Life Advocacy Briefing

Question of the Week

IN A YEAR WHEN THE U.S. HOUSE HAS NOT VOTED ON A SINGLE BILL to advance the cause of Life, will any of our readers bring our Gipper Wisdom quote this week to the attention of your own Member of Congress?

Abetted Suicide Clears Legislature in Illinois

THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE HAS SENT AN ABETTED SUICIDE BILL to the desk of Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) in a sudden, unexpected move in the waning days of the legislature’s brief fall session. The provisions of a previously rejected bill were tucked into an unrelated measure by amendment and cleared both legislative houses.

Readers in the state are urged to contact the governor, as he has expressed reservations about the new content of SB-1950. The governor’s capital phone number is 217/782-6830, and his Chicago office can be reached at 312/814-2121.

The Illinois Family Institute has issued a helpful action alert to aid citizens in fighting the measure. The Action Alert can be accessed on the Internet at https://illinoisfamily.org/life/pray-and-act-now-urge-gov-pritzker-to-veto-assisted-suicide. Included is a model “bulletin insert” to be reprinted into church bulletins throughout the state.

A Pro-Life Win in the 9th Circuit

OREGON RIGHT TO LIFE (O.R.T.L.) HAS WON AN APPEAL against the state’s efforts to apply to the pro-life group a 2017 law forcing employers to cover abortion in their group insurance policies. 

In a 2-to-1 vote by a three-judge panel of the 9^th US Circuit Court of Appeals, the state lost its claim that the right-to-life group should be forced to cover abortion despite its religious objections.

The ORTL executive director, Lois Anderson, was quoted by Charles Richards, writing for LifeSiteNews: “‘The attempt by the state to force Oregon Right to Life to finance abortion – the precise human rights violations we are dedicated to opposing – is blatantly unconstitutional and obviously unjust.’”

The opinion was written by a Trump appointee to the 9^th Circuit, Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who was joined by Obama appointee Judge John Owens, who, writes Mr. Richards, “agreed with him that the case should be sent back to the lower court for further investigation. Senior Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder, an 84-year-old Jimmy Carter appointee, dissented, claiming that the group was not inherently a religious organization.”

Said Judge VanDyke, quoted by Mr. Richards, “‘ORTL put forth significant evidence of its religiosity, and there was no conflicting evidence against ORTL’s claim that its views are religiously grounded. … The district court therefore erred by failing to conclude at the motion-to-dismiss stage that ORTL actually holds the beliefs professed in the complaint and that ORTL’s opposition to abortion is genuinely religious.’ …

“ORTL can now present further evidence at the district court level,” notes Mr. Richards, “that it was unnecessarily burdened by the law while seeking immediate injunctive relief, putting the onus on the state and potentially leading to an appeal to the US Supreme Court down the road.”

Senate Confirms 2 More Conservative Judges

JOSHUA DUNLAP WAS CONFIRMED last week by the US Senate as an appellate judge in the First Circuit, and Eric Tung was confirmed as an appellate judge in the 9^th Circuit.

We cannot help being pleased with these two confirmations, as both were vigorously opposed by the left-wing Alliance for Justice (AfJ) because of their commitment to the right to Life.

In the case of Judge Dunlap, AfJ complained – along with other gripes – that Judge Dunlap “has supported anti-abortion legislation and rhetoric that undermines reproductive autonomy.” We ask our readers to note carefully the AfJ’s objection to his support for a state bill “which would create a wrongful death cause of action for the death of an ‘unborn viable fetus,’ joining testimony that claimed,” writes AfJ, “the bill was about ‘providing access to justice’ for family members.” Now get this AfJ explanation: “While framed in neutral terms, such laws have been used across the country to personify fetuses in ways that threaten the legal foundation of abortion rights … .” There’s more, but that phrase “personify fetuses” says it all!

Here is a segment of the AfJ’s knock on Judge Tung, who will now sit on the nation’s most radical appellate bench, praise God! “Tung,” writes AfJ, “has expressed deeply patriarchal views about gender roles, feminism and family. He has criticized feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women (NOW), stating that he thinks ‘NOW is too radical.’ More revealingly, he has said, ‘I believe in emphasizing family and what it means for a woman to be a good wife or partner,’ adding that ‘when these radical feminists try to blur gender roles, they undermine institutions like marriage – institutions which hold society together.’” Oh, my! But there’s more from AfJ: “These statements show a troubling resistance to gender equality and signal a worldview at odds with the constitutional protections for women’s autonomy and rights.” Oh?

Roll calls on these confirmations – and on the procedural motion which advanced them to a vote – appear at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing.

Judge Buys A.C.L.U. Claims

A FEDERAL JUDGE IN HAWAII HAS SIDED with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a lawsuit against the federal Food & Drug Administration (FDA) related to mifepristone, the abortion drug, reports Jennifer Sinco Kelleher for Associated Press (AP), who claims the “medication” is “for abortions and miscarriage management.*”

The lawsuit “argues the FDA continues to overly restrict access to a safe medication without scientific justification,” writes Mrs. Kelleher. [Oh, really?] “ACLU lawyers asked the judge to find that the FDA violated the law,” she reports, “but didn’t seek an immediate elimination of the restrictions, which currently include special certification for prescribers and pharmacies and requiring patients to review a counseling form.”

US District Judge Jill Otake, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018, “instruct[ed] the FDA to consider relevant evidence the agency allegedly disregarded,” writes Mrs. Kelleher, “In the meantime,” she notes, “the restrictions remain in place. …

“Trump’s top health officials, including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” she writes, “face growing pressure from abortion opponents to re-evaluate mifepristone, which was approved 25 years ago and has repeatedly been deemed safe and effective by FDA scientists.” Safe for whom?

*LifeAdvocacyBriefing editor’s note: That’s a new one – the claim that the abortion drug aids in “miscarriage management.” The drug works by starving the developing baby; how can that be characterized in aiding a mother experiencing a miscarriage of her child?

Even the Chicago Tribune Opposes Illinois Death-by-Doctor Bill

Nov. 4, 2025, Editorial by the Editorial Board of the Chicago Tribune, reprinted for information

             Last Friday, the Illinois General Assembly narrowly passed a law allowing terminally ill people to end their own lives. The legislation now awaits Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s signature. If he signs it, Illinois will join 11 other states (and the District of Columbia) that allow terminally ill adults to choose when and how they want to end their own lives. There’s an element of the macabre in the fact that this bill passed on Halloween, but we digress.

             In spring 2024, we met with compassionate voices on both sides of the issue and were sympathetic to their stories. On the one hand, folks who are opposed to medical-assisted dying draw the line at a doctor – sworn to protect human life – intentionally being part of causing it to end and thus being asked to carry that ethical burden. On the other, supporters pointed to the seemingly needless suffering many face at the end of their lives. We’ve witnessed such agony firsthand, and to that end are passionately supportive of palliative care that seeks to lessen this agony.

             After that meeting, we urged the legislature to leave this issue alone. Now, we urge the governor not to sign this bill into law.

             Here’s how “right to die” would work if he does. Anyone wishing to voluntarily end their life must be an adult and a resident of Illinois with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or less to live.

             The legislation sets certain guardrails that are intended to prevent abuse and make sure all requests are voluntary. This includes waiting periods, physician review, informed consent requirements and mental capacity evaluations. The state would have to collect data showing patient demographics and frequency of medical-assisted death, among other things. Providers, as well as individual doctors and nurses, wouldn’t have to participate in ending a patient’s life if they object conscientiously. That, at least, is a good thing.

             Still, we have many concerns. First, the safeguards this bill sets forth may seem like strong protections, but we fear they would soon become viewed as barriers to access. That’s what has sometimes played out in other states. For example, a few years ago California amended its rules to shorten the waiting period between a patient’s first and second oral request from 15 days to 48 hours.

             One of the most persuasive arguments against medically assisted death, in our view, came from advocates who spoke on behalf of people with disabilities. We also took particular note of a Harvard study that surveyed doctors and found that 82.4% of those physicians believe that “people with significant disability have worse quality of life than non-disabled people.” The study also found that only 40.7% of physicians were “very confident” in their ability to provide equal quality care to patients with disabilities. Those advocating for this community view these results as worrying, questioning whether some in the medical community have an inherent bias against their constituency. We say that’s a fair concern.

             We also found it troubling that so many seriously ill people may pursue such a path for fear of becoming a financial burden to their family. Their worry is understandable, but we believe you can’t put a price tag on every moment you get with your loved ones.

             And yes, we are also acutely aware of the potential for the circumstances eligible for physician-assisted death to expand once it’s made legal. Consider Canada. That country’s aid-in-dying rules originally required a terminal condition for approval, but a 2021 expansion removed the “reasonably foreseeable death” requirement for some cases. Assisted dying accounted for 1 in 20 deaths in Canada as of 2023.

             In the Netherlands, Zoraya terBeek, a 28-year-old woman with depression, autism and a personality disorder, shared with The Free Press her plans to pursue euthanasia because she was “tired of living.” At age 29, in May 2024, she made good on her commitment. The Netherlands allows for euthanasia in cases of psychiatric disorders.

             Compassion should guide end-of-life policy, but compassion also demands caution. Other nations show how swiftly a narrow exception can expand. Illinois should focus on easing pain, not authorizing physicians to hasten death.

             Pritzker said Monday that he’s unsure whether he’ll sign the bill. We hope he vetoes it.

Wisdom from the Great Communicator

EXCERPT #28 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

Malcolm Muggeridge, the English writer, goes right to the heart of the matter: “Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other.” The sanctity of innocent human life is a principle that Congress should proclaim at every opportunity.

Senate Voting Records

Cloture on nomination of Joshua D. Dunlap as 1^st Circuit Appellate Judge – Passed – 51-47 – Oct. 30, 2025 (Democrats in italics; “Independents” marked “I”)

Voting “yes” / pro-Life: Britt & Tuberville/AL, Murkowski & Sullivan/AK, Boozman & Cotton/AR, Moody & Scott/FL, Crapo & Risch/ID, Banks & Young/IN, Ernst & Grassley/IA, Marshall & Moran/KS, McConnell & Paul/KY, Cassidy & Kennedy/LA, Collins/ME, Hyde-Smith/MS, Hawley/MO, Daines & Sheehy/MT, Fischer & Ricketts/NE, Budd & Tillis/NC, Cramer & Hoeven/ND, Husted & Moreno/OH, Lankford & Mullin/OK, McCormick/PA, Graham & Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Blackburn & Hagerty/TN, Cornyn & Cruz/TX, Curtis & Lee/UT, Capito & Justice/WV, Johnson/WI, Barrasso & Lummis/WY.

Voting “no” / anti-Life: Gallego & Kelly/AZ, Padilla & Schiff/CA, Bennet & Hickenlooper/CO, Blumenthal & Murphy/CT, Blunt–Rochester & Coons/DE, Ossoff & Warnock/GA, Hirono & Schatz/HI, Duckworth & Durbin/IL, King(I)/ME, Alsobrooks & VanHollen/MD, Markey & Warren/MA, Peters & Slotkin/MI, Klobuchar & Smith/MN, Cortez–Masto & Rosen/NV, Hassan & Shaheen/NH, Booker & Kim/NJ, Heinrich & Lujan/NM, Gillibrand & Schumer/NY, Merkley & Wyden/OR, Fetterman/PA, Reed & Whitehouse/RI, Sanders(I) & Welch/VT, Kaine & Warner/VA, Cantwell & Murray/WA, Baldwin/WI.

Not voting: Wicker/MS & Schmitt/MO.

Cloture on nomination of Eric C. Tung as 9^th Circuit Appellate Judge – Passed – 51-46 – Nov. 3, 2025 (Democrats in italics; “Independents” marked “I”)

Voting “yes” / pro-Life: Murkowski & Sullivan/AK, Britt & Tuberville/AL, Boozman/AR, Moody & Scott/FL, Crapo & Risch/ID, Banks & Young/IN, Ernst & Grassley/IA, Marshall & Moran/KS, McConnell & Paul/KY, Cassidy & Kennedy/LA, Collins/ME, Hyde-Smith & Wicker/MS, Hawley & Schmitt/MO, Daines & Sheehy/MT, Fischer & Ricketts/NE, Budd/NC, Cramer & Hoeven/ND, Husted & Moreno/OH, Lankford & Mullin/OK, McCormick/PA, Graham & Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Blackburn & Hagerty/TN, Cornyn & Cruz/TX, Curtis & Lee/UT, Capito & Justice/WV, Johnson/WI, Barrasso & Lummis/WY.

Voting “no” / anti-Life: Gallego & Kelly/AZ, Padilla & Schiff/CA, Bennet & Hickenlooper/CO, Blumenthal & Murphy/CT, Blunt–Rochester & Coons/DE, Ossoff & Warnock/GA, Hirono & Schatz/HI, Duckworth & Durbin/IL, King(I)/ME, Alsobrooks & VanHollen/MD, Markey & Warren/MA, Peters & Slotkin/MI, Klobuchar & Smith/MN, Cortez–Masto & Rosen/NV, Hassan & Shaheen/NH, Kim/NJ, Heinrich & Lujan/NM, Gillibrand & Schumer/NY, Merkley & Wyden/OR, Fetterman/PA, Reed & Whitehouse/RI, Sanders(I) & Welch/VT, Kaine & Warner/VA, Cantwell & Murray/WA, Baldwin/WI.

Not voting: Cotton/AR, Booker/NJ, Tillis/NC.

Confirmation of Joshua D. Dunlap as 1^st Circuit Appellate Judge – Passed – 52-46 – Nov. 4, 2025 (Democrats in italics; “Independents” marked “I”)

Voting “yes” / pro-Life: Murkowski & Sullivan/AK, Britt & Tuberville/AL, Boozman & Cotton/AR, Moody & Scott/FL, Crapo & Risch/ID, Banks & Young/IN, Ernst & Grassley/IA, Marshall & Moran/KS, McConnell & Paul/KY, Cassidy & Kennedy/LA, Collins/ME, Hyde-Smith & Wicker/MS, Hawley & Schmitt/MO, Daines & Sheehy/MT, Fischer & Ricketts/NE, Budd/NC, Cramer & Hoeven/ND, Husted & Moreno/OH, Lankford & Mullin/OK, McCormick/PA, Graham & Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Blackburn & Hagerty/TN, Cornyn & Cruz/TX, Curtis & Lee/UT, Capito & Justice/WV, Johnson/WI, Barrasso & Lummis/WY.

Voting “no” / anti-Life: Gallego & Kelly/AZ, Padilla & Schiff/CA, Bennet & Hickenlooper/CO, Blumenthal & Murphy/CT, Blunt–Rochester & Coons/DE, Ossoff & Warnock/GA, Hirono & Schatz/HI, Duckworth & Durbin/IL, King(I)/ME, Alsobrooks & VanHollen/MD, Markey & Warren/MA, Peters & Slotkin/MI, Klobuchar & Smith/MN, Cortez–Masto & Rosen/NV, Hassan & Shaheen/NH, Kim/NJ, Heinrich & Lujan/NM, Gillibrand & Schumer/NY, Merkley & Wyden/OR, Fetterman/PA, Reed & Whitehouse/RI, Sanders(I) & Welch/VT, Kaine & Warner/VA, Cantwell & Murray/WA, Baldwin/WI.

Not voting: Booker/NJ, Tillis/NC.

Confirmation of Eric C. Tung as 9^th Circuit Appellate Judge – Passed – 52-45 – Nov. 5, 2025 (Democrats in italics; “Independents” marked “I”)

Voting “yes” / pro-Life: Murkowski & Sullivan/AK, Britt & Tuberville/AL, Boozman & Cotton/AR, Moody & Scott/FL, Crapo & Risch/ID, Banks & Young/IN, Ernst & Grassley/IA, Marshall & Moran/KS, McConnell & Paul/KY, Cassidy & Kennedy/LA, Collins/ME, Hyde-Smith & Wicker/MS, Hawley & Schmitt/MO, Daines & Sheehy/MT, Fischer & Ricketts/NE, Budd & Tillis/NC, Cramer & Hoeven/ND, Husted & Moreno/OH, Lankford & Mullin/OK, McCormick/PA, Graham & Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Blackburn & Hagerty/TN, Cornyn & Cruz/TX, Curtis/UT, Capito & Justice/WV, Johnson/WI, Barrasso & Lummis/WY.

Voting “no” / anti-Life: Gallego & Kelly/AZ, Padilla & Schiff/CA, Bennet & Hickenlooper/CO, Blumenthal & Murphy/CT, Blunt–Rochester & Coons/DE, Ossoff & Warnock/GA, Hirono & Schatz/HI, Duckworth & Durbin/IL, King(I)/ME, Alsobrooks & VanHollen/MD, Markey & Warren/MA, Peters & Slotkin/MI, Smith/MN, Cortez–Masto & Rosen/NV, Hassan & Shaheen/NH, Kim/NJ, Heinrich & Lujan/NM, Gillibrand & Schumer/NY, Merkley & Wyden/OR, Fetterman/PA, Reed & Whitehouse/RI, Sanders(I) & Welch/VT, Kaine & Warner/VA, Cantwell & Murray/WA, Baldwin/WI.

Not voting: Klobuchar/MN, Booker/NJ & Lee/UT.