Life Advocacy Briefing

Question of the Week

AS AGGRIEVED AS AMERICA IS at the taking of the life of a young man with a promising future, should we not be aggrieved as well (as he was) at the taking of a million such lives – before birth but while they are alive – of young boys and girls every year in the United States of America?

Confirmations

WITH LAST WEEK’s CHANGE in Senate rules concerning confirmations of appointees, we are not certain we will be able to publish roll calls specific to future confirmations of judges whose records indicate a commitment – or lack thereof – to the cause of Life. We hope our tradition has been helpful to readers in assessing the policy orientation of home-state US Senators – and that the Senate will some day take up substantive legislation to advance protection for the cause of Life, drawing the battle lines clearly and, especially, seeking to affirm our nation’s founding doctrine.

What a Tangled Web

TAKING ‘THE ABORTION ISSUE’ OFF THE SHOULDERS OF CONGRESS, as President Trump has appeared to do since the Dobbs decision, is building a movement among abortion-embracing states to press forward an across-state-lines network to buttress their abortion industry.

Though pro-life states are somewhat hampered in protecting their residents from out-of-state abortionists, the Trump Administration could help by enforcing a 19^th-century federal law criminalizing the shipment of abortion drugs through the mail – a tactic which is increasingly burdening pro-life states in their efforts to enforce their own laws. But President Trump has said he will not enforce that law, nearsightedly clinging to a “states’ rights” policy on abortion.

Congress could help by at least outlawing the interstate transportation of minors across state lines without their parents’ knowledge – a proposal which has been languishing in Congress for years and is now more urgent than ever, as cross-border abortions increase with the shutting down of the abortion industry in pro-life states since the 2022 invalidation of Roe v. Wade. But the legislation continues to sit unattended in both House and Senate.

Meanwhile, states whose politicians embrace abortion are stepping up their efforts to foster the killing industry. In New York, the state’s Attorney General, Letitia James (D), is now “intervening,” reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “in Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempt to prosecute an abortionist for mailing abortion pills from one state [New York] to the other [Texas] to undermine Texas’s pro-life laws.”

In December, 2024, Atty. Gen. Paxton sued Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, who is founder of the “Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine,” notes Mr. Freiburger, for having “‘unlawfully provided a Collin County [TX] resident with abortion-inducing drugs that ended the life of an unborn child and resulted in serious complications for the mother, who then required medical intervention.’” Dr. Carpenter is not licensed to practice medicine in Texas, yet was the source for the dangerous drug.

“In February 2025, Judge Bryan Gantt of North Texas ordered Carpenter,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “to stop sending abortion pills into the state and to pay a $100,000 fine.” The reporter notes the same New York doctor has also been charged for the same crime in Louisiana, which also has outlawed abortion.

“New York officials,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “have protected the abortionist from consequences via the state’s shield law, which bars cooperation with other states concerning laws against abortion.”  Mr. Paxton is persisting.

But New York is not alone. California’s legislature has sent to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) a bill, notes LifeSiteNews writer Matt Lamb, “to protect rogue abortionists who illegally send abortion drugs into states with protections for preborn babies.” The governor “has until mid-October to sign the legislation.” Does anyone doubt he will?

“Assembly Bill 260, passed on a party-line vote last week,” Mr. Lamb wrote on Sept. 16, “‘would authorize a pharmacist to dispense mifepristone or other drug used for [chemical] abortion without the name of the patient, the name of the prescriber or the name and address of the pharmacy, subject to specified requirements,’ according to a legislative summary.” Think about the enormous consequences of such an unprecedented law in the field of pharmacology.

And now Mr. Lamb informs us that “Democrats and Planned Parenthood officials … in Oregon … are creating a ‘working group’ to ensure total access to the killing of preborn babies in the womb as well as unscientific so-called ‘gender-affirming care.’ The group,” he writes, “will also work to protect abortionists in the state that facilitate illegal abortions in states with protections for preborn babies.”

Why Is Washington State Hiding the Consequences?

SEVERAL OF THE MORE ABORTION-DRIVEN STATES have stopped reporting abortion statistics to the Centers for Disease Control, whose collection of such data aids policymakers in a variety of ways. The abortion death toll – steeper in statistics than any of the more commonly acknowledged “leading causes of death” among born people – has undermined public support of abortion wherever cited, after all.

Now, that shuttering of significant statistics is being extended to the hiding of euthanasia statistics by the State of Washington, beginning with the now blocked report of the abetted suicide death toll for 2024.

The state Dept. of “Health” posted a notice on its website in late July, reports Emily Mangiaracina for LifeSiteNews, “stating that ‘due to funding cuts,’ it has halted its so-called ‘Death with Dignity Program,’ meaning that while eligible patients may still commit assisted suicide, reports documenting the practice will no longer be released.”

The LifeSiteNews reporter quotes Rebecca Vachon, director for Health at Cardus, a Christian think-tank based in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: “‘When the state plays a role in the premature death of its own citizens, transparency isn’t optional – it’s essential. But without full, accessible data on assisted suicide, the public can’t know whether cases are rising or falling, or if vulnerable groups are disproportionately affected. … So, this isn’t just a data issue,’” she said, quoted by Ms. Mangiaracina. “‘It’s a question of life and death. If anything needs to be cut, it’s assisted suicide itself – not the public’s right to know.’”

Which Way, America?

Sept. 16, 2025, excerpted message from Tony Perkins, president, Family Research Council

             Throughout American history, there have been moments that shook the nation. We have reached another one of those moments. Lawlessness, violence and bloodshed have become so frequent in American life that very little shocks our collective conscience – from school shootings to random, unprovoked acts of murder on public transportation. Now there are even some who openly celebrate the murder of their ideological opponents.

             Scripture is clear: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

             After the horrific events of last week, believers are confronted with two questions: how did we get here and what is the way forward?

             The answer to the first question is clear: when any nation abandons its reliance on the truth of God’s Word, and the Lordship of Jesus Christ – the light of the world – the only alternative is to live in the darkness. In recent days, we have been given several glimpses of what America will become if we do not return to our Christian foundation. … While believers in America have been largely spared from the persecution faced by Christians around the world, it is now here, and we must be prepared to stand courageously in the face of growing threats. …

             So, where do we go from here? The answer depends on how believers will respond in this moment. It is time for the church in America to awaken and lead the way back to truth and righteousness. … Together, as the body of Christ, we are strengthened to speak truth with kindness, to love our neighbors and even our enemies with courage (Matt. 5:44) and to remain steadfast in the hope that cannot be shaken. Let us press on with confidence, knowing that “… He Who is in you is greater that he who is in the world.” (I John 4:4)

Sliding Toward Acceptance of the Unthinkable

Sept. 11, 2025, BreakPoint commentary by John Stonestreet & Timothy D. Padgett

             In a recent article in National Review, Wesley J. Smith described a new study of over one million women in Quebec from 2006 to 2022. The study found that, “Compared with live births and stillbirths, patients with induced abortions had a greater risk of admission for psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders and suicide attempts over time.” 

             Also: “Abortion was associated with the long-term risk of hospitalization for psychiatric disorders, substance use disorders and suicide attempts in models adjusted for age, comorbidity, preexisting mental illness, material deprivation, rural residence and time period. Abortion was more strongly associated with eating disorders, hallucinogen use disorders and cocaine use disorders.”

             This isn’t the first study to find that abortion, in addition to killing an innocent preborn child, is harmful for women. Back in April, the pro-life group Live Action reported on another study which indicated that 11% of women who undergo chemical abortion suffer “serious adverse events,” a number far higher than reported by the FDA: “This means one in ten women experience at least one serious complication from taking mifepristone within 45 days – 22 times higher than the ‘less than 0.5 percent’ serious adverse events rate reported by the FDA on the mifepristone label, according to this study. The study authors state that serious adverse events in multiple categories were accounted for in the reported rate.”

             If abortion is truly about women’s health, as advocates claim, they should immediately demand more regulations and limits on the practice. That they do not, but rather double down on demanding abortion as a “right” demonstrates that abortion sits at the center of their worldview. After all, if it were discovered that a common prescription drug, medical procedure or food had this same likelihood of negative side effects, there would be an immediate call to act and to ban the offending substance. There would not be nationwide rallies claiming whatever it was, was a human right. Yet, in this way and many others, abortion goes unquestioned, treated as if it is the fundamental right of a free people. 

             In a recently posted video, Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, shared an encounter with a Michigan State student who approached her and declared, “I love abortion.” When asked what she liked about abortion, the young woman replied, “I like that people don’t die through birth, and also, babies aren’t being born to people who don’t want babies.” Unwanted babies, she continued, burden the foster care system. When asked if that meant it would be good to kill kids presently in foster care to alleviate the burden on the system, the woman was shocked anyone would suggest killing children. 

             Like so many, she refused to connect obvious dots and instead regurgitated talking points. Her response illustrates how challenging it has become to change hearts and minds about abortion, even when the facts are so clearly on the pro-life side. In fact, even as the facts of the matter become more obviously pro-life, commitment to abortion has grown. According to the General Social Survey, agreement with the statement “women should be able to get an abortion for any reason if she wants one” increased from 42% in 2012 to 57% in 2022. 

             This is how deeply held beliefs work, especially those held at a foundational worldview level. When absolute autonomy, especially sexual autonomy, is the fundamental source of human value, abortion must become an absolute. Christians who want to move the needle on abortion must understand how worldview works. It’s the only way to make sense of those who refuse the facts about abortion and those who don’t like abortion but refuse to vote to restrict it. The most dominant idea over American culture right now is that nothing should prevent people from living as they please, not even the consequences of reality.  

             Unless we engage, counter and unseat this first principle of this culture’s dominant worldview, it will not matter how many studies we present or how clever our rhetoric. Yes, we should pass as many laws as possible restricting this horror, but we must also pray for God to intervene, love and serve those who are most vulnerable, and seek to persuade as many as we can.

Fallout from Ignoring IVF’s Unethical Roots

Sept. 18, 2025, BreakPoint commentary by John Stonestreet & Timothy D. Padgett

             On a recent visit to the Interesting Times podcast, Noor Siddiqui, head of the IVF screening company Orchid, told Ross Douthat that baby-making needs to change. Not only will the genetic screening of embryos be available, she predicted; it will be the new normal of procreation. 

             “The vast majority of parents in the future are not going to want to roll the dice with their child’s health. They’re going to see it as taking the maximum amount of care, the maximum amount of love. In the same way that they plan their nursery, plan their home, plan their preschool. … I think it then becomes about stewardship. It becomes about how do I make a responsible choice for my family.”

             Siddiqui is probably correct. When children are seen as accessories to adult life, eugenics makes the most sense. Why wouldn’t we take every step possible to optimize the health of the child we take home, even if that involves the creation and discarding of other tiny humans in the process? And why wouldn’t we use the best available technology to do so? 

             IVF is pitched as a therapeutic technology, enabling those unable to have kids to become parents. Increasingly, it is also sold by appealing to certain lifestyle choices. Those who wish to postpone pregnancy or hand off the task to willing incubators can still have the children they want. 

             To be clear, the IVF process has always separated procreation from sex, and it has always involved the screening and selection of embryos. Siddiqui is simply promising more of the same. “Sex is for pleasure,” she has said on several occasions; “IVF is for having children.” There is a market, she believes, in more thorough testing and better screening. She’s probably right.  

             Many people have noted that the 1997 movie Gattaca has proven to be eerily prophetic. The main difference is that that society was obsessed with genetic perfection. Ours is intrigued by the concept but more as a way of maintaining the lifestyle we want.  

             Still, if Orchid’s services are ever perfected and normalized, parents who choose to have babies the old-fashioned way will be accused of being “reckless” and “irresponsible.” Those who don’t genetically screen out “imperfect” children will be labelled abusive and heartless. One can imagine a world in which insurance companies cover the costs of certain pregnancies but not others.  

             As Dr. Kristin Collier put it after a visit to Orchid’s website, “This is not ‘healthcare.’” Rather, it is a way of normalizing the next descent on an already very slippery slope. Recently, Lila Rose of LiveAction shared a video of a man chronicling his journey to parenthood with his male partner. “Quick recap,” he started. “We’re having two babies. We bought 40 frozen eggs from our egg donor.” The man then proceeded to yank Post-it notes off a cardboard, each representing one of those eggs with genetic “problems,” until he got down to the two keepers.

             Orchid will make it possible to do the same thing, only with tiny humans and with the swipe on a screen. 

             In The Wall Street Journal, Zusha Ellinson described “Silicon Valley’s Obsession With Having Smarter Babies.” The fascination with what some call “genetic optimization” reflects deeper Silicon Valley beliefs about merit and success. “I think they have a perception that they are smart and they are accomplished, and they deserve to be where they are because they have ‘good genes,”’ said Sasha Gusev, a statistical geneticist at Harvard Medical School. “Now they have a tool where they think that they can do the same thing in their kids as well, right?”

             In a recent post on X, Princeton professor Robert P. George described perfectly what’s at stake as modern technology makes this more possible: “Eugenics is now a permanent temptation. Every new generation will face it. Resisting it will be as difficult as it is important. It is critical that we understand children as persons, not products. We must not make them objects of manufacture, subject to ‘quality controls.’” 

             Indeed, but the ethical genie has been let out of the bottle for some time now. We must oppose eugenics in all forms, and we must train our children about God’s design and the God-given intrinsic good of children. 

             Stanley Hauerwas famously said, “In 100 years, if Christians are people identified as those who do not kill their children or their elderly, we will have been doing something right.” If so, that will likely mean that we are also known for the way we make babies.

Wisdom from the Great Communicator

EXCERPT #20 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

             Another William Brennan – not the Justice – has reminded us of the terrible consequences that can follow when a nation rejects the sanctity of life ethic: “The cultural environment for a human holocaust is present whenever any society can be misled into defining individuals as less than human and therefore devoid of value and respect.”