Life Advocacy Briefing

Question!

WILL CONGRESS EXTEND THE DISQUALIFICATION OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD from federal funding, which was enacted as part of President Trump’s signature “One Big Beautiful Bill” but is due to expire on July 4? If not, why not? Has Planned Parenthood dropped out of the abortion racket? No. It has instead launched a costly television advertising campaign to claim its commitment to “women’s health” and to advocate getting back its long-time grab on our tax dollars. Capitol switchboards: 202/225-3121 (House); 202/224-3121 (Senate).

Going Out of Business?

TIMES APPEAR TO BE TOUGH for the nation’s chief purveyor of abortion. Since January, 2025, reports Matt Lamb for LifeSiteNews, citing the Kaiser Family Foundation as source, “nearly 60 Planned Parenthood facilities have shut down.” The actual number reported by KFF is 57.

KFF attributes the attrition in part to the abortion giant’s loss of federal Title Ten “family planning” funding, cut off a year ago. That loss of grant payments denies “‘grant payments to 144 Planned Parenthood sites in 20 states,’ the June 8 report stated,” writes Mr. Lamb.

“The report also cites the Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Supreme Court decision in June, 2025,” notes Mr. Lamb, “that affirmed states can exclude vendors from their state Medicaid health insurance program.”

And, he adds, “the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s temporary one-year defunding of some abortion vendors also helped shut down the facilities.” But, he notes, “This funding freeze expires July 4 unless Congress extends the defunding.” (202/224-3121: Senate; 202/225-3121: House)

Another Pro-Life Attorney on His Way to the Bench

THE U.S. SENATE VOTED WEDNESDAY to advance the nomination of Matthew Schwartz to the US Court of Appeals in New York City. Near the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing, we publish the voting record on his nomination’s “cloture” vote to bring his appointment to a final vote.

Mr. Schwartz’s nomination is bitterly opposed by the leftwing Alliance for Justice, claiming he “has … expressed extreme bias against access to reproductive care [sic] in his personal writings. In a November, 1998, Princeton Tory piece titled ‘Professing Infanticide,’ Schwartz criticized the medical profession’s role in reproductive care, warning that ‘[s]ome doctors will, undoubtedly, have no qualms with killing even healthy babies.’ Schwartz also likened bioethicist Peter Singer’s promotion of increased funding for individuals with disabilities ‘akin to saying that black babies should be killed but that affirmative action should be strengthened.’ Such views of reproductive care and characterizations of affirmative action reveal a lack of impartiality necessary to demonstrate the independence required for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.” Required by whom? Certainly not by the Constitution – or the Declaration of Independence, America’s charter.

Getting Serious

TEXAS AUTHORITIES HAVE CHARGED a man with “‘performance of abortion,’” reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, the first prosecution under the state’s criminal law against the killing of an unborn baby.

The accused is not an “abortion doctor” but the baby’s supposed father, who, notes Mr. Freiburger, “surreptitiously gave the [baby’s mother] mifepristone he obtained from the internet.”

Said Montgomery County Sheriff Wesley Doolittle, quoted by LifeSiteNews, “‘She had 10 fingers, 10 toes and an entire lifetime of possibilities ahead of her. That future was stolen before it ever had a chance to begin. We will not rest, and we will pursue every lead, uncover every answer and ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.’” Good for you, Sheriff!

“‘Forcing a woman to have an abortion, including a minor, is illegal in all 50 states …,’ according to the Justice Foundation’s Center Against Forced Abortion,” quoted by Mr. Freiburger.

Torturing the Language

THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED A BILL, reports Emily Mangiaracina for LifeSiteNews, “that replaces the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ with ‘gestating parent’ and ‘non-gestating parent’ in child custody and parental laws.” The state’s Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, has not yet indicated whether she will sign it.

“The gender-neutral terms … would be included in domestic and education law under the bill, according to the New York Post,” writes Ms. Mangiaracina.

“‘“Paternity” proceedings to determine a child’s biological father would … become “parentage” cases,’ the Post explained,” reports LSN. “In addition, ‘a “putative father” – also known as a deadbeat dad – would now be called “an alleged parent” in official state records,’” reports the Post, quoted by LSN.

Said Conservative Party chairman Gerard Kassar, quoted by LSN, “‘It’s woke culture run amok.’”

Leader Thune: On the Anniversary of Dobbs

June 24, 2026, Address to the Senate & the American public by Senate Majority Leader John Thune

             Mr. President, today we mark four years since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision – the landmark Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the question of abortion to the people and their elected representatives.

             Roe was, quite simply, terrible constitutional law – a fact that’s been acknowledged by legal scholars across the political spectrum. And the Dobbs decision reversed this decades-old error and made it clear that Roe’s … supposed constitutional right to an abortion simply didn’t exist.

             I’m proud to have fought, along with my Republican colleagues, to put justices on the Supreme Court who focus on interpreting the law and the Constitution – instead of creating new constitutional law out of thin air, as justices did in Roe.

             Mr. President, it’s fitting that the Dobbs decision occurs close to our nation’s birthday – July 4, the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. And as we prepare to celebrate the 250^th anniversary of the Declaration – the 250^th birthday of our country – the proximity of these two anniversaries has been on my mind.

             The Declaration lays out the fundamental principles underlying our system of government. And no lines are more important than these: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

             “… That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Unalienable rights, Mr. President. Rights given by God, rights that come before government, and that government is required to protect. “All men are created equal … [and] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

             Mr. President, as our country knows, to its sorrow, we haven’t always lived up to the principles of the Declaration. And the sad truth is that when it comes to unborn Americans, we are failing to live up to those principles today. Because in state after state around this country, it is legal to kill unborn human beings – unborn Americans – in some cases up until the point of birth. Up until the point of birth, Mr. President.

             These babies – these human beings – will never have the chance to enjoy the rest of their unalienable rights because they are denied their most fundamental right while they’re still in their infancy.

             This is not, of course, something you will hear from my Democrat colleagues when they attempt to defend abortion. You won’t hear about the baby whose rights are at stake. In fact, my Democrat colleagues do everything they can to obscure the baby in this debate.

             They mention women and “health care” and “reproductive freedom” – as if killing an innocent person could ever be something we’re free to do – and they never mention the other person in question, which is the unborn human being who is sacrificed in every abortion. Probably because they know at some level that supporting the killing of an innocent human being is indefensible – and completely incompatible with our nation’s creed.

             And let’s be very clear here, Mr. President. When we talk about abortion, we are talking about the killing of a human being. Everyone knows this – even my Democrat colleagues know this, although they might like to gloss over the fact.

             You don’t even need to have seen a baby kicking her feet and sucking her thumb on an ultrasound to know that she’s human. Because human moms and human dads … have other human beings. That’s Biology 101.

             No, Mr. President, the question isn’t whether the unborn baby is a human being – the question is whether we value that human being. Whether we really believe our American creed.

             “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life … .” Do we really believe that, Mr. President? Or do we believe that it’s okay to say that some human beings are more important than others?

             That some human beings can be sacrificed for others?

             I would hope history has taught us that it is a very dangerous thing to say that some groups of human beings are not worthy of protection.

             Mr. President, I am proud to be from a state that has extended the full protection of the laws to unborn human beings – that has recognized that unborn Americans are also created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. And I am proud to have supported, sponsored, and co-sponsored pro-life legislation here in Congress.

             The overturning of Roe has opened the door to substantive pro-life legislation – and Republicans in Congress are going to keep up the fight for real protections for unborn Americans.

             I’m very proud that with the Working Families Tax Cuts, Congress enacted the first pro-life law in decades. Thanks to Republicans’ landmark legislation, this year some of the nation’s largest abortion providers – including Planned Parenthood – were prohibited from receiving federal Medicaid funding. Organizations that have turned the killing of babies into a business were cut off from this source of taxpayer dollars.

             Mr. President, the Dobbs decision was a landmark decision because it opened the door for full protection of the unalienable rights of unborn Americans. But there is a lot more work to be done.

             The Democrat Party fights tooth and nail to ensure that even the most commonsense measures – like measures to protect babies who survive abortions or to ensure pregnant college students are aware that they have alternatives to abortion – do not make it through Congress.

             And currently mail-order abortion drugs are flooding into states – in defiance of the law – thanks to the Biden Administration’s decision to loosen restrictions on these drugs, despite the fact that they pose a danger to women – as well as, obviously, to their babies.

             So, as I said, Mr. President, the fight to protect the right to life for all Americans continues. And I and my Republican colleagues will continue to do everything we can here in Congress to support moms and to protect babies.

             “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

             May the day soon come when we fully live up to that creed.

The Reality of Public Opinion

June 19, 2026, Daily Citizen report by Nicole Hunt

             Four years after Roe’s reversal, new Gallup polling suggests that one of the most common narratives being pushed in America may be wrong. While legacy media continue to focus on growing support for abortion, Gallup’s latest data demonstrates that two-thirds of Americans continue to reject unrestricted abortion and support some legal restrictions on abortion.

             According to Gallup’s 2026 survey, 64% of Americans support legal restrictions on abortion, while only 33% support unrestricted abortion. The 64% is broken down into three categories, including 15% who say abortion should be legal in most circumstances, 32% who believe it should be legal in only a few circumstances and 17% who think it should be illegal in all circumstances. [Keep reading!]

             The march towards full acceptance of unrestricted abortion hasn’t materialized like abortion advocates hoped it would following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022. What’s even more interesting: Support for the strongest pro-life position seems to be growing. The percentage of Americans who believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances increased from 13% in 2025 to 17% in 2026.

             Gallup’s latest polling also shows a more complex view of how Americans identify on the issue of abortion and the kind of policy they support. The 2026 survey shows that 53% of Americans identify as pro-choice, while 42% identify as pro-life. While that data might appear discouraging to the pro-life community, it is curious that even while 53% … call themselves pro-choice, only 33% of respondents support unrestricted abortion. … Those numbers represent millions of Americans who consider themselves pro-choice but still think preborn children deserve at last some legal protections.

             The data reveal that Americans who occupy the middle ground on abortion are largely political independents. Among Independents, 54% identify as pro-choice, yet only 49% say abortion is morally acceptable, and just 32% believe it should be legal in all circumstances. This means many Independents who embrace the pro-choice label do not feel comfortable with unrestricted abortion. As the distinction moves from identity to morality and public policy, abortion support declines. This suggests that many Independent voters hold nuanced views that aren’t fully aligned with the abortion lobby’s push for unrestricted abortion. Among Independents, 38% identify as pro-life, 40% find abortion to be morally wrong and 63% support either legal restrictions on abortion or making abortion illegal altogether (46% support some restrictions, and 17% support making abortion illegal.)

             … For some time, Americans have been told that support for abortion is steadily increasing and that legal protections for preborn children are no longer favored by a majority of the public. Gallup’s latest data tells a different story. Public opinion remains unsettled, and Americans’ hearts and minds remain open to policies that recognize the humanity and dignity of preborn babies. While many Americans continue to identify as pro-choice, nearly two-thirds support at least some legal restrictions on abortion and reject unrestricted abortion. For the pro-life movement, this data is a reminder that the debate is far from settled. The work of persuading our fellow Americans on the Life issue and building a culture that protects every human life remains as important as ever.

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: The recent Gallup data also illustrate the folly of attempting bumpersticker advocacy versus setting forth the reality of our desired public policy in actual sentences advocating justice and mercy for unborn children and their often-victimized moms.]

Senate Voting Records

Cloture on Nomination of Matthew Schwartz as US Appellate Judge for the 2^nd Circuit, based in New York City – Adopted 52-45 – June 24, 2026 (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, Paul/KY, Cassidy & Kennedy/LA, Collins/ME, Hyde-Smith & Wicker/MS, Hawley & Schmitt/MO, Daines & Sheehy/MT, Fischer & Ricketts/NE, Budd & Tillis/NC, Cramer & Hoeven/ND, Husted & Moreno/OH, Armstrong & Lankford/OK, McCormick/PA, Graham & Scott/SC, Rounds & Thune/SD, Blackburn & Hagerty/TN, Cornyn & Cruz/TX, Curtis & Lee/UT, Capito & Justice/WV, Johnson/WI, Barrasso & Lummis/WY.

Voting “no” / anti-Life: Gallego & Kelly/AZ, Padilla & Schiff/CA, Hickenlooper/CO, Blumenthal & Murphy/CT, Blunt-Rochester & Coons/DE, Ossoff & Warner/GA, Hirono & Schatz/HI, Duckworth & Durbin/IL, King(I)/ME, Alsobrooks & VanHollen/MD, 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: Bennet/CO, McConnell/KY, Markey/MA.

Mr. Hyde Asks a Pointed Question

Join us in reading a 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.

             … One of the greatest errors of modern politics is our foolish attempt to separate our private consciences from our public acts, and it can’t be done. At the end of the 20^th century, is the crowning achievement of our democracy to treat the weak, the powerless, the unwanted as things to be disposed of? If so, we haven’t elevated justice – we’ve disgraced it.