Tag archives: Abortion

Vice President Mike Pence’s Visit to Florida: Life is Winning in America

by Sarah Rumpf

August 10, 2020

Mike Pence, the first sitting vice president to speak at the March for Life, achieved another milestone on August 5 by becoming the first vice president to visit a pro-life pregnancy resource center. Pence joined the Susan B. Anthony List in Tampa, Florida to begin a multistate tour called “Life Wins.” The tour seeks to draw a sharp contrast between President Trump’s pro-life record and the pro-choice stance of his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden.

In his remarks, Pence said that the Declaration of Independence put the right to life at the center of the American experiment. However, 47 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade fundamentally challenged the right to life. Pence said that if Biden is elected, he would “undo all the progress” the pro-life movement has made in the U.S. since the passage of Roe vs. Wade. “Now more than ever, pro-life Americans need to make our voice heard…You need to speak out and become involved,” Pence said. “The radical left wants to silence pro-life Americans.” Central to Pence’s remarks were his support for late-term abortion bans and freedom of religion. He proclaimed Trump to be the most pro-life president in the nation’s history, citing Trump’s March for Life address in January of this year. (President Trump was the first president to attend and speak at the March for Life.)

Prior to his remarks at Starkey Road Baptist Church in Largo, Florida, Pence toured a local pregnancy resource center called A Women’s Place Medical Clinic, which offers prenatal care, ultrasounds, and counseling. Pregnancy resource centers are valuable lifelines that offer abortion-free services for women facing crisis pregnancies. 

Pence reassured conservatives that, “This President, this Vice President, and this administration will always stand up for the freedom of speech for every American, and we will always stand for life.” Pence reminded event attendees that, “Because of the work that you have done, we now have a pro-life champion in the White House. We have pro-life leaders in state houses across the country, a pro-life majority in the United States Senate, and we have principled jurists in record numbers in our courts across the land. Because of what you’ve done, life is winning in America.” Pence said that conservatives should be worried about Democrats electing liberal judges who could rule in favor of abortion rights.

Pence celebrated the pro-life movement’s accomplishments and growth in the United States, especially among young people: “The rising generation is more pro-life than ever before. Young Americans are embracing the sanctity of life in record numbers – more and more every day.” The vice president stated that the pro-life movement is defined “by generosity, compassion, and love for women and unborn children.” Pence attributed the rise of the pro-life movement to pro-life organizations and from “leaders in pulpits and in public office around the country.” Pence continued by stating that the “truth of abortion is being told and this new generation is choosing life.”

Vice President Mike Pence’s speech is additional evidence of the Trump administration’s pro-life record. He concluded his remarks by telling the audience, “With your continued support, with your dedication of the cause of life…We’ll continue to see pro-life men and women of principle elected and reelected from the White House to the statehouse.”

Sarah Rumpf is a Development intern at Family Research Council.

FRC’s Top 7 Trending Items (Week of July 26)

by Family Research Council

July 31, 2020

Here are “The 7” top trending items at FRC over the past seven days:

1. Washington Update: “Black Lives Matter Makes Its Marx”

How many Christians plaster “Black Lives Matter” across their social media pages not realizing that they’re supporting a group with radical beliefs? Americans are terrified that if they don’t embrace Black Lives Matter, they’ll be labeled as bigots and racists. The extremists are counting on that fear.

2. Washington Update: “Barr Brawl in the House”

House Democrats have been itching to get Attorney General William Barr on the stand for more than a year. But when that wish came true, the Left blew it as they raged, interrupted, and mocked their way through five hours of the hearing.

3. Blog: “Hope in Nebraska: Nebraska Pushes Towards Banning Dismemberment Abortions”

Recently, Nebraska’s state senators successfully brought a bill prohibiting dismemberment abortions to the legislature for debate and a vote. The author of the bill, State Senator Suzanne Geist, believes most Nebraskans will agree with the bill once they learn the horrors of dismemberment abortions.

4. Blog: “Lessons in Perseverance from the Life of William Wilberforce”

The abolition of slavery. Women’s suffrage. Civil rights for black Americans. These reforms came about through years of dedicated efforts from people who refused to quit. As we fight to protect life, family, and religious freedom, we can look to the life of William Wilberforce as inspiration, a man dedicated to the abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

5. Washington Watch: Dr. Teryn Clarke worries that a political agenda is covering up the truth about the coronavirus

Dr. Teryn Clarke, one of the doctors who participated in Monday’s Tea Party Patriots news conference, joined Tony Perkins to discuss the Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter censorship of the viral video.

6. Washington Watch: Sec. Chad Wolf insists that peaceful protestors don’t commit violent crimes

Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, joined Tony Perkins to discuss the federal response to the riots in Portland and other cities, and on protestors showing up outside his home.

7. Washington Watch: Andy McCarthy insists the ACLU’s case against federal troops in Portland is as flimsy as it gets

Andy McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute, joined Sarah Perry to discuss a federal judge issuing a restraining order against federal agents tasked with protecting a federal courthouse in Portland from violent rioters.

For more from FRC, visit our website at frc.org, our blog at frcblog.com, our Facebook page, Twitter account, and Instagram account. Get the latest on what FRC is saying about the current issues of the day that impact the state of faith, family, and freedom, both domestically and abroad. Check out “The 7” at the end of every week to get our highlights of the week’s trending items. Have a great weekend!

FRC’s Efforts on Capitol Hill (Week of July 20)

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP , Laura Lee Caum

July 28, 2020

FRC wrapped up another busy week fighting for faith, family, and freedom on Capitol Hill.

The House came together — and then fell apart

The House of Representatives returned from a two-week recess with a full schedule of legislative items. On Tuesday, the House passed the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes all of the major defense programs, with broad bipartisan support. Fortunately, unlike last year, this year’s bill did not include a new family planning program with pro-life concerns or language to reshape military standards to be gender-neutral. The Senate passed their version of the NDAA on Thursday, also with broad bipartisan support. The absence of progressive policy priorities allowed Democrats and Republicans to join together in support of this year’s NDAA.

While members resisted the temptation to insert partisan priorities in the NDAA, the same could not be said of the Democrats on the Appropriations committee. The House passed the first minibus appropriations package (H.R. 7608), which includes several major pro-life and pro-family concerns. Specifically, the State and Foreign Operations section of the bill included language to repeal President Trump’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which bars funding for foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. The bill would also provide direct funding for the World Health Organization, which actively promotes abortion and a radical sex education agenda abroad. Finally, the bill would weaken a longstanding pro-life amendment that bans funding for any organization or program that promotes coercive abortions. Despite President Trump’s threat to veto any spending bills that weaken or undermine current pro-life policies, House leadership has pushed through a spending bill full of anti-life measures.

FRC priorities attacked in committee hearings

One-third of pregnancies in trans men are unintended.” That statement from the co-founder of Minority Veterans of America is just one example of the radical liberal agenda that was on full display in House committee hearings this week.

Several values issues came up in the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing. First, Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) questioned what was included in the expansion of contraception access for veterans in H.R. 4281. The Director of Reproductive Health at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clarified that this would include abortifacients like the morning after pill. H.R. 3582, which would expand the scope of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans to include LGBT-identifying veterans, was also introduced. Promoting progressive social policies in the VA has become a new tactic in the House as they seek to sneak in social experiments on abortion, marijuana, and LGBT rights into these federal programs.

Some members used the House Foreign Assistance Budget hearing to attack the president’s appointees at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). John Barsa, the Acting Administrator of USAID, who has actively fought against the global expansion of abortion throughout the coronavirus pandemic, was questioned by members for the various pro-life and pro-family appointees at USAID. The questions the members asked were not about the appointee’s experience or credentials for the role. Instead, they raised concerns only because the president’s appointees hold a worldview with which they disagree. These types of attacks are very similar to those leveled at key White House officials, like Russ Vought, as they made their way through the Senate confirmation process. This indirect assault against people who hold a biblical worldview is greatly concerning.

Although there was a fair share of anti-life and anti-family rhetoric on Capitol Hill this week, Christians shouldn’t be discouraged. Proverbs 21:1 reminds us that in God’s hand, “the king’s heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him.” Remember, God is sovereign; nothing surprises Him or takes Him off guard. Moreover, there are actions you can take to protect the values of faith, family, and freedom. First, it is important that you pray. Scripture instructs us to pray for those who are in authority, which includes our leaders in government. Second, it is imperative that you vote and get involved in the political process. As God commanded the exiles in Babylon, we, too, should seek the welfare of our city by engaging in the sometimes messy world of politics. This is one of the practical ways we obey Jesus’ command to love our neighbors (Mark 12:31). Thus, when we are tempted to be discouraged by the rhetoric on Capitol Hill, let’s remember the words of Winston Churchill. “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”

Laura Lee Caum is a Communications intern at Family Research Council.

Disavowing Margaret Sanger Doesn’t Change Planned Parenthood’s Culture of Eugenics, Racism, and Death

by Laura Grossberndt

July 22, 2020

By removing founder Margaret Sanger’s name from its New York City building, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York has taken a first step in acknowledging its racist and eugenic roots. However, removing Sanger’s name from a building is little more than a superficial public relations move meant to mollify the racial justice movement.

This checked box does nothing to change the day-to-day operations of the organization. Planned Parenthood would like Americans to think that its troubled history with eugenics is long over. However, the history of “reproductive harm within communities of color” cited in Planned Parenthood of Greater New York’s statement is not some blemish in Planned Parenthood’s distant past—it continues in the present day. Planned Parenthood will need to do a lot more than disavow Sanger to atone for the harm it has wrought on minority communities and other discriminated groups.

Planned Parenthood paints a rosy picture of its beginnings, declaring on its website: “Planned Parenthood was founded on the revolutionary idea that women should have the information and care they need to live strong, healthy lives and fulfill their dreams — no ceilings, no limits.” This hyper-positive interpretation deliberately neglects to mention that Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger believed birth control to be “nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit.” Articles she wrote on the subject included: “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics,” “The Eugenic Conscience,” “The Purpose of Eugenics,” “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics,” and “Birth Control: The True Eugenics.” Whatever desire she felt for women to “live strong, healthy lives” was commingled with the belief that “unfit” people should not reproduce.

Planned Parenthood’s troubled eugenic legacy does not begin and end with the personal views of its founder, however. For many years, it permeated the organization’s leadership. In 1933, Planned Parenthood (then known as the American Birth Control League) and the American Eugenics Society (AES) attempted an unsuccessful merger. Dr. Alan Guttmacher, the namesake of a leading abortion research organization the Guttmacher Institute, was a eugenicist and served both as vice president of the AES and president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1962-1974.

While Planned Parenthood’s current leadership publicly disavows eugenics, the evidence indicates that the corporate practices of America’s largest abortion supplier disproportionately impact the birthrates of minority communities. Seventy-nine percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of communities identified as black and Hispanic by the 2010 census.  While blacks currently comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population, black women are 3.5 times more likely to have an abortion than white women, according to a 2016 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In Louisiana, where the total number of abortions in 2018 was 8,097, over half (4,958) were abortions of black babies, despite blacks only comprising 32 percent of the state population. And in New York City, where the building formerly named for Margaret Sanger is located, more black pregnancies resulted in abortion than live birth in 2016. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the black population “grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country” between 2000 and 2010.

Not only are Planned Parenthood’s facilities disproportionally represented in minority communities, and not only do they and other abortion suppliers abort black pregnancies at far greater rates than white pregnancies, but they also oppose legislation that seeks to prevent racial discrimination against the unborn. Planned Parenthood strongly opposes prenatal nondiscrimination legislation (PRENDA laws) that prohibit abortion on the basis of the unborn child’s race, sex, or disability. Planned Parenthood does not deny that such cases of discrimination (in their words, “reproductive coercion”) occur, but insists such nondiscrimination bills place “harmful restrictions” on women’s health care. It is unclear what steps Planned Parenthood takes, if any, to prevent prenatal discrimination from occurring at Planned Parenthood facilities. As long as Planned Parenthood champions unrestricted access to abortion, prenatal discrimination will be a reality within their facilities. In May 2019, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a lengthy opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood, in which he cited abortion’s eugenic roots and its continued eugenic potential:

Whereas Sanger believed that birth control could prevent “unfit” people from reproducing, abortion can prevent them from being born in the first place. Many eugenicists therefore supported legalizing abortion, and abortion advocates—including future Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher—endorsed the use of abortion for eugenic reasons. Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability.

Family Research Council believes human life begins at conception. Therefore, we understand abortion to be the taking of human life. We believe the surest way for Planned Parenthood to end the reproductive harm it has wrought within minority communities is to cease performing abortions entirely. We know Planned Parenthood is unlikely to ever make this decision on its own, especially since former president Cecile Richards admitted under oath in 2015 that 86 percent of Planned Parenthood’s non-federal revenue comes from abortions.

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York removed Margaret Sanger’s name from its New York City building to signal care for minority communities and opposition to racial discrimination and eugenics. But if Planned Parenthood really cared about minority communities, it would stop setting up abortion mills in these communities. If it really cared about racial discrimination, it would stop opposing and start supporting PRENDA laws. If the organization truly cared to deal with its racist and eugenic roots, the entire Planned Parenthood Federation of America—not just the Greater New York branch—would disavow both Margaret Sanger and Alan Guttmacher.

Don’t hold your breath.

For more information on Planned Parenthood, check out these FRC resources: Planned Parenthood Is Not Pro-Woman and The Real Planned Parenthood: Leading the Culture of Death.

Loosening Abortion Pill Restrictions Sends Women Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire

by Laura Grossberndt

July 20, 2020

On July 13, a Maryland district judge granted a preliminary injunction that waives the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) safety limitations on administering abortion pills for the duration of the present health crisis. These limitations, part of the FDA’s drug safety program called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS), require women to visit a hospital, clinic, or medical office in person in order to obtain abortion pills. By waving these requirements, the preliminary injunction allows providers to mail abortion pills directly to women without an in-person visit. This contact-free process allegedly mitigates risks to women’s health by making them less likely to be exposed to COVID-19. However, loosening the FDA’s risk-mitigation requirements merely substitutes one health risk for another, effectively sending women out of the frying pan of COVID-19 and into the fire of severe abortion complications.

Abortion advocates have argued that the FDA’s risk mitigation requirements place a significant burden on women seeking abortions, particularly during the present health crisis. District Judge Theodore Chuang agreed, saying, “By causing certain patients to decide between forgoing or substantially delaying abortion care, or risking exposure to COVID-19 for themselves, their children, and family members, the in-person requirements present a serious burden to many abortion patients.”

Judge Chuang continued, “Particularly in light of the limited timeframe during which a medication abortion or any abortion must occur, such infringement on the right to an abortion would constitute irreparable harm.”

Such a decision fails to consider the irreparable harm that can befall women who take abortion pills. The abortion industry markets the abortion pill as straightforward and safe. However, there are over 4,000 documented cases of abortion pills endangering the lives and health of women. The pills can cause extensive physical trauma, including severe bleeding, infection, retained fetal parts, the need for emergency surgery, and even death. And that’s with the FDA’s risk mitigation requirements in place. Imagine how much more harm abortion pills could cause now that the safety restrictions on them have been temporarily waived.

There are two general types of abortion: surgical and chemical. The act of taking abortion pills is a chemical abortion. Abortion providers and activists like chemical abortions (often called by the more palliative name “medication abortion”) as an option because they require less overhead for the clinic and can be performed virtually anywhere. But this locational flexibility is precisely what makes chemical abortions so incredibly risky. While surgical abortions are performed in a clinic, chemical abortions take place at least partially at home.

Under the FDA restrictions, a woman seeking a chemical abortion would visit a physician in-person. In order to be a certified prescriber, the physician must have the ability to 1) assess the duration of pregnancy accurately; 2) diagnose ectopic pregnancies, and 3) provide surgical intervention or ensure necessary care in the event of severe complications. The woman will then take the first pill (mifepristone) in the two-part regimen. The physician would give her instructions on when to take the second pill (misoprostol). Ideally, there would be a follow-up in-person appointment to ensure the abortion was completed without any serious complications for the woman.

This process is already risky, but it at least involves a local physician in the process. Under the preliminary injunction, a woman would merely need to complete a virtual consultation in order to be mailed abortion pills. The injunction does not even specify if the prescribing physician must be local or not.

It can be difficult for the woman to know if her life or health is seriously at risk during a chemical abortion. The abortion pill’s medication guide brushes off the following types of physical trauma as normal, even a sign that the treatment is “working”:

Cramping and vaginal bleeding are expected with this treatment. Usually, these symptoms mean that the treatment is working…Bleeding or spotting can be expected for an average of 9 to 16 days and may last for up to 30 days…You may see blood clots and tissue. This is an expected part of passing the pregnancy.

In the event of severe complications from the chemical abortion, it is entirely the woman’s responsibility to get herself to a hospital. Furthermore, the cost of this emergency care is assumed by the patient, who may or may not have health care coverage.

Loosening restrictions on chemical abortions does not protect the health of women. Rather, it plays into the abortion industry’s long-term strategy of making abortions “self-managed.” Why do they want abortions to be self-managed? Because it makes abortions more commonplace and readily available—which is better for their business and bottom line. But the ready availability of abortion pills has the potential to expose women to a whole host of problems. As Patrina Mosley writes:

Making the abortion pill a “self-managed” over-the-counter (OTC) drug product has radical implications for women’s health and safety, especially as it pertains to intimate partner violence, sexual abuse and sex trafficking, and accurate patient assessment. Furthermore, it would also dangerously bypass state laws governing parental rights and informed consent on the issue of abortion.

Abortion advocates once claimed that legalizing abortion would eliminate life-threatening risks to women. Now they are attempting to make abortion completely “self-managed” despite the abortion pill’s life-threatening and health-damaging risks to women.

Judge Chuang took what ought to have been a regulatory decision (i.e., does the FDA have the authority to regulate this drug?) and turned it into constitutional privacy question based on Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He also attempts to be a medical doctor who would know the ins and outs of what is medically necessary, instead of leaving that to the health experts—specifically, those at FDA—who wrote the regulations. Judge Chuang’s opinion sets a dangerous precedent for where the courts could go on this question in the future.

Judge Chuang made an ill-founded decision. Citing the current public health emergency as a reason for loosening the FDA’s medically justified risk-mitigation requirements for the abortion pill is not in the best interest of women’s health. Rather, it sends women out of the frying pan and into the fire.

The Media Attacks Churches for Getting PPP Loans, But Ignores Planned Parenthood

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP , Samantha Stahl

July 15, 2020

As reports began trickling in last week about which organizations received coronavirus relief funds, it became known that Planned Parenthood received at least $150 million in funds, and several businesses connected to Members of Congress also received funds. Despite this controversy over which organizations received relief funds, the media has singled out the church as being the most egregious recipient of them all.

The AP recently reported that the Roman Catholic Church lobbied the Trump administration to receive $1.4 billion in coronavirus relief funds and Reuters revealed that several evangelical churches with ties to the Trump administration also received funds. With targeted attacks on faith-based organizations, the media missed several marks about how the program operates and further demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of how religious institutions operate. 

The Media Ignores the Details

The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), first passed in the CARES Act, is designed to grant forgivable loans to small businesses and nonprofit organizations specifically to keep employees on their employers’ payroll during the coronavirus pandemic. These loans are administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA), and because of that it has led to confusion that nonprofits including churches are not eligible. However, the legislation explicitly allows nonprofit organizations to be eligible for the program. The text of the legislation was not initially clear on whether religious nonprofits were eligible or not, so at the request of several Members of Congress, the SBA issued an FAQ document clearly stating that faith-based entities can receive PPP funds.

The program is also very clear on how the funds must be used for forgiveness eligibility. The funds must be used on payroll, mortgage payments, rent, or utilities to qualify for forgiveness; otherwise the funding acts as a normal loan complete with interest and other obligations. This ensures that the funds are directly used to help employees from being furloughed, and that funds are not used on expressly religious activities. Furthermore, this program is open to all faith-based entities regardless of religious affiliation. It does not provide special treatment for Christian or Jewish organizations; even the stridently atheist advocacy group Freedom From Religion Foundation received a PPP loan. This fact alone should help alleviate concerns that the government is somehow violating the establishment clause of the Constitution by unfairly favoring specific churches and religious groups.

The Unique Structure of Churches

However, the main point of contention comes with the affiliation rule that Congress included in the CARES Act. This rule was included so that small businesses or nonprofits that have the same ownership, management, finances, or identity of a larger organization will have their total employees counted together to exclude small organizations that may already have the necessary financial help from a larger umbrella organization. This is the provision which gave the SBA the authority to exclude Planned Parenthood from receiving PPP loans, yet it was not enforced, which lead Planned Parenthood to be given $150 million in funds. It’s also the same provision which some have argued should exclude churches which are affiliates of a larger entity like the Catholic Church.

However, this concern reveals a basic misunderstanding of the structure of religious organizations and has unfortunately led to attacks on churches for supposedly violating this rule. For the most part, churches affiliated with larger entities like the Southern Baptist Convention or the Catholic Church operate independently. They raise their own money, take out their own loans, pay their own utility costs, and hire and manage their own staff. In many respects, these churches operate as independent organizations to best serve their local community, resembling the operations of a small business. For example, within the Southern Baptist Convention—the largest Protestant denomination in America—each church is considered autonomous. This is a basic tenet of Baptist ecclesiology; churches can give a percentage of their undesignated receipts to their state convention to support missions and ministries through the Cooperate Program if they choose to, but are not punished or removed from the convention if they do not.

These considerations show that the media’s narrative on churches and the PPP program is not accurate, especially when it comes to churches that are connected to larger affiliate organizations for specifically religious reasons like directing religious teachings or assigning pastors to minister to specific churches. The SBA recognized this in their guidance for faith-based organizations applying for coronavirus relief funds. In fact, the SBA FAQs clearly applies the First Amendment to the program, noting:

If the connection between your organization and another entity that would constitute an affiliation is based on a religious teaching or belief or is otherwise a part of the exercise of religion, your organization qualifies for an exemption from the affiliation rules. For example, if your faith-based organization affiliates with another organization because of your organization’s religious beliefs about church authority or internal constitution, or because the legal, financial, or other structural relationships between your organization and other organizations reflect an expression of such beliefs, your organization would qualify for the exemption.

While it may seem like Planned Parenthood and large religious affiliate organizations like a Catholic diocese have a similar structure and both should be ineligible for PPP loans, only these faith-based institutions are eligible for the religious exemption that is consistent with constitutional and statutory religious freedom protections.

Religion as an Important Public Good

Churches have employees they must continue to pay during the pandemic just like any other for-profit business. In addition to taking care of their workers, churches must also pay interest on mortgages or rent for the space they use as well as utilities to keep the lights on. These requirements have been met by the churches that have lawfully been granted a PPP loan.

Moreover, it is important to realize that churches also play an essential role in ministering to people’s needs. With the shutdown of churches due to COVID-19, many of these mercy ministers have been affected. Outside of the government, the Catholic Church supplies a huge portion of the social services in America, serving millions of people who are suffering now more than ever. In response to the targeted reporting on churches receiving PPP loans, Archbishop Paul S. Coakley, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, called the loans an “essential lifeline” for employees and their families. The PPP loans play an important part in the ability of churches to continue their support of their brothers and sisters in Christ, especially during this time of financial instability.

While it is understandable to raise concerns about certain organizations improperly applying for a PPP loan, media hit pieces like the AP article are nothing more than attacks on people of faith and religious organizations. Tragically, lies and falsehoods have a price; in the last few days as the mainstream media has singled out faith-based organizations in their reporting, religious statues have been vandalized and churches have been burned.   

Not only are attacks on churches lawfully applying for aid appalling, the comparative lack of media attention to the fact that Planned Parenthood improperly applied for the PPP loan is astounding. Planned Parenthood is not even remotely close to a small employer since its number of employees dwarf the 500-employee limit for eligibility for the PPP loan, yet they applied for and received millions of dollars in aid while also continuing to lobby for further financial assistance in future coronavirus relief legislation.

This whole situation makes it clear that the media and ruling elites of our country find churches and religious organizations, which often labor quietly for the common good for all of society, more abhorrent than abortion facilities designed specifically to end the lives of innocent human beings. Now is the time for the church and people of faith to stand for what is good and right and push back against a worldview which values the destruction of human life over the salvation of souls. 

Connor Semelsberger is the Legislative Assistant at Family Research Council.

Samantha Stahl is a Communications intern at Family Research Council.

All 9 Months and Beyond: Let’s Be Truly Pro-Life

by Hayden Sledge

July 8, 2020

I am a woman. I am also pro-life. Unfortunately, many people today see these identities as contradictory and antithetical. Over the past few decades, society has tried to force many women into a box: If you are a woman who is proud of your womanhood, you should support and advocate for abortion. If not, how can you be a true advocate for women? Supporting women has become synonymous with supporting abortion.

But truth be told, abortion is devastating to women. Abortion can cause physical and psychological complications to the woman obtaining the abortion and affect her ability to successfully carry future pregnancies to term. Not only that, but many of abortion’s unborn victims are female.

These considerations lead to an important question: What does it truly mean to advocate for women?

A true advocate for women supports God’s design for women

God specially designed women with the capacity of bringing life into the world. In the creation mandate given in Genesis 1:28, the first human couple was charged to fill the earth and exercise dominion. While both the husband and wife play a role in conceiving life, the woman has the privilege and responsibility of bringing the new life into the world. Thus, while not all women will be mothers, many will, and motherhood should be seen as a high calling worthy of respect, rather than an impediment needing to be overcome.

Unfortunately, the abortion industry presents a narrative that women can only assert control over their lives if they have the option to abort their children. However, God is ultimately sovereign over all aspects of our lives, including the pregnancy journey, the mother’s life experiences, and the development of unborn children. God’s hand is entirely evident throughout the process.      

Thus, as Christians we should support women in the unique callings God has given each of them, whether that calling includes a career, motherhood, or both. We should appreciate the variety of ways God works in and through each woman.

A true advocate for women helps women facing hardship

God is active during times of celebration and suffering. He reminds us that we will all experience suffering during our time on earth. In fact, Romans 8:22 tells us that the all of creation “groans” due to the curse of sin.  

We all experience various forms of hardship, which can include familial loss, illness, financial stress, mental illness, infertility, miscarriage, or unexpected pregnancy. The church ought to come alongside and help people in their most vulnerable stages of life. This includes actively loving and protecting mothers who have made the brave and courageous decision to keep their babies despite pressure to abort.

Many women experience confusion, shame, and difficulty throughout their pregnancies, especially if those pregnancies are unexpected or unwanted. Although pregnancy is ideally a time of celebration and rejoicing in a new God-given life, it is important to remember that many mothers need care and comfort during and after their pregnancy. It is not an easy journey and is even more difficult for single mothers who are already lacking support.

A true advocate for women supports mothers before and after pregnancy

The church should love and care for women in one of the most life-altering and vulnerable stages of life: the time during and after pregnancy. We should continuously remind mothers of Jesus’ steadfast love as we walk alongside them.

Too often, churches encourage mothers in the early stages of pregnancy but neglect to stand with them after birth. Although pregnancy can be a difficult time, there are a host of challenges that can arise after birth as well. So, it is important that we seek to encourage and help the mother and baby after birth.

In honoring the Lord, we are to care for all mothers and their unborn children, reminding them of God’s truth that they are—or by faith can become—the beloved daughters of a loving heavenly Father.

Here are some resources that seek to help mothers during their pregnancy and beyond. Although an online resource cannot address all the complexities and possible difficulties surrounding pregnancy, these are helpful places to start.

Hayden Sledge is a Coalitions intern at Family Research Council.

A Loss for Women and Children at the Supreme Court

by Katherine Beck Johnson

July 1, 2020

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo, the first major abortion case the Court has taken up since President Trump appointed Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The Court’s ruling struck down Louisiana’s law requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges. While Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were both in the dissent, Justice Roberts proved to be the disappointing fifth vote that struck down the common-sense law.

Louisiana’s admitting privileges law was in the best interest of women. If something were to go awry during an abortion, the abortionist would be able to get the woman admitted to the hospital and explain to her doctors precisely what had occurred. If the abortionist does not have admitting privileges, the woman might be forced to call an ambulance and explain what had happened herself—a heavy burden to place on the woman, and quite impossible if she is unconscious. Requiring admitting privileges is a common-sense regulation that applies to every other outpatient surgical center in Louisiana. Nevertheless, liberal justices and Justice Roberts were unwilling to uphold the requirement when applied to abortion clinics.

In a previously decided case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Texas’s admitting privileges law and a few other abortion regulations had been at issue. The Court held that Texas’ law created an undue burden. Justice Kennedy provided the decisive fifth vote that struck down the pro-life and pro-woman law. Justice Roberts dissented.  

Whole Woman’s was a poorly decided case that needed to be overturned. The Court had the chance to overturn it in June Medical with Justice Kennedy off the Court and two new Republican-appointed justices. Instead, once again, the Court struck down a law aimed at saving unborn lives and protecting women’s health.  

Justice Roberts dissented in Whole Woman’s, yet he voted with the liberal justices in June Medical to strike down Louisiana’s admitting privileges law. Interestingly, in his concurrence, Justice Roberts said that he still agrees that Whole Woman’s Health was wrongly decided, yet said he is bound by stare decisis to uphold the law. Stare decisis is a legal principle that means you decide a case bound by precedent, regardless of whether the precedent is correct. Roberts claims that “for precedent to mean anything, the doctrine must give way only to a rationale that goes beyond whether the case was decided correctly.” Yet, Roberts has not felt bound by stare decisis in plenty of his other opinions, including Citizens United v. FEC. When it comes to abortion, however, Justice Roberts suddenly feels his hands are tied. Regardless, if a legal precedent is wrong, he and the Supreme Court should do the right thing and overturn it. With women and children’s lives on the line, Justice Roberts chose to adhere to a precedent he acknowledges is wrong.

Justice Roberts’ adherence to stare decisis is problematic for the future of abortion law at the Supreme Court. If Justice Roberts thought adhering to a five-year-old precedent of knocking down hospital admitting privileges is so embedded in our country’s jurisprudence to deserve stare decisis, he almost certainly views Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood as deserving of stare decisis, even if he disagrees with the opinions. This indicates that while judicial nominees are extremely important, they can be unreliable. It is no longer enough for the pro-life movement to depend on Republican-appointed justices and hope they will do the right thing on abortion.

Women and children lost at the Supreme Court on Monday. The abortion industry won. Once again, abortionists proved that rules don’t apply to them; they are exempt from laws. Despite this disappointing loss, the pro-life movement should not lose hope or remain discouraged. The fight for civil rights will continue—with or without Justice Roberts on our side.

Hidden in Plain Sight: How Abortion Erases Black Lives

by Quinn Roberts , Dean Nelson

June 25, 2020

In the weeks since George Floyd’s tragic death on May 25, our nation has experienced a national reckoning on issues related to race. From Minnesota to California to Washington, D.C., tens of thousands of Americans have rallied in solidarity with the victims of discrimination, demanding equal justice under the law. Many Christians see this crisis and believe in the necessity of elevating the simple yet profound theological truth that all people are made in God’s image and possess dignity and value.

George Floyd’s on-camera death has prompted many conversations on race, policing, incarceration, and civil rights. Much of this is focused on the city street. However, our streets aren’t the only places Americans, especially minorities, remain vulnerable.

Every day, women enter abortion facilities believing them to be their only hope for help and answers. Often, they have been told that giving birth to their babies will ruin their lives, or that any children they have will grow up to be criminals. As if this were not tragic enough, abortion providers specifically target and prey upon low-income, minority communities. Seventy-nine percent of abortion clinics in the United States are located in black or Hispanic neighborhoods.

The placement of these clinics in minority communities is not an accident. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger advocated for eugenics, especially through the use of birth control. Sanger’s racist beliefs are well documented. For example, in a letter to Clarence Gamble, she once explained, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Today, abortions of black babies make up 38 percent of all abortions, even though African Americans only make up 13 percent of the population. In 2016 alone, the lives of 137,510 black babies were ended under the “right to privacy” called abortion. Dr. La Verne Tolbert, former Planned Parenthood board member turned pro-life advocate, commented on this alarmingly high rate of black abortions: “Planned Parenthood targets minorities for abortion with the specific goal of keeping down (or lowering) the birthrate of Black babies…. Over twenty million African American babies have been aborted.”

In Genesis 1:27, God set the precedent for human dignity with the words, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Each and every human is a unique individual made in the image of God. Our accomplishments do not increase or decrease the value of our lives. This inherent value is known as “human dignity.” Even those who do not normally accept a Judeo-Christian value system agree with the inherent dignity of humans. The evidence is found in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” The phrase, “born free and equal in dignity and rights,” despite having no inherent reference to Scripture or Judeo-Christian values, clearly affirms the concept of human dignity. 

Human dignity drives the outrage at even one person’s death, especially an unjust death. As mentioned earlier, human dignity is a universal concept that applies to all people, regardless of circumstance. This applies equally to those we can see and those we cannot yet see. The unborn children of the world are humans too and therefore are inherently valuable. Yet, abortion providers would have you believe otherwise.

Every day, young mothers—especially black and brown—are told that the babies they carry are not unique human beings full of unlimited potential, but “problems” that will destroy their dreams and burden society. But the truth is, what is inside any mother’s womb is not just a clump of cells, nor is it part of her body. It is another human just waiting for the opportunity to live in the world. Of course, all people will face trials and difficult circumstances, much like the trying times our nation faces today, but that is not all there is to life. There are so many thousands of blessings, large and small, that help us appreciate life, and when it comes down to it, we would not give them for the world. Things like a mother’s hug, a hot cup of coffee, a beautiful sunset, the birth of a child, and so much more. Yet, hundreds of thousands of innocent babies will never get to experience these wonders every year. What is worse is that a disproportionately large number of those are black babies who will never get to make a difference and influence the culture for positive change.

George Floyd’s death serves as a clarion call for justice—not only for those we can physically see but also for those we cannot yet see. Unlike a death on the street captured on video, abortion is hidden away and sterilized under mountains of lies, paperwork, and medical waste bins stashed in the back alleys of abortion facilities. We rightly mourn the emptiness left by George Floyd’s death, yet abortion is responsible for an immense vacuum left by the millions of black Americans who never even got their chance to be born. Can America ever be a truly just nation if we continue to throw away millions of lives simply because someone says they aren’t worth living?  

Dean Nelson is FRC’s Senior Fellow for African American Affairs and the Executive Director of Human Coalition Action.

Quinn Roberts is a Policy & Government Affairs intern at Family Research Council.

Is Judge Duncan an “Ultra-Conservative” or Just an Originalist?

by Katherine Beck Johnson

June 16, 2020

The Guardian put out a piece attempting to criticize Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The piece only succeeded in highlighting the author’s fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a judge. It is not the role of a judge to weigh into what the law should be, but rather the judge interprets what the law is, the law enacted by the people’s representatives. 

Many of President Trump’s judicial nominees are originalist and textualist. While these may be considered “conservative” judicial philosophies, the result is not always conservative policy goals. If the judge is interpreting a “liberal” law, the text will lead to a result that is liberal. The basic goal of originalism and textualism is that the people, not unelected judges, say what the law ought to be. The judge’s role is to say what the law is, or what the people enacted through their elected officials. Therefore, the Guardian’s fearmongering piece claiming that the judges appointed by President Trump have any role in abortion law is false. It isn’t Trump-appointed judges, it’s the people that have the role of saying what abortion laws should prevail in their states. Judge Duncan is no exception to this rule.

The piece quotes the legal director at Alliance for Justice saying, “For the overwhelming number of cases, the constitutional rights of the people in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi will be made by Kyle Duncan and the other ultra-conservatives on the fifth circuit.” This is false. The rights of the people will be made by the people—not the judges on the fifth circuit.

While a lawyer in private practice, Judge Duncan advocated for Louisiana’s law that is currently before the Supreme Court: June Medical v. Russo. This law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. It’s a commonsense law that demands abortion facilities abide by the same rules as all other outpatient surgical centers. When Judge Duncan was in private practice, he defended this law on behalf of the state of Louisiana until he became a judge. The Fifth Circuit, where Judge Duncan now sits, upheld this law. Judge Duncan followed proper judicial protocol and recused himself from the case because he had advocated for Louisiana when he was in private practice. He has clearly conducted himself in an ethical manner on the Fifth Circuit.

The Guardian piece is yet another example of a judge being attacked for their faith, as the piece specifically points out Judge Duncan’s Catholic faith. In America, one’s religion does not prevent them from being selected for a job. Judge Duncan’s history advocating for religious liberty is another aspect of him that the piece viewed as problematic. A judge that recognizes our first freedom, our freedom of religion, is not problematic. Judge Duncan understands just how important religious liberty is to our Constitution.

The Constitution makes it clear that the role of a judge is to say what the law is and not what the law ought to be. The people of the United States are the ones charged with saying what the laws that dictate their lives should be. Judge Duncan knows his role as a judge and has done a wonderful job. We need more judges like Judge Duncan.

Archives