Life Advocacy Briefing

Question of the Week

IF THE POSSIBILITY – even likelihood – that taking a particular pain medication during pregnancy could be causing America’s autism epidemic is enough for the President to urge expectant mothers not to take it, is not the actual killing of developing babies enough for the President to order withdrawal of mifepristone marketing approval by the FDA?

Nazi Science Rising Again?

THE BBC HAS REPORTED, according to Salem Radio, that US scientists “for the first time” have “made” human embryos “by manipulating DNA taken from people’s skin cells and then fertilizing it with sperm. … Experts said it was an impressive breakthrough,” notes Salem, “but there needed to be an open discussion with the public about what science was making possible.”

Correction: There needs to be Congressional action to probe whether federal funding is involved in such experimentation and to shut it down in any way possible.

Oops!

WE WERE MISTAKEN concerning the Senate blanket-confirmation rule change, which we thought would eliminate our reporting of judicial confirmation voting records. In fact, we learned this week, that rule appears to apply only to executive appointments, not to the naming of federal judges.

Last Wednesday, the Senate voted to close debate on the nomination of Jennifer Mascott to the 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals. The appointee was sharply questioned in her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, including, reports Benjamin Weiss of the Courthouse News Service, “on her past comments on major legal issues such as abortion rights and Presidential immunity.

“The nominee also faced questions,” writes Mr. Weiss, “on charitable comments she made about the high court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. Responding to Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D], [Ms.] Mascott said that she had ‘spoken highly’ of the Dobbs ruling and that her scholarly and academic work on abortion has been ‘consistent’ with the court’s conclusions.”

We are pleased to publish the Senate voting record on the Mascott nomination cloture motion at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing and expect soon to publish the record on her actual confirmation to the 3^rd Circuit, to be assigned cases arising from the state of Delaware.

A Winner?

VOTERS IN THE NASHVILLE AREA district of former Rep. Mark Green (R-TN) will go to the polls Dec. 2 for a special election to fill the vacancy in their Congressional seat. The special primary last week has now established the coming ballot: Republican Matt Van Epps won the nomination to oppose State Rep. Aftyn Behn (D), a social worker and community organizer, according to the Associated Press (AP).

“One of her focuses,” notes AP, “has been on women’s reproductive health rights, including as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against a Tennessee law banning adults from helping minors get an abortion without parental permission.”

Mr. VanEpps, on the other hand, features as the first item on the “issues” page of his campaign website: “Matt believes every life is a gift from God and must be protected. As a father and a man of faith, he is committed to standing up for the unborn and fighting back against the far left’s radical abortion agenda. In Congress, Matt will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Trump to defend the sanctity of life, promote a culture that values children and families, and ensure taxpayer dollars are never used to fund abortion. Every child deserves a chance at life, and Matt will never back down from that fight.”

Missouri the Heart of the Debate Right Now

NEWS OUT OF MISSOURI CENTERS ON ABORTION POLICY these days, with continuing response to the approval last year of a state constitutional amendment legalizing the killing of unborn babies. That approval, by the way, was by a squeaker – 51.6% of those voting on the proposition.

A fresh approach to amending the state constitution has been passed by the state legislature, posting another referendum to the 2026 ballot. And the Missouri Secretary of State, Denny Hoskins (R) has been in and out of court seeking approval for the ballot language.

Last Tuesday, Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green ruled, reports Sarah Kellogg for St. Louis Public Radio, that the Hoskins “second attempt at proposed language … is good enough to appear on the ballot.” Judge Green certified both the Secretary of State’s summary statement and the ballot language itself.

“The entire approved ballot language reads,” reports Ms. Kellogg: “‘Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Guarantee women’s medical care for emergencies, ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages; Ensure women’s safety during abortions; Ensure parental consent for minors; Repeal Article I, Section 36, approved in 2024; allow abortions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, rape and incest; and Prohibit sex-change procedures for children?’”

While that pro-life advance was occurring in Judge Green’s courtroom, a lawsuit in Jackson County was tossed out by Circuit Judge Sarah Castle on the grounds that the plaintiff “did not have standing to sue,” reports Anna Spoerre for the Missouri Independent. That lawsuit challenged a Missouri statute requiring, notes Ms. Spoerre, “that minors get parental consent before an abortion” and also bars “anyone aiding or assisting minors who are seeking an abortion.”

Judge Castle “didn’t draw any conclusions in her Tuesday decision,” writes Ms. Spoerre, “about whether the reproductive rights amendment approved by voters last year renders either law [pertaining to parental consent] unconstitutional.”

The report goes on to quote Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway: “‘Today’s victory ensures that Missouri’s parental consent laws will continue to safeguard young girls, hold abortion providers accountable and uphold the values of Missouri families for generations to come.’”

But wait – there’s more! Reporter Anna Spoerre also reported last week that the state’s attorney general, Catherine Hanaway, “is subpoenaing patient medical records, incident reports, ‘adverse event documentation’ and more from Planned Parenthood. The organization called the request ‘nothing more than an attempt to harass’ them and is fighting back in court.”

Planned Parenthood has been suing the state to implement the 2024 state constitutional amendment by lifting every protection for innocent unborn children and their mothers. The state has continued to resist, as shown by the actions of the attorney general.

Watch Out!

THE NEW JERSEY LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED A ‘TRAVEL WARNING’ “to alert residents,” writes Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “about the difficulty they may have getting abortions when traveling to other states.” The bill awaits the signature of Gov. Phil Murphy (D).

“States would be categorized,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “as blue for no restrictions, yellow for ‘increased caution’ due to ‘restricted access to [so-called] reproductive medical care that could result in civil or criminal prosecution,’ and red with a warning to ‘reconsider travel’ due to ‘extremely restricted access’ resulting in not only prosecution but also the supposed danger of ‘adverse medical outcome’ (a common false charge against pro-life states).”

First of all, “restricted access to [so-called] reproductive medical care” does not “result” – in any state – in civil or criminal prosecution” of the mother who aborts, so no “travel warning” is warranted. Second, “the supposed danger of ‘adverse medical outcome’” is a risk to the child in every abortion; any risk to the mother undergoing abortion can be averted by not taking her baby to the death chamber to begin with.

But the advocates of baby killing are always looking for ways to curry favor with their well-funded political backers, so when abortion is already legal and unfettered, they seem to need to come up with useless schemes. We doubt the “yellow” and “red” states will suffer or even care if New Jersey goes forward with this look-what-we-did waste of legislator time. It might, though, aid fed-up New Jerseyans as a guide as to which states would be unacceptable for their future residences.

Ominous Development

Oct. 7, 2025, LifeSiteNews report by Matt Lamb

             Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) expressed his “grave concern” and demanded answers from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) on its decision to approve a generic abortion drug despite significant safety concerns. Last week, the FDA, led by Commissioner Marty Makary, gave its “surprise approval,” according to Hawley, of “a new generic abortion drug.” The approval came despite a recent announcement that the FDA planned to study the safety of the abortion pill.

             Hawley had previously expressed skepticism of Makary’s nomination but had voted to confirm him partially due to his promise to investigate the safety of abortion drugs. Although the drugs can never truly be safe because they aim to kill an innocent preborn baby, they can also be incredibly damaging for women, as Hawley pointed out in his Oct. 3 letter. “As you know, recent data shows that nearly 11% of women who use the chemical abortion drug mifepristone experience a serious adverse health event – like sepsis or hemorrhaging – within 45 days,” Hawley stated. “That is an adverse-event rate at least 22 times greater than currently disclosed on the FDA-approved drug label.” He noted Makary had promised a “thorough safety review of mifepristone and existing regulations,” yet the latest decision undermines that promise.

             He wrote: “The timing of your agency’s approval raises further questions. FDA is supposed to be conducting a review of the safety regulations around mifepristone. But because this new generic has been approved before any changes to those safety protocols, this drug may be exempted from any new safety standards imposed on mifepristone in the future. That would render your safety review toothless and irrelevant.”

             Sen. Hawley asked Makary what his involvement was in the decision to approve, whether the review included an evaluation of “adverse events,” and if the drug would be allowed to stay on the market regardless of the current inquiry launched by the FDA. Soon after approval of the drugs, Hawley accused Makary of “betrayal,” according to the Washington Examiner.

             The Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) defended the decision to approve another dangerous drug to kill innocent preborn babies by saying it is required to approve drugs if they are similar to other pills. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. responded to the criticism last week and said “federal law requires approval when an application proves the generic is identical to the brand-name drug” and insisted that the FDA’s review was still ongoing. “The Biden Administration removed mifepristone’s in-person dispensing rule without studying the safety risk. We are filling that gap” he said. “Recent studies already point to serious risks when mifepristone is used without proper medical oversight.”

             Even the liberal Washington Post challenged this claim from the HHS. “But the FDA has the ability to slow approvals of generic drugs, such as requesting more data from manufacturers. The agency took 10 years to approve the first generic version of mifepristone, made by GenBioPro,” the Washington Post reported. “A similar outcry arose among abortion foes when the first Trump Administration approved that medication in 2019.”

             Evita Solutions is the creator of the [new generic] drug. Its explicit goal is to make it as easy as possible for women to kill their innocent preborn babies. Evita’s stated mission is to “normalize abortion” and make it “accessible to all,” as LifeSiteNews previously reported.  …

Let Us Pray

Oct. 7, 2025, LifeSiteNews blog by Jonathon VanMaren

             During her Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Mother Teresa gave the world a solemn warning. The ideology that underpins abortion, she said, was a bloody ideology that would inevitably seep into the rest of society. “For if a mother can murder her own child in her own womb, what is left for you and for me to kill each other?” she asked.

             She was right. I was repulsed but not shocked when I saw so many progressives, many of them elite academics, rejoicing over the public execution of Charlie Kirk. I have heard too many students on university campuses openly admit that the child in the womb is in fact a child, but that the decapitating, dismembering and disemboweling of that child for the crime of being inconvenient is justified. They do so while faced with a display featuring photos of abortion victims. They know they are defending violence, and they do so anyway.

             If we can kill millions of children, even after the point at which they could survive outside the womb, for ideological reasons, then why not Charlie Kirk? Why not those who are politically and ideologically inconvenient? Why not those who you believe stand between you and the life you wish to live? It is true that children in the womb are helpless and dependent and conveniently voiceless. But when it comes to the semantics of justifying murder, the slope is already slick with blood.

             Consider the example of California woman Dolly Kay Patterson, who was recently sentenced to five years in prison for threatening a judge and his family in 2023 because Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, the abortion pill, should be overturned. She sent him a message on the district court’ website on April 16, 2023: “Tell this anti-abortion judge he needs to watch his back – and that of his kids – the rest of his life!” This story, were the roles reversed, would have been headline news across America for days.

             Consider that the conservative Supreme Court justices – and note well, only the conservative ones – faced threats on their lives over the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Brett Kavanaugh even had an assassin arrive at his home with weapons, prepared to do the deed, but turned back when he saw federal marshals. An elderly pro-life campaigner was shot by an abortion supporter with a rifle during Michigan’s 2023 [sic] abortion referendum. And there is the street-level violence pro-life activists often face merely for defending the right to life of pre-born children.

             Some might read this and think I am being hyperbolic. That is because they haven’t heard the things that I have heard, or that my colleagues have heard, from ordinary people on the streets and on university campuses. Many, many people are willing to consciously justify killing and violence. As one writer noted a few years ago, in the long term you cannot have war in the womb and peace on the streets. Blood seeps underneath clinic doors, and it gets on everything. Very often, killing begets killing.

             Consider, when you see pro-abortion progressives celebrating Kirk’s murder, that they might actually mean what they say. That their glee at the public execution of a young father of two children wasn’t a slip of the tongue but evidence of how far down the slippery slope they have already progressed. That the sexual revolution really was a revolution, and that revolutions are only accomplished with bloodshed.

             The destruction of tens of millions of helpless babies does something profoundly horrifying to the conscience of a nation, and to the consciences of those willing to defend it. I believe we are seeing that now.

Wisdom from the Great Communicator

EXCERPT #24 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 example: two years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a Sunday special supplement on “The Dreaded Complication.” The “dreaded complication” referred to in the article – the complication feared by doctors who perform abortions – is the survival of the child despite all the painful attacks during the abortion procedure. Some unborn children do survive the late-term abortions the Supreme Court has made legal. Is there any question that these victims of abortion deserve our attention and protection? Is there any question that those who don’t survive were living human beings before they were killed?

Senate Voting Record

Cloture on nomination of Jennifer Lee Mascott as 3rd Circuit Judge – Adopted 50-47 – Oct. 8, 2025 (Democrats in italics; “Independents” marked “I”)

Voting “yes” / pro-Life: Britt & Tuberville/AL, Murkowski & Sullivan/AK, Boozman & Cotton/AR, Moody & Scott/FL, Crapo & Risch/ID, Banks & Young/IN, Ernst & Grassley/IA, Marshall & Moran/KS, McConnell & Paul/KY, Cassidy & Kennedy/LA, Collins/ME, Hyde-Smith & Wicker/MS, Hawley & Schmitt/MO, Daines & Sheehy/MT, Fischer & Ricketts/NE, Budd/NC, Cramer & Hoeven/ND, Husted & Moreno/OH, Lankford/OK, McCormick/PA, Graham & Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Blackburn & Hagerty/TN, Cornyn/TX, Curtis & Lee/UT, Capito & Justice/WV, Johnson/WI, Barrasso & Lummis/WY.

Voting “no” / anti-Life: Gallego & Kelly/AZ, Padilla & Schiff/CA, Bennet & Hickenlooper/CO, Blumenthal & Murphy/CT, Blunt–Rochester & Coons/DE, Ossoff & Warnock/GA, Hirono & Schatz/HI, Duckworth & Durbin/IL, King(I)/ME, Alsobrooks & VanHollen/MD, Markey & Warren/MA, Peters & Slotkin/MI, Klobuchar & Smith/MN, Cortez–Masto & Rosen/NV, Hassan & Shaheen/NH, Booker & Kim/NJ, Heinrich & Lujan/NM, Gillibrand & Schumer/NY, Merkley & Wyden/OR, Fetterman/PA, Reed & Whitehouse/RI, Sanders(I) & Welch/VT, Kaine & Warner/VA, Cantwell & Murray/WA, Baldwin/WI.

Not voting: Tillis/NC, Mullin/OK, Cruz/TX.