Life Advocacy Briefing

Caveat Emptor

THOUGH ROBERT F. KENNEDY IS AN INTRIGUING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE to some voters, those who seek an acceptable alternative to the abortion enthusiast in the White House need to know this fact, reported May 10 by LifeSiteNews writer Calvin Freiburger: the independent candidate “erased all doubt this week as to his pro-abortion absolutism, declaring that he opposes legal protection for even fully developed preborn babies at the end of pregnancy.

“In an interview released Wednesday,” quoted by Mr. Freiburger, “podcaster Sage Steele asked Kennedy, ‘Should there be a limit or are you saying all the way up to full term, a woman has a right to have an abortion?’ The candidate … expressed skepticism that a mother would abort in the eighth month or later without ‘extenuating circumstances’ but maintained that government should never have ‘jurisdiction over people’s bodies’ and that abortion should not be forbidden ‘even if it’s full term.’” (Note also his substitution of the term “people’s” for “women’s,” using language favoring the gender-bender movement.)

Further, reports Mr. Freiburger, “he confirmed in an interview last month that he ‘would sign a federal law that guaranteed women have a right to choose,’ putting him in alignment with Democrat Pres. Joe Biden’s calls to federally codify Roe v. Wade. Weeks later,” the report continues, “he released a formal policy position on his website purporting to offer a ‘way forward’ from the typical abortion debate by maintaining legal abortion while massively subsidizing daycare for low-income families and increasing child tax credits and funding for pregnancy support charities, which he claimed ‘will do more to lower abortion rates than any coercive measure ever could.’ … Data suggest that just under a quarter of women who obtain abortions cite the costs of having children as their reason why,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “meaning that even if successful, such a policy would leave more than 75% of abortions unaffected. Further, [Mr.] Kennedy’s rhetoric ignores a large body of evidence showing that pro-life laws successfully prevent abortions and raise birth rates.”

Reality Avoidance

THE JOURNAL ISSUES IN LAW & MEDICINE PUBLISHED a paper on May 11, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, charging that the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) “resorted to selective data and misleading claims to justify lifting the requirement that abortion pills be administered in person. …

“In December 2021, the FDA under the Biden Administration,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “cleared the way for pharmacists to send abortion pills through the mail as long as the recipient has a prescription.

“Alliance Defending Freedom sued on behalf of pro-life doctors and activists,” the LifeSiteNews reporter writes, “and [the] US Supreme Court is currently weighing whether to uphold or strike down the change.”

Among the issues cited in the medical issues journal, adds Mr. Freiburger, “the FDA claimed to have only received a small number of adverse-event reports related to abortion drugs in 2020, when in fact, abortion drug prescribers have not been required to report non-lethal complications since 2016, meaning the agency was relying on a pool [of data] guaranteed to be hobbled by under-reporting.

“‘In a letter to the leaders of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) and Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM), Dr. (Janet) Woodcock (then acting FDA commissioner) identified four studies that the FDA reviewed to justify its decision to remove the in-person prescribing requirements,’ the paper said,” quoted by Mr. Freiburger. “‘Most were small and incomplete (with follow-up data not available on all women) and did not replicate the conditions of use that the FDA approved (because they all included at least some women who received routine pre-abortion testing).

“‘US studies are often of poor quality, because most abortions are paid for privately, and women often hesitate to report a preceding abortion if they have a complication,’ it adds. ‘Additionally, many studies are plagued by large numbers of women lost to follow-up, for whom abortion outcomes are unknown. In the US, there are no federal mandatory complication reporting requirement or accurate centralized systems collecting data related to abortion – leading to substantial uncertainty of the numbers, complications and deaths following abortion.’”

Seems to us, even those politicians who shy away from such major political undertakings as advocating federal legislation to protect innocent unborn human beings could at least press for comprehensive data collection to better assess what their avoidance is producing, out of concern for the safety of the aborting mothers if they cannot muster enough concern for the child.

Surely America Can Do Better Than This!

THE RESPECTED PRO-LIFE CHARLOTTE LOZIER INSTITUTE HAS PUBLISHED a report with a disturbing reminder, reported by S.A. McCarthy for The Washington Stand: “The US is one of only eight countries in the United Nations that allows abortion-on-demand without any gestational limits and one of only 15 countries in the UN to allow abortion-on-demand past 15 weeks of pregnancy. The UN,” reminds TWS, “has 193 member states.”

This is the sort of statistic which pro-life citizens can responsibly employ to open the eyes and move the hearts of acquaintances – or audiences – who have not come to grips with the scourge of abortion in America.

Every one of those aborted babies in the US is an American life ended. Who can say what invention or artistic or other achievement might have been lost as a result?

One of Life Advocacy’s favorite illustrations – which we urge you to clip and use – is the following:

A mother has given birth to three children born blind, two born deaf and one born mentally retarded. Now she herself has syphilis, and she’s expecting another baby. Would you advise her to undergo an abortion? [pause] If the answer is yes, you just killed Beethoven.

Getting back to the report from Mr. McCarthy: “Other countries that place no gestational limit on elective abortions include Australia, Canada, [Red] China, Guinea-Bissau, Mexico, South Korea and Viet Nam.” These and the US are among “only 70 UN member states,” writes Mr. McCarthy, which allow elective abortions. The report’s “authors note ‘The remaining 123 countries demonstrate a clear public policy preference for protecting human life over abortion by permitting abortion only under specified circumstances.’”

American public policy cannot be so easily defined, however. State-level laws show a wider variety of policies, with several states outlawing intentional abortion altogether. And our nation’s constitution guarantees the right to life in the 5^th and 14^th amendments. The stain here is the refusal of our elected officials and appointed judges to enforce the public policy established by our founders.

We report the Lozier Institute study as a tool for our readers to stir the consciences of those who have yet to come to grips with the scourge of abortion in America and the shocking reality that our nation’s current political stature on human life not only betrays our nation’s heritage and fundamental principles but also puts us in the company of just a few other countries, including some that our fellow citizens would not wish to emulate.

To read the Lozier report in full, readers may find it at https://lozierinstitute.org/gestational-limits-on-abortion-in-the-united-states-compared-to-international-norms.

Good News Out of Missouri

IT’s OFFICIAL. Planned Parenthood and other abortion “vendor[s]” are disqualified from receiving any taxpayer funds from the state of Missouri. 

The state’s governor, Mike Parson (R), signed HB-2634 on May 9, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews. “cut[ting] off the abortion industry from receiving Medicaid reimbursements for other, legitimate medical purposes, which frees up money from private sources for abortion.” (Readers might need to read that twice, but it actually does make sense.)

The fight to protect tax dollars from rewarding abortionists has gone on for some time, Mr. Freiburger’s report shows. “‘Prior to 2020, Missouri restricted family planning funds to abortion providers through the budget process,’ Missouri Right to Life explained. ‘In 2020, Planned Parenthood and others filed suit against that defunding process, and the Missouri Supreme Court agreed that it was unconstitutional but also stated that the defunding could be done by placing the pro-life protective language in statute.’” That is what HB-2634 has achieved, having passed the Missouri House 104 to 49 and the State Senate 23 to 10.

Indecent Exposure

PLANNED PARENTHOOD MADE AN INTERESTING MISTAKE recently; for totally unknown reasons, they sent our editor – a former state representative with a nationally recognized pro-life commitment – a prospect fundraising letter! (She sometimes receives fundraising text messages from liberal Democratic candidates, too – also for totally unknown reasons!) So, especially bearing in mind that the Biden Regime has greatly increased the tax money being shoveled into Planned Parenthood’s coffers, we thought our readers might want to learn what Planned Parenthood is bragging about to its donor prospects, in their own words. An excerpt for your reading pleasure (or deep annoyance!):

[The balance of this item is a direct quote.]

With the help of Planned Parenthood supporters, we’re doing everything possible to make sexual and reproductive health care accessible to all:

• Providing direct patient support to help pay for travel to an appointment, overnight stays and other related expenses, including the cost of an abortion.

• Deploying patient navigation to help people seeking abortions locate providers, schedule timely appointments, make travel arrangements and arrange other logistics, such as child or elder care.

• Advocating for legal or constitutional protections to build and expand the network of states where abortion access is safe, legal and protected.

• Building capacity at health centers in states with abortion protections – which have become regional hubs for patients traveling from states with abortion bans or severe restrictions.

• Expanding the use of telehealth to help people get abortion and birth control and make that access more equitable.

Ben Carson Ups the Ante

FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE & CABINET OFFICER BEN CARSON has authored a new book in which, reports Matt Lamb for LifeSiteNews, he advocates “a federal ban on abortion and an end to no-fault divorce.”

The world-famous pediatric neurosurgeon served in the Trump Administration as Secretary of Housing & Urban Development.

“While running for President,” Mr. Lamb notes, “[Dr.] Carson indicated in 2015 he opposed exceptions for rape and incest but said he was open to abortion in the ‘extraordinarily rare situation’ it could be medically necessary,” which appears to be more a fig leaf for political cover than an actual policy position.

His new book, The Perilous Fight, landed on the market on May 14.

Something You Might Like to Know About

WE DON’t PUSH PRODUCTS and have no experience with the one we are about to mention. But we were delighted to view a report by Fox News last week introducing a “pro-life diaper company” called “EveryLife.”

We were distressed to hear the claim that every major diaper marketer is a supporter of such outfits as Planned Parenthood. Though we cannot substantiate that, it was asserted during the Fox & Friends telecast, where EveryLife diapers were introduced.

The diaper supplier’s slogan is “high-performing diapers for every miracle,” and the marketing website can be found by “googling” “pro-life diapers” or by simply searching the web for everylife.com.

We don’t make endorsements, but we thought our readers would want a tip to explore on a topic friendly to the cause of Life.

Playing a Deadly Game

May 2024 commentary by Bradley Mattes, Life Issues Institute

             … On March 26, 2024, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the FDA v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories LLC v. Alliance Hippocratic Medicine. Danco’s sole purpose is to produce and distribute the abortion pills [RU-486].

             These cases involve the FDA’s political and sloppy approval of the chemical abortion pill and its subsequent efforts to stymie legal challenges and suppress evidence that the pills are not only deadly to babies but place their mothers’ physical wellbeing and lives at risk.

             Once the Supreme Court agreed to take these cases, the political machinery of academia and scientific research was on display for all to see. A month before oral arguments were heard (February 2024), Sage, a global academic publisher, retracted, for political purposes, three research papers related to the two cases.

             One documented a 500% increase in emergency room visits following chemical pill abortions. It also showed emergency room visits increased more with chemical abortions than surgical procedures. This paper particularly attracted the ire of the Left when District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk cited it in his ruling against the FDA.

             The second paper researched abortionists, “Their Characteristics & Patterns of Holding & Using Hospital Privileges.” Among other things, the study found that “nearly half (48.2%) of the abortionists had at least one malpractice claim, public complaint, disciplinary action or criminal charge.”

             The third paper demonstrated that an increasing number of women who go to emergency rooms are miscoded or mispresent an abortion as a miscarriage. Distributors of the pills are on record advising women who seek urgent medical intervention to lie and say they are experiencing a miscarriage. The research shows that chemical abortions are more likely to require hospital admittance and present a significant risk factor to women.

             Sage retracted the papers in response to one vocally pro-abortion individual who made false claims about the research. More information on why these accusations are patently false can be accessed at https://assaultonscience.org.

             The retractions served their purpose. During oral arguments, as if on cue, Justice Jackson asked Ms. Ellsworth, representing Danco Laboratories, about the poor research associated with this case. Ellsworth responded, “They have since been retracted for lack of scientific rigor and for misleading presentations of data.” …

             What is disturbing is the participation of previously prestigious and credible sources. The Journal of the American Medical Assn. has long enjoyed a sterling reputation, but its silver crown has been tarnished. JAMA published a report in February 2024 that actually claimed 65,000 rape pregnancies resulted in 14 states with legislation protecting their unborn babies and mothers from abortion. The lead researcher was Samuel Dickman, an abortionist at Planned Parenthood of Montana.  Dr. Michael New, a respected scientist in his field, responded, “To call those figures an exaggeration would be an understatement. The article is frankly one of the worst and most misleading pieces of advocacy research that I have ever encountered in my years as a social scientist.” …

             This final example was particularly strategic. The day before the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, JAMA published a study showing a strong demand for chemical abortion pills, many sent to those who self-medicate outside of medical care. It relied upon self-reporting by various sources that sold and mailed the pills, often into states where the unborn are protected. All have a vested interest in showing the Supreme Court that regardless of how they rule, there will be a demand for the pills that they will continue to fill – legal or not.

             The New York Times claimed an increase in sales of the abortion pills in Texas offset the decrease in [reported] abortions. However, three analyses of Texas births months after Dobbs showed an increase in births. This is sound statistical evidence that casts a shadow on their advocacy research.