Life Advocacy Briefing

Thank You

AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR 33^rd YEAR OF WEEKLY PUBLICATION, we offer thanks for those who have sustained – and especially for those who are sustaining now – our efforts as donors to Life Advocacy Resource Project. It is both a blessing and a challenge to us to be able to share news, encouragement and communication advice to our readers every week – especially in the face of repeated postage price hikes. We thank God for you.

Point to Ponder

“SPEAK SENTENCES.” That is what long-respected opinion-shaper Kelly Anne Conway – President Trump’s 2016 campaign manager – said last week during a Fox News telecast. She had been asked how she would advise candidates in reaching young male voters. But her advice goes beyond young men. It is fundamental.

Bumper sticker slogans tickle; they neither inform nor persuade. Complete sentences can.

Candidates who respond to a reporter’s inquiry about their abortion stand with “I’m pro-life” may bring smiles to the hearts of devoted pro-life voters and volunteers, but they do nothing to bridge their candidacy to those who are standing on the sidelines – those voters-in-the-middle who are supposed to be the target of every campaign.

How much more useful to use a complete sentence, informing the voter at the same time as shaping the voter’s view of the motivation of the candidate.

Reporter: Where do you stand on abortion? Candidate: I believe our laws should protect the lives of developing unborn babies; our children are our future.

Uncommitted voter’s likely response: This guy has thought about this and isn’t just mouthing platitudes. Or even: I hadn’t looked at it that way before. Maybe abortion isn’t such a good choice.

Progress

THE DEPT. of JUSTICE IS REVERSING a pronouncement from the department’s Biden-era Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “that had permitted abortions and related activities to be conducted by arms of the US Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA), despite clear prohibition in federal law.”

That now-reversed OLC advice, issued in 2022 after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, was “part of former President Joe Biden’s ‘whole of government’ effort,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “to preserve abortion ‘access.’ …

“‘We do not lightly depart from our precedents, and we have given the views expressed in our prior opinion careful and respectful consideration,’ the OLC’s latest statement says, quoting itself in a prior case,” writes Mr. Freiburger. “‘But considering “the plain language of the statute,” we are compelled to conclude that VA may not provide abortions under any provision of [the cited statute], contrary to the conclusion of our 2022 opinion.’

“The VA under the Trump Administration had already reversed the Biden policy in August,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “but requested the OLC issue a formal determination of the legal validity of its previous guidance.”

And as to abortions among active-duty personnel, reports LifeSiteNews, “records from the US military’s TRICARE health service program [in December] indicated that abortions among members of the military and their families have dropped to a five-year low.”

Suit Filed to End Abortion Poison Nightmare

THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF FLORIDA & TEXAS have jointly filed a lawsuit against the Food & Drug Administration challenging the FDA’s approval in December, 2000, of the mifepristone abortion poison, saying, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “that the decision has caused serious harm to women.”

The suit states, reports Mr. Freiburger, citing WLRN/Miami as source, “that the FDA ‘is responsible for “protect(ing) the public health by ensuring that … drugs are safe and effective. Yet the FDA’s approval and deregulation of abortion drugs have placed women and girls in harm’s way.’”

The suit filed by AG James Uthmeier (FL) and AG Ken Paxton (TX) “further charges that since [the initial approval] the agency has handled the drug in an ‘arbitrary, capricious’ way, from [the FDA’s] subsequent loosening of the regulations surrounding it, from expanding the gestational period during which it may be taken, to letting non-physicians dispense it, to eliminating the requirement that it be dispensed in person.”

It would be a good idea, it seems to us, if the FDA would save the taxpayers’ money by agreeing to the basis of the suit and revoking the entire marketing scheme for this deadly drug.

After all, the Trump Administration did not open this Pandora’s box – the Clinton Regime jammed it through. Why should the President now own it, when he has been so willing to undo other nightmares brought to America by his predecessors? And who benefits from continued marketing of this baby poison?

Illinois to the Rescue

ILLINOIS TAXPAYERS ARE NOW BEING HIT by their governor with a $4 million bill for “family planning services” for Medicaid recipients. The hit comes, according to a news release from a state employee, “to counteract the federal defunding of Planned Parenthood in Trump’s budget bill (HR-1), as Illinois continues to serve as a beacon for protecting reproductive healthcare access nationally.”

So, Illinois taxpayers, fork over even more of your hard-earned dollars to fill the coffers of Planned Parenthood, which evidently has to rely on taxpayers to keep its shops open.

Said Presidential aspirant Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), quoted in the state news release: “‘Trump and Congressional Republicans are creating barriers for low-income Illinoisans to access essential care in their communities. Planned Parenthood represents a lifeline [!] for many Illinoisans seeking essential reproductive health care, cancer screenings and more, and Illinois is stepping up to ensure our people continue to have access to these vital services.’ …

“‘Reproductive health is public health,’ said Illinois Department of Public Health Director Dr. Sameer Vohra,” quoted in the state’s news release. “‘This funding provides critical access to basic reproductive health care and preventative screenings for individuals throughout Illinois. IDPH is proud,’” he said in the release, “‘to support Healthcare & Family Services and Planned Parenthood as the state of Illinois continues to uplift providers who protect patients, maintain access and deliver important healthcare services.’”

The taxpayer money will be parceled out to Planned Parenthood of Illinois, which operates 13 shops across the state, and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, based in Fairview Heights, a suburb of St. Louis.

And Then Connecticut

RIGHT AROUND THE TIME ILLINOIS ANNOUNCED its diversion of state taxpayer money to rescue the federally starved Planned Parenthood, Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) one-upped his Midwest colleague by announcing, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “he intends to give $10.4 million of taxpayers’ money to Planned Parenthood of Southern New England in order to compensate for the abortion giant’s lost federal funds. …

“‘It is a shame,’” said the governor, quoted by LifeSiteNews, “‘that the federal government is cutting back on these services that provide a safety net for those who are most in need and which ultimately support the health and safety of our entire country. These are services that must continue to be supported, and here in Connecticut we will stand behind them.’”

Just a reminder: Lest readers suffer a moment of confusion, there are plenty of healthcare organizations which offer non-abortion services to “those in need” across Connecticut, Illinois and the other 48 states. America does not need outfits like Planned Parenthood!

For their part, the GOP leaders in the Connecticut legislature did step up and take a stand against the funds transfer. House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora and Senate GOP Leader Stephen Harding, notes Mr. Freiburger, “took issue with the [governor’s] announcement, declaring that while ‘we support replacing lost federal funding that directly helps families – such as SNAP food assistance when the government stopped sending families their benefits and mitigating health insurance in the short term amid federal dysfunction – other elements of this proposal raise serious questions.

“‘Setting aside $4.7 million for long-term community outreach to help residents understand updated SNAP work requirements unrelated to the [federal] shutdown, $1.5 million to cover operational expenses for new DSS initiatives while this agency refuses to address fraud and abuse, and $10 million to cover Planned Parenthood’s expenses dating back to last summer and extending into next year – these are policy initiatives that could have and should have been handled in the regular legislative session beginning Feb. 4,’ they said. ‘We hope this isn’t a preview of what’s to come. …’ However,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “Democrats control both chambers of the legislature by comfortable margins, so the funding is likely to prevail.”

Hochul to Okay Abetted Suicide

NEW YORK GOV. KATHY HOCHUL (D) ANNOUNCED in mid-December that she intends to sign into law a bill legalizing doctor-abetted suicide, a move which will make New York the thirteenth state to authorize euthanasia. The bill has been awaiting the governor’s action since passing the state senate last June after an April vote in the New York Assembly.

“‘I have come to see [physician-assisted suicide] as a matter of individual choice,’ the governor said,” quoted by Zachary Mettler in Focus on the Family’s Daily Citizen. But Catholic Bishop John Barres called the governor’s musings of justification “‘profoundly misled.’”

Offering Cover

NEW YORK GOV. KATHY HOCHUL (D) SIGNED A LAW during Christmas week, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “to strengthen the state’s ‘shield’ for abortion and ‘gender transition’ practices, making New York even more of a haven for abortion-on-demand and transgenderism.”

The new law is supposedly designed, claimed its sponsor, according to Mr. Freiburger, “to close perceived loopholes in 2023’s ‘Trans Safe Haven Act,’” covering abortionists as well as the principal beneficiaries of the state’s policy excesses.

The shutting down of consequential information “comes,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “as New York is currently locked in a legal battle with Texas over that state’s top legal officer Ken Paxton attempting to sue a New York abortionist who mailed abortion pills to a Texas resident in violation of Texas’s laws. So far, New York officials have protected the abortionist from consequences via the state’s shield law, which bars cooperation with other states concerning laws against abortion. Paxton has challenged the shield law and sued the Ulster County, New York, clerk who refused to enforce the fine.” So why not interfere with that lawsuit by tightening the shield law even further?

The fight between New York and Texas “underscores,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “how the interstate distribution of abortion pills undermines the so-called ‘federalist’ solution to abortion, under which every state decides its own abortion laws. [Gov.] Hochul has worked to make it even harder for pro-life states by signing and then strengthening another law to keep physicians’ names off of abortion pill prescription labels.”

2025 Voting Record Index?

THOUGH IT IS OUR CUSTOM TO PUBLISH AN INTERIM VOTING RECORD INDEX covering the first year of each Congress – and then the full two-year index in October of each even-numbered year – we have decided to hold off until the two-year index is due. The reason? For starters, we have reported exactly zero Life-implicated roll calls from the US House this entire year; we certainly hope there will be some House actions on the several pro-life bills which have been filed.

And further, the only votes we have reported in the Senate have centered on judicial confirmations. We are grateful that several judges have been appointed and confirmed who have pro-life commitments in their backgrounds, but, let’s face it, there were no votes in the Senate either on substantive pro-life issues. We hope our readers will agree: this can wait till autumn.

Facts Needed to Inform Policy

Dec. 16, 2025, Washington Stand by Chuck Donovan, former president, Charlotte Lozier Institute

             Most observers of the abortion debate would likely agree that it is primarily a matter of ethics, a contest between the Hippocratic standard of respect for human life and various forms of humanistic pragmatism that allow abortion as a way to address personal and social problems. Resolving that debate has engaged philosophers of medicine, religious leaders and the few political figures who seriously address it, for decades, with shifts in public policy and law back and forth. The debate also necessarily involves the matter of real-world consequences, making data collection and analysis a crucial part of the discussion, even if they are not ultimately the primary drivers of convictions on so profound a set of questions.

             This fact has led to a range of skirmishes and debates all their own. One example is the decision of the Food & Drug Administration during the Obama Administration to drop the requirement that abortion pill (mifepristone) manufacturers report non-fatal events to the FDA involving the drug. Only deaths were – and still are, under the Trump Administration – subject to mandatory reporting.

             As fresh controversy swirls around the FDA’s promise to review the safety of mifepristone, the status of future injury reporting remains in doubt, although it would be a welcome restoration of a policy with virtually no downside, especially as other FDA policy changes have increased risks to women who  are taking the abortion drug regimen later in pregnancy, without a doctor’s visit, and no tests to rule out ectopic pregnancy and other serious health concerns.

             November brought another challenge regarding abortion data. For many years, on the day after Thanksgiving, a media-sensitive US Centers for Disease Control brought out its annual abortion surveillance report, a much-criticized and certainly incomplete account based on voluntary state reports. The reports failed to include states like California and New Jersey that refused to submit data despite being high-abortion-rate states, and the snail-like pace of the CDC typically meant the report arrived years after the reporting period closed, rendering them less useful for detecting and analyzing trends, including the rate at which surgical abortions were giving way to pills by prescription. The new Trump Administration’s personnel cuts at various agencies were the prime reason the CDC report is not available. Sources say a new team will produce a fresh report in the spring of 2026, and one can only hope for a better and more thorough product, even in the face of stronger opposition to abortion reporting in some blue states.

Justice Barrett’s Thinking

Dec. 24, 2025, LifeSiteNews report by Calvin Freiburger

             US Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett presented a succinct, constitutional case against Roe v. Wade in a new interview, three years after her role in the fateful reversal of that long-standing precedent sparked a flood of left-wing hate and violence.

             Barrett, a Catholic jurist whom Pres. Donald Trump nominated in his first term to succeed the late left-wing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sat down with Bishop Robert Barron for a wide-ranging discussion on his “Conversations at the Crossroads” series, published Dec. 21. The conversation eventually turned to Roe, the notorious Supreme Court precedent that forbade the states and the federal government from banning most abortions. In June 2022, Barrett was one of five votes to overturn Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

             “The trouble with Roe was … there’s nothing in the Constitution, certainly that speaks to abortion, that speaks to medical procedures,” the justice told the bishop. “The whole thing was grounded in – I mean, actually, Roe itself didn’t even make this quite explicit, but the best defense of Roe, the commonly-thought defense of Roe, was that it was grounded in the word ‘liberty’ in the Due Process clause, you know, that we protect life, liberty and property – it can’t be taken away without due process of law.

             “Well, that word ‘liberty’ can’t be an open vessel or an empty vessel in which judges can just read into it whatever rights they want, because otherwise we lose the democracy in our democratic society,” she continued. “And so, the problem, to my mind, with Roe is that it was a free-floating, free-wheeling decision that read into the Constitution – the Constitution – the reason why it’s difficult to amend is that it reflects a supermajority consensus. And the rights that are protected in the Constitution – as well as the structural guarantees that are made in that Constitution – are not of my making, you know: They are ones that Americans have agreed to, and Roe told Americans what they should agree to rather than what they have already agreed to in the Constitution,” Barrett concluded. …

Wisdom from the Great Communicator

EXCERPT #33 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

Let his [William Wilberforce’s] faith and perseverance be our guide. We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says: “… However low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so human and enlightened.”