Congress to Consider Several Abortion-Related Spending Bills this Fall

In addition to the Women's Health Protection Act, which threatens to codify Roe v. Wade and undo federal and state regulations protecting unborn children, Congress plans to tackle several other abortion-related pieces of legislation this fall.

2022 Appropriations Bills

Congress is discussing appropriations bills to fund the federal government for Fiscal Year 2022. With these debates comes a fight to preserve the Hyde Amendment to stop tax dollars from funding abortion. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4502 at the end of July, which includes spending for the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services. That bill does not include the Hyde amendment.

House appropriations bills are also missing the Weldon Amendment, which protects the conscience rights of medical providers. This protects medical professionals from being forced to participate in abortion.

$3.5 Trillion Dollar Reconciliation Social Spending Bill

A $3.5 trillion dollar social spending plan is being worked on by Congress. Notably, this process only has to reach a threshold of 51 votes in the Senate, because it is not subject to the filibuster. To start this process, the House and Senate must agree on a resolution that includes "reconciliation directives" for specific committees. While the Senate did pass a budget resolution to apply Hyde and Weldon Amendment language, that agreement is non-binding.

Click here to read more.

California Gov. Signs Bill Allowing Minors to Hide Abortions from Parents

CA. Gov. Gavin Newsom
photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

On Sept. 22, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two pro-abortion bills. One makes it easier for minors to hide abortions and transgender procedures from their parents, while the other places restrictions on pro-life activists and protestors.

“California has been a leader in protecting access to sexual and reproductive rights, but as we’ve seen recently with unprecedented attacks on these rights, we can and must do more,” Newsom said in a statement, alluding to the recent Texas Heartbeat Act.

California A.B. 1184 allows minors and adults up to age 26 who are still on their parents' health insurance plans to conceal "sensitive" procedures from the policyholder. These include abortions, puberty blockers, and transgender hormones. Furthermore, the law forbids healthcare providers from requiring policy-holders to approve procedures. Healthcare workers who provide "sensitive" information to policyholders or enrollees against the will of the "protected individual" would be guilty of a crime.

California A.B. 1356 can make pro-life activists guilty of a crime if they film within 100 feet of an abortion business. The only stipulation is that a judge must find the purpose of filming to be "intimidation." Additionally, posting personal information or images of abortion-seeking women, clinic volunteers, or clinic employees can be punished by a fine of $10,000 and up to a year in jail.

Click here to read more.

Women Sue Abortionist Whose Abortions Left them Sterile

screenshot by LifeSiteNews

Infamous late-term abortionist LeRoy Carhart now faces two malpractice lawsuits after leaving two women sterile during abortions at his Maryland facility last year. The two women—whose abortions occurred only nine days apart—were left sterile from the severe physical trauma to their bodies.

The first of the two incidents involved Ashley Norris, whose abortion occurred on May 12, 2020. The facility attempted a "dilation and evacuation" abortion procedure. Laminaria was inserted into Norris's cervix on May 11, but this did not cause as much dilation as expected. The facility attempted to complete the abortion anyway.

Norris temporarily awoke during the procedure and screamed in pain before being sedated once again. The abortionist perforated her uterus and colon, which caused severe bleeding. To save her life, a hospital gave her multiple blood transfusions, removed her uterus, and removed part of her colon.

The second incident happened on May 21, 2020, only nine days later. Haimanot Aragaw and her husband traveled to the Maryland late-term abortion facility after learning that their child had Down syndrome. The baby had developed to the 23rd week of gestation. Aragaw similarly had laminaria inserted into her cervix to dilate her cervix, as is common practice before "dilation and evacuation" abortions.

Instead, however, the facility attempted a suction abortion. Those generally occur long before the 23 weeks gestation, as the unborn child must be small enough to fit through a suction catheter. Because of this, Aragaw began bleeding severely and was transferred to a hospital. Surgeons found a large hole in her uterus and fetal body parts shoved into her abdominal cavity. Her appendix received a "traumatic injury," and the hospital gave her four units of blood to save her life. Aragaw's uterus was completely removed when the hospital saved her life.

Click here to read more.

New Report Shows Abortion Pill Reversal to be Safe and Effective

The Charlotte Lozier Institute recently published a new report titled, “Abortion Pill Reversal: A Record of Safety and Efficacy.” The report cites several studies countering the claims by pro-abortion activists that abortion pill reversal (APR) is unsafe.

The abortion pill regimen relies on two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone is a drug designed to block the pregnancy hormone progesterone, which helps facilitate the flow of nutrients from a mother's body to her unborn child. By blocking this hormone, mifepristone kills an unborn baby through starvation. After the baby has died, the mother will take misoprostol to induce labor and expel the dead child from her body.

APR protocol takes a simple approach to counteract the effects of mifepristone: introducing more progesterone. If a woman changes her mind about continuing her abortion within 72 hours of taking mifepristone, the baby can still be saved. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a doctor can

"prescribe bioidentical progesterone to outnumber and outcompete the mifepristone in order to reverse the effects of the mifepristone. An ultrasound is performed as soon as possible to confirm heart rate, placement, and dating of the pregnancy. The progesterone treatment will usually continue through the first trimester of pregnancy in an attempt to reverse the effects of the mifepristone."

The Lozier report points out that progesterone has been used since the 1950s to reduce the risk of miscarriage and premature birth. It cites two studies (PROMISE and PRISM) demonstrating that progesterone therapy increases the live birth rate and doesn't create safety issues.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Life Representatives Slam "Women's Health Protection Act"

The Women's Health Protection Act, which passed the House of Representatives on Sept. 24, would remove all state and federal laws protecting the lives of unborn children at any point during pregnancy. While it might seem unlikely that pro-abortion senators would still need to garner the 60 votes required to bypass a pro-life filibuster, pro-life advocates should still watch this bill closely and be ready to make their voices heard. If passed into law, it would go much farther than simply codifying Roe v. Wade.

Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) is one of many pro-life Representatives who spoke out against the bill. In an address before Congress, she said, “It’s a fact: when it’s legal and ‘free’, it’s an inducement to women who find themselves in a hard spot to have an abortion.”

She continued, arguing that pro-abortion legislators are depriving women of important information by passing a bill that prohibits states from requiring women to have ultrasounds before scheduling abortions. “Women change their mind when they see the baby in the womb.”

Miller concluded, “The American people from all faiths and walks of life have to choose what kind of society they want to live in: one that defends and protects a nine-month baby in the womb or one that is going to sell its body for parts.”

Click here to read more.

40 Days for Life Campaign Saves Over 50 Babies in First Five Days

photo credit: 40 Days for Life blog

This year's fall 40 Days for Life campaign only started on Sept. 22, but the organization has recorded 52 lives saved in the first five days.

40 Days for Life is a global pro-life movement that runs campaigns during the fall and spring every year. During these campaigns, pro-life advocates counsel and pray outside abortion businesses with the goal of changing the minds of women seeking abortions. The organization says that this year's fall effort will cover 612 cities across the globe.

On Sept. 27, 40 Days for Life released an update stating that organizers reported 52 babies who were saved from abortion during the first five days of the campaign. This included one Cleveland mother who changed her mind about aborting triplets. The mother asked a sidewalk counselor named Fred, “Don’t you think that is too many at once?” Fred responded, “Not at all,” adding that triplets are a “wonderful… beautiful gift from God” and a blessing. The mother decided to keep her children, she and told Fred that she would name one of them after him.

40 Days for Life says that over 19,000 lives have been saved since the organization launched its first campaign in 2007.

This year's fall campaign will continue through Oct. 31. Click here to find a participating location near you.

Federal Judge Blocks Arizona's Discriminatory Abortion Ban

A pro-life omnibus bill was set to go into effect this Tuesday. Just eight hours before it could be enforced, however, U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes blocked a portion of the bill. Unless he changes his mind or a higher court overrides his decision, Arizona will not be able to protect unborn children with genetic anomalies from discriminatory abortions.

The Arizona bill prohibits abortionists from aborting an unborn child simply because they were diagnosed with a genetic anomaly, such as Down syndrome. Judge Rayes was not sympathetic to the bill nor Arizona's defense of it.

“The mechanism Arizona has chosen is not designed to encourage women to choose childbirth,” Rayes wrote in the 30-page decision. “It is designed to thwart them from making any other choice… Arizona may not further its interest by erecting a substantial obstacle in the paths of women who have chosen to terminate their pre-viability pregnancies, which is what Arizona has done here.”

The state argued that the bill advances the interests of Arizona by protecting the disability community from discrimination, preventing abortionists from subtly coercing women into aborting babies believed to have “genetic abnormality,” and “upholding the integrity of the medical profession.”

Judge Rayes did allow a "personhood" provision to become law. While it does not supersede federal law (and Supreme Court precedent), the provision declares that Arizona laws will recognize unborn children as having “all rights, privileges and immunities available to other persons, citizens and residents of this state.”

Click here to read more.

Parental Notice Repeal and TEXAS Act to be Considered During Fall Session

Pro-life advocates in Illinois would be wise to turn their attention to state politics throughout the coming month, as the fall legislative session is about to begin.

Oct. 19-21 and Oct. 26-28 mark the dates for the upcoming fall session. During October, pro-life advocates need to be on the lookout for legislation repealing the Parental Notice of Abortion Act and any new pro-abortion bills that may appear. One of these bills is HB4146, otherwise known as the TEXAS Act, which was filed by Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D) on Sept. 14.

HB4146 is designed both to simultaneously mock and undermine the Texas Heartbeat Act, which prohibits the abortion of unborn children when they have detectable heartbeats (around 6 weeks gestation). The Texas Heartbeat Act allows individuals to file lawsuits against those who assist in the killing of unborn children with detectable heartbeats. If the defendant is found guilty of aborting such a child or aiding and abetting in such an abortion, the prosecuting party could win $10,000.

HB4146 would allow an individual to file a lawsuit against a person who "commits an act of sexual assault or domestic abuse or causes an unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstances; knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets a sexual assault or domestic abuse or causes an unintended pregnancy, regardless of circumstances; or intends to engage in that act or conduct." If the defendant is found guilty, the prosecutor would be awarded $5,000, and $5,000 would be added to the "State Abortion Freedom Expansion Fund." That fund will be used "to pay the costs of abortions for pregnant persons who travel to Illinois from states that prohibit abortions."

Keep watching this blog and subscribe to the IFRL newsletter to see more updates as the fall session approaches.

Cook County Board to Consider Resolution to "Cancel" Texans and Businesses

As a response to the passage of the Texas Heartbeat Act, the Cook County Board of Commissioners is set to consider a resolution next week that would prohibit county employees from traveling to Texas for county business and any official business with the Texas state government.

In addition, the resolution would sever the county's financial ties to any businesses that contributed to the campaigns of Texas politicians who supported the Texas Heartbeat Act.

The former part of this resolution is a performative effort that does neither grants abortion to Texas women nor helps the people of Cook County. The main people who might be hurt by this resolution are the employees and operators of hotels and restaurants in Texas. Even then, it is unlikely that the travels of Cook County employees were propping up those businesses.

The latter part is an attempt to force corporations to either take pro-abortion political stances or lose the ability to get contracts with the Cook County government. This kind of litmus test is a dangerous attempt to force corporations to support the deaths of unborn children or take a financial hit.

If the Cook County Board of Commissioners passes this resolution, it will emphasize its abortion advocacy and its desire to meddle in the legislative affairs of other states.

The sponsors of this proposal include Cook County Commissioners Kevin Morrison, Alma Anaya, and Brandon Johnson.

Click here to read more.

UN Officials Tell Supreme Court to Maintain Abortion Precedent

The United Nations is using its power in an attempt to influence a Supreme Court case challenging the legality of abortion in the United States.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health is set to be heard by the Supreme Court this December. In this case, abortion advocates challenged a Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks gestation. Mississippi is asking the court to overturn its Roe v. Wade ruling, which created a federal right to abortion.

An amicus brief filed by UN officials is arguing that overturning Roe v. Wade would violate international human rights law.

This is a new kind of intrusion by the UN into the US legal system. The Supreme Court is supposed to make rulings based on the text of the Constitution, not the whims of foreign governments. Despite this, the UN officials make no attempt to cite the US Constitution.

“The United States would contradict international human rights law by overturning its established constitutional protections for abortion access,” the experts say in their brief. Abortion is “necessary for women’s autonomy, equality and non-discrimination,” they argued.

In their brief, the UN officials openly stated that they deny unborn babies the right to life: “The right to life emanating from human rights treaties does not apply prenatally,” they wrote.

Click here to read more.

Illinois University Professors Argue that Texas Abortion Ban Harms Trans Men

Last week, professors from Northwestern University argued in the school's online publication that the Texas Heartbeat Act could have particularly negative effects for transgender men. In doing so, the professors argued that the value of maintaining one person's emotional health outweighs the value of unborn human life.

The Texas Heartbeat Act bans abortion when the baby's heartbeat is detectable, which is usually at six weeks.

The Northwestern professors wrote in Northwestern Now that,

"A trans man living in Texas may choose to conceal his transgender status to coworkers, friends and even in-laws to protect himself from violence and gender dysphoria. As his abdomen grows due to a pregnancy for which he can no longer legally get an abortion, however, keeping identity private in public spaces may become next to impossible.

The abortion ban in Texas imposes the burden of pregnancy — and with it, the burden of potential dysphoria, being outed or violence — on trans and gender nonconforming individuals without viable alternative choices."

Setting aside the arguments surrounding the idea of transgenderism, the professors' argument is troubling on a humanitarian level. One human life should not be ended for the sake of another person's emotional or mental health. All lives have value, and the choice offered by abortion disregards that value.

By intentionally ending the life of a human being, abortion cannot be considered "health care" as the Northwestern professors assert.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Life Legislators Ask DOJ to Investigate Illegal Fetal Tissue Research

Last week, pro-life legislators sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, and NIH Director Francis Collins requesting an investigation into controversial fetal tissue research conducted by the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt).

Recent reports from the NIH suggest that the university may have been endangering women (and violating federal law) by altering abortion procedures for the purpose of obtaining more intact fetal tissue. Even more disturbingly the same reports suggest that researchers may have been harvesting organs from babies capable of surviving outside of their mothers' wombs. All the while, Pitt's research received approximately $1.5 million in taxpayer funding from the NIH.

“Exploiting the body parts of aborted children for research purposes is repulsive and should stop, regardless of the outcome hoped for by researchers,” the letter reads. “Research using abortive fetal tissue is unethical, wrong, and has also been proven ineffective. Despite being used in clinical research since the 1920s, fetal tissue has not produced a single clinical treatment.”

The letter was led by Senators James Lankford (R-OK), Josh Hawley (R-MO), and Steve Daines (R-MT) along with Reps. Lisa McClain (R-MI) and Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO).

Legislators who co-signed the letter include Illinois Reps. Rodney Davis (R) and Mike Bost (R).

Click here to read more.

Texas Bans Mail Delivery of Abortion Pills

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R)

After the Texas Heartbeat Act went into effect on Sept. 1, pro-abortion activists began circumventing the law by mailing abortion pills to women from overseas. In response, Texas Gov. Greg Abbot signed a new law that will prohibit the mail delivery of abortion drugs effective December 2, 2021.

“The Texas legislature understood that the Abortion Cartel would fall back on the mail delivery of abortion drugs to bypass the Heartbeat Act and took action to prevent that scheme.  Their forward-thinking will save innocent lives,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

The law reads that “A manufacturer, supplier, physician, or any other person may not provide to a patient any abortion-inducing drug by courier, delivery, or mail service.”

Additionally, the law limits the use of abortion drugs to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, requires abortionists to examine women in person to rule out pregnancy conditions that would cause complications if the women took abortion drugs, and requires abortionists to report adverse effects caused by Mifeprex when used to induce abortions.

Click here to read more.

House Passes Legislation to Codifying Abortion Rights

Last Friday, the House of Representatives passed the Women’s Health Protection Act (H.R. 3755). If passed by the Senate, this legislation would override most state pro-life laws and codify a right to abortion in federal law.

The House voted 218 to 211 (mostly along party lines) in favor of the Women's Health Protection Act. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) was the only Democrat to vote against the bill.

The Women's Health Protection Act prohibits states from enforcing most abortion regulations, mandates taxpayer funding of abortion, and could require health care workers to participate in abortions against their consciences.

Click here to read more.

Women's Health Protection Act Threatens to Codify Abortion Rights

Pro-abortion legislators in Washington are pushing to pass the deceptively named Women’s Health Protection Act. The bill does not protect women or their access to healthcare, but it does codify into law a right to abortion up until the moment of birth. Further than that, it could remove conscience protections for doctors who refuse to participate in abortions.

“The Women’s Health Protection Act is designed to remove all legal protections for unborn children on both the federal and state levels,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life (NRLC). “The Women’s Health Protection Act is, in effect, the Abortion-Without-Limits-Until Birth Act.”

Tobias continued, “The only ones to benefit from this legislation would be abortionists and abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. This legislation endangers women and their unborn children, would expand taxpayer funding of abortion, and would no longer require that a woman be given information about the development of her unborn child.”

If the “Women’s Health Protection Act” is passed into law, a variety of pro-life protections would be nullified. These include informed consent laws, waiting period laws, laws protecting the consciences of pro-life doctors, and laws preventing non-doctors from carrying out abortions.

According to a report from The Heritage Foundation, the law would also block states from enforcing laws that:

• restrict discriminatory abortions based on race, sex, or genetic abnormality
• ban post-viability abortions
• introduce safety requirements for chemical abortions
• restrict taxpayer funding of abortion

“According to pro-abortion groups, if this law is enacted, abortion-on-demand would be allowed in all 50 states, even if Roe v. Wade is weakened or overturned. Elective abortion would become the procedure that must always be facilitated – never delayed, never impeded to the slightest degree,” said Jennifer Popik, J.D., director of Federal Legislation for National Right to Life.

Even pro-abortion Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who supports codifying Roe v. Wade into law, said that she believes the bill goes too far. She argues that the pro-abortion bill would weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by taking protections away from medical professionals who don't want to participate in abortions.

The Women's Health Protection Act does not just codify Roe v. Wade. It undoes many state and federal pro-life laws deemed constitutional even under current pro-abortion Supreme Court precedent.

Click here to read more.

Biden to Direct $10 Million in Grants to Abortion Businesses after Texas Heartbeat Act

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra
photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

Last week, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra announced a “three-pronged Department-wide response” to the Texas Heartbeat Act. This includes distributing up to $10 million of taxpayer funding to abortion businesses in and near Texas.

The department says that it will award grants to any abortion businesses that “can demonstrate a need resulting from an influx of clients as a result of SB 8.” This includes Texas abortion businesses rushing to abort unborn babies before their heartbeats are detectable as well as abortion businesses out of state as women travel for abortions.

The HHS said that it plans to give abortion businesses additional funding in response to an “anticipated increase” in demand for “emergency contraception” and abortion drugs.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid also issued a memo suggesting that doctors could be removed from Medicare and Medicaid if they deny abortion to a woman with an “emergency medical condition.” The memo argued that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act enables the government to impose civil and monetary penalties against hospitals or individuals that don't offer abortion in some cases.

Click here to read more.

Supreme Court Announces Hearing Date for Dobbs Case

On Sept. 20, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization starting on Dec. 1. The highly anticipated case could challenge Supreme Court precedent regarding abortion.

The case is a challenge to Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, which restricts abortion after 15 weeks gestation. While defending the law, the state of Mississippi has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in Roe v. Wade. The law includes exceptions for when the mother's life or “major bodily function” is at risk. It also includes an exception for when the unborn child is diagnosed with a condition that is “incompatible with life outside the womb.”

The Supreme Court will consider, “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion are unconstitutional.”

President Biden's Justice Department filed an amicus brief Monday requesting the court to maintain the current legal framework for legalized abortion.

Click here to read more.

Google Quashes Abortion Pill Reversal Ads

Rebekah Hagan with her son Zechariah, whose
life was saved from the abortion pill by
Abortion pill reversal.
Photo from the 2020 March for Life/Lisa Bourne

After receiving pressure from pro-abortion activists, Google has canceled advertisements for Abortion Pill Reversal.

Pro-abortion activists from the London-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) called on Google and Facebook to remove advertisements for Abortion Pill Reversal. The group relied on a discredited and incomplete study designed to debunk APR. 12 women had taken the first abortion pill in that study, and 3 of them experience hemorrhaging. Of those three, only one of them had taken progesterone, the drug used in abortion pill reversal. The study was rightly canceled due to the injuries women were facing. The study fails to prove that those injuries were caused by progesterone. While only one of the three injured women had taken progesterone, all three had taken the abortion pill.

“In a dramatic and unprecedented move, Google has sided squarely with extremist pro-abortion political ideology, banning the pro-life counterpoint and life-saving information from being promoted on their platform,” Live Action founder Lila Rose told CNA in a statement.

Rose said that on Sept. 13, Google took down all of Live Action's advertisements for abortion pill reversal. Google accused the advertisements of containing false information. Before Google took action on Sept. 13, the tech giant had run them for over four months.

Heartbeat International, which manages the Abortion Pill Rescue Network and its 24/7 helpline, was also targeted by Google's censorship.

“Women deserve to know the truth about all their options,” said Heartbeat International Vice President Betty McDowell. “That is why it is disappointing to see Big Tech kowtow to Big Abortion in the latest attack against pregnancy help.”

“By removing Abortion Pill Reversal ads from Google and Facebook—two of the largest tech companies in the world—these companies silence the only viable option for women who seek to reverse the effects of the abortion pill,” McDowell said.

Click here to read more.

Texas Abortionist Sued After He Admits to Breaking Texas Heartbeat Act

After a Texas abortionist openly admitted to breaking the Texas Heartbeat Act, two non-Texas residents filed lawsuits against him. While this may be the first instance of the Texas Heartbeat Act being used to take legal action against an abortionist, the two men filing these lawsuits seem to be using the situation as an opportunity to challenge the law rather than protect life.

San Antonio abortionist Dr. Alan Baird wrote on the opinion page of The Washington Post Sunday that he had violated the Texas Heartbeat Act on Sept. 6 by aborting an unborn baby who had a heartbeat. He wrote that he did this because he had “a duty of care to this patient...and because she has a fundamental right to receive this care.”

The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits abortionists from ending the lives of babies whose heartbeats can be detected, which usually happens around six weeks gestation. The law is enforced by individuals, who have the ability to file lawsuits against abortionists and those who assist in facilitating abortions. These can be people who pay for abortions or those who provide transportation. The mothers of these children can't be sued under the law.

The two men filing lawsuits against Dr. Baird include Oscar Stilley, an Arkansas man currently serving a 15-year house arrest sentence for tax evasion, and Felipe Gomez, a pro-abortion Illinoisan. Stilley told the New York Times that he is "not pro-life" and he hopes to collect the money he could be awarded by winning his suit. Gomez said that he would donate any winnings to pro-abortion activist groups.

“Neither of these lawsuits are valid attempts to save innocent human lives,” John Seago, legislative director for Texas Right to Life, told the New York Times.

Click here to read more.

Pope Francis to Reporters: "Abortion is murder."

Pope Francis

Pope Francis addressed the press while traveling on the papal plane last week. While taking a question about abortion, he emphatically told them that abortion is not simply a political issue, it is murder.

"Abortion is more than an issue. Abortion is murder. Abortion, without hinting: whoever performs an abortion kills. You take any embryology textbook of those students that study in medical school. At the third week of conception, at the third, many times before the mother notices, all the organs are already there. All of them. Even the DNA. […]"

"It’s a human life, period. This human life must be respected. This principle is so clear. And to those who can’t understand it I would ask two questions: Is it right, is it fair, to kill a human life to solve a problem? Scientifically it is a human life. Second question: Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem? I said this publicly […] when I did, I said it to [Radio] COPE, I have wanted to repeat it. And period. Don’t continue with strange discussions: Scientifically it’s a human life. The textbooks teach us that. But is it right to take it out to solve a problem? This is why the Church is so strict on this issue because accepting this is kind of like accepting daily murder."

Click here to read a full transcript of the Pope's remarks.