Life Advocacy Briefing

Thank God!

WE THANK GOD ALMIGHTY for His protection of one of the two leading candidates for President, and we thank the Lord for this sign that He is not done with America yet.

Permanent & Broader ‘Hyde’ Filed in House

REP. BOB GOOD (R-VA) HAS FILED HR-8855, “The Life Act,” which, reports Ben Johnson for The Washington Stand (TWS), “entirely disentangles all federal funds from abortion.” Because it sweeps through the federal bureaucracy, it has been assigned to the House Committees on Energy & Commerce, Judiciary, Natural Resources, Ways & Means and Oversight & Accountability for each committee to consider provisions under its jurisdiction.

The bill has just four co-sponsors as of this writing: In addition to the chief sponsor, GOP Representatives Doug Lamborn (CO), Matthew Rosendale (MT), Jeff Duncan (SC) and Alex Mooney (WV). Readers are encouraged to call these lawmakers to thank them for their sponsorship and to call home-district lawmakers to urge them to sign on. [Capitol switchboard: 202/224-3121]

The proposal, notes Mr. Johnson, “would bar medical practitioners who receive any form of federal funding from carrying out or prescribing abortion to women. The bill allows miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy treatment, as well as contraception that takes place before fertilization and procedures intended to save a mother’s life from a physical illness.” Though prosecutors are barred under the bill from filing charges against an aborting mother, they can, writes Mr. Johnson, “charge abortionists with criminal penalties.

“The bill would apply,” reports TWS, “to all medical personnel who accept funds from Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Indian Health Service (HIS), Veterans Health Administration (VA), TRICARE or Title X [Ten]. It would also prevent federal health insurance plans from funding abortion, including those under the Affordable Care Act, the Employee Retirement & Income Security Act (ERISA) and insurance for federal government employees.”

Rejecting the campaign pros who have urged the GOP and its officials and candidates to avoid principled stands on abortion, Rep. Good and his handful of colleagues have taken up the cause of Life in a clear and sweeping way, entirely appropriate to federal action. Either US taxpayers will be forced to subsidize abortionists or, under the Good bill, we will not.

“‘The number one responsibility of government is the safety and security of its citizens, and that includes the most vulnerable, the most precious, the most innocent of all: life in the womb,’” said Rep. Good in a statement to The Washington Stand. “‘May we show the same courage that those Supreme Court justices showed in standing up to protect precious, innocent life from conception. We should not be in the business of negotiating the timeline of abortion, when it’s okay, when it’s not okay.’” Amen!

Rep. Good is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus and appears to have suffered an electoral defeat in his state’s primary in June. He has indicated his intention to launch a recount of ballots in the narrow loss, based on untimely deposit of “early voting” ballots.

Victory in Arkansas

AT LAST, a public official in a pro-life state has stymied the drive of the abortion cartel to cement the “right” to kill preborn persons into the state’s governing document.

Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston (R) issued a letter on July 10 informing the oddly named Arkansans for Limited Government their campaign to corrupt the state constitution [our words, not his] has fallen short of the valid signatures needed to put an abortion-corruptive [our words, not his] constitutional amendment before the voters in November. Threshold: 90,704. Valid signatures: 3,322 short of that bar.

Mr. Thurston “informed the organization,” reports Stephen Kokx for LifeSiteNews, “that it failed to identify the names of the paid canvassers it relied on to collect the signatures. Nor did the group clarify that canvassers were given proper information regarding the requirements needed to obtain those signatures.

“‘Other sponsors of initiative petitions complied with this requirement,’ [Mr.] Thurston wrote,” quoted by Mr. Kokx. “‘Therefore, I must reject your submission.’”

A spokesman for the activist group, director of strategy Rebecca Bobrow, “was predictably furious with the rejection,” reports Mr. Kokx, “as the state’s attorney general has blocked the group’s proposal twice previously, once in November 2023 and again in January 2024, due to language ‘ambiguities.’”

Said the abortion activist, quoted by LifeSiteNews, “‘We will fight this ridiculous disqualification attempt with everything we have. … We will not back down.’”

The pro-life governor of Arkansas, Republican Sarah Huckabee Sanders, “drew attention to the group’s failure in an X post,” notes Mr. Kokx. “‘Today the far-left pro-abortion crowd in Arkansas showed they are both immoral and incompetent,’ she said.

“According to NBC News,” reports LifeSiteNews, “Arkansas is one of 11 states where pro-abortion groups have initiated the process to place proposals before voters this fall. Thus far, New York, Florida, South Dakota, Nevada, Colorado, [and] Maryland have already done so. Montana, Nebraska and Arizona are expected to follow suit in the near future.”

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Based on our own experience, we ask our readers to pray for the safety of Mr. Thurston.]

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note # 2: It is time – past time – for states to outlaw the practice of hiring petition passers; in many jurisdictions, such operatives are paid based on the number of signatures turned in, a practice ripe for corruption. If a proposition actually has the backing of the people, its backers should be able to collect the needed number of signatures; such thresholds are required in order to demonstrate sufficient public support to warrant a referendum. If a proposition has sufficient support to indicate likelihood of ballot-box success, its backers should be able to produce a significant number of signatures without paying for them.]

Victory in Iowa

THE IOWA SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD the Iowa heartbeat law, which bars abortion on a baby whose heartbeat can be detected, usually at around six weeks’ gestation.

The ruling came at the end of June and takes effect “sometime in mid-July,” reports The Daily Citizen from Focus on the Family.

And Then There’s Kansas

THE KANSAS SUPREME COURT – long a stumbling block to the people of their largely conservative state and to the cause of Life specifically – has done it again, striking down a state law prohibiting second-trimester dismemberment abortion procedures and, reports the Daily Citizen, citing The Christian Post as source, “a series of regulations put on abortion clinics.”

The state’s high court has for years been notorious for bias favoring the abortion cartel. The court is appointed by the governor, guided by a nine-member nominating commission. Democrat Laura Kelly has been governor in Kansas since 2019.

A Little Voter Education, for a Change

FLORIDA VOTERS EXPECT TO FACE an abortion amendment to their state constitution on their ballots this November. Backers of the radical proposal succeeded in filing sufficient signatures on petitions to post the question. But those same backers are unhappy now with the wording which will accompany the ballot question.

An official state panel, reports Nathaniel Weixel for The Hill, has “approved language that will accompany” the question on the ballot, aiding voters in understanding the legalistic jargon.

The explanatory language suggests, reports Mr. Weixel, “the amendment would result in ‘significantly more abortions and fewer live births per year,’ and there is uncertainty,” he writes, “about whether the amendment will require the state to subsidize abortions with public funds, according to the financial impact statement,” which accompanies the ballot question.

What is more, “the statement approved late Monday [July 15] noted that potential lawsuits to resolve ‘uncertainties’ could be costly, and that an increase in abortions ‘may negatively affect the growth of the state and local revenues over time.’”

The required financial impact statement accompanying the ballot question, notes Mr. Weixel, “is approved by a panel called the Financial Impact Estimating Conference, which is considered to be nonpartisan.”

The report goes on to note appointments by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and state House Speaker Paul Renner (R) of two members to the panel since last fall – one a Heritage Foundation senior research fellow and the other a former budget chief to Gov. DeSantis. And Mr. Weixel reports the governor’s hiring of Michael New “to advise the panel.”  Prof. New is a well-known social researcher focusing on abortion and other social policies.

The report quotes the campaign’s director for the Yes-on-4 initiative. Lauren Brenzel said in a statement, reports The Hill, “‘This sham of a process is a reminder to Florida voters that politicians are playing dirty tricks to overcomplicate and politicize a simple administrative fix. The only way to put a stop to the government interference is to vote Yes on 4.’”

The report also quotes a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calling “the approved statement … ‘a distorted narrative fueled by political agendas and a corrupted process. It is rife with anti-abortion talking points and far-fetched scenarios designed to scare voters into maintaining the status quo of a near-total ban on abortion.’”

For his part, the governor, notes Mr. Weixel, “has campaigned against the initiative, calling it ‘radical’ and ‘very, very extreme.’”

Planned Parenthood Shut Out

PARENTS HAVE PREVAILED in a southern California high school district “after years of pushback,” writes Cassy Fiano-Chesser for Live Action, in their campaign to close a so-called “well-being center” at John Glenn High School in the Norwalk-LaMirada Unified School District in Los Angeles County, a district, notes Mrs. Chesser, “which serves mostly minority families.”

The school-based Planned Parenthood shop was spawned by a three-year agreement between the school district and the county’s public health bureaucracy. When parents “discovered that it was being operated by Planned Parenthood,” writes Mrs. Chesser, they “were outraged.” The contract expired June 30, and the school’s principal “announced in an e-mail to staff that the contract … will not be renewed,” reports Mrs. Chesser.

“School board officials allegedly [said] the non-stop pressure from parents played a significant role in the decision” to let the contract expire, Mrs. Chesser writes.

What “services” were offered at the “well-being center?” Testing students for sexually transmitted diseases and providing treatment for such infections, “providing contraception of various kinds,” notes Mrs. Chesser, “including birth control pills and even IUDs,” and also referrals to “other Planned Parenthood facilities for abortions upon request.” California does not require parental consent for abortion, and any medical records generated on the students by the “center,” reports Live Action, “were not accessible to parents or guardians without permission from the student first.

“‘Families and taxpayers should be horrified that the Norwalk-LaMirada USD is considering a partnership with Planned Parenthood,’ Nicole Neily, president and founder of Parents Defending Education, told Fox News Digital at the time” the contract was announced, reports Mrs. Chesser. “‘To add insult to injury, there is no way for parents to ever obtain this information, as the contract asserts that all medical records are to be maintained by Planned Parenthood.’

“She added,” writes Mrs. Chesser, “‘For over 100 years, federal courts have consistently found that parents – and not schools – maintain primary decision-making authority over their children, particularly when it comes to medical care.’”

Notes the Live Action reporter: “Parents continued protesting, showing up at school board meetings and distributing flyers, but the school tried to fight back. In addition,” she cautioned, “the school board originally tried to prevent parents from discussing it during meetings and released questionable surveys claiming there was widespread support for the center.”

Abortion a Religious Right?

A JUDGE IN KENTUCKY HAS RULED AGAINST three Jewish women, reports Bridget Sielicki for Live Action, “who filed a lawsuit contending that a state law protecting preborn children from abortion violated their religious freedom. …

“The case centered largely around in vitro fertilization (IVF),” writes Ms. Sielicki, “with the women arguing that because the law states that life begins at conception (which they claim is a religious belief), they would not be able to discard unwanted embryos.”

One of the plaintiffs “currently has nine frozen embryos,” awaiting their fate at the hands of a mother who seeks to kill them.

Who is Kamala Harris?

July 13, 2024, excerpt from The Washington Stand commentary by Joshua Arnold

             Three more Democratic Congressmen called for Pres. Joe Biden to withdraw from the race following his Thursday night press conference, as the President is still struggling to tamp down concerns in his own party about his cognitive state.

             However, a lingering question for many Democrats is: Who could possibly replace Biden as the nominee (especially after they refused to seriously consider this question during Presidential primary season)? Even the Biden campaign is asking this question; according to mainstream media reports, it is “quietly testing” the possibility of replacing Biden with Vice Pres. Kamala Harris.

             Substituting a candidate is a bit more complicated than switching a pitcher, and it’s not entirely clear what rules would govern such an exchange, or whether anyone would follow them. Such a move has no precedent in the modern era of Presidential politics, when parties have selected their nominees through a primary election system. But then, an 81-year-old President seeking re-election is also unprecedented.

             What is more straightforward are the policies, performance and leadership Harris brings to the table, based on her record as Attorney General of California, then Senator, now Vice President.

Policies

Expanding abortion has always been “a recurrent issue” for Harris, her biographer Dan Morain told The Sacramento Bee. The issue continues to dominate her schedule; since the Supreme Court issued the Dobbs decision in June 2022, Harris had held more than 90 abortion events across 21 states. That equals out to nearly one abortion event per week over the course of two whole years.

             Whatever calorie-free word salads she utters on other topics, Harris has demonstrated the ability to communicate passionately and effectively about abortion – even when the facts aren’t on her side. She recently declared that “Donald Trump would ban abortion nationwide,” even after Trump said plainly in the debate he would not. At the same time, Harris promised to “do everything in our power to stop him and restore women’s reproductive freedom” – which she understands to include a federal law authorizing abortion up until the moment of birth.

             Harris’s pro-abortion record dates back to her time as Attorney General of California, where she prosecuted pro-life pregnancy centers for not helping pregnant women seek and obtain abortions. That controversy eventually percolated to the Supreme Court as NIFLA v. Becerra, and the Supreme Court finally ruled that California’s policy unconstitutionally compelled the speech of PRCs in violation of their deeply held beliefs. Harris never apologized for this stance and continues to advocate for the removal of conscience protections on the issue of abortion.

             Besides abortion, Harris’s other areas of passion also fall into what are sometimes called “culture war” issues. The Sacramento Bee also identified her history on Medicare for All, marijuana legalization and opposition to the death penalty.

             Harris has also promoted the LGBT agenda since at least 2004, when, as a local district attorney, she officiated same-sex weddings “in defiance of state and federal regulations.” As attorney general of California, Harris refused to defend Proposition 8, a successful ballot measure defining marriage as a one-man, one-woman union and sided against it in federal court. Harris continues to play an active role in the Biden Administration’s pro-LGBT policymaking and messaging.