Category archives: Abortion

Today’s “Acceptable” Racism

by Ingrid Skop, M.D.

September 8, 2020

The people of America are engulfed in a contentious discussion about racism. The recorded death of George Floyd under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer has been viewed by millions, and the public has responded by demanding an end to police brutality. Many individuals and organizations have embraced the slogan, “Black lives matter.” 

Yet, as often happens in today’s politically divisive climate, some actions, such as police behavior, have been closely scrutinized, while others remain unexamined. But does our society mean what it says?  Does it truly care about all black lives? Or is the present crisis merely being used to promote certain political agendas and signal “virtuous” character?

Planned Parenthood’s Eugenic Legacy

Light was introduced into a dark corner recently, when a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Manhattan announced that it was removing the name of its founder, Margaret Sanger, from its building due to her ties to the eugenics movement. It has been well documented that Margaret Sanger’s motivation for promoting birth control was to prevent births from populations she considered less desirable. Her mindset can be demonstrated by statements such as, “Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house built upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.” Today, Planned Parenthood is the largest supplier of abortion in the United States, and they continue Sanger’s eugenic legacy in their organizational practices.

Seventy-nine percent of Planned Parenthood’s abortion facilities are located within impoverished minority neighborhoods, and black women are disproportionately receiving abortions. Although they constitute only 12 percent of the population, they obtain 38 percent of the abortions. Black women have obtained approximately 20 million of the 65 million abortions that have occurred in the U.S. since abortion was widely legalized in 1973. Poignantly, that is more than the entire U.S. black population at the time of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Today, there are 43 million black people in the U.S.  Our country would have about 50 percent more black citizens if abortion had not ended the lives of so many black children prior to birth. Was this eugenic result premeditated by those who promote abortion?

The Effect of Abortion on the Black Family

Although rarely acknowledged by those proposing expansion of entitlement programs as the solution to racial inequality, most of the pathologies affecting black Americans can be directly traced to the breakdown of the black family. Only 25 percent of black children were born to unmarried mothers prior to abortion’s legalization, but today, 69 percent are born out of wedlock. More than 50 years of government welfare programs have proven to be a poor substitute for a stable family in the lives of black children.

How might readily accessible abortion have contributed to this change in black families? The narrative of “her body, her choice” has apparently led many men to believe that the decision to bear a child belongs to the woman alone. The presence of another option may leave black men less inclined to marry the mother of their child if a pregnancy unintentionally occurs and she chooses to give birth. Additionally, many women who desire their children may be coerced into abortions by unwilling partners. Surely, black women do not aspire to raise their children alone, but their high abortion rates and unmarried childbirth rates provide evidence for the failure of many black men to fulfill their responsibilities as fathers.

Sociologic studies have consistently documented that a father’s presence in the home decreases a family’s poverty, the likelihood that the daughters will experience teen pregnancy, and the likelihood that the sons will resort to criminality. The large number of fatherless black children being raised by single mothers undoubtedly contributes to many of the problems plaguing the black community in America today: mass incarceration, gang violence, poverty, drug abuse, poor education, and unemployment. Yet, little discussion is devoted to ways in which paternal involvement in black families could be promoted and prioritized. 

Much attention has been given to the increased mortality rates in black women surrounding pregnancy and childbirth. This has been simplistically attributed to “systemic racism,” but few are aware that the 3.3-fold increased rate of maternal mortality in black women compared to white women mirrors the 3.6-fold increased rate of abortion. Limiting the discussion to racism ignores other factors exacerbated by abortion that contribute to maternal mortality.

Poverty is a risk factor for failure to obtain appropriate medical care and may contribute to this racial disparity. Only five percent of married couples live in poverty, so the extremely high rate of single black mothers undoubtedly contributes to their poor outcomes. Risk factors for pregnancy complications such as obesity, hypertension, and diabetes occur more commonly in black than white women. There may be genetic reasons for this, but poverty is also associated with these high-risk conditions. Pregnancies complicated by these co-morbidities are more likely to lead to C-section delivery, which has a far higher mortality rate.

Regardless of financial status, giving birth and caring for a child without a partner places a woman at an obvious disadvantage. If she should become ill during pregnancy or in the postpartum period, she may be unable or unwilling to seek emergency care due to a lack of social support, childcare, or transportation.

Black women more commonly have later abortions (13 percent) than white women (9 percent). The risk of death from abortion increases by 38 percent every week after eight weeks gestation. Thus, deaths directly related to physical complications of later abortions are increased in black women.

The Dire Long-Term Consequences of Abortion

Adverse mental health outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, substance abuse, high risk-taking behavior, and suicide, are increased after abortion. These are common causes of “deaths of despair” in the black community.   Black women are also more likely to be the victims of violence, often from their intimate partners.

In addition to the immediate physical risks of abortion, there are long-term complications that increase a woman’s risk of death in a subsequent pregnancy. Forcibly opening a cervix that is designed to remain closed until natural childbirth may result in cervical trauma and cervical incompetence in future pregnancies, often leading to preterm birth. Black women are documented to have higher preterm birth rates, leading to much suffering for their children from the complications of prematurity. Obstetric interventions for the management of preterm birth can lead to mortality from infections or medication toxicity.

And finally, instrumental trauma to the uterus, which may occur during a surgical abortion, can cause faulty adherence of the placenta in a subsequent pregnancy, leading to premature placental separation or placental invasion into the cervix, uterine wall, or adjacent organs. There has been a 110-fold increase in “Placental Accreta Spectrum” since 1950, which can cause catastrophic hemorrhage at the time of delivery, a common cause of maternal deaths.

A Disproportionate Tragedy

Clearly, abortion has disproportionately affected the black community, leading to a decrease in their population numbers as well as many adverse consequences to women and children. Many of the pathologies affecting the black community can be at least partly attributed to the breakdown in families and the absence of paternal involvement, facilitated by abortion. Mental health complications in black women, leading to deaths of despair, can be caused by abortion. Immediate pregnancy complications, especially from dangerous late-term abortions, as well as complications in subsequent pregnancies, such as preterm delivery and abnormal placentation, may also lead to maternal morbidity and mortality. 

Is our country ready to have this hard conversation? Many people who claim to despise racism also believe abortion should be readily available to women in any situation. Are we ready to talk about how widespread abortion in the black population has become an “acceptable” form of racism in the U.S. today?

Ingrid Skop, M.D., F.A.C.O.G. has been a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist for 24 years. Dr. Skop is a Fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a former Board Member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), and a Charlotte Lozier Institute Associate Scholar. She is the author of FRC’s Top 10 Myths About Abortion.

Pregnancy Is Not an Illness - And Abortion Pills Are Not a Cure

by Laura Grossberndt

September 4, 2020

Abortion activists recently took offense at a congressional letter addressed to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging it called pregnancy “not life-threatening.”

But this is not a faithful representation of what the letter, signed by 20 Republican senators, said. In actuality, the letter stated that “pregnancy is not a life-threatening illness.” This is an important distinction. Senate Republicans are not denying the life-threatening complications that can emerge during pregnancy and labor. They are stressing the point that pregnancy—and by extension, the unborn child in the womb—is not a disease for which the abortion pill is a “cure.”

Certainly, pregnancy has associated health risks. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. maternal mortality rate is 17.4 per 100,000 live births as of 2018. But pregnancy, the natural biological process of bringing new human life into the world, is not a disease, and should not be treated as if it were one.

The two-pill abortion regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol, on the other hand, carries its own set of risks to women’s health that are far from natural. These risks include severe bleeding, infection, retained fetal parts, the need for emergency surgery, and even death. There are over 4,000 documented cases of abortion pills endangering the lives and health of women. Said health risks are the reason why the FDA placed safety restrictions on the procurement of abortion pills. We don’t even know the full extent of the damage that abortion pills have inflicted on women’s health, because reporting of adverse events is voluntary. The FDA admits that it “does not receive reports for every adverse event or medication error that occurs with a product.”

One of the FDA’s safety restrictions required women to make an in-person visit to a certified prescriber in order to receive abortion pills. This restriction, meant to mitigate some of the risks of taking abortion pills, was recently waived for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic by a federal district judge. This decision sought to protect women’s health, but in reality, it merely substituted one health risk (COVID-19) for another (severe abortion complications).

But even with these FDA restrictions fully in place, the abortion pill (also known as chemical or medical abortion) has been shown to pose a greater risk to women’s health than surgical abortion in the first trimester. As Michael J. New of the Charlotte Lozier Institute and Donna Harrison of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists write:

[A] 2015 study of abortion safety in California, based on comprehensive and reliable data from Medicaid billing records rather than surveys, found that medical abortions resulted in four times the complication rate of first-trimester surgical abortions. Given that chemical abortions are already riskier than early surgical abortions, it stands to reason that performing medical abortions without physician supervision only increases those risks.

The Republican senators who signed the letter to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn are not denying—as some news media headlines and abortion activists would apparently have the American public believe—that pregnancies can have life-threatening medical complications. These senators are making the legitimate claim that abortion pills are “an ‘imminent hazard to the public health’” that should not be considered a viable solution to an unplanned pregnancy or any potential pregnancy complications.

Snopes Overlooks the Facts in Its Fact-Check of the Senate Born-Alive Vote

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP

August 25, 2020

By omitting several key elements of the abortion survival debate, Snopes’ fact-check of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (SB 311) is not an unbiased appraisal of the issue. Rather, it is a lackluster attempt to provide cover for U.S. senators who failed to support federal protections against infanticide.

Here is a fact-check of Snopes’ fact-check.

 

Snopes’ Claim:

Thirty-four states have “laws offering various levels of protection for babies born alive after failed abortions, and various levels of criminal penalties set out for health care practitioners who fail to provide care for them.”

What’s True:

Actually, thirty-five states have some form of legal protection for infants born alive after failed abortions. Yet, nearly two-thirds of state laws do not have criminal penalties for physicians who fail to provide medical care to infants born alive.

Snopes mentions FRC’s Born-Alive Protections Map in its fact-check, but completely misses the map’s main takeaway. Yes, 35 states have some form of born-alive law on the books, but only 16 of those states mandate an appropriate form of care and impose penalties on physicians who fail to provide said care. The remaining 19 states do not provide necessary protections for abortion survivors. Most simply mirror the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which recognized and defined any child surviving a failed abortion as a full person under the law but failed to provide any concrete ways to hold physicians accountable for killing or denying medical care to infants who survive abortion.

It appears that Snopes erroneously conflates different elements of born alive laws in asserting that “two-thirds” of states have “various levels of criminal penalties” in their born-alive laws.

Snopes also conveniently omits that New York and Illinois repealed born-alive laws in 2019.

 

Snopes’ Claim:

Democrat and Independent U.S. senators voted against the federal Born-Alive bill (SB 311) because it would have interfered with the doctor-patient relationship and undermined legal abortion access.

What’s True:

SB 311 contains no language that would undermine current abortion laws. The bill merely seeks to ensure adequate protections for born-alive infants who have survived an abortion. As the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ben Sasse, explained on the Senate floor before the 2019 vote: “The bill’s terms are simple. A child born alive during a botched abortion would be given the same level of care that would be provided to any other baby born at the same gestational age….This bill is exclusively about protecting babies that have already been born and are outside the womb.”

Rather than quote the bill’s sponsor, Snopes relied entirely on quotes from Democrat senators who opposed the bill. While these Democrat senators may have claimed a potential breach of the doctor-patient relationship as a reason for opposing the bill, no such breaches have been raised in the 16 states with born-alive laws comparable to SB 311. Furthermore, born-alive laws in these states have had no proven effect on access to late-term abortions.

 

Snopes’ Claim:

Democrat senators voted against SB 311 because they felt it was unnecessary in light of existing law. Senator Mazie Hirono said the bill was “a solution in search of a problem.”

What’s True:

Studies from around the world confirm that infants can and do survive abortion. A 2018 European study found that over half of 241 pre-viable pregnancies resulted in live births following attempted abortions. A CDC report from 2003-14 revealed that at least 143 infants died after being born alive from an abortion. Only eight U.S. states currently require reporting on abortion survivors, but in those states, there have been at least 179 survival cases. Minnesota reported three cases in 2019 in its July 2020 report. Florida, which provides live updates of born-alive survivors, has reported four cases in 2020 alone. These reports show that infants can and do survive late-term abortions, and the states that provide accurate reporting report several cases each year.

We should all agree that whether by neglect or intentional means, the killing of a baby who has been born alive is abhorrent. Since so few states provide detailed information on abortion survivors, the scope of the problem is not fully known. Even one child born alive who dies after surviving an abortion attempt because they were denied medical care is too many.

Even Snopes grudgingly admitted in its article: “SB 311 would introduce a “born alive” abortion law that would apply uniformly throughout the entire country. By voting to block the progress of SB 311, the Democratic and Independent senators did undoubtedly prevent that outcome from becoming much more likely” (bolding mine).

State Department Reaffirms That the U.S. Can Meet Global Health Goals While Protecting Life

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP

August 19, 2020

On Monday, the State Department, in coordination with other federal agencies, released a second review of President Donald Trump’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy (PLGHA), affirming its effectiveness in both protecting life and promoting global health.

On January 23, 2017, President Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy which restricts foreign funds from going to organizations that perform or promote abortions. This unprecedented expansion, which is now known under the PLGHA name, expanded the requirements from only applying to family planning funds to now covering all global health funds totaling nearly $8.8 billion in American foreign aid.

The outrage from pro-abortion groups was prompt, as 130 groups sent a letter to President Trump immediately following the announcement, condemning this policy for increasing unintended pregnancies and maternal deaths. The attacks on this policy have also made regular appearances in Congress as pro-abortion members have sought to delegitimize the effort and paint it as harming United States global health goals. This February, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing on women’s global health, and pro-abortion members used it as fodder to attack PLGHA. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) claimed that “This administration’s unprecedented expansions [were] implemented with no analysis of the potential impacts.” She further asserted that “mass confusion about the policy has led to a chilling effect causing organizations to unnecessarily change or eliminate vital health services.” The State Department has now issued two thorough reports showing that these allegations are far from the truth.

The most recent report from the State Department analyzing the implementation of the PLGHA policy reveals that so far, only eight out of the 1,340 prime grantees of global health funds have declined to agree to the terms of the policy, two of which were the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International—two of the largest global abortion groups. That means that 99 percent of all organizations directly receiving these global health funds have agreed not to promote or perform abortions. An additional 47 subgrantees also declined to accept the terms of the policy, but in most cases the prime partner organization directly receiving the U.S. global health funds was able to take on these activities or transition them to another organization. Not everything with the implementation was perfect, as 18 of the subgrantees did report delays in health care delivery of greater than three months. In these instances, USAID stepped in to help find new partner organizations or work to provide technical assistance. Also, following the completion of the first State Department report, USAID has taken substantial action to train grantees on the implementation of the policy by providing in-person trainings and electronic guidance materials. Contradicting what Congressional opponents have claimed, the report concluded: “When organizations declined the terms of PLGHA, the transitions to alternative health providers have been, for the most part, smooth.”

Abortion providers, whether domestic or abroad, act as if they have a right to receive public funds, and any time those funds are taken away, there will supposedly be immediate consequences to public health. Time after time, this has been proven false, and the latest State Department report is further evidence of that. The other trend confirmed in this report is that when the government restricts funds for abortion providers, other willing funders will always step in to keep abortion groups supported. The report noted that in Burkina Faso and Niger, private donors stepped in to fund organizations that did not comply with the PLGHA policy.

A similar situation happened when President Trump implemented the Protect Life Rule which prohibited Title X grantees from promoting abortion. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers withdrew from the program, sacrificing over $50 million in federal funds only for it to be replaced by state revenues instead. These trends raise the debate over whether public programs should only seek to provide services in the most efficient way possible; or, should morals and ethics play a role in how programs are implemented and which organizations provide those programs. The thorough review of using taxpayer funds to promote women’s health through Title X domestically and international global health funds demonstrate that our government can do both.

President Trump and his administration have gone above and beyond any past president to implement government-wide policies that protect unborn life. The reports being released further confirm that the U.S. can have policies that seek to both protect unborn children and promote better health outcomes for women. As Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) boldly proclaimed in response to the Congressional attacks on PLGHA: “To win the future, America should be leading to affirm the dignity and value of both patients, mothers and children.”

100 Years After the 19th Amendment, Another Right the Suffragists Fought for is Still Unsecure

by Laura Grossberndt

August 18, 2020

We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all women are endowed by their Creator with the same certain unalienable rights as men, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

One hundred years ago today, on August 18, 1920, the United States of America effectively affirmed this truth by ratifying the 19th Amendment (also known as the “Susan B. Anthony Amendment”) to the Constitution, thus securing American women’s right to vote:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It is right and good for our government’s laws to acknowledge the unalienable rights and human dignity of women. Not only do these rights emanate from the Creator, but they also exist because women—like their male counterparts—are God’s image-bearers. As I wrote in a previous blog analyzing the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

[O]ur worth and dignity as human beings is directly contingent upon the identity of our sovereign, omnipotent Creator. Those who bear the Creator’s image (all humans) are due a certain type of treatment from their fellow image-bearers […] Such due treatment can be said to be “unalienable” in the sense that our status as God’s image-bearers cannot be taken away.

Governments are instituted for the purpose of securing humans’ unalienable rights, our Declaration explains. These governments, if just, derive their powers from the consent of the governed. In America, suffrage (the right to vote) is a key ingredient in giving one’s consent to be governed. By securing the right to vote, American women finally joined men in being able to give their consent to the government tasked with securing their unalienable rights.

The State Department’s recently launched Commission of Unalienable Rights cited the 1848 Seneca Falls convention, notable for propelling the women’s suffrage movement, in its inaugural report. It was at this convention that suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton appealed to the unalienable rights found in the Declaration of Independence: “[S]trange as it may seem to many, we now demand our right to vote according to the declaration of the government under which we live … The right is ours. Have it, we must. Use it, we will.”

But while American women have secured the right to vote, they have yet to wholly secure a much more fundamental right, the first right enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life.

Today, a significant portion of our nation’s political discourse revolves around women’s rights. Not if women deserve rights, mind you, but what is to be included among those rights. Some believe “reproductive rights”—the ability for women to obtain contraception and abortions—ought to be included in the list.

However, early feminists, including members of the American women’s suffrage movement, saw abortion in a very different light than the self-proclaimed pro-choice feminists of today. They viewed abortion as being an unjust outcome of men’s exploitation of women. In her book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), Mary Wollstonecraft condemned such acts: “Nature in everything deserves respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity.”

Serrin M. Foster, president of Feminists for Life of America, observes about the American suffragists:

Without known exception, the early feminists condemned abortion in no uncertain terms. In the radical feminist newspaper The Revolution, the founder, Susan B. Anthony, and the co-editor, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, refused to publish advertisements for “Foeticides and Infanticides.” Stanton, who in 1848 organized the first women’s convention in Seneca Falls, N.Y., classified abortion as a form of “infanticide” and, referring to the “murder of children, either before or after birth,” said, “We believe the cause of all these abuses lies in the degradation of women.”

Abortion’s degradation of women hasn’t been left in the distant past, either. Today, American women are expected to be sexually available to the men they date, and then expected or even pressured to abort an unexpected or unwanted pregnancy. Men often face little to no consequences for their sexual behavior, whether consensual or nonconsensual, and abortion—by eliminating the children produced by their actions—makes holding men accountable even less likely. Worse yet, in other countries, abortion and sterilization have—and presently are—being used as tools of genocide.

Contrary to a commonly-held belief in our culture, supporting women’s rights and opposing abortion are not at odds. A culture in which women’s bodies can be used for sexual pleasure by men and then discarded, together with any resulting human life, is not a culture that upholds women’s unalienable rights or recognizes their human dignity.

It isn’t just adult women who have been harmed by the prevalence of abortion. Millions of girls were never allowed the chance to grow up, consent, vote, dream, or earn any kind of wage because they were aborted before they were born. Some are aborted due to sex discrimination: untold numbers of girls worldwide have been aborted due to their sex. The first right enumerated in our nation’s Declaration of Independence is life, yet it is still denied to so many.

It is right and good for governments to acknowledge the unalienable rights and human dignity of women. The United States did this one hundred years ago, with the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. But there is much more that we can do for women’s rights, including defending them both in and outside the womb.

Vice President Mike Pence’s Visit to Florida: Life is Winning in America

by Sarah Rumpf

August 10, 2020

Mike Pence, the first sitting vice president to speak at the March for Life, achieved another milestone on August 5 by becoming the first vice president to visit a pro-life pregnancy resource center. Pence joined the Susan B. Anthony List in Tampa, Florida to begin a multistate tour called “Life Wins.” The tour seeks to draw a sharp contrast between President Trump’s pro-life record and the pro-choice stance of his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden.

In his remarks, Pence said that the Declaration of Independence put the right to life at the center of the American experiment. However, 47 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade fundamentally challenged the right to life. Pence said that if Biden is elected, he would “undo all the progress” the pro-life movement has made in the U.S. since the passage of Roe vs. Wade. “Now more than ever, pro-life Americans need to make our voice heard…You need to speak out and become involved,” Pence said. “The radical left wants to silence pro-life Americans.” Central to Pence’s remarks were his support for late-term abortion bans and freedom of religion. He proclaimed Trump to be the most pro-life president in the nation’s history, citing Trump’s March for Life address in January of this year. (President Trump was the first president to attend and speak at the March for Life.)

Prior to his remarks at Starkey Road Baptist Church in Largo, Florida, Pence toured a local pregnancy resource center called A Women’s Place Medical Clinic, which offers prenatal care, ultrasounds, and counseling. Pregnancy resource centers are valuable lifelines that offer abortion-free services for women facing crisis pregnancies. 

Pence reassured conservatives that, “This President, this Vice President, and this administration will always stand up for the freedom of speech for every American, and we will always stand for life.” Pence reminded event attendees that, “Because of the work that you have done, we now have a pro-life champion in the White House. We have pro-life leaders in state houses across the country, a pro-life majority in the United States Senate, and we have principled jurists in record numbers in our courts across the land. Because of what you’ve done, life is winning in America.” Pence said that conservatives should be worried about Democrats electing liberal judges who could rule in favor of abortion rights.

Pence celebrated the pro-life movement’s accomplishments and growth in the United States, especially among young people: “The rising generation is more pro-life than ever before. Young Americans are embracing the sanctity of life in record numbers – more and more every day.” The vice president stated that the pro-life movement is defined “by generosity, compassion, and love for women and unborn children.” Pence attributed the rise of the pro-life movement to pro-life organizations and from “leaders in pulpits and in public office around the country.” Pence continued by stating that the “truth of abortion is being told and this new generation is choosing life.”

Vice President Mike Pence’s speech is additional evidence of the Trump administration’s pro-life record. He concluded his remarks by telling the audience, “With your continued support, with your dedication of the cause of life…We’ll continue to see pro-life men and women of principle elected and reelected from the White House to the statehouse.”

Sarah Rumpf is a Development intern at Family Research Council.

FRC’s Top 7 Trending Items (Week of July 26)

by Family Research Council

July 31, 2020

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

1. Washington Update: “Black Lives Matter Makes Its Marx”

How many Christians plaster “Black Lives Matter” across their social media pages not realizing that they’re supporting a group with radical beliefs? Americans are terrified that if they don’t embrace Black Lives Matter, they’ll be labeled as bigots and racists. The extremists are counting on that fear.

2. Washington Update: “Barr Brawl in the House”

House Democrats have been itching to get Attorney General William Barr on the stand for more than a year. But when that wish came true, the Left blew it as they raged, interrupted, and mocked their way through five hours of the hearing.

3. Blog: “Hope in Nebraska: Nebraska Pushes Towards Banning Dismemberment Abortions”

Recently, Nebraska’s state senators successfully brought a bill prohibiting dismemberment abortions to the legislature for debate and a vote. The author of the bill, State Senator Suzanne Geist, believes most Nebraskans will agree with the bill once they learn the horrors of dismemberment abortions.

4. Blog: “Lessons in Perseverance from the Life of William Wilberforce”

The abolition of slavery. Women’s suffrage. Civil rights for black Americans. These reforms came about through years of dedicated efforts from people who refused to quit. As we fight to protect life, family, and religious freedom, we can look to the life of William Wilberforce as inspiration, a man dedicated to the abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

5. Washington Watch: Dr. Teryn Clarke worries that a political agenda is covering up the truth about the coronavirus

Dr. Teryn Clarke, one of the doctors who participated in Monday’s Tea Party Patriots news conference, joined Tony Perkins to discuss the Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter censorship of the viral video.

6. Washington Watch: Sec. Chad Wolf insists that peaceful protestors don’t commit violent crimes

Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, joined Tony Perkins to discuss the federal response to the riots in Portland and other cities, and on protestors showing up outside his home.

7. Washington Watch: Andy McCarthy insists the ACLU’s case against federal troops in Portland is as flimsy as it gets

Andy McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute, joined Sarah Perry to discuss a federal judge issuing a restraining order against federal agents tasked with protecting a federal courthouse in Portland from violent rioters.

For more from FRC, visit our website at frc.org, our blog at frcblog.com, 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!

FRC’s Efforts on Capitol Hill (Week of July 20)

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP , Laura Lee Caum

July 28, 2020

FRC wrapped up another busy week fighting for faith, family, and freedom on Capitol Hill.

The House came together — and then fell apart

The House of Representatives returned from a two-week recess with a full schedule of legislative items. On Tuesday, the House passed the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorizes all of the major defense programs, with broad bipartisan support. Fortunately, unlike last year, this year’s bill did not include a new family planning program with pro-life concerns or language to reshape military standards to be gender-neutral. The Senate passed their version of the NDAA on Thursday, also with broad bipartisan support. The absence of progressive policy priorities allowed Democrats and Republicans to join together in support of this year’s NDAA.

While members resisted the temptation to insert partisan priorities in the NDAA, the same could not be said of the Democrats on the Appropriations committee. The House passed the first minibus appropriations package (H.R. 7608), which includes several major pro-life and pro-family concerns. Specifically, the State and Foreign Operations section of the bill included language to repeal President Trump’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which bars funding for foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. The bill would also provide direct funding for the World Health Organization, which actively promotes abortion and a radical sex education agenda abroad. Finally, the bill would weaken a longstanding pro-life amendment that bans funding for any organization or program that promotes coercive abortions. Despite President Trump’s threat to veto any spending bills that weaken or undermine current pro-life policies, House leadership has pushed through a spending bill full of anti-life measures.

FRC priorities attacked in committee hearings

One-third of pregnancies in trans men are unintended.” That statement from the co-founder of Minority Veterans of America is just one example of the radical liberal agenda that was on full display in House committee hearings this week.

Several values issues came up in the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing. First, Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN) questioned what was included in the expansion of contraception access for veterans in H.R. 4281. The Director of Reproductive Health at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clarified that this would include abortifacients like the morning after pill. H.R. 3582, which would expand the scope of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans to include LGBT-identifying veterans, was also introduced. Promoting progressive social policies in the VA has become a new tactic in the House as they seek to sneak in social experiments on abortion, marijuana, and LGBT rights into these federal programs.

Some members used the House Foreign Assistance Budget hearing to attack the president’s appointees at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). John Barsa, the Acting Administrator of USAID, who has actively fought against the global expansion of abortion throughout the coronavirus pandemic, was questioned by members for the various pro-life and pro-family appointees at USAID. The questions the members asked were not about the appointee’s experience or credentials for the role. Instead, they raised concerns only because the president’s appointees hold a worldview with which they disagree. These types of attacks are very similar to those leveled at key White House officials, like Russ Vought, as they made their way through the Senate confirmation process. This indirect assault against people who hold a biblical worldview is greatly concerning.

Although there was a fair share of anti-life and anti-family rhetoric on Capitol Hill this week, Christians shouldn’t be discouraged. Proverbs 21:1 reminds us that in God’s hand, “the king’s heart is a stream of water that he channels toward all who please him.” Remember, God is sovereign; nothing surprises Him or takes Him off guard. Moreover, there are actions you can take to protect the values of faith, family, and freedom. First, it is important that you pray. Scripture instructs us to pray for those who are in authority, which includes our leaders in government. Second, it is imperative that you vote and get involved in the political process. As God commanded the exiles in Babylon, we, too, should seek the welfare of our city by engaging in the sometimes messy world of politics. This is one of the practical ways we obey Jesus’ command to love our neighbors (Mark 12:31). Thus, when we are tempted to be discouraged by the rhetoric on Capitol Hill, let’s remember the words of Winston Churchill. “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”

Laura Lee Caum is a Communications intern at Family Research Council.

Hope in Nebraska: Nebraska Pushes Towards Banning Dismemberment Abortions

by Blake Elliott

July 27, 2020

Last week, Nebraska’s state senators successfully pulled a bill prohibiting dismemberment abortions (LB814) from the Judiciary Committee, allowing the legislature to debate and vote on the bill in the remaining days before they adjourn. The author of the bill, State Senator Suzanne Geist, believes that the majority of Nebraskans will agree with the bill once they learn its details and understand the procedure it seeks to ban.

A dismemberment abortion extracts a living, unborn baby from a mother’s womb, one body part at a time, through the use of clamps, scissors, and tongs. The pro-abortion crowd tends to call these dilation and extraction abortions because most people are against dismembering babies or human beings in general. According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, only two states currently have dismemberment abortion bans in effect. Because dismemberment abortions are usually performed later-term, a baby’s skull is typically already calcified and must be crushed before extraction. Afterward, the abortionist must examine the baby’s dismembered body parts to ensure that none are left inside the mother. According to FRC’s issue analysis on dismemberment abortions, dismemberment abortions account for around 96 percent of second-trimester abortions in the United States. This equates to over 75,000 babies a year being ripped to pieces. The majority of Americans would most likely agree with Nebraska State Senator Suzanne Geist that this type of abortion should not be allowed.

Dr. Anthony Levatino, a former abortionist who performed approximately 1200 abortions from 1980-1985 (about 120 were dismemberment abortions), described the gruesome reality of dismemberment abortions, saying you just “[grab] whatever is there. Maybe you rip off a leg, which is about four-inches long,” then “an arm, the spine.” He described how “the skull is the most difficult part” because “sometimes there’s a little face staring up at you.” Levatino also described the necessity of keeping an inventory of the parts; if the abortionist leaves any baby body parts in the woman, she will likely get an infection and potentially die.

Dr. Levatino’s life and career took a turn when he and his wife tragically lost their five-year-old daughter, who was struck by a car. Levatino began to see abortion’s ethical problems, realizing that he was ending the life of someone’s son or daughter every time he performed one. It was at this point that Levatino stopped performing abortions and became a pro-life advocate.

LB814 would ban dismemberment abortions in Nebraska. It also carries penalties for those that perform dismemberment abortions in the second trimester. Violators could be convicted of a Class IV felony, spend up to two years in prison and pay a $10,000 fine. Unsurprisingly, Geist and other supporters of this bill are facing pushback from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Scout Richters of the ACLU of Nebraska insists that these senators should be focused on people’s health and healthcare instead of this bill. However, by protecting babies from the brutality of dismemberment abortion, that is precisely what this bill does. Despite what the pro-abortion lobby claims, abortion — including the type that rips living babies into pieces — is not healthcare; it is the exact opposite.

LB814 is expected to be voted on Tuesday, July 28th. It is essential that Nebraska passes this bill banning this heinous act and that other states follow suit. Cornhuskers can click here to make their voices heard.

Disavowing Margaret Sanger Doesn’t Change Planned Parenthood’s Culture of Eugenics, Racism, and Death

by Laura Grossberndt

July 22, 2020

By removing founder Margaret Sanger’s name from its New York City building, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York has taken a first step in acknowledging its racist and eugenic roots. However, removing Sanger’s name from a building is little more than a superficial public relations move meant to mollify the racial justice movement.

This checked box does nothing to change the day-to-day operations of the organization. Planned Parenthood would like Americans to think that its troubled history with eugenics is long over. However, the history of “reproductive harm within communities of color” cited in Planned Parenthood of Greater New York’s statement is not some blemish in Planned Parenthood’s distant past—it continues in the present day. Planned Parenthood will need to do a lot more than disavow Sanger to atone for the harm it has wrought on minority communities and other discriminated groups.

Planned Parenthood paints a rosy picture of its beginnings, declaring on its website: “Planned Parenthood was founded on the revolutionary idea that women should have the information and care they need to live strong, healthy lives and fulfill their dreams — no ceilings, no limits.” This hyper-positive interpretation deliberately neglects to mention that Planned Parenthood’s founder Margaret Sanger believed birth control to be “nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit.” Articles she wrote on the subject included: “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics,” “The Eugenic Conscience,” “The Purpose of Eugenics,” “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics,” and “Birth Control: The True Eugenics.” Whatever desire she felt for women to “live strong, healthy lives” was commingled with the belief that “unfit” people should not reproduce.

Planned Parenthood’s troubled eugenic legacy does not begin and end with the personal views of its founder, however. For many years, it permeated the organization’s leadership. In 1933, Planned Parenthood (then known as the American Birth Control League) and the American Eugenics Society (AES) attempted an unsuccessful merger. Dr. Alan Guttmacher, the namesake of a leading abortion research organization the Guttmacher Institute, was a eugenicist and served both as vice president of the AES and president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America from 1962-1974.

While Planned Parenthood’s current leadership publicly disavows eugenics, the evidence indicates that the corporate practices of America’s largest abortion supplier disproportionately impact the birthrates of minority communities. Seventy-nine percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located within walking distance of communities identified as black and Hispanic by the 2010 census.  While blacks currently comprise 13 percent of the U.S. population, black women are 3.5 times more likely to have an abortion than white women, according to a 2016 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In Louisiana, where the total number of abortions in 2018 was 8,097, over half (4,958) were abortions of black babies, despite blacks only comprising 32 percent of the state population. And in New York City, where the building formerly named for Margaret Sanger is located, more black pregnancies resulted in abortion than live birth in 2016. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the black population “grew at a slower rate than most other major race and ethnic groups in the country” between 2000 and 2010.

Not only are Planned Parenthood’s facilities disproportionally represented in minority communities, and not only do they and other abortion suppliers abort black pregnancies at far greater rates than white pregnancies, but they also oppose legislation that seeks to prevent racial discrimination against the unborn. Planned Parenthood strongly opposes prenatal nondiscrimination legislation (PRENDA laws) that prohibit abortion on the basis of the unborn child’s race, sex, or disability. Planned Parenthood does not deny that such cases of discrimination (in their words, “reproductive coercion”) occur, but insists such nondiscrimination bills place “harmful restrictions” on women’s health care. It is unclear what steps Planned Parenthood takes, if any, to prevent prenatal discrimination from occurring at Planned Parenthood facilities. As long as Planned Parenthood champions unrestricted access to abortion, prenatal discrimination will be a reality within their facilities. In May 2019, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a lengthy opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood, in which he cited abortion’s eugenic roots and its continued eugenic potential:

Whereas Sanger believed that birth control could prevent “unfit” people from reproducing, abortion can prevent them from being born in the first place. Many eugenicists therefore supported legalizing abortion, and abortion advocates—including future Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher—endorsed the use of abortion for eugenic reasons. Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability.

Family Research Council believes human life begins at conception. Therefore, we understand abortion to be the taking of human life. We believe the surest way for Planned Parenthood to end the reproductive harm it has wrought within minority communities is to cease performing abortions entirely. We know Planned Parenthood is unlikely to ever make this decision on its own, especially since former president Cecile Richards admitted under oath in 2015 that 86 percent of Planned Parenthood’s non-federal revenue comes from abortions.

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York removed Margaret Sanger’s name from its New York City building to signal care for minority communities and opposition to racial discrimination and eugenics. But if Planned Parenthood really cared about minority communities, it would stop setting up abortion mills in these communities. If it really cared about racial discrimination, it would stop opposing and start supporting PRENDA laws. If the organization truly cared to deal with its racist and eugenic roots, the entire Planned Parenthood Federation of America—not just the Greater New York branch—would disavow both Margaret Sanger and Alan Guttmacher.

Don’t hold your breath.

For more information on Planned Parenthood, check out these FRC resources: Planned Parenthood Is Not Pro-Woman and The Real Planned Parenthood: Leading the Culture of Death.

Archives