Life Advocacy Briefing

Muddling Through

WE APPRECIATE THE PRAYERS of our readers – and especially the grace of the One Who hears – and we’ll thank you for continuing to keep us on your prayer list, as the illness which has struck our editorial staff lingers, though we are thankful for improvement. We ask, therefore, that our readers bear with us as we work our way through the current news. This Life Advocacy Briefing will be chiefly comprised of reprints and excerpts. We hope you understand and that you will find worthy the items we have chosen for you.

Cruel Fool

A JUDGE IN ATLANTA HAS STRUCK DOWN GEORGIA’s 6-WEEK ABORTION BAN, reports Sarah Holliday for The Washington Stand.

The superior court judge, Robert McBurney, defined “liberty,” writes Ms. Holliday, as “‘the power of a woman to control her own body, to decide what happens to it and in it, and to reject state interference with her healthcare choices,’” and used that subjective definition of liberty to excuse his deadly decision.

“The judge went on,” notes Ms. Holliday, “to state how ‘at some point, the pregnancy [sic!] acquires its own rights that deserve protection[!],’ but he quickly argued that ‘we struggle mightily – and not always peaceably – with determining when that point arrives.’”

How about ending that “struggle” by veering toward the irrefutable truth that a developing baby is a human being entitled to the right to Life already conferred by his or her Maker? Use truth, Judge, and you might relieve yourself of this seeming dilemma!

The immediate consequence of the judge’s application of his own twisted logic: “It is now legal in Georgia to abort a child up to viability,” writes Ms. Holliday, “which can be as late as 22 weeks into pregnancy.”

The ruling was the second time the 6-week law has been struck down by a lower court. In-state pro-life observers expect the ruling to be overturned eventually by the state supreme court.

Walz Misleads Voters at Veep Debate

Excerpts from Oct. 2, 2024, The Washington Stand report by Family Research Council’s Ben Johnson

             Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz suffered what critics say was a “disastrous” performance during his only face-to-face showdown with Republican J.D. Vance before the 2024 Presidential election, referring to himself as a “knucklehead” who has “become friends with school shooters.” Walz also repeatedly promoted misinformation about the impact of state pro-life protections, calling abortion a “basic human right.” …

             Many pro-life proponents found themselves dissatisfied with both candidates’ statements on abortion. Vance continued the 2024 GOP orthodoxy that the federal government has no role in abortion policy. “… Let voters make these decisions, let the individual states make their abortion policy.”

             … Vance also appeared to promote taxpayer-funded IVF – in which 50% and 70% of newly conceived children will die by day six and many survivors will be “selectively reduced” or frozen indefinitely – as a “pro-family” measure. “I want us, as a Republican Party, to be pro-family in the fullest sense of the word. I want us to support fertility treatments,” he said. “I want us to make it easier for moms to afford to have babies. I want to make it easier for young families to afford a home so they can afford a place to raise that family. And I think there’s so much that we can do on the public policy front just to give women more options.”

             Yet pro-life advocates say the Democratic ticket’s extremism far outstrips the current GOP leadership’s skittishness on the issue. Walz rejected the state-federal distinction, echoing Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris’s pledge to expand “rights as basic” as abortion to all 50 states.

             “That’s not how this works. This is a basic human right,” Walz insisted of abortion, which ends a newborn [sic] child’s unalienable right to life. “How can we as a nation say that your life and your rights as basic as the right to control your own body is determined on geography?” Walz asked.

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: In an odd, unintended way, Mr. Walz has hit on something there. How can we as a nation say that one’s life and one’s rights as basic as the right to be born are determined on geography? How about that, GOP? How about that, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Supreme Court?]

             … Perhaps the most effective pro-life statement of the debate came during the commercials, as national television carried a commercial highlighting Minnesota state data that show, during Walz’s tenure as governor, at least eight babies were born alive during botched abortions. These newborns “died gasping for air,” the ad states, as the viewer hears the sound of babies struggling for breath. “Kamala Harris may have played dumb during the debate on her record of literally voting to allow infanticide to continue, and she may try to ignore her chosen running mate’s decision to hide cases of infanticide in his home state of Minnesota. But the Pro-Life Generation will not ignore a record of radical abortion support that includes allowing lives to be lost after a botched abortion,” said Students for Life Action president Kristan Hawkins in an e-mail to The Washington Stand.

             Walz spread misinformation about abortion without any fact-checking from the moderators. “We have seen maternal mortality skyrocket in Texas,” Walz claimed. That assertion gets the data backwards, said Michael New, a professor of political science and social research at the Catholic University of America and a scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. “Taking the data at face value, their report indicates that the maternal-mortality rate in Texas actually declined by 35% between 2021 and 2022,” … wrote New at National Review, [noting that the state’s Heartbeat Law had taken effect during that time]. “In short, during the year with the strongest pro-life protections in place, the rate of maternal mortality in Texas actually fell by 35%.”

             Walz further dishonestly claimed that Project 2025, which the Trump campaign has repeatedly denounced, “is going to have a registry of pregnancies” – something [CBS “moderator” Margaret] Brennan allowed Vance to address and which the report’s author corrected in real time. “Walz outrageously claims the Project 2025 section I wrote would create a ‘pregnancy registry’” when the report “merely recommends CDC compile anonymous abortion stats for all 50 states instead of the current 46-47. Walz’s own state collects miscarriage information every year, so it runs a ‘miscarriage registry’ according to his logic,” clarified Roger Severino, a former Trump Administration official now serving as a scholar at the Heritage Foundation. “So hypocritical. So dishonest.” …

What About the Walz Claim?

Excerpt from Oct. 2, 2024, commentary by Dr. Albert Mohler, reprinted from The Daily Citizen

             Predictably, he [Gov. Walz] referred to abortion almost entirely as what he simply reduced to health care. But there was one other point – a very important point – because Sen. Vance and others have pointed out that when it comes to Gov. Walz, he signed legislation that basically says that if a baby survives an abortion, a doctor, well, just comes to some decision about what to do with the baby. Some medical authorities there in Minnesota say as many as eight babies have died since that legislation was signed. And here’s where Gov. Walz was allowed to get off the hook [in the debate]. He simply said there’s nothing in the bill that says that.

             Well, that’s, in one sense, true. That’s because the legislation he signed replaced previous legislation that said that if indeed a baby was born after an abortion, reasonable medical efforts had to be taken to keep that baby alive. It you take that language out, guess what? You have just changed the law. He was let off the hook, and that was a big mistake. He should never have been let off of that hook.

Big Win in New York, for Now

Sept. 27, 2024, report by Liberty Counsel

             This week, a federal judge in New York has once again sided with pro-life pregnancy centers by issuing an order stating that two pregnancy center networks are free to promote the abortion pill reversal (APR) protocol and say that it is “safe and effective” while their lawsuit moves forward. The judge’s preliminary injunction consolidates this legal challenge under his previous ruling from August 2024 that temporarily blocked New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James from targeting 51 other pro-life pregnancy centers for promoting that an abortion in progress can be safely reversed. In that ruling, the judge stated the First Amendment protects a pregnancy center’s right “to speak freely about [the] APR protocol.”

             The preliminary injunction protects Summit Life Outreach Center and the Evergreen Assn. from the state’s attempts to silence them with threats, intimidation and prosecution under the state’s false advertising law. New York’s attorney general claims APR is “unproven” and has accused pregnancy centers across the state of fraudulent business practices and false advertising. However, Summit and Evergreen say that the state’s actions violate the 1^st and 14^th Amendments and that James’s illegal targeting of pregnancy centers unconstitutionally censors their speech about the safety and efficacy of abortion pill reversal. In the previous ruling, District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., stated that pregnancy centers are “likely to succeed on the merits” with their free speech claims since restricting speech about APR “casts a chill” on the First Amendment. …

             The injunction order specifically bars the state from interfering with pregnancy centers when they are making APR-related statements in advertising, social media and other resources to the public or to women “considering or in the midst of a chemical abortion.” The order outlines that pregnancy centers can:

• Make statements “using the terms ‘Abortion Pill Reversal’ or ‘APR’ related to chemical abortions.”
• Make statements “referring to the APR Hotline or com”
• Make statements “indicating that Abortion Pill Reversal (or APR), or progesterone, is safe.”
• Make statements “that Abortion Pill Reversal (or APR), or progesterone, is effective.”

             According to Dr. William Lile, who is board certified in obstetrics and gynecology and who has delivered thousands of babies, progesterone is “bio-identical” to what a pregnant woman produces and “as natural as it can possibly be.” Dr. Lile told Liberty Counsel that he has personally reversed the abortion pill 15 out of 19 times (a 78% success rate) and that abortion pill reversal protocol has safely reversed mifepristone [RU-486] thousands of times across the nation.  …

A Crack of Hope in a Dreary Landscape?

Sept. 30, 2024, commentary by Chuck Donovan in The Washington Stand

             Without doubt, the last year and more has been a rough patch for the pro-life cause, even outside the realm of ballot questions and electoral politics. The surest sign of difficulty is the sharp division among pro-life forces about what course of action to take to advance the right to life.

             On July 9, the movement, already hampered by having few advocates outside the Republican Party, found itself with a national GOP platform in which pro-life policy positions had been sharply curtailed. The debacle led the pro-life former Vice President Mike Pence to say he was “profoundly disappointed” in the outcome.

             The sharp contrast between the 2016 and 2024 GOP platforms tells the tale. After 1976, when the GOP first embraced a federal constitutional amendment to protect the unborn, the platform steadily grew in scope and detail.

             The 2016 platform laid out a string of provisions that covered an array of topics, endorsing federal legislation to protect the unborn under the 14^th Amendment, defunding abortion businesses, supporting the Hyde Amendment, nominating pro-life judges, opposing embryo destruction, advocating pregnancy resource centers and much more. In contrast, the new 2024 platform’s pro-life provisions were reduced to just over 100 words. The reference to federal constitutional protection was transformed into a reframing of the 14^th Amendment as a states’ rights approach, only late-term abortion was mentioned specifically as objectionable, and both birth control and in vitro fertilization were endorsed without qualification.

             Moreover, the process by which the platform was approved sparked criticism – the vote in the GOP platform committee was 84-18, and efforts to amend or bolster the platform were quashed in a rushed process. The wide margin suggests that there exists strong support for this substantively diluted platform, and that the prospects for reversing it anytime soon are dim.

             But there is evidence to the contrary, and that is the extent to which, despite the weakening at the national level, GOP state party platforms in 2024 continue to reflect a strong party position on the fundamental question of the right to life and related policies on defunding measures, alternatives to abortion and other subjects. There, as we lay out below, the 2024 outcomes are more encouraging and offer a path back to pro-life commitment for the GOP.

             Overly nearly half a century, the national GOP added thematic elements to its national platform, reflecting the reality that, while abortion is sometimes framed as a single issue, in reality it involves an array of questions regarding the disabled, the treatment of the elderly, scientific research, genetics and other compelling topics. Perhaps the peak pro-life platform for the GOP was the one adopted in 2012, which addressed 19 separate life topics and proposals, including legislation outlawing dismemberment abortions and abortions carried out on the grounds of disability, race or sex.

             To analyze the state and territorial GOP platforms for 2024, this research identified party websites online, most of which included the state platform or a link to its text. The list examined included the 50 states, five US territories and the District of Columbia. Then we developed a list of 11 major topics that might be included in the platforms, including reference to the sanctity of human life/the Declaration of Independence (a common way for the abortion issue to be tied to the nation’s founding); the US Constitution; the state’s constitution; defunding abortion; adoption/alternatives to abortion; assisted suicide/euthanasia; appointment/election of pro-life judges; parental rights; conscience rights; and stem cells/cloning.

             We noted if the platform specifically mentioned the application of the platform provision from the time of conception. Finally, we identified those states that, either in addition to or in lieu of a state platform, endorsed the 2024 platform as adopted in Milwaukee at the national convention.

             On a few key topics, the majority of the platforms were clear, while on others the frequency of specific mentions varied. A handful of states were silent on life issues, and it appeared that some chose not to update their platform language from prior years. Where state party websites were unclear on the status of their platforms, we called state party officials to confirm our interpretation. Our overall findings suggest that while the state platforms vary in depth and quality of the platform language, most platforms support respect for human life from its beginning to natural death. [emphasis added]

             Specifically:

• Thirty-six states and one territory (Guam) refer to belief in the sanctity of human life and/or to the words of the Declaration of Independence regarding all men being endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;
• Twenty-three states use language from “conception to natural death” to describe the scope of protection for the right to life, while only one state (Delaware) refers to the “potential life” of an infant as an object of respect. Interestingly, the Hawaii Republican Party refers to “fertilization,” recognizing, “The sanctity of innocent human life, created in the image of God, which should be equally protected from fertilization to natural death.” Three other states – Georgia, Texas and Oklahoma – refer to fertilization as well.
• Next in frequency was mention of defunding abortion and/or abortion businesses (21 states), followed by adoption/alternatives to abortion at 20 mentions, opposition to unethical stemcell research and cloning (13 states) and opposition to assisted suicide/euthanasia at 11 states.

             Generally, few mentions were specifically made to the US Constitution or state constitutions, and no mentions occurred of a belief that only state constitutions or policymaking should address the right to life. [emphasis added by Life Advocacy] Some issues that remain prominent, including conscience and parental rights, received fewer mentions than one might expect, especially given the expanding potential for shipment of abortion pills to minors across state lines and Biden-Harris Administration efforts to erode conscience protections for healthcare providers.

             Conversely, no state appears to have focused on late-term abortions in lieu of more broadly stated objections to abortion. None endorses in vitro fertilization (IVF) or contraception as the new national platform does, though two states (Montana and Oklahoma) mention IVF in the context of protecting the lives of embryos created by this means. …

             Finally, in terms of comprehensive platforms that approach the detail of the 2012 and 2016 GOP platforms, there are powerful examples like those of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Idaho. Encouraging in another way are those states like California and Illinois, whose platforms are highly principled on the Life issues in states that have traditionally proved inhospitable to the GOP and its candidates.

             Irrespective of what happens in the 2024 Presidential election and down-ballot races, it is clear that there is new tension within the Republican Party on the direction it will take on the sanctity of life, family definition, sexual values generally, and more. It is equally clear that state parties as a whole have not gone the route of the national party in 2024 by jettisoning their protective language for the unborn. In the wake of this election, battles in the states may swiftly begin over these core principles. If so, texts and ideas exist in these documents than can refortify the commitment of the GOP to issues that transcend any single political moment. …