Category archives: Abortion

All 9 Months and Beyond: Let’s Be Truly Pro-Life

by Hayden Sledge

July 8, 2020

I am a woman. I am also pro-life. Unfortunately, many people today see these identities as contradictory and antithetical. Over the past few decades, society has tried to force many women into a box: If you are a woman who is proud of your womanhood, you should support and advocate for abortion. If not, how can you be a true advocate for women? Supporting women has become synonymous with supporting abortion.

But truth be told, abortion is devastating to women. Abortion can cause physical and psychological complications to the woman obtaining the abortion and affect her ability to successfully carry future pregnancies to term. Not only that, but many of abortion’s unborn victims are female.

These considerations lead to an important question: What does it truly mean to advocate for women?

A true advocate for women supports God’s design for women

God specially designed women with the capacity of bringing life into the world. In the creation mandate given in Genesis 1:28, the first human couple was charged to fill the earth and exercise dominion. While both the husband and wife play a role in conceiving life, the woman has the privilege and responsibility of bringing the new life into the world. Thus, while not all women will be mothers, many will, and motherhood should be seen as a high calling worthy of respect, rather than an impediment needing to be overcome.

Unfortunately, the abortion industry presents a narrative that women can only assert control over their lives if they have the option to abort their children. However, God is ultimately sovereign over all aspects of our lives, including the pregnancy journey, the mother’s life experiences, and the development of unborn children. God’s hand is entirely evident throughout the process.      

Thus, as Christians we should support women in the unique callings God has given each of them, whether that calling includes a career, motherhood, or both. We should appreciate the variety of ways God works in and through each woman.

A true advocate for women helps women facing hardship

God is active during times of celebration and suffering. He reminds us that we will all experience suffering during our time on earth. In fact, Romans 8:22 tells us that the all of creation “groans” due to the curse of sin.  

We all experience various forms of hardship, which can include familial loss, illness, financial stress, mental illness, infertility, miscarriage, or unexpected pregnancy. The church ought to come alongside and help people in their most vulnerable stages of life. This includes actively loving and protecting mothers who have made the brave and courageous decision to keep their babies despite pressure to abort.

Many women experience confusion, shame, and difficulty throughout their pregnancies, especially if those pregnancies are unexpected or unwanted. Although pregnancy is ideally a time of celebration and rejoicing in a new God-given life, it is important to remember that many mothers need care and comfort during and after their pregnancy. It is not an easy journey and is even more difficult for single mothers who are already lacking support.

A true advocate for women supports mothers before and after pregnancy

The church should love and care for women in one of the most life-altering and vulnerable stages of life: the time during and after pregnancy. We should continuously remind mothers of Jesus’ steadfast love as we walk alongside them.

Too often, churches encourage mothers in the early stages of pregnancy but neglect to stand with them after birth. Although pregnancy can be a difficult time, there are a host of challenges that can arise after birth as well. So, it is important that we seek to encourage and help the mother and baby after birth.

In honoring the Lord, we are to care for all mothers and their unborn children, reminding them of God’s truth that they are—or by faith can become—the beloved daughters of a loving heavenly Father.

Here are some resources that seek to help mothers during their pregnancy and beyond. Although an online resource cannot address all the complexities and possible difficulties surrounding pregnancy, these are helpful places to start.

Hayden Sledge is a Coalitions intern at Family Research Council.

A Loss for Women and Children at the Supreme Court

by Katherine Beck Johnson

July 1, 2020

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo, the first major abortion case the Court has taken up since President Trump appointed Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. The Court’s ruling struck down Louisiana’s law requiring abortionists to have hospital admitting privileges. While Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were both in the dissent, Justice Roberts proved to be the disappointing fifth vote that struck down the common-sense law.

Louisiana’s admitting privileges law was in the best interest of women. If something were to go awry during an abortion, the abortionist would be able to get the woman admitted to the hospital and explain to her doctors precisely what had occurred. If the abortionist does not have admitting privileges, the woman might be forced to call an ambulance and explain what had happened herself—a heavy burden to place on the woman, and quite impossible if she is unconscious. Requiring admitting privileges is a common-sense regulation that applies to every other outpatient surgical center in Louisiana. Nevertheless, liberal justices and Justice Roberts were unwilling to uphold the requirement when applied to abortion clinics.

In a previously decided case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, Texas’s admitting privileges law and a few other abortion regulations had been at issue. The Court held that Texas’ law created an undue burden. Justice Kennedy provided the decisive fifth vote that struck down the pro-life and pro-woman law. Justice Roberts dissented.  

Whole Woman’s was a poorly decided case that needed to be overturned. The Court had the chance to overturn it in June Medical with Justice Kennedy off the Court and two new Republican-appointed justices. Instead, once again, the Court struck down a law aimed at saving unborn lives and protecting women’s health.  

Justice Roberts dissented in Whole Woman’s, yet he voted with the liberal justices in June Medical to strike down Louisiana’s admitting privileges law. Interestingly, in his concurrence, Justice Roberts said that he still agrees that Whole Woman’s Health was wrongly decided, yet said he is bound by stare decisis to uphold the law. Stare decisis is a legal principle that means you decide a case bound by precedent, regardless of whether the precedent is correct. Roberts claims that “for precedent to mean anything, the doctrine must give way only to a rationale that goes beyond whether the case was decided correctly.” Yet, Roberts has not felt bound by stare decisis in plenty of his other opinions, including Citizens United v. FEC. When it comes to abortion, however, Justice Roberts suddenly feels his hands are tied. Regardless, if a legal precedent is wrong, he and the Supreme Court should do the right thing and overturn it. With women and children’s lives on the line, Justice Roberts chose to adhere to a precedent he acknowledges is wrong.

Justice Roberts’ adherence to stare decisis is problematic for the future of abortion law at the Supreme Court. If Justice Roberts thought adhering to a five-year-old precedent of knocking down hospital admitting privileges is so embedded in our country’s jurisprudence to deserve stare decisis, he almost certainly views Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood as deserving of stare decisis, even if he disagrees with the opinions. This indicates that while judicial nominees are extremely important, they can be unreliable. It is no longer enough for the pro-life movement to depend on Republican-appointed justices and hope they will do the right thing on abortion.

Women and children lost at the Supreme Court on Monday. The abortion industry won. Once again, abortionists proved that rules don’t apply to them; they are exempt from laws. Despite this disappointing loss, the pro-life movement should not lose hope or remain discouraged. The fight for civil rights will continue—with or without Justice Roberts on our side.

Hidden in Plain Sight: How Abortion Erases Black Lives

by Quinn Roberts , Dean Nelson

June 25, 2020

In the weeks since George Floyd’s tragic death on May 25, our nation has experienced a national reckoning on issues related to race. From Minnesota to California to Washington, D.C., tens of thousands of Americans have rallied in solidarity with the victims of discrimination, demanding equal justice under the law. Many Christians see this crisis and believe in the necessity of elevating the simple yet profound theological truth that all people are made in God’s image and possess dignity and value.

George Floyd’s on-camera death has prompted many conversations on race, policing, incarceration, and civil rights. Much of this is focused on the city street. However, our streets aren’t the only places Americans, especially minorities, remain vulnerable.

Every day, women enter abortion facilities believing them to be their only hope for help and answers. Often, they have been told that giving birth to their babies will ruin their lives, or that any children they have will grow up to be criminals. As if this were not tragic enough, abortion providers specifically target and prey upon low-income, minority communities. Seventy-nine percent of abortion clinics in the United States are located in black or Hispanic neighborhoods.

The placement of these clinics in minority communities is not an accident. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger advocated for eugenics, especially through the use of birth control. Sanger’s racist beliefs are well documented. For example, in a letter to Clarence Gamble, she once explained, “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Today, abortions of black babies make up 38 percent of all abortions, even though African Americans only make up 13 percent of the population. In 2016 alone, the lives of 137,510 black babies were ended under the “right to privacy” called abortion. Dr. La Verne Tolbert, former Planned Parenthood board member turned pro-life advocate, commented on this alarmingly high rate of black abortions: “Planned Parenthood targets minorities for abortion with the specific goal of keeping down (or lowering) the birthrate of Black babies…. Over twenty million African American babies have been aborted.”

In Genesis 1:27, God set the precedent for human dignity with the words, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Each and every human is a unique individual made in the image of God. Our accomplishments do not increase or decrease the value of our lives. This inherent value is known as “human dignity.” Even those who do not normally accept a Judeo-Christian value system agree with the inherent dignity of humans. The evidence is found in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” The phrase, “born free and equal in dignity and rights,” despite having no inherent reference to Scripture or Judeo-Christian values, clearly affirms the concept of human dignity. 

Human dignity drives the outrage at even one person’s death, especially an unjust death. As mentioned earlier, human dignity is a universal concept that applies to all people, regardless of circumstance. This applies equally to those we can see and those we cannot yet see. The unborn children of the world are humans too and therefore are inherently valuable. Yet, abortion providers would have you believe otherwise.

Every day, young mothers—especially black and brown—are told that the babies they carry are not unique human beings full of unlimited potential, but “problems” that will destroy their dreams and burden society. But the truth is, what is inside any mother’s womb is not just a clump of cells, nor is it part of her body. It is another human just waiting for the opportunity to live in the world. Of course, all people will face trials and difficult circumstances, much like the trying times our nation faces today, but that is not all there is to life. There are so many thousands of blessings, large and small, that help us appreciate life, and when it comes down to it, we would not give them for the world. Things like a mother’s hug, a hot cup of coffee, a beautiful sunset, the birth of a child, and so much more. Yet, hundreds of thousands of innocent babies will never get to experience these wonders every year. What is worse is that a disproportionately large number of those are black babies who will never get to make a difference and influence the culture for positive change.

George Floyd’s death serves as a clarion call for justice—not only for those we can physically see but also for those we cannot yet see. Unlike a death on the street captured on video, abortion is hidden away and sterilized under mountains of lies, paperwork, and medical waste bins stashed in the back alleys of abortion facilities. We rightly mourn the emptiness left by George Floyd’s death, yet abortion is responsible for an immense vacuum left by the millions of black Americans who never even got their chance to be born. Can America ever be a truly just nation if we continue to throw away millions of lives simply because someone says they aren’t worth living?  

Dean Nelson is FRC’s Senior Fellow for African American Affairs and the Executive Director of Human Coalition Action.

Quinn Roberts is a Policy & Government Affairs intern at Family Research Council.

Is Judge Duncan an “Ultra-Conservative” or Just an Originalist?

by Katherine Beck Johnson

June 16, 2020

The Guardian put out a piece attempting to criticize Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The piece only succeeded in highlighting the author’s fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a judge. It is not the role of a judge to weigh into what the law should be, but rather the judge interprets what the law is, the law enacted by the people’s representatives. 

Many of President Trump’s judicial nominees are originalist and textualist. While these may be considered “conservative” judicial philosophies, the result is not always conservative policy goals. If the judge is interpreting a “liberal” law, the text will lead to a result that is liberal. The basic goal of originalism and textualism is that the people, not unelected judges, say what the law ought to be. The judge’s role is to say what the law is, or what the people enacted through their elected officials. Therefore, the Guardian’s fearmongering piece claiming that the judges appointed by President Trump have any role in abortion law is false. It isn’t Trump-appointed judges, it’s the people that have the role of saying what abortion laws should prevail in their states. Judge Duncan is no exception to this rule.

The piece quotes the legal director at Alliance for Justice saying, “For the overwhelming number of cases, the constitutional rights of the people in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi will be made by Kyle Duncan and the other ultra-conservatives on the fifth circuit.” This is false. The rights of the people will be made by the people—not the judges on the fifth circuit.

While a lawyer in private practice, Judge Duncan advocated for Louisiana’s law that is currently before the Supreme Court: June Medical v. Russo. This law requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. It’s a commonsense law that demands abortion facilities abide by the same rules as all other outpatient surgical centers. When Judge Duncan was in private practice, he defended this law on behalf of the state of Louisiana until he became a judge. The Fifth Circuit, where Judge Duncan now sits, upheld this law. Judge Duncan followed proper judicial protocol and recused himself from the case because he had advocated for Louisiana when he was in private practice. He has clearly conducted himself in an ethical manner on the Fifth Circuit.

The Guardian piece is yet another example of a judge being attacked for their faith, as the piece specifically points out Judge Duncan’s Catholic faith. In America, one’s religion does not prevent them from being selected for a job. Judge Duncan’s history advocating for religious liberty is another aspect of him that the piece viewed as problematic. A judge that recognizes our first freedom, our freedom of religion, is not problematic. Judge Duncan understands just how important religious liberty is to our Constitution.

The Constitution makes it clear that the role of a judge is to say what the law is and not what the law ought to be. The people of the United States are the ones charged with saying what the laws that dictate their lives should be. Judge Duncan knows his role as a judge and has done a wonderful job. We need more judges like Judge Duncan.

FRC’s Top 7 Trending Items (Week of June 7)

by Family Research Council

June 12, 2020

 

Here are “The 7” top trending items at FRC over the past seven days:

1. Washington Update: “Like a Tweet, Lose a Lease”

For Birmingham Pastor Chris Hodges, a handful of “likes” were all it took to make the biggest church in Alabama homeless.

2. Washington Update: “From Riots to Repentance”

On Sunday, some demonstrations in Washington, D.C., took a different turn. Riots turned into rallies for reflection and repentance as hundreds of evangelicals in the D.C. area led a march. Together, different generations and races called for the church to rise up and help heal our nation.

3. Washington Update: “The George Floyd Culprit No One’s Talking about”

Derek Chauvin was no saint. That much was known long before his knee crushed the life out of George Floyd. After racking up 17 complaints in 19 years, the question most people have is — what was he still doing on the police force anyway?

4. Blog: “Governments Are Allowing Unrestricted Protests. So Why Are Churches Still Restricted?”

Since March, churches all over America have suspended in person worship services to comply with social distancing guidelines. The same cannot be said of many of the protestors in recent days.

5. Blog: “Prayerfully Responding to Civil Unrest”

As our nation faces brokenness and rioting, we must turn to the Lord and his word. Here are some ways we can prayerfully respond to the current civil unrest in our nation.

6. Washington WatchDr. Albert Mohler talks about the ironic timing of his new book, The Gathering Storm

Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, joined Tony Perkins to discuss his new book, The Gathering Storm: Secularism, Culture, and the Church.

7. Washington WatchJoe diGenova argues that defunding the police is an experiment in communism

Joe diGenova, Former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, joined Sarah Perry to discuss the Left’s efforts to defund the police.

For more from FRC, visit our website at frc.org, our blog at frcblog.org, our Facebook pageTwitter account, and Instagram account. Get the latest on what FRC is saying about the current issues of the day that impact the state of faith, family, and freedom, both domestically and abroad. Check out “The 7” at the end of every week to get our highlights of the week’s trending items. Have a great weekend!

The Sixth Circuit Allowed Abortion Activists to Challenge a Pro-Life Law. The Supreme Court May Soon Stop the Practice.

by Katherine Beck Johnson

June 5, 2020

Abortion was back in the federal appellate courts this week, this time because of a challenge to Kentucky’s dismemberment ban. In April 2018, Kentucky House Bill 454 was signed into law. It prohibited abortions that “result in the bodily dismemberment, crushing, or human vivisection of the unborn child” if the child is 11 weeks or older.

Kentucky wanted to outlaw dismemberment defined as “a procedure in which a person, with the purpose of causing the death of an unborn child, dismembers the living unborn child and extracts portions, pieces, or limbs of the unborn child through the use of clamps…” This is certainly not the first time a type of abortion procedure has been outlawed. In Gonzalez v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s law that outlawed partial-birth abortion, a procedure that involves partially delivering the baby alive before ending the life.

Two judges in the Sixth Circuit struck down the Kentucky law. The majority lamented about how women have a right not to be burdened while obtaining an abortion. However, the majority failed to acknowledge that a woman could still obtain an abortion, just not one using the dismemberment method. Judge John Bush, a Trump appointee, wrote his strongly worded dissent. Bush spoke about the conflict of interest between abortion providers representing women in court. Judge Bush noted that two abortion providers and a clinic were claiming to advocate on behalf of women. Not a single party to the case had their constitutional rights directly impacted.

Judge Bush noted that, for some reason—whether financial, litigation strategy, or otherwise—EMW Women’s Surgical Center refused to obtain the training to perform fetal demise (kill the unborn child), regardless of the fact that studies indicate many women would choose fetal demise before a dismemberment procedure. It was clear from oral arguments that EMW was not looking out for what was best for women. When the abortion provider was asked what would happen if a woman did request fetal demise, the answer was that nothing would be done to honor her request.

Whether abortion providers should have the ability to automatically represent women in court is a question currently before the Supreme Court in June Medical Services v. Russo—a case in which the Court will be issuing an opinion in the coming weeks. Family Research Council filed an amicus brief arguing that there is no statutory authority granting abortion providers the ability to automatically stand in for women. There is a clear conflict of interest; abortion providers do not have women’s best interests in mind, and they should not be allowed to represent them in court. Abortion providers are looking out for themselves and their profit, which is a far cry from women’s health.

Let us hope the Supreme Court keeps this in mind when it rules in Russo in the coming weeks. Women facing pressure from the abortion industry deserve to have their true interests looked after, and their voices heard. Pro-life voters across America deserve to have their choices respected.

The Trump Administration Is About to Do the Right Thing on Religious Freedom — Again

by Travis Weber, J.D., LL.M. , Mary Beth Waddell, J.D.

May 22, 2020

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is about to finalize a rule it proposed last year to ensure that religious freedom and conscience are protected, the medical profession is not politicized, and patient care is prioritized. We urge this rule’s swift finalization.

This rule is great news for patients and the health care community alike. In 2016, under the Obama administration, HHS issued regulations on Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act defining “sex” in the context of “sex discrimination” to incorporate “gender identity” and “the termination of pregnancy”. Health care institutions sued, contending that the heavy hand of government was forcing them to violate their conscience and threatening their ability to operate. Understanding that HHS had exceeded its authority, a federal judge issued an injunction to prevent the Obama administration rule from taking effect.

Now, President Trump plans to clean up this mess, and protect religious freedom, for our caregiving institutions nationwide. This policy change will enable the medical community to fulfill the Hippocratic oath, while protecting the convictions of those in that community who want to hold to their religious beliefs and consciences about the biological understanding of sex.

President Trump’s proposed rule is also pro-life, and will ensure that the pro-life convictions of medical professionals will be honored. The inclusion of “termination of pregnancy” in the Obama administration rule could be read to require the provision of, and coverage or referral for, abortion. This could then lead to federal financial assistance being conditioned on the promotion and performance of acts that devalue the sanctity of human life. Thus, removing this language is important to ensuring that federal laws protecting the right of healthcare workers not to provide or refer for abortion will be upheld. 

We applaud HHS for standing with science and religious liberty to ensure that the medical community is free of political chains and can simply focus on providing the best possible care to their patients according to the best medical science.

The finalization of this rule is a high priority for religious freedom, and very important to protecting the faith of many throughout our country.

It should be finalized promptly, so that those with long-running conscience and religious freedom concerns in this area can finally put them to rest.

USAID Tells UN That Abortion Is Not “Humanitarian Aid”

by Patrina Mosley

May 20, 2020

The United Nations (UN) has declared abortion as “essential healthcare” and intends to use humanitarian coronavirus funds to supplement abortions around the world.

John Barsa, Acting Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), recently sent a letter urging the UN to stay focused on saving lives rather than taking them. As we previously noted, it has been apparent that world abortion leaders, like the World Health Organization, have been using the current pandemic to push abortions now more than ever before as “essential.” Unfortunately, the United Nations is one of those leaders that is willing to use billions of U.S. dollars to deliver abortions as a part of coronavirus humanitarian aid.

USAID’s letter reminds UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres that the U.S. is the “the largest donor of global health and humanitarian assistance” and emphatically states that the UN’s $6.71 billion Global Humanitarian Response Plan (Global HRP) “must remain focused on addressing the most urgent, concrete needs that are arising out of the pandemic.”

Barsa further noted that the U.S. alone contributed half of this amount—just in fiscal year 2019—at $3.5 billion. As President Trump stated in his address to the 74th UN General Assembly, the U.S. will “never tire of defending innocent life.” We have a vested stake in protecting our sovereignty as well as standing with those who wish to protect their sovereignty in accepting aid without strings attached. The letter reemphasized Trump’s statement that the UN simply has “no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life.”

The United Nations has acted as the global enforcer of liberalism, disregarding the national sovereignty of nations by withholding aid to nations that do not support their abortion agenda. For far too long, developing countries that desperately need basic necessities have had to choose between their national sovereignty in holding values like the sanctity of life or accepting UN food and water that come with contraceptives and abortions. So much for the UN being “humanitarian.” Now that we as a global community are confronting something we have rarely faced before with the current pandemic, it should not be controversial to collectively say: Abortion is not humanitarian aid.

The USAID letter is unprecedented in that it brings attention to the UN’s twisted supposition that abortions are on the same critical level as “food-insecurity, essential health care, malnutrition, shelter, and sanitation.” It is a rebuke to the UN not seen from a world leader like the United States in some time. 

The letter states that unity can be found if the controversial abortion funding is avoided, and the “sexual and reproductive health services” provisions as part of the COVID-19 response are removed.

Furthermore, the USAID letter calls attention to what is “most egregious”: the Global HRP call “for the widespread distribution of abortion-inducing drugs and abortion supplies, and for the promotion of abortion in local country settings.”

Abortion inducing drugs, like the abortion pill, are extremely dangerous, yet they are the go-to method universally for abortion advocates. As we pointed out here, the global abortion industry favors the abortion pill especially in areas they deem as “low-resource settings.” This means that the industry expects women to self-manage her own abortion by self-administering pills and expelling the child in her own home. The abortion pill regimen has been known to cause severe hemorrhaging that requires blood transfusions and incomplete abortions that can incur severe infections and the need for follow up surgery. Many women have died.

Sadly, just this month, a 32-year-old woman in India died at her home after suffering severe blood loss from taking abortion pills. During the police investigation, they seized a bloodstained bedsheet, abortion-inducing pills, and painkillers.

She is survived by her one-year-old daughter.

How this could ever be described as “humanitarian aid,” no one with a conscience will ever know. What we do know is that the U.S. is becoming more watchful and is giving teeth to the values we claim to have by being consistent with them around the world.

This is quite noteworthy and displays the seriousness of the Trump administration’s intention of being the leader in protecting the sanctity of life, at home and aboard. This follows the Trump administration’s success in restoring integrity back to the domestic Title X family planning funds where abortion will no longer be considered a method of family planning, expanding the Mexico City policy in what is now known as the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy (where U.S. funds will be restricted from supplementing oversees abortions), and defunding the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) which actively contributes to international abortions.

As an active partner of the UN and the leading contributor of humanitarian aid, we are confidently displaying continuity in our pro-life policies, thereby encouraging other sovereign nations to do the same.

Speaker Pelosi’s Partisan Coronavirus Relief Bill Attacks Life and Family

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP , Mary Beth Waddell, J.D.

May 19, 2020

Partisan politics are at play again. Last week, House Democrats passed the Heroes Act (H.R. 6800), a coronavirus relief bill that purports to help the people risking their lives on the front lines of the coronavirus, but in reality disregards vulnerable lives by funding abortion providers and deconstructs the idea of family.

The bill passed by a margin of 208-199 with one Republican supporting and 14 Democrats opposing. While it is unlikely to move in the Republican-controlled Senate, it is important to highlight how congressional Democrats are seeking to work against human life and the family during this pandemic.

In summary, the Heroes Act:

Attacks Longstanding Pro-life Policies

  • It creates a new “Heroes Fund” to provide an additional $13 per hour for essential workers in addition to their regular wages. Helping frontline workers who have put their lives at risk to battle the coronavirus is a good idea in principle; however, the bill’s definition of essential work includes any work conducted at outpatient clinics without any restrictions on those working at abortion clinics. It is disheartening enough that some liberal states have deemed abortion as an essential service, but pro-abortion members of Congress providing bonus pay for abortion clinic workers—while millions of Americans remain unemployed—takes abortion extremism to a whole new level.
  • Appropriates nearly $1 trillion in funds to state and local governments so they can continue conducting tests, providing essential equipment, and treating patients suffering from coronavirus. There is bipartisan support for such funding. However, the funding proposed in the Heroes Act has very limited restrictions on usage. This means liberal states like California and New York can use the federal funds to cover budget shortfalls they created by funding Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. Just a few months before the coronavirus pandemic hit the U.S, the Illinois legislature appropriated millions of dollars for abortion facilities that provide family planning services.
  • Provides several tax subsidies for employers that can be used to pay for health plans that cover abortion. In particular, it would provide a full subsidy for COBRA health premiums, a current program which allows the recently unemployed to remain on an employer health care plan. This subsidy would violate the principles of the Hyde Amendment by directly subsidizing employer health care plans that cover abortion. 
  • Makes substantive changes to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). The PPP was designed to help small businesses and nonprofits seek immediate financial relief, and many churches and religious nonprofits have been able to access the program. Large nonprofits that perform abortions are currently ineligible for the PPP because of the 500-employee limit. Instead of expanding the program to include larger charitable organizations, House Democrats prioritized making an exception for abortion providers.

Undermines Marriage and Family

  • The bill deconstructs the idea of family with the same language that some had attempted to insert into the paid family and sick leave program in the Phase 2 coronavirus relief bill. While the language in this bill doesn’t include “domestic partnership” in a definition of “spouse,” it uses multiple definitions to try and achieve the same effect. The bill amends paid leave requirements to include paid sick leave for family members including “domestic partners.” This greatly waters down the significance of the family structure and renders the word “family” virtually meaningless.
  • Redefines “sex” in the context of sex discrimination to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and medical conditions related to pregnancy. This is the same language that appeared in the infamous Equality Act the House passed last year, which would have redefined civil rights laws in a manner inconsistent with biological realities and forced organizations to provide abortions. The language would apply to this bill and the other relief bills that have already become law, such as the Cares Act.
  • Establish diversity and outreach programs that specifically prioritize gender and sexual minorities. Further, the bill would create a designated suicide hotline that politicizes the meaning of sex. An excessive focus on sexual minority status is misplaced, given the existence of other high-risk groups and risk factors such as underlying mental illness.

Additional Progressive Priorities

Partisan policies have no place in legislation intended to address a pandemic. In addition to the aforementioned provisions that seek to undermine the sanctity of human life and the family, the Heroes Act includes:

  • Provisions propping up the notion of hate crimes, which FRC has consistently opposed because they undercut freedom of expression. Hate crimes are essentially “thought” crimes, and hate crime laws punish the accused for a perceived prejudice against the victim. This is reinforced by the bill’s addition of “alternate sentencing” to existing hate crimes law, which will allow courts to order “educational classes” to correct the defendant’s alleged prejudice. Thoughts are not criminal; only actions are, and the First Amendment protects all expression, even that with which we disagree. Existing criminal law categories are sufficient to address the interests of justice without straying into the dangerous territory of trying to eradicate the thoughts of our citizens. 
  • Language taken straight out of the SAFE Banking Act, a policy that would legitimize the marijuana industry by granting them access to capital and other banking services. As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement, “The word ‘cannabis’ appears in this bill 68 times. More times than the word ‘job’ and four times as many as the word ‘hire.’” Reducing current federal restrictions on marijuana would, among other things, give money laundering access to international drug cartels who are already using marijuana legalization as a cover, and would radically increase investment in the marijuana industry.
  • A second round of stimulus checks with a change to allow illegal immigrants without a social security number to be eligible. Republicans led an effort to amend this policy, but came up just short of amending this language before final passage.
  • An extension of the $600 per week unemployment insurance increase through January 2021, allowing some individuals to continue collecting more money on unemployment than they would working. This perverse incentive to work was raised by Senate Republicans during the debate of the CARES Act, and now as the economy starts to open could have even more lasting impacts on the value and dignity of work.
  • Long-term changes that reshape the way elections are conducted in a way that favors Democrat candidates. This bill would require 15 days of early voting for federal elections and absentee vote by mail ballots for all voters. It would also mandate that all voters can register the same day, both in-person and online. Not long ago, many Democrats were highly concerned about fraud and interference in the 2016 election. Now, they are seeking to mandate mail-in ballots and online registration, policies that can put election security at risk.

Unfortunately, the present national health emergency has not united Congress to help our country. Congressional Democrats have shown time and time again that they would rather score political points than help our country through this pandemic. As Congress continues to consider what steps may be necessary to provide additional relief to the health care system and economy, FRC will remain vigilant in protecting faith, family, and freedom.

FRC’s Top 7 Trending Items (Week of May 3)

by Family Research Council

May 8, 2020

Here are “The 7” trending items at Family Research Council over the past seven days:

1. Washington Update: “Coronavirus Deception: Made in China”

Most Americans know exactly who is at fault for the coronavirus pandemic, and GOP Senators are introducing legislation to hold China accountable.

2. Washington Update: “California: You Win Some, You Newsom”

Good news in California: Their controlling Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has decided to “allow” residents to watch the sunsets!

3. Washington Update: “Abortion Dealers Sweep Truth under the Drug”

Planned Parenthood cares about one thing: financial profit. For them, chemical abortions are a great way to make a fast buck. Many women believe the abortion pill will be the easy way out, but they are wrong.

4. Blog: “Christians Met in a Private Chinese Home. Dozens of Officers Shut it Down.”

A small group of Christians, singing hymns in a private home, was all it took for the Chinese state security police to raid the house and arrest the neighbors who tried to film the incident.

5. Blog: “Margaret Sanger and the Racist Roots of Planned Parenthood”

Sanger opened her clinics in largely minority neighborhoods because she believed immigrants and the working class were inferior and needed their population controlled. This trend continues today where almost 80 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

6. Washington Watch: Andrew McCarthy responds to new proof that the FBI tried to frame General Flynn

Andy McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute, joined Sarah Perry on Washington Watch to discuss bombshell documents proving the FBI schemed to set up National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.

7. Washington Watch: Sen. Lindsey Graham says if America doesn’t ‘make it sting,’ China will never change its behavior

Lindsey Graham, U.S. Senator from South Carolina, joined Tony Perkins to discuss holding China accountable for the coronavirus.

For more from FRC, visit our website at frc.org, our blog at frcblog.org, our Facebook page, Twitter account, and Instagram account. Get the latest on what FRC is saying about the current issues of the day that impact the state of faith, family, and freedom, both domestically and abroad. Check out “The 7” at the end of every week to get our highlights of the week’s trending items. Have a great weekend!

Archives