Life Advocacy Briefing

Question of the Week

DOES THE TERM ‘HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONAL’ in the new language grafted onto various state constitutions this month mean that a pharmacist, a nurse or a veterinarian would be constitutionally guaranteed a “right” to commit abortion?

Fight! Fight! Fight!

ON ONE POINT WE AGREE with Vice President Kamala Harris: The fight is not over. From over here on the historical American side of the abortion issue, we will continue to fight, fight, fight.

And that includes fighting to restore the right to life to its honored, cherished place in the Republican Platform and to its once-honored place even among elected Democrats.

Remembering the good old days when a pro-life commitment was a bipartisan position, the defeat of so many radically pro-abortion Democrats in the recent election calls to mind a never-delivered speech, first published in the Wall Street Journal, by then-Gov. Robert Casey (D-PA), on the occasion of the Democratic Party’s refusal to allow him to address the party’s convention in 1992.

It’s titled “What I Would Have Told the Democrats,” and Life Advocacy has featured it in our seminar Reference Manual since our founding in 1992. Though it is rather lengthy, we reprint it now at the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing. It still holds and should be read by squishy Republicans as well.

Had Sen. Bob Casey listened to the father on whose name he has traded all these years, he might be going back to the Senate, come January. Instead, we observe his forced retirement at the hands of Pennsylvania voters. Welcome, Senator-elect Dave McCormick!

Oh, and welcome back, Rep. Henry Cuellar, the only Democrat in the US House whose voting record on Life issues showed a respect for unborn children. His was a tight race, but his south Texas district has, in the end, sent him back to DC for another round. The original Robert Casey would be proud of you, Representative Cuellar! We hope you can persuade some of your colleagues to join you on the side of justice and mercy.

Hoo-rah!

SPEAKING OF THE NEW CONGRESS, hearty congratulations to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on his unanimous choice by Members of the House GOP (Majority) Caucus to continue in his role as House CEO. America will be well served, we believe, by the continued leadership of this outstanding champion of Life and devoted public servant. And America is well served by the apparent initial unity of the House GOP, the more pro-life of the two major parties.

Implications of the Referendum Results

Nov. 6, 2024, LifeSiteNews report by Calvin Freiburger

             Pro-lifers defeated pro-abortion ballot initiatives in Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota on Tuesday, breaking the abortion lobby’s two-year winning streak, but amendments to embed abortion “rights” in state constitutions prevailed in seven other states including Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, Montana and Nevada.

             Arizona voted 61.71% with 61% of votes counted to enact an amendment backed by the pro-abortion coalition “Arizona for Abortion Access,” establishing a so-called “fundamental right to abortion that the state of Arizona may not interfere with before the point of fetal viability (defined as the point of pregnancy when there is significant chance of the survival of the fetus outside of the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures) unless justified by a compelling state interest (defined as a law or regulation enacted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of the individual seeking abortion care [sic] that does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision making).” [Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: We call upon our readers to take note of the gobbledygook language of the proposition, including the fact that it refers not to a “woman” but to an “individual,” demonstrating the further ideological twisting of the abortion lobby.]

             After viability, abortion bans [in Arizona] would still need to allow abortion in cases where abortion, “in the good-faith judgment of a treating healthcare professional* [i.e., abortionist], is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual,” despite the fact that abortion is never medically necessary, as both pro-life doctors and former abortionists affirm. The language gives abortionists the discretion to justify any abortion, rendering any future pro-life laws effectively meaningless. [*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: “Healthcare professional” is the same term as used in the failed Florida proposition; as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis pointed out, that term encompasses a wide range of occupations, well beyond trained physicians. A veterinarian, for example, is a “healthcare professional.”]

             Abortion has been legal in Arizona up to 15 weeks for any reason and forbidden afterward [except] only for “medical emergencies.” In addition to weakening that standard, the amendment prevents a future legislature from restoring the 1864 near-total abortion ban it repealed in May.

             Colorado’s amendment from “Coloradans for Protecting Reproductive Freedom” declares simply, the so-called “right to abortion is hereby recognized. Government shall not deny, impede or discriminate against the exercise of that [so-called] right, including prohibiting health insurance for abortion,” effectively insulating Colorado’s current status quo – in which legal abortion is effectively unlimited – from future legislative changes. It also deleted the state constitution’s existing language banning taxpayer dollars from being used to “pay or otherwise reimburse, either directly or indirectly, any person, agency or facility for the performance of any induced abortion.”

             Coloradans voted to approve the amendment with 61.48% in favor.

             Maryland residents, meanwhile, voted 74.11% in favor of their so-called “Right to Reproductive Freedom” Amendment, which writes into the state constitution that “every person, as a central component of an individual’s* rights to liberty and equality, has the [so-called] fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue or end one’s own pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden or abridge the [so-called] right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” [*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Note again the use of the term “individual” rather than “woman.”]

             Abortion was already legal up to birth in Maryland for any reason. The amendment will render abortion effectively unlimited. Further, Health Not Harm chair Deborah Brocato warned that “reproductive freedom” is not clearly defined in state law or the amendment: “The only clue we have in the amendment itself is that it says ‘reproductive freedom is not limited to …’ and then the language that describes things related to pregnancy. By the amendment itself, we know it is meant to go beyond things having to do with pregnancy.”

             In Montana, 57% of voters approved the “Right to Abortion Initiative,” which proposes a “right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the [so-called] right to abortion,” which it says “shall not be denied or burdened unless justified by a compelling government interest achieved by the least restrictive means,” clarifying that such an interest is only “compelling” if it “clearly and convincingly addresses a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk to a pregnant patient, and does not infringe on the patient’s autonomous decision making. … The government may regulate the provision of abortion care [sic] after fetal viability provided that in no circumstance shall the government deny or burden access to an abortion that, in the good-faith judgment of a treating healthcare professional* [i.e., abortionist], is medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient*,” it adds, effectively leaving it up to an abortionist to deem that an abortion is allegedly “medically indicated.” [*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s notes: Again, that language about “healthcare professional” rather than physician; nurse’s aides are healthcare professionals, among others. And note again the reference to “the pregnant patient,” with no reference to “woman.” These language distortions are intentional.]

             The [Montana] amendment will most likely be interpreted as overturning several state pro-life laws, including a ban on second-trimester “dismemberment” procedures and a ban on most abortions after 24 weeks.

             In Nevada, the so-called “Reproductive Freedom Amendment” would establish a state-level “constitutional right” to “make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including, without limitation, prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation abortion, abortion care [sic], management of a miscarriage and infertility care.” It would allow abortion to be “regulate[d]” after fetal viability, albeit with the exception of any abortion claimed to be “necessary” for the mother’s “life or physical or mental health,” a loophole that would render any ban effectively meaningless. It would also establish that the state could not “penalize, prosecute or otherwise take adverse action” against individuals for “actual, potential, perceived or alleged outcome of the pregnancy of the individual*, including, without limitation, a miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion,” which could be construed as protecting infanticide. [*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Another distortion via genderless term.]

             The amendment, which insulates and expands Nevada’s status quo of allowing abortion up to 24 weeks, passed with 63.33% of the vote. Under state rules, however, it must pass another referendum in 2026 before it can be added to the constitution.

             As LifeSiteNews has covered, the abortion lobby also passed similar amendments in Missouri and New York on Tuesday.

             Since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, the abortion lobby has had great success using false claims that pro-life laws are dangerous to stoke fear about the issue among the general public, most visibly in the area of state constitutional amendments proposing “rights” to abortion immune from future legislation.

             In previous years, pro-lifers either failed to enact pro-life amendments or stop pro-abortion ones in California, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Vermont, Kansas and Ohio, prompting much conversation among pro-lifers about the need to develop new strategies to protect Life at the ballot box, as well as a debate among Republicans over the political ramifications of continuing to take a clear pro-life position.

             As with those years, the abortion lobby once again dramatically outspent pro-lifers, although their spending advantage was not enough to prevail in Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota. In addition, Democrats’ heavy emphasis on stoking fears about pro-life laws to drive pro-abortion turnout failed to prevent Republicans from retaking the White House, the Senate and, while not yet officially called, possibly even the House of Representatives. [Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: Since this writing, the House Republican majority has been established.]

‘What I Would Have Told the Democrats’

Historical reflection: July 31, 1992, Wall Street Journal op-ed column by then-Gov. Robert P. Casey (D-PA)

             The Democratic National Convention was carefully choreographed to highlight the unity of our party and its moderate, middle-of-the-road platform. The new Democratic Party was presented to the American people as a large “circle of friends.” Unfortunately, on the key issue of abortion, the circle was drawn very tightly by the National Abortion Rights Action League, to exclude anyone, such as myself, who does not toe the party line.

             On the abortion issue, the platform is neither moderate nor middle-of-the-road. On this issue, the platform is radical and extreme, espousing abortion on demand. And, believe me, on this issue the delegates were anything but friendly. The New Covenant has something for just about everyone – everyone, that is, except the unborn child and the millions of Americans who oppose abortion on demand.

             I was denied the opportunity to address the delegates [at the National Convention] in New York because I oppose abortion. To add insult to injury, a pro-abortion Republican woman from my home state was showcased as a featured speaker. She appeared on the platform with Kate Michelman of NARAL and Democratic Party Chairman Ron Brown as I watched from the upper reaches of Madison Square Garden. When the national party denied me the right to be heard, it was really denying Pennsylvania the right to be heard. How soon they forget.

             It was Pennsylvania’s Democratic senatorial election victory in 1991 that gave the national party new life by exposing for the first time, at the grass roots, the weaknesses of the Bush-Quayle administration. But instead of reaching out to Democrats across the country who voted for Messrs. Reagan and Bush primarily because of their position on the abortion issue, the Democratic National Committee acts these days like a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Abortion Rights Action League.

             I have urged my party to re-examine its position on abortion in the context of the Democratic Party’s historic and noble mission of protecting the powerless. I have challenged my party to be open to debate and discussion; to move the Democratic platform away from a lock-step litmus test that advocates abortion-on-demand and toward a more mainstream position.

             Instead, throughout the platform formulation process, the deck was stacked against any attempt to change the national party’s abortion-on-demand position. I believe this position is wrong in principle and out of the mainstream. I also believe this position is politically self-defeating, because it excludes not only millions of pro-life voters but also those additional millions who are ambivalent but believe the number of abortions should be reduced and the practice made subject to reasonable regulation.

             My personal view, which I believe is shared by millions of Americans, is that our party should have made a strong statement in its platform that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. At the same time, I recognize that many people hold strongly to an opposing view. Indeed, an entire generation has grown to adulthood since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which held that the right to choose an abortion was a privacy right protected by the Constitution.

             But diversity of opinion is no reason for a party ostensibly so committed to change to reject change in its abortion position out of hand. At a minimum, the party should have explicitly rejected abortion on demand and endorsed the principle that voters, through their elected representatives in the states, should have the right to enact reasonable regulations restricting abortion, such as those in the Pennsylvania law just upheld by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Instead, compounding the error of an extreme national platform, national Democratic leaders are now calling for passage of the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, which would impose an extreme and radical abortion regime on the entire country. Congress is expected to vote on the bill in the next two weeks.

             This bill is bad for our country and bad for our party. It is not in our national interest. It will further divide the American people and do nothing to help establish consensus on this volatile issue.

             The American people, acting through their elected representatives in the state legislatures, should not be cut out of this process by having imposed on them a “one size fits all” federal mandate, binding all states to abortion on demand. Consensus and compromise, reflecting regional differences on this issue, would no longer be possible.

             The Freedom of Choice Act would prohibit not only any future state efforts to restrict abortion but would also repeal existing state laws such as the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act. The parental consent, informed consent and 24-hour waiting period provisions in our law would be nullified.

             The Freedom of Choice Act would also repeal any significant restriction on abortions in the seventh, eighth and ninth months. Under the Pennsylvania law, an abortion is not permitted after 24 weeks of pregnancy, except when the mother is in a life-threatening situation or when she would experience substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function by carrying the child to term. The FOCA would nullify the “substantial impairment” restriction and permit abortion in the seventh, eighth and ninth months if a physician decides the abortion is necessary to the mother’s well-being, taking into account such factors as her age and her physical, emotional, psychological and familial condition. This amounts to a blank check for third-trimester abortions.

             The abortion restrictions we have enacted in Pennsylvania have been tested repeatedly in national public opinion polls and are supported overwhelmingly by 70% to 80% of Americans. To reject reasonable regulations like these puts the national Democratic Party far out of the mainstream and on the extreme radical fringe of the most important value issue of our time.

             The ink wasn’t even dry on the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey when the pro-choice forces ran to Big Brother, the federal government, advocating passage of a federal law mandating abortion on demand. Isn’t it ironic that the same people who decry government intervention in this decision are now demanding that the federal government mandate their extreme, radical view nationwide?

             The Democratic Party has always claimed to be the voice of the powerless and the voiceless. I cannot understand why the national Democratic Party does not embrace unborn children as its natural constituency. Why are not unborn children included in the New Covenant? Why are the unborn left out and left behind?

             At the Democratic National Convention, some Minnesota delegates wore large red buttons that proclaimed, “I’m a pro-life Democrat. I want my party back.”

             Not a bad rallying cry for the future.*

*Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: After the sickening watering down of the GOP platform last summer, a similar button might be in order among the GOP faithful in 2024 and going forward.

[Further Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: We publish this still-relevant column not only as a chiding to Democrats, as Gov. Casey was seeking to achieve, but also as a warning to Republicans after the disturbing watering-down of the 2024 GOP national platform. Unfortunately, as we see it, it applies.]