Life Advocacy Briefing

Question of the Week

CAN YOU HELP? It is not our habit – at all! – to ask our readers for help, but we have been hit by another postal rate increase which increases our unavoidable costs. If receiving Life Advocacy Briefing is a help to you, please help us. Gifts may be sent, by check, to Life Advocacy, c/o Time Bank, PO Box 829, Park Ridge, IL 60068; or by credit card via our website at lifeadvocacy.com. Thank you!

Planned Parenthood Funding Ban Held Up – Temporarily?

DO YOU RECALL READING THAT PLANNED PARENTHOOD WAS BLOCKED from further federal Medicaid funding for the next year under the recently passed massive budget reconciliation bill enacted by Congress just before the July 4 recess?

No sooner was the President’s ink dry on the measure than Planned Parenthood secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the cut from an Obama-appointed federal district judge named Indira Talwani. By so doing, Planned Parenthood admits that it commits abortions for reasons other than conception by sex crime or, as LifeSiteNews writer Calvin Freiburger puts it, “supposed threats to the mother’s life.”

It was language that barred Medicaid funding to such abortion purveyors that was enjoined; Planned Parenthood was an obvious plaintiff, because it certainly qualifies for disqualification under the Congressionally approved language. Indeed, Planned Parenthood, notes Mr. Freiburger, is the “only organization that qualified under the bill’s language [of disqualification],” and the plaintiff said “losing that money would cause ‘devastating’ layoffs and location closures.” Aww.

The judge not only barred enforcement of the disqualification clause but also ordered the government, reports Mr. Freiburger, to “‘tak[e] all steps necessary to ensure that Medicaid funding continues to be disbursed in the customary manner and time frames to Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its members; Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Assn. of Utah,’” who were apparently the plaintiffs on the quickly filed lawsuit. “Her order,” Mr. Freiburger writes, “will remain in effect for two weeks unless reversed or extended by another court.

“Many expressed outrage,” he notes, “at both the practical implications of the ruling and the lack of legal basis to judicially block a duly-enacted law determining how federal tax dollars are spent, with even some pro-abortion and anti-Trump voices critical of Talwani. Others expressed optimism that the order will be reversed in relatively short order.”

Among those who criticized the order, which, notes Mr. Freiburger, was “issued within mere hours of Planned Parenthood filing its 53-page complaint,” was a constitutional law professor from the South Texas College of Law Houston, Josh Blackman, who, reports LifeSiteNews, asked, “‘Was this even enough time to read the entire brief? To consider it? To give it some thought? Or was this just a reflexive TRO that was granted because the defendant is the Trump Administration?

“‘You can tell the judge in the Planned Parenthood case rushed,’ [Prof.] Blackman adds” in the Freiburger report. “‘The order didn’t even address any of the usual factors. There was zero analysis whatsoever. I don’t see how this is a valid TRO.’”

No More Excuses

SIX MEDICAL GROUPS HAVE SENT A DETAILED APPEAL to US Health & Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and Food & Drug Administrator Dr. Marty Makary urging that they reconsider the politically driven approval – as Pres. Clinton was leaving office – of the abortion drug mifepristone (RU-486) for marketing in the US and to examine the consequences of subsequent reductions in safeguards incorporated in the initial marketing clearance.

The letter was signed by principal officers of the American Assn. of Pro-Life Ob/Gyns, the Christian Medical & Dental Assns., the American College of Family Medicine, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the American College of Pediatricians as well as the treasurer of the Coptic Medical Assn. of North America. Signers claim their organizations “represent approximately 30,000 medical professionals that are passionate about providing excellent, evidence-based health care to all our patients.

“In any medical decision a woman makes,” they note in introducing their letter, “we want her to have fully informed consent, and safety guidelines rooted in reliable data are integral to such consent.” The detailed letter warns that such guidelines are lacking in the current RU marketing scheme.

The letter notes two recently released reports of insurance claims data on mifepristone, warning, “Their conclusions should serve as an urgent safety signal.” The reports “covering 330 million US patients … from 2017-2023 … detail an extensive analysis of data identifying more than 860,000 prescriptions of mifepristone for induced abortions. … According to the data,” the letter warns, “10.93% of women experienced sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, surgical intervention or another serious adverse event (including undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy) within 45 days following mifepristone use in an abortion. … The data strongly suggest,” the letter warns, “that mifepristone poses a far greater risk of harm than previously stated. In fact,” they add, “the risk of serious complications may be 22 times higher than previously disclosed. … According to this data,” these medical professionals note, “as causing many as one out of every nine women who use this drug suffered serious adverse events.”

We have a question: What will it take for our policy makers – in the “health” bureaucracy and in elected office – to end the unnecessary healthcare crisis represented by free-range marketing of RU-486? And another question, which should be asked concerning every public policy issue: Who benefits?

Plus, we have two suggestions: The FDA should immediately suspend marketing approval of mifepristone while undertaking full consideration of withdrawing the agency’s politically motivated 25-year experiment. And, the President should immediately direct his Dept. of Justice to enforce the Comstock Act which explicitly bars the use of the US mail to deliver abortifacient substances.

Since mifepristone is intended to end the lives of developing human beings in every case and since it is now known to represent also a threat to the lives and health of those who ingest it, what can justify its continued marketing approval by the FDA?

With the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, there is no longer an excuse for the federal government to abet the abortion cartel.

Get It Right, Please

THE RECENT REJECTION BY THE SUPREME COURT of an appeal from the State of Montana seeking to enforce its state-court-enjoined parental consent law pertaining to abortion should not be taken as an indication of Court sentiment on the law itself, according to a statement issued by Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, “leav[ing] a path open,” writes Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, interpreting the Justices’ statement, “for Montana to try again in a future appeal.” 

“The Supreme Court’s July 3 order list confirmed the Court’s rejection of the appeal,” reports Mr. Freiburger, “without official explanation. However, [Justices Thomas and Alito] took it upon themselves to sign their own statement,” he writes, “pointing out that Montana ‘cited a decision of this Court on the rights of parents as support for its argument based on state law, but it did not expressly argue that a holding against it on the state constitutional question would infringe the federal constitutional rights of parents. …

“‘Because of the way this case was litigated below,’” write the two Justices, quoted by Mr. Freiburger, “‘it provides a poor vehicle for deciding’ the fundamental question of parental rights, they said. ‘It is therefore especially important that the denial of review is not read by interested parties or other courts as a rejection of the argument that the petition asks us to decide.’”

Incidentally, it encourages us to read that at least two Justices of the Supreme Court believe parents have “federal constitutional rights.” How refreshing.

Model Approach

INDIANA’s BUREAUCRACY WILL BE ‘TIGHTEN[ING] COMPLIANCE with the state’s pro-life statutes,” reports Robert Jones for LifeSiteNews, “following concerns that existing systems fell short,” having “completed a sweeping review of its enforcement” of those laws.

The state’s health department, explains Mr. Jones, “has completed a sweeping review of its enforcement of state abortion laws, launching new transparency and oversight measures in response to” an executive order issued by Gov. Mike Braun (R) in fulfillment of a campaign pledge.

“‘Indiana is a state that supports life,’” now-Gov. Braun said, quoted by Mr. Jones, “‘and the people’s representatives have enshrined those protections for the unborn into state law.’ …

“Key changes include executive-level oversight of all abortion-related matters,” notes Mr. Jones, “expanded enforcement authority and closer coordination with the attorney general’s office and other state agencies. Notably Indiana Dept. of Health [IDOH] will now pursue financial penalties against hospitals and surgical centers that fail to submit required abortion reports.”  Failure to submit required reports is a criminal offense in Indiana law, but “two major hospital systems – IU Health and Eskenazi,” reports Mr. Jones, “have refused to submit recent Terminated Pregnancy Reports, citing a now-vacated federal privacy rule from the Biden Administration.”

Legal challenges to the reporting requirement are continuing, notes Mr. Jones, but “IDOH has reaffirmed its commitment to transparency. It is now publishing aggregate quarterly and annual abortion data and is seeking ways to ensure providers understand and follow the law. …

“With new internal procedures, interagency coordination and enforcement tools in place, Indiana appears poised,” writes Mr. Jones, “to become a model for post-Dobbs state-level pro-life governance … .”

Bravo!

NEVADA GOV. JOE LOMBARDO (R) HAS VETOED a bill, reports Dan Hart for The Washington Stand, “that would have created a statutory right to in vitro fertilization treatments, forcing public and private insurance providers to cover the highly controversial procedure.”

In so doing, Gov. Lombardo “became the first governor in the country to veto a measure meant to enshrine IVF in state law. Currently,” notes Mr. Hart, “13 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Utah) plus the District of Columbia require health insurance providers to cover IVF treatments.”

Blocking Reform

A WYOMING JUDGE HAS ENJOINED A LAW regulating off-label use of abortion drugs, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “calling it ‘interference with access to healthcare services.’”

[Life Advocacy Briefing consulted “Google” for the healthcare benefits of arsenic, known universally as a poisonous substance, and here is what we found: “Arsenic, despite its well-known toxicity, has a long history of use in medicine and continues to be explored for its therapeutic potential today.” So, what would this so-called judge have done about a murderer’s use of arsenic? Cited its “therapeutic potential” and termed its use “healthcare services?”]

The Wyoming legislature enacted in March a law, reports Mr. Freiburger, which “guarantees physicians’ ability to prescribe federally recognized medications for purposes beyond their officially designated purpose (a longstanding medical practice) but specifically excludes from that protection controlled substances, sex-change drugs for minors or drugs ‘intended to induce an abortion.’”

But Laramie County District Judge Thomas T.C. Campbell, reports Mr. Freiburger, citing Wyoming Public Media as source, “issued an injunction against the law on June 30. ‘Interference with access to healthcare services equates to irreparable harm,’ [the judge] wrote. ‘As the plaintiffs’ evidence demonstrates, the consequences of delayed or denied care are often immediate, non-monetary and, in many cases, life-altering.’” Certainly the administration of mifepristone is life-altering to the victim.

The abortion lobby, after all, shops for favorable judges and targets jurisdictions where they are likely to land a friendly judge. Judge Campbell has a record which renders him entirely predictable. Mr. “Campbell himself has also previously blocked a law requiring ultrasounds before using abortion pills,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “and one imposing additional regulations on abortion facilities.”

Tough Times for Planned Parenthood

July 10, 2025, blog commentary by Jonathon VanMaren in LifeSiteNews

             It has been a miserable year for Planned Parenthood. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Carolina that the state can, in fact, bar the organization from receiving any payments through Medicaid. It was, the media noted grimly, “a major step toward the long-time conservative goal of ‘defunding’ the nation’s largest family planning provider.”

             Of course, that characterization sidesteps the reason that Planned Parenthood is so reviled: the fact that they are America’s largest abortion provider. Planned Parenthood has perpetrated millions of abortions; their 2022-2023 Annual Report notes that they committed 402,230 abortions that year alone. The number of people the abortion giant has killed over the past decades could easily populate a large city.

             Now, after years of fruitless political effort, the Trump Administration has managed to deny Planned Parenthood millions of taxpayer dollars as a part of a provision in the “Big, Beautiful Bill” passed earlier this month – albeit only for one year. The bill included a provision that blocks Medicaid reimbursements to any healthcare non-profit that provides abortion for one year, targeting those providers that received over $800,000 [in] Medicaid funds in 2023.

             Planned Parenthood claims that this could result in the closure of nearly 200 of their roughly 600 centers nationwide. The legislation, incidentally, does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, but the abortion giant immediately pinpointed the provision as a backdoor attempt to strangle them financially. Activists on both sides of the abortion debate similarly see the provision as targeting Planned Parenthood.

             Predictably, a federal judge has already intervened on their behalf. Planned Parenthood sued, ludicrously claiming that the provision was unconstitutional; a Massachusetts judge issued a temporary restraining order on July 7, blocking enforcement of the provision for 14 days to allow further hearings to take place. Planned Parenthood, of course, is insisting that impoverished Americans rely on their centers. Plenty of judges are sympathetic to their case. As of right now, Planned Parenthood is still receiving Medicaid money.

             Planned Parenthood has been calling in favors and rallying support. The press has been eager to intervene on its behalf; one truly mind-bending headline in the Boston Globe summarized the tenor of the coverage: “‘They’re Playing Politics with People’s Lives’: Trump’s Big Bill Would Slash Planned Parenthood Mass. Budget in Half.”

             Playing with people’s lives? Indeed. Planned Parenthood might claim not to know when life begins, but they certainly know how it ends: at the end of a suction aspirator or set of forceps in one of their “health” centers.

             If the provision holds – and with the Supreme Court’s earlier decision, it seems likely that it ultimately will – Planned Parenthood may indeed be forced to close dozens, if not hundreds, of its centers. This would obviously be a significant pro-life victory, although not as significant as it would have been when the campaign to defund Planned Parenthood first began back in 2007, when then-Congressman Mike Pence introduced the first federal legislation to cut its funding.

             Now, the majority of abortions are perpetrated with pills, and surgical abortions are on the wane. This means that Planned Parenthood has actually been improving their bottom line – selling abortion pills without the financial overhead necessary to commit abortions via suction aspirator or forceps.

             Defunding Planned Parenthood is a necessary step, but it is no longer the death blow to the abortion industry it once might have been. Post-Roe America is now supplied with abortion via a network of pill dispensers, and brick-and-mortar clinics are no longer as important as they once were.

             Regardless, it has been a miserable year for Planned Parenthood – and that is very good news for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society.

Wisdom from the Great Communicator

EXCERPT #11 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

             The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law – the same right we have.

Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: As so often is the case in these paragraphs of wisdom, Pres. Reagan hits on a point here that is profound and timeless. Read that last sentence again. And put that question to those who are seeking your vote or who hold posts which have an impact on public policy. Is it not fundamental to the foundations of America that all human lives have the God-given right to be protected by the law? And are not our public officials responsible to safeguard those unalienable rights in every element of public policy?