Life Advocacy Briefing

Question of the Week

WHY ARE SOME PRO-LIFE LEADERS LAUDING President Trump for cutting Planned Parenthood $20 million from federal “family planning” funding when the outfit’s most recent annual report shows it received $699.3 million in taxpayer funding in the 2022-2023 fiscal year? And when the basis for the cut is the nation’s chief abortion purveyor’s adherence to Diversity/Equity/Inclusion hiring policies rather than its even more outrageous annual death toll of nearly 400,000 innocent human lives in that same fiscal year?

Pivotal Election?

TOMORROW – APRIL 1 – IS ELECTION DAY IN WISCONSIN, with a special election for a state supreme court justice on the ballot, notes S.A McCarthy for The Washington Stand, a publication of Family Research Council.

“FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter urged Christians and conservatives in Wisconsin to vote in the crucial contest,” writes Ms. McCarthy, “‘Turnout is generally low in these odd-year elections, even below midterm elections, so that’s why it’s important that Christians show up big-time – they can make the difference.’”

Who is running? “While the race is officially nonpartisan,” notes Ms. McCarthy, “candidate Susan Crawford, an incumbent Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge for Dane County, has aligned herself with the Democratic Party’s agenda, and candidate Brad Schimel, an incumbent Wisconsin Circuit Court judge for Waukesha and the state’s former Attorney General, has aligned himself with the GOP’s agenda.”

Specifics? Well, Ms. Crawford’s “litigation history and positions on issues such as abortion have earned her the support of numerous Democrats and left-wing donors,” writes Ms. McCarthy. And her endorsers include “former Pres. Barack Obama’s attorney general Eric Holder,” notes Ms. McCarthy, plus “Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), billionaire activist George Soros, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) President Mini Timmaraju, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, the pro-abortion EMILY’s List, the pro-LGBT Human Rights Campaign, the atheist Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Wisconsin Democratic Party and a host of labor unions. She has also,” warns Ms. McCarthy, “received the tacit endorsement of Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), who has funded much of Crawford’s advertising campaign alongside Soros.” And a further lengthy list.

Brad Schimel, on the other hand, is backed by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), five Republicans in the US House from Wisconsin, the state’s Republican Party, the NRA Political Victory Fund, and, notes Ms. McCarthy, “several high-profile allies of Pres. Donald Trump, including billionaire Elon Musk, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk and the President’s son, Donald Trump Jr.” Additionally, “the Women Speak Out PAC and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America have both supported Schimel’s pro-life record, describing the candidate as someone ‘who respects life, the Constitution and the rule of law.’”

Marching for Life in the States

• THE ILLINOIS MARCH FOR LIFE, held on March 25, drew more than 2,000 people – mostly teenagers and young adults, according to Andrew Hansen for LifeSiteNews – to the vicinity of the state capitol, where “a sea of more than 2,000 people, mainly teenagers and young adults, cheering, dancing, singing, smiling, laughing and praying, took part, and where, across the street, “about a dozen pro-abortion protesters shout[ed] lies into a megaphone, wearing Halloween-style masks and promoting abortion as ‘healthcare’ … . Their faces,” notes Mr. Hansen, “showed scowls, their voices carried hate and their message was one of selfishness.” The pre-March rally was led by Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, one of the most devout and devoted leaders of the Catholic Church in Illinois, in the opinion of Life Advocacy Briefing’s editor.

• THE NEXT MARCH FOR LIFE coming up in the states is scheduled for today, Monday, March 31, in Sacramento, California, followed quickly by a Virginia march in Richmond on April 2 and a Colorado march in Denver on April 11. Details can be found on the Internet at marchforlife.org/statemarches.

In the Courts

• A LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED TO CHALLENGE AN ILLINOIS LAW which took effect Jan. 1, prohibiting “harassment” of employees based on their “voluntary reproductive decisions.” Plaintiffs include the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, reports Daniel Payne for Catholic News Agency, and the Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford. The law, alleges the suit, “‘prohibits employers from disciplining or refusing to hire employees’ regarding their decisions about abortion and further ‘requires employers to grant employee accommodations’ regarding abortion,” writes Mr. Payne, who adds, including a quote from the lawsuit, “The measure renders both the diocese and the pregnancy center ‘powerless to control deeply theological internal matters and to separate themselves from conduct that fatally undermines their mission and message.’” Plaintiffs are being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom.

• NORTH DAKOTA’s SUPREME COURT HEARD ORAL ARGUMENTS last Tuesday, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “about the constitutionality of the state’s near-total abortion ban, with lawyers for and against debating the meaning and implications of its language about medical emergencies.” The law, signed in April of 2023, bans “most abortions throughout pregnancy,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “with exceptions only allowed for rape or incest before the detection of a heartbeat or when allegedly ‘necessary’ to avoid a ‘serious health risk’ to the mother at any point before or after six weeks. … District Judge Bruce Romanick blocked the … law in September 2024, supposedly for being ‘unconstitutionally void for vagueness’ and a month later rejected a request to let the law be enforced pending appeal to the state supreme court.” Plaintiff in the case is an abortuary which is no longer located in the state, having since relocated to the Minnesota side of the state’s eastern border.

• A 3-JUDGE PANEL OF THE 9^th US CIRCUIT APPEALS COURT has ruled that a church in Kirkland, Washington, does not have standing to challenge a state law forcing employers to include abortion in their employee health insurance plans. Dissenting Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote, reports Zachary Mettler for the Daily Citizen (from Focus on the Family), “‘Cedar Park [Assembly of God church] finds itself in a catch-22; it either contracts with an insurer for a health plan that covers abortions (in violation of its religious belief) or it cancels its health plan (in violation of state and federal law), … adding, ‘Before the Parity Act, Cedar Park was able to provide its employees with a health plan in accordance with its religious beliefs. Now, because of the Parity Act, it cannot do so. … I respectfully dissent.’” The church is being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, whose CEO Kristen Waggoner was quoted by Mr. Mettler: “‘I just learned that the 9^th Circuit has issued a shocking opinion in the case of a Washington church that is being forced to fund abortion. … This ruling must not stand. ADF is exploring all legal options on behalf of Cedar Park. Churches should never be forced to fund abortion. And they should always have the option to challenge such unjust laws in court.’” Amen!

• A WYOMING DISTRICT COURT JUDGE has ruled, reports Antonino Cambria for LifeSiteNews, “that a lawsuit brought by the state’s lone ‘surgical’ abortion facility challenging two recently passed pro-life laws in the state, including one that has increased regulations on the facility, cannot move forward.” It appears the “Wellspring Health Access abortuary” filed the case in the wrong county. Nice play. “While the civil suit was initially brought in [the county where the abortuary is located],” notes Mr. Cambria, “the plaintiffs had moved the case to [another] county, arguing that the [original] county court wasn’t moving quickly enough, according to Wyoming Public Radio. “The state of Wyoming responded by filing a motion to move the case back to the [original] district court, arguing that the plaintiffs were ‘judge shopping’ by having the case moved.” Nice try.

Trojan Horse Watch

WYOMING’s GOV. MARK GORDON is proving to be a Republican who bears watching, in case he decides ever again to put his name on a ballot. In early March, he vetoed a bill, reports Matt Lamb for LifeSiteNews, “requiring women to have an ultrasound before obtaining chemical abortion drugs,” a provision we see as particularly appropriate in protecting those with ectopic pregnancies, whose own lives are endangered by ingesting abortion drugs with no medical intervention beyond an  over-the-counter pregnancy test. Though claiming to have “a ‘pro-life stance,’” notes Mr. Lamb, the governor attempted to justify his veto with the use of “pro-abortion talking points.” Said the governor, “‘I question whether this invasive ultrasound is absolutely necessary, fully informative or can even be considered a reasonable requirement for this procedure regardless of the circumstances resulting in the pregnancy,’ he said,” irrelevantly. And he suggested the legislature “wait to pass new abortion laws” while “the legality of the state’s near-total ban on abortion is pending with the state supreme court.” Remember the name: Mark Gordon. And if his shilly-shally stance on abortion isn’t warning enough, keep this tidbit on file: The Federalist has reported, notes Mr. Lamb, “Gordon removed a radiologist from the state board of medicine for opposing child gender mutilation, and he refused to sign a 2023 bill to prevent men who think they are women from competing in women’s sports, calling the measure ‘draconian.’”

Stateside

• THE DELAWARE HOUSE LAST WEEK APPROVED a bill to legalize abetted suicide. The margin of passage was 21 to 17, with three members absent. Reports Live Action’s Bridget Sielicki, HB-140 “would allow a person who has been diagnosed as ‘terminally’ ill with less than six months to live to qualify for drugs that would end his or her life. Both physicians and advanced practice registered nurses would be permitted,” she adds, “to diagnose and approve a patient for assisted death.” A “nearly identical bill” was passed in 2024 by both houses of the legislature, notes Ms. Sielicki, “only to be vetoed by Democratic Gov. John Carney, who said he was ‘fundamentally opposed’ to assisted killing because it is a ‘deeply personal issue.’” But, she adds, Delaware “now has a new governor, Matt Meyer, who has said he would sign a bill if it comes to him.”

• MISSOURI LAWMAKERS are looking for creative ways to re-establish their state’s pro-life heritage in the wake of a heartbreaking referendum passage last November of a state constitutional amendment enshrining abortion. GOP lawmakers in the state are proposing a plan, reports Emily Mangiaracina for LifeSiteNews, “to allow taxpayers to donate to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers instead of paying state income tax.” Already Missouri offers taxpayers a credit up to 70% of their tax liability in exchange for donations to such life-saving operations. SB-681 would hike that credit, reports Ms. Mangiaracina, all the way to 100%, “effectively canceling the state tax for such donors, except for the very wealthiest of Missourians. “Policy experts believe the legislation could lead to a huge surge in funding for pregnancy resource centers because of the ‘psychological difference’ between a 70% and 100% tax credit, according to ProPublica,” reports LifeSiteNews. “‘I could imagine a possibility where there’s a big publicity campaign by these centers, or a viral campaign, and massive numbers of conservative Missourians decide to effectively defund state government in favor of these pregnancy resource centers,’ David Gamage, a professor of tax law and policy at the University of Missouri, told ProPublica,” writes Ms. Mangiaracina. But “the left-leaning outfit,” notes the LifeSiteNews reporter, “pointed out that Missouri is also advancing legislation to eliminate the state income tax entirely. If passed, it would render the tax credit bill null and void.” Of course, that would give prospective donors more resources to devote to saving lives.

• A BILL HAS BEEN FILED IN SOUTH CAROLINA to ban abortion from conception, reports Emily Mangiaracina for LifeSiteNews, “except in the case of a ‘medical emergency’ to prevent the death of the mother or her serious and irreversible bodily impairment.” The Human Life Protection Act underwent a hearing early in March in a legislative subcommittee; its number is H-3457. It would, notes the LSN writer, “tighten the state’s abortion restrictions from a six-week prohibition with exceptions for fetal anomalies and a 12-week ban for cases of rape and incest to a near-total ban.” The exceptions in the proposed bill explicitly exclude “psychological or emotional conditions.” And, notes Ms. Mangiaracina, “no exceptions for rape or incest are included” in the proposal.

• TEXAS LEGISLATORS HAVE FILED a “Woman & Child Protection Act,” reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “to impose civil liability on anyone distributing abortion pills in the Lone Star State in an effort to prevent the pills from undermining Texas pro-life laws,” which have been proving effective in drying up the surgical abortion racket. The bill, notes Mr. Freiburger, “states that nobody may ‘manufacture, possess or distribute an abortion-inducing drug in this state; mail, transport, deliver, prescribe or provide an abortion-inducing drug in any manner to or from any person or location in this state; (or) provide information on the method for obtaining an abortion-inducing drug.’” The bill provides that a “‘mother or father of an unborn child may bring a civil action … for the wrongful death of the unborn child from the use of an abortion-inducing drug, regardless of whether the other parent brings a civil action for the wrongful death.’ … The vast majority of abortions are illegal in Texas,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “but the state is still dealing with the problem of out-of-state actors using pills to circumvent Texas law, facilitating abortions that take place completely in private.’” Said the legislative director for Texas Right to Life, quoted by Mr. Freiburger: “‘A person could order abortion pills online right now and they’d be delivered to their doorstep the next day. … Texas must pass the [bill] to save preborn babies and make our state the leader against the underground abortion industry.’” Amen!

Demography Personalized

March 7, 2025, BreakPoint commentary by John Stonestreet & Shane Morris

             America, like the rest of the developed world, is facing a baby shortage, and the inevitable reckoning has begun. Last year, the New York Times asked, “Why Are So Many Americans Choosing to Not Have Children?” More recently, The Atlantic warned of the consequences of the “baby bust” for the Democratic Party. The article talked as if the reality is still coming, but falling fertility has been happening for a while now. The real problems it poses for our future are no longer deniable.

             Why Western fertility is falling, however, is a source of controversy. The most popular theory is that affluent and educated women in the West no longer want children because they are career-oriented feminists. In this way of thinking, women reject motherhood because they believe that academic and professional achievement is not merely better than, but wholly incompatible with, having a family.

             This view, that the traditional family is a kind of slavery that oppresses women, has long been promoted by feminist authors, beginning with Simone deBeauvoir in her book The Second Sex. Her ideas are still repeated and reinforced by loud voices online boasting about their “child-free” lives full of disposable income, travel and self-indulgence. Polling data, however, suggests that most American women don’t feel this way about marriage or childbearing. In fact, they are more likely than men, on average, to say that they intend to have several children.

             According to demographer Lyman Stone, utilizing data from the 2022-2023 National Survey of Family Growth, 50% of childless women say they intend to have kids, while just 32% of childless men say the same. Women surveyed also gave a higher intended number of children than the men did.

             If women truly are more pro-natal than men, are unwilling men to blame for holding them back from the families they intend? Not exactly and here we find a quirk of human nature, and therefore of polling. Though women’s intentions appear to be more pro-natal, men were more likely to say they desire to have children. For example, a Pew Research poll found that 57% of young men without children wanted them someday, compared with just 45% of women. There is a key difference, suggested Stone, between “wants” and “intentions,” and men and women, for whatever reason, answer questions differently based on that language.

             “[Intention] isn’t the same thing as desires, but it is a nice way to get at what’s going on under the hood in people’s brains as they think about these questions. … [A]lthough men claim to want more kids, when push comes to shove, women are more determined to actually have kids.”

             That explanation at least meshes with well-established findings that American women are falling well short of their ideal number of children. According to the Institute for Family Studies, on average, an American woman will have 1.6 births in her lifetime, and the share of women who will never give birth is on the rise. And yet, a majority of young women continue to say they would like a family, and their ideal number of children is just over two, a number that, surprisingly, hasn’t changed in decades.

             So yes, Americans are having fewer children but still hope for them. Perhaps this means that many have not so much believed the anti-natalist ideas about children but the ones about having children, namely the relational and financial fictions about happiness, success and wealth. The proudly childfree who live for the moment and spend all their time and money on themselves may be loud on social media but do not represent Americans in general.

             The resilience of created reality, including persistent maternal and paternal instincts, should also be noted. It is true that many who want families are having a much harder time forming them than in years past, but family is still integral to what most people mean when they talk about “the good life.” This should inform and shape the task of shepherding young men and women into adulthood and should include strategies to make matrimony and parenthood easier.

             To encourage these things – whether at home, in Congress or from the pulpit – is still to work with the grain of reality, drawing people toward the end for which male and female, and sex itself, were created. Biology and reality are on the side of marriage and babies. To encourage pro-family intentions and ideals is to make reality great again.