Life Advocacy Briefing

Question of the Week

WHAT SHOULD WE SAY about a society which entices young people to engage in behavior which can result in the conception of a new life and then lures them into discarding that new life?

Missing a Beat

WE HOPE OUR READERS WILL UNDERSTAND our taking off a week for the observance of Thanksgiving. Here in the United States of America, we have so much to be thankful for, including you, our readers, who keep us persisting in this work.

Why We Care

WE PUBLISH AT THE CLOSE OF THIS LIFE ADVOCACY BRIEFING the Senate roll call on the Continuing Appropriation law passed by the Senate on Nov. 10 as the conclusion of the longest recorded government shutdown. Because there are many provisions in this massive measure which have nothing to do with the right to life, we normally would not credit all those who voted for it with a “pro-Life” vote, nor one of those who voted “no” (Sen. Rand Paul) with an “anti-Life” vote. But we treat this roll call as one with Life implications for one reason: A little-noted sticking point in negotiations to end the shutdown was insistence by the Administration and its negotiators to maintain the Hyde Amendment, barring funding of abortionists, and the counter-insistence of minority party negotiators to include taxpayer funding for abortions. We acknowledge this was not the sole issue, but to us and to the majority of taxpayers and voters, excluding “Hyde” would be a deal-breaker.

‘Hyde’ A Major Factor in Shutdown Crisis

A LITTLE-MENTIONED FACTOR in the recently overcome government shutdown negotiations in the US Senate was disagreement over taxpayer funding for abortion. When you hear our officials raising “ObamaCare extension” in deliberations over government spending, think “Hyde.”

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America president Marjorie Dannenfelser, reports Charles Richards for LifeSiteNews, “thanked GOP Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Republicans for their steadfastness.

“‘For more than a month,’” Mrs. Dannenfelser said in a news release, quoted by Mr. Richards, “‘Democrats kept the government shut down over ObamaCare – the single largest departure from the Hyde Amendment and expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade. … SBA Pro-Life America will score against any vote to extend ObamaCare subsidies that sidesteps Hyde.’” The Hyde Amendment bars the allocation of federal tax dollars to end the lives of developing human children before birth.

“Democrats had insisted,” writes Mr. Richards, “that [Sen.] Thune include in the funding package money to cover abortion subsidies that are expiring under the Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare].  Thune rejected their requests but secured their support by promising to hold a vote on the [extension of ObamaCare] next month.

“Pro-life groups expect the measure will fail, given that Republicans will not support the measure to ensure it passes the 60-vote threshold needed for approval,” Mr. Richards forecasts. We’ll see.

“Last month, 105 pro-life groups sent a letter to Congress urging them to not approve the subsidies,” notes Mr. Richards. The letter was spearheaded by Mrs. Dannenfelser. “‘As pro-life leaders, we urge you to raise your voice to unequivocally oppose any consideration of extending the Covid-era subsidies without Hyde protections. The pro-life Congress,’” the letter writers stressed, “‘must not be a party to Obama’s abortion funding scheme.’”

Ready to Roll

ONE OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT’s PRINCIPAL POLITICAL OPERATIONS – Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America – last week announced an ambitious effort, quoting their news release, “to retain pro-life majorities in the US House and Senate in the 2026 midterm elections.” The group characterized it as a joint effort with a pro-life political effort called “Women Speak Out PAC.

“The plan to reach 10.5 million voters across the country,” SBA declared, “will include canvassing, digital advertising, voter contact mail and a robust early vote campaign as races progress.”

Four states have been targeted as pivotal to the 2026 midterm outcome: Iowa, Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina. “SBA and WSO will make 4.5 million visits to voters at their homes” in the targeted states. “All four states are Senate battlegrounds,” asserts SBA, “and contain key House battleground districts. Further, the effort includes deploying student teams into a dozen of the most competitive House battleground districts across the country.

“The field team will target pro-life voters who do not consistently vote in midterm elections when overall turnout drops,” the news release reports. “According to a CNN poll, Donald Trump won 91% of the pro-life vote in 2024 and would not have been victorious if one-to-two percent of those voters had stayed home.”

In Case You Were Wondering

NEWLY ELECTED NEW YORK MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI was endorsed for his election by Planned Parenthood, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, and pledged in his campaign to go after pro-life pregnancy centers while claiming to offer government support for new parents.

“The mayor-elect,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “favors effectively-unlimited abortion-on-demand and, per Planned Parenthood, ‘doubling funding for both New York City’s Abortion Access Hub and the New York Abortion Access Fund,’ all but ensuring more mothers will ultimately have their babies destroyed rather than give them a chance through Crisis Pregnancy Centers,” which he has vowed to go after.

What Is Northwestern Teaching?

AT A TIME WHEN THE DISGUST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE may be at an all-time high over the radical policies, environment and curricula of much of our higher education establishment, Northwestern University, based in Evanston, Illinois, has announced plans to install “free” vending machines stocked with Plan B abortifacient drugs as well as certain personal-care items. 

A website posted by the Northwestern Center for Student Advocacy & Wellness, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “claims that emergency contraception [such as Plan B] ‘does not cause an abortion but instead prevents pregnancy from occurring in the first place by delaying or stopping ovulation. EC is ineffective,’” claims the website, “‘if pregnancy has already occurred and cannot harm an already developing fetus.’” But it can snuff out a developing human embryo, which is just as much a human being as a fetus.

“Anna Kinskey of the pro-life campus advocacy group weDignify told College Fix,” reports Mr. Freiburger, “that campus officials have an obligation to be upfront about the very different reality” from that expressed on the Northwestern website.

“‘If the university is going to make these products available, it also has a responsibility to educate students truthfully about what they do and the lives that may be affected by them,’ she said. ‘Life begins at the moment of sperm-egg fusion, before implantation. Plan B’s potential to end a developing human life is deeply concerning, especially if students aren’t aware that this is a possibility. Students should be fully informed,’” she said, quoted by Mr. Freiburger, “‘that Plan B is not just a form of contraception; it can also end the life of a child.’”

Matt Yonke of Pro-Life Action League made this point, quoted by Mr. Freiburger: “‘Having Plan B in a vending machine sends a message to students that this is something you’re likely to need during your time here at Northwestern. … Is that really a message we want to be sending? Stocking vending machines with Plan B instead of educating students on pregnancy prevention seems like lazy leadership on the part of the supposed adults in the room’” and actually implies endorsement of pre- or extramarital sexual activity.

Sick of the Rot?

Nov. 14, 2025, commentary by Stefano Gennarini JD for Friday Fax of Center for Family & Human Rights

             In a move that has shocked the UN diplomatic corps, the US government voted against more than a dozen UN resolutions this week because they were deemed ideological, wasteful or contrary to the Trump Administration’s America-First foreign policy. The resolutions are typically adopted unanimously, without a vote.

             “The US is focused on getting the UN back to basics, delivering on its core mission to maintain international peace and security,” US diplomats said this week in multiple meetings where they called for votes against UN resolutions. The Administration is expected to vote against dozens more by the end of the month.

             The Trump Administration is systematically voting against UN resolutions that stray into political issues unrelated to preserving peace and security, like climate, gender and migration. “We will not lend our name to resolutions that recycle the same divisive or irrelevant issues year after year,” US diplomats explained.

             The Administration took issue with spending countless hours negotiating resolutions that they called “performative” and “symbolic.” It also criticized UN resolutions for failing to produce “tangible results that improve the life of the common citizen.”

             “The UN exists to help countries solve problems – not to impose global governance,” they warned, adding that in the future the US would put an end to the practice. “It’s time for bold reform. American taxpayers deserve to see results. So do the people of the world.”

             A representative of Denmark, speaking on behalf of the entire European Union, said the US move “undermined” the work of the United Nations. He urged countries to oppose the US and repeatedly emphasized that the European Union would defend the “shared values, principles and long-standing agreed language” of the UN resolutions.

             The administration denied that voting against UN resolutions indicated a lack of support of the United Nations project, repeating Trump’s talking point that the UN still has “great potential” and that “the US was a driving force behind the UN’s creation and remains its largest contributor.” But US diplomats explained that reforming the UN was essential to protect its credibility.

             “To be clear, the United States is not walking away from the multilateral system. We are determined to make it work as it was intended. That means moving away from bloated, ideological multilateralism and toward practical reforms that make this institution leaner, more effective and accountable to the nations that fund it. We welcome partners willing to take that journey with us.”

             “The United States stands ready to work with any nation that shares our goal: to restore the UN’s founding purpose and ensure it delivers real results for the nations and people it serves. We stand ready to cooperate on shared concerns, solutions and reforms.”

             One issue on which the US is likely to find support from a wide range of countries is ending the use of UN resolutions to promote abortion, transgender ideology and other controversial social policies. A US delegate explained that the US could not support language on sexual and reproductive health without any caveats for this reason.

             “UN agencies have used such terminology to promote abortion rights, transgender rights for children, gender ideology and other controversial issues that are not universally agreed human rights. For this reason we are not willing to adopt any resolution that includes language on sexual and reproductive health without express caveats reaffirming sovereign prerogatives on such issues. We urge other delegations to this body to question why you would support this effort as well,” a US diplomat said.

             This statement was echoed widely in the room. Over a dozen countries from Africa, Asia and the Americas expressed reservations on the same terminology [as was criticized by the US].

Where Are We?

Nov. 19, 2025, commentary by Chuck Donovan & Bob Marshall for The Washington Stand – Part I

             The Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision is popularly understood to have reversed the infamous 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, leaving states free once again to decide the legality of abortion.

             In early 2024, nearly two years after Dobbs, as he launched his third campaign for the Presidency, Donald Trump noted, “My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land – in this case, the law of the state.”

             By implication (ratified afterward in a diluted national Republican platform adopted by a closed process in July 2024), the aftermath of Dobbs would be a patchwork of laws in the states regarding abortion, with no significant federal role.

             The history of state legal action on the issue both pre-Roe in 1973 and afterward showed that freely enacted state laws would range from radically permissive – as in New York and California – to protective (to the extent permitted by the Court’s rulings), as in, for example, Utah and Louisiana.

             One abortion proponent, Planned Parenthood Action of New Hampshire, predicted immediately after the Dobbs decision in 2022, “Up to 26 states in the country are certain or likely to ban abortion.” A current analysis by Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America shows that 21 states have so far stepped up to protect unborn human life, while 29 states and the District of Columbia have few or no protections in place.

             The question arises: In the fall of 2025, are the states truly free to protect children from death by abortion even within their own borders where they have clear authority to prohibit abortions?

[In subsequent editions of Life Advocacy Briefing, we will continue to publish the balance of this commentary, in segments; it is quite lengthy, but we find it worthy of our readers’ consideration.]

Wisdom from the Great Communicator

EXCERPT #30 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

As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy. Pro-life people have already taken heroic steps, often at great personal sacrifice, to provide for unwed mothers. I recently spoke about a young pregnant woman named Victoria, who said, “In this society we save whales, we save timber wolves and bald eagles and Coke bottles. Yet, everyone wanted me to throw away my baby.” She has been helped by Sav-a-Life, a group in Dallas, which provides a way for unwed mothers to preserve the human life within them when they might otherwise be tempted to resort to abortion. I think also of House of His Creation in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, where a loving couple has taken in almost 200 young women in the past ten years. They have seen, as a fact of life, that the girls are not better off having abortions than saving their babies. I am also reminded of the remarkable Rossow family of Ellington, Connecticut, who have opened their hearts and their home to nine handicapped adopted and foster children.

Senate Voting Record

Passage of HR-5371 as amended – Continuing Appropriations & Extensions for FY 2026 – Passed – 60-40 – Nov. 10, 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, Durbin/IL, Banks & Young/IN, Ernst & Grassley/IA, Marshall & Moran/KS, McConnell/KY, Cassidy & Kennedy/LA, Collins & King(I)/ME, Hyde-Smith & Wicker/MS, Hawley & Schmidt/MO, Daines & Sheehy/MT, Fischer & Ricketts/NE, Cortez-Masto & Rosen/NV, Hassan & Shaheen/NH, Budd & Tillis/NC, Cramer & Hoeven/ND, Husted & Moreno/OH, Lankford & Mullin/OK, Fetterman & McCormick/PA, Graham & Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Blackburn & Hagerty/TN, Cornyn & Cruz/TX, Curtis & Lee/UT, Kaine/VA, 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/IL, Paul/KY, Alsobrooks & VanHollen/MD, Markey & Warren/MA, Peters & Slotkin/MI, Klobuchar & Smith/MN, Booker & Kim/NJ, Heinrich & Lujan/NM, Gillibrand & Schumer/NY, Merkley & Wyden/OR, Reed & Whitehouse/RI, Sanders(I) & Welch/VT, Warner/VA, Cantwell & Murray/WA, Baldwin/WI.