Life Advocacy Briefing

A Victory in the Senate

THE SENATE HAS REFUSED TO ADVANCE a bill titled “Right to Contraception Act,” brought forward by Senate Democrats in order, we are certain, to create a political issue under cover of “women’s rights.” Senate Republicans resisted the ploy, standing nearly united in refusing to vote for “cloture,” the motion by which a bill is advanced for a vote. We publish the voting record at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing, and we ask our readers to be prepared to defend right-voting Senators against the attacks we expect will be mounted. (Thank-you calls to these Senators are in order! Capitol switchboard: 202/224-3121.)

Contraception is a practice which divides even those in the pro-life community, but SB-4381 potentially goes beyond contraception (a “right” which is not under threat in US law). Notes Ben Johnson for The Washington Stand (TWS), “Experts say [the bill’s] vague wording would establish the ‘right’ for young people to undergo transgender surgeries, taxpayer-funded contraception and abortifacients, and could even be interpreted to legalize abortion. It would also erode religious liberty protections. …

“The bill defines contraception as any ‘action taken to prevent pregnancy, including’ but not limited to ‘the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness-based methods and sterilization procedures,’” reports Mr. Johnson. “It makes no mention of parental consent or notification. And since the bill does not define pregnancy, and since the Left often refers to abortion as ‘terminating a pregnancy,’ experts say the bill could legalize any procedure that impacts the reproductive system.”

“‘There’s always a lot more than meets the eye’ in Washington, said Family Research Council president Tony Perkins,” quoted by Mr. Johnson. “‘This bill, as I read it, would protect chemical abortion pills.’

“‘That’s absolutely right. It all depends on which federal prosecutor’ gets the case, replied Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins Tuesday. Although a state may not feel certain procedures fall under the bill’s definition of contraception, ‘[US Atty. Gen.] Merrick Garland might feel it does,’ setting off rounds of costly federal litigation and subjecting voters to the decree of a judicial activist.”

Among many controversial provisions, “the bill,” warns Mr. Johnson, “targets conscientious ‘refusals to offer contraceptives and information related to contraception based on their own personal beliefs’ and argues that this would ‘impede patients from obtaining their preferred method of contraception.’ It further grouses,” writes Mr. Johnson, “that ‘laws in 12 states as of the date of introduction of this act specifically allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide services related to contraception’ based on their faith or moral objections. The [bill] establishes a private right of action for anyone to sue the state government or ‘any government official’ who allegedly impedes their ‘right’ to obtain any contraceptive. And it praises Obamacare’s controversial HHS mandate requiring employers to furnish female employees with insurance plans that include contraceptives with no co-pay, even if the employer and employee both have religious objections.”

And, of course, “the bill could also compel taxpayers to fund abortifacient ‘contraception,’” warns Mr. Johnson. “The bill condemns states that allegedly ‘tried to ban access to some or all contraceptives by restricting access to public funding for these products and services.’” Can you read between these lines and imagine the judicial tyranny which would have flowed from this failed bill?

What is more, Mr. Johnson tells us, “It also bemoans Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas, which do not allow state Medicaid funds to go to family planning offices that carry out abortions.” Surprise! “Planned Parenthood, which received $699.3 million in taxpayer funding in 2023, largely from Title X [Ten] ‘family planning’ funds, strongly supports the bill.”

Texas Republicans Get It Right

AT A TIME WHEN G.O.P. ‘LEADERS’ on the national scene appear to be moving away from an outspoken commitment to the right to Life, the Republican Party of Texas adopted an official platform in late May constituting, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “uncompromising positions on issues ranging from homosexual ‘marriage’ to no-fault divorce” – with a strong plank on the aborting of developing children.

Retaining a plank from the state party’s 2022 platform, the GOP state convention delegates declared, writes Mr. Freiburger, “‘We urge lawmakers to enact legislation to abolish abortion by immediately securing the right to life and equal protection of the laws to all preborn children from the moment of fertilization, … because abortion violates the United States Constitution by denying such persons the equal protection of the law.’ The platform also calls for abortion to be recognized as ‘homicide.’ …

“The national Republican Party platform, last updated in 2016,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “is similarly firm on major issues, including its call to ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the 14^th Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth’ and its affirmation that ‘we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.’

“However,” warns Mr. Freiburger, “national GOP leaders have not acted in accordance with those calls for several years. In 2022, 47 House Republicans and 12 Senate Republicans joined Democrats in passing a federal law codifying Obergefell [same-sex marriage], without resistance from GOP leaders in either chamber. More recently, former President and [presumptive] 2024 nominee Donald Trump and other national GOP leaders have urged leaving future abortion policy battles to the state level while protecting the embryo-destructive in vitro fertilization (IVF) industry.”

Tyranny of the ‘FACE’ Act

MUCH HAS BEEN SAID AND WRITTEN in recent weeks about the misuse of our legal system for politics. We refer, of course, to the New York trial of the probable GOP nominee for President. But one does not have to be a noteworthy public figure to draw the attention of the persecution squad which appears to be operating what we used to call our “justice” system.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) on May 14 “accused Pres. Joe Biden’s Dept. of Justice,” reports Mary Margaret Olohan in the Daily Signal, “of ‘unjustly’ persecuting pro-life activists exposing the ‘horrors of abortion. … The Biden Administration,’” he said, “‘is using the FACE Act to give pro-life activists and senior citizens lengthy prison terms for non-violent offenses and protests – all while turning a blind eye to the violence, arson and riots conducted on behalf of “approved” leftist causes.’ …

“The Senator added: ‘Unequal enforcement of the law is a violation of the law, and men and women who try to expose the horrors of abortion are being unjustly persecuted for their motivations.’”

In just the last several weeks, the prison sentences have been piling up against citizens seeking to rescue gestating babies and their vulnerable mothers from the tragedy of abortion. The sentences are being handed down in federal court, and the prosecutions have been pressed by the United States Dept. of Justice. Everything about the enforcement of the 1994 federal “Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances” (FACE) Act shouts tyranny and begs for its immediate repeal. (HR-5577 filed by Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy and 42 others, pending in the House Judiciary Committee; S-3017 filed by Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee and five others, pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.)

Lauren Handy, was sentenced to 57 months in prison for attempting to protect unborn babies at a Washington, DC, abortuary where even babies approaching their births are being slaughtered.

Joan Andrews Bell, was sentenced to 27 months in jail, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, plus a $125 fine, also stemming from attempting to rescue babies at the same late-term abortuary in the nation’s capital city. She has already served nine months in jail awaiting sentencing.

The sentence against John Hinshaw was one year plus $125 fine; Will Goodman, 18 months plus $125 fine; Rosemary Geraghty, 27 months; Jonathan Darnel, 34 months; Jean Marshall, 24 months.

And there are more. “Heather Idoni, [age] 59, was placed in prolonged solitary confinement for 22 days and deprived of sleep with the lights of her cell kept on continually,” reports Mr. Freiburger, who adds: “Jean Marshall, [age] 74, was deprived of sufficient clothing and heat during extreme freezing winter cold, causing her to contract pneumonia, which went untreated for three weeks, and was denied hip surgery.” And, adds Mr. Freiburger, “Paulette Harlow, [age] 75, was refused permission to attend Mass while under house arrest.”  

These are not prominent people; they are not politicians, nor are they dangerous criminals. The threat represented by the exercise of their freedom as American citizens is that they interfere with the slaughter of inconvenient developing children at a baby chop-shop in America’s seat of power.

Every candidate for Congress or the US Senate should be asked – publicly, if possible: Will you vote to repeal the anti-American FACE Act which is being used to persecute American citizens? And the incumbents should be asked: What are you doing to secure justice for peaceful pro-life demonstrators? What are you doing to advance the repeal of the FACE Act?

Thwarting the Racket

LOUISIANA GOV. JEFF LANDRY (R) HAS SIGNED INTO LAW “a new measure,” reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “to classify abortion pills as controlled substances, making possession without a prescription a criminal offense … subject to significant fines and up to 10 years in prison. However, it exempts women who possess mifepristone and misoprostol for their own consumption.”

So, it is a step forward toward blunting the deadly effects of a growing abortion-drug racket.

“The law was originally introduced,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “by Republican State Sen. Thomas Pressly, motivated by the ordeal of his sister … . In February, her then-husband … pleaded guilty to spiking her drinking water with abortion pills, causing her to become seriously ill. Her baby daughter … was saved via abortion pill reversal but still has health complications stemming from her premature birth. …

“‘Requiring an abortion-inducing drug to be obtained with a prescription and criminalizing the use of an abortion drug on an unsuspecting mother is nothing short of common sense,’” said Gov. Landry in signing the law, reports Mr. Freiburger, citing ABC News as source. “‘This bill protects women across Louisiana, and I was proud to sign this bill into law today,’” he said. The new law takes effect starting Oct. 1.

“Abortion is already generally illegal in the Bayou State,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “but the new law will make it harder to facilitate through distribution of abortion pills, one of the abortion lobby’s favored tactics to keep the industry alive after the fall of Roe v. Wade, as well as make it harder for abusers to obtain pills with which to force women to abort.”

Strengthening Abortion Diversion Services

FLORIDA GOV. RON DeSANTIS (R) HAS SIGNED legislation supporting Life through an online pregnancy resource hub for expectant parents and new parents, reports Florida Voice News via Focus on the Family’s Daily Citizen. “The website,” reports the in-state news source, “includes a variety of resources, like education on pregnancy and parenting, [including] where to obtain prenatal and postnatal services and more.”

Beware the WHO

June 5, 2024, LifeSiteNews report by Andreas Wailzer

             Delegates from African and Middle Eastern countries have called out the director-general of the World Health Org. (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, for trying to push “abortion-on-demand” on member states.

             The Center for Family & Human Rights (C-Fam) reports that during a meeting of the WHO Executive Board on June 3 in Geneva, Switzerland, a delegate from Egypt responded to Ghebreyesus’s call to give the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive rights (CRR) official status within the WHO, saying the intervention was “misleading.”

             “We are here not speaking about life-saving interventions on pregnant women, accepted and allowed within most member states,” he said, but rather “abortion-on-demand” and transgender interventions based on “subjective self-determination.”

             Ghebreyesus implored the member states on the Executive Board of the WHO to approve CRR’s official status, wrongly claiming that abortion was necessary to reduce the maternal death rate.

             As Catholic University of America professor Michael New explained, studies that purport to show a link between pro-life laws and higher maternal deaths are flawed.

             “Overall, a substantial body of international data shows that pro-life laws are consistent with strong maternal health outcomes,” New said. “Poland, which has among the strongest protective pro-life laws in Europe, also has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in Europe. …

             “Prior to legalizing abortion in 2018, Ireland had lower rates of maternal deaths, low-weight births and breast cancer than England and Wales and Scotland,” he wrote. “Similarly, academic research using data from Chile shows that maternal mortality rates continued to fall after protections for preborn children were enacted in 1989.”

             One US delegate called on the delegations to “trust the World Health Org. as a technical body.”

             The Egyptian delegate accused the US, whose delegates pushed the acceptance of CRR, of politicizing the WHO, noting that if Donald Trump were elected a second time, the US “position reflected in this room would change.”

             The WHO chief claimed that his arguments were based on “science and evidence” and denied supporting the pro-abortion countries. “If the abortion issue is bothering you, this organization (CRR) will not sway us or force us to do something we should not,” Ghebreyesus promised delegates.

             The proposal to include CRR was rejected by all African delegates, the Gulf States and the Organization for Islamic Cooperation. The pro-abortion delegates who supported the recognition of CRR were from European, North and Latin American, and Asian countries.

             C-Fam reports that “[w]hen it became clear that over one dozen countries would vote against CRR’s application, Tedros begged them to approve the application conditionally for only a year.” Rebecca Oas, director of research at C-Fam, commented on the WHO chief’s push to recognize CRR: “Dr. Tedros claims that the WHO won’t force countries to do anything they don’t want to, but that’s precisely what CRR’s mission is: to force countries to liberalize their laws on abortion.”

             On June 4, the WHO Executive Board recognized the CRR as being “in official relations” with the WHO as a non-state actor, by a narrow 17-13 vote with four abstentions. According to Health Policy Watch, multiple rounds of voting preceded the final vote, which was held as a secret ballot.

             A coalition of Middle Eastern, Islamic and African countries, led by Egypt, called the vote a “politicization” of the WHO and vowed to “escalate” the issue and take it to the World Health Assembly. “We would like to repeat what we have mentioned yesterday,” Egypt’s delegate said. “That we will pursue reopening of the discussions on this agenda item within the wider quorum of the organization during the upcoming WHA.”

             Multiple delegates from the countries who opposed the recognition of CRR stressed that they would not abide by the decision on a national level. “The text that was adopted today will not be implemented in Senegal, unless it is compatible with our laws, traditions and values,” Senegal’s delegate stated. Egypt’s delegate said that the decision “is of no weight … . We will not abide by it and will not consider it in any means” on the national level.

             The US-based CRR describes its mission as “ensur(ing) reproductive rights” – meaning abortion – “are protected in law” as so-called “fundamental human rights.” It boasts that it has “participated in every major US Supreme Court abortion case since our founding” in 1992 and “strengthened” pro-abortion laws and policies “in more than 65 countries across five continents.”

Senate Voting Records

Cloture motion to bring forward S-4381 – “Right to Contraception Act” – June 5, 2024 – Failed 51-39 (needing 60) (Democrats in italics; “Independents” marked “I”)

Voting “no” / pro-Life: Tuberville/AL, Boozman & Cotton/AR, Rubio & Scott/FL, Crapo & Risch/ID, Young/IN, Ernst & Grassley/IA, Marshall/KS, McConnell & Paul/KY, Cassidy/LA, Hyde-Smith & Wicker/MS, Hawley & Schmitt/MO, Daines/MT, Fischer & Ricketts/NE, Schumer*/NY, Budd & Tillis/NC, Cramer & Hoeven/ND, Lankford & Mullin/OK, Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Blackburn/TN, Cornyn & Cruz/TX, Lee/UT, Capito/WV, Johnson/WI, Barrasso & Lummis/WY.

Voting “yes” / anti-Life: Murkowski/AK, Kelly & Sinema(I)/AZ, Butler & Padilla/CA, Bennet & Hickenlooper/CO, Blumenthal & Murphy/CT, Carper & Coons/DE, Ossoff & Warnock/GA, Hirono & Schatz/HI, Duckworth & Durbin/IL, Collins & King(I)/ME, Cardin & VanHollen/MD, Markey & Warren/MA, Peters & Stabenow/MI, Klobuchar & Smith/MN, Tester/MT, Cortez-Masto & Rosen/NV, Hassan & Shaheen/NH, Booker/NJ, Heinrich & Lujan/NM, Gillibrand/NY, Brown/OH, Merkley & Wyden/OR, Casey & Fetterman/PA, Reed & Whitehouse/RI, Sanders(I) & Welch/VT, Kaine & Warner/VA, Cantwell & Murray/WA, Manchin(I)/WV, Baldwin/WI

Not voting: Britt/AL, Sullivan/AK, Braun/IN, Moran/KS, Kennedy/LA, Menendez/NJ, Vance/OH, Graham/SC, Hagerty/TN, Romney/UT

*The Senate Majority Leader voted with the prevailing side in order, no doubt, to be eligible to make a later motion to reconsider the vote by which this motion lost.