACOG was endorsed by nearly 82% of the physician delegates to the AMA, which causes us to wonder: Who’s participating in these meetings?

Tripping on the National Stage

A NEW ENTRANT into the GOP Presidential contest last week offers a disappointing response to “the abortion question.”

North Dakota GOP Gov. Doug Burgum signed a Heartbeat law earlier this year, notes Calvin Freiburger, reporting for LifeSiteNews. So, in North Dakota, it is now illegal to commit an abortion on a baby whose heartbeat can be detected, usually around six weeks into life. (The North Dakota version of this law discriminates against developing babies conceived in a sex crime.)

But now that he has emerged into Presidential politics, notes Mr. Freiburger, “he now says he would not do the same nationwide. …

On Wednesday, June 7, Gov. Burgum announced, reports Mr. Freiburger, “he would be seeking the GOP’s White House nomination for 2024, billing himself as a ‘new leader for a changing economy’ who can bring ‘small-town values’ to Washington, DC. But federal legal protection for the preborn will apparently not be one of those values, according to comments Burgum gave CNN on Thursday.

“‘I think the decision that was made returning the power to the states was the right one,’ the governor said. ‘And I think we’re going to have — we have a lot of division on this issue in America. And what’s right for North Dakota may not be right for another state […]. The best decisions are made locally.’

“‘Does that mean as President you would not sign a federal abortion ban?’ CNN’s Poppy Harlow asked for clarification,” reports Mr. Freiburger, quoting CNN. “‘To which Burgum replied, “that’s correct.” He added that “one of the most important things a CEO can do is really prioritize what that organization should focus on. And the federal government’s got a limited set of powers that they’re supposed to focus on.”’” So, North Dakota babies are worthy of government intervention to save their lives; developing babies whose mothers live in some of the other states? Not so much.

Taking Pride in Sanctity of Life Month

THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI IS OBSERVING Sanctity of Life Month in June, reports Jean Mondoro for LifeSiteNews, “for the second time since the historic overturning of Roe v. Wade last year.”

The commemoration was instituted by a proclamation from Gov. Tate Reeves (R), urging, notes Ms. Mondoro, “‘all citizens to celebrate the Sanctity of Life from the unborn to natural death, dedicated to the profound truth that all life is a gift from God, Who endows every individual with immeasurable worth and potential.’”

It was the State of Mississippi that appealed the Dobbs case all the way to the Supreme Court, urging the Justices to overturn the offensive 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings which commercialized in America the deliberate killing of innocent developing babies.

Some Good News from the U.N.

April 15, 2023, report by Lisa Correnti & Stefano Gennarini for Center for Family & Human Rights

[We found this in a set-aside pile and offer it to readers as a too-good-to-miss leftover. We hope you will find it encouraging, even as it grows whiskers!]

             Traditional countries dealt a decisive and unexpected blow to the Western sexual agenda at an annual population conference at the United Nations yesterday.

             Western countries were able to unduly influence negotiations so that the final draft resolution included the controversial term “comprehensive sexuality education” but were ultimately unable to force the adoption of the agreement over the objections of over two dozen traditional countries from Asia, Africa and the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

             The Biden Administration, the European Union, and other western nations were on track to force the adoption of the resolution that promoted “comprehensive sexuality education” and sexual autonomy for children, something they have tried to do for over a decade without success. To assure this outcome, earlier in the week the US and European Union sent separate emails to the Moldovan chair[man] saying that they would not accept an outcome document that did not have a reference to sexuality education.

             But then something happened that no one expected. Dozens of delegates took the floor expressing “grave concerns and disappointment” over the manner in which the chair[man] chose to address the priorities and positions of some delegations in comparison to the priorities and positions of others.

             No one was prepared for the calculated show of solidarity and diplomatic savvy exhibited by traditional countries. After hours of statements demonstrating there was no consensus, the chairman of the conference, the Ambassador of Moldova to the United Nations, was forced to withdraw his proposed resolution.

             A disappointed delegate from Pakistan eloquently accused Western countries of holding education policy hostage until all countries submit to their sexual agenda. “For the sake of comprehensive sexuality education, we have compromised education for all,” she said, complaining that little to no attention had been paid to access to education, sanitation, books and other aspects of education infrastructure needed for the 263 million children out of school.

             She encouraged Western countries to implement comprehensive sexuality education within their own borders without attempting to impose it on others and to respect the sovereignty and priorities of other countries. “One country’s priorities cannot be the priorities for all,” she said.

             The Egyptian delegate expressed frustration that Western countries refused to include language about the “prior right” of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose 75^th anniversary takes place this year. “The language from the UDHR was not acceptable to the same delegations lecturing us about having a constructive attitude,” he said in response to accusations that the 22 countries who opposed the language on comprehensive sexuality education were being intractable.

             Above all, countries complained about the process whereby the draft resolution was presented for adoption. The Moldovan chairman presented a final draft for adoption at 10:30 p.m. on Thursday night, less than the 24 hours prior to adoption on Friday morning required by UN rules of procedure. The proposed draft contained the same language on sexuality education that the 22 countries had objected to earlier in the week, and an additional surprise paragraph about the right of adolescents to access abortion, contraception and other reproductive health services without parental consent that has not been discussed in negotiations.

             Traditional countries rallied late on Thursday night and in the early morning were ready to mount the final attempt to save the resolution. The 22 countries were Algeria, Belarus, Brunei, Darussalam, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Syria, Uganda, Yemen and Zimbabwe.

             The debate around CSE is one of the most controversial in multilateral negotiations. Sexually explicit curricula from UN agencies promote sexual autonomy for children including encouraging them to discover sexual pleasure, masturbation and transgenderism.

Take Heart!

June 12, 2023, The Washington Stand commentary by Suzanne Bowdey

(Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: It is not our custom to publish commentaries that do not bear directly on the cause of Life. We choose to publish this one because of its encouragement toward the impact which can result from standing up against what the media deem as cultural imperatives.)

             … At a time when Americans are pummeling pro-trans companies, the sports world has been working since January to put out the fires lit by [National Hockey League] defenseman Ivan Provorov. The Russian, who triggered a moral uprising across North American locker rooms by refusing to wear a Pride jersey, was the catalyst for a league-wide mutiny no one saw coming. In the months that followed, six teams decided to kill the rainbow gear altogether, and a steady drip of skaters and goalies opted out, creating a PR nightmare for the front office. By the end of the regular season, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman admitted that the league would have to reevaluate whether it would continue coercing players to wear a political message they personally opposed.

             Major League Baseball has apparently decided to avoid the media circus altogether, sending a blanket ban under the radar to every team in February. The news only started circulating last week when The Tampa Bay Times warned fans that Pride Night would look different this year. “Under a new MLB directive, players won’t wear rainbow-themed caps or uniform patches, which led to controversy a year ago.” That controversy, which involved a bullpen of Christian pitchers, sent the first ripples of disapproval through the ranks of the professional sports world. Now, after Provorov, the revolution that started pulverizing Pride in corporate America is bending even major league sports to its will.

             According to the Tampa Bay Times, the plans for June were scrapped at an owners meeting in February, shortly after hockey’s New York Rangers and New York Islanders signaled a massive sea change in the fight over Pride jerseys. Both …  teams announced that they’d be forgoing the tradition in one of the bluest cities in America, shocking owners everywhere. Suddenly, the handful of skaters who’d taken a stand were on the verge of upending the sports’ status quo. While that was unfolding, baseball officials looked with a wary eye toward June, ultimately deciding that the MLB would no longer use its uniform space “to promote specific causes that were not league-driven, such as Mother’s Day or to honor Jackie Robinson.” …

             Family Research Council’s Joseph Backholm applauded the league for finally backing off its LGBT tyranny. “This is a great example of what happens when a few people show some courage. It was always unreasonable to ask players to communicate a message they disagreed with — and when a few said no, the league was forced to justify what they were doing and couldn’t. Everyone but the bullies win in this situation.”

             Under a “preexisting agreement,” [the Times’ Marc] Topkin says, two cities at the heart of LGBT advocacy in California — the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Francisco Giants — have special permission from headquarters to wear their Pride-themed patches this year. (For Dodgers’ fans, who are disgusted by the team’s alignment with the Catholic-mocking Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, that comes as no surprise.)

             In a conversation with Rays’ team president Brian Auld, Topkin admitted last year’s controversy was a learning experience. “We wouldn’t pretend to always get everything exactly right,” he said candidly. “But, overall, we felt like last year’s Pride Night … encouraged a lot of great conversation. And we think that’s necessary in this area.”

             Conversation was exactly what players had been denied in these decisions. With the exception of one team — the Texas Rangers — they were forced to swallow their convictions and wear a symbol in direct contradiction to their moral and religious convictions. Only when a few brave athletes stood up and pushed back did anyone stop to consider what real inclusion looks like.

             Pitcher Tyler Glasnow emphasized that point, telling the Times that this whole debate “opened up a lot of good dialogue in the clubhouse, and it was important for everyone to talk about what they needed to. … You really don’t have to agree,” he pointed out. “But I think everyone just has to make room for everyone else. And regardless of what you believe, you should be able to enjoy your time here and just be able to come and enjoy a baseball game.”

             That was essentially P.K. Subban’s message to the NHL when he spoke out in early April. The defenseman-turned-commentator was adamant, “We cannot push everyone to be an activist — we need to be very careful. I feel people pick and choose what they want to talk about, and I don’t like it when we put the onus on athletes to be activists.” …

             For now, baseball’s decision comes as roaring confirmation of the power Americans are flexing across the social spectrum. After years of quietly enduring the extremists, this anti-Pride tour de force continues to be a thing to behold. May it continue to humble every industry that poisons our pastimes, tortures our values, and brainwashes our children.