Category archives: Abortion

40 Days for Life: Praying and Fasting for an End to Abortion

by Mary Szoch

February 18, 2021

Yesterday around the country, 40 Days for Life campaigns will kick-off. Started in Byran/College Station, Texas, 40 Days for Life is a prayer and fasting campaign with the goal of bringing about the end to the atrocity of abortion. 

Throughout biblical history, God has used the timeframe of 40 days and 40 nights to change the hearts of people. In Genesis, Noah spent 40 days and 40 nights in the ark. In Exodus, Moses spent 40 days and 40 nights on Mount Sinai where he received the Ten Commandments. In the Book of Jonah, Jonah proclaims to the Ninevites that in 40 days Nineveh will be overthrown. In Matthew, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert for 40 days and 40 nights. Over and over again, God uses the timeframe of 40 days and 40 nights. Inspired by this, 40 Days for Life was founded.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus casts a demon out of a child. The disciples come to Jesus and ask why they could not cast out the demon. Jesus replies, “This kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting” (Matthew 17:21). Led by these words, 40 Days for Life’s mission of prayer, fasting, constant vigil, and community outreach arose. During the 40 days, volunteers keep peaceful, prayerful, round-the-clock vigil outside abortion businesses across the country. Churches, families, and friends agree to pray together for an end to abortion, and people of faith are invited to fast as a sacrifice to bring about the end to abortion.

Since 2007, over 18,000 lives have been saved. Over 100 abortion businesses have closed, and over 200 abortion workers have quit as the result of the 40 Days for Life campaign. Clearly, God is still using the timeframe of 40 days to change hearts. To find a 40 Days for Life campaign in your area, go to the Find a 40 Days for Life Vigil page.

Here are a few things to keep in mind when joining a 40 Days for Life campaign.

1. This is a peaceful, prayerful vigil. It seems in 2020 our nation has forgotten how powerful peace and prayerful protests can be. It is especially important that people praying outside abortion businesses remain peaceful and prayerful. As someone is passing the clinic, your witness can either promote deeper thought about abortion, or it can entrench someone more deeply in their belief. Be peaceful and prayerful and let the Lord use you.

2. Bring a buddy. Invite a friend or family member to join you as you pray outside the clinic. Jesus tells us, “Where two or three gather in my name, there I am among them” (Matthew 18:20). In addition to the spiritual help a friend provides, having a second person with you also ensures your safety outside the abortion business.    

3. Bring a sign. A well worded sign can touch the hearts of both the women entering the abortion business and the people driving past. If you do not have a pro-life sign, consider making your own. Some great phrases are “Choose Love, Choose Life!”, “Abortion Stops One Heart and Breaks Another”, “God Loves You and Your Baby!”, “Want to Choose Life? I Can Help!”

4. Be open to the Holy Spirit’s promptings. Perhaps as you are praying outside the abortion business, you will be prompted by the Holy Spirit to speak to a man or woman entering the business. If so, do not be afraid! Remember, a woman about to have an abortion is likely terrified. Speak lovingly to her. Perhaps say, “If you’d like to talk about choosing life, I can help you!” Make sure not to yell or say anything hurtful to the woman.

5. Bring the number of your local pregnancy resource center. Always make certain you have the number of your local pregnancy resource center with you when you are praying outside a clinic. If a woman turns to you for help, the pregnancy resource center in your community is the best place to send her. The pregnancy resource center will provide her with the support and resources she needs to choose life and plan to parent or place her child for adoption.

During these next 40 days, prayerfully consider joining 40 Days for Life. Your presence outside the abortion business might just be the sign a woman needs to choose life.

Abby Johnson’s New Initiative Will Help Bring Justice to Women Harmed by Abortion

by Mary Szoch

February 16, 2021

Abby Johnson has partnered with the Thomas More society on a new initiative, Hurt After Abortion. As part of this initiative, Johnson’s team is offering referrals for free legal consultation, emotional and spiritual healing options, and assistance in accessing medical records for women who have been harmed by an abortion. The goal of this initiative is to provide justice and healing for women who have been exploited by the abortion industry.

In a perfect world, every woman harmed by abortion would take legal action, and the abortion industry would be brought to justice. But, sadly, there are many barriers for women seeking justice and healing after an abortion. Shame, depression, regret, and the life circumstances that caused a woman to consider abortion in the first place are all roadblocks to her taking legal action against an abortionist. Hopefully, many women will overcome these hurdles and become part of the Hurt After Abortion initiative. Even if they do not, there is plenty of evidence that abortion hurts women. 

In 2020, Operation Rescue reported 67 abortion-related medical emergencies and one maternal death. It should be noted that this does not mean only 67 women were physically harmed by abortions in 2020—but that 67 instances were recorded on film and were reported to Operation Rescue. Two of those emergencies happened less than 20 miles from the White House. 

LeRoy Carhart, an 80-year-old abortionist, operates a late-term abortion business in Bethesda, Maryland. Due to Maryland’s liberal abortion laws, the business can perform abortions through all nine months of pregnancy. Through his numerous abortion businesses over the years, Carhart has admitted to ending at least 20,000 lives

Carhart has no problem making light of the work he does. In a BBC Panorama documentary with Hilary Andersson in 2019, Carhart told her he uses the word “baby” with his patients, and when Andersson asked, “And you don’t have a problem with killing a baby?”, he responded, “Absolutely not. I have no problem if it’s in the mother’s uterus.”

I have seen Carhart’s cold nature firsthand. A few years ago, before his business moved from Germantown, I was praying outside Carhart’s business with a group of women as he and his wife got out of his car and walked toward the building. One of the women I was with said to him, “Those babies have a future.” Carhart turned, scoffed at her and said, “They sure don’t when I’m done with them.”

Is it any wonder that a man who speaks with such little regard for life sent two women to the hospital this past May? While the identity of these women remains anonymous, the incident report from the Montgomery County Maryland Fire and Rescue services showed that on May 12, a 25-week pregnant woman from out of state was rushed to the hospital from Carhart’s business. A whistleblower told Operation Rescue that the woman suffered a ruptured uterus and other internal injuries from an abortion. Several baby parts had been left inside the woman. The damage to the woman’s bowels was so bad that she was given a colostomy, that included an external bag. The woman was finally discharged from the hospital on May 21.

That same day, an eerily similar situation occurred. A second incident report showed a 25-week pregnant woman from out of state was taken to the hospital from Carhart’s business. A whistleblower indicated that this was because she, too, had a perforated uterus. She arrived at the hospital in critical condition, and once again, surgery was necessary. This time, the woman required a hysterectomy. The baby the abortionist had killed was still partially intact inside the woman’s abdominal cavity. 

LeRoy Carhart is 80 years old. He has sent at least 22 women to the hospital, and he is responsible for the death of Jennifer Morbelli. It is unclear if he was the abortionist who maimed the two women who were hospitalized in May, but it is certain the abortions happened at his business.

Pray that Abby Johnson’s new Hurt After Abortion initiative brings abortionists like LeRoy Carhart to justice. Though this will be some solace to women, there is no initiative that can take a woman back to the moment before she walked into the abortion business—the moment before her baby was killed, before her body was mutilated, before her life was changed forever. Still, there is hope and healing for these women.

Abby Johnson’s new initiative also provides referrals for an options-based approach to emotional and spiritual healing for women. Project Rachel has worked with thousands of women to help them find peace and healing after an abortion. If you know someone who is suffering physically, emotionally, or spiritually from an abortion, mention these two programs, and pray—pray for justice, pray for an end to the exploitation of women through abortion, and pray for the end of the destruction of life in the womb.

Connecticut Seeks to Stifle the Voice of Pregnancy Resource Centers

by Mary Szoch

February 15, 2021

Last week, the Connecticut State Senate considered SB 835, “An Act Concerning Deceptive Advertising Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers.” Contrary to its title, this bill is not about deceptive advertising. In fact, there is no substantial evidence that clients seeking services at Connecticut pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) have been or currently are being deceived. No, this bill is about silencing PRCs.

SB 835 singles out PRCs as the only organizations that are required to prevent advertising they know “or reasonably should know” to be deceptive “whether by statement or omission.” The legislation places the pro-abortion attorney general—who testified in favor of the legislation—as the arbitrator of “deceptive advertising,” and gives him the authority to force PRCs to “correct” their advertising and pay a fine.

This bill is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of PRCs. It makes it harder for women who are unexpectedly pregnant to know what their choices are, and it places the state in the position of promoting abortion over childbirth.

Despite what this bill implies, there are already many generally applicable laws at the state and federal level preventing deceptive advertising. What makes SB 835 unique is that it deliberately—and unjustly—singles out PRCs as the only organizations required to prevent advertising they know “or reasonably should know to be deceptive.” Nothing in the bill prevents abortion businesses from engaging in deceptive advertising practices. For example, Planned Parenthood—whose very name implies that a pregnant woman visiting the clinic will receive balanced information regarding the resources available to her if she would like to parent—is not obligated in any way to clarify in their advertising that their core mission is expanding abortion. PRCs are targeted for one reason only—to stifle their speech.

If this were just another deceptive advertising law, it would not target an ideologically unified group of service providers who take a position on one of the most controversial topics in the country. SB 835’s vague wording—“whether by statement or omission”—allows the pro-abortion attorney general (who is so pro-abortion and anti-woman that he doesn’t think abortionists should be required to have hospital admitting privileges) to decide which words a PRC omitted. Clearly, the attorney general is attempting to bully PRCs into only advertising what he would choose to advertise—which is definitely not help and support for women who feel pressured into having an abortion. This is an intimidation practice with the prevention of pro-life speech as its goal. It is unconstitutional.

In 2018, California passed a law that forced PRCs to 1) advertise that the state offered free abortions and 2) post a notice stating they were not medical providers. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California’s law was unconstitutional and prohibited the state from directly demanding this speech. Although SB 835 is not directly demanding speech from PRCs, through the vague wording “by statement or omission,” it is indirectly attempting to force them to make those same statements. The Supreme Court has already ruled this is unconstitutional.

Singling out PRCs for heavy fines because they do not provide or refer for abortions compels them to advertise in a way that significantly limits their potential clients. Many women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant feel afraid, alone, and unsure of where to turn. PRCs do not coerce women into giving birth. Rather, they give a woman all the information available to her and allow the woman to make her own decision, knowing that she can always turn to the PRC for support.

Unlike abortion businesses, PRCs do not make money when a client chooses life. In 2019, PRCs provided $270 million in services at virtually no charge, and they provided services to women regardless of whether they chose life or abortion, offering more than 21,000 women post-abortion healing services.

PRCs do not exist to make a profit; they exist because they care about women and their children. According to a Guttmacher Institute study, women most frequently choose to have abortions because having a child would “interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (74%), and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).” The resources offered by PRCs help women rise above and change these circumstances. The support of PRCs empowers women to choose life for their children.

There is no good reason to attack centers that have such a positive impact on society. Doing so places the state in the position of promoting abortion practices—who stand to profit from a woman’s decision to have an abortion—above centers offering women the tools they need to choose life.

The Connecticut state legislature should recognize that SB 835 is an attack on one of the foundations of American liberty—freedom of speech—and as such, it is unconstitutional. More importantly, the state legislature should recognize that SB 835 harms women in need.

Kansas Moves to Protect Life in Its State Constitution

by Quena Gonzalez

January 29, 2021

Great news! Yesterday, the Kansas Senate followed the House in voting to send the “Value Them Both Amendment” to the state’s voters, who will decide in the 2022 primaries whether or not to amend the state constitution to clarify that there is no right to abortion or abortion funding.

This is one of a number of similar pro-life developments taking place in states around the country as voters make their voices heard. Iowa is currently considering a similar measure, which would go before voters in 2024 if it is passed by both chambers this year (as expected) and passed by both chambers again in 2023.

The Kansas amendment is similar to amendments enacted in Louisiana (ratified by voters 62%-38% in 2020), Alabama (59%-41% in 2018), West Virginia (52%-48% in 2018), Tennessee (53%-47% in 2014), and Arkansas (52%-48% in 1988). FRC was proud to support those efforts.

May we continue to see these and other measures advanced around the country as states protect life. For more on the states of state pro-life laws, see our maps. To receive alerts when it’s time to make your voice heard in your state, sign up for FRC Action alerts.

Why the Pro-Life Movement Needs Men

by Molly Carman

January 29, 2021

 

Every year since the Supreme Court’s tragic decision in Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion 48 years ago, thousands of pro-life women, men, and children have gathered in Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life. The men who attend the March are one of the biggest encouragements to the pro-life movement because their very presence acknowledges that abortion and the sanctity of life is not just a women’s issue—it’s a human issue.

Today’s woman is bombarded with lies about womanhood, motherhood, and her relationship with men. She is pressured to “remedy” an unplanned pregnancy with “quick-fixes” accompanied by damaging long-term consequences. She is told not to expect the father to stick around or take responsibility, that the life in her womb is not a child, that it’s “her body, her choice.” Meanwhile, today’s man is led to believe he has little to no responsibility for the life he helped create and that he has no right to an opinion concerning abortion because he is not the one who is pregnant.

However, even though men may not carry the initial physical burden of having children, caring for the child is just as much the father’s responsibility as it is the mother’s. This responsibility starts when life begins—at conception.

When men are educated and aware of the issues that most acutely affect women, it encourages their innate, God-given desires to protect, lead, and provide for their families and loved ones. This cultivation is healthy, God-honoring, and better equips men to love and care for the women in their lives. A God-pleasing man protects a woman out of honor and love, not out of pity or an attempt to gain power over her.

Here are several scriptural examples of men protecting women and children in their care, thereby honoring God.

Judah, the Son of Jacob

Judah fathered twins by a woman he was not married to, but in the end, he took responsibility for his actions and cared for the children and the children’s mother.

Genesis 38 tells us Judah had a daughter-in-law named Tamar who was widowed twice and childless. According to custom, the father-in-law was supposed to give his widowed and childless daughter-in-law in marriage to his next eldest son. However, Judah did not keep his word to Tamar. So, Tamar tricked Judah into lying with her, and she conceived twins. When she was found to be pregnant and unmarried, Judah was outraged. However, when Judah realized that he was the father, he said, “She is more righteous than I, since I did not give her to my son…” (Gen. 38:28). Instead of harming Tamar or abandoning her, Judah took responsibility for his actions and protected her.

Amram, the Father of Moses

Amram feared God rather than man and defied Pharaoh’s orders in order to protect his newborn son.

Exodus 2 tells us the midwives who attended Moses’s birth chose to let him live, against the direct order of Pharaoh, who had ordered that all male Hebrew newborns be killed. Amram looked after his wife and son for the three months that they hid him in their home, until Moses’s mother, Jochebed, saved Moses’ life again by placing him in a basket in the Nile River. Amram chose life and fearing God over man, and that decision ended up being part of God’s plan to deliver His people from slavery.

Joseph, the Husband of Mary

Joseph chose to protect and care for Mary and her unborn baby, despite the possible shame and personal cost.

In those days, a virgin would be pledged in marriage to a man and remain celibate for one year before entering his house. If a woman broke this covenant and became pregnant outside of marriage, the custom was to stone her and her unborn child in the street. Scripture tells us that “She [Mary] was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a righteous man, and unwilling to put her to shame decided to divorce her quietly” (Matt. 1:18-19). Joseph was going to walk away, but an angel came to him and told him not to be afraid but to take Mary as his wife. By taking her as his wife, many would either assume that he was the father or that he had married an unfaithful wife, and this would bring shame to his family name. But Joseph rose above his fears and decided to be courageous and fear God rather than man.

Wanted: Godly, Pro-Life Men

Women and children (both born and unborn) need men to take a stand for life—to take responsibility like Judah, protect like Amram, and be courageous like Joseph. Rise up, oh men of God. Take a stand against the evil of abortion and support and defend women and the unborn.

Biden Puts the Abortion Industry Before the Will of the American People

by Mary Szoch

January 29, 2021

In 1985, the Reagan administration implemented the Mexico City Policy, which required foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receiving American taxpayer dollars to certify that they would not “perform or actively promote abortions as a method of family planning.” This policy has been rescinded by every Democratic president and reinstated by every subsequent Republican president since.

On January 23, 2017, the day after the sorrowful anniversary of Roe, President Donald Trump reinstated and expanded this policy, renaming it Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA). This action once again ensured that American taxpayers would not be forced to pay for abortions abroad. In 2019, after finding a loophole through which abortion-providing agencies were still receiving funding as subgrantees, the Trump administration further expanded PLGHA to prevent foreign NGOs that otherwise abide by the policy from sub-granting their federal dollars to organizations that actively perform or promote abortion. 

Yesterday, sadly, President Joe Biden rescinded this policy, and now, American taxpayers—including those who acknowledge that abortion is the destruction of an innocent unborn child’s life—will be forced to subsidize abortions abroad. The significance of President Biden choosing today—the day before the 48th annual March for Life—as the day to rescind PLGHA cannot be overstated. Although President Biden has preached a message of unity, he certainly has not practiced one. Over 75 percent of Americans oppose their taxpayer dollars paying for abortions abroad, and today, Americans across the country will come together to march (virtually, like everything else this year) for life. If President Biden actually wanted to unify the country, he would choose the will of the American people over the financial interests of the abortion industry.       

Unfortunately, the rescindment of the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance program will have a disastrous impact on countries that desperately need real assistance. Obianuju Ekeocha, founder of Culture of Life Africa, is a voice crying out for the end of ideological colonialism in Africa. Uju lamented, “It is official, the United States will resume the funding of abortion organizations overseas. This is evil and we will not be silent.” Uju argues that African countries want safe maternal health care, not abortion. According to Uju, Africa’s culture is shifting because of the influence of western NGOs: “Every new born African baby is now an ‘increase in population’ rather than a precious gift from God.” What a sad change. 

Abortion takes the life of a child and breaks the hearts of a mother and father. It has lasting physical, emotional, and spiritual effects. It tears a nation apart. Last week, the New York Times dubbed President Biden perhaps the most religiously-observant commander in chief in half a century, so he must certainly know the two greatest commandments: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Mt. 22:37-39 NIV). Let’s pray that President Biden soon recognizes loving your neighbor does not include paying for your neighbor’s children to be aborted and your neighbor’s country to be devastated as a result.

Joe Scheidler, RIP

by Michael J. New

January 28, 2021

Last week, pro-lifers across the country were saddened to learn of the passing of pro-life activist Joe Scheidler. Scheidler, who started the Pro-Life Action League, is thought of as the godfather of the direct action wing of the pro-life movement. Scheidler’s tactics, which included pickets of abortion facilities, graphic image displays, and public events featuring former abortionists, succeeded in placing a human face on unborn children and generated a great deal of publicity. During his life, Joe Scheidler succeeded in raising the salience of sanctity of life issues and persuaded many people to join the pro-life movement.

The pro-life movement has not always devoted a great deal of resources to chronicling its own history. As such, many are unaware of the risks and sacrifices that early pro-life activists like Joe Scheidler made to pursue full time pro-life work in the 1970s. Indeed, when Scheidler devoted to himself to the pro-life cause after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, he took a real leap of faith. He was working in a stable advertising job with a wife and children. At this time, it was by no means clear how one could raise money to engage in full-time pro-life work. The internet was not around and direct mail was in its infancy. Thankfully, Scheidler was able to receive some compensation from Illinois Right to Life and then successfully launched the Pro-Life Action League in 1980.

Additionally, when Scheidler started doing pro-life work, there was no clear pathway forward to restore legal protection to the preborn. While Scheidler did not dismiss the importance of politics, he thought that direct action was necessary to keep the abortion issue in the public eye. As such, as he describes in his fine book Racketeer for Life, he largely improvised. He would call talk shows and try to get some airtime to discuss sanctity of life issues. If he learned of an abortion facility opening, he would organize a protest. He would often meet with abortionists directly and persuaded many to quit doing abortions. Scheidler’s book Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion documents numerous tactics that succeeded in closing down abortion facilities.

I still remember the last time I saw Joe Scheidler in person. It was the March for Life weekend in 2020. Even though Joe was 92 years old, he made the trip to Washington, D.C. and his schedule was full. We attended the Pro-Life Leadership Mass and reception sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. We then shared an Uber to head downtown to the Law of Life Summit sponsored by Americans United for Life. Joe and his wife were as lively and as gracious as ever. He will certainly be missed. Rest in peace, Joe.

Michael J. New, PhD is a Research Associate at the Busch School of Business at The Catholic University of America and an Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New

Biden’s Cabinet (Part 1): Secretary of State Blinken Plans to Expand Abortion Worldwide

by Connor Semelsberger, MPP , Joseph Norris

January 28, 2021

This is Part 1 of a blog series examining the records of President Biden’s Cabinet picks on abortion and family issues.

Many senators think newly-confirmed Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s decades of experience and foreign policy credentials make him a good fit to lead the State Department. Unfortunately, based on Blinken’s past statements and President Joe Biden’s stated foreign policy objectives, it seems likely that Secretary Blinken would support and promote abortion internationally through an aggressive pro-abortion agenda.

The Trump administration went to great lengths to advocate for pro-life policies abroad. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that abortion is not a human right and condemned any attempt to make a “new international right to abortion.” He and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar wrote a letter pushing back against the United Nations effort to expand abortions internationally. The Trump administration reinstated the Mexico City Policy and expanded it as the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy (PLGHA). PLGHA ensured that abortion providers and their subgrantees were unable to access taxpayer dollars abroad. These actions protected the world’s most vulnerable citizens, the unborn. Unfortunately, the Biden administration is expected to undo many of these policies and set a new bar for abortion advocacy abroad.

The Biden administration will differ drastically from the pro-life attitude of the Trump administration, especially in the international arena, where Biden has made several promises and commitments. Throughout his campaign, Biden pledged to expand abortion access and contraceptives and to fully rescind PLGHA. As secretary of state, Blinken will help Biden achieve this goal internationally. Planned Parenthood applauded Blinken’s nomination, writing that he will help achieve the goal of “[ending] the reproductive rights abuses … around the world.” The nominee himself has stated on Twitter that he believes Biden needs to protect women’s “reproductive rights” worldwide. 

With the World Health Organization, United Nations, and other international organizations pushing to make abortion an international right, pro-life leadership in top government positions is needed now more than ever. Unfortunately, judging by Blinken’s past comments and actions, he will not be providing that leadership. While he was deputy secretary of state under President Obama, the Office of Global Women’s Issues was used to push for a radical sexual and reproductive health agenda under his leadership.

Although Blinken has not been a torchbearer for the abortion industry, his statements and past actions show that he will advocate for expanding the cruel practice of abortion internationally. His confirmation means the current secretary of state is no longer a champion for the unborn. Instead, Blinken will surely fall in line with President Biden’s agenda to expand abortion.

Connor Semelsberger, MPP is the Director of Federal Affairs for Life and Human Dignity at Family Research Council.

Joseph Norris is a Policy and Government Affairs intern focusing on pro-life federal affairs.

Kansas’s Value Them Both Amendment Would Be a Win for Life

by Mary Jayne Caum

January 22, 2021

Today is the somber 48th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a day that stripped the American unborn of the most fundamental of rights: the right to life.

On this anniversary of judicial activism, the Kansas House of Representatives voted to return the right to regulate abortion back to the people in an effort to protect both mothers and their unborn children. The House voted in favor of the Value Them Both Amendment in an effort to correct the overreach of the Kansas Supreme Court. Although the Kansas Constitution does not mention abortion, in 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court reinterpreted the state Constitution to include a right to abortion. Since then, pro-life activists have been working to correct this blatant judicial activism.

The Value Them Both Amendment rejects the false idea that abortion is a mother’s “right.” This Amendment would protect mothers from an unregulated abortion industry, rather than allowing the state Supreme Court to dictate the terms of abortion to Kansas voters. It empowers the citizens of Kansas to enact common-sense regulations for the dangerous abortion industry, and to preserve several pro-life laws that are already on the books but are now threatened by the Supreme Court’s activism.

The next stop for the Value Them Both Amendment is the Kansas Senate. If you (or your friends and family) live in Kansas and believe Kansans, not unelected justices, should determine abortion policy, contact your Kansas Senator today.

Will Joe Biden Be as Pro-Life as President Trump?

by Mary Szoch

January 21, 2021

As Joe Biden’s presidency begins, Donald Trump’s presidency has come under even greater scrutiny. His administration’s record on life issues is no exception. Hillary Clinton and others are claiming that Democratic presidents are just as good as, if not better than Republicans on life issues. Although it is true that abortion numbers reportedly declined during Barack Obama’s presidency and increased slightly between 2017 and 2018 under Trump, it would be incorrect to attribute the decrease or increase to either president. Correlation does not equal causation. These numbers in isolation should not be taken as an indication that we should expect the Biden administration to be just as (or more) pro-life as the Trump administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision (1973) made abortion through all nine months of pregnancy the legal default unless Congress or individual states passed laws restricting it. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court adjusted its previous decision to say that a state cannot impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s attempt to obtain an abortion pre-viability. As a result of these two decisions, state law—not presidents—have the greatest influence over whether abortion numbers rise or fall in a given year.

Even though state laws have the greatest effect on abortion numbers, pro-life presidents still make a huge difference. President Biden will likely reverse many of the Trump administration’s pro-life policies, but the 200 federal judges and three Supreme Court justices—many with proven pro-life records—that Trump appointed during his presidency will be serving on the bench for years to come. Planned Parenthood’s website states, “For the Supreme Court, Trump delivered on his promise to nominate justices who could overturn Roe v. Wade.”

The impact of these judicial appointments cannot be overstated. As Michael New pointed out, if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, state laws that protect the unborn—including six heartbeat bills that would prevent abortion after six weeks and an Alabama law that would ban nearly all abortions—would immediately go into effect, saving thousands of unborn children’s lives. Federal judges with a proven originalist track record have a far greater chance of upholding pro-life legislation than any Democratic appointees. These judges are appointed for life, and so, while the number of abortions may have slightly increased from 2017 to 2018, the impact of these judges will last far beyond the Trump administration—just ask Planned Parenthood.   

Although the Trump administration was unable to fully defund Planned Parenthood of taxpayer dollars, it did finalize the Protect Life Rule and redirected millions of federal Title X family planning funds away from abortion businesses. President Biden is expected to reverse this. The Trump administration also supported the historically bipartisan Hyde Amendment, which ensures that American taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions domestically. Hyde is credited with saving over two million lives. For the first time since Hyde was voted on in 1976, President Biden and the Democrat-controlled Congress are expected to try to remove it.   

President Trump took executive action to reinstate and expand the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy, which prevented American taxpayers from being forced to fund abortions internationally. President Trump also issued an Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children, which states that babies born alive after an abortion must be given the same level of medical treatment afforded to other children born alive at the same gestational age. President Biden is expected to reverse both of these actions. Pray that he does not.  

Our faith tells us, “Nothing is impossible for God” (Luke 1:37). Let’s pray for the seemingly impossible—that President Biden will have a change of heart and that his administration will be as pro-life as Trump’s. This would be the opposite of everything we expect, but it would be a welcome surprise for all those who value life.

Archives