Life Advocacy Briefing

Summer’s Over – Now the Work

AS THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS KICK OFF FOR REAL – now that Labor Day has eclipsed the summer – the Congress is back in session for a brief but active several weeks, focused chiefly on two things: appropriations for the various functions of the federal government and posturing to avoid politically costly mistakes. It is also a time for pro-life Americans to step up communication with incumbent officeholders and their challengers. If our government is truly to be “of the people” – as its founders designed it to be – the people must speak while our officials are most inclined to listen. Members of Congress and the US Senate can be contacted via the Capitol switchboard at 202/224-3121 and asked to vote to shield taxpayers from paying for the killing of unborn children and to protect those children at every opportunity. Or get in touch with their campaigns in your state or district.

Candidates should be asked to state their positions on pro-life reforms and on abortion-lobby proposals; so few are offering public comment on these matters in this election, it is up to pro-life citizens to assert our priorities and check on the positions of those who seek our votes. Party label is no longer an assurance, as the one party whose platform has traditionally been unapologetically pro-life – the GOP – no longer heralds such a commitment.

At the close of this Life Advocacy Briefing, we are reprinting a commentary by venerable pro-life leader Chuck Donovan, originally published by Family Research Council in The Washington Stand. We commend it to your reading as a comprehensive collection of pro-life legislative goals which can form the basis of such inquiries to our officials and candidates.

In the States

WE HAVE PUBLISHED NEWS of pending state-level referenda – typically constitutional amendment proposals – as the news has developed. Now Focus on the Family has published, in its Daily Citizen bulletin, a compilation of these challenges, inasmuch as the ballot structure in virtually every state is set. (The Nebraska abortion proposition is still being contested in court, where the state supreme court on Aug. 30 agreed to hear a challenge brought by the Thomas More Society.) We find it helpful to have this “map” all in one place, so we are substantially reprinting the report, with some changes in format for the sake of space and ease of reference. Readers will find it below.

Upcoming State-Level Referenda

Aug. 28, 2024, Daily Citizen report by Nicole Hunt

             This November, voters in 10 states will be asked to decide whether their state constitutions should be amended to include the so-called right to abortion. The 10 states that will see an abortion initiative on the ballot are Florida, Colorado, Missouri, South Dakota, Arizona, Nebraska, Montana, Maryland, New York and Nevada.

             While each measure’s language is unique, they all have the same effect: enshrining abortion in the state constitution. If these measures pass, they will be very difficult and costly to repeal. … After seven straight wins at the ballot box on abortion-related statewide measures, the abortion industry is hedging its bets on this process giving them more wins this fall. [Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: The abortion lobby is also using these referenda to generate turnout for their favored candidates on the same ballots. Readers who live in other states will do well to warn their friends in the targeted states.]

             Many factors will impact the outcome of these campaigns, including messaging, funding, threshold required for passage and cultural opinions of likely voters in each state. Below is a snapshot of where each state currently stands on many of those factors.

Arizona: Arizona Right to Abortion Initiative Constitutional Amendment Proposition 139 – Threshold 50%+1 – Would create a so-called right to abortion before viability or at any time to preserve the health of the mother. The health exception becomes a loophole for late-term abortion. Current law allows abortions through 15 weeks of pregnancy [but can be amended legislatively unless this proposal passes].

Colorado: Colorado Right to Abortion [Amendment Proposition] – Threshold 55% — Would create a so-called constitutional right to unrestricted abortion and permit the use of taxpayer-funded abortion. Current law allows for unrestricted abortion, and public funds cannot pay for abortion. [Current law can be amended legislatively unless this proposal passes.]

Florida: Florida Amendment 4, Right to Abortion Initiative – Threshold 60% — Would create a so-called right to abortion before viability (the time at which a baby can live outside the womb) or at any time to preserve the health of the mother. The health exception becomes a loophole for late-term abortion. [This law can be amended legislatively unless this proposal passes.]

Maryland: Maryland Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment – Threshold 50%+1 – Would declare that women have a so-called right to reproductive freedom including the right to end a pregnancy. Current law allows for abortion until viability and permits abortion at any time for the health of the mother. [This law can be amended legislatively unless this proposal passes.]

Missouri: Missouri Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment 3 – Threshold 50%+1 – Would prohibit restrictions on abortion until after viability or at any time to preserve the health of the mother; the health exception becomes a loophole for late-term abortion. Current law protects preborn babies from the moment of conception.

Montana: Montana Right to Abortion Constitutional Initiative 128 – Threshold 50%+1 – Would prohibit restrictions on abortion until after viability or at any time to preserve the health of the mother; the health exception becomes a loophole for late-term abortion. Current law allows abortion until viability or at any time to preserve the health of the mother. The health exception becomes a loophole for late-term abortion. [This law can be amended legislatively unless this proposal passes.]

Nebraska: Nebraska Right to Abortion Initiative – Threshold 50%+1 and minimum of at least 35,000 voters approving the change – Would prohibit restrictions on abortion until after viability. [Challenge to this proposition is pending in the State Supreme Court.] Current law protects pre-born babies starting at 12 weeks gestation. [This law can be amended legislatively unless this proposal passes.]

And Nebraska: competing, pro-life initiative – Threshold 50%+1 and minimum of at least 35,000 voters approving the change – Would prohibit abortions in the second and third trimester; it would include exceptions for medical emergencies, rape and incest.

If Nebraska voters pass both abortion-related amendments, then the one with the most votes wins.

Nevada: Nevada Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment Question 6 – Threshold 50%+1 in two consecutive elections – Would prohibit restrictions on abortion until after viability or at any time to preserve the health of the mother; the health exception becomes a loophole for late-term abortion. Current law allows abortion until viability and at any time to preserve the health of the mother. [This law can be amended legislatively unless this proposal passes.]

New York: New York Equal Protection of Law Amendment – Threshold 50% + 1 – Would prohibit so-called discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Current law allows for abortion until viability and permits abortion at any time for the health of the mother. [This law can be amended legislatively unless this proposal passes.]

South Dakota: South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, Right to Abortion Initiative – Threshold 50% +1 – Would prohibit restrictions on abortion during first trimester and allow for limited restrictions in the second and third trimester; includes a health exception throughout the entire pregnancy permitting an abortion at any time for the health of the mother; the health exception becomes a loophole for late-term abortions. Current law protects babies throughout the entire pregnancy and allows an exception for the life of the mother.

Is Silence an Acceptable Stand?

Sept. 3, 2024, commentary by Chuck Donovan in The Washington Stand

             It’s hard reality that one of the primary actions planned by the Democratic Party and an incoming Harris-Walz Administration will be to enact a bill to protect legal abortion up to birth (and malign neglect of those few babies who survive late-term procedures). But what about the Republicans? After decades of declaring support for federal protections for the unborn, their standard bearer says he opposes a federal role, and his running mate now says that a second-term Pres. Trump will veto any “national abortion ban.”

             Is that a blanket statement regarding anything Congress might send his way? It appears to include opposition to any changes in the Food & Drug Administration’s Wild West distribution of abortion pills to women and girls without a prior medical exam. For weeks, GOP voices added to the vagueness by stating that they did not expect to have the votes in Congress to pass anything on the Life issue “for the foreseeable future.” But a veto promise is only made if Congress would, in fact, act on Life.

             Cast aside the blinding and blurring policies at work here and ask the questions, “Is there a federal role in the abortion issue, and does it make sense for either side in the debate to abandon it?” The answer is clearly Yes to the first question and No to the second. As to the first, the Democrats, eternally loyal to even the most infernal projects of their base, have answered it resoundingly. It’s the Women’s Health Protection Act all the way. If the party weren’t so awful on social issues, one would want to be among them; they never sow doubt; your pledge and your contribution go where you sent it.

             But Republicans should have a similarly clear answer. First is the fact that some existing pro-life policies are at risk, and there is unfinished business. Take the abortion funding question. The various abortion funding limits, the result of years of bipartisan leadership by people like Henry Hyde (R), Robert Dornan (R), Harold Volkmer (D) and James Oberstar (D), have saved north of 2.6 million lives. But the primary amendment, Hyde’s limitation on the Labor/Health&Human Services appropriations bill, must be reenacted every year. In 2016, in a commitment letter to the pro-life movement, candidate Donald Trump pledged to seek passage of a permanent Hyde statute. It has not been accomplished. Can it pass the next Congress? No one knows, but the pledge to do so should be renewed now. The measure has majority popular support and is good public policy, in effect a taxpayer conscience clause that establishes the fact that abortion is a matter of right and wrong and not true medicine. Is there merit in voting on a measure and losing the vote, narrowly perhaps? Political and policy change comes when each side in a debate strives to refine its arguments, assemble the evidence and advance its position. The public has a right to know where elected officeholders stand on taxpayer-funded abortion. Congress should vote promptly on a permanent Hyde in 2025, and the Trump-Vance ticket should sign on now to achieve this objective.

             Meanwhile, there are other measures Congress should debate and that any Republican Party worth its salt (and your vote) should re-pledge itself to seek. Look no further than the Republican platforms from 1976 to 2020 for nearly two dozen examples. But there are more proposals of a federal cast that deserve consideration and adoption. Most have been introduced in one form or another and most have solid polling support, though that is not the sole criterion by which a public official, of all people, should do the right thing. Read a biography of Frederick Douglass or Justice John Marshal Harlan or “Profiles in Courage” to sample why.

             Here are a few measures that should attract the attention of the next Congress besides a permanent Hyde Amendment:

             CIANA. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is a measure, akin to the [longstanding] Mann Act, that would punish transport of a minor across state lines when the intent is to procure an abortion and evade an in-state parental notification or consent law. The bill would likewise punish an abortionist who carries out an abortion on a minor from another state while knowingly evading such a law. Congress should now recognize the reality that it is abortion drugs that are likely to be shipped across state lines, not the minor child, and doctors may not be doing the shipment. HR-792 should be modified into a CIANA Max, imposing penalties on anyone who ships abortion pills to a minor in another state with a parental notice or consent law. The law could likewise reinforce a parental right of recovery against anyone who ships abortion drugs across state lines to a minor or a third non-parental party for the purpose of inducing an abortion.

             The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) has slipped off the radar screen in recent years, but the proposed legislation would carry on the traditional action of Congress to protect human beings from discrimination on the basis of race, sex or disability. In this instance, the contemplated discrimination is lethal, and PRENDA would block the destruction of an unborn child when it is being sought solely because of the child’s race, sex or the actual or suspected presence of an anomaly. Other nations have dealt with the challenge of such phenomena as sex-section abortion, but laws in the US have not kept pace.

             The MOMS Act: Just before Mother’s Day this year, Senators Katie Britt (R-AL), Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) introduced the More Opportunities for Mom to Succeed (MOMS) Act. As Rubio said of the measure, “Being pro-life means being pro-mother. We need to work towards passing legislation that helps mothers before, during and after pregnancy.” In truth, bills of this nature, which strive to coordinate communication about and access to federal programs designed to assist mothers in the prenatal and postpartum period, should have strong bipartisan support.

             Each of the foregoing ideas has enjoyed support on Capitol Hill, and each is sorely needed. None constitutes an abortion “ban,” as that term is commonly bruited about. Congress should continue to introduce and consider how it can protect unborn boys and girls throughout the term of pregnancy. But in the meantime, any candidate for federal office should be able to openly embrace these measures which offer some refuge to the unborn from pain and discrimination or that protect collateral interests like conscience and the well-being of mothers.

             In 1994, Republicans rose electorally on their embrace of a Contract with America. Today, the party risks a Contraction with America, under which it no longer stands for a range of policy ideas the American people broadly support. There is time to correct that perception and advance an agenda America cannot afford to abandon. With barely 60 days to Election Day, that time is growing short.

Life Advocacy Briefing editor’s note: We generally agree with Mr. Donovan’s commentary, but we would add a couple of observations. First, that “Contract with America” he mentions arose from the House GOP, not from any Presidential candidate. Speaker Mike Johnson and his still mostly pro-life caucus could bring forth right now a commitment of principles outlining needed legislation which would include pro-life reforms such as a permanent Hyde Amendment, a permanent Helms Amendment to shelter our foreign aid dollars from abuse by the international abortion cartel, a permanent Dornan Amendment to protect US taxpayers from funding abortions in the nation’s capital district and the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, renewed each year since 1996, which protects taxpayers from having their funds used to create, destroy or knowingly injure human embryos. (This amendment is at particular risk because of former President Trump’s recent commitment to using tax funds to subsidize in vitro fertilization, a commitment which deserves pushback from citizens and public officials who better grasp its implications.)

Further, Life Advocacy Briefing raises concerns about the deterioration of taxpayer – and unborn child – protection under the current Biden-Harris Regime and the lack of pushback from Republican candidates on such matters as subsidizing abortion-related expenses via the Dept. of Defense and the Veterans Administration, as well as the federal government’s blind eye toward rampant violation of a still-standing 19^th-century law against using the US mail for delivery of abortion chemicals. Democratic candidates should be called on to take a stand on all these matters, and GOP candidates should not hesitate to raise them.