Life Advocacy Briefing

Makes Sense When You Think About It

WE HAVE WONDERED ALOUD ABOUT IT BEFORE, and Students for Life of America have brought up the subject as well, and now, reports Dan Hart for The Washington Stand, “New research has confirmed that harmful endocrine-disrupting compounds [EDCs] that are present in the abortion drug mifepristone – and last virtually forever once released into nature – are contaminating the nation’s public water supply as the in-home use of abortion pills continues to skyrocket.”

We will ask again: Is there a possibility that contraceptive drugs are excreted into the water supply and contribute to the infertility crisis we so often hear about? Is there a danger to born people in ingesting mifepristone, whose sole purpose is the destruction of developing babies? Should someone be investigating this? Someone in authority? Anyone?

“In a study published in the journal Issues in Law & Medicine last week,” writes Mr. Hart, “researchers Elise Rose and Dr. Michael Varveris tested water samples collected both upstream and downstream from water treatment facilities as well as municipal tap water in three cities. After analyzing nine water samples, ‘significant levels of mifepristone’ were found in eight of the samples. As the researchers noted, ‘this contaminant could affect the physiology of aquatic animals and human health, including fertility, pregnancy and fetal development.’” Oh really?

Calling on Lee Zeldin, former pro-life Congressman and current chief of the Environmental Protection Agency! Seems to us, this is in his purview. The Food & Drug Administration is supposedly reviewing the regulations concerning mifepristone, but it is highly unlikely the FDA will even glance at the abortion drug’s pollution of the nation’s drinking water, even if it finally pulls back from its wild-west treatment of the baby poison’s marketing clearance.

“Last month,” notes Mr. Hart, “a group of 14 Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to the EPA, highlighting the growing number of chemical abortions occurring in the US and encouraging the agency to conduct testing to determine the levels of harmful compounds resulting from mifepristone as well as birth control drugs that may be present in drinking water.” Turns out, we have not been alone in this consideration after all.

And then there is the effort by Students for Life of America to bring attention. SFLA has been after this for a long time, even if our state-level public officials are just now beginning to crack the dawn.

“‘When California first tried to force chemical abortion pills into publicly funded college and university healthcare centers as a mandate,’” said Kristi Hamrick, SFLA vice president of media and policy, quoted by Mr. Hart, “‘we were like, “What’s this going to do?” One way to keep it out was, we raised environmental concerns.’

“[Ms.] Hamrick further pointed out,” writes Mr. Hart, “that ‘it’s not just toxic EDCs that are flushed into the water supply during a chemical abortion.’” Right. Just think about this, Mr. Zeldin (and President Trump): “‘It’s going to be polluting the water and flushing human remains into the waterways, chemically tainted blood, placenta tissue, human remains and feces – all of this is going to go into the waterways. And there’s an environmental impact on that.’”

Are we supposed to believe that municipalities are treating wastewater to protect us from the excretion of mifepristone, contraceptive drugs and fetal body parts? Can the EPA show us rules adopted to ensure that protection regimen?

Is the EPA taking any note of the recently published study on which Mr. Hart reports, which shows mifepristone-related pollutants in already treated municipal tap water?

Will any of our elected officials in Washington join the 14 GOP state attorneys general in nudging Administrator Zeldin about this? We welcome a response via real action. Now.

Massachusetts Going All Out?

NOT CONTENT WITH ITS STATE’s ABORTIONIST-FRIENDLY REPUTATION, the Massachusetts House on July 22 passed a bill – 119 to 33 – “eliminating the need,” writes Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “for specific medical justifications for abortions past 24 weeks, opening the door to effectively unlimited abortion up to birth.”

H-5595 “now moves to the State Senate for consideration,” notes Mr. Freiburger, who quotes Myrna Maloney Flynn, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life: “‘As written, their abortion-up-to-birth bill permits one physician to subjectively decide that any unborn infant can be killed in or outside of a hospital, even babies capable of surviving outside the womb and feeling pain within it. … This bill ensures increased abortion industry profits and taxpayer-funded late-term procedures.

“‘This legislation promises,’” Mrs. Flynn said, “‘that an already ominous shadow will grow even darker over the state of Massachusetts.’”

Pro-life citizens in Massachusetts are being urged to get involved, as the State Senate has not yet acted on this atrocity. Notes Zachary Mettler, writing in the July 27 Daily Citizen from Focus on the Family: “Christian citizens can respond to H-5595 in three ways. First, Massachusetts Family Institute is urging Massachusetts citizens to take action and urge their state senator to vote ‘no’ on S-1563, the Senate version of the bill. The organization is also calling on Christians who live in Massachusetts to call the Senate Ways & Means Committee at 617/722-1481 and urge every member to vote against the bill.

“Second, Christians nationwide should pray for wisdom and conviction for Massachusetts legislators to defeat the radical abortion legislation,” writes Mr. Mettler, who adds, “Finally, Christians can get involved by volunteering with their local pregnancy resource center or donating to Focus on the Family’s Option Ultrasound ministry to help save babies from abortion.”

New York Slides Even More

A LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED by several Catholic organizations against enforcement of the Medical Aid in Dying – abetted suicide – law enacted earlier this year by the State of New York.

The suit was filed in federal court, reports Rachel delGuidice for Fox News, and argues, she writes, “New York’s MAID Act compels religious healthcare providers to counsel terminally ill patients about physician-assisted suicide, make referrals to participating providers and, in some cases, accommodate assisted suicide in their facilities. The plaintiffs say those requirements violate the First Amendment, federal healthcare protections and longstanding Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life.” Do ya think?

“New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act, which was signed into law in February,” notes Ms. delGuidice, “lets those who are 18 years and older who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and given six months or less to live to request and self-administer life-ending medication if they are experiencing immense suffering, according to Compassion and Choices, who support the new law. The group notes,” the Fox News reporter writes, “the measure is based on Oregon’s long-standing assisted dying law.”

The report quotes the Superior General of the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne, Mother Marie Edward, OP: “‘For over 125 years, we have ministered to the poor who are dying of cancer as if they were Christ Himself. Our calling is to offer comfort, prayer and loving medical care to those in their final days – not death.’ Edward added, ‘We pray the court will protect our freedom to remain faithful to that ministry God has entrusted to us.’”

Stay Alert

IF EVER THERE WAS A TIME for Americans to reject European trends, such a time appears to be developing right now. Here are a few warnings from The Washington Stand, offered by Chuck Donovan:

“After the unexpected victory of opponents of assisted suicide in the British Parliament earlier this year,” he warns, “advocates of ‘aid-in-dying’ in the UK have regrouped, and Member of Parliament Lauren Edwards has said she intends to bring back the same measure, the Leadbeater bill, using a maneuver that may allow it to be passed without passage in the House of Lords. The key vote in Parliament is now scheduled for Sept. 11, and the outcome – despite sustained opposition from key health and disability groups in Great Britain – is uncertain.

“A similar maneuver in France,” writes Mr. Donovan, “allowed its assisted suicide bill to advance to final passage on July 15 by a margin of 291-241. The French Senate had objected to many provisions of the bill, mostly the lack of safeguards in a measure that allows not only assisted suicide but active euthanasia, terms that led one French commentator to describe the bill as ‘one of the most permissive in the world regarding euthanasia.’ …

And moving on to North America: “Canada has entered a critical period in its pending decision on expanding its Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) law to allow assisted suicide to proceed when the only underlying condition is mental illness. The nation recently reached the imposition of the 100,000^th death by MAID.”

Incidentally, while acknowledging deep respect for Mr. Donovan and sharing his concern at the growth in the death lobby, we at Life Advocacy counsel pro-life communicators not to use the positive-sounding term “assisted suicide,” preferring, since suicide is a form of homicide and thus a crime, that communicators consistently refer to it instead as “abetted suicide.” Even such subtle word choice can aid in breaking through to the consciences and concerns of hearers and readers.

Welcome News

Excerpted from July 28, 2026, The Washington Stand commentary by Chuck Donovan

             … Among … reasons to resist [so-called] Medical Aid in Dying should be the reality that the drive for treatments or cures of many diseases is succeeding in extending life expectancy, even for patients facing severe health challenges.

             The case of Ben Sasse is the most well-known example. His Stage 4 pancreatic cancer was diagnosed on Dec. 23, 2025, at which time he was given – by conscientious medical providers – a life expectancy of just 90 days. He has now announced that, thanks to his access to an experimental new drug, the size of his tumors has shrunk by 80%. Of kindred importance has been the former university president and [former] senator’s response to his diagnosis, which has been the antithesis of abandoning hope even as he recognizes the reality of his still-lethal condition.

             Sasse’s interviews over the past six months are riveting and, ironically to some, far-sighted about what he sees as the most important things to value in life and the way forward in our troubled lands. The world has been magnificently blessed that this hero did not choose MAID, as understandable as that might have been at the time of his drastic news.

             The rip tide of death is not confined to one condition or biography. Among the other aspects of this practice that damage our culture is that it is a siren song. It draws in not just a primary victim, a single physician or nurse or pharmacist, but entire departments, ministries, hospitals, networks – and inexorably society itself. …

What Else Was Tony Fauci Up To?

July 28, 2026, LifeSiteNews report by Doug Mainwaring

             Just hours before Dr. Anthony Fauci [was] to appear before a Senate hearing chaired by Sen. Rand Paul [R-KY], pro-life hero David Daleiden took to social media to highlight the link between the former Covid chief and a horrifying study sponsored by his NIH agency – the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID) – in which aborted baby scalps were grafted onto lab rats.

             “Dr. Fauci copied a cover-up headline into his diary disputing his role in a study that grafted 5-month aborted baby scalps onto lab rats,” noted Daleiden, yet, “three weeks earlier, Fauci swore to Congress his NIAID funded the study ‘with the appropriate oversight and guidelines.’”

             “You can actually see the photographs in the published study of little baby scalps grafted onto the backs of lab rats growing little baby hairs,” Daleiden told then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson in 2021. “Those would have been the little hairs growing on heads of little infants … if they hadn’t been killed by abortion and then stitched onto lab rats for experimentation.”

             “Dr. Anthony Fauci owns every bit of this study and this issue, because as the head of the NIAID office, the buck stops with him in terms of how those grants are spent,” said Daleiden.

             “The fact that they were using scalps from five-month-old aborted babies, that means that the heads of those children probably needed to be intact in order to get the scalps, which is an indication that those are either partial-birth abortion/s or even infants delivered alive and whole,” he explained to his horrified host.

             “Did anyone at Dr. Fauci’s office ever ask the researchers at [the University of Pittsburgh] ‘how are you getting those scalps? How are you getting scalps from the whole heads of fetuses with a partial-birth abortion?” wondered Daleiden.

             In May 2021, Daleiden’s Center for Medical Progress produced a shocking video report showing the University of Pittsburgh to be a major hub for the trafficking of and experimentation on aborted baby organs and body parts. The report linked the funding for the university’s operation to a large grant from US Covid-19 guru Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID office at the National Institutes of Health. …

Taking It Too Far

Major excerpt from July 26, 2026, The Washington Stand commentary by Suzanne Bowdey

             … In a jaw-dropping announcement, the entire Democratic caucus [in DC] – all 47 Senators and 212 Representatives – filed a brief with the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals taking the fringe position that making sure women have medical oversight [when given mifepristone] somehow threatens “patient care.” … This FDA policy to strip away any accountability on this drug – which also lands 11% of women in the hospital (a percentage that argues convincingly for a complete mifepristone ban) – was the brainchild of Joe Biden, who believed the agency’s commonsense conditions for accessing the pills would rob too many moms of the opportunity to destroy their unborn babies.

             Turns out, it also gave predatory men a free pass to abuse women and kill their unwanted sons and daughters. …

             The Democratic Party – in complete defiance of the broad American consensus on this drug – is staking out a position that’s not only fringe but lethal to the women they claim to represent. Regardless of where people fall on abortion’s legality – or even mifepristone’s – the overwhelming majority of the country thinks women should have to get a doctor’s approval for the drugs. Regardless of who’s commissioning the polling, the results are the same: At least 70% believe the Trump Administration should reinstate the in-person requirement for prescribing the drug. More than two-thirds (68%) agree that patient safety – not abortion pill access – should be the most important factor in this debate. Eighty-six percent also think women should be warned about the consequences first.

             Democrats don’t seem to care that moms’ lives hang in the balance, calling the idea an “onerous nationwide restriction.” “Reinstating an in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone exacerbates an already significant reproductive health crisis by limiting access to the most common method of early abortion,” they claim. Yet the only health crisis most Americans care about is the one deceiving women into thinking the pill is safe.

             Just when we think we’ve seen it all, Democrats go and carve out another position so radical, indefensible and controversial that even their base is left scratching their heads. As Family Research Council’s Joy Stockbauer emphasized, “Accessing abortion drugs without in-person medical oversight doesn’t improve a woman’s life in any way. An in-person requirement for abortion drugs prevents life-threatening situations like undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies or women taking the drugs later in pregnancy than the FDA has approved. An in-person requirement prevents abusers and traffickers from obtaining these drugs and forcing them on pregnant women without their knowledge of consent,” she added. “It’s not patriarchal or paternalistic for our laws to require that women experience medically necessary interventions before pursuing an abortion.” …

             “We’ve … actually come to a point where progressive ideologies are harming women instead of upholding us. Democrats are so focused on looking like they empower women that they’ve stopped paying attention to how their policies actually affect us. … And to be clear, the GOP isn’t off the hook either. The Trump Administration has yet to reverse Biden-era policies on abortion drugs.

             “An in-person requirement for abortion drugs should be a bipartisan slam dunk. It’s common sense. It’s such a bare minimum protection that even the Obama Administration kept it in place. The fact that not a single elected Democrat can see that any more should scare us all, no matter where we stand politically,” she concluded.

Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: We would be amused, if people were not dying in consequence, to see abortion advocates, who have long demanded that the law avoid “interfering between a woman and her doctor,” now insisting that doctors be cut out of the process altogether.

Mr. Hyde Offers a Warning

We are nearing the close of our 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.

             … Mr. Speaker, we risk our souls – we risk our humanity –when we trifle with that innocence* or demean it or brutalize it. We need more caring and less killing.

*Referring to his previous paragraph, in which he referred to “the innocence of a child.”