Life Advocacy Briefing

Question of the Week

WHY HAS NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS yet filed impeachment against US Circuit Judge William Orrick (9^th Circuit) for his outrageous conduct of the trial of David Daleiden? That federal judge has throughout the ordeal clearly fronted for the pro-life investigative journalist’s target, Planned Parenthood, for which the judge is a major donor and with which he has been deeply connected for many years.

And Another Question

WILL YOU MISS US? Your Life Advocacy team are taking a break for a brief vacation. We expect to be back to you with the edition of July 7, and we wish you a blessed celebration day for the 249^th anniversary of our nation’s independence.

Preparing for Independence Day

JULY 4 IS INDEED THE 249^th ANNIVERSARY of the signing of the United States of America’s Declaration of Independence by 56 of the bravest men to have graced our shores. We hope our readers will take at least a few minutes among the celebratory fireworks, parades and picnics to pass down to our future leaders the ringing words of America’s founders’ declaration, particularly the opening of the second paragraph, which we offer here. (Do not assume your youngsters’ schools have communicated to them anything about America’s true heritage.)

“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. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed … .”

F.A.C.E. Act Repeal Clears Committee

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE VOTED 13-10 on June 10 to advance the proposal by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) to repeal the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which has been used to criminalize pro-life prayer warriors who take their life-saving messages to the sidewalks outside abortuaries. The vote for HR-589 was 13 to 10 and was largely partisan, though one pro-life GOP Member, Rep. Tom McClintock (CA), voted against repeal, explaining, reports Ben Johnson for The Washington Stand, that “‘the law itself is viewpoint-neutral,’” and calling the FACE Act “‘important to protect the pro-life [minority] in California.’”

Democrats on the committee, notes Mr. Johnson, “slurred [the bill’s] Republican sponsors as ‘terrorists’ who want to ‘green light violence’ and see women raped, abused and killed.”

“Pro-life advocates have long condemned the one-sided enforcement of the FACE Act,” writes Mr. Johnson, “which [Rep.] Roy said Democratic administrations had ‘politicized and weaponized against people across this country, including people of faith’ nationwide. ‘The Biden Dept. of Justice brought almost a quarter of all the FACE Act prosecutions, 24% of all charges targeting pro-life activists, in less than four years’ while ‘turning a blind eye to the anti-Life activists engaged in destroying, vandalizing and even firebombing pregnancy resource centers and churches at the same time.’”

The longer history of the law’s use is even worse. Said Rep. Bob Onder (R-MO), quoted by Mr. Johnson, “‘Since 1994, 97% – I repeat that – 97% of FACE Act prosecutions have been against pro-lifers.’” And Thomas More Society executive vice president Peter Breen told The Washington Stand (TWS), “For three decades, ‘the FACE Act was always intended as a cudgel against pro-life speech, with 97% of prosecutions brought by the Dept. of Justice over its 30-year history having targeted pro-lifers. … Our clients – loving moms and dads, grandparents, priests and nonviolent people of faith – have faced harsher charges and sentences than convicted drug dealers and fraudsters. To ensure this never happens again and to protect the constitutional rights of peaceful pro-lifers to advocate against the injustice of abortion, Congress must repeal the FACE Act,’ said [former Illinois State Rep.] Breen,” reports Mr. Johnson.

The Washington Stand also quoted Democratic members of the committee, noting “most of the committee’s Democrats maligned the motives of [Rep.] Roy and others who sought the punitive bill’s repeal. ‘The only people in America who are asking for this legislation to be repealed are terrorists,’ averred Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who said,” writes Mr. Johnson, “opponents had ‘a sick obsession’ with ‘telling women what to do with their bodies.’ He further claimed that [Pres.] Trump does not support non-violent protests, because he just sent Marines to oppose ‘protesters’ in Los Angeles. ‘This is a green light for more violence against women,’ said [Mr.] Swalwell.”

Said Rep. Jesus Garcia (D-IL), quoted by TWS, “‘We’re considering this legislation for one reason: to green light violence against abortion care in this country. … The reason the FACE Act exists is because anti-abortion extremists refuse to renounce violence,’ asserted” Rep. Garcia. And Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chimed in: “‘There is only one reason’ anyone would want to repeal the FACE Act … : They want to see violent obstruction.’” He went on to “decr[y] ‘the slanders against the FACE Act.’” Aww.

June, By Another Name

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX) HAS FILED A JOINT RESOLUTION (SJR-56) to designate June as “Life Month.” His proposal has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and is co-sponsored by the following GOP Senators: Tommy Tuberville (AL), Rick Scott (FL), James Risch (ID), Jim Banks & Todd Young (IN), Joni Ernst & Chuck Grassley (IA), Roger Marshall (KS), Bill Cassidy & John Kennedy (LA), Cindy Hyde-Smith & Roger Wicker (MS), Josh Hawley & Eric Schmitt (MO), Pete Ricketts (NE), Ted Budd & Thom Tillis (NC), Kevin Cramer & John Hoeven (ND), Bernie Moreno (OH), James Lankford (OK), Lindsey Graham & Tim Scott (SC), Mike Rounds (SD), Bill Hagerty (TN), John Cornyn (TX), Mike Lee (UT), Jim Justice (WV) and Cynthia Lummis (WY).

In the House, a companion resolution, HJRes-98, has been filed by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), also making the designation, along with 14 co-sponsors. This resolution has been referred to the House Committees on Judiciary and Energy & Commerce. Joining the House Pro-life Caucus chairman in co-sponsoring the measure are GOP Representatives Andy Biggs (AZ); Andrew Clyde (GA); Mike Bost & Mary Miller (IL); Jefferson Shreve (IN); Pete Stauber (MN); Adrian Smith (NE); Sheri Biggs (SC); Diana Harshbarger (TN); John Carter, Michael Cloud, Dan Crenshaw & Pete Sessions (TX) and Ben Cline (VA).

Uh-Oh

WHILE THE SENATE IS NEGOTIATING the President’s budget proposal, which narrowly passed the House and is nicknamed the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” in Trumpian lingo, a collection of House conservatives – not named in the report by LifeSiteNews writer Matt Lamb – have issued an appeal to Senate negotiators to close a loophole they have lately uncovered which would permit the ongoing transfer of money from taxpayers to Planned Parenthood, despite the bill’s attempt to protect taxpayers from complicity with the abortion giant.

Mr. Lamb quotes a memo from “conservative House Republicans” to the GOP in the Senate: “‘While the House OBBB does prohibit Medicaid funding for abortion providers,’” warns the memo, “‘organizations like Planned Parenthood will still receive backdoor funding in support of abortions and transgender surgeries via Medicaid money laundering schemes allowed under the provider tax safe harbor.’ …

“Currently, California and New York exploit a loophole,” writes Mr. Lamb, “which the pending budget bill does not address, that allows them to inflate their own Medicaid subsidies, which they can then use to fund abortions and transgender drugs and surgeries. In California, the state essentially subsidizes Obamacare plans for illegal immigrants using this mechanism. Put simply, the state taxes healthcare providers and then spends that money directly on healthcare-related expenses” (and counts abortion as “health care”). Because the federal government matches Medicaid spending at around 60%,” Mr. Lamb explains, “the state is then able to double its funding without any direct cost to state taxpayers. So, California taxes a hospital $1, then spends that $1 on health care, and the federal government then sends an extra 60 cents to the state. The House conservatives’ memo notes both the Obama Administration and Biden Administration raised concerns about these schemes.”

Stateside

• LOUISIANA’s LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED a bill to allow lawsuits against committers or facilitators of chemical abortions for damages. Plaintiffs can be a baby’s mother, father, grandparent or the legal guardian of the mother. Defendants, according to a LifeSiteNews report by Calvin Freiburger, can be “anyone who ‘performs, causes or substantially facilitates an abortion … regardless of whether the abortion resulted in the death of the unborn child.’ … Last year,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “Louisiana enacted [a law] which puts abortion drug mifepristone and misoprostol on the state’s list of Schedule IV drugs under its Uniform Controlled Substances law, classifying them as having the potential for abuse or dependence.”

• MONTANA’s SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD a lower court ruling striking down several laws restricting abortion “access,” reports the Associated Press. But early this month, the Montana Family Foundation filed another lawsuit, this time challenging voter approval in 2024 of an initiative which made abortion “a constitutional right.” The lawsuit complains the voters were presented with only a summary of the proposal, denying them the right “to fully review the initiative.”

• THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE HAS SENT TO THE GOVERNOR a bill to legalize doctor-abetted suicide. With the signature of left-wing Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), New York will become the twelfth state to authorize the death-dealing practice, according to a LifeSiteNews report by Calvin Freiburger. Copying the Commonwealth of Canada, the bill’s authors call it the “Medical Aid in Dying” Act, whose acronym facilitates an impression of helpfulness and entitlement. In one of the most appalling aspects of the bill’s passage, it was endorsed in the Empire State by the Medical Society of the State of New York, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, New York State Psychiatric Assn., the state’s Nurses Assn., Bar Assn. and the Women’s Bar Assn., Mr. Freiburger reports.

• THE TEXAS STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION HAS WRAPPED UP, reports Ashley Leenerts for Texas Right to Life, with passage of bills to bar taxpayer funding of abortion travel costs, to reaffirm that “doctors are allowed to intervene if a pregnant woman faces a life-threatening condition,” to require education about adoption in public high school health classes, to limit funding under the Thriving Texas Families program to pro-life organizations, and to appropriate $200 million “for pregnancy centers, adoption agencies and maternity homes.” Defeated in the session, reports Ms. Leenerts, were measures to repeal pro-life laws or added exceptions to them, to “let fathers avoid paying child support if they offered to pay for an abortion” [!] and to honor the late Cecile Richards, long a president of Planned Parenthood.

• THE STATE OF VERMONT HAS AMENDED A LAW, reports Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) which fostered discrimination against pregnancy centers “over their life-affirming service.” The state’s retreat comes in the wake of a lawsuit brought by ADF attorneys on behalf of Vermont pregnancy centers. Lead plaintiff in the case was the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates, which serves pregnancy centers nationwide. Said NIFLA Legal Affairs Vice President Anne O’Connor, quoted by ADF, “‘pregnancy centers are no longer under direct threat from the law and pro-abortion lobby in Vermont. For this, NIFLA celebrates; however, if in the future the state again decides to unconstitutionally pursue the work of pro-life pregnancy centers, NIFLA stands ready to take Vermont back to court and seek appropriate relief.’” Amen!

Tale of Two Candidates

NEW JERSEY’s GUBERNATORIAL PRIMARIES last Tuesday resulted in the nomination of Jack Ciatarelli as the Republican nominee and US Rep. Mike Sherrill as the Democratic standard-bearer.

Though Mr. Ciatarelli, a former state legislator and the 2021 GOP gubernatorial nominee, does not take a principled pro-life stand, his position on abortion law does contrast with that of his opponent. We quote the abortion-issue segments of the competing candidate websites below:

Jack Ciatarelli: Jack is the proud father of four children and being a dad is the greatest thing that has ever happened to him. He also understands that any decision to terminate a pregnancy is deeply personal. As governor, he won’t pretend to know what is inside a woman’s heart or head. He believes that with certain reasonable exceptions/restrictions agreed upon by the vast majority of Americans, this decision should be between a woman, her partner, her faith and her healthcare professionals. Jack respects that this issue evokes strong feelings from well-intentioned people on both sides of the issue, and his personal position is as follows: 1) Prohibit elective abortions after 20 weeks while ensuring all women have access to high-quality prenatal care and education; 2) Support parental notification for minors seeking an abortion – the fact that a 16-year-old in New Jersey needs her parents’ permission to get her ears pierced, but not [to] get an abortion, is absurd; 3) Oppose taxpayer funding of abortion; 4) Oppose the so-called “Reproductive Freedom Act” signed into law by Gov. Murphy that allows abortion up to the moment of birth; and 5) Support education and innovative approaches to reduce teenage and unwanted pregnancies.

Mikie Sherrill: The decision of if and when to start a family is one that every woman deserves to make for herself – and that’s why I have always fought for access to abortion and comprehensive reproductive health care. Since Trump’s handpicked Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, I’ve led the fight to protect women’s access to emergency abortion care, block efforts to ban medication abortion like mifepristone, and ensure military servicewomen have access to abortion and contraception, no matter where they are stationed. While New Jersey is a leader in reproductive freedom, I know that as governor, there is more we can do to ensure every woman has access to the reproductive health care she needs. And with Donald Trump back in the White House, we have to protect access to abortion rights here in New Jersey. I strongly support enshrining the right to an abortion in New Jersey’s state constitution to permanently protect reproductive freedom. Despite laws in place to protect access to care, too often women in New Jersey face additional barriers in getting care. New Jersey must take action to require comprehensive insurance coverage for all reproductive healthcare services, including abortion. I will continue our work expanding access to contraception and IVF services so that every New Jerseyan has affordable access to the family planning services they need. We will be the first line of defense in protecting reproductive rights.

Boasting About Abortion

June 10, 2025, pro-abortion brag posted by Isabel Miller in Illinois-based news blog Capitol Fax

             Three years after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the Chicago Abortion Fund (CAF) has become the largest and most relied-upon independent abortion fund in the country. Since the Dobbs decision, CAF has fielded support requests from over 40,000 people seeking abortion care from more than 40 states – making it a critical safety net in a country where nearly one in seven abortion seekers must now travel out of state to access care.

             Since June 2022 (post-Dobbs), CAF has: fielded over 40,000 support requests on the CAF Helpline; distributed over $15 million in abortion and wrap-around support funding, including travel, lodging and childcare expenses; increased the average support pledged to each caller to $1,000 [which] includes procedure costs, travel, lodging and childcare; responded to high call volumes from Indiana (7,911), Illinois (6,244), Wisconsin (3,554), Texas (3,540) and Kentucky (1,401) and supported abortion seekers from over 40 states. …

             Illinois has become the nation’s clearest example of what’s possible when legal protections are paired with real investment in abortion infrastructure. In a post-Dobbs landscape, the state’s coordinated approach that combines public policy, health system access and community-based support has made Illinois not just a haven for abortion care but a national model.

             Thanks to investment from the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, CAF has expanded its helpline capacity, added more bilingual and after-hours staff and continued to ensure that 100% of callers relying on Illinois for care are able to access abortion care on the timeline that works best for them. CAF’s innovative programs, including an in-clinic patient navigation program, abortion doula support and hospital navigation for complex procedures. These efforts help ensure callers not only reach their appointments but receive compassionate and timely care throughout their journey.

             In 2024, Illinois provided abortion care to an estimated 35,000 out-of-state patients, accounting for 39% of all abortions in the state, according to the Guttmacher Institute. This is the highest percentage of out-of-state care in the country by far, with nearly one in four people crossing state lines for abortion care coming to Illinois. Illinois also saw significant increases in patients from Florida and Iowa following their six-week bans.

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: We have published this screed so that our readers can watch for a previously unheralded but apparently major player in the abortion cartel, which is evidently a beneficiary of substantial “investment” of public funds from Chicago taxpayers and Illinois taxpayers generally.]

Wisdom from the Great Communicator

EXCERPT #9 from Abortion & the Conscience of the Nation, 1983 treatise by then-President Ronald Reagan, published in Human Life Review, then as a hardcover book from Thomas Nelson Publishers

             What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives – the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.