Life Advocacy Briefing

Undermining the Law

A LEFTIST GROUP which claims to represent military veterans, Minority Veterans of America, has filed suit against the federal government, reports Emily Mangiaracina for LifeSiteNews, “for revoking a policy allowing Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals to commit taxpayer-funded abortions.”

In its relentless pogrom against unborn Americans, the Biden Regime reversed a long-standing policy to put the VA into the abortion business – after the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022. “At the time,” writes Ms. Mangiaracina, “the VA offered abortions in cases of rape or incest as well as when the ‘life or health’ of the pregnant woman was purportedly endangered, contradicting the sanctity of life and the admission of abortionists that there is no such thing as a ‘medically necessary’ abortion.”

It took till December of 2025 for the Dept. of Justice to reverse the Biden Regime’s VA abortion policy. At that time, notes the LifeSiteNews reporter, “Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Josh Craddock said that federal law ‘unambiguously commands that VA may not provide abortions when furnishing medical care … .’”

But the leftwing group’s lawsuit, writes Ms. Mangiaracina, “called the reinstatement of a ban on VA abortions a ‘betrayal,’ complaining that the ‘VA failed to provide any explanation – let alone a reasoned explanation – for disregarding its previous factual findings addressing veterans’ need for [so-called] abortion care and … failed to address significant comments.’ … The lawsuit maintains that veterans, ‘like all people,’ should be able to obtain taxpayer-funded abortions ‘in all circumstances,’ effectively arguing that a pregnant veteran should be able to kill her unborn baby for any reason whatsoever.”

A Step Forward?

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CHOSE MOTHER’s DAY to unveil a new federally-based website, Moms.gov, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews. The website is designed, writes Mr. Freiburger, to be “a new information resource for new and expectant mothers seeking pregnancy and parenting assistance … [and] offers a one-step collection of resource links, including locations for pregnancy centers and Federally Qualified Health Centers, nutrition and dietary guidelines, Trump Account enrollment, the TrumpRx prescription medication website, conscience protections in health care, information about preconception health, breastfeeding, Fertility Awareness-Based Methods, adoption, mental health and more.”

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is not listed as a website feature in the news release announcing the site, notes Mr. Freiburger, but Health & Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy did say, according to the LifeSiteNews report, “that Moms.gov is ‘one-stop shopping for IVF, for prenatal care, for postnatal care, for nutrition, for baby formula,’ though as of this writing [in LifeSiteNews on May 11], in vitro fertilization is not specifically mentioned on the site.”

We checked Moms.gov on May 28, and we found no reference to IVF then either. Here are the pertinent segments: “Looking to start a family? Find the world’s lowest prices on prescription medications on TrumpRx. There are a range of medical treatments that exist to help couples build their families. For some people, addressing ovulatory dysfunction, hormonal imbalances, insulin resistance, or excess weight may improve fertility outcomes. Always talk with your doctor or a qualified healthcare professional before starting any medication related to weight management or fertility.”

And further, from Moms.gov as of May 28: “Preconception Health: If you are preparing for pregnancy or trying to conceive, addressing chronic health conditions and identifying risk factors can lead to healthier pregnancies, mothers, and babies. Check out more information about preconception health. Fertility Awareness-Based Methods (FABMs) can help you recognize signs of your fertile period and identify underlying health conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome and endometriosis.”

So far, so good.

No Excuse

May 27, 2026, The Washington Stand commentary by Family Research Council’s Dan Hart

             A startling new study has revealed that the vast majority of online abortion drug vendors are shipping the pills to women whose unborn children are past the point of 10 weeks’ gestation, in violation of the FDA’s federal safety limit.

             The report, released by the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) on Tuesday, found that 81% of online abortion drug sellers are actively ignoring the federal safety guidelines, amounting to 64 vendors. The study further found that eight online-only organizations are violating state pro-life laws by shipping abortion pills into those states. Moreover, 10 out of 28 websites that received warning letters from the FDA over their abuse of federal law in 2019 are still active, according to the research. In addition, 18 websites require no ID to be presented before ordering the pills.

             The new study comes as the health dangers of the abortion drug mifepristone come under increasing scrutiny in the wake of the Trump Administration’s ongoing failure to reinstate safety regulations that the Biden Administration rescinded in 2021 and 2023, which removed the in-person dispensing requirement and allowed retail pharmacies to dispense the drug. Pro-life and women’s health advocates have decried the moves, pointing out that an in-person appointment with a healthcare professional is the only way to ensure that the woman seeking the abortion drug is not being coerced, does not have an ectopic pregnancy and is not past the gestational limit of 10 weeks, all of which pose grave health risks to the mother if she ingests the abortion pill, including death.

             But even when the abortion drug is taken under manufacturer-recommended conditions, studies show that over one in 10 women “experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging or another serious or life-threatening adverse event.” Despite these dangers, and despite the fact that online abortion pill shipments are violating the laws of pro-life states as well as federal laws like the Comstock Act, the Trump Administration has so far not acted to address the growing crisis. A recent shakeup of leadership at the FDA could signal that changes around the abortion drug may be forthcoming, however.

             Mia Steupert, a research associate at CLI who authored the report, called the state of affairs surrounding the abortion pill the “Wild West,” emphasizing that the study should serve as a “wake-up call to policymakers. … The abortion industry loves to claim ‘abortion is healthcare,’ but their actions and advocacy have shown they don’t want abortion to be treated with the same level of regulatory scrutiny as legitimate medical procedures,” she remarked in a statement. “No one should be able to obtain abortion drugs as easily as purchasing something off Amazon.”

             Family Research Council [FRC] president Tony Perkins concurred. “It is time for the safety of women and babies – not to mention the rule of law – to take precedence over ideology,” he wrote on X Wednesday in response to the CLI report. “What will it take for the Trump Administration to take action? Are they waiting for 100% of online abortion pill companies to violate the FDA limits? Are 17 international companies sending unapproved or mislabeled drugs to US customers not enough? Stop the harm. Enforce the Comstock Act and strengthen the safety regulations* on mifepristone.”

             Mary Szoch, who serves as director of FRC’s Center for Human Dignity, underscored that the abortion drug suppliers’ lack of regard for following safety guidelines fits squarely within the abortion industry’s ideology. “The abortion industry does not care about women. It never has,” she told The Washington Stand. “CLI’s study showing that 81% of online abortion drug sellers do not comply with FDA standards intended to mitigate the risk to women or that 18 foreign-based companies do not require identification before ordering these drugs shouldn’t shock anyone. Online abortionists operate a business that sells drugs to kill people. They are, as the late Pope Francis often said, hitmen contracted to kill an innocent unborn child. We shouldn’t be surprised that they are not concerned about causing harm to others.

             “What should surprise us, though is that Americans have stood idly by and allowed this to happen,” Szoch added. “Our country is one that was founded upon the belief that all men are created equal. The Trump Administration has done excellent work promoting respect for the dignity of life in so many different areas – including defending the unborn and enforcing the rule of law. I pray that the Trump Administration will take another step in defending the dignity of human life and enforcing the rule of law by enforcing the longstanding Comstock Act that prevents mailing drugs intended to cause an abortion.”

*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: We concur that the Comstock Act should be enforced; it requires no Congressional action to outlaw the use of the US mail to ship abortifacient drugs, since that law has been on the books since the 19^th century and needs only to be enforced. But we also believe the Trump Administration ought to be going beyond enforcement of the Comstock Act with respect to the epidemic of baby killing. FDA marketing approval for mifepristone was unquestionably a political decision by an agency which is supposed to be science-based and whose mission entails protection of Americans from marketing of dangerous drugs. In an Administration whose proud achievement has been the diminution of death-by-fentanyl, withdrawing marketing approval for a drug whose sole purpose is to starve an innocent developing baby ought to be a top priority.

Are We Not Supposed to Care?

May 28, 2026, The Washington Stand commentary by Joshua Arnold for Family Research Council

             Democratic candidates are talking about their abortion agenda far less in the 2026 midterm elections than in the two previous Congressional cycles, according to analysis published Friday by NPR [National Public Radio]. Abortion was the top issue for Democratic campaign ad spending in 2022 and 2024, it reported, but this year Democratic campaigns have spent a quarter as much on abortion ads compared to the same period in 2024.

             The article does not say that Democrats have retreated from their extreme abortion stance – where no unborn life is protected until the moment of birth, if not later, and the whole expense is borne by taxpayers. It simply says that they are talking about abortion less and affordability more.

             For NPR, the dampening of Democratic abortion rhetoric is a bad thing. The article gave pride of place to “abortion-rights advocates” who “argue that calls to protect reproductive access and care need to be part of the political conversation around affordability.” At least their unsubtle propaganda is now unsubsidized by taxpayers.

             But Michael J. New, a professor at Catholic University and a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, offers a more insightful take. “The article fails to note that full-throated support for legal abortion was poor strategy for Democrats during the most recent election cycle,” he wrote.

             “Kamala Harris made support for legal abortion the centerpiece of her 2024 Presidential campaign. However, on the abortion issue, voters preferred Kamala Harris to Donald Trump by only four percentage points,” New noted. “Furthermore, not one pro-life incumbent has lost a statewide race since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.”

             The Democrats’ apparent retreat from abortion rhetoric comes as the Democratic National Committee, under activist pressure, finally released what passes for its 2024 election autopsy last Tuesday. On every page, the header disclaims: “This document reflects the views of the author, not the DNC. The DNC was not provided with the underlying sourcing, interviews or supporting data for many of the assertions contained herein and therefore cannot independently verify the claims presented.”

             Those who bothered to read through the document’s 192 pages described it as “half-drafted,” with no executive summary, no conclusion, but plenty of red-ink edits throughout.

             The document’s best attempt at a narrative was the commonsense observation that “the Party and our candidates have lost the confidence and trust of voters.” It further admits that “many of our critical Democratic wins can be attributed to negative partisanship – where Republicans have nominated deeply flawed candidates.”

             If this sounds familiar to you, that’s because you’re old enough (and wise enough) to think back more than a single election. More than once this century, Democrats have put forward a radically progressive agenda, suffered the rebuke of voters and only had their bacon saved by Republicans managing to nominate disastrous candidates on the other side. (Remember Doug Jones, the Democrat representing Alabama from 2018-2021?)

             Of course, Democratic candidates sometimes haul their own baggage train. In the Maine Senate race, Democrats nominated political newcomer Graham Platner, who elbowed out the state’s current governor, Janet Mills (D). Platner’s political philosophy is hardly distinguishable from that of Zohran Mamdani (on both the Communist and anti-Semitic fronts), and the self-proclaimed history buff had a Nazi Totenkopf tattooed on his chest for 20 years but claims he did not know what it was.

             Ironically, NPR chose Platner as the best spokesman to elevate their pro-abortion message. “Everyone, in my opinion, deserves good, high-quality health care, whether that is reproductive health care about the beginning of pregnancy or around ending one. Either way, it is part of reproductive health care,” they quoted him. “I think we need to change our thinking around what access actually is, because something that is unaffordable isn’t accessible.”

             Although most Democrats are steering away from abortion messaging, clearly Platner is not. He insists (absurdly so) that abortion is not accessible enough because it is too expensive. The implied solution is that government should stick taxpayers with a larger bill to subsidize abortion even more than they already do. The other implied message in Platner’s remarks is that he thinks  poor women have too many babies.

             Refuting such an extreme message should be easy. And it is, for the few Republicans still brave enough to talk about it. Alas, such moral conviction has fallen out of vogue among national Republicans. From the moment in 2022 when the pro-life movement achieved its 50-year aim to overturn Roe v. Wade – which was only a judicial prerequisite to legislatively protecting the unborn – many national Republicans promptly deserted the field altogether, leaving Democrats to set the national narrative on abortion.

             The second Trump Administration is the most vigorous Republican administration in at least a quarter-century on advancing social issues it cares deeply about. But, in nearly 18 months, it has failed to make any discernible progress on reviewing the Biden Administration’s relaxed guidelines for dispensing the abortion pill, refused to enforce federal law outlawing the distribution of abortion pills by mail and even gave up on trying to defund Planned Parenthood.

             The Republican-controlled Congress managed little better; it narrowly voted to partially defund Planned Parenthood for only a single year, and no one knows if it will be able to repeat the feat. In other words, since 2022, most national Republicans have run from the abortion issue as if it were a Philistine giant and they were soldiers in King Saul’s army. But an extensive track record shows that politicians who consistently fought for Life saw electoral success. Conversely, the Democratic track record on abortion was so poor in 2024 that Democrats are now avoiding talking about abortion as well. But Republicans can hardly take advantage of this Democratic panic on an issue they have largely abandoned.

             As it stands, the 2026 midterm election is shaping up to be a contest where neither party wants to take credit for their stance on abortion. That leaves Republicans to run on a middling economy, diplomatic chaos and voter dissatisfaction with affordability. No wonder Democrats want to focus on the economy, not abortions. Why do Republicans want to do the same?

Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Life Advocacy was founded in response to the electoral loss of our president in a GOP primary after 15 years as an Illinois state representative. Her defeat followed a relentless campaign against her by national abortion political operations and their partners in the homosexual community. In three years of challenge and eventual political loss, she learned – the hard way – that dedication to the cause of Life was not enough; strategic communication is required to help voters perceive the true stakes in such contests. Because the abortion lobby skillfully uses euphemisms and distortions – and coaches its candidates to do likewise – voters are left confused by pro-life candidates who have not taken their communication strategy beyond bumpersticker slogans and labels. We have noticed that after Dobbs, very nearly every GOP candidate – including incumbents whose pro-life commitment has been knowable by their voting records – has left Life off their websites, though the right to Life traditionally held an honored place in the “issues” list on campaign websites even of candidates who come from a business or military background with no particular interest in “social” issues. With the weak pro-life plank in the 2024 GOP platform and the sometimes equivocal seeming “commitment” by the Trump-47 Administration, we are not surprised at the GOP section of the above analysis presented by Mr. Arnold, though we are pleased to learn that embrace of abortion is becoming less a priority for those candidates who line up on the side of the abortion lobby in the 2026 campaigns. We hope our readers find this lengthy discussion – and our lengthy note – of interest and that our readers will renew their efforts to encourage their local pro-life candidates to take on the cause with strategic communication that will appeal to voters, via true issue discussions beyond bumpersticker slogans. Voters can think issues through if they are offered a factual and persuasive approach.

A Warning 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.

             … It isn’t just the babies that are dying for the lethal sin of being unwanted or being handicapped or malformed. We are dying, and not from the darkness but from the cold – the coldness of self-brutalization that chills our sensibilities, deadens our conscience and allows us to think of this unspeakable act as an act of “compassion.”