Tag archives: Abortion

Court Rulings on the Protect Life Rule Leave Abortion Advocates Stunned

by Connor Semelsberger , Mary Jayne Caum

July 15, 2019

Across the United States, courts tasked with hearing the lawsuits against the Trump administration’s pro-life rule changes to the Title X Family Planning Program agree, “the Government is likely to prevail.”

When the Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published the Protect Life Rule, pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood lost no time in filing lawsuits to halt the Rule’s implementation. Believing they would be assigned a favorable judge, opponents of the Rule filed suit in the Ninth Circuit and other friendly courts. Although opponents obtained an advantageous ruling at the district court level, ultimately a three-judge panel in both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Circuit) and the Fourth Circuit (4th Circuit) decided to lift the preliminary injunctions and allow the Rule to be implemented temporarily. Opponents of the Rule suffered another failure when an 11-judge panel sitting en banc in the 9th Circuit reiterated that the Rule should be implemented while the merits of the case are heard. Lastly, a district judge in Maine refused to halt the Rule’s implementation while the merits of the case are litigated. That totals four devastating and seemingly unexpected adverse rulings opponents of the Protect Life Rule have suffered thus far. 

In each Court Opinion, the various courts explain the Protect Life Rule should go into effect during the lawsuit, because HHS will likely prevail in defending the Rule. This legal conclusion is reached for primarily two reasons: precedent and statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court Decision Rust v. Sullivan upheld regulations nearly identical to the Protect Life Rule. Additionally, the Rule adheres to applicable statutes. Therefore, courts across the nation conclude that HHS is likely to succeed on the merits because of the precedent established by Rust and the Rule’s lawful adherence to statutory law. An issue brief published by Family Research Council has further information on the legal arguments surrounding Title X. 

These legal proclamations are devastating for pro-abortion groups because it undermines a significant portion of their industry. The clear separation that the Protect Life Rule establishes between family planning funding and the abortion industry is contrary to their worldview. If the Protect Life Rule is ultimately upheld, abortion providers must adhere to the regulations in order to continue receiving Title X funds. If abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood refuse to comply, however, those Title X family planning funds can be diverted to other healthcare clinics such as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), Rural Health Centers, and Pregnancy Resource Centers which provide certain services that would be eligible for Title X funding under the Protect Life Rule

Since taking office, President Donald Trump and the U.S. Senate have worked together to confirm 127 federal judges. Several of these judges were vital to lifting the preliminary injunction against the Protect Life Rule, including two in the 9th Circuit, two in the 4th Circuit, and one in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. The ability of President Trump and the U.S. Senate to confirm constitutionally-minded judges shows that elections have consequences and that victory in the courts is crucial.

Without a favorable ruling on the merits, abortion referrals will continue, co-mingling of funds will perpetuate, and precious babies developing in the womb will perish. Courts must continue to discard the shallow political arguments opponents of the Rule are making and choose to uphold the law. The survival of countless lives depends upon future legal victories. 

Mary Jayne Caum is a Policy intern at Family Research Council. Connor Semelsberger is Legislative Assistant at Family Research Council.

Minnesota Reports 3 Born-Alive Babies in 2018

by Patrina Mosley , Connor Semelsberger

July 3, 2019

Think babies aren’t being born alive after surviving an abortion attempt? Think again. From January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018, three babies in Minnesota survived abortions but later died, according to a new Minnesota state Department of Health report.

Since 2015, Minnesota has been keeping track of abortion survivors since the states’ passage of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. The law recognizes infants who survive abortions as human persons and requires that they be provided with reasonable medical care. The law also requires information to be collected on the medical actions taken to preserve the life of the infant, whether the infant survived, and the status of a surviving infant.

Since the law went into effect, Minnesota has reported 11 babies surviving abortions:

  • five babies in 2016
  • three babies in 2017
  • three babies in 2018

Laws to require the collection of data on born-alive victims should be encouraged in all states. There are only six states that require reporting on babies born alive during abortion procedures: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas. As of 2017, only Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, and Oklahoma have reported this information.

Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control report at least 143 babies were born alive after botched abortions between 2003 and 2014 in the U.S. The CDC took this data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) Mortality Data in regard to infant deaths. These numbers are different from the number collected by the states that report born-alive infants.

As a response to the lack of reporting on abortion and abortion survivors, U.S. Representatives Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) and Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) recently introduced The Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2019 (H.R. 3580). This bill would require all states to submit abortion data, including the number of children who survive abortions, in order to receive Medicaid funds for family planning services.

The CDC already requests abortion reporting from states. However, the reporting of this information is voluntary, which allows states to leave out certain statistics or opt out altogether. Because there are only six states that require reporting on children who survive abortions, it is vital that the U.S. Congress passes this bill so that the American people know how many innocent lives are lost because of the failure to provide life-saving care to the most vulnerable.

Efforts to protect infants who survive abortion has not been limited to gathering a few data points, as Members of Congress continue to fight for a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 962) which would require life-saving medical care for children born alive after abortion attempts. So far, Republicans have asked for unanimous consent to vote on this bill 67 times, and every single time Democrat leaders have said no.

Sometimes, a small symbol of humanity is all it takes to change the mind of our government officials. There is no better sign of the humanity of children who survive abortions then the soft, warm feel of the colorful baby hat given to newborns at hospitals, just like the ones in our End Birth Day Abortions Campaign. Every child deserves to wear a new baby hat, especially the three children who survived abortion attempts in Minnesota last year.

Prostitution and Abortion: The Exploitation of Women and Children

by Abigail Moreno-Riano

June 26, 2019

Earlier this year, the state of New York legalized abortion up until birth, and the governor and abortion activists then proceeded to celebrate this loss of life as a joyous occasion. Now, another crisis of human dignity was narrowly averted after New York came close to passing the first ever complete decriminalization of prostitution.

While Nevada is the only other state to legalize forms of prostitution, New York’s bill is the most extensive bill that has ever been introduced, and as these authors noted, “would only turn mostly women and girls into ‘commodities to be bought and sold.’” Thankfully, this bill has been tabled for now, but there is no doubt that pro-prostitution activists will continue to push for more decriminalization legislation in the future.

The Dignity of Every Life

We are pro-life because we believe each person is made in the image of God and therefore, whether man, woman, or unborn child, each person is worthy of dignity and respect. It is not what one does that allows a person to earn the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but rather, who a person is that endows them with these dignities. This belief is founded on the truth that God created male and female in his own image, as stated in Genesis 1:27.

It is here that we see human dignity does not just apply to men, but to women as well. This seems like an obvious statement, but in a world where the businesses of porn, prostitution, and sex trafficking increasingly degrade and destroy a woman’s perception of herself (not to mention a man’s perception of women) until she no longer sees herself as human but as an object, the dignity of women must be called out and fought for. As we fight for babies to be treated with dignity, so should we for women.

Women advocating for this bill, like sponsor Sen. Julia Salazar, argued it is because of their concern for the “rights” of women entrapped in prostitution and their desire for these women “to be treated with dignity and to be treated like human beings” that they support this bill. It is here that we see that the core of their advocacy is a misconstrued understanding of human dignity. The abortion and prostitution industries survive by encouraging and empowering this misconstrued understanding of human dignity, masking exploitation under the guise of “freedom.”

The Cycle of Degredation

As the cycles of pornography, sex trafficking, prostitution, and abortion continue, they are only fed by laws that seek to legalize their exploitative behavior. For too long, men who seek their own advantage have shown through their actions and attitudes towards women that their version of “liberty” comes from selfishness and “sheer self-will.”

This distorted understanding of freedom has been taken up by the Feminist movement, through which women seek to remedy exploitation by fighting for equal rights, as they should, but with the wrong tactics. Their view of freedom makes room for the belief that women are empowered by their ability to receive an abortion, but these avenues only allow exploitation to continue in the degradation of the unborn.

As Edmund Burke wrote, true freedom “is not solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish liberty, as if every man was to regulate the whole of his conduct by his own will.” True freedom exists not by selfish indulgence, but by “equality of restraint,” in which no person can “find means to trespass on the liberty” of any other person but every person is respected and respects others because of their inherent worth and value.

The cycle of degrading human dignity must end, and it starts with the woman understanding that her inherent value and worth is not dependent on the usefulness of her body. If women continue to allow themselves to be exploited, they allow men to degrade their worth and see abuse as the norm. The pro-life movement rightly seeks to help women value their babies as people, not as objects. But until women see themselves as inherently valuable and not as objects, they’ll never see their babies as more than the same.

Attorneys from Sanctuary for Families spoke out against decriminalizing prostitution, calling out prostitution as “an industry of abuse and violence which profits from the commodification of human beings,” adding, “The answer is not making it legal to pimp or buy sex. The answer is ensuring that we respect the full equality and dignity of every human.”

Ending the Industries of Exploitation

A woman is not valuable because of the desirability of her body, she is valuable because she is made in the image of God. Period. Until women start seeing themselves as dignified and worthy of more, they will only allow exploitation to continue. When women understand the inherent dignity that they possess, they are empowered to view their unborn children with the same dignity.

Laws that restrain abortion and prostitution do not imply that women are subservient to men. Rather, they demonstrate that women and unborn babies are equal and possess inherent dignity, and are therefore deserving of respect, while forcibly suppressing the industries of exploitation. Therefore, we must continue to fight for the dignity and protection of all, particularly women and unborn children, by upholding both anti-prostitution and pro-life laws.

Abigail Moreno-Riano is an intern at Family Research Council.

Is the Pro-Life Movement Truly Pro-Life or Just Pro-Birth?

by Alexis Stefani

June 18, 2019

The anti-abortion movement pays lip service to caring for women, but there is only one thing they care about: the unborn. I care about all lives.” (USA Today op-ed – May 14, 2019)

With abortion legislation in the news every day, the country is once more debating the issue of life. One recurring point brought up by politicians, celebrities, and pro-choicers is that the pro-life movement doesn’t truly care about life at all stages—only unborn lives.   

In their opinion, pro-lifers are not worthy of the “pro-life” label unless they also support single-payer healthcare. They argue that once a child is born, pro-lifers are nowhere to be seen. They also point to a ridiculously expensive and long adoption process and broken foster care system to prove the neglect of children once out of the womb. In their eyes, the mere fact that many pro-lifers support the second amendment and oppose single-payer healthcare disqualifies them from really being “pro-life.”

However, these accusations are unwarranted and do not discredit the central premise of the pro-life movement: fighting for the lives of unborn babies by opposing abortion.

In fact, there is a wide array of diversity within the pro-life movement. There are pro-life groups for Democrats, secularists, feminists (here and here), and many other demographics of people that do not fit the stereotypical “pro-lifer.” The pro-life movement is about stopping abortion. There is room within the movement for differing beliefs on other issues that are not tied to abortion.

Let’s take a look at three common objections to the pro-life label being used for those who oppose abortion.

1. “You’re not pro-life if you oppose single-payer healthcare.” Many in the pro-life movement have been attacked for opposing single-payer healthcare. However, this is not an indicator of how much the pro-life movement cares about life. The pro-life movement can oppose abortion without having to take a stance on how best to solve our nation’s healthcare problems.

There are a variety of proposals to address access to quality healthcare, and people of good faith can disagree which one is best. But, no one who considers herself or himself “pro-life” can do so in good faith while also supporting a healthcare system that funds the destruction of life in the womb.

The pro-life movement does offer an enormous amount of support for mothers and their children through a wide array of pregnancy care centers and homes for mothers in need. There is still work to be done and improvements to be made, but in no way does the pro-life movement need to advocate for socialized healthcare to be considered “pro-life.”

2. “If you’re really pro-life, you would foster and adopt.” The assumption that pro-lifers don’t foster or adopt is untrue. In fact, the pro-life community has long taken adoption and foster care seriously. Many pro-lifers want to give kids in need of loving homes a family. Christian organizations are responsible for many adoption agencies and orphanages.

Alabama is a great example of this. After passing one of the strongest pro-life laws in the nation earlier this year, they set a record for the highest adoption rates in the country. This shows that the accusation that those who are pro-life don’t care about babies after they are born is not reflected in reality.

Please don’t misunderstand me—there is still much to be done to ensure children are put in loving foster and adoptive homes. But, as someone who has an adopted brother, my family and I can personally attest to the beauty of adoption and the ways that God has used it to form our family.

The pro-life movement should flatly reject any insinuation that simply because there are children in need of loving homes or that the adoption system needs improvement, that they don’t care about children after birth. While it is true that there are many injustices that need to be addressed in the world besides abortion, abortion remains the most fundamental injustice because without the right to life, no other rights are even possible.

3. “If you’re pro-life, then you can’t support unrestricted gun rights.” Guns themselves are amoral—they can be used for good or for evil. I have never met someone who supports the second amendment because they want more gun violence. It is always because they think that gun control is not effective for those who already clearly disregard the law.

The pro-life movement is a big-tent movement. All pro-lifers can agree that taking innocent life in an abortion is morally wrong; the extent to which the second amendment rights of Americans ought to be protected is another matter entirely.

The gun control debate is not about how highly we ought to value life; rather, it is about how to best preserve life. Policies regarding gun control are complicated because they are not only about ideology—they are also about enforcement and practicality. Thus, opposing gun control is not a hypocritical inconsistency for a pro-lifer.

Defending Those Who Have No Voice

By arguing that the pro-life movement isn’t really “pro-life” unless it also embraces a wide swath of the progressive agenda, pro-choicers avoid a real discussion about what abortion really is. All of the issues we’ve discussed are post-birth. None of these issues would even be worth discussing if life itself wasn’t valuable and worth fighting for.

The pro-life movement is not one that wants to control women’s bodies or take away healthcare or any other sort of nefarious motivation. Rather, the pro-life movement seeks to defend the lives of babies in the womb who have no voice.

Let’s not treat abortion the same as these other issues. Abortion is literally a matter of life or death for innocent babies. While important, these other issues are secondary because they are all in regard to life that is already outside the womb. Each of these concerns deserve our thoughts and attention, but they must not be equated or treated with the same level of urgency as abortion.

It should go without saying that the most foundational right of any society is the right to life. Healthcare, the adoption and foster care system, and the second amendment aren’t concerns for the 60 million children who have died from abortion.

Ultimately, it’s not an “either-or” issue. I have yet to meet a pro-lifer who advocates for unborn babies but who has no regard for other lives. We can do both.

I strongly believe that abortion is wrong, but that does not mean that I care any less for mothers or children who have been born. In fact, I believe that mothers are also victims of the abortion industry and that we must do all we can to love and support them. One reason I feel so strongly about the pro-life movement is because I have personally seen the way that abortion hurts mothers and families. My mom is one of those mothers and my family is one of those families.

When we fight against abortion, we are also fighting for mothers and families. Let’s not lose sight of what’s truly important and get bogged down in a war of words about who is really “pro-life.” Now is the time to make a difference and be the generation that ends the tragedy of abortion.

Alexis Stefani is an intern at Family Research Council.

Pastors Lead the Way in… Harming Life?

by Hugh Phillips

June 13, 2019

In the failed bid by the North Carolina House of Representatives to muster the 3/5ths majority necessary to override Democrat Governor Roy Cooper’s veto of the North Carolina Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, four pastors were the difference in the deciding vote. The failed veto override effort in North Carolina came up short because of their four votes.

This heartbreaking result shows us that we cannot be complacent in the fight for life. What made this vote even more heartbreaking was that four pastors rejected the biblical view of life’s sacredness and voted against a bill to require physicians to save the lives of infants born alive after a botched abortion. Thus, pastors were some of those who stood against the sanctity of life in North Carolina.

For example, take Pastor and state representative James D. Gailliard. Gailliard labels himself a “Whole Life Democrat” and claims to be against abortion. Yet, he voted against the born alive bill arguing that “current law is sufficient” to protect infants who have survived an abortion. However, a staff assessment by an attorney for the Senate Rules and Operations committee clearly shows that while infanticide is technically classified as murder under the law, the legislature has never taken a stand on born alive protections. NC S.B. 359 would have made clear that North Carolina does not tolerate infanticide in any form and would have given teeth to the law by creating an affirmative duty to protect these innocent and helpless infants. This should have been an easy decision for any representative, let alone pastor, who claims that they support life.

Gailliard, along with pastors Paul Lowe, Amos Quick, and Ray Russell, all voted against the born alive bill in North Carolina and have therefore rejected the Bible’s basic theological assumption, first introduced in Genesis 1:27 and historically held across every creed and denomination, that man is special because “God created man in his image, in the image of God He created them.” Pastors should be the first to preach and defend the sacredness of humanity. Yet, in rejecting this standard, these pastors are showing that their lives are governed more by the postmodern worldview and a fear of Planned Parenthood and the abortion lobby than by the word of God. These foundational secular assumptions held by such pastors put their congregations and constituents at risk because these pastors seem more likely to make decisions based on subjective morality and outside pressure rather than making objective ethical decisions based on the eternal moral law and God’s truth.

If a pastor cannot even agree to increase restrictions on an act as morally repugnant as infanticide, they are not worthy of holding any elected office in the State or position of trust within the church. This is such a basic tenet of human decency that all North Carolinians, regardless of party, should be appalled and outraged by the cowardly act of these pastors.

The flood of pro-life legislation passing in legislatures across America shows that Americans are demanding that the sanctity of human life be protected. As candidacies begin to be announced for the 2020 elections, voters should have one thing foremost in their minds: will this candidate fulfill the basic role of government and protect life? Republicans are feeling the swelling support of American opinion as they advance the pro-life cause through state legislation. Despite the deplorable attempts of Democrats, and even pastors, to stop the pro-life agenda, we will vote out those who oppose life and advance the pro-life cause to victory with the help of average North Carolinians and the citizens of every state!

Hugh Phillips is a Government Affairs intern at Family Research Council working on pro-life legislation. 

Missouri’s New Pro-Life Law is Grounded in the Belief in Human Dignity

by Hugh Phillips

May 31, 2019

Life is winning in America! Since New York and Virginia passed radical and unnecessary pro-abortion laws in January, conservative states have responded by passing dozens of pro-life laws in the last four months.

One of the latest is Missouri House bill 126, a fantastic law which bans abortions when a heartbeat is detected, adds common-sense informed consent provisions, and includes bans on abortions after a child in the womb is capable of feeling pain. The beauty of this Missouri law lies in the reasons the legislature gave for passing the bill. The bill states in part:

In recognition that Almighty God is the author of life, that all men and women are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life”, and that article I, section 2 of the Constitution of Missouri provides that all persons have a natural right to life, it is the intention of the general assembly of the state of Missouri to [grant]: (1)  Defend the right to life[to] of all humans, born and unborn [, and to]; (2) Declare that the state and all of its political subdivisions are a “sanctuary of life” that protects pregnant women and their unborn children; and (3) Regulate abortion to the full extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States, decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and federal statutes.

This law, similar to those passed by numerous legislatures this year, codified into law the common law assumption that human life, in any form and at any time, is sacred because humanity was created by God with meaning and purpose. This foundational belief has given human life significance for millennia. When abortion advocates argue for the killing of children in the womb, they usually base their arguments on appeals to the human dignity and rights of women. However, this argument is misleading. An all-encompassing respect for human rights would see all life as having dignity, both born and unborn.

As Francis Schaeffer notes in his classic work Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, pro-abortion advocates cannot logically and adequately justify abortion based on human dignity because their secular worldview argues that human beings are purposeless, cosmic anomalies that are probably better off not being alive in the first place! As Schaeffer noted, if one is simply a biological coincidence, then there is no basis for human dignity or purpose. This explains the corresponding abandonment of the belief in human dignity that occurred among academic and political elites as the culture became more secular.

As hard as pro-abortion advocates argue, they eventually run up against the fact that their worldview provides no foundational basis for human dignity. Thus, they must resort to slogans instead of arguments. This rejection of the basis for humanity’s worth flies in the face of the natural Christian belief that we have meaning and purpose because we were created by a loving God.  

The passage of strong pro-life measures in multiple states has proven that a culture of life is returning to America and that the American people are becoming even more pro-life. The fight for life continues, and with the help of brave elected officials such as the Missouri legislature, it is a fight we will win!

Hugh Phillips is a Government Affairs intern at Family Research Council working on pro-life legislation.

Justice Thomas: The Roots of Abortion Are Eugenics

by Patrina Mosley

May 28, 2019

The state of Indiana had asked the Supreme court to review a Seventh Circuit decision striking down an Indiana law regulating abortion. Today, the Supreme Court handed down a mixed ruling in Box v. Planned Parenthood.

Good News: The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit’s earlier ruling invalidating a provision on disposal of fetal remains from abortions. The Supreme Court has upheld part of the first provision of the Indiana abortion law that requires that the fetal remains be buried or cremated after an abortion. No longer will Indiana abortion facilities treat aborted children as “‘infectious waste’ and incinerat[e] them alongside used needles, laboratory-animal carcasses, and surgical byproducts.” These little ones will finally get the dignity they deserve.

Bad News: However, the Court left in place the ruling of the lower court that struck down Indiana’s law that prohibited abortions performed solely on the basis of sex, race, or disability. This part of the law is often referred to as a “nondiscrimination” provision.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a lengthy opinion voicing his opposition for keeping the “non-discrimination” provision blocked, citing the eugenic roots of abortion (emphasis added):

Each of the immutable characteristics protected by this law can be known relatively early in a pregnancy, and the law prevents them from becoming the sole criterion for deciding whether the child will live or die. Put differently, this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.

Conclusively, remaining silent on prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, race, or disability is dangerous:

Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.

As I have discussed previously, abortion is the pinnacle achievement of controlling which class or kinds of people are encouraged to breed and which ones are not.

In his opinion, Justice Thomas takes the country back to school on something so seemingly fantastical, many do not want to believe it. But when the facts are there for all to see, straight from the culprit’s own mouth, there’s no denying that abortion is a double-edged evil: it destroys both lives and consciences.

Justice Thomas begins with the legacy of Margaret Sanger and her dream of a better society which eventually led to the birth of Planned Parenthood (emphasis added):

The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical. The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics’ movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control “opens the way to the eugenist.” (Sanger, Birth Control and Racial Betterment, Birth Control Rev., Feb. 1919, p. 12 (Racial Betterment).

As a means of reducing the “ever increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all,” Sanger argued that “Birth Control … is really the greatest and most truly eugenic method” of “human generation.” M. Sanger, Pivot of Civilization 187, 189 (1922) (Pivot of Civilization).

In her view, birth control had been “accepted by the most clear thinking and far seeing of the Eugenists themselves as the most constructive and necessary of the means to racial health.” Id., at 189. It is true that Sanger was not referring to abortion when she made these statements, at least not directly. She recognized a moral difference between “contraceptives” and other, more “extreme” ways for “women to limit their families,” such as “the horrors of abortion and infanticide.” M. Sanger, Woman and the New Race 25, 5 (1920) (Woman and the New Race).

But Sanger’s arguments about the eugenic value of birth control in securing “the elimination of the unfit,” Racial Betterment 11, apply with even greater force to abortion, making it significantly more effective as a tool of eugenics.

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. Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the Court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s. But because further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression, I join the Court in declining to take up the issue now.

The term “eugenics” was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton, a British statistician and half-cousin of Charles Darwin…

Justice Thomas continues the history and meaning of eugenics in his opinion here. I encourage you to finish reading it and see that this is the philosophy that has been backed and continues to be backed by wealthy elites today.

Consider these facts: Nearly 80 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in African-American and Hispanic communities; women with prenatal testing for down syndrome are encouraged to abort; and females are being aborted simply because they are girls. Is it just a coincidence that the founder of the nation’s largest abortion supplier, Margaret Sanger, was a racist and eugenicist?

Abortion Extremists Are Peddling Illegal Abortion Pills at the Expense of Women’s Health

by Patrina Mosley

May 21, 2019

As reported earlier this year, the FDA has finally begun to crack down on organizations that are illegally selling abortion pills over the internet by issuing warning letters to dealers such as Aid Access.

Just a few days ago, 117 members of Congress issued a letter to the FDA urging them to “continue to conduct oversight” of entities such as Aid Access and Rablon.

Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, founder of Aid Access, responded with a letter of her own to the FDA stating her refusal to stop their profits—I mean, “care”—they are giving to women. She stated, “When U.S. women seeking to terminate their pregnancies prior to 9 weeks consult me, I will not turn them away. I will continue to protect the human and constitutional right of my patients to access safe abortion services.”

Abortion is the ultimate violation of human rights, and U.S. women don’t need this Dutch doctor to profit off our legal invention to a “right” for women to kill a child in the womb.

Dr. Gomperts ships unapproved abortion pill regimens of mifepristone and misoprostol after getting the prescription fulfilled from an Indian pharmacy (of all places), and then sells them for $95; or “she’s willing to offer the drugs for free or at a reduced price if women can’t pay.” The average cost for a chemical abortion of an unborn child up to 9 weeks gestation according to Guttmacher is $535. It’s interesting how these services are not targeted to the rich who would welcome such a discreet and accessible service at any fee. But in keeping with tradition, abortion “services” always target the poor—in the name of “care.”

Gomperts prescribed 2,581 medical abortions in the one year Aid Access has been in operation.

The FDA-approved prescription drug mifepristone is marketed under the brand name Mifeprex® and it carries a black box warning of serious adverse or even life-threatening effects. Whatever regimen Dr. Gomperts is concocting with her friends at the Indian pharmacies is sure to be just as dangerous and life-threatening to women. At the end of the day, we are talking about mixing chemicals to kill a living child in the womb.

In summary, according to the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) of Mifeprex®, in order to prescribe the regime you must be certified, have the “ability to date pregnancies accurately and to diagnose ectopic pregnancies. Healthcare providers must also be able to provide any necessary surgical intervention, or have made arrangements for others to provide for such care.”

As we stated in a previous FRC publication:

Chemical abortions involve severe cramping, contractions, and bleeding to expel the baby. These symptoms can last from several hours to several days, and they can be very intense and painful. Many women also experience nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and headache. Maternal deaths have occurred, most frequently due to infection and undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy. The abortion business makes a chemical abortion sound safe and simple, but this is a multi-day traumatic process that, according to the Mifeprex® medication guide, could take up to 30 days to complete!

The FDA has updated their adverse events reports on Mifeprex® with two more deaths as of December 31, 2018. There were also reports of two cases of ectopic pregnancy resulting in death; and several cases of severe systemic infection (also called sepsis), including some that were fatal. From 2000 to 2018, the total number of adverse events is now 24 deaths, 97 ectopic pregnancies, 1,042 hospitalizations, 599 blood transfusions, and 412 infections (including 69 severe infections), with a total of 4,195 adverse events reported. And these are just the events reported to the FDA.

Gomperts has previously said that FDA restrictions on abortion medications are “based on politics, not science.”

But the FDA does not go far enough in restricting medication abortion when many states themselves are experimenting with telemed abortions that only require talking to a doctor over the internet before ingesting the chemical abortion regimen. Skyping with a doctor and filling out a questionnaire carries the same risk as ordering pills online from a doctor you’ve never met and who cannot physically assess you. Ingesting chemicals that are powerful enough to kill a living child in the womb has serious consequences.

Disturbingly, the physical trauma that happens to a woman’s body as a result is a sign that the “treatment is working.” What’s more, the adverse effects can even be fatal; the risks are eerily similar to what would happen if a woman tried to carry out a self-induced abortion. For years now and still to this day, abortion activists claim that pro-life polices will force women into back alleys and coat hanger abortions; yet at the same time, they push for the abortion pill which is in reality like a “chemical coat-hanger.”

One thing Dr. Gomperts did mention in her letter that is true is that “the landscape of abortion is changing.” As more and more pro-life laws are being enacted in the states, the abortion industry is looking to expand its reach through the abortion pill by attempting to defy and delegitimize the FDA’s REMS so that a “self-managed” abortion—the abortion pill regimen—becomes the new normal for the abortion industry.

This kind of abortion-at-any-cost extremism must be stopped for the sake of women’s health and the lives of the unborn.

Stay tuned for more developments on the rise of the abortion pill in our midst.

Democrats of Color Cross Party Lines to Support Life

by Patrina Mosley

May 10, 2019

A number of Democrats of color have defied party lines to support pro-life legislation in North Carolina, Illinois, New Mexico, and Nevada, according to this Washington Times article—proving “One’s party affiliation should not determine one’s conviction to be an advocate for life,” tweeted North Carolina Right to Life.

Sen. Don Davis crossed party lines and joined Senate Republicans in voting to overturn Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of a bill providing born-alive protections for infants surviving a failed abortion.

The executive director of Illinois Right to Life, Mary Kate Knorr, credits such heroic efforts to the work of pro-life outreach from urban church ministries and the “the growing sense that such communities have not been well served by abortion.”

I agree.

As written in our Planned Parenthood is Not Pro-Woman publication, we see that the nation’s largest abortion supplier is only interested in targeting certain woman.

Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a prominent eugenicist who wrote many notable articles in defense of eugenics and even authored a book called “The Pivot of Civilization.” In it, Sanger shared her views on creating a better society by eliminating the “unfit.” In establishing what she called the “Negro Project,” Sanger enlisted black leaders, particularly of the clergy, to convince them that birth control was in the African-American community’s best interests. As she once said to an ally, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Praise God that today urban clergy are the ones who are deciding to take up the call to rescue their community from the hands of the abortion industry.

Consider this: Today, Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion supplier and operates nearly 80 percent of its facilities within walking distance of black and Hispanic communities.

Thankfully abortions have declined overall, with a slight decline among ethnic groups, but African-American women are still 3.5 times more likely to have an abortion than Caucasian women.

According to the latest census data, just over 12 percent of the U.S. population is African-American, about 30 percent of all abortions are committed on black babies. Though the African-American population in America grew by 12 percent between 2000 and 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the African-American population “grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country.”

This trend is most clearly demonstrated in New York, where more African-American babies are aborted than are born alive! According to New York’s abortion report, there were 82,189 abortions performed on New York residents in 2016. Out of the 47,718 total reported pregnancies experienced by non-Hispanic black women, almost half—49 percent—ended in abortion, and 47 percent made it out of the womb alive. What is most devastating is that this has been the trend in New York for years now.

A number of organizations have been exposing the racist nature of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry, like The Radiance Foundation, CURE, L.E.A.R.N, Life Dynamics, Black Dignity, the Douglas Leadership Institute, and so many others!

We are so thankful for them and for the courageous black Democratic legislators who were willing to abandon the party’s extremity on abortion and acknowledge the fact that abortion does not help the black community—it eliminates them. The faithful work of urban faith ministries is also to be commended for continually sounding the alarm of the black genocide taking place in our backyards and for being willing to build a bridge on this issue of life with Democratic lawmakers.

Black Democratic politicians may be waking up to the fact that abortion is not in their communities’ best interest—it is actually to their detriment. Moreover, refusing to stand with a party who won’t support policies that extend compassion to newborns after a failed abortion goes beyond protecting their own racial group—it protects human society and their very souls. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of legislators of color who will stop and consider whether or not they should support policies that contribute to the erasure of their existence!

House Democrats are Allergic to the Truth When it Comes to Pro-Family Policies

by Connor Semelsberger

May 9, 2019

Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee marked up a bill that will funds large federal health programs like the Title X Family Planning Program, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) in her opening statement was quick to attack the Trump administration’s recent Protect Life Rule which would ensure separation between abortion clinics and family planning services in the Title X program. She concluded that this rule attacks the doctor-patient relationship by banning doctors from even talking about abortion or abortion services to patients. Clearly Rep. DeLauro did not read the regulation. While the regulation change does prohibit Title X clinics from referring for abortions, it still allows for nondirective pregnancy counseling in which clinics can discuss all available pregnancy options with women. Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala.) spoke up in defense of the Protect Life Rule saying, “Time and time again Americans have said they do not want their tax dollars paying for abortions.” Rep. DeLauro later claimed that this rule change will limit access to family planning services for women. Family Research Council recently published a brief explaining how the Title X rule change actually expands family planning options for women, not limits them.

The attacks on the president’s policies did not stop there, as Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) celebrated the fact that the spending bill eliminates the “abstinence only until marriage program” and increases funding for comprehensive sex education. What Congresswomen Lee was really referring to is the Sexual Risk-Avoidance Education program (SRA) which received $35 million this year. The SRA program is designed to encourage avoiding risky sexual behavior all together as opposed to simply reducing it. FRC’s Peter Sprigg wrote a brief explaining more about how SRA education helps eliminate sexual risk for teens. While Rep. Lee would make you believe that the only way to educate teens about sex is through her comprehensive sexual education programs, SRA education, which receives far less federal funding, is actually more effective.

Representative Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) followed along with her colleagues when she opposed a Born-Alive amendment offered by Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) that would ensure funding recipients do not allow an infant that is born alive after a failed abortion to be denied lifesaving care. Rep. Frankel couldn’t help herself from making the conversation about abortion access when she claimed that this amendment is a way to keep women from being in charge of their own bodies and intimidating doctors from performing abortions. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.) a mother of two children, responded by saying, “To hide behind the idea that this is about overturning the law of the land, you can say that, but that’s not the truth.” Requiring born-alive protections does not undermine abortion access in any way—it instead treats all infants who survive failed abortions as a patient that deserves the same lifesaving care guaranteed to all Americans. Since Rep. Frankel and other Democrats cannot seem to understand that infants do in fact survive failed abortions, Family Research Council published a blog outlining just the facts about the issue.

To end the mark-up, several Democratic members made lofty promises about the success of fetal tissue research to attack an amendment offered by Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) that would ban federal funding for research using tissue from aborted babies. In defending his amendment, Rep. Harris said, “It’s a straw man argument—Parkinson’s was never cured, Alzheimer’s is not being investigated using fetal cells—these are straw men.” Democrat politicians have little moral boundaries when it comes to achieving supposed medical “breakthroughs”—they will even take tissue from the most vulnerable among us just for a chance at new cures that never come.

Statements like these from Democratic leaders should come as no surprise, as time and time again they fail to read legislation, understand regulations, and listen to the facts. Even as the appropriations process continues with Democrats at the helm, we will continue to speak the truth and advocate for policies that respect the dignity of all human life and allow families to flourish.

Connor Semelsberger is the Legislative Assistant for Family Research Council.

Archives