Life Advocacy Briefing

Storm Clouds

OUR LIFE ADVOCACY BRIEFING LAST WEEK FOCUSED on a disturbing comment made by President Trump in his public strategy session with House Republicans in which he counseled “flexibility” on protecting taxpayers from use of their tax dollars to procure abortions, a/k/a the Hyde Amendment. It does not in the least please us to report that the controversy continues. Buckle up, reader; it is getting to be a bumpy ride.

Resistant to ‘Flex’ on Hyde?

JUST A DAY AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD HOUSE REPUBLICANS to be “flexible” on their decades-long commitment to the Hyde Amendment barring Medicaid funding for abortion, House Speaker Mike Johnson “told reporters,” reports Andreas Wailzer for LifeSiteNews, “‘We are not going to change the standard that we’re not going to use taxpayer funding for abortion.

“‘I’m just not going to allow that to happen,’” declared the Louisiana Republican, quoted by Mr. Wailzer.

“Most other Republican lawmakers seem to be standing firm on keeping the Hyde Amendment in place as well,” writes Mr. Wailzer. “Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC) told the Daily Signal, ‘All the folks I hear from are very committed to Hyde. The Speaker, I think, is very committed to Hyde. So, I don’t envision anything coming to the floor that would in any way impede the protection of Life.’”

A caution to our readers: House GOP candidates in 2024 were, it appeared, universally advised to avoid “the Life issue” in their campaigns. We encourage our readers to contact their individual Member of Congress to insist the Hyde Amendment be maintained – and if possible made permanent – in any and all spending actions – especially if your Representative is new this year. The House phone number is 202/225-3121. Make no assumptions (unless you live in Speaker Johnson’s district; if so, call and express thanks for his firm commitment to the Hyde Amendment).

Oh, and we should note: The closing paragraph in Mr. Wailzer’s report reads as follows: “A statement by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied any change in policy and touted the second Trump Administration’s record so far of opposing taxpayer funding of abortion but did not rule out some sort of compromise on Hyde in healthcare negotiations, leaving the controversy unresolved.”

Effort at Cleanup?

A FURTHER REPORT ON ‘HYDE’ & SPEAKER JOHNSON came Jan. 11 in a Suzanne Bowdey news analysis for The Washington Stand, a publication of Family Research Council.

In the midst of a lengthy report on Speaker Mike Johnson’s response to 17 of his conference Members crossing over to vote for an extension of Obamacare, Ms. Bowdey reports: “As for the more serious problem – Trump’s sudden openness to taxpayer-funded abortion – Johnson cautioned, ‘I wouldn’t read too much into what he said. That was off the [cuff]. He was sort of riffing when he was with us, and he talks about a lot of ideas in terms of negotiations. The President is a dealmaker, as you know, and he desperately wants to bring down the cost of health care. And we do as well. And there are impediments to doing some of this.

“‘We obviously are the party of Life. We are a nation that has to defend the sanctity of human life. And we will continue that as a theme.’” [Tell that to the consultants who have told your candidates to avoid the issue, Mr. Speaker. Please.]

“Johnson was quick to point to Trump’s record,” writes Ms. Bowdey, “as ‘the most pro-life President in the modern era’ to reassure voters who are questioning his shakiness on Hyde. But he also recognizes that even a whiff of compromise on taxpayer-funded abortion would be a betrayal of the highest order. …

“‘I made a statement after the conference, and I’ve stated it many times since. … We are going to defend the sanctity of life, and the protections are sacrosanct here. And in layman’s terms, what it means is, taxpayer funding will never be authorized to pay for abortion. Period. Full stop, end of sentence. And that’s never going to change here.’”

With all due – and true – respect to Speaker Johnson, we reiterate our urging of our readers (above) to contact your own Member of Congress to urge retention of the Hyde Amendment – no taxpayer funding for abortion. Even if your Representative is a Democrat.

The Spigot Reopens

THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (A.C.L.U.) HAS WITHDRAWN its lawsuit against the US government seeking to restore Title X (Ten) funding for Planned Parenthood. Good news, right? Sorry, no.

The reason the lawsuit has been dropped is that the Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) released the embargoed $27.5 million in Planned Parenthood grants in December, reports Mark Tanos for the Daily Caller, citing Politico as his source.

“US Attorney Jeanine Pirro informed the court,” writes Mr. Tanos, “that ‘the review is completed, and all grants at issue for [Planned Parenthood] have been restored,’ according to a Dec. 19 court document obtained by [Politico]. The lawsuit, filed in April 2025, challenged the withholding of funds that affected around 865 service sites across almost two dozen states, according to the ACLU.

“The restored Title X money represents only a portion of federal funds flowing to Planned Parenthood,” writes Mr. Tanos. “The organization received more than $700 million in taxpayer dollars for the fiscal year that came to a close June 30, 2024, The Boston Pilot reported, citing the group’s 2023-2024 report.”

The cutoff of the Title X funds apparently was not based on Planned Parenthood’s abortion business to begin with. “HHS originally withheld funds in March 2025,” notes Mr. Tanos, “after officials flagged more than a dozen providers for possible civil rights violations, Politico reported. The agency cited concerns about DEI practices in hiring and patient treatment,” Mr. Tanos writes. And what is more, “some providers faced scrutiny [over] allegedly being supportive of providing services to illegal immigrants.” 

The Daily Caller report does quote reaction to the dropping of the suit from two major pro-life leaders. Said Kristan Hawkins, quoted by Mr. Tanos, “Planned Parenthood ‘needs a full DOGE experience, of evaluating them for fraud and for all the allegations of failure to report sex crimes or operating a racist work environment, to name only a few of the charges recently made.’

“Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America called on the Administration,” writes Mr. Tanos, “to reinstate the Protect Life Rule from [Pres.] Trump’s first term, which restricted abortion providers from receiving Title X funds. ‘The Protect Life Rule from the first Trump Administration stopped Big Abortion businesses from using Title X taxpayer dollars as a slush fund. Biden canceled it,’ they posted on X,” reports the Daily Caller.

We contend that the United States government should stop depositing our taxpayer dollars into the coffers of a cartel that specializes in killing innocent preborn Americans, and that should be reason enough.

Growing Impatient

KUDOS TO SEN. BILL CASSIDY (R-LA) for using his post as chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions to host a Jan. 14 hearing, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “on the dangers of abortion pills, amid pro-life frustration over federal inaction.”

“[Sen.] Cassidy hopes the hearing will ‘rehumanize’ the issue,” writes Elizabeth Troutman-Mitchell for The Daily Signal, “by demonstrating how the [abortion] pill harms both women and unborn children. [Sen.] Cassidy urged [Food & Drug Administration Commissioner Marty] Makary to finish the safety review, saying he is not happy with the speed of the process.

“‘Get it done quickly, because it was promised during [Dr. Makary’s] confirmation hearings that it would be done,’ he said” in the Daily Signal report, “‘and there’s an expectation that it will be.’ … [Sen.] Cassidy expressed frustration,” writes Mrs. Mitchell, “that while a safety review is underway, the Trump Administration approved a second generic abortion drug in October. The FDA argued it had limited discretion under the law in deciding whether to approve a generic drug. ‘The Biden Administration did not feel compelled to approve it, but this Administration did,’ [Sen. Cassidy] said. ‘That just kind of struck me, well, wait a second – it just sat for four years into Biden and all of a sudden we’re gonna rush it through.’

“Restoring the in-person dispensing requirement on mifepristone would protect women from being coerced to abort their children, [Sen.] Cassidy said” in the Daily Signal report. “‘The in-person visit allows the physician to speak to the patient to make sure that she understands the decision and she’s not being coerced,’ [Sen.] Cassidy said. ‘We should care about that.’”

Sen. Cassidy is himself a physician. He went on to point out, “‘This is a really human story. It’s not just taking a pill like Tylenol with no consequences. Of course we know there’s a consequence for the unborn child who is now aborted, but there’s a real potential consequence for the woman who’s carrying that child.’ [We need to] humanize that, understand that there’s things we can do as a society that makes it more likely that she’s got autonomy, that she’s making decisions of her own free will and that the health risks associated with taking the medicine for the mother are minimized.’”

Tongue-Tied by Reality

IT WAS AT THE CASSIDY HEARING last Wednesday that Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Sen. Ashley Moody (R-FL) made news by asking a witness what proved to be an embarrassing question: Can men get pregnant?

The witness was Dr. Nisha Verma, who practices “reproductive health care” in Georgia and Massachusetts. During the Biden Regime, she was a witness for the abortion lobby at a 2022 meeting of the Regime’s Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare Access. On Wednesday, she was invited by committee Democrats to make the case for making wombs inhospitable to developing babies.

Dr. Verma became a star of the nightly news by her garbling inability to answer the simple question. Social media commenters weighed in, urging that the expert witness lose her medical license.

Stateside

• ALASKA HAS FINALLY CONFIRMED COMPLIANCE, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “with the federal government’s disqualification of Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds, long after it was obliged to do so.” (Disqualification from Medicaid continues to be federal policy, which affects the states, not to be confused with Title X, the federal “family planning” subsidy program whose funding has been restored to Planned Parenthood. [See The Spigot Reopens in this Life Advocacy Briefing.]) The disqualification is a provision of last summer’s massive budget bill, which, notes Mr. Freiburger, “includes a one-year ban on federal tax dollars going through Medicaid to entities that commit abortions … . The law originally gave a deadline of Oct. 1, 2025, for compliance. However,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “the Alaska Watchman reports that the state continued to put Medicaid dollars toward abortion as late as Nov. 5.” A complaint from the director of Alaska Right to Life to Gov. Mike Dunleavy (R) has “prompt[ed] action to be taken,” putting the state into compliance at last.

• OHIO’s FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS HAS RESTORED sections of the state’s Heartbeat Law despite voter approval of a constitutional amendment legalizing the killing of unborn children. The court, writes Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, ruled “a lower court judge had overreached in striking down parts of the law that had not been challenged under the state’s so-called ‘Right to Reproductive Freedom … Amendment,’” which was tragically approved by voters in November, 2023. “Ohio Republican Attorney General Dave Yost,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “had warned that the amendment would go far beyond even the Roe v. Wade [ruling] and block prohibitions on partial-birth and dismemberment abortions, allow abortionists to target disabled babies and end parental consent requirements for abortion as well as minors’ contraception, sterilization and ‘gender transition’ decisions.” But his efforts to preserve 14 provisions of the law were resisted by a Cincinnati judge in 2024. Gen. Yost persisted, and now the appeals court has agreed to restore “provisions concerning ‘documentation requirements for doctors for abortion services they perform,’” reports Courthouse News, quoted by Mr. Freiburger, “‘and civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms.’” It appears to us to be not much, but a sliver of victory in this arena is worthy of thanks.

• TAXPAYERS IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, will no longer be forced to subsidize the killing of unborn children. The city government taxed its citizens for a Reproductive Justice Fund, starting in 2023, seeking, reports Matt Lamb for LifeSiteNews, “to help residents travel to other states to kill their babies,” after Texas enacted a strong law protecting its littlest, most dependent residents. But a lawsuit shifted use of the fund to “contraception, STD testing and other non-abortion initiatives, according to the Texas Tribune,” quoted by Mr. Lamb. “But now such similar efforts will likely be curtailed due to a new state law,” he writes. The city’s fund was also the target of “legal efforts against the abortion travel fund” led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), who stated, writes Mr. Lamb, “‘San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.’” Mr. Lamb notes other attempts to use tax dollars to underwrite abortion tourism, citing former Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

Fundamental

Jan. 9, 2026, commentary by Family Research Council president Tony Perkins

             Picture this: you’re sitting in a nice restaurant. The people at the next table spare no expense, ordering the most expensive items on the menu. That’s their choice. But when the waiter brings you the bill and says, “You didn’t order any of this – but you’re paying for it anyway,” you’d rightly be outraged.

             As offensive as that would be, it pales in comparison to the injustice of forcing taxpayers to fund the killing of the unborn. This is not merely a policy dispute; it is a profound moral wrong. It compounds one injustice upon another – first, the taking of innocent human life, and then, compelling citizens to finance an act that violates the moral law of the Author of life.

             That is precisely why the late Congressman Henry Hyde successfully crafted what became known as the Hyde Amendment in 1976. “Hyde,” an annual appropriations rider adopted every year since, established the only enduring common ground on abortion policy: Americans should not be forced to fund an act many believe is morally abhorrent – the taking of an unborn child’s life.

             Despite decades of pro-abortion propaganda and cultural indoctrination, a clear majority of Americans – 57% – still oppose being compelled to fund abortions. Among Republican voters, that opposition rises to 83%. In today’s fractured political climate, few issues command that level of agreement, even within a single party.

             That is what makes President Trump’s call this week for Republicans to be “a little flexible on Hyde” during negotiations over ObamaCare subsidies so stunning. Retreating from the party’s long-standing defense of the unborn is not pragmatism; it is the shortest path to becoming a permanent minority.

             At issue is the Affordable Care Act itself, which was deceptively designed to evade Hyde’s protections when it was passed in 2010 without Republican support. The Covid-era subsidies, again pushed solely by Democrats during the Biden Administration, funneled even more money into an already failing system under the pretext of emergency relief. What is now unmistakably clear is that the so-called Affordable Care Act is, in fact, unaffordable.

             Some Republicans have signaled a willingness to support a short-term extension while Congress works to overhaul the system, but only if Hyde protections are included. Democrats have flatly rejected that condition, insisting that abortion coverage remain mandatory. That position has been, and must remain, a red line for Republicans.

             When we consider the moral truth of the sanctity of human life in the womb – and the equally important right of citizens not to be forced to finance its destruction – we are reminded of the words of another President at a moment of national consequence, who said: “Important principles may, and must, be inflexible.”

             Those were the last public words spoken by Abraham Lincoln, and those words still speak today.

Wisdom from Mr. Hyde

Today we begin a paragraph-by-paragraph reprinting of the Sept. 19, 1996, speech by Rep. Henry J. Hyde to the House of Representatives, in which he called for the House to override Pres. Clinton’s veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Today’s excerpt is his preliminary remarks, responding to statements just made by opponents of HR-1833. In subsequent editions, we will publish, piece-by-piece, his formal speech. We hope our readers will benefit from this reprinting of the wisdom of the originator of the Hyde Amendment, long seen as one of America’s all-time leading orators and certainly a model communicator in the cause of Life.

             I want to say briefly that those who have charged us with politics – invidious politics – for delaying this, ought to understand that Americans can’t believe this practice exists, and it has taken months to educate the American people, and it will take many more months to educate them as to the nature and extent of this horrible practice. That is one reason it has taken so long. Now, the law exists to protect the weak from the strong. That’s why we’re here.