Category archives: Abortion

Kansas’s Value Them Both Amendment Would Be a Win for Life

by Mary Jayne Caum

January 22, 2021

Today is the somber 48th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a day that stripped the American unborn of the most fundamental of rights: the right to life.

On this anniversary of judicial activism, the Kansas House of Representatives voted to return the right to regulate abortion back to the people in an effort to protect both mothers and their unborn children. The House voted in favor of the Value Them Both Amendment in an effort to correct the overreach of the Kansas Supreme Court. Although the Kansas Constitution does not mention abortion, in 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court reinterpreted the state Constitution to include a right to abortion. Since then, pro-life activists have been working to correct this blatant judicial activism.

The Value Them Both Amendment rejects the false idea that abortion is a mother’s “right.” This Amendment would protect mothers from an unregulated abortion industry, rather than allowing the state Supreme Court to dictate the terms of abortion to Kansas voters. It empowers the citizens of Kansas to enact common-sense regulations for the dangerous abortion industry, and to preserve several pro-life laws that are already on the books but are now threatened by the Supreme Court’s activism.

The next stop for the Value Them Both Amendment is the Kansas Senate. If you (or your friends and family) live in Kansas and believe Kansans, not unelected justices, should determine abortion policy, contact your Kansas Senator today.

Will Joe Biden Be as Pro-Life as President Trump?

by Mary Szoch

January 21, 2021

As Joe Biden’s presidency begins, Donald Trump’s presidency has come under even greater scrutiny. His administration’s record on life issues is no exception. Hillary Clinton and others are claiming that Democratic presidents are just as good as, if not better than Republicans on life issues. Although it is true that abortion numbers reportedly declined during Barack Obama’s presidency and increased slightly between 2017 and 2018 under Trump, it would be incorrect to attribute the decrease or increase to either president. Correlation does not equal causation. These numbers in isolation should not be taken as an indication that we should expect the Biden administration to be just as (or more) pro-life as the Trump administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision (1973) made abortion through all nine months of pregnancy the legal default unless Congress or individual states passed laws restricting it. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court adjusted its previous decision to say that a state cannot impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s attempt to obtain an abortion pre-viability. As a result of these two decisions, state law—not presidents—have the greatest influence over whether abortion numbers rise or fall in a given year.

Even though state laws have the greatest effect on abortion numbers, pro-life presidents still make a huge difference. President Biden will likely reverse many of the Trump administration’s pro-life policies, but the 200 federal judges and three Supreme Court justices—many with proven pro-life records—that Trump appointed during his presidency will be serving on the bench for years to come. Planned Parenthood’s website states, “For the Supreme Court, Trump delivered on his promise to nominate justices who could overturn Roe v. Wade.”

The impact of these judicial appointments cannot be overstated. As Michael New pointed out, if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, state laws that protect the unborn—including six heartbeat bills that would prevent abortion after six weeks and an Alabama law that would ban nearly all abortions—would immediately go into effect, saving thousands of unborn children’s lives. Federal judges with a proven originalist track record have a far greater chance of upholding pro-life legislation than any Democratic appointees. These judges are appointed for life, and so, while the number of abortions may have slightly increased from 2017 to 2018, the impact of these judges will last far beyond the Trump administration—just ask Planned Parenthood.   

Although the Trump administration was unable to fully defund Planned Parenthood of taxpayer dollars, it did finalize the Protect Life Rule and redirected millions of federal Title X family planning funds away from abortion businesses. President Biden is expected to reverse this. The Trump administration also supported the historically bipartisan Hyde Amendment, which ensures that American taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions domestically. Hyde is credited with saving over two million lives. For the first time since Hyde was voted on in 1976, President Biden and the Democrat-controlled Congress are expected to try to remove it.   

President Trump took executive action to reinstate and expand the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy, which prevented American taxpayers from being forced to fund abortions internationally. President Trump also issued an Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children, which states that babies born alive after an abortion must be given the same level of medical treatment afforded to other children born alive at the same gestational age. President Biden is expected to reverse both of these actions. Pray that he does not.  

Our faith tells us, “Nothing is impossible for God” (Luke 1:37). Let’s pray for the seemingly impossible—that President Biden will have a change of heart and that his administration will be as pro-life as Trump’s. This would be the opposite of everything we expect, but it would be a welcome surprise for all those who value life.

Supreme Court Protects Women’s Health by Reinstating FDA Restriction on Chemical Abortion

by Mary Szoch

January 18, 2021

On January 12, the Supreme Court granted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s request to reinstate its requirements surrounding the distribution of the mifepristone abortion regimen. This ruling reversed a federal judge in Maryland’s ruling that blocked the FDA’s in person distribution requirement for the regimen citing the challenges to chemical abortion access presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court decision was a win for women’s health. 

In 2000, under the leadership of the pro-abortion Clinton administration, the FDA approved mifepristone for abortion usage and declared that mifepristone was subject to certain distribution restrictions to ensure safe usage. In 2011, these restrictions were converted to Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies, otherwise known as REMS. The FDA decided to place restrictions on this drug because mifepristone carries with it life-threatening and health-endangering risks, such as hemorrhage, infection, incomplete pregnancy, retained fetal parts, the need for emergency surgery, and even death.

The restrictions, which were weakened but ultimately kept in place by the pro-abortion Obama administration in 2016, are meant to protect the women taking the drug. Under the current REMS, the drug must be prescribed by a health care provider who can assess patient eligibility, diagnose ectopic pregnancies, and provide or facilitate emergency surgical intervention in the case of an incomplete abortion or severe bleeding. Under FDA rules, mifepristone is not available from pharmacies. Notably, the 2016 weakening of the REMS removed the requirement for manufacturers to report any adverse events to the FDA other than death.   

The FDA is “responsible for protecting public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.” Though the FDA operates under the Executive branch, a department responsible for protecting public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs should not be a political organization. Its decision to put restrictions on mifepristone are based on the drug’s ability to harm women—not on a political agenda.

This spring, the ACLU filed a lawsuit demanding that the FDA temporarily suspend enforcement of the REMS so that women could receive mifepristone through the mail, thus eliminating the requirement for patients to see a health care provider prior to ingesting this dangerous drug. The ACLU argued that the patient had already been evaluated by a clinician either using telehealth or at a prior in-person visit, thus negating the need for another in-person visit to receive the drug.

Unfortunately for women, their health care is certainly not a top priority in this lawsuit. Though a doctor may be able to determine how far along a pregnancy is or diagnose an ectopic pregnancy through telemedicine, it is certainly not best medical practice. Failing to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy or to properly assess the length of a pregnancy can cause serious harm—and even death—to the woman taking the mifepristone. The Maryland court’s acceptance of the ACLU arguments puts women’s lives at risk.

Thankfully, for the time being, the Supreme Court decision issued a stay of the preliminary injunction that reinstated the REMS requirement. This means the Court will allow the FDA to once again enforce its requirement for now. In his concurrence granting the stay, Roberts wrote that the “courts owe significant deference to the politically accountable entities with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’” In other words, Robert’s deferred to the FDA rather than specifically voting because of the risk to women’s lives.

Under the Biden administration, the FDA will have the opportunity to continue supporting the REMS, just like they did under the two proceeding pro-abortion Democratic administrations, or to do away them. In the past 20 years, mifepristone has not gotten any safer for women. Hopefully, under the Biden administration, the FDA will not decide to play politics with women’s lives.

A Christmas Carol for Life

by Mary Jayne Caum

December 14, 2020

When approached on Christmas Eve to make a donation to the poor, Scrooge asked, “Are there no prisons? … And the Union workhouses? … Are they still in operation?” The philanthropists in Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol sadly informed Scrooge that these wretched institutions were still running. Scrooge stated that the poor should look to these institutions instead of looking for a handout. When the philanthropists informed Scrooge that many would rather die than go to the prisons or workhouses, Scrooge retorted, “If they would rather die … they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

Every Christmas season since I was a small child, my family inevitably watches A Christmas Carol together (the George C. Scott version, of course). Every Christmas season, I am shocked by Scrooge’s callous and inhumane response to poverty and suffering. Sadly, despite Dickens’ efforts, there are still those among us who would rather decrease the “surplus population” than help the less fortunate. In fact, these modern-day Scrooge’s tell us we will be helping the less fortunate by decreasing the surplus population.

Since the 1960s, abortion supporters have argued in favor of using abortion as a means of population control. To legitimize abortion as a method of population control, abortion supporters argued that we should not allow “the unwilling to bear the unwanted.” This popular phrase perfectly encapsulated their willingness to kill off the surplus population, and to this day abortion is used by prominent politicians as a solution to the world’s economic problems.

The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in an interview the link between abortion and decreasing the surplus population, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” It is unclear from her comments exactly which population Justice Ginsburg was referring to, but it is clear she believed abortion could be used to decrease the surplus population.

In an effort to transform Scrooge before it was too late, a deceased friend of Scrooge, Jacob Marley, visited Scrooge to warn him of his apparent destiny and of the ghosts who will soon visit Scrooge. While trying to explain to Scrooge how the old miser will likely suffer the same fate as Marley if Scrooge does not cease being selfish, Scrooge continued to prattle on about finances and business without recognizing his own selfishness and Marley’s warnings. Frustrated at Scrooge’s narrow mindedness and callousness towards humanity, when Scrooge commented on what a great businessman Marley was, Marley shouted, “Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business.”

Jacob Marley was right. Mankind is our business. We should not work to decrease the “surplus population”—whatever that means—through abortion. Instead, we should welcome every life with love and charity. Each life has inherent value and dignity. Since each person is made in the image of God and is designed by God for a purpose, no baby is unwanted or worthy of death. This Christmas season, let us dedicate ourselves to life. Let us again make mankind our business. We must admonish the Scrooges in our midst who advocate for decreasing the surplus population, and instead commit to caring for those around us in need.

To accomplish this goal of caring for the unborn, please consider donating to your local pregnancy resource center or the Human Coalition to help end abortion and encourage women with unplanned pregnancies to give life to their precious child.

Mary Jayne Caum is a Government Affairs Research Assistant at Family Research Council.

Is Abortion the Solution to Women’s Problems?

by Mary Szoch

December 10, 2020

On December 8, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies held a hearing entitled “The Impact on Women Seeking an Abortion but are Denied Because of an Inability to Pay.” Based on the title, some may think this hearing was about finding ways to actually improve the lives of pregnant women in need, but that was certainly not the case. 

In her opening remarks, Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) made it clear that this hearing was about removing the Hyde Amendment. She began,Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, yet for too long some women in this country have been denied their right to an abortion. The Hyde Amendment is a discriminatory policy. For more than 40 years, it has been routinely extended—every year as a legislative rider—but the time has come in this current moment to reckon with the norm, with the status quo, and view it through the lens of how it impacts communities of color.”  

Since 1976, the so-called “discriminatory” Hyde Amendment has been included in each annual spending bill and has maintained widespread bipartisan support. Hyde does not restrict abortion in and of itself; it merely states that taxpayer funding cannot be used to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother. A 2020 Marist poll found that 60 percent of Americans, including 37 percent of people who identify themselves as pro-choice, oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. Contrary to DeLauro’s claims, Hyde is not discriminatory at all. Instead, it simply aims to protect taxpayers from paying for a practice they believe is the killing of an innocent unborn baby.

DeLauro went on to explain what she believes Hyde’s impact on communities of color has been. She stated that women who are seeking an abortion but are denied are four times more likely to live below the Federal Poverty Level, more likely to experience serious complications at the end of pregnancy (such as eclampsia and death), more likely to stay with an abusive partner, more likely to suffer anxiety and loss of self-esteem, and less likely to have aspirational plans for their future. 

DeLauro’s comments relied on the “Abortion Turnaway Study” conducted by the strongly pro-abortion Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco. Though touted by mainstream media as a reputable study, the methodology of the study was flawed, and the results were tailored to fit the picture the researchers set out to present. That is, that few women regret their abortion, and being denied an abortion has serious negative consequences on a woman’s health and well-being.      

Imagine for a minute though, that DeLauro’s comments were accurate. Imagine that women carrying an unwanted child to birth are four times more likely to live below the poverty line, experience serious pregnancy complications, stay with an abusive partner, suffer anxiety and loss of self-esteem, and have less aspirational plans for their future. Wouldn’t the solution to this bleak situation look something like providing these women with better health care, affordable housing, childcare, job coaching, counseling, tutoring, mentors, and friends? That is the work of pregnancy resource centers, like the ones Christiana Bennett referenced during the hearing. These centers—Care Net, Heartbeat International, the Gabriel Network, and Birthright, to name a few—are lifelines and beacons of hope for women. Their message to pregnant women with nowhere else to turn is: “You can do it! And we’ll be right here to help you!” Rosa DeLauro’s message, on the other hand, is: “No, you can’t…unless taxpayers pay for you to abort your child.”  

In her remarks, DeLauro failed to mention that the Hyde Amendment has saved over two million lives—many of whom are people of color. Hyde’s removal will most certainly increase abortions. Women who are pregnant and in need face incredibly challenging situations—lack of health care, homelessness, abuse, food insecurity, the list goes on and on. Rosa DeLauro’s solution is for taxpayers to pay for these women to kill their unborn children. Clearly, she and the pro-abortion members of Congress who claim to represent women’s rights need to reconsider how they can best help women.

National Disabilities Day Should Be a Celebration of ALL Human Life

by Mary Szoch

December 3, 2020

On this National Disabilities Day, I’m struck by a great paradox. Today, in the United States and in many countries around the world, people with both physical and intellectual disabilities have more opportunities than ever before. Mass institutionalization of people with disabilities is a thing of the past. Workplaces have anti-discrimination policies that protect people with disabilities from unfair treatment. Sports for people with disabilities have become a worldwide norm. Universities are developing programs for people with intellectual disabilities. The “r-word” is largely recognized as derogatory and dehumanizing. And yet, while our society has come so far in its treatment of people with disabilities who are born, we have utterly failed to protect these people’s most basic right—the right to life.

A few weeks ago, an article titled, “The Last Children of Down Syndrome” appeared in The Atlantic. The article stated that because 95 percent of women in Denmark who receive a pre-natal diagnosis of Down syndrome choose to abort, only 18 babies with Down syndrome were born in Denmark last year. The article noted that in the United States, 67 percent of children pre-natally diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. In 2018, a press release from the government of Iceland noted that because of pre-natal screening, only 2-3 babies with Down syndrome are born in Iceland each year. While our society has recognized that people with disabilities who are already born have countless gifts to offer—we’ve missed the most basic point. People, regardless of what they can or cannot do, deserve to live.

My older sister, Marita, has multiple physical and intellectual disabilities. While she does not have Down syndrome, she has a genetic disorder very similar to it. Her life, though certainly not an easy one, is filled with joy. She has had more surgeries than I can count. Tying her shoes and cutting her food are mountains she climbs daily. Getting out a thought sometimes takes her several minutes. Marita struggles to do the things most people take for granted with one major exception. Marita does not struggle to love. No, loving is something Marita does better than anyone I know. If you walk into the room with a smile on your face, you are immediately her friend. About five minutes after meeting you, she’s likely to give you a hug and tell you she loves you. If you wrong her, it’s forgotten the moment you apologize. If you do something to make her feel special—she’ll remember it for life. 

Marita loves so well and so easily not in spite of the disabilities that have made her life so challenging but because of them. To love, we have to be vulnerable. For most of us, that requires breaking down walls and building trust. It’s a process that takes time and effort and can easily be destroyed. For Marita, being vulnerable is just part of being Marita, and consequently, loving is just part of being Marita.

That is what Denmark is missing, that is what Iceland is missing, and that is what the United States will be missing if we do not recognize that people with disabilities have dignity and worth beginning in the womb. By their very being, these people teach us how to love, and that’s something this world could certainly use more of. On this National Disabilities Day, let’s pray for a greater understanding of the gift people with disabilities are to our world. Let’s pray for a greater appreciation of those who teach us to love.

Mary Szoch is the Director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council.

Of Dogs and Unborn Babies

by Mary Jayne Caum

November 19, 2020

For the last two weeks, fallout from the election chaos has dominated the news cycle. Because of this, state and local initiatives have largely gone unnoticed. But two important laws were on the ballot in Colorado: (1) Proposition 115 and (2) a repeal of Denver’s pit bull ban.

Proposition 115 was a state-wide initiative to ban late-term abortions throughout Colorado. If successful, it would have been illegal to commit an abortion in Colorado once an unborn child reaches 22 weeks gestation. Proposition 115 specified that committing an abortion on an unborn child who has reached at least 22 weeks gestation would be a misdemeanor and any abortionists who violated this law would be subjected to professional penalties including suspension of their medical license. Of course, the measure did exempt from prosecution the woman who underwent the abortion. It also allowed an abortion after 22 weeks gestation when the life of the mother was at risk. Despite scientific and philosophical support for banning these late-term abortions, Colorodans voted to continue the dangerous and deadly practice.           

In Denver, Colorado, another measure was in the hands of the citizenry. For 30 years, it has been illegal to own a pit bull in Denver. This law banning pit bulls resulted from several pit bull attacks in Colorado in the 1980s, and the stigma surrounding certain breeds including pit bulls. For years, pit bulls have been stigmatized as an inherently aggressive breed waiting to tear you limb from limb. However, the facts simply do not align with this myth. The National Geographic reports that there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that pit bulls are inherently aggressive and dangerous. Changing attitudes towards pit bulls combined with widespread initiatives to destigmatize the breed resulted in Denver’s decision to lift the ban on pit bulls. Personally, this author supports Denver’s decision to allow pit bulls. As a dog mom, it warms my heart to see dogs rescued, given a chance, or destigmatized. While I applaud the people of Denver’s decision to legalize pit bulls, I do find Colorado’s stance on human life and animal life troubling.            

An unborn child is viable somewhere around 22-24 weeks gestation. Neonatal medicine defines viability, “as the gestational age at which there is a 50% chance of survival with or without medical care.” Therefore, last week in Colorado, the voters elected to continue aborting viable babies while lifting a ban on pit bull ownership in Denver. Critics may claim I am comparing apples and oranges. Colorado is not populated by Denver alone. However, almost 6 million people live in Colorado, while almost 3 million people live in metro Denver. So it is safe to say that the attitudes of individuals in metro Denver represents the mindset of at least half of Colorado. With that in mind, let us return to the point of this article: the inherent worth of a child vs. the inherent worth of an animal.

As a Christian, I believe both man and beast have value. However, man is worth so much more. Because humans are made in the image of God, we have inherent worth and dignity. Our value is so great, God sacrificed His holy and glorious Son and raised Him from the dead to purchase us from the grips of sin and death. While reflecting upon His creation, God deemed nature and its animals “good” while praising man as “very good.” No matter how much we try to devalue life in our society, men and women are inherently priceless and imbued with a dignity God did not bestow on any of His other creations.

This is not to say we should be cruel to our animals. One of the wisdom books in the Bible espouses its readers, “the righteous care for the needs of their animals.” Therefore, according to God’s Word, one of the distinguishing features of a righteous person is the manner in which he treats animals. For this reason, I rejoice when another shelter dog is rescued, a dog fight organizer is prosecuted, and a pit bull is allowed to be loved.

However, we cannot confuse our duty to properly care for animals with the inherent worth and dignity of our fellow man. After creating man, God exhorted Adam to have dominion over the animals God created. Abortion fundamentally rejects the dignity and worth of every human being. Instead of recognizing the humanity of every unborn child, we devalue and sacrifice our unborn children in the name of convenience, preference, and career advancement. As a society, we cannot continue down this path of devaluing human life. 

While we pat ourselves on the back for being progressive and rejecting the fallacious notion that certain dog breeds are inherently aggressive, let us not forget our fellow man. It is a well known fact that when an abortion is committed against a child around 22 weeks gestation, the abortionist’s preferred method of murder is dismemberment abortion (also known as D&E: dilation and evacuation abortion). Although Denver was correct to statutorily reject the idea that pit bulls inherently desire to tear humans limb from limb, Colorado was wrong to leave unborn infants vulnerable to abortionists who tear these innocent children limb from limb.

Sadly, I believe the prophetic words of G.K Chesterton have been realized, “Wherever there is animal worship there is human sacrifice.” Let us reverse this trend of human sacrifice. Let us honor our Creator by protecting His creation: both animal and human. While enjoying the companionship of our furry friends, we should continue to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of each human individual—born and unborn.

Mary Jayne Caum works in State & Local Affairs at Family Research Council.

Despite Roe Polling, a Majority of Americans Support Stronger Abortion Restrictions

by Laura Grossberndt , Katherine Beck Johnson , Ruth Moreno

October 23, 2020

Opinion polls reveal some cognitive dissonance in Americans’ minds concerning abortion laws. Although most Americans say they support Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, most also favor significant abortion restrictions. Why the seeming inconsistency?

First, some background. In Roe, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is protected under the U.S. Constitution. This decision struck down many state laws that had restricted abortion. It also severely limited the extent to which states could write their own abortion laws. The Court correlated the permissibility of different kinds of abortions to the three trimesters of pregnancy:

  • First trimester: States cannot restrict abortion.
  • Second trimester: Regulations designed to protect a pregnant woman’s health, but not to further a state’s interest in potential life, are permitted.
  • Third trimester: States can completely outlaw abortion, except when “necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

Under Roe, no restrictions on abortion in the second or third trimesters are mandated and are forbidden in the first trimester. Therefore, abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is the default unless Congress or the individual states pass laws restricting it.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey did away with Roe’s trimester framework and created a new rule: a state cannot impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s attempt to obtain an abortion pre-viability.

National polls indicate strong support for Roe. Sixty percent (Gallup) and 66 percent (NBC News) of Americans support it, while only 29 percent of Americans favor overturning it (NBC News). Roe, then, appears to be a settled court case in the minds of the American people.

However, polls indicate a greater variation in Americans’ opinions when it comes to abortion itself. Only 27 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal “in all cases” (ABC News by Langer Research Associates), and seven in 10 Americans would like to see abortion limited to the first three months of pregnancy at most (Knights of Columbus and Marist). The latter poll found that 52 percent of Americans think women should be required to see an ultrasound of her unborn child prior to receiving an abortion. Furthermore, the poll found that 80 percent of Americans think laws can protect both a mother and her unborn child.

A mere 18 percent of Americans support the legalization of abortion up until birth (NPR and Marist), and 54 percent want to see more restrictions on abortion than there currently are (CBS). Sixty-five percent of Americans support a required 24-hour waiting period for an abortion (The Kaiser Family Foundation). Like the Knights of Columbus and Marist poll, the Kaiser poll found that 52 percent support a mandatory ultrasound viewing by mothers.

Why this seeming inconsistency between the American public’s opinions on Roe and abortion itself? Tim Carney of the American Enterprise Institute posits an answer: a poll’s outcome depends on how the survey questions are asked. Many Americans are unaware of what Roe actually says about abortion, mistakenly believing that it only protects abortion through the first few months of pregnancy. When asked whether they would like to see Roe overturned, most Americans say no, because most Americans are neither entirely pro-life nor pro-choice. Instead, most Americans favor abortion laws that restrict most abortions but provide exceptions for early-term abortions, abortions in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother’s health or life is in grave danger.

Roe v. Wade permits abortion in far more circumstances than these. If survey respondents knew that Roe essentially allows abortion in all cases at any stage in pregnancy up to the moment of birth, support for the court decision would probably plummet among Americans with more moderate views. Americans’ ignorance serves the pro-choice lobby and is likely why polls indicate public support for Roe.

As long as the largely pro-choice mainstream media can convince moderates that Roe v. Wade aligns with their beliefs, the Supreme Court will feel pressured into upholding its 1973 decision despite the fact that it goes against the will of the American people.

To see where your state stacks up on permitting later-term abortion under Roe, see our state-by-state pro-life map.

The Strange Cognitive Dissonance of the Democrats on Life

by Katherine Beck Johnson

October 15, 2020

The final day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearing consisted of witnesses. The Republican and Democratic senators of the Senate Judiciary Committee each called upon individuals who expressed their personal opinions on why or why not Barrett should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

The Republicans called upon former clerks, students, and colleagues of Judge Barrett. Each spoke highly of Barrett’s intellect, compassion, and legal skills. In contrast, the Democratic witnesses all opined on the danger they thought a Justice Barrett would pose to the country.

One of the Democratic witnesses, Crystal Good, described herself as a “reproductive rights advocate.” She spoke about her experience being pregnant as a 16-year-old and going to court to obtain an abortion without parental consent. Sadly, Good claimed that killing her unborn child allowed her to take control of her life. She went on to say that Barrett’s confirmation would prevent abortions that millions of women rely on each year.

The next witness the Democrats called was Stacy Staggs, a mother of twins born prematurely. The larger twin weighed just two pounds at birth, while the smaller twin was under two pounds. The twin girls spent time in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and Staggs was unable to hold her daughters for weeks. In her testimony, Staggs spoke about the necessity of her children being provided health care. She alleged a Justice Barrett would take away the necessary health care that saved her children’s lives.

Are the Democrats aware of the cognitive dissonance these two testimonies create? One witness asserted that she should have the right to end her unborn child’s life. The subsequent witness detailed how she fought for the lives of her premature children. One witness denied the humanity of the unborn, while the subsequent witness acknowledged the humanity of these precious little lives. This cognitive dissonance should not be surprising. Democrats claim to care about the health and wellbeing of children. However, in addition to supporting the termination of life in the womb, Democrats in Congress have repeatedly blocked legislation that would ensure medical care to children born alive after a failed abortion. It’s clear that the Democrats only value life when that life is wanted.

A child’s right to life should not depend on whether the parents want him or her. Life is an inherent human right. The aforementioned testimonies at the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett demonstrate that Democrats only want to protect the right to life of children who are wanted. This picking and choosing which children “deserve” life must end.

Ted Cruz is Right: Certain FDA-approved Birth Control Can Cause Abortions

by Laura Grossberndt , Ruth Moreno

October 15, 2020

During the second day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asked the Supreme Court nominee about threats to religious liberty. Cruz correctly pointed out that certain kinds of birth control pills induce abortion and criticized the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) attempt to fine religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor “in order to force them to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, among others.”

Planned Parenthood responded to Sen. Cruz’s remarks with a tweet contradicting Cruz and asserting that birth control cannot cause an abortion.

Despite mainstream media outlets framing the situation as Planned Parenthood “correcting” Sen. Cruz, it is actually Planned Parenthood who is in the wrong. Cruz referred to abortion-inducing drugs, “among others.” Of course, not all forms of birth control cause abortions. However, some do, including the notorious “morning-after pill” Plan B and a newer, lesser-known FDA-approved drug called Ella (also known as ulipristal acetate or Ella-One).

The FDA misleadingly labels Ella a more effective “Emergency Contraception.” Like Plan B, Ella can cause an abortion by preventing a fertilized egg (embryo) from implanting in the uterus. But unlike Plan B, Ella can also terminate a pregnancy after the embryo has already implanted. It does this by starving the embryo of a chemical known as progesterone, which the embryo needs in order to continue developing inside the uterus. By inhibiting progesterone, Ella functions similarly to the “abortion pill” mifepristone (also known as Mifeprex or RU-486), which is used to end the lives of babies in the first trimester. Like mifepristone, Ella can induce abortions both pre- and post-implantation.

Numerous studies reported by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) show that Ella causes abortions in animals, including macaques, close relatives to monkeys. Researchers have also concluded that just a 30-milligram dose of Ella will abort human babies.

Ella’s proponents claim that the drug will not interfere with pregnancy because it is only approved for use within five days of sexual intercourse, and implantation usually occurs six to 10 days after fertilization. Although Ella’s online provider, Project Ruby, requires a prescription, it does not require an in-person examination from a doctor prior to purchase. Planned Parenthood itself attempts to create confusion by calling Ella a type of “morning-after pill” when, in reality, the pill can be taken for several days after having intercourse.

Planned Parenthood should get its fact straight before criticizing Sen. Cruz’s valid concerns about abortifacient drugs and the federal government’s attempts to force religious groups to pay for them. By propagating the lie that birth control is always contraceptive and never abortifacient, Planned Parenthood continues to mislead countless women about their options before and after becoming pregnant. Women have the right to know what drugs can do to their own bodies and those of their unborn children.

Planned Parenthood is also failing to treat a complex discussion about health care and religious liberty with appropriate nuance. Fortunately, the court case involving the ACA and the Little Sisters of the Poor was decided in support of the Little Sisters’ right to freedom of conscience. However, many of our nation’s officials, both elected and unelected, would have liked to see the case settled differently. Religious liberty is the most fundamental right enshrined in the First Amendment, but it is under attack from those who would rather see an overbearing federal government force religious organizations, like the Little Sisters of the Poor, to violate their consciences.

Ruth Moreno is a Policy and Government Affairs intern focusing on federal legislative affairs, with a concentration on pro-life issues.

Archives