Life Advocacy Briefing

Question of the Week

IF THE PRESIDENT IS SO CONCERNED – as he expressed last week – about America’s declining birthrate, how about directing your Food & Drug Administration to withdraw marketing authorization for mifepristone, which is intentionally killing the littlest Americans at an alarming rate? (That would not even require a vote in Congress!)

Closed for Good, Yes, for Good

THOUGH NOTORIOUS LATE-TERM ABORTIONIST WARREN HERN announced in January – when he announced his retirement – that the Aurora, Colorado, baby-killing business he owned would continue, he announced last week that the business is now closed. And will remain so. This after more than 50 years, notes Clare Marie Merkowsky for LifeSiteNews, of “targeting vulnerable women and aborting their unborn babies.”

Mr. Hern himself made the announcement, declaring, writes Ms. Merkowsky, “‘This was a very difficult decision with many factors, as this practice is my life’s work. … It has given me and others helping me great satisfaction and meaning in our lives.’”

Ms. Merkowsky quotes other disgusting, horrifying statements made by this pathetic, self-deceived practitioner of evil; we will spare our readers. But note this summation, quoted in the LifeSiteNews report from a 2019 Hern essay, in which “he called human beings a ‘planetary cancer’ and pregnancy a disease. ‘Pregnancy is not a benign condition. It can kill you,’” he wrote. “‘The treatment of choice for pregnancy is abortion unless the woman wants to carry the pregnancy to term and have a baby,’ he said.”

‘Love Them Both’ Filed in House

A BILL HAS BEEN FILED IN THE U.S. HOUSE to “keep abortion out of pregnant worker rules.” It was introduced by Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) and is co-sponsored so far by just two Members, Representatives Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) and Brian Babin (R-TX). HR-2644 has been assigned to the House Committee on Education & the Workforce and to the House Committee on Administration. It mirrors legislation filed by Mrs. Miller in the previous Congress.

According to a news release from the sponsor, the “Love Them Both Act … seeks to block the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights from interpreting the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to include coverage for abortions or related services.”

Said Rep. Miller: “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was meant to support new mothers and their children – not fund the destruction of innocent life. Allowing abortion under this law directly contradicts its purpose. My bill will restore its original intent, protect unborn babies and stand for the sanctity of life.”

Republican Study Committee chairman Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), quoted in the Miller news release said, “‘The Biden Administration’s radical expansion of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has twisted a law meant to protect expectant mothers into a tool forcing employers to facilitate abortions, directly contradicting its original intent to support women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term. I’m proud to support Rep. Mary Miller’s Love Them Both Act, which stops this regulatory overreach by ensuring pregnancy accommodations support life, not end it, while ensuring the PWFA returns to its intended purpose of helping pregnant workers continue working safely as they prepare for childbirth. No one should be forced to choose between their conscience and complying with federal law. This legislation accomplishes just that.’”

‘War’ on the Border

AN ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, PRO-LIFE GROUP has launched a billboard campaign on the state’s border with Texas, reports Phil Sevilla for LifeSiteNews, “to combat abortion tourism.” The billboards have appeared on the Texas side of the border in the Amarillo area and are posted by Albuquerque-based LifeMinistriesUS.

LifeMinistries spokesman Bud Shaver explained, reports Mr. Sevilla, “‘The primary message of our billboard campaign is to encourage Texas women to “Turn Around” and not come to New Mexico to end the lives of their preborn children. That fact that women can circumvent Texas abortion laws by interstate travel is a real constitutional crisis that must ultimately be addressed by the US Supreme Court.’”

Of the 21,000 abortions committed in New Mexico in 2023, some 70% of the aborted mothers had come to the state from Texas.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D), a former Member of Congress, “enthusiastically promotes abortion tourism,” notes Mr. Sevilla. That promotion includes use of New Mexico tax dollars on “advertising campaigns to draw Texas women seeking abortions to the ‘Land of Enchantment’ and to recruit out-of-state abortionists to expand the state’s abortion business,” which includes late-term abortions. State taxpayers have “also funded two new multi-million-dollar abortion centers in the state,” he reports.

On the Texas side, Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is suing Austin “to stop the city’s public funding for Texas women to travel and procure abortions out of state,” notes Mr. Sevilla.

Stateside

• THE FLORIDA HOUSE has voted 79 to 32 to advance a proposal, reports Bridget Sielicki for Live Action, “to allow family members to sue for the wrongful death of a preborn child.” It does not provide standing for suits against either the mother or the “doctor” in cases of “legal abortion” but allows juries to grant “monetary damages equal to the wages that a preborn child may have earned” in non-abortion fetal killings. Even though the measure does not apply to abortion, “many Democratic lawmakers opposed the bill,” notes Ms. Sielicki, “with concern that it would impact IVF and abortion while conferring personhood on preborn children. Abortion advocates,” she writes, “don’t like to recognize preborn children as ‘persons,’ because doing so gives legal recognition to those children who are brutally killed by abortion.” Said one Democratic state senator, Tina Polsky, quoted by Ms. Sielicki, “‘This is setting a new base for future issues, for future liability, for future bans. And it’s incredibly concerning.’” The bill’s companion measure, SB-1284, has cleared the Senate Committee on Criminal & Civil Justice.

• A TOUCH OF GOOD NEWS OUT OF ILLINOIS. Life Advocacy Briefing was informed last week that the latest abetted suicide bill in Illinois “seems to be stalled” in the State Senate. The news was given us by David Smith, executive director of Illinois Family Institute. The bill is cited as SB-9, filed by Sen. Linda Holmes (D-Aurora) and has been sitting on the Senate calendar since emerging from committee April 9.

• MISSOURI’s ATTORNEY GENERAL Andrew Bailey (R) has issued a warning to Planned Parenthood and its abettors declaring, reports Doug Mainwaring for LifeSiteNews, “‘This is the beginning of the end for Planned Parenthood in the state of Missouri. What they conceal and conspire to do in the dark of night has now been uncovered. I am filing suit to ensure it never happens again.’” The attorney general’s reference was to a concerted campaign by the abortion giant to “traffic minors across state lines,” writes Mr. Mainwaring, “to obtain abortions without parental consent.” His focus on “abortion escorts” of minors demonstrates resolve despite narrow voter approval last November of a state constitutional amendment sealing abortion into the state’s law. That amendment does not negate existing state law against cross-border trafficking of minors without their parents’ knowledge.

• AND THE MISSOURI HEALTH DEPT. “has rejected Planned Parenthood’s attempts,” writes LifeSiteNews reporter Doug Mainwaring, “to offer so-called ‘medication abortions’ – chemical abortions committed with pills … . ‘Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, which operates clinics in the St. Louis region, Rolla and Springfield, and Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which operates clinics in Kansas City and Columbia, received a letter from the Missouri Dept. of Health & Senior Services,” reports Mr. Mainwaring, citing the Missouri Independent as source, “stating their complication plans did not meet state requirements, … meaning that chemical abortion remains unavailable in Missouri.” Good news for developing babies and their often vulnerable moms.

• ABETTED SUICIDE HAS PASSED THE HOUSE IN NEVADA but is likely to face a veto from Gov. Joe Lombardo (R) if it clears the state senate, as expected.

• NORTH CAROLINA G.O.P. LAWMAKERS HAVE INTRODUCED HB-844, titled the “Finding Grace Family Bill,” reports S.A. McCarthy for The Washington Stand. Barring abortions “after the sixth week of a woman’s pregnancy,” the bill has widely been labeled a “Heartbeat Abortion Bill,” as a heartbeat can be detected in a developing unborn baby as young as six weeks. “The policy would also,” notes Ms. McCarthy, “require North Carolina’s Dept. of Health & Human Services to provide information on alternatives to abortion and to recommend adoption, including by publicly listing adoption agencies and services in the state and providing a list of benefits associated with adoption. Additionally,” she writes, “sex education courses in public schools will be amended,” if the bill passes, “to recommend adoption in the case of teenage pregnancies. … The North Carolina Values Coalition,” writes Ms. McCarthy, “praised the legislation, saying, ‘Thanks to this bill, North Carolina legislators now have the chance to save tens of thousands of lives in our state every year.’ The organization lamented,’” reports the Washington Stand writer, “‘that North Carolina has become ‘an abortion destination state,’ since most neighboring states have enacted or enforced pro-life legislation following the US Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.’” Said the state’s Values Coalition executive director, quoted by Ms. McCarthy, “‘A heartbeat is the indicator of life, both at the beginning and at the end of life. Every beating heart deserves protection, because life is a human right.’”

• VIRGINIA GOV. GLENN YOUNGKIN (R) HAS VETOED a bill, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “that would have imposed a bubble zone around abortion facilities so stringent that, in the governor’s view, pro-lifers ‘could be jailed simply for carrying a sign.’” The state senate has sustained the veto of SB-1324, which would have outlawed approaching another person within eight feet if less than “‘40 feet from any entrance door to a healthcare facility,’” reports Mr. Freiburger.

It’s Even More Complicated than That

April 21, 2025, commentary by Emily Washburn for Focus on the Family’s Daily Citizen

             Human life is intrinsically valuable. This is my chief objection to “The Embryo Question,” the New York Times’ three-part series examining the ethical status of embryos. In each piece, IVF patient and ‘reproductive journalist’ Anna Louie Sussman compares different legal and moral conceptions of embryos – everything from a meaningless clump of cells to a unique person with inalienable rights.

             The series does not come to any firm conclusions about embryos’ worth. In her final piece, Sussman muses on their “astonishing subjectivity”: “We all have the capacity to feel one way about embryos in one context or on one day and a different way in a different situation.” I vehemently disagree. Embryos are not subjective – they are independent human persons with their own DNA. The Bible tells us God intentionally creates these tiny humans. He knows and loves them, regardless of their size, level of development or independence.

             Psalm 139: 13-16 famously reads: “For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” (ESV)

             Before I address the problems with Sussman’s series, I want to give credit where credit is due. Sussman and the Times should be commended for not only exploring the morality of IVF and embryonic personhood. Media outlets, politicians and so-called experts frequently denounce these issues as religious propaganda. Some ignore it entirely to protect the pro-abortion argument that a baby is part of a woman’s body.

             Sussman deserves special praise for admitting she doesn’t know how to feel about embryos and acknowledging the connection she feels to the six frozen children remaining from her successful IVF treatment. Journalists do not frequently exhibit this kind of vulnerability, and it’s a critical first step toward acknowledging that embryos are more than a mere clump of cells. That being said, Sussman’s series contains three foundational errors that betray a common pro-abortion bias: that a mother’s desire for a baby determines her child’s value. [Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: See, above, the outrageous yet pathetic statements of late-term abortionist Warren Hern.]

             Though Sussman dared to explore the worth of embryos, she could not bring herself to examine the implications of embryonic personhood on abortion. “Yet, to state the obvious, abortion and embryos are not the same thing,” she writes in her final piece, explaining, “Given the evolution of reproductive technologies and innovations in embryo research, it is now possible to consider questions of how we want to treat embryos, in some situations, separately from the rights of those who gestate them.” Here, Sussman suggests abortion could continue even if embryos were legally considered children, presumably because a mother’s desire to abort her child would outweigh the child’s rights. [Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Dear reader, please remember always that Ms. Sussman’s writings were produced for publication in the New York Times, hardly a worthy source for truth and accurate information, yet untowardly influential among policymakers.]

             Sussman implies the value of an embryo’s life is extrinsic, or dependent on external factors like convenience or a mother’s desire to have children. Only under this conception of human life would it be permissible to kill embryos – tiny, developing humans – “in some situations” and not others. But both the Bible and the United States’ founding document affirm human life is intrinsically valuable, regardless of circumstance. The Declaration of Independence reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident – that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” If all life is intrinsically valuable, and embryos are ethically entitled to personhood, then it is morally wrong to kill any embryo, in any situation.

             Speaking of intrinsic value, Sussman also implies that treating embryos as people would be too troublesome to consider. Throughout “The Embryo Question,” Sussman repeatedly remarks on ways acknowledging an embryo’s personhood would disrupt our legal, social and medical systems. “I read headlines about a Texas woman justifying driving in the HOV lane because she was pregnant and a tax break in Georgia for unborn children,” she wrote in one piece.

             In another, she enumerated the consequences of the 2024 Alabama Supreme Court ruling establishing embryos as “extrauterine children.” “This new legal status instantly jeopardized in vitro fertilization practice across Alabama, sending clinics and patients scrambling amid confusion over what kind of liability clinics bore for the embryos – now legally children – in their care.” Treating embryos as people may up-end social systems, but inconvenience is not a viable reason to deny embryos personhood. The value of human life – legally, religiously and otherwise – is intrinsic.

             Sussman portrays embryos as the in-between stage between a clump of human cells and life – not fully part of the mother and not fully their own person. She treats this “transformation” to personhood as mysterious and unquantifiable.

             “Like many people who have gone through IVF, I have a complicated relationship with [my embryos] and vacillate between wanting the finality of deciding and holding on to the possibility that they might one day, under circumstances yet unknown, come to life,” she writes. Circumstances yet unknown? Are you kidding?

             Sussman herself acknowledges embryos are living and capable of independent growth. They will continue to grow unless a more powerful human freezes them, kills them, denies them nutrients or otherwise inhibits their progress.

             It’s not mysterious, and it’s not rocket science. Human agency – a mother’s choice – is all that stands between a frozen embryo and continued development. If embryos are intrinsically valuable, as the Bible tells us, it is morally wrong for a mother to intentionally stop them from developing.

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: We acknowledge that many couples – including many who take a pro-life position – have turned to IVF as a desperate answer to infertility. But we agree with Ms. Washburn that the ethical implications – once IVF is understood – are troubling. And we are distressed that the Trump Administration has, more than once, signaled that it views even mass-production IVF as a route toward reversing America’s troubling birthrate decline.]

Wisdom from the Great Communicator

EXCERPT #2 from Abortion & the Conscience of the Nation, 1983 treatise by then-President Ronald Reagan, first published in Human Life Review and then as a hardcover book from Thomas Nelson Publishers

             Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint of a “right” so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.