Life Advocacy Briefing

Be Careful Who You Wish For

WHEN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RECRUITS A CANDIDATE for public office, the recruiters might want to avoid choosing a candidate who has no desire to attract voters from a significant chunk of the party’s voter coalition: those who cherish the right to life for all human beings.

Our comment stems from irritation we experience every time we hear about the special election in New York’s 3^rd Congressional District, which last Tuesday was won – predictably – by former Democrat Congressman Tom Suozzi.

There is no question Mr. Suozzi will add a vote in the House not only to his Democratic Party but also to the abortion lobby’s roster. His voting record in his previous tenure shows that, as does his rhetoric in the recently concluded campaign.

But national news media – even the generally conservative Fox News Channel – have characterized the loss of his GOP opponent, Mazi Pilip, as another example of “abortion politics” electing a Democrat, as though there was a distinction between the two candidates on that pivotal issue.

Judge for yourself whether Mr. Suozzi’s victory hinged on “the abortion issue.” Here is a quote from Ms. Pilip’s campaign website’s issues page – her “10-point plan: … #10. Support Women’s Rights: Mazi knows that abortion is a very personal choice and she would never do anything to limit women’s rights. Do not believe her opponent’s lies. She will not support a national abortion ban or funding cuts for reproductive rights and care.”

Does that read like a pro-life – or even anti-abortion – stand to you? Not to us.

We have no doubt that the abortion lobby threw significant cash into the district to “warn” voters of Ms. Pilip’s supposed “extreme” position [lie]. Nor do we doubt that the abortion issue played a role in the loss of the GOP seat, narrowing further the already scant GOP “advantage” in the House. But the fact is, the agreement of the two nominees on the matter of killing innocent unborn children gave a significant chunk of the GOP voter base no incentive to brave last Tuesday’s storm in New York to cast a vote for sending a pro-abortion woman into the GOP caucus in the House. That is how “abortion made a difference.”

When you vet your candidates, GOP campaigners, please take into account the heartfelt convictions of a significant chunk of your voter base – and also your own party’s platform and expressed convictions.

But if you lose a race where the candidates agree to look the other way – or even spend taxpayers’ dollars – when the littlest Americans are being snuffed, don’t blame “the abortion issue” for the loss.

Another Front in the War on Parenting

AMONG THE FAVORITE SLANDERS of the abortion cartel against pro-life candidates is the label “extremist.” But those who can still claim some measure of objectivity in viewing “the abortion issue” must surely see as “extremism” the latest out of the abortion fanatics in Illinois, whose legislature has already repealed every sensible pro-life reform and taxpayer protection.

Rep. Anna Stava-Murray (D), who claims to represent the western Chicago suburb of Downers Grove, has filed Illinois House Bill 4876, which would, reports Matt Lamb for LifeSiteNews, “declare anyone an ‘abused child’ if they are denied ‘primary care services, abortion services or gender-affirming services.’” Translation: The proposal would subject parents to child abuse charges if they did anything to stand in the way of their minor child undergoing the abortion of their grandchild or if they attempted to protect their child from mutilation of their bodies in the name of “gender” manipulation. “Child abuse charges,” notes Mr. Lamb, “carry prison time as well as fines.”

The proposal has not yet been cleared by the House Rules Committee for consideration by a standing committee of the Illinois House. Illinois readers who wish to weigh in may contact their own state representative via the state capitol switchboard at 217/782-2000 or at district offices listed under the Member’s name at https://www.ilga.gov/house.

The proposal would also “shield abortionists, surgeons and other medical professionals from ‘civil or criminal liability,’” reports Mr. Lamb, “if they kill preborn babies or remove healthy organs from kids without their parent’s consent.”

In a phone interview with LifeSiteNews, Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, “mocked the bill as ‘creative’ for finding new ways to ‘demonize’ pro-life Illinoisans,” writes Mr. Lamb. “‘The incredible irony is that a law designed to protect our kids from being exploited, the Parental Notice of Abortion Act, was repealed, and now they’re … trying to penalize parents for protecting their daughters from abortion.’” Mr. Scheidler pointed out that Illinois’s repeal of its parental notification law has already facilitated sexual abuse of minors. “‘I think this is something,’” concluded Mr. Scheidler, “‘that should be deeply, deeply offensive to Illinois parents.’”

The Fight is On in Arkansas

ABORTION BACKERS IN ARKANSAS are busy collecting signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “that would codify a ‘right’ to abortion” in a state where the deadly deed is illegal “for any reason,” he explains, “except to save a mother’s life from physical danger.”

The hitch is that Planned Parenthood is so far withholding backing from the proposition because it does not excuse abortions on babies who have reached 18 weeks of development, about four and a-half months. It’s not dastardly enough for the abortion behemoth, but certainly it would cost thousands of lives every year in the conservative state, if adopted by the voters.

Arkansas Right to Life has launched a “Decline to Sign” campaign, reports Mr. Freiburger, “through which ‘paid canvassers will hit the streets of Arkansas’ to ‘ask all Arkansans unwilling to sign a death warrant on innocent unborn children to politely’ deny the amendment’s pushers the signatures they need” – 90,704 by July 5.

The state’s pro-life group also, notes Mr. Freiburger, “offers a free, printable two-page handout that pro-lifers can distribute to their fellow Arkansans, succinctly laying out the key facts and points about the issue. ‘Arkansas Right to Life cannot overcome this challenge without your support,’ the group says,” reports LifeSiteNews. “‘We know that we will be outspent. But we have truth and God on our side.’”

Another Baby Chop Shop Closed

PLANNED PARENTHOOD’s LARGEST ABORTUARY in Des Moines, Iowa, has closed, reports Louis Knuffke for LifeSiteNews. 

The shop had been operating since 1972 and has long been the site of prayer vigils. “Overjoyed at the closing,” notes Mr. Knuffke, the executive director of Pulse Life Advocates declared, “‘We know the power of prayer, and so many Iowans have lifted up thousands of prayers for the closure of this clinic. Women will no longer be harmed and babies will no longer be killed at this location,’” said Maggie DeWitte in the LifeSiteNews report, “‘and we are thanking and praising God for this victory!’”

Model Declaration

SOUTH DAKOTA GOV. KRISTI NOEM (R) HAS DECLARED 2024 “‘Freedom for Life’ year for the state,” reports Ashley Sadler for LifeSiteNews, “affirming that residents must ‘have the freedom [to] get off to the right start,’ a right that ‘extends to every single South Dakotan – before they are born, after they are born; until the day they die.’”

In her State of the State Address, Gov. Noem “affirmed,” writes Ms. Sadler, “that ‘being pro-life means valuing the child’s life before their birth and throughout their life; it also means valuing and protecting the mother’s life.’

“She also highlighted,” notes Ms. Sadler, “the extraordinary development of babies born during the first 1,000 days of life (from conception to age two), underlining the importance of supporting both moms and their babies in healthy habits.”

How can a message such as that be characterized as “undermining women’s health”?

Thank you, Gov. Noem, for taking on the ghouls in a coAnstructive, compassionate way. A fine example.

Blood on His Hands?

Excerpt from Nov. 10, 2023, support letter from Thomas More Society pro-life pro bono law firm

             We’re defending Heartbeat International and a group of Northern California-based pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), RealOptions, against the vicious anti-life lawsuit filed by California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta. He is working overtime to make sure no pregnant mother can change her mind about her chemical abortion and then quickly act to choose Abortion Pill Reversal [APR] after taking the first abortion pill.

             No woman should ever be forced to complete an abortion she no longer wants. Bonta’s lawsuit aims to censor and conceal life-saving information from women regarding APR, despite growing evidence of its safety and effectiveness. Consider these facts:

• 4,500 babies have been saved through APR.

• Over 1,300 providers, clinics and hospitals are part of the Abortion Pill Rescue Network worldwide.

• On average, 150 women start the abortion reversal process each month.

             Bonta aims to bring this baby-saving project to a screeching halt. His dangerous lawsuit claims: “Instead of offering vulnerable pregnant people [!] accurate information, Heartbeat International and RealOptions provide them with false and misleading statements.” His lawsuit wrongly accuses pro-life organizations of “unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices.”

             Those are words that truthfully describe the abortion industry – not the courageous PRCs that compassionately and successfully help mothers in urgent need to save their babies!

             Bonta’s lawsuit is a vicious smear against pro-lifers who compassionately care for pregnant women in need. It seeks to deny these women their clear legal right to informed consent. They deserve to know that the abortion pill can be reversed! Indeed, women deserve to know the truth. They don’t give up that right when they seek an abortion.

Who’s Fooling Whom?

Jan. 19, 2024, BreakPoint commentary by John Stonestreet and Timothy D. Padgett

             Earlier this month, an image was shared on social media featuring what looked like a bit of used tissue paper with the caption, “Just a reminder that this is what an 8-week pregnancy/abortion looks like.” The inference is that pro-lifers are fools or liars to call the preborn “a child.”

             It didn’t take long for that tweet to get called out. The image had been doctored. The “tissue” was not an embryo but merely an empty gestational sac. A real eight-week embryo has hands and feet, heart and head, and is very clearly a tiny human being.

             While the claim “it’s just a clump of cells” was questionable 50 years ago when someone first uttered it, decades of technological development make it morbidly laughable. The imagery available now completely undercuts any idea that what we see in the womb is less than human. What has been revealed is how divorced from reality the pro-abortion camp has always been.

Look Who’s Cozying Up to WHO

Jan. 24, 2024, commentary by Victoria Marshall for Family Research Council’s The Washington Stand

             The World Health Organization is considering partnering with a radical pro-abortion group in the United States. In a December, 2023, executive board meeting, the Secretariat of WHO proposed that the Center for Reproductive Rights be admitted into official relations with the organization. Such a partnership includes collaboration between WHO and CRR on agreed objectives and activities for a three-year period to uphold WHO’s mission to “contribute significantly to the advancement of public health.”

             CRR is one of the most influential pro-abortion organizations in the United States. The George Soros-funded advocacy group repeatedly sues to stop or overturn pro-life laws in the United States and abroad and is known for its pro bono work to that effect. In its 2018 annual report, CRR took significant credit for Ireland’s referendum legalizing abortion.

             In a letter to WHO executive board members dated Jan. 22, multiple American pro-life organizations, including Family Research Council, urged the organization to oppose giving CRR official status due to its efforts to “manipulate international cooperation to promote abortion as a human right.”

             The letter states: “Granting the Center for Reproductive Rights an official status with the WHO framework would run counter to the principles of the WHO Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (WHA 69.10, paragraph 5), which require the WHO executive board to consider if entering into official relations with a non-state actor may ‘compromise WHO’s integrity, independence, credibility and reputation.’ This is squarely the case with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which has proved incapable of providing accurate legal information and has repeatedly compromised scientific evidence in its advocacy materials in favor of its preferred policy outcomes.”

             Not only would WHO’s reputation be tainted by aligning itself with CRR’s pro-abortion advocacy, but also its pro-transgender and other controversial sexual politics. Further, such a clear partisan alliance could jeopardize the funding WHO receives from the United States, the letter warns, especially in the event of a future pro-life Administration. Currently, the US government is WHO’s largest donor, receiving $700 million from the US in 2022 alone.

             FRC Vice President for Policy and Government Affairs Travis Weber told FRC president Tony Perkins on Tuesday’s Washington Watch that such an alliance shows great hypocrisy by the WHO.

             “We’re not going to see any pro-life organizations likely being welcomed into partnership with the WHO,” Weber said, “despite the WHO’s own guidelines calling for neutrality and impartiality to protect the integrity of its public health mission as a world health entity.”

             Emma Waters, a research associate in the DeVos Center for Life, Religion & Family at the Heritage Foundation, told the Washington Stand that the potential partnership “contradicts the WHO’s purported commitment to global public health, as it aligns with an ideologically driven agenda rather than prioritizing the well-being of women and unborn lives.

             “Surgical and chemical abortions wreak havoc on a woman’s physical, psychological, relational and emotional health,” Waters emphasized. “The potential use of US tax dollars to support an organization that promotes abortion as ‘health care’ compromises the credibility of the WHO and undermines the values of those who advocate for the sanctity of life.”

             This isn’t the first time the WHO has been criticized for privileging one side of a contentious ethical debate over others. Earlier this month, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women & Girls accused the organization of taking an unbalanced, pro-medicalizing approach in its development of new healthcare guidelines for transgender-identifying individuals.