Life Advocacy Briefing

The Judge Said What?

WISCONSIN FINDS ITSELF IN A LEGAL TANGLE OVER ABORTION, thanks to the state’s attorney general, Josh Kaul (D), who, reports Jean Mondoro for LifeSiteNews, “filed a lawsuit soon after the Dobbs decision, seeking to overturn the [state’s] 1849 law that became enforceable again last year.”

Some two months ago, reports Ms. Mondoro, “a judge ruled that because an 1849 Wisconsin law making it a felony to kill a baby in or out of the womb does not use the term ‘abortion,’ it does not apply to murdering the unborn in abortion.” You can’t make this up! “The legislation was blocked from 1973 until 2022, when Roe was reversed.”

AG Kaul took the law to court to undo the abortion-drought which Dobbs had brought to Wisconsin. And Planned Parenthood announced it would “resume abortions in Wisconsin” starting Sept. 18, at one shop in Milwaukee and another in Madison, home to the University of Wisconsin. 

Bishop Donald Hying of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Milwaukee responded on a prominent social media website, quoted by Ms. Mondoro: “‘This is a travesty of justice on so many levels. … Women need health care that actually brings life, health and help to both themselves and their unborn children. Abortion,’” he declared, “‘is the antithesis of health care.’” Right, and well said!

Breaking Hearts

WHILE AMERICA SEES AN ONSLAUGHT OF CHEMICAL ABORTIONS as the abortion cartel opts for pill pushing in the reality of the aging of the surgical abortionists, little has been said about the emotional scarring which results from self-administration of baby poison.

We urge our readers to set aside several minutes to read a report in World, written by Leah Savas, listed as “the life beat reporter for WORLD News Group. Find it on the Internet at https://wng.org/roundups/do-chemical-abortions-cause-increased-trauma-1695156989.

To whet your appetite, we offer the opening of what is a much longer report: “A client walked into the Heartbeat of Miami pregnancy clinic in Hialeah, Florida, in December – holding her aborted baby in her hand. She had visited the center nine days earlier, and the staff had seen the baby’s image on the ultrasound screen. Heartbeat of Miami president Martha Avila said the mother was almost eight weeks pregnant at the time of the ultrasound. But after she left, she took an abortion drug. …

“A sonographer at a sister clinic in Flagler had a similar client interaction in 2021. In this case, the woman opened a napkin and showed a roughly 10-week-old preborn baby to [the sonographer]. She remembers the tiny eyes, hands and fingers. [She] said the woman caressed and hugged the baby and started crying – ‘because she felt guilty,’ [the sonographer] recalled. ‘That’s the word that she used. She said, “I feel guilty, what I did with my baby.”’”

Among other atrocities involved with chemical abortions, the “professional” who pockets the cash for prescribing or dispensing the drugs never has to be there to dispose of the remains, never has to face the reality of his or her actions. No, this “healthcare” deliverer can simply put the deed into the hands of the mother who is carrying the victim. Next customer. Deed done.

And with many abortion-minded (or pressured?) mothers choosing mail-order privacy, “opting,” writes Ms. Savas, “to order [the pills] online, the result is that women are aborting without direct guidance from a medical professional and don’t realize what a serious medical procedure a chemical abortion is.”

There is so much more in this heart-wrenching report. We urge our readers to take the time and prayerfully open your eyes to the tragic reality sweeping America. And then to insist that our lawmakers take seriously the scourge of chemical abortions and that they put a stop to it while a spark of conscience remains in our land.

Florida in the Crosshairs?

FLORIDA APPEARS TO BE ON THE AGENDA for the abortion cartel’s assault on state constitutions. According to Florida Family Action (FFA), which is a partner to the esteemed Florida Family Policy Council, “the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have organized a heavily funded stealth group called ‘Floridians Protecting Freedom,’ … circulating a petition entitled ‘Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion.’”

FFA declares: “This amendment is very extreme and deceptive. It would enshrine abortion as a fundamental right in Florida’s constitution and allow abortions for virtually any reason up to nine months of pregnancy.” Its implications extend, according to FFA, to “invalidat[ing] almost every commonsense law in Florida regulating abortion, including parental consent, clinic safety regulations and the 24-hour waiting period.”

As has been the case in other state constitution assaults – such as Michigan in 2022 and Ohio right now – “the amendment language is highly deceptive,” warns FFA. “It allows for abortion on demand for any ‘health’ reason at the absolute discretion of any health provider. This term,” FFA points out, “could be an acupuncturist, nurse, pharmacist or physical therapist.”

And the pro-life group warns: “The word ‘health’ is extremely broad in the context of abortion case law. It can include any condition,” declares FFA, “including headaches, nausea, cramping, anxiety and discomfort, and can include ‘emotional, psychological, familial’ factors.” That last quote is taken from the US Supreme Court’s 1973 Doe v. Bolton decision, companion to Roe.

It is likely to be quite a fight, and if the Ohio and Michigan battles are applicable, as they appear, it will require every pro-life citizen to be informed and vocal and involved. Florida readers, you have been warned. Once a constitution is amended, it is immeasurably difficult to undo the damage.

Taking It to the States

THE MARCH FOR LIFE – annually filling the streets of Washington, DC – is coming to our states, where so much of the law reform is now needed in this most noble cause.

Each year since the Supreme Court’s disastrous 1973 edict legalizing the killing of unborn human babies, pro-life pilgrims have descended on the nation’s capital to appeal en masse to the Congress, the White House and the jurists in black robes. A non-profit organization was founded in 1973 by the late Nellie Gray and has organized the March ever since. That organization is now turning its attention to the states and launching a series of Marches.

We encourage our readers to check out the March website at https://marchforlife.org/state-marches-near-you to gather information about the nearest March to you. If you do not find your state listed yet in the still-developing roster, you might pray about contacting a pro-life group in your state to get something started in 2024.

We can tell you that Virginia has been marching in-state annually for five years now, the most recent march being last February. Arizona pro-lifers also marched in February, and Californians marched in their state capital for the third time last March. Hartford, Connecticut, hosted a state march in March for the second annual such event.

Coming up: Marches in Columbus, Ohio, and in Bismarck, North Dakota on Friday, Oct. 6; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Monday, Oct. 16 (the state’s third annual such rally); the March for Life is summoning Michiganders to their state capital on Wednesday, Nov. 8, wrapping up 2023 in time to prepare for the annual March in Washington, DC, on Friday, Jan. 19.

‘Pro-Life’ is More than a Bumper Sticker

Sept. 15, 2023, report by Sarah Holliday for The Washington Stand

             It appears that attempts in some quarters of the GOP to rebrand the term “pro-life” to “pro-baby” is not settling well among many liberals and conservatives alike. Democrats, such as former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, are openly mocking this potential switch, comparing unborn babies to “a lump of coal.” At the same time, conservatives claim this rebrand would not solve the “larger problem.”

             Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) has been credited for coining the new label. “[‘Pro-baby’] was just a term of my creation to demonstrate my concern for babies,” he said. Psaki responded, “I hate to break it to you, but if you call broccoli ‘candy,’ it’s still just broccoli.” She added this rebrand attempt was a futile effort when dealing with a “product that customers hate.” Liberal outlets such as The Intelligencer say that conservatives are playing “language games” in order “to obscure the facts.”

             According to National Review’s Madeleine Kearns, the problem isn’t in the term “pro-life” as much as “the unwillingness, if not the inability, to give a coherent account of what it entails in policy and practice.” ABC News reported the diverse viewpoints expressed during a closed-door meeting of Senate Republicans earlier this week.

             Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) noted in an interview that the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” have been distorted over time, or, in his words, they mean “something different now.” The uncertainty of what exactly each party is fighting for caused Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) to point out the need for more “specificity … in talking about abortion.”

             Commenting on the debate, a Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America spokesperson shared, “The pro-life movement serves both mother and child. We recognize the need to love and support them both.” The pro-abortion side articulates an emphasis on women and will often refer to them as “pregnant people,” she added. “Now more than ever, the pro-life movement needs to continue emphasizing its commitment to both women and children.”

             Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) further pointed out that what is truly effective is defining the GOP’s stance on abortion, rather than simply changing the name. “People require more in-depth discussions,” she said. “You can’t get away with a label anymore. What we’ve learned is, you have to dive in and talk to people about very specifically where you are on that subject.”

We Report, You Decide

Sept. 18, 2023, LifeSiteNews report by Calvin Freiburger

             Former President Donald Trump stunned pro-life former supporters over the weekend with a Meet the Press interview in which he repeatedly touted plans for an abortion compromise he hopes will put the issue “behind us,” repeatedly refused to say if he believes the pre-born have constitutional rights, condemned state heartbeat laws as “terrible,” expressed indifference as to whether the issue is resolved at the state or federal level, and reiterated his insistence that pro-life laws need exceptions for rape and incest.

             During an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, host Kristen Welker asked the 2024 Republican front-runner, “How is it acceptable in America that women’s lives are at risk, doctors are being forced to turn away patients in need, or risk breaking the law?” Without disputing the false claim that denying abortion risks women’s lives, Trump claimed credit for overturning Roe v. Wade, which he said gave pro-lifers “the right to negotiate for the first time.”

             “We’re going to have people come together on this issue,” he said. “They’re going to determine the time, because nobody wants to see five, six, seven, eight, nine months, nobody wants to see abortions when you have a baby in the womb.”

             Welker repeatedly claimed that abortion up to and past nine months “is not part of anyone’s platform.” Trump repeated the point throughout the interview, but did not correct Welker’s denial of it beyond a passing reference to New York’s so-called Reproductive Health Act of 2019. Instead, Trump focused on his vision of himself as “almost like a mediator in this case,” after which “we’ll be able to go on to other things, like the economy, our military.”

             “I think they’re all going to like me. I think both sides are gonna like me,” he said. “What’s going to have to happen, listen, what’s going to happen is you’re going to come up with a number of weeks or months, you’re going to come up with a number that’s going to make people happy. Because 92% of the Democrats don’t want to see abortion after a certain period of time.”

             “We’re going to agree to a number of weeks or months or however you want to define it, and both sides are going to come together, and both sides, both sides – and this is a big statement – both sides will come together, and for the first time in 52 years you’ll have an issue that we can put behind us,” Trump claimed.

             Compromise legislation on abortion is not a new idea; pro-life legislative strategy has long been dominated by the “incremental” approach in which bills are proposed based on whatever cutoff points are believed to be most politically feasible in a given time or place. Nationally, however, Democrats have not been receptive to such proposals. In January, all but two Democrats in the US House of Representatives voted against legislation to require basic medical care to fully delivered infants who survive attempted abortions. (When in leadership, Democrats have repeatedly blocked such legislation from even coming up for a vote.) Last year, all but one House Democrat voted for legislation to force effectively-unlimited abortion nationwide. In 2020, only two Senate Democrats voted for legislation to ban abortion at 20 weeks. Democrat leaders often refuse to identify any abortion restrictions they would accept, most recently Vice President Kamala Harris.

             Further, as noted Monday by LifeSiteNews’s Matt Lamb, a 15-week cutoff point embraced over the past year by some pro-life leaders would only stop an estimated seven percent of abortions, with a later number of weeks saving even fewer babies. That is why the incremental approach (which not all pro-lifers accept) is predicated on the understanding that any partial ban will be followed by continued efforts to pass earlier bans, eventually achieving full protection. Trump, by contrast, touted his compromise as an endpoint for the issue.

             When asked if such a compromise would be at the state or federal level, Trump said, “It could be state or it could be federal. I don’t frankly care.” A federal abortion law would be the only scenario in which the President would have any role, however.

             When pressed for further elaboration, Trump was evasive. On whether he would sign a ban on abortion at 15 weeks, he said, “I’m not gonna say I would or I wouldn’t,” then volunteered that he considered it a “terrible thing and a terrible mistake” for his chief 2024 rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, to have signed a ban on abortion at 6 weeks.

             Welker also asked four times if Trump believed that pre-born babies have constitutional rights. He did not answer but took the opportunity to stress, “I have exceptions, by the way. I think people should have exceptions, I think if it’s rape or incest or the life of the mother, I think you have to have exceptions … and a lot of people, when they don’t have exceptions, now, I will tell you that I think most people, most Republicans are willing, you go life of the mother, rape, incest, I think most of them are there.”

             “There is a number, and there’s a number that’s going to be agreed to,” Trump said. “And Republicans should go out and say the following, because I think the Republicans speak very inarticulately about this subject, I watch some of them, without the exceptions et cetera, et cetera, I said, other than certain parts of the country, you can’t – you’re not going to win on this issue. But you will win on this issue when you come up with the right number of weeks. Because Democrats don’t want to be radical on the issue, most of them, some do, they don’t want to be radical on the issue.”

             Trump’s comments set off a firestorm among the pro-life community. Live Action founder Lila Rose called them “pathetic and unacceptable,” declaring he “should not be the GOP nominee.” And Then There Were None CEO Abby Johnson and Students for Life of America president Kristan Hawkins excoriated Trump as well.

             A conspicuous exception was Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, whose president Marjorie Dannenfelser said in April the Trump campaign’s declaration that abortion should be left to the states was “morally indefensible” and vowed to “oppose any Presidential candidate who refuses to embrace at a minimum a 15-week national standard,” but 18 days later praised Trump for a “terrific” meeting during which he reportedly reiterated his support for exceptions and opposition to Democrat extremism on the issue, without any indication he had committed to the “minimum” 15-week standard.

             As of noon CST on Sept. 18, the group has not issued a statement via its website or social accounts, but when asked for comment, simply reiterated its call for a 15-week minimum, endorsed clarity from “every candidate” on how to advance the pro-life cause, and praised DeSantis for signing the Heartbeat Law but did not mention Trump by name or criticize his remarks.

             Other conservative commentators suggested the interview signaled that Trump, who established a generally pro-life record in office by bringing in outside help to shape his executive actions and judicial selections (to assuage doubts about his “very pro-choice” past), now takes conservative support for granted and feels free to try to curry favor with other groups, potentially forecasting a very different type of Presidency if he were to win a second term.

             The DeSantis campaign pounced on Trump’s comments as well, calling them part of a pattern that it said the Florida governor would not share as President.

             Trump maintains a commanding lead for the nomination, even as grave questions persist as to whether Trump can defeat Pres. Joe Biden in a rematch. Primary voting begins next January with the Iowa caucuses, where DeSantis supporters hope the governor’s ground operation will deliver a victory that reverses the trajectory of the nomination battle. It remains to be seen how Trump’s latest abortion comments will impact the race.