Tag archives: Abortion

Planned Parenthood’s Consistent Message: Profits Over People

by Mary Szoch

February 25, 2021

Last Friday, Planned Parenthood published their annual report. The front cover of the report reads, “No Matter What.” Though the later message from leadership references Planned Parenthood unveiling a new tag line: “Care, no matter what,” it seems a better tag line for the organization would be “Profits, no matter what.” The annual report makes it clear that Planned Parenthood neither cares for nor about people. Planned Parenthood simply cares about profits.

In their report, which FRC has made a detailed analysis of, Planned Parenthood highlighted that during the 2019-2020 fiscal year, they committed 354,871 abortions. This means that Planned Parenthood aborted 972 babies every single day in 2019. This is the highest number of abortions Planned Parenthood has ever committed in a year.

According to a November 2020 CDC report, 619,691 abortions were reported to the CDC in 2018. In 2018, Planned Parenthood committed 345,672 abortions—which is 56 percent of all abortions reported to the federal government. Based on Planned Parenthood’s yearly increase in the number of abortions they commit and the decrease in the number of abortions committed nationally, Planned Parenthood is becoming more and more of an abortion monopoly.

Incidentally, this seems to be completely in line with Planned Parenthood’s goals. Over the past 10 years, the number of abortions committed by Planned Parenthood has increased by 7.7 percent. During that same time period, cancer screenings decreased by 68 percent, breast exams decreased by 68 percent, and prenatal services decreased by 80 percent. In September 2018, Dr. Leana Wen was hired as president of Planned Parenthood. In 2019, Dr. Leana Wen was fired. In her statement detailing the reasons for her departure, she noted, “Indeed, there was immediate criticism that I did not prioritize abortion enough…I began efforts to increase care for women before, during and after pregnancies…but the team I brought in…faced daily internal opposition from those who saw my goals as mission creep.”

Dr. Leana Wen was fired for challenging Planned Parenthood’s efforts to grow ONLY their abortion business. Since her firing, Planned Parenthood’s annual report demonstrates that they have doubled down in their commitment to making abortion their only service—with one glaring exception.

The Planned Parenthood annual report also showed that in 2019, there were over 200 Planned Parenthood facilities in 31 states providing services for patients who identify as transgender. As it turns out, Planned Parenthood is the second largest provider of cross-sex hormones. In an interview with Abigail Shrier, a former Planned Parenthood employee described Planned Parenthood prescribing hormones to young clients with almost no examination of their underlying problems and practically no medical oversight.

Planned Parenthood’s foray into providing cross-sex hormones is not shocking. For years, this organization has rejected basic truths about human beings, putting profits over people daily. During the 100 years of their existence, Planned Parenthood has denied the humanity and the right to life of the unborn child. Now, Planned Parenthood is denying the reality that XX chromosomes make a person a girl and XY chromosomes make a person a boy.

While Planned Parenthood acknowledges that transitioning from a girl to a boy can be dangerous, they argue that “expert care is needed to avoid problems,” and position themselves as the ones able to provide “expert care.” Their statement completely ignores the reality that taking hormones in an effort to transition comes with serious dangers, including: interference with brain development; inhibition of normal bone-density development; and sterilization. Planned Parenthood’s indifference to the truth that cross-sex hormones can leave a person incapable of having children is completely in line with their racist, eugenicist founder Margaret Sanger’s words: “But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies.”

Planned Parenthood’s annual report demonstrates that their mission has not changed since their founding. Let’s pray for everyone involved in the organization to have a Saul-like conversion and for next year’s report to tell a different story.

Biden’s Cabinet (Part 3): Jennifer Granholm’s Radical Worldview and Abortion Policies

by Molly Carman , Joseph Norris

February 24, 2021

This is Part 3 of a blog series examining the records of President Biden’s Cabinet picks on abortion and family issues. Read Part 1 on Antony Blinken and Part 2 on Xavier Becerra.

Jennifer Granholm, who served as the Governor of Michigan from 2003-2011, is back in the national spotlight as President Joe Biden has nominated her to lead the U.S. Department of Energy. The Energy Department is tasked with overseeing America’s energy supply and carrying out environmental clean-ups. As the Secretary of the department, she would have a major influence on environmental policies, and would be responsible for enacting Biden’s climate change policies.

Why should American Christians care about Jennifer Granholm’s nomination to lead the Department of Energy? When there are so many pressing issues that demand our attention, does the Department of Energy—and the one leading the department—really require sustained thought and reflection? In short, the answer is “yes.”

On the issue of the environment and creation care, David Closson, FRC’s Director of Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview explained, “Christians should care about the environment because it reflects the glory of God.” But he also cautions that Christians should not become “subservient to the created order.” Christians are called to exercise stewardship over the created world and should oppose efforts to exploit it. While the Bible is clear that the created world primarily exists to bring glory to God, it also exists to serve man’s needs. An unbiblical line is crossed when nature is defied or elevated in importance over people who are made in God’s image.

Unfortunately, in comments made during Granholm’s nomination hearing, it appears Biden’s nominee will pursue energy and environmental policies that prioritize politics over people. Several times during the hearing, she dodged questions about the economic impact of her new green policies and how many jobs might be lost due to them. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that Granholm, who has claimed to be Catholic, will hold to biblical principles on her environmental policy given her radical positions on other issues, such as abortion.

It should be concerning to Christians everywhere that the nominee to lead the Department of Energy would care so much about saving the planet for future generations, and simultaneously promote a pro-abortion agenda that directly harms future generations in the womb. Granholm considers herself a champion for abortion, showing hostility toward the lives of the unborn. For example, in a 2012 op-ed, Granholm smeared pro-life measures as a “war on women,” perpetrated by “white male legislatures” to enforce their power on women. During an interview that same year, she claimed that the pro-life movement was allegedly seeking to degrade women by assuming they are unable to make decisions for themselves.

Granholm’s pro-abortion ideology marked her tenure as Michigan’s governor. On two separate occasions, she vetoed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban—which protects babies that are near birth from being killed while being born. This same ban was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007. She negotiated with the Michigan legislature to loosen restrictions on abortions, preventing a bill that would require an ultrasound prior to receiving an abortion. In her second term as governor, she advocated for a ballot provision that would allow aborted fetal stem cell research in Michigan. Unfortunately, Emily’s List, the pro-abortion group that recruits abortion-friendly candidates, got exactly what they wanted when they endorsed her for governor.

Environmental policy has become entangled with protecting the unborn due to recent comments from prominent members of the Democratic Party. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) claimed that funding abortions helps to reduce the world’s population, thereby helping fight climate change. In addition, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) alluded to a similar idea, describing what she viewed as the “disaster” our planet will be in without eliminating the effects of climate change. Along these lines, she claimed that millennials should legitimately question if it is still acceptable to have children. Unfortunately, this type of thinking is becoming mainstream in progressive circles, as high profile figures suggest that abortion is a necessary means to prevent overpopulation.

One’s worldview, whether biblical or not, will be revealed in the way they live their life. In the case of Granholm, how she leads, the decisions she makes, and the orders she implements as the head of an executive agency will reveal her worldview. The Bible calls for all of us to care for the world that God has created and to be stewards of the environment and our neighbors (Gen. 1:28 and 1 Peter 4:10). The disconnect is when leaders such as Granholm go too far in one direction, and care for the planet but not neighbor, in this case the unborn. It is crucial to have officials who are concerned about caring for the planet and the lives of the next generation—not just one or the other. As the Secretary of Energy, Granholm would have a platform to enact liberal policies that are purported to protect the environment. If confirmed, she will hopefully hold to a biblical worldview in all areas of public policy and become a steward that protects and cares for the environment and the unborn.

Joseph Norris is a Policy and Government Affairs intern focusing on pro-life federal affairs.

Molly Carman is a Research Assistant for Worldview and Ethics.

Biden’s Cabinet (Part 2): Abortion Hardliner Xavier Becerra Is Not Fit to Lead HHS

by David Closson

February 23, 2021

This is Part 2 of a blog series examining the records of President Biden’s Cabinet picks on abortion and family issues. Read Part 1 on Antony Blinken.

During his inaugural address, President Joe Biden spoke repeatedly about the need for national unity. “With unity we can do great things. Important things,” he declared, adding, “For without unity, there is no peace, only bitterness and fury.”

While these inaugural platitudes about unity and healing were rhetorically effective, the new president has wasted little time in delivering on divisive campaign promises. These include reinstating President Obama’s transgender military policy, ordering federal agencies to redefine “sex” in their sex discrimination policies to include sexual orientation and gender identity, and repealing the Mexico City Policy that prohibited taxpayer money from funding overseas abortions. These policy changes, enacted unilaterally by executive order, offer little comfort to Americans who hoped the new administration would focus less on the culture wars and more on combating the coronavirus, re-opening America’s economy, and protecting the country from external threats.

Unfortunately, Biden’s nomination of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is another example of why uniformity—not unity—seems to be the goal of the Biden administration.

HHS is one of 15 executive departments within the federal government. Although not the largest department in terms of personnel, it has the largest budget—over $1.3 trillion annually (compare that with the Department of Defense’s $721.5 billion budget in 2020). As the department tasked with overseeing health services, HHS has jurisdiction over nearly every aspect of federal policy concerning abortion. Because of Becerra’s record on abortion, his nomination to lead HHS is deeply troubling.

Concerns related to Becerra’s record on abortion are well-founded. During his 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, Becerra proved to be one of the abortion lobby’s most reliable voters. For example, in 2003, he voted against prohibiting the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion. In 2005, Becerra voted against making the harming or killing of an unborn child during the committing of a violent crime a criminal offense. Becerra also voted for taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell experimentation in 2006 and against redirecting said money to more ethical lines of research. More recently, he voted against imposing civil and criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly attempted to commit an abortion on the basis of the sex or race of the unborn child or the race of a parent.

Becerra continued his work to advance abortion when he became California’s attorney general in 2017. Since taking office, he has filed numerous lawsuits seeking to overturn pro-life laws in other states, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Ohio. In 2019, Becerra sued the Trump administration over an HHS rule that blocked millions of dollars to abortion businesses who refused to separate their abortion business from family planning services. In 2019, he sued the Little Sisters of the Poor, insisting that the nuns should be forced to pay for abortifacients and contraception against their religious convictions. 

As attorney general, Becerra defended a California law that required pro-life pregnancy care centers to provide information to their patients on how to obtain state-funded abortions. The case, NIFLA v. Becerra, went to the Supreme Court, which struck down the law as unconstitutional in 2018. Justice Thomas, who wrote the majority’s opinion, noted that the California law defended by Becerra imposed an undue burden on the First Amendment rights of pro-life clinics and doctors. Becerra also defended California’s abortion coverage mandate that was in direct violation the Weldon Amendment. HHS notified California in January 2020 that its mandate was in violation of federal law. Instead of working with HHS to remedy the issue, Becerra doubled down, telling the Trump administration that they were impeding California’s ability to support women’s right to “reproductive freedom.”

Finally, Becerra continued what his predecessor, Kamala Harris, started by continuing the investigation into pro-life journalists who had exposed Planned Parenthood’s role in selling baby body parts. In 2015, David Daleiden released a series of videos showing Planned Parenthood executives discussing fees for human fetal tissue and organs. Rather than pursue Planned Parenthood—which endorsed Becerra in 2017 when he ran for attorney general—Becerra harassed and investigated Daleiden. Actions like this demonstrate Becerra’s proven record of shaping the law to fit his ideology. Instead of doing a substantive investigation into the evidence that Planned Parenthood violated federal law, he directly targeted Daleiden because his videos revealed unsavory truths about the abortion industry.

In short, Becerra’s record is known and well documented. Thus, while Joe Biden has preached a message of unity and told his supporters that they shouldn’t treat political opponents as enemies, the nomination of an abortion hardliner like Xavier Becerra sends a clear message: a Biden administration will not be moderate on abortion.

Nominating Becerra, a politician with little experience concerning matters related to public health, to lead the federal agency tasked with public health amid a global pandemic prioritizes political and ideological commitments over public safety. It signals Biden’s readiness to reverse President Trump’s pro-life policies. It also reveals tone-deafness to the tens of millions of Americans who just elected the most pro-life women to Congress in history.

Elections have consequences, and Americans should not be surprised that the most pro-abortion candidate in American history is nominating ideologues committed to promoting abortion. But if there was ever a time to draw a line in the sand over a nomination, this is the nominee, and this is the time. Becerra’s nomination is currently pending before the U.S. Senate, and senators committed to protecting the unborn should do everything in their power to oppose and block his nomination. Incoming presidents generally deserve deference when it comes to assembling their cabinet. However, Xavier Becerra’s extreme positions and advocacy for abortion rights are disqualifying when it comes to leading the department tasked with protecting America’s health.

40 Days for Life: Praying and Fasting for an End to Abortion

by Mary Szoch

February 18, 2021

Yesterday around the country, 40 Days for Life campaigns will kick-off. Started in Byran/College Station, Texas, 40 Days for Life is a prayer and fasting campaign with the goal of bringing about the end to the atrocity of abortion. 

Throughout biblical history, God has used the timeframe of 40 days and 40 nights to change the hearts of people. In Genesis, Noah spent 40 days and 40 nights in the ark. In Exodus, Moses spent 40 days and 40 nights on Mount Sinai where he received the Ten Commandments. In the Book of Jonah, Jonah proclaims to the Ninevites that in 40 days Nineveh will be overthrown. In Matthew, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert for 40 days and 40 nights. Over and over again, God uses the timeframe of 40 days and 40 nights. Inspired by this, 40 Days for Life was founded.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus casts a demon out of a child. The disciples come to Jesus and ask why they could not cast out the demon. Jesus replies, “This kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting” (Matthew 17:21). Led by these words, 40 Days for Life’s mission of prayer, fasting, constant vigil, and community outreach arose. During the 40 days, volunteers keep peaceful, prayerful, round-the-clock vigil outside abortion businesses across the country. Churches, families, and friends agree to pray together for an end to abortion, and people of faith are invited to fast as a sacrifice to bring about the end to abortion.

Since 2007, over 18,000 lives have been saved. Over 100 abortion businesses have closed, and over 200 abortion workers have quit as the result of the 40 Days for Life campaign. Clearly, God is still using the timeframe of 40 days to change hearts. To find a 40 Days for Life campaign in your area, go to the Find a 40 Days for Life Vigil page.

Here are a few things to keep in mind when joining a 40 Days for Life campaign.

1. This is a peaceful, prayerful vigil. It seems in 2020 our nation has forgotten how powerful peace and prayerful protests can be. It is especially important that people praying outside abortion businesses remain peaceful and prayerful. As someone is passing the clinic, your witness can either promote deeper thought about abortion, or it can entrench someone more deeply in their belief. Be peaceful and prayerful and let the Lord use you.

2. Bring a buddy. Invite a friend or family member to join you as you pray outside the clinic. Jesus tells us, “Where two or three gather in my name, there I am among them” (Matthew 18:20). In addition to the spiritual help a friend provides, having a second person with you also ensures your safety outside the abortion business.    

3. Bring a sign. A well worded sign can touch the hearts of both the women entering the abortion business and the people driving past. If you do not have a pro-life sign, consider making your own. Some great phrases are “Choose Love, Choose Life!”, “Abortion Stops One Heart and Breaks Another”, “God Loves You and Your Baby!”, “Want to Choose Life? I Can Help!”

4. Be open to the Holy Spirit’s promptings. Perhaps as you are praying outside the abortion business, you will be prompted by the Holy Spirit to speak to a man or woman entering the business. If so, do not be afraid! Remember, a woman about to have an abortion is likely terrified. Speak lovingly to her. Perhaps say, “If you’d like to talk about choosing life, I can help you!” Make sure not to yell or say anything hurtful to the woman.

5. Bring the number of your local pregnancy resource center. Always make certain you have the number of your local pregnancy resource center with you when you are praying outside a clinic. If a woman turns to you for help, the pregnancy resource center in your community is the best place to send her. The pregnancy resource center will provide her with the support and resources she needs to choose life and plan to parent or place her child for adoption.

During these next 40 days, prayerfully consider joining 40 Days for Life. Your presence outside the abortion business might just be the sign a woman needs to choose life.

Abby Johnson’s New Initiative Will Help Bring Justice to Women Harmed by Abortion

by Mary Szoch

February 16, 2021

Abby Johnson has partnered with the Thomas More society on a new initiative, Hurt After Abortion. As part of this initiative, Johnson’s team is offering referrals for free legal consultation, emotional and spiritual healing options, and assistance in accessing medical records for women who have been harmed by an abortion. The goal of this initiative is to provide justice and healing for women who have been exploited by the abortion industry.

In a perfect world, every woman harmed by abortion would take legal action, and the abortion industry would be brought to justice. But, sadly, there are many barriers for women seeking justice and healing after an abortion. Shame, depression, regret, and the life circumstances that caused a woman to consider abortion in the first place are all roadblocks to her taking legal action against an abortionist. Hopefully, many women will overcome these hurdles and become part of the Hurt After Abortion initiative. Even if they do not, there is plenty of evidence that abortion hurts women. 

In 2020, Operation Rescue reported 67 abortion-related medical emergencies and one maternal death. It should be noted that this does not mean only 67 women were physically harmed by abortions in 2020—but that 67 instances were recorded on film and were reported to Operation Rescue. Two of those emergencies happened less than 20 miles from the White House. 

LeRoy Carhart, an 80-year-old abortionist, operates a late-term abortion business in Bethesda, Maryland. Due to Maryland’s liberal abortion laws, the business can perform abortions through all nine months of pregnancy. Through his numerous abortion businesses over the years, Carhart has admitted to ending at least 20,000 lives

Carhart has no problem making light of the work he does. In a BBC Panorama documentary with Hilary Andersson in 2019, Carhart told her he uses the word “baby” with his patients, and when Andersson asked, “And you don’t have a problem with killing a baby?”, he responded, “Absolutely not. I have no problem if it’s in the mother’s uterus.”

I have seen Carhart’s cold nature firsthand. A few years ago, before his business moved from Germantown, I was praying outside Carhart’s business with a group of women as he and his wife got out of his car and walked toward the building. One of the women I was with said to him, “Those babies have a future.” Carhart turned, scoffed at her and said, “They sure don’t when I’m done with them.”

Is it any wonder that a man who speaks with such little regard for life sent two women to the hospital this past May? While the identity of these women remains anonymous, the incident report from the Montgomery County Maryland Fire and Rescue services showed that on May 12, a 25-week pregnant woman from out of state was rushed to the hospital from Carhart’s business. A whistleblower told Operation Rescue that the woman suffered a ruptured uterus and other internal injuries from an abortion. Several baby parts had been left inside the woman. The damage to the woman’s bowels was so bad that she was given a colostomy, that included an external bag. The woman was finally discharged from the hospital on May 21.

That same day, an eerily similar situation occurred. A second incident report showed a 25-week pregnant woman from out of state was taken to the hospital from Carhart’s business. A whistleblower indicated that this was because she, too, had a perforated uterus. She arrived at the hospital in critical condition, and once again, surgery was necessary. This time, the woman required a hysterectomy. The baby the abortionist had killed was still partially intact inside the woman’s abdominal cavity. 

LeRoy Carhart is 80 years old. He has sent at least 22 women to the hospital, and he is responsible for the death of Jennifer Morbelli. It is unclear if he was the abortionist who maimed the two women who were hospitalized in May, but it is certain the abortions happened at his business.

Pray that Abby Johnson’s new Hurt After Abortion initiative brings abortionists like LeRoy Carhart to justice. Though this will be some solace to women, there is no initiative that can take a woman back to the moment before she walked into the abortion business—the moment before her baby was killed, before her body was mutilated, before her life was changed forever. Still, there is hope and healing for these women.

Abby Johnson’s new initiative also provides referrals for an options-based approach to emotional and spiritual healing for women. Project Rachel has worked with thousands of women to help them find peace and healing after an abortion. If you know someone who is suffering physically, emotionally, or spiritually from an abortion, mention these two programs, and pray—pray for justice, pray for an end to the exploitation of women through abortion, and pray for the end of the destruction of life in the womb.

Connecticut Seeks to Stifle the Voice of Pregnancy Resource Centers

by Mary Szoch

February 15, 2021

Last week, the Connecticut State Senate considered SB 835, “An Act Concerning Deceptive Advertising Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers.” Contrary to its title, this bill is not about deceptive advertising. In fact, there is no substantial evidence that clients seeking services at Connecticut pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) have been or currently are being deceived. No, this bill is about silencing PRCs.

SB 835 singles out PRCs as the only organizations that are required to prevent advertising they know “or reasonably should know” to be deceptive “whether by statement or omission.” The legislation places the pro-abortion attorney general—who testified in favor of the legislation—as the arbitrator of “deceptive advertising,” and gives him the authority to force PRCs to “correct” their advertising and pay a fine.

This bill is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of PRCs. It makes it harder for women who are unexpectedly pregnant to know what their choices are, and it places the state in the position of promoting abortion over childbirth.

Despite what this bill implies, there are already many generally applicable laws at the state and federal level preventing deceptive advertising. What makes SB 835 unique is that it deliberately—and unjustly—singles out PRCs as the only organizations required to prevent advertising they know “or reasonably should know to be deceptive.” Nothing in the bill prevents abortion businesses from engaging in deceptive advertising practices. For example, Planned Parenthood—whose very name implies that a pregnant woman visiting the clinic will receive balanced information regarding the resources available to her if she would like to parent—is not obligated in any way to clarify in their advertising that their core mission is expanding abortion. PRCs are targeted for one reason only—to stifle their speech.

If this were just another deceptive advertising law, it would not target an ideologically unified group of service providers who take a position on one of the most controversial topics in the country. SB 835’s vague wording—“whether by statement or omission”—allows the pro-abortion attorney general (who is so pro-abortion and anti-woman that he doesn’t think abortionists should be required to have hospital admitting privileges) to decide which words a PRC omitted. Clearly, the attorney general is attempting to bully PRCs into only advertising what he would choose to advertise—which is definitely not help and support for women who feel pressured into having an abortion. This is an intimidation practice with the prevention of pro-life speech as its goal. It is unconstitutional.

In 2018, California passed a law that forced PRCs to 1) advertise that the state offered free abortions and 2) post a notice stating they were not medical providers. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California’s law was unconstitutional and prohibited the state from directly demanding this speech. Although SB 835 is not directly demanding speech from PRCs, through the vague wording “by statement or omission,” it is indirectly attempting to force them to make those same statements. The Supreme Court has already ruled this is unconstitutional.

Singling out PRCs for heavy fines because they do not provide or refer for abortions compels them to advertise in a way that significantly limits their potential clients. Many women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant feel afraid, alone, and unsure of where to turn. PRCs do not coerce women into giving birth. Rather, they give a woman all the information available to her and allow the woman to make her own decision, knowing that she can always turn to the PRC for support.

Unlike abortion businesses, PRCs do not make money when a client chooses life. In 2019, PRCs provided $270 million in services at virtually no charge, and they provided services to women regardless of whether they chose life or abortion, offering more than 21,000 women post-abortion healing services.

PRCs do not exist to make a profit; they exist because they care about women and their children. According to a Guttmacher Institute study, women most frequently choose to have abortions because having a child would “interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (74%), and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).” The resources offered by PRCs help women rise above and change these circumstances. The support of PRCs empowers women to choose life for their children.

There is no good reason to attack centers that have such a positive impact on society. Doing so places the state in the position of promoting abortion practices—who stand to profit from a woman’s decision to have an abortion—above centers offering women the tools they need to choose life.

The Connecticut state legislature should recognize that SB 835 is an attack on one of the foundations of American liberty—freedom of speech—and as such, it is unconstitutional. More importantly, the state legislature should recognize that SB 835 harms women in need.

Kansas Moves to Protect Life in Its State Constitution

by Quena Gonzalez

January 29, 2021

Great news! Yesterday, the Kansas Senate followed the House in voting to send the “Value Them Both Amendment” to the state’s voters, who will decide in the 2022 primaries whether or not to amend the state constitution to clarify that there is no right to abortion or abortion funding.

This is one of a number of similar pro-life developments taking place in states around the country as voters make their voices heard. Iowa is currently considering a similar measure, which would go before voters in 2024 if it is passed by both chambers this year (as expected) and passed by both chambers again in 2023.

The Kansas amendment is similar to amendments enacted in Louisiana (ratified by voters 62%-38% in 2020), Alabama (59%-41% in 2018), West Virginia (52%-48% in 2018), Tennessee (53%-47% in 2014), and Arkansas (52%-48% in 1988). FRC was proud to support those efforts.

May we continue to see these and other measures advanced around the country as states protect life. For more on the states of state pro-life laws, see our maps. To receive alerts when it’s time to make your voice heard in your state, sign up for FRC Action alerts.

Why the Pro-Life Movement Needs Men

by Molly Carman

January 29, 2021

 

Every year since the Supreme Court’s tragic decision in Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion 48 years ago, thousands of pro-life women, men, and children have gathered in Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life. The men who attend the March are one of the biggest encouragements to the pro-life movement because their very presence acknowledges that abortion and the sanctity of life is not just a women’s issue—it’s a human issue.

Today’s woman is bombarded with lies about womanhood, motherhood, and her relationship with men. She is pressured to “remedy” an unplanned pregnancy with “quick-fixes” accompanied by damaging long-term consequences. She is told not to expect the father to stick around or take responsibility, that the life in her womb is not a child, that it’s “her body, her choice.” Meanwhile, today’s man is led to believe he has little to no responsibility for the life he helped create and that he has no right to an opinion concerning abortion because he is not the one who is pregnant.

However, even though men may not carry the initial physical burden of having children, caring for the child is just as much the father’s responsibility as it is the mother’s. This responsibility starts when life begins—at conception.

When men are educated and aware of the issues that most acutely affect women, it encourages their innate, God-given desires to protect, lead, and provide for their families and loved ones. This cultivation is healthy, God-honoring, and better equips men to love and care for the women in their lives. A God-pleasing man protects a woman out of honor and love, not out of pity or an attempt to gain power over her.

Here are several scriptural examples of men protecting women and children in their care, thereby honoring God.

Judah, the Son of Jacob

Judah fathered twins by a woman he was not married to, but in the end, he took responsibility for his actions and cared for the children and the children’s mother.

Genesis 38 tells us Judah had a daughter-in-law named Tamar who was widowed twice and childless. According to custom, the father-in-law was supposed to give his widowed and childless daughter-in-law in marriage to his next eldest son. However, Judah did not keep his word to Tamar. So, Tamar tricked Judah into lying with her, and she conceived twins. When she was found to be pregnant and unmarried, Judah was outraged. However, when Judah realized that he was the father, he said, “She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son…” (Gen. 38:28). Instead of harming Tamar or abandoning her, Judah took responsibility for his actions and protected her.

Amram, the Father of Moses

Amram feared God rather than man and defied Pharaoh’s orders in order to protect his newborn son.

Exodus 2 tells us the midwives who attended Moses’s birth chose to let him live, against the direct order of Pharaoh, who had ordered that all male Hebrew newborns be killed. Amram looked after his wife and son for the three months that they hid him in their home, until Moses’s mother, Jochebed, saved Moses’ life again by placing him in a basket in the Nile River. Amram chose life and fearing God over man, and that decision ended up being part of God’s plan to deliver His people from slavery.

Joseph, the Husband of Mary

Joseph chose to protect and care for Mary and her unborn baby, despite the possible shame and personal cost.

In those days, a virgin would be pledged in marriage to a man and remain celibate for one year before entering his house. If a woman broke this covenant and became pregnant outside of marriage, the custom was to stone her and her unborn child in the street. Scripture tells us that “She [Mary] was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a righteous man, and unwilling to put her to shame decided to divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:18-19). Joseph was going to walk away, but an angel came to him and told him not to be afraid but to take Mary as his wife. By taking her as his wife, many would either assume that he was the father or that he had married an unfaithful wife, and this would bring shame to his family name. But Joseph rose above his fears and decided to be courageous and fear God rather than man.

Wanted: Godly, Pro-Life Men

Women and children (both born and unborn) need men to take a stand for life—to take responsibility like Judah, protect like Amram, and be courageous like Joseph. Rise up, oh men of God. Take a stand against the evil of abortion and support and defend women and the unborn.

Biden Puts the Abortion Industry Before the Will of the American People

by Mary Szoch

January 29, 2021

In 1985, the Reagan administration implemented the Mexico City Policy, which required foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receiving American taxpayer dollars to certify that they would not “perform or actively promote abortions as a method of family planning.” This policy has been rescinded by every Democratic president and reinstated by every subsequent Republican president since.

On January 23, 2017, the day after the sorrowful anniversary of Roe, President Donald Trump reinstated and expanded this policy, renaming it Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA). This action once again ensured that American taxpayers would not be forced to pay for abortions abroad. In 2019, after finding a loophole through which abortion-providing agencies were still receiving funding as subgrantees, the Trump administration further expanded PLGHA to prevent foreign NGOs that otherwise abide by the policy from sub-granting their federal dollars to organizations that actively perform or promote abortion. 

Yesterday, sadly, President Joe Biden rescinded this policy, and now, American taxpayers—including those who acknowledge that abortion is the destruction of an innocent unborn child’s life—will be forced to subsidize abortions abroad. The significance of President Biden choosing today—the day before the 48th annual March for Life—as the day to rescind PLGHA cannot be overstated. Although President Biden has preached a message of unity, he certainly has not practiced one. Over 75 percent of Americans oppose their taxpayer dollars paying for abortions abroad, and today, Americans across the country will come together to march (virtually, like everything else this year) for life. If President Biden actually wanted to unify the country, he would choose the will of the American people over the financial interests of the abortion industry.       

Unfortunately, the rescindment of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance program will have a disastrous impact on countries that desperately need real assistance. Obianuju Ekeocha, founder of Culture of Life Africa, is a voice crying out for the end of ideological colonialism in Africa. Uju lamented, “It is official, the United States will resume the funding of abortion organizations overseas. This is evil and we will not be silent.” Uju argues that African countries want safe maternal health care, not abortion. According to Uju, Africa’s culture is shifting because of the influence of western NGOs: “Every new born African baby is now an ‘increase in population’ rather than a precious gift from God.” What a sad change. 

Abortion takes the life of a child and breaks the hearts of a mother and father. It has lasting physical, emotional, and spiritual effects. It tears a nation apart. Last week, the New York Times dubbed President Biden perhaps the most religiously-observant commander in chief in half a century, so he must certainly know the two greatest commandments: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Mt. 22:37-39 NIV). Let’s pray that President Biden soon recognizes loving your neighbor does not include paying for your neighbor’s children to be aborted and your neighbor’s country to be devastated as a result.

Joe Scheidler, RIP

by Michael J. New

January 28, 2021

Last week, pro-lifers across the country were saddened to learn of the passing of pro-life activist Joe Scheidler. Scheidler, who started the Pro-Life Action League, is thought of as the godfather of the direct action wing of the pro-life movement. Scheidler’s tactics, which included pickets of abortion facilities, graphic image displays, and public events featuring former abortionists, succeeded in placing a human face on unborn children and generated a great deal of publicity. During his life, Joe Scheidler succeeded in raising the salience of sanctity of life issues and persuaded many people to join the pro-life movement.

The pro-life movement has not always devoted a great deal of resources to chronicling its own history. As such, many are unaware of the risks and sacrifices that early pro-life activists like Joe Scheidler made to pursue full time pro-life work in the 1970s. Indeed, when Scheidler devoted to himself to the pro-life cause after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, he took a real leap of faith. He was working in a stable advertising job with a wife and children. At this time, it was by no means clear how one could raise money to engage in full-time pro-life work. The internet was not around and direct mail was in its infancy. Thankfully, Scheidler was able to receive some compensation from Illinois Right to Life and then successfully launched the Pro-Life Action League in 1980.

Additionally, when Scheidler started doing pro-life work, there was no clear pathway forward to restore legal protection to the preborn. While Scheidler did not dismiss the importance of politics, he thought that direct action was necessary to keep the abortion issue in the public eye. As such, as he describes in his fine book Racketeer for Life, he largely improvised. He would call talk shows and try to get some airtime to discuss sanctity of life issues. If he learned of an abortion facility opening, he would organize a protest. He would often meet with abortionists directly and persuaded many to quit doing abortions. Scheidler’s book Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion documents numerous tactics that succeeded in closing down abortion facilities.

I still remember the last time I saw Joe Scheidler in person. It was the March for Life weekend in 2020. Even though Joe was 92 years old, he made the trip to Washington, D.C. and his schedule was full. We attended the Pro-Life Leadership Mass and reception sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. We then shared an Uber to head downtown to the Law of Life Summit sponsored by Americans United for Life. Joe and his wife were as lively and as gracious as ever. He will certainly be missed. Rest in peace, Joe.

Michael J. New, PhD is a Research Associate at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America and an Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New

Archives