Life Advocacy Briefing

November 6, 2023

Thank You Again, Sen. Tuberville / Every Vote Matters
Good News Out of the Courts / And Some Not-So-Good News
Extremism in Defense of Abortion Is No Virtue / Troubling Report Out of Virginia

Thank You Again, Sen. Tuberville

THE CLOSER THE BIDEN REGIME GETS to involving US troops into wars in various places, the more pressure comes down on Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) for his lonely “Mr. Smith” stand against the Pentagon’s circumvention of long-standing protection of the babies being carried by military personnel or their dependents.

For most of this year, he has exercised his right as a US Senator to stall confirmation of military officers whose advancement is subject to Senate confirmation. His stand is clearly not against the military and not against individuals seeking promotion. His stand is against misuse of taxpayer dollars for abortions by the Pentagon and the Biden Regime’s misuse of military facilities for these deadly deeds.

His principled, stiff-backed stand is probably the one tactic a Senator of the minority party has to bring this abomination to the awareness of the public, though without question he is annoying the abortion fanatics in the Biden Regime and his Senate colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle.

Some confirmations have passed through the Senate, including two on Thursday. What Sen. Tuberville is blocking is a wholesale confirmation of military promotions en bloc.

How disappointing it was to see a handful of Republican Senators abetting the Biden/Schumer majority last Wednesday night in the Senate chamber. Senators Dan Sullivan (AK), Todd Young (IN), Joni Ernst (IA), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Mitt Romney (UT) took turns moving to confirm one military appointee after another; Sen. Sullivan is reported to have organized the drubbing of their colleague. Though he did not publicly participate in Wednesday’s woodshedding, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has criticized Sen. Tuberville for his one-man filibuster. In each case Wednesday night, Sen. Tuberville objected, and by Senate rule, his objection stood.


Every Vote Matters

WHEN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE STATE OF MAINE VOTED on June 23 to approve Maine’s new abortion law, the vote was 74 to 72. That, notes Dave Andrusko in National Right to Life News, citing the National Catholic Register’s Matthew McDonald as source, “‘mean[s] that if one state representative had voted “no” instead of “yes,” the measure would have died. … All 66 Republicans who voted went against it, as did five Democrats and one Independent. (Three Democrats and one Republican were absent.)’”

The consequence? Abortion is now legal all the way to birth, as long as killing the baby is “‘necessary in the professional judgment of a physician,’” the law states, reports Mr. Andrusko. So, the one who is empowered to “judge” whether killing a developing human baby is “necessary” is the one who stuffs his (or her) pockets with cash for the deed.

The bill was introduced on behalf of the state’s governor, Janet Mills, a Democrat, notes Mr. Andrusko. She declared in signing it into law, “the bill ‘puts the decision about whether to have an abortion later in pregnancy in the hands of women and their doctors – not politicians or lawyers – ensuring that patients can get care they need, when they need it.’”


Good News Out of the Courts

  • THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT late last month upheld the state’s “Living Infant Fairness & Equality (LIFE) Act,” reports Dave Andrusko for National Right to Life News. The ruling overturned a lower court injunction by a superior court judge in Fulton County, who had “ruled that the law was ‘unequivocally unconstitutional’ because it was enacted in 2019, when Roe v. Wade was still in effect,” notes Mr. Andrusko, as though that flawed Supreme Court ruling was actually the Constitution, rather than an abuse of it. The LIFE Act is Georgia’s version of the popular “Heartbeat Bill,” which bars abortion once a developing baby’s heartbeat can be detected, usually around six weeks from conception.

  • COLORADO’s LAW BANNING ABORTION PILL REVERSAL was enjoined in late October by federal District Judge Daniel Domenico, reports Dave Andrusko for National Right to Life News. A healthcare facility called “Bella Health & Wellness” filed suit against the law because, notes Mr. Andrusko, quoting a news release from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the new law “‘forbids doctors and nurses to give progesterone to help women who took the first abortion pill, even if they were tricked or forced into taking it. The decision by a federal judge,’” states Becket, quoted by Mr. Andrusko, “‘protect[s] Bella and the many women who come to them for medical help to continue their pregnancies’” – a worthy goal indeed. The ruling was not final but will aid distressed mothers and their developing children while the issue continues to be contested in the courts.


And Some Not-So-Good News

A STATE DISTRICT JUDGE IN KANSAS HAS BLOCKED two pro-life laws – a waiting period law effective since 1997 and a recently enacted law, reports Jean Mondoro for LifeSiteNews, “requiring abortionists to inform women about the option of abortion pill reversal.”

The temporary injunction is expected to be in place until a trial next June before District Judge Krishnan Christopher Jayaram.

“The judge claimed,” writes Ms. Mondoro, “that the pro-abortion groups challenging the law, including Planned Parenthood, had exhibited ‘credible evidence’ disproving the reliability of abortion pill reversal. While abortion supporters belittle the effectiveness and safety of naturally reversing the chemical abortion process before the unborn child dies, research has shown that it has saved thousands of preborn lives without harming the mother. … A recently published academic study,” notes the LifeSiteNews writer, “found that the use of progesterone soon after a woman takes mifepristone reversed the abortion process more than 80% of the time.” That, no doubt, is the problem.


Extremism in Defense of Abortion Is No Virtue

Oct. 22, 2023, report by Andrew Mark Miller for Fox News Digital

             As Ohio voters prepare to decide [on Nov. 7] on sweeping changes to the state’s abortion laws, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has uncharacteristically jumped into the debate with both feet. DeWine explained to Fox News Digital in an interview this week why a November vote to enshrine abortion access to that state’s constitution motivated him to run his first-ever ad addressing a state ballot measure and why he believes the proposal isn’t consistent with what most Ohio voters want.

             “Fran and I have never done an ad before for a statewide issue or even a local issue, but we both feel very strongly about this, and I think, whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, the constitutional amendment that we will be voting on [Nov. 7] just goes way, way too far,” DeWine told Fox News Digital at the governor’s mansion in Columbus, Ohio, following an ad he ran with Ohio’s First Lady urging his constituents to vote “no” on Issue 1, a November constitutional amendment on abortion.

             “It would allow abortion at any point in the pregnancy,” DeWine said. “It would negate Ohio’s law that we’ve had on the books for many, many years that prohibits partial-birth abortion.”

             The future of partial-birth and late-term abortion in Ohio has become a prominent topic among opponents of Issue 1, including Protect Women Ohio, who has pointed to a $100,000 contribution from Dr. Martin Haskell, a Dayton area doctor whom they describe as “the inventor of the partial-birth abortion procedure,” made in support of the constitutional amendment.

             “It also really strikes at parents’ rights and the relationship between a parent and, in this case, a daughter,” DeWine said. “We have a law that says that you have to have parental consent in regard to a minor getting an abortion that would be knocked out by this constitutional amendment as well. So, it would put Ohio in a small category of the most permissive states in the union in regard to abortion. I just don’t think it fits Ohio. It’s not who we are. It’s not where we are.”

             DeWine told Fox News Digital that the groups supporting a “Yes” vote on Issue 1 have run deceptive ads about what the amendment would do. “I think that the people who are doing these ads that are for Issue 1 are misleading people,” DeWine said. One ad talked about the amendment guaranteeing help in regard to miscarriages, said DeWine, but that’s not an issue. “Medical assistance is out there. I mean, we have hospitals. They do what they do, doctors. So, they’re wrapping this into things that are certainly already well taken care of by the medical community and our hospitals and our doctors. So just, you know, I think it’s a very misleading campaign that they’re running.”

             DeWine said he doesn’t believe Ohio has ever overturned a constitutional amendment that was approved by the people, which means that if this amendment passes, it is likely to be permanent. DeWine explained that even under Roe v. Wade, Ohio was permitted to implement some restrictions on abortion and that this amendment would go even further and invalidate those measures.

             Even Roe and another abortion precedent-setting Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey “allowed Ohio and other states to put some guardrails around abortion,” DeWine said. “Parental notification was one. Another law that we have [is] in regard to someone with a disability, a child with a disability. You could not have an abortion specifically for the reason that that child has Down’s syndrome. You know, these are guardrails … would just go away because this is a constitutional amendment.” …

             When asked what he would tell an Ohioan who is undecided on how to vote on Issue 1, the governor said that voters “don’t have to take my word for it” but need only to “look at the language of the constitutional amendment and look at how the courts have defined things in the past.”

             Ohio’s Republican Attorney General Dave Yost put together a comprehensive analysis of what voting “Yes” on Issue 1 and approving the amendment would mean for abortions in the state and wrote that the language of the amendment “creates a new legal standard that goes beyond what Roe and Casey said. … The amendment would not return things to how they were before Dobbs overruled Roe and is not just ‘restoring Roe,’” Yost said. “It goes further.”

             Yost wrote that several abortion restrictions in the state would be invalidated if the new amendment passes, including the Heartbeat Act, the Down Syndrome discrimination law and the law prohibiting partial-birth abortion. Additionally, Yost concludes that several other aspects related to abortion might not immediately be invalidated but will face serious legal challenges with an “uncertain outcome” in courts due to the language of the [amendment]. Those issues include 24-hour waiting period and informed consent, Ohio law that requires a doctor to inform a minor’s parents before performing an abortion on a pregnant minor, abortion pill safety regulations, limits against taxpayer funds for abortion providers.”

             Supporters of Issue 1, including Ohio Citizen Action, have made the argument that voters “are faced with a critical choice to stand up for our personal autonomy” and that “personal decisions should be made by individuals and their families, free from government oversight.”

             “It’s pretty clear that this constitutional amendment just goes farther, much further than what the average Ohioan approves,” DeWine told Fox News Digital. “If a voter is comfortable with abortion up until the time of birth, they’re probably going to be okay with this amendment. If they’re comfortable with parents not being involved in the most important decision their daughter will ever make or certainly has made up until that point in her life – if they’re okay with that, then they should vote for this,” DeWine added.


Troubling Report Out of Virginia

Oct. 17, 2023, LifeSiteNews commentary by Matt Lamb

             Gov. Glenn Youngkin [R] had a successful career as an investor, so it’s a bit puzzling why he would pour $1.4 million into an ad that told voters he opposes a ban on abortions and that he essentially wants to protect just three percent of babies from being killed in the womb.

             The ad, from his Spirit of Virginia PAC, tells voters that it is “disinformation” that Republicans support banning abortion. Using Planned Parenthood pink, the ad says there is “no ban” in the works from Virginia Republicans. Instead, the GOP wants “reasonable limits,” unlike the Democrats who support abortion through the moment of birth.

             The format comes off less like a standard political ad and more like an MTV public service announcement, perhaps intending to appeal to center-Left and young voters. But will any voters be swayed from the Democratic Party’s abortion platform to that of Youngkin’s, which is hardly different? Youngkin’s 15-week abortion ban proposal would save, at most, a few hundred babies from abortion. It also includes rape, incest and life-of-the-mother exceptions, a loophole that can be exploited to include basically any abortion. [?] Any baby we can save from being destroyed in the womb is a good step, of course, but his legislation leaves out at least 15,000 other babies.

             Virginia’s 2020 abortion data show that 0.6% of abortions occurred between 14 and 15 weeks and about the same between 16 and 17 weeks, according to Charlotte Lozier Institute’s analysis. Another “0.9% (139 abortions) were performed between 18 and 20 weeks of gestation” and “108 abortions (0.7%) occurred at 21 weeks of gestation or later.” The vast majority of abortions are committed when the baby is still in the first trimester of pregnancy – and none of those would be stopped under an exception-filled 15-week abortion “ban.”

             Ironically, Youngkin’s ad features audio of a baby’s heartbeat in utero as it claims that Republicans merely support [a] “commonsense position” on prenatal murder. That “commonsense position” would allow the destruction of babies well after their heartbeats become detectable around six weeks of pregnancy.

             The purpose of the ad appears to make the case that Republicans are actually fine with abortion. And their proposal reflects that, given it extends only the smallest of protections for innocent human life, while leaving broad exceptions. But abortion is a moral issue, not a political one. Abortion is the direct killing of an innocent preborn baby – a whole, distinct, living human being – in the womb. It violates a human being’s fundamental right to life.

             Gov. Youngkin has shown before he understands the seriousness of cultural issues and attacks on the family. He deserves credit for changing from a moderate, country-club Republican into a socially conservative leader, at least on issues such as parental responsibilities when it comes to education and opposing the transgender agenda. But he does not seem to understand that abortion is a black-and-white issue. There are those who oppose the direct, intentional killing of human life and those who are fine with babies being killed in the womb.

             Under Youngkin’s proposal, babies could still be suffocated with chemical abortion drugs, induced to have heart attack abortions through saline injections or be torn apart in the womb. Just a few hundred fewer babies would suffer destruction in the womb, and for what purpose? So he can possibly win over a few more votes?

Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: The above commentary criticizing Gov. Youngkin illustrates the risk being taken by GOP politicians who are being courted by the powerful Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America PAC to endorse a 15-week abortion ban as their principal stand on abortion law. A columnist for the Washington Post, Rachel Roubein, wrote on May 1 that “the influential group will no longer back House or Senate candidates who don’t support legislation that would prohibit most abortions at 15 weeks … – the same standard SBA is applying to Presidential candidates.” The problem is, SBA is reportedly insisting candidates endorse the artificial 15-week ban even if they actually embrace tougher proposals, confusing both pro-life candidates and pro-life voters. It appears the artificial “standard” is beginning to infect the state level now, too. We hope it will not cost badly needed victories in the Virginia legislative elections on Nov. 7.