Life Advocacy Briefing

Sen. Banks Takes It to the FTC

SEN. JIM BANKS (R-IN) HAS STEPPED FORWARD to challenge the legality of abortion drugs, asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “to investigate abortion pill manufacturers for making deceptive claims about the safety of their products for the women who take them.”

“In an April 20 letter to FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson,” explains Mr. Freiburger, Sen. “Banks argues that the FTC’s jurisdiction over ‘false and misleading medical claims’ must be applied to the ‘most common method of administering an abortion.’”

The letter goes on to note, reports LifeSiteNews, “‘Many online clinics – including online clinics that ship to women in Indiana – explicitly state on their websites that abortion drugs are safer than Tylenol,’ the letter says. ‘Others claim that abortion drugs almost never cause serious complications. At best,’” notes Sen. Banks, “‘these statements are misleading. There is no scientific basis for the claim that mifepristone is “safer than Tylenol.”’” Indeed, for the developing human child, there is no safety whatsoever – intentionally no safety!

The Banks letter notes that the marketers of mifepristone “‘mislead pregnant women in a second way, by coaching them to lie to hospital staff in the event of a complication.’” What a racket!

 “‘The FTC has the tools in its toolbox to hold abortion drug companies to their obligations under consumer protection law,’ [Sen.] Banks concludes,” writes Mr. Freiburger. “‘I encourage you to act swiftly and without delay.’”

After all, lives are at stake.

Stateside

• THE ARIZONA STATE SENATE – due to adjourn on April 26, just after our writing deadline – has had under consideration a House-passed bill, HB-2364, to criminalize “‘providing an abortion-inducing drug via courier, delivery or mail service’” as a class-five felony, reports S.A. McCarthy for The Washington Stand, “carrying a maximum sentence of two-and-a-half years in prison for first-time offenses. Subsequent offenses can increase the sentence to nearly eight years in prison. The bill advanced from committee in the Senate. The measure passed the House by 31 to 22.

• ILLINOIS CONTINUED TO RANK #1 for hosting out-of-state abortion customers in 2025, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews. The Land of Lincoln “saw 32,000 abortions for non-Illinois residents,” he writes, “representing 23% of the 142,000 total abortions for women traveling across state lines last year. … Planned Parenthood took credit for handling many of those visitors,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “with state affiliate president and CEO Adrienne White-Faines saying, ‘they come from Indiana, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Kentucky and Iowa.’” The Illinois abortuary closest to Missouri is not operated by Planned Parenthood but is likely a significant host as well. Said Illinois Right to Life president Mary Kate Zander, quoted by Mr. Freiburger, “‘When will Pritzker and the state of Illinois start providing real accountability on behalf of vulnerable women? It’s disgusting.’ Under Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “Illinois has been among the most aggressive states in the Union in shoring up virtually unlimited abortion.”

• THE KANSAS LEGISLATURE HAS OVERRIDDEN VETOES by Gov. Laura Kelly (D) of two abortion-curbing bills. HB-2727, facilitating suits by women to sue abortionists, notes LifeSiteNews writer Calvin Freiburger, “for violations of the state’s informed consent requirements before an abortion,” was passed over the governor’s objection by votes of 87 to 36 in the House and 31 to 8 in the Senate. HB-2729, notes Mr. Freiburger, “standardizes and simplifies the informed consent form” which must be signed by the customer before an abortion can be committed. The override motions for HB-2729 carried by the same tallies as its companion bill.

• MISSISSIPPI GOV. TATE REEVES (R) HAS SIGNED legislation banning “the prescription and distribution of abortion-inducing drugs,” reports Ryan Foley for the Christian Post. The governor’s approval, he notes, comes after a 77-39 vote in the state’s House of Representatives and a 36-14 vote in the State Senate. “Two House Democrats and three Senate Democrats broke from their party to back the bill. … Violators of the law, which is slated to take effect on July 1, will face a prison sentence ranging from one to 10 years. The measure also authorizes the Mississippi attorney general to bring civil action against anyone who violates the law, which could result in ‘declaratory or injunctive relief’ as well as ‘civil penalties and costs.’” Such civil penalties can wreak havoc with the securing of malpractice insurance and thus work to limit abortion practice even if charges are never brought.

Americans Seek RU Regulatory Reform, at Least

April 7, 2026, commentary by Nicole Hunt for Focus on the Family’s Daily Citizen

             New polling data reveals most Americans agree there should be more oversight of the distribution and consumption of chemical abortion pills like mifepristone. According to polling conducted by CRC Research for The 85 Fund, as reported by The Daily Wire and Susan B. Anthony Pro-life America, approximately 70% of Americans support requiring an in-person medical evaluation before and after taking the abortion pill.

             A closely related question found that 67% of voters support requiring an in-person doctor’s visit in order to obtain the abortion pill. This policy was previously upheld by the FDA but abandoned by the previous [Biden] pro-abortion administration.

             What makes this data so interesting and newsworthy is how it breaks down across political lines. Support for medical oversight was not limited to a single party. In fact, 72% of Republicans, 68% of Independents and 63% of Democrats all supported reinstating in-person doctor visits before accessing abortion pills. The data show a clear majority of Americans in every major political party support some form of in-person medical attention before abortion pills are dispensed.

             Concerns over medical oversight are reinforced by research from the Ethics & Public Policy Center (EPPC), which raised questions about the safety of women using mifepristone last year. As reported by the Daily Citizen in May, the EPPC released a study revealing nearly 11% of women who take the abortion pill experienced serious adverse effects within 40 days, including sepsis, hemorrhaging, infection and emergency room visits. Those numbers are 22 times higher than the FDA’s current label, which suggests the rate of adverse effects is only 0.5%.

             Following the release of the report, Sen. Josh Hawley [R-MO] questioned HHS Secretary Kennedy at a committee hearing. The secretary committed to a complete review of the chemical abortion pill by the FDA.

             Instead of cracking down on the abortion pill, the FDA has made abortion pills even more available by approving a generic abortion pill alternative.*

             Several pro-life organizations and advocates have accused HHS and the White House of intentionally slow-walking the review. They argue that recent findings demonstrate the need for stronger safeguards and removing in-person visits and medical oversight allows for serious complications to go untreated.

             Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America is calling on the Trump Administration to revisit current FDA protocols and reinstate requirements that were previously in place, including in-person dispensing and physician oversight. They argue basic medical standards should apply to abortion.*

             Recently Sen. Josh Hawley introduced a Senate bill to ban the abortion pill and give women the right to sue manufacturers for damages. Congresswoman Diana Harshbarger, a pharmacist, introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

             When abortion policy is often sharply divided, broad bipartisan support from a majority of Americans for medical oversight of the abortion pill should not be ignored. HHS and the FDA should use their authority to restore in-person medical oversight for abortion pill use.*

*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Though we appreciate these issues being raised, we disagree with what we see as a compromise approach. We believe there is no excuse for this Administration or this Congress to abet the killing of unborn children by treating mifepristone as though it has a place in the practice of medicine. It is a tool for killing and has no other use. We believe the marketing clearance of this baby poison should be revoked. And we support the Hawley/Harshbarger approach: Ban it!

What Are the American People Thinking?

March 30, 2026, report by S.A. McCarthy for Family Research Council’s The Washington Stand

             The number of abortions in the US continued to rise in 2025, according to a new report, while the number of unborn lives lost to the abortion drug jumped dramatically. The Guttmacher Institute, founded as a component of Planned Parenthood in 1968, published its annual abortion report this month [March], recording 1,126,000 abortions in the US over the course of 2025, up slightly from 1,124,000 over the course of 2024. While Guttmacher did study the number of abortions via remote prescription of the abortion drug mifepristone, it did not include those statistics in its total, so the report represents “an underestimate of the total number of abortions nationally.” Nonetheless, 2025 represented the highest number of reported abortions since 2009.

             Guttmacher reported that over 140,000 women traveled across state lines seeking abortions, down from 154,000 who did the same in 2024 and 170,000 in 2023. Of those who crossed state lines for abortions, 62,000 came from states where pro-life laws prohibited abortions, down from 74,000 in 2024. Guttmacher attributed this decrease in interstate abortion travel to the increasing prevalence of remotely prescribed and dispensed abortion drugs. According to the report, the number of abortion drugs shipped by abortionists in blue states with “shield laws,” protecting them from prosecution for violating other states’ pro-life laws, increased from 72,000 in 2024 to 91,000 last year, an increase of 26%. …

             A recent report from the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health found that the majority of abortions committed by in-state abortionists are being conducted via mail-order abortion drugs shipped out of state, predominantly to red states with pro-life laws in place. …

             In last week’s Washington Watch interview, Michael New, associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute and a professor at the Catholic University of America, shared, “The main lesson I draw from this is that pro-lifers really need to put a clamp and stop telehealth abortions.” He added that the increase in mail-order abortion drugs is “really driving these numbers up. So, if we really want to get abortion numbers down, we really need to do something and stop telehealth abortions.”*…

             A recent survey from CRC Research found that 67% of Americans support restoring in-person medical exam requirements before mifepristone prescription, 70% support restoring required in-person appointments prior to and following prescription of the drug, and nearly half (49%) said that they would be less likely to support an elected representative who supports the remote prescribing and dispensing of the abortion drug, compared to only 29% who said that they would be more likely to support that representative.

             A prior study, conducted by Cygnal, warned that nearly one-third (32%) of Republican voters would be less likely to vote in November’s midterm elections if GOP representatives do not address the remote prescribing and dispensing of mifepristone, while 70% of Republican voters want to restore stricter safeguards surrounding the drug, 80% want the FDA to restore in-person requirements for the prescribing and dispensing of mifepristone, and 71% opposed allowing the abortion drug to be prescribed remotely and mailed.

*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Though the polling is interesting and ought to be noted by our elected officials, we disagree with Prof. New’s prescription, while appreciating the efforts of states like Iowa to outlaw telehealth abortions – before Roe was overturned – as the only action that could then be taken to slow down the death toll. We prefer the 2026 approach by Sen. Josh Hawley and Rep. Diana Harshbarger: Withdraw marketing authorization for the drug mifepristone, whose sole purpose is to snuff out the life of a developing human being. That can be done by act of Congress, as the two lawmakers have proposed, or it can be done instantly – overnight – by action of the Trump Administration, either by Presidential executive order or by administrative action of the Food & Drug Administration, whose marketing clearance for the abortion poison was a deadly political stroke in the last moments of the outgoing Clinton Regime. Enough is enough.

An ‘Election’ Worthy of Our Attention

Excerpt from March 21, 2026, LifeSiteNews report by Calvin Freiburger

             Republican lawmakers are urging US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to veto the nomination of former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet as the UN’s next secretary general, citing her record as a “pro-abortion zealot.”

             The Daily Wire obtained the letter, led by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), calling on Rubio to exercise the US’s power as a permanent member of the UN Security Council against Bachelet, who has also been UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and executive director of UN Women, because her “resume reveals a pro-abortion zealot intent on using political authority to override state sovereignty in favor of extreme agendas. She has both overtly attacked pro-life laws – including those of the US – and sought to weaken them through intimidation and coercion.”

Thwarting the Abortion Gang at the UN

April 17, 2026, commentary by Stefano Gennarini JD for Center for Family & Human Rights (C-fam)

             Pro-lifers chalked up another win at the United Nations this week, as the chairman of the UN Commission on Population & Development refused to put a document forward for approval. He objected to the European efforts to load up the document with abortion and gender ideology.

             Amb. Zephyrin Maniratanga of Burundi did not present a final agreement for adoption because the draft agreement that had been negotiated in recent weeks could not be adopted unanimously. European and other progressive governments objected to the final draft of the agreement because it did not have enough language linking sexual and reproductive health, gender and censorship to human rights.

             Maniratanga chose to withdraw the agreement rather than accommodate the progressive governments that, just last month, forced a vote on the agreement at the Commission on the Status of Women rather than one that would have defined what a woman is. It was the first time in the history of that commission that a vote was necessary. Europeans and their allies seemed poised to call a vote this week, too. 

             The Holy See expressed thanks to Amb. Maniratanga for preserving the “practice of consensual adoption” and lamented how an “inordinate focus” on sexual and reproductive health derailed negotiations. The Holy See emphasized that language on sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights had “always been controversial” and that it was unfair not to focus on a broader health agenda.

             … Gambia, Egypt, Malaysia, Nigeria and the United States also congratulated Maniratanga and expressed similar concerns. Europeans and their allies vowed to continue to promote abortion, gender ideology, DEI and censorship through UN agencies and non-governmental organizations that implement UN policy on sexual and reproductive health and gender.

             A representative of Cyprus, speaking on behalf of all EU member states, said they were especially disappointed not to reaffirm commitments to “women’s and girls’ rights and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.” On censorship, the EU emphasized that “for technology to be beneficial to all, it must align with human rights and uphold the principles of non-discrimination and gender equality.”

             The Commission on Population & Development, which meets for one week in April every year, is the scene of ongoing debates about abortion, gender ideology, population control and other controversial social policies. It has failed to reach an agreement in seven of the last ten sessions.

             The custom of adopting agreements by unanimity at the commission and other UN conferences has been a thorn in the side of progressive governments for decades. It has repeatedly blocked controversial issues from being added to UN agreements, including express endorsement of abortion, gender ideology and “comprehensive sexuality education.” These are all priorities for EU foreign policy.

             In recent years, the EU and progressive governments have increasingly pushed the commission to discard unanimity in order to adopt resolutions by vote. This would allow them to pressure developing states and win close votes on controversial social policies.

Wisdom from Mr. Hyde

Join us in reading 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, HR-1833. Rep. Hyde has long been seen as one of America’s all-time leading orators and a model communicator in the cause of Life.

             … If there is one consistent commitment that has survived the twists and the turns of policy during this* administration, it is an unshakable commitment to a legal regime of abortion-on-demand. Nothing is or will be done to make abortion “rare.” No legislative or regulatory act will be allowed to impede the most permissive abortion license in the democratic world. The President would do us all a favor – and make a modest contribution to the health of our democratic process – if he would simply concede this obvious fact.

*William Clinton