Life Advocacy Briefing

What to Expect

WE HAVE FOUND SEVERAL ANALYSIS PIECES which are timely and which we think our readers will find of interest. This Life Advocacy Briefing will present several of those, along with our own commentary as footnotes. Once the election is over, we expect there will be more actual Life-focused news to report, and we expect to resume our usual formatting.

Referenda Coming

TEN STATES’ VOTERS WILL FIND ABORTION ON THE BALLOT in November: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York and South Dakota.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, according to The Washington Stand’s Sarah Holliday, notes that “pro-lifers in 10 states have the opportunity to stand up and protect Life, or see countless pro-life protections erased.” Let us pray! And in those states, let us vote!

The report goes on to quote Chris Williams, pastor of Abundant Life Church in Kansas City, who declared, writes Ms. Holliday, “‘We need all hands on deck to defeat this ideology trying to get a stronghold here … .’ There are a lot of dangers Amendment 3 poses, Williams explained, emphasizing how important it is for churchgoers, in particular, to understand what it’s all about. ‘It seems like momentum is in our favor,’ he said before reminding people there’s still work to do,” writes Ms. Holliday, who noted that Pastor Williams cited “a recent poll conducted within the state [which] found that, not long ago, ‘about 58% of the state of Missouri were going to vote yes’” on the amendment. But the pastor told Ms. Holliday, “‘That number is now down to 53%,’ which means ‘the needle is moving.’” But the proposition – as a constitutional amendment – needs only 50%+1 to pass.”

Mr. Perkins noted, reports Ms. Holliday, “the continued effort is also necessary because Amendment 3 is about ‘more than abortion.’ In fact, Missouri happens to have ‘one of the most far-reaching amendments on the ballot,’ which ‘includes gender transition’ and ‘an attack on parental rights,’ he warned. It’s ‘very deceptive,” Perkins went on, but this isn’t surprising because ‘if you’ll kill babies, you’ll lie too.’ …

“But as ‘rotten’ as it is, [Pastor] Williams reminded people that ‘this is what the enemy does, is it not?’ The enemy ‘has one purpose,’ he contended, and it’s ‘to steal, kill and destroy,’ which is ‘exactly what this amendment is going to allow the enemy to do in our state.’” He called on the church to “speak boldly.”

Position Under Construction?

Oct. 18. 2024 LifeSiteNews commentary by Calvin Freiburger

             Shortly before delivering remarks Thursday evening at the annual Al Smith Memorial Dinner, former President and 2024 Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump spoke with EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo about a range of issues of interest to Catholics and said he would take a “very serious look” at reinstating the Mexico City Policy.

             During the interview, Arroyo asked, “Will you reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which forbids international spending on abortion?”

             “Well, I was the only one that did that,” Trump responded. “As you know, no other President did that. And we’re going to be giving that a very good, serious look: In other words, how that compares and competes with the states.* But we’ll be giving that a very serious look.**”

             In fact, Trump was not “the only one” that reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which forbids non-governmental organizations from using taxpayer dollars for elective abortions abroad. President Ronald Reagan first instituted the policy in 1984, and President George W. Bush reinstated it in 2001. For decades, it has been taken for granted that Democrat presidents rescind the policy shortly after taking office, and Republican presidents restore it.

             The pro-life movement overwhelmingly supported Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections, in which Trump ran on pro-life platforms and between which Trump established a solidly pro-life record in office, the most significant element of which was the three Supreme Court justices he nominated joining the majority that overturned Roe v. Wade.

             But that relationship has frayed in the past two years, with Trump having moved sharply to the center on Life amid popular impressions that a clear pro-life stance has become a political liability (which many pro-lifers dispute). He now opposes further federal action on abortion, supports letting abortion pills be distributed by mail, criticizing states for overly “harsh” abortion bans and even declaring he would veto an abortion ban if it reached his desk.*** Through this work, he has taken credit for making the GOP “less radical” on abortion, including by having the national Republican Party platform rewritten to reflect his views and priorities.****

             Aside from the aforementioned debate over political strategy, defenders of Trump’s turn emphasize that he would at least return to some of the pro-life executive actions of his first term, such as reinstating Mexico City and other moves to reduce the abortion industry’s federal funding. With the latest remarks, Trump appears to be continuing a trend of hinting at such moves without outright committing to them. The new Republican platform no longer mentions the Mexico City Policy, taxpayer funding of abortion or defunding Planned Parenthood, and earlier this month Trump’s running mate, US Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio, said that “on the question of defunding Planned Parenthood, look, I mean our view is we don’t think that taxpayers should fund late-term abortions.”*****

             Trump’s turn on abortion has anguished many pro-lifers, who were key to his original 2016 victory. At the same time, however, Democrats’ continued support for a comprehensive far-Left policy agenda [is] expected to keep most conservatives and Republicans resigned to accepting him as preferable. …

*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s notes, denoted by asterisks as follows: *Pres. Trump has clearly settled the abortion question in his own mind as a punt to the states in an attempt to keep it out of federal campaigns. This pattern has been shown not only in his campaigning but also in the rewritten GOP platform and in the mum-on-abortion campaigns of most GOP congressional candidates.

**The Mexico City question most probably caught him off guard, as he seemingly seeks to package his 2024 position into the popular perception of the Dobbs decision, for which he is proud to take credit but which he views as limiting federal action. Mexico City is a policy which the states have no power to address; it is up to the next President and Congress. We thank Raymond Arroyo for getting Mr. Trump’s wheels moving on this; he will need to take action early in his next Administration, if he wins the office.

***Seeking to reach out to the “college-educated women” vote, which trends toward legalized abortion, Pres. Trump can say he would veto a federal abortion ban in complete confidence that such legislation is extremely unlikely to pass the US House and Senate, especially when the GOP federal candidates are hiding their own views. His disparaging of state abortion bans, such as Arizona’s, is unnecessary, disappointing and has no defense or excuse, to say the least.

****The 2024 Republican Party Platform is disappointing not only on Life issues but on other concerns as well. Clearly the tactic was to streamline the formerly multi-page document into a simple list of so-called principles and positions without any argumentation. Ironically, that tactic has aided Democrats in their red-herring attack on “Project 2025,” which is an extensive compendium of political positions and proposals for federal action. With no fleshed-out platform to point to, Mr. Trump’s only recourse is to insist he has not even read the Heritage Foundation’s document.

*****Sen. Vance, it appears to us, was doing his best to be responsive to a challenging question on which the campaign has not developed an anticipatory response. He knows that late-term abortion is taboo to the campaign and to a broad range of voters, so he cites it as a response to a question for which he is regrettably unprepared. We do appreciate his attempt to be loyal while having to think on his feet. Had he made a more declarative answer, no one – including Mr. Vance – can know whether such a response could have developed a wedge between him and his hard-to-pin running mate.

V.P. Harris, on the Other Hand …

Excerpt from Oct. 18, 2024, LifeSiteNews report by Calvin Freiburger

             … [Pres.] Trump’s opponent, Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris, is running on an absolutist abortion-on-demand platform that includes taxpayer funding of abortion, opposing any and all limits on the practice, signing a law forcing all 50 states to permit abortion again and, most recently, abolishing the Senate filibuster to get such a law to her desk.

             In speeches, she has taken to promoting abortion – the destruction of innocent unborn children in their mother’s womb – as normal and to be committed for whatever reason a woman wants, such as disposing of a child who would interfere with her career plans.

More from the Arroyo Interview

Oct. 18, 2024, LifeSiteNews report by Matt Lamb

             Pres. Donald Trump said abortion exceptions are “very important” and he will “look at” the possibility of exempting religious organizations from his proposed in-vitro fertilization (IVF) insurance mandate during an interview last night with [EWTN television host] Raymond Arroyo. …

             Trump has previously pledged to provide coverage of the embryo-destroying procedure nationwide, either through a private insurance mandate or through government programs. A LifeSiteNews analysis found such a mandate could lead to the intentional destruction of more than two million human embryonic children. Trump also recently said he is the “father of IVF.”

             “Well, you know, I haven’t been asked that, but it sounds to me like a pretty good idea, frankly,” Trump said in response to a question on religious liberty exemptions to his IVF mandate. The former President stated his intention to “keep” his stance in favor of religious liberty should he be re-elected in November: “I wouldn’t change it for anything.”

             “But even Catholics – a lot of them – they want IVF. It’s fertilization, basically,” he added. “And, you know they view that as helping a family, helping parents have a child,” Trump said. “And it’s a very popular thing. But certainly if there’s a religious problem, I think people should go with that. I really think they should be able to do that. But we will look at that.”

             The Catholic Church teaches that IVF is immoral and is a grave sin, since it separates the marital act from procreation, and as a result, Catholics cannot publicly support it nor partake in it. It is “morally unacceptable” according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

             The EWTN host asked Trump about claims he is now “pro-choice,” i.e., pro-abortion. “Some of your supporters are saying, ‘Well, Trump is pro-choice now.’ What would you say to them?” Arroyo asked.

             “No, no. I am like Ronald Reagan before me,” Trump said. “The exceptions are very important to me, and that’s the life of the mother, rape and incest.”

             He then went on to repeat his claim that “everybody” of all political stripes and “all legal scholars” wanted Roe v. Wade reversed and the issue of abortion sent back to the states. “And I have to tell you, I give great credit to brilliant Supreme Court justices,” Trump said. “We had six brilliant Supreme Court justices, and they had great courage. Our country will now come together.” …

             Trump … has said he will vote against a radical abortion amendment in Florida, after initially suggesting he thought the state’s protections for preborn babies at six weeks was too restrictive.

[Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Pres. Trump’s support for IVF is not surprising. The pro-life movement has never focused on the practice, and it does appear – to those who do not grasp its full implications – to be a facilitation for parenthood for couples who face fertility issues. IVF goes well beyond that, morally and practically, but its sudden emergence as an issue in the midst of a Presidential campaign does not conduce to study and thoughtful consideration. Though we hope it will develop into an issue that can be better understood and better addressed going forward, we do not anticipate its resolution any time soon. To those pro-life citizens who grasp – whether by knowledge, insight or the leading of their church – the pitfalls of IVF, we urge patience. This issue is too poorly understood, too under-reported and too complex to be a determinative issue in electing candidates for any office without a more full debate than can be pursued in such a brief time. Our readers can expect further comment on the realities of IVF as we understand them, in future editions.]

And Stateside …

Oct. 14, 2024, LifeSiteNews “Blog” by Jonathon VanMaren

             On last week’s podcast, I detailed one of the pro-Life movement’s major disadvantages heading in to the abortion referenda in November: the fact that the mainstream media perpetuate deliberate fabrications. …

             Another major disadvantage is funds. The abortion industry is for-profit, and Planned Parenthood and an assortment of abortion political action groups (PACs) have enormous war chests to utilize. Additionally, the Democratic Party is all in on abortion, leveraging all of their power and influence on behalf of the abortion industry – while the Republican Party under Donald Trump vacillates, equivocates and retreats to merely opposing late-term abortion. Pro-lifers are often forced to rebut, explain and persuade the party that once described itself as pro-life.

             We got a glimpse of how outmatched the pro-life movement would be from a financial perspective during the 2022 midterms. In Michigan, where abortion activists successfully embedded abortion in the state constitution, “Reproductive Freedom for All” spent $22.5 million on midterm election ads and raised at least $40.2 million. During the 2022 midterms, abortion groups outspent pro-lifers at least 35 to 1.

             One major reason for this is that the pro-life movement does not have many “megadonors” willing to pour unlimited cash into abortion battles – but the abortion industry does. Earlier this year, Melinda Gates announced that she would be pouring a small fortune into the abortion wars. There are a few pro-life groups with big donors, but most rely on thousands of committed people giving small amounts. Most of the money is on the “progressive” side of the abortion wars; with the exception of a few groups like SBA List, most pro-life groups simply don’t have the funds to be fighting large-scale, on-the-ground campaigns nonstop.

             A recent article from the Toronto Star reporting that pro-abortion groups are “outraising opponents 8-to-1 on November ballot measures” details the challenge. According to campaign finance data compiled by OpenSecrets and examined by The Associated Press: “Amendment backers have raised multiple times as much money and have far more donors, bringing in nearly $108 million compared to $14 million for their opponents, as of reports aggregated by Tuesday. Still, it’s not a sure thing that will mean more spending to promote the measures in every state in the final weeks before the Nov. 5 elections. ‘The apparent differential on campaign finance reports does nothing to reassure me that we will not see large, late spending on these campaigns,’ said Kelly Hall, executive director of The Fairness Project, which is providing money and other support for [pro-abortion] groups in several of the campaigns.”

             Abortion activists have been pouring money into ad buys [in] Missouri and Montana, and in Missouri, “the OpenSecrets data show [pro-abortion] groups have raised more than $5 million, and state filings reflect millions more in contributions, including $1 million from former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The giving has fueled over $11 million in ad spending supporting a measure that would overturn the state’s ban compared with less than $50,000 opposing it. In Montana, pro-amendment groups lead in ad spending, with more than $11 million compared to under $50,000 for opponents.”

             In Florida, abortion advocates have raised more than $60 million, while pro-lifers have raised only $9 million – but in the Sunshine State, at least, Gov. Ron DeSantis is campaigning for the pro-life side. The GOP has spent at least $9.6 million to defeat the amendment, and Florida’s state government website details how “Amendment 4 threatens women’s safety.”

             Abortion activist donors have opened their deep pockets in Florida as well: Planned Parenthood Federation of America and some of its regional affiliates are among those who have kicked in more than $1 million to support the amendments. But the biggest donor so far is Marsha Zlatin Laufer, a frequent contributor to liberal causes. She’s given more than $9 million in Florida. Other [pro-abortion] groups that have given more than $1 million in multiple states include the Sixteen Thirty Fund, the Fairness Project and Advocacy Action Fund, which aren’t required to disclose their donors, as well as the George Soros-connected Open Society Action Fund. Nationally, the abortion rights side also has far more donors: More than 94,000 to fewer than 2,600.

             On the opposing side, the big individual contributors are US Sen. Pete Ricketts, a Nebraska Republican, and his mother, Marlene Ricketts. Each of them has given at least $1 million in Nebraska. Nebraska is the one state where campaign finance filings show the two sides have raised similar amounts of money, with both between $3 million and $4 million.

             Interestingly, the only good polling news for pro-lifers recently comes from Florida, where two polls indicate that Amendment 4 may be falling well short of the 60% threshold needed to pass. As Dr. Michael New noted: “Victory Insights released the results of a poll of likely voters it conducted in late September. It has the ballot measure receiving 49.7% support. Similarly, a recent New York Times/Siena College poll of likely Florida voters found Question 4 receiving only 46% support.” Support for ballot propositions usually falls as the vote approaches, so these polls may bode well for pro-lifers – and, most importantly, for pre-born children.