October 9, 2020

The Presidential Record on Life

President Donald J. Trump 

2017-present 

"America, when it is at its best, follows a set of rules that have worked since our Founding. One of those rules is that we, as Americans, revere life and have done so since our Founders made it the first, and most important, of our 'unalienable' rights." 

-President Donald J. Trump 

Supreme Court: President Trump has appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. These appointments are consistent with the belief that federal courts should enforce the rights truly based on the text and history of the Constitution. 

Appointments: President Trump has appointed numerous pro-life advocates in his administration and cabinet including Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson, former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, and former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. 

Mexico City Policy: President Trump restored the "Mexico City Policy," which prevents tax funds from being given to organizations that perform abortions or lobby to change the abortion laws of host countries. He later expanded the policy to prevent $9 billion in foreign aid from being used to fund the global abortion industry. 

Defunding Planned Parenthood: President Trump supports directing funding away from Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. In a September 2016 letter to pro life leaders, he noted that “I am committed to... defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and re-allocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health care for women." 

Abortion Funding: In 2017, President Trump issued a statement affirming his strong support for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, saying he "would sign the bill.” The bill would permanently prohibit any federal program from funding elective abortion. 

Funding Abortion Providers: In 2018, President Trump's Health and Human Services Department issued regulations to ensure Title X funding does not go to facilities that perform or refer for abortions. In 2017 President Trump signed a resolution into law that overturned an eleventh-hour regulation by the Obama administration that prohibited states from defunding certain abortion facilities in their federally funded family planning programs. 

International Abortion Advocacy: The Trump Administration cut off funding for the United Nations Population Fund due to that agency's involvement in China's forced abortion program. Additionally, President Trump instructed the Secretary of State to apply pro-life conditions to a broad range of health related U.S. foreign aid. 

Protecting the Unborn: President Trump supports the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This legislation extends protection to unborn children who are at least 20 weeks because by this point in development (and probably earlier), the unborn have the capacity to experience excruciating pain during typical abortion procedures. 

Protecting Pro-Life Policies: President Trump has pledged "to veto any legislation that weakens current pro-life federal policies and laws, or that encourages the destruction of innocent human life at any state." 

The Vice-Presidential Debate and Abortion

photo credit: C-SPAN
In Wednesday night's vice-presidential debate moderated by USA-Today journalist Susan Page, questions important to the topic of abortion came up multiple times, which may come as a surprise to viewers of last week's presidential debate. Senator Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence's answers to those questions may be less surprising.

During the debate, Page noted before one of her questions that Judge Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice “would cement the Court’s conservative majority” and “would make it likely open to more abortion restrictions.” This could potentially include the overruling of Roe v. Wade. Page asked each of the candidates what they would want their home states to do if the legality of abortion was passed to the states (as would be the case if Roe v. Wade was overruled). Neither candidate answered that question directly, but both candidates did state their positions on abortion.

“There’s the issue of choice, and I will always fight for a woman’s right to make a decision about her own body,” Senator Harris said. “It should be her decision, and not that of Donald Trump and the Vice President Mike Pence.”

Pro-life Americans know that this statement is built on a lie. The decision that a woman makes when she has an abortion does not only involve her body, but also the body of the innocent unborn child inside of her. Politicians who attempt to restrict or end abortion are not trying to control the choices and bodies of women. They are trying to protect unborn human beings who have the right to be born.

In response to the topic of abortion, Vice President Pence said, “I couldn’t be more proud to serve as vice president to a president who stands without apology for the sanctity of human life. I am pro-life, I don’t apologize for it.”

Pence continued by asking Senator Harris whether a Biden administration would "pack the court" if Judge Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court. If the Biden administration added additional justices past the traditional nine that the court has had for over 150 years, it could overrule the conservative majority put in place by President Trump. Senator Harris's response never answered the Vice President's question. President Trump also asked this question to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden last week, but Biden directly refused to answer.

Click here to read more.

October 8, 2020

YouTube and Vimeo Remove Video of Mom Begging Hospital to Provide Medical Care for her Preemie Twins

Emery Finnefrock
In 2017, Amanda Finnefrock watched her premature twin sons Emery and Elliot die in front of her while Riverside Methodist Hospital refused to provide them with medical treatment. In 2018, the pro-life organization Created Equal made a video to help publicize the incident to change the hospital's policy and get justice for the twins. Just recently however, after the Department of Health and Human Services announced that they were investigating the incident, the video hosting platforms Vimeo and YouTube took down the video.

Thankfully, it is still available on Facebook.

It is strange that the social media companies would wait two years to remove the videos, and specifically did so after their claims were validated by the announcement of an investigation by the federal government. “First YouTube removed the video — saying it violated ‘community standards,'” said Created Equal Director of External Affairs Gabriel Vance told Live Action News. “Then Vimeo followed suit claiming: ‘You cannot upload videos that are hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory.'”

YouTube was not specific in how the video violated its policy, but the video was certainly not hateful or discriminatory. The only explanation that would make sense with Vimeo's complaint is that the company is trying to defend the hospital from content it believes is "defamatory." Nothing in the video is false, however. This leads many pro-lifers to believe that social media companies are taking this side to defend the abortion industry and muzzle the idea that unborn children can be viable at only 22 weeks gestation.

YouTube's history with viral pro-life content gives some credibility to this theory.

Pro-lifers need to be wary of tech companies that mark life-affirming ideas as "hateful" or "fake news," even if the stories are completely true. President Trump has attempted to fight social media bias with an executive order, but much more headway needs to be made on this front.

Click here to read more.


October 7, 2020

McConnell: "We are full steam ahead" with Barrett Confirmation Process

Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
In a statement he gave on the Senate floor Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "We are full steam ahead with the fair, thorough, and timely confirmation process that Judge Barrett, the Court, and the nation deserve."

McConnell's statement is a response to calls from Democrat Senators to delay the confirmation process after two Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee tested positive for COVID-19. Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein called on Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham to delay hearings after Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina announced that they tested positive for the disease.

“It is premature for Chairman Graham to commit to a hearing schedule when we do not know the full extent of potential exposure stemming from the president’s infection and before the White House puts in place a contact tracing plan to prevent further spread of the disease.” they wrote. “The unfortunate news about the infection of our colleague Senator Mike Lee makes even more clear that health and safety must guide the schedule for all Senate activities, including hearings.”

They went on to argue that hearings discussing the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice are too important to hold remotely. McConnell took issue with that statement and accused Democrat lawmakers of hypocrisy in his address.

He pointed out that the Senate Judiciary Committee has held hybrid hearings with some participants appearing over video and some participants appearing in person more than 20 times this year. McConnell further stated and said that "the Democratic members of the Committee have gone out of their way to praise this technology and the Chairman's flexibility with this format."

"Across all our committees, we’ve had 150 hybrid hearings since the pandemic began," McConnell continued. "The Senate has used this format no fewer than 150 times. We have continued performing our constitutional duties while protecting health and safety during the pandemic. Our Democratic colleagues have largely welcomed this approach and they have frequently taken advantage of it. So whatever mix proves to be the right decision at this time next week, it will be completely consistent with the Committee’s own precedent, and with the ways committees across the Senate have adapted and done their work throughout this pandemic."

McConnell named several senators who explicitly stated that they would try to delay the nomination process as much as they could, and denounced the use of these arguments as "stall tactics."

"Chairman [Lindsey] Graham has all the options and procedures he needs to supervise a fair, thorough, and hopefully dignified confirmation hearing next week. And that’s just what is going to happen. I look forward to seeing Judge Barrett’s brilliance and qualifications on full display starting one week from today," McConnell concluded.

Click here to read Senator McConnell's full remarks.

Biden Again Promises He would Make Roe v. Wade the Law of the Land

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden
photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr
At an outdoor town hall event that aired on NBC Monday, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said that he would pass legislation making legal abortion the law of the land if Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court.

At the event, Biden asked what he would do to protect "reproductive health rights" if Judge Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Biden gave the following response:

“Number one, we don’t know exactly what [Barrett] will do, although the expectation is that she may very well move to overrule Roe, and what the only thing--the only responsible response to that would be to pass legislation making Roe the law of the land,” said Biden. “That’s what I would do.” 

If Roe v. Wade is overturned by a court with Amy Coney Barrett, it would not be immediately outlawed, nor would it be easy to reinstate the policy as a federal law. The ability to grant the right to abortion would be left to individual states. Furthermore, federal bills designed to codify a right to abortion would be unlikely to gain the majority required to overcome a filibuster.

Click here to read more.

October 6, 2020

Planned Parenthood Hypocritically Grieves the Loss of Celebrity's Preborn Son

Photo from Chrissy Teigen's Instagram Page
Celebrity couple John Legend and Chrissy Teigen announced on social media that their preborn son, Jack passed away late during pregnancy. In response to the news of her miscarriage, many people reached out to the family with well-wishes and support. One of those Twitter accounts, ironically, belonged to Planned Parenthood.

On Instagram, Chrissy Teigen lamented the loss of her son, “We are shocked and in the kind of deep pain you only hear about, the kind of pain we’ve never felt before,” she wrote. “We were never able to stop the bleeding and give our baby the fluids he needed, despite bags and bags of blood transfusions. It just wasn’t enough.”

Later on in her post, she continued, “To our Jack – I’m so sorry that the first few moments of your life were met with so many complications, that we couldn’t give you the home you needed to survive. We will always love you. We are so grateful for the life we have, for our wonderful babies Luna and Miles, for all the amazing things we’ve been able to experience. But every day can’t be full of sunshine. On this darkest of days, we will grieve, we will cry our eyes out. But we will hug and love each other harder and get through it.”

Planned Parenthood's Twitter account gave the following statement about the news: "We're so sorry to hear that Chrissy Teigen and John Legend lost their son, and we admire them for sharing their story."

Many on Twitter were quick to point out that Planned Parenthood's use of the word "son" here was uncharacteristic and even hypocritical of them. If an unborn child isn't considered "human" by abortionists, how could the abortion business consider Jack to be a "son," or even be sorry to hear about Jack's death?

Unborn children are in fact real human beings, and their death causes real feelings of loss and grief. This is unborn children, not just ones who are wanted by their mothers. The value of human life is not something that Planned Parenthood or a mother can simply decide.

Click here to read more.

Barrett Supported Right to Life in 2006 Newspaper Ad

Supreme Court Nominee
Amy Coney Barrett
On September 30, The National Review reported that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett agreed in 2006 to let her name appear on a newspaper insert by St. Joseph County Right to Life. The ad read, “We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and support the right to life from fertilization to natural death.”

This is only the latest evidence of the nominee's pro-life stance. Her devout Catholicism and membership in Notre Dame's "Faculty for Life" have also heavily contributed to this. She has not stated whether she believes the Supreme Court should overrule the precedent of cases such as Roe v. Wade. It is also likely that she will refuse to say how she would rule on such cases, as have most Supreme Court nominees.

Some media outlets falsely reported that Barrett also endorsed an ad which appeared alongside the insert, but this is not true. St. Joseph County Right to Life also placed an ad in the paper which described Roe v. Wade as barbaric, but that ad was not approved by the people who endorsed the insert. Those people had not even seen that language.

Click here to read more.

October 5, 2020

Democrat Leaders Call to Delay Supreme Court Nominee Hearings After Two Senators Test Positive for COVID-19

Sen. Mike Lee (UT-R)
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham originally planned confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett to take place on Oct. 12. After two Republican Senators tested positive for COVID-19, the potential for these hearings to be delayed has grown. 

Republican Senators Mike Lee and Thom Tillis of the Senate Judiciary Committee tested positive for COVID-19. Both senators made announcements on Oct. 2 that they would be self-isolating for 10 days as a result. Lee said that he assured Senate leadership he would “be back to work in time to join my Judiciary Committee colleagues in advancing the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett in the Committee and then to the full Senate.” Senator Tillis did not comment on how his isolation might affect the nomination process.

In response to the news, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Judiciary Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein released a statement on Friday asking Graham not to commit to a hearing schedule.

“It is premature for Chairman Graham to commit to a hearing schedule when we do not know the full extent of potential exposure stemming from the president’s infection and before the White House puts in place a contact tracing plan to prevent further spread of the disease.” they wrote. “The unfortunate news about the infection of our colleague Senator Mike Lee makes even more clear that health and safety must guide the schedule for all Senate activities, including hearings.”

Opponents to Amy Coney Barrett's nomination have suddenly decided that it would be inappropriate to hold hearings regarding her full appointment, but it is still unclear whether this will have any effect on the process. If votes go along party lines in the Senate, Republicans could lose three out of their 53 votes and successfully nominate Barrett to the court. 50 Republican votes would allow Vice President Mike Pence to break the tie, likely in favor of the nominee.

Click here to read more.

October 2, 2020

Tennessee Abortion Pill Reversal Law Temporarily Blocked by Federal Court

On Tuesday, Federal Judge William Campbell temporarily blocked a Tennessee law that required physicians to inform patients about abortion pill reversal (APR) before administering abortion pills.

Gov. Bill Lee signed this legislation into law this July, thereby requiring abortion providers to inform patients that abortions attempted via the abortion pill regimen can be reversed. Pro-life doctors can reverse the effects of mifepristone (the first drug in the abortion pill regimen) by prescribing progesterone. It is most effective if done within 24 hours of the mother taking mifepristone.

According to CNN, the Tennessee law required abortionists to notify women about APR 48 hours before they begin the regimen, again in writing after the first pill is administered, and on "conspicuous" signage in clinics that have provided more than 50 abortions during the previous calendar year.

Five Tennessee abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU filed suit against the APR notification law in August.

In his decision to temporarily block the law's enforcement, Campbell wrote that he was “unable to assess fully the competing expert opinions as to whether the mandated message is 'truthful and not misleading,' in the absence of the experts' testimony.” He also wrote that he believed the pro-abortion plaintiffs had demonstrated, “a strong or substantial likelihood” that the mandate violates the First Amendment.

The judge's temporary block on the law will last until Oct. 13.

Click here to read more.

October 1, 2020

How the Presidential Debate Addressed Abortion

Screenshot: C-SPAN
In the Presidential debate hosted by Chris Wallace on Sept. 29, nominees Donald Trump and Joe Biden battled on many issues. Surprisingly, perhaps even to the candidates, abortion was not discussed as much as many expected.

The topic of abortion nearly became a central part of the debate when the candidates discussed the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Biden suggested that her confirmation could lead to "women's rights" being "fundamentally changed." This likely was a reference to Roe v. Wade. He further elaborated that Roe v. Wade was "on the ballot" due to the president's ability to nominate Supreme Court justices.

Trump responded to Biden by saying Biden did not know Barrett's position on Roe v. Wade.

Chris Wallace interrupted this discussion and told the candidates that they would come back to the idea of Roe v. Wade later in the debate, but this never actually happened. Cross-talk between the candidates during the debate may have eliminated time he had originally set aside to discuss the topic of abortion.

Another relevant question posed at Biden was whether he would "pack the court" if he was elected as president after Barrett's confirmation. By adding additional justices to the Supreme Court past the nine our country has had in recent history, he could eliminate the conservative justices' potential to overturn things like Roe v. Wade or The Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, Biden refused to answer this question. "Whatever position I take on that, that’ll become the issue," he said.

Click here to read more.

New Senate Bill would Let States Opt out of Medicaid Payments for Abortion

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.)
A new Senate Bill would allow states to exclude abortion businesses from receiving Medicaid payments. States are currently required to allow all qualified medical providers to participate in the state's Medicaid program and receive payments.

On Sept. 23, Oklahoma Senators James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) proposed S. 4658, dubbed the Women’s Public Health and Safety Act. If passed, this would give states the power to use their discretion regarding whether to allow abortion businesses to take Medicaid payments.

“Abortion isn’t about healthcare and taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to support the largest abortion providers in the country under the guise of women’s healthcare,” Lankford said in a press release. “This bill allows states to ensure that tax dollars support the thousands of health care providers without the worry that tax dollars will also contribute to abortion services at organizations like Planned Parenthood. We can simultaneously stand for the unborn while also supporting fundamental, quality health services for women everywhere.”

Click here to read more.

Ohio Hospital Under HHS Investigation for Denying Medical Care to Premature Twins

Emery Finnefrock
In response to President Trump's executive order last week, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it will be investigating an Ohio hospital for refusing medical care to two newborns simply because they had only reached a gestational age of 22 weeks.

The incident being investigated occurred back in 2017. Amanda Finnefrock went to Riverside Methodist Hospital because she was experiencing bleeding, and was afraid for her unborn twins. She was told by doctors there that unless her sons were born after 22 weeks and five days gestation, they would refuse to provide medical treatment. The boys were born three days later at exactly 22 weeks and five days gestation, but hospital workers still refused to provide any form of medical treatment for them. Because of this, Emery Finnefrock died 45 minutes after birth and Elliot Finnefrock died after crying in his mother's arms for over two hours.

In a press release about Trump's executive order, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said that his agency had found the hospital guilty of violating the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) when it refused to send the children to the hospital's neonatal care unit. He further said that the incident will be investigated further to determine whether any other human rights violations occurred.

“Though I repeatedly asked staff to help or assess my babies, I was told they were born too young. But there is no documentation to prove they were born too young,” Finnefrock said in a statement. “In fact, I had been told previously they would not help if the babies were born before 22 weeks and [five] days. Documentation shows I was admitted at 22 weeks [two] days and the babies born at 22 weeks [five] days. Nevertheless, when I begged for help, they refused. I was discharged with instructions for care after stillbirth. But Emery and Elliot were not stillborn. They were born alive and died as Riverside Methodist Hospital staff denied my pleas for help.”

Click here to read more.

September 30, 2020

New Birth Control Study Targets Girls Ages 11-15

Screenshot from "The Pill Study" website

CNS News wrote last week that the pro-abortion organization Advocates for Youth recently sent out a mass e-mail with the subject line "Know anyone ages 11-15 to join this study?" The advertised study would provide birth control pills to women as young as 11 while providing them monetary compensation and hiding their involvement from parents who might object.

Advocates for Youth, which works with Planned Parenthood, was promoting The Pill Study, which researchers are using to try and make birth control available from pharmacies without prescriptions. The study will provide participants who qualify with birth control pills, and will not require girls to inform their parents or to be supervised by a doctor. It also tempts young girls with a promise of $75 for participating.

11-year olds cannot legally consent to sex in any state in the US, nor can these researchers depend upon them to provide pharmacists with thorough and accurate medical histories. Birth control medication has risks that can be amplified by medical problems and even lead to death in some circumstances.

This study is incredibly inappropriate on multiple levels, and further shows that many pro-abortion organizations are encouraging youth to be sexually active. This does not benefit youth, but it does benefit the bottom line of the abortion industry.

Click here to read more.

49 Congress Members Call on A.G. Barr to Find Whether Planned Parenthood Abortionists Violated Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

Rep. Roger Marshall (R-KS)
49 members of Congress led by US Representative Roger Marshall (R-KS) sent a letter to US Attorney General William Barr, calling on him to investigate abortionists who may have violated the Partial Birth Abortion Ban passed in 2003. The letter referenced a video published by the Center for Medical Progress on August 24, which included unsealed sworn testimony from an April 2019 court hearing.

In a press release regarding the letter, Congressman Marshall said, “As a pro-life American and OB/GYN who worked for over 25 years to save the lives of both mothers and babies, it is beyond sickening to see and hear confessions of such heinous acts being committed in our country. I am committed to standing up for the life of all babies, born and unborn. We must hold these physicians and the organizations backing and supporting them accountable for their actions.”

The letter to AG Barr concludes, "This information is deeply troubling and necessitates further inquiry. We respectfully ask that in light of the recently unsealed testimony, the Department investigate whether Planned Parenthood has violated the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act."

Click here to read more.

September 29, 2020

Colorado Voters to Decide Whether to Allow Abortion at 22 Weeks

photo credit: Gerardo Villalobos / Flickr
A pro-life campaign in the state of Colorado secured enough signatures to put the issue of late-term abortion on the ballot this November.

The "Due Date Too Late" campaign made a push in March to put Proposition 115 on the 2020 ballot, and it was successful. Voters in the state will be able to decide if they would like to ban all abortions past 22 weeks, with an exception to save the mother's life. If passed, abortionists who violate this law could be fined up to $5,000 and possibly lose their medical licenses for three years.

"Due Date Too Late" claims that Prop. 115 would prevent roughly 400 late-term abortions each year.

"Due Date Too Late" organizer Giuliana Day told the Associated Press he believed that abortion was, "the human rights issue of our lifetime.”

Click here to read more.

Tennessee Prosecutor Says He Will Not Prosecute Abortionists Who Fail to Inform Women of Abortion Pill Reversal

Tennessee State Flag
Photo credit: Phillip Dodds / Flickr
Tennessee passed a law in January requiring abortionists to inform women about abortion pill reversal before they begin the abortion pill regimen. In defiance, one Tennessee prosecutor has declared that he will not prosecute abortionists who refuse to inform their patients about abortion pill reversal.

The pro-life law is currently the subject of a lawsuit by pro-abortion groups, but it currently has the force of law. District Attorney Glenn Funk outwardly announced that he does not care. "I will not prosecute or sanction an abortion provider who states, verbally and/or in writing, disagreement with the disclosures required by the Legislature which are subject to this lawsuit," Funk said.

In a statement, Tennessee Right to Life responded,
“We are disappointed that General Funk is failing to uphold his elected duty to prosecute violations of the laws of Tennessee. Women deserve to know every option available to them and, if abortionists are violating the law by not informing their patients of the abortion pill reversal method, then district attorneys across the state should be ready and willing to enforce this law and prosecute those providers. After all, pro-choice should mean getting a choice in the first place.”
Abortion pill reversal is a proven method that can save unborn children after their mothers have taken the first pill in the abortion pill regimen (mifepristone). Especially if taken within 24 hours, progesterone can reverse the effects of mifepristone by restoring the flow of oxygen and nutrients to the child.

The pro-life Tennessee law also bans abortion if an unborn child's heartbeat can be detected or if parents only want to abort the child for discriminatory reasons (such as the child's race, sex, or diagnosis with Down syndrome). Gov. Bill Lee has said that he will do "whatever it takes" to defend the law in court.

September 28, 2020

Trump Signs Executive Order to Protect Preemies and Abortion Survivors

Last week, President Trump announced that he would sign an executive order protecting children born alive during attempted abortions. On Friday, he did just that. The executive order requires doctors to provide medical care to all children born alive, regardless of their gestational age or if they are born during an attempted abortion.

“Every infant born alive, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, has the same dignity and the same rights as every other individual and is entitled to the same protections under Federal law,” reads the executive order.

Parents have told stories of their first-hand experience with hospitals that refuse to provide medical treatment to children born prematurely. Because their child didn't meet a specific gestational age required by a hospital, doctors would call these children "non-viable" and let them die rather than attempt to provide them with potentially life-saving medical care. Similarly, some abortion workers have spoken out against the practice of killing children after they are delivered in an unsuccessful abortion. This executive order is designed to prevent these situations.

Arguing on behalf of prematurely born Americans who are being denied healthcare, the executive order argues, "Active treatment of extremely premature infants has, however, been shown to improve their survival rates. And the denial of such treatment, or discouragement of parents from seeking such treatment for their children, devalues the lives of these children and may violate Federal law."

“Such infants are entitled to meaningful and non-discriminatory access to medical examination and services, with the consent of a parent or guardian, when they present at hospitals receiving Federal funds.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar commented in a press release, "HHS’s mission is to protect the health and well-being of all Americans, and that means all Americans—including infants born prematurely and infants with disabilities."

While it may not be legislation, this executive order directs the HHS Secretary to investigate reported violations of current federal laws and enforce them when necessary. This may include withdrawing federal funding from institutions that refuse treatment for prematurely-born children.

Click here to read the executive order.

Click here to read more about this story.

President Trump Nominates Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Nominee
Judge Amy Coney Barrett
On Saturday, President Trump announced that 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett would be his nominee to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

"Today, it is my honor to nominate one of our nation's most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court," Trump said in his announcement on the White House lawn. "She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution. Judge Amy Coney Barrett."

Trump first nominated Barrett to the 7th Circuit in 2017 and reportedly had her on his shortlist of potential nominees when he was considering nominees for the seat he eventually filled with Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

"Judge Barrett is a graduate of Rhodes College and the University of Notre Dame Law School," said President Trump when describing her achievements. "At Notre Dame, she earned a full academic scholarship, served as the executive editor of the Law Review, graduated first in her class, and received the law school's award for the best record of scholarship and achievement. Upon graduation, she became a clerk for Judge Lawrence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Amy then received one of the highest honors a young lawyer could have serving as a clerk on the Supreme Court for Justice Antonin Scalia."

The president went on to describe a few elements of Barrett's personal life:

"Amy is more than a stellar scholar and judge. She's also a profoundly devoted mother. Her family is a core part of who Amy is. She opened her home and her heart and adopted two beautiful children from Haiti. Her incredible bond with her youngest child, a son with Down syndrome, is a true inspiration. If confirmed, Justice Barrett will make history as the first mother of school-aged children ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court."

Near the end of his speech, Trump joked, "I'm sure it'll be extremely non-controversial. We said that the last time, didn't we?"

Barrett would be the first pro-life woman to be appointed to the Supreme Court. If her nomination is approved by the Senate, she could be a crucial vote to potentially overturn Roe v. Wade.

Click here to read more.

September 25, 2020

Released Emails Show University of New Mexico Repeatedly Requested Fetal Body Parts from Abortion Clinics

photo credit: Drew Geraets / Flickr
Emails released by the pro-life organization, Abortion on Trial, show that the University of New Mexico (UNM) repeatedly requested body parts from aborted children.

The uncovered documents show that UNM was in regular contact with abortion clinics and asked for specific organs to use in research and dissections.

“Please let me know if you end up getting more fetal tissue next week and can still spare the heart…” reads one email in part.

“I just spoke to the clinic about getting >22wk fetuses for our dissections,” reads another email. “They have patients scheduled for surgery tomorrow that fit that range. I’ll go pick them up tomorrow afternoon when they’re ready.” 

Disturbingly, a third email complained that a fetal brain too large for the researcher's purposes: “[Redacted] just came and took some brain tissue I had in the freezer in both TriZol and TPer, and one of the fixed brains,” the e-mail reads. “He doesn’t think he’ll be able to use such a large brain, and will bring it back if he cannot.”

A retired UNM administrator recently revealed on video that some fetal brains obtained by the school were dissected with high school students, possibly as part of UNM's summer camp program.

Click here to read more.

8th Circuit Hears Challenges to Arkansas and Missouri Pro-Life Laws

photo credit: Bill Oxford / Unsplash
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in cases about pro-life laws in both Arkansas and Missouri this week.

On Wednesday, Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge argued to a three-judge panel from the 8th circuit that it should lift an injunction blocking the enforcement of three pro-life laws in her state. One law prohibits abortions on unborn children who have reached a gestational age of 18 weeks. The second bans abortions in cases when the decision to abort is made solely because the unborn child was diagnosed with Down syndrome. The third law requires doctors who perform abortions to be board-certified or board-eligible OB-GYNs.

A different three-judge panel from the 8th Circuit heard arguments for and against a Missouri pro-life law on Thursday. Known as the "Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act," HB 126 takes several actions to save the lives of the unborn. Unfortunately, it also had an injunction placed against its enforcement. The protections provided by the Missouri law include a ban against aborting children after 20 weeks gestation; a parental notification requirement for minors seeking abortions; bans against discriminatory abortions based on an unborn child's race, sex, or Down syndrome diagnosis; and a trigger clause which would cause abortion to be immediately banned in the state of Missouri if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

It is still unknown when the judges will give a ruling on the arguments for either of these cases.

Click here to read more.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)