Life Advocacy Briefing

Question of the Week

JUST WHAT ABOUT ‘REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE’ is reproductive?

Referenda Have Consequences

VOTERS IN 10 STATES FACING ABORTION REFERENDA in Tuesday’s election would do well to note last week’s judicial ruling in Ohio, where voters locked abortion into the state’s constitution in a referendum two years ago.

The ruling came in a lawsuit seeking to limit the effects of the abortion constitutional amendment; it did not work.

Cincinnati Judge Christian Jenkins ruled, reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “that no part of Ohio’s 2019 Heartbeat Law can be enforced in light of last year’s constitutional amendment establishing a state-level ‘right’ to abortion. …

“Ohio Republican Atty. Gen. Dave Yost had warned,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “that the amendment would go far beyond the Roe v. Wade status quo activists are trying to restore and block prohibitions on partial-birth and dismemberment abortions, allow abortionists to target disabled babies and end parental consent requirements for abortion as well as minors’ contraception, sterilization and ‘gender transition’ decisions.”

Mr. Yost did not give up easily on pro-life protections which had characterized Ohio law. After the amendment was sealed into the constitution by a vote of 56% of Ohio voters, reports Mr. Freiburger, “he stipulated that the core element of the 2019 law – the ban – was unenforceable but sought to preserve 14 other aspects of it, among them requiring abortionists to look for a fetal heartbeat first, notify women when their babies can survive outside the womb, and a 24-hour waiting period before abortion.” But on Oct. 24, reports Mr. Freiburger, citing Reuters as source, “[Judge] Jenkins ruled that the Heartbeat Law was invalid in its entirety and that all of its lesser provisions were also invalid under the amendment’s language that the state cannot ‘burden’ abortion choices ‘directly or indirectly.’ …

“The ruling underscores how ballot initiatives aimed at preserving the legality of abortion typically go much further even than that,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “and also prevent the people through their elected representatives from imposing far milder and less controversial regulations on abortion for informed patient [sic] consent and women’s safety.”

In Tuesday’s election, voters in 10 states – Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Nevada and South Dakota – “will all vote on proposals,” notes Mr. Freiburger, “to weaken or eliminate [and block] state pro-life laws, while Nebraska also has a pro-life amendment competing with the pro-abortion one.”

Is There a Doctor in the House?

THE PRESUMPTION BY KAMALA HARRIS that all women are fans of legalized abortion – or somehow weakened or cheated by legal protections for unborn children – was not enough to demonstrate her radical devotion to the abortion cartel. It appears she had to take her fawning admiration of the abortion cult one step further.

According to a Dallas Morning News report to which Calvin Freiburger referred in his LifeSiteNews report, Vice President Harris “invited 10 abortionists on stage with her at a campaign rally [Oct. 25] to emphasize her commitment to abortion-on-demand.”

But the stunt did not work out as planned. While one of the abortionists, Richard Todd Ivey, was complaining to the assemblage that the pro-life laws “‘are trying to handcuff me, literally,’” notes Mr. Freiburger, “some of the abortionists behind him became visibly distracted by something happening to their left, beyond camera view. As the [so-called] doctors looked around among themselves,” reports Mr. Freiburger, “Ivey stopped his speech to say, ‘I think someone needs some medical assistance over here,’ although none of the abortionists can be seen leaving the stage to provide it themselves.’” [Who, me, a doctor?]

“Many pro-lifers took the incident as a dramatic illustration,” writes Mr. Freiburger, “of how the abortion industry is not a legitimate healthcare field, despite pro-abortion narratives to the contrary.”

Enforcing the Law, a Refreshing Concept

THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS CRACKING DOWN on an abortionist, reports Bridget Sielicki for Live Action, “who repeatedly violated state law by committing abortions without adhering to a mandated 24-hour waiting period.”

Candace Cooley plied her trade at the so-called Center of Orlando for Women, which was among the state’s abortuaries assessed fines in 2023 for violations of the Florida waiting period law. Reports Ms. Sielicki: “193 abortions were committed without adhering to the waiting period. According to Florida Phoenix,” an online Tallahassee news source, “it now appears those 193 abortions were all committed by Cooley, resulting in the Florida Dept. of Health’s request that the Florida Board of Medicine revoke Cooley’s license. The DOH made the request,” notes Ms. Sielicki, “even though last month Administrative Law Judge James H. Peterson III said Cooley should simply pay a $10,000 fine and receive a reprimand.”

The Dept. of Health’s chief legal counsel, Andrew Pietrylo, responded, reports Live Action, to the judge’s recommendation to the licensing board: “‘The Board [of Medicine] should send a clear message to [Cooley] and every other physician in Florida that knowing and complying with the laws governing their practice is not optional, and serious breaches of this duty will be met with serious consequences.’”

Oh, that other officials might exhibit such conscientious regard for the law and step up to their duty. What a contrast to the various US attorneys across America who – so far as we know – have yet to prosecute a single partial-birth abortionist under a federal law which has been on the books since 2003.

Abortionist Cooley has an attorney, of course, who, notes Ms. Sielicki, “has called the Dept. of Health’s request ‘extreme’ and ‘retaliatory.’” Retaliatory? For what would the DOH be retaliating? For his part, Mr. Pietrylo notes, according to Ms. Sielicki, “Cooley’s actions presented ‘significant potential harm’ that warrant the revocation of her license.

“‘Respondent’s violation was inherently severe because it deprived women of their right to make a fully informed decision about whether to terminate their pregnancy [i.e. murder their child],’ he said,” writes Ms. Sielicki. “‘It also exposed the women to significant potential harm – even if no actual harm resulted. These patients proceeded with a medical procedure that could lead to excessive bleeding, infection, organ perforation, adverse reactions to medications and even death, without having the full amount of time required to consider these risks.’”

Would that the champions of legalized abortion would possess the same concern for the mothers who are mulling whether to undergo elective surgery as the Florida Health Dept. has shown.

Dirty Tactics from the Abortion Lobby

THE ELECTION CRIMES & SECURITY DIVISION of Florida’s Dept. of State “has released a 348-page interim report,” reports Calvin Freiburger for LifeSiteNews, “on its findings so far about substantial petition fraud allegedly used to get a radical pro-abortion amendment on the November ballot. …

“Last month, the DeSantis administration announced it would be looking into signatures from ‘nearly 37,000 submitted petitions’ gathered by 35 individuals,” Mr. Freiburger writes, “following examples of the signatures of dead people and non-matching signatures, as well as reports from people who did ‘not sign the petition forms submitted in their names’ and even forged signatures.”

Despite the state’s disturbing findings, the proposition is on the ballot and would, if ratified by 60% of voters, open the Florida floodgates for the abortion cartel. Let us pray.

Football Icon Urges Floridians: Vote ‘No’ on Abortion Amendment

Excerpt from Oct. 29, 2024, Fox News report by Jackson Thompson

             Super Bowl-winning former NFL coach Tony Dungy spoke at a news conference with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday, and encouraged Floridians to vote against an amendment that would legalize abortion in the state. 

             Dungy spoke at Clearwater Central Catholic High School and shared the story of his own family and how his interactions with his eight adopted children have influenced his stance on the issue. He also cited his religion for the stance. 

             “I happen to believe that these babies in the womb are lives, and I know everybody doesn’t believe that, but I happen to believe it. My Bible tells me that they are,” Dungy said. “My wife Lauren and I have eight adopted children in our home right now, and when I go home every day and I look at those kids, I don’t see eight choices. I’m sorry, those are eight lives, and yes, we need to protect our women, and yes, we need to protect our mothers, but we need to protect those children as well.”

             Dungy also said he disagrees with the notion that a lack of abortion access would put Florida women in danger. “I am so upset when people say, ‘Oh we need to get this passed because women in Florida are in danger.’ No, they’re not in danger when they’re pregnant.” Dungy said. “We have some of the best health care in the world here, and it’s available, and it’s not going to be withheld if this amendment doesn’t pass.” …

A Further Warning About VP Harris

Excerpt from Oct. 23, 2024, report by S.A. McCarthy in The Washington Stand

Democratic candidates have been running on abortion for years, and both Pres. Joe Biden and now Vice Pres. Kamala Harris have pledged to resurrect a more extreme version of Roe v. Wade if Democrats win the White House in November. But Harris is promising more than just unrestricted abortion on demand: she’s promising to make American Christians carry out and pay for abortions.

In an NBC News interview on Tuesday, Harris was asked if she would consider “making concessions” on abortion if she were to win the White House in order to garner support from pro-abortion Republicans like Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). “What concessions would be on the table? Religious exemptions, for example; is that something that you would consider if the Republicans control Congress?” NBC’s Senior Washington Correspondent Hallie Jackson asked. Harris replied, “I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body.”

When Jackson asked if Harris would consider religious exemptions as an “olive branch” extended to Murkowski or Collins, the Vice President said that “a basic freedom has been taken from the women of America, the freedom to make decisions about their own body, and that cannot be negotiable, which is why we need to put back in the protections of Roe v. Wade, and that is it.”

Christian organizations were quick to react. In comments to The Washington Stand, Mary Szoch, Family Research Council’s director of the Center for Human Dignity, said that Harris “isn’t pro-choice; she is pro-abortion.” Szoch continued, “She wants to force everyone to perform abortions — even physicians who recognize that the killing of an innocent unborn child is murder and a grave sin — and she wants to force American taxpayers to pay for abortions.” She concluded, “This woman will do everything possible to increase the number of babies aborted in this country. No Christian can vote for her in good conscience.” …

Former Pres. Donald Trump has repeatedly condemned Harris for her demonstrable animosity towards American Christians and pro-lifers. At the “11^th Hour Faith Leaders Meeting” on Monday, Trump insisted that Harris is “very destructive to Christianity and very destructive to evangelicals and to the Catholic Church.” He added, “She is your worst nightmare. Much worse, much worse than Biden, and he wasn’t so hot.”

Trump has previously called Harris “militantly hostile toward Americans of faith,” pointing out her record on such issues as abortion and the LGBT agenda, as well as her repeated prosecution –  both in the White House and prior to becoming Vice President – of pro-life Americans and her complicity in targeting American Catholics with the FBI.

Trump has pledged to “stop the Biden-Harris Administration’s weaponization of law enforcement against Americans of faith” and has said that “no longer will the DOJ and the FBI be allowed to target, persecute or round up Christians or pro-life activists and throw them in jail for living out their religious beliefs.”

Answering the Lies

Oct. 29, 2024, Commentary by Mary Bruinsma, RN, BSN, South Bend, IN, for LifeSiteNews

             I am a registered nurse who has worked in a setting with pregnant women for over 16 years. It disturbs me to see and hear statements, certain media presentations and articles all claiming that state abortion bans prevent women from receiving certain types of medical care outside of abortion. I am writing to provide accurate information about what is legal versus illegal and to encourage medical and lay people alike to know the laws in their state regarding the difference between an elective abortion and providing gynecological care in other situations.    

             What the above-mentioned claims are referring to are D&C (Dilation & Curettage) procedures and misoprostol (the second pill in the medication abortion procedure that evacuates the fetus from the uterus). The inferences or direct conclusions they are making are that abortion should not be banned so that women can receive the medical care they need.

             These claims have all failed to mention some important information.

             First of all, state abortion restrictions make it illegal to have an elective or induced abortion. This is the intentional removal of a living fetus (pre-born baby with a confirmed heartbeat) from a woman’s pregnant uterus by either a D&C or by the medications mifepristone and misoprostol, which are used in the “abortion pill” procedure. It is not, however, illegal to have these same procedures or medications in other types of medical situations where they are needed.

             A D&C is a surgery in which certain medical instruments are inserted into the uterus in order to remove the contents. D&C procedures, misoprostol and other gynecological treatments are used in many other instances that have nothing to do with an elective abortion and are not illegal in states with abortion restrictions. They are listed below:

• Miscarriage (also called “spontaneous abortion”): baby’s heartbeat has stopped due to natural causes; the fetus is in the womb but is not alive and will either pass naturally or with the assistance of a medication (g. misoprostol) or a D&C procedure.

• Ectopic pregnancy: the [embryo] has formed outside the uterus and needs to be removed.

• Retained placenta after delivery of a baby: this condition causes heavy bleeding or hemorrhaging, and it is often medically necessary to do a D&C to remove the placental parts causing the bleeding after the baby is born.

• Other conditions such as tumors, polyps or fibroids that need to be removed from the uterus.

             The claims I am referring to state that women cannot receive D&C procedures and/or misoprostol for these other conditions in states with abortion restrictions.

             This is absolutely false! In all of the other situations, there is not a living fetus being electively removed from the womb. There is nothing in the abortion laws that says a woman cannot receive these other gynecological treatments; in fact, many of them specifically list these exceptions.

             Those claims are a huge and gross misrepresentation of what the law says and tries to accomplish. They scare women and may even confuse medical personnel if they have not acquainted themselves with the wording in the abortion laws of their state. These faulty claims are not medically or legally accurate and do a disservice to women and couples facing these other types of medical situations. They do a disservice to the OB/GYN medical personnel who, listening to the claims, may become fearful of providing necessary treatments. Their claims may also influence voters to vote pro-abortion … based on information that is inaccurate. This would be very unfortunate if someone’s conscience or faith would otherwise tell them to vote pro-life.

             Please do what you can to refute the incorrect and faulty information, and to provide information that is educated and accurate.