Lay

Judicial Watch has the receipts… and yes, the vaxx was being developed right along with the weapon. Turns out neither worked very well, but I’ll bet they do better next time. -nvp

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it received 5 pages of records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that show an April 2020 email exchange with several officials in the bureau’s Newark Field Office referring to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China as including “gain-of-function research” which “would leave no signature of purposeful human manipulation.”

Judicial Watch obtained the records in response to a May 17, 2023, FOIA request for: emails and text messages of the Newark Field Office, including to Special Agent David A. Miller, containing the terms “gain of function,” “GoF,” “R01A|110964,” and/or “EcoHealth.” Judicial Watch sent the FOIA request to follow up on uncovering the FBI Newark Field Office’s investigation of the Fauci agency’s gain-of-function grants after the Covid-19 pandemic began.

On April 23, 2020, an email exchange with the subject “Follow up call” takes place between several unnamed Newark Field Office FBI officials. A person whose name is redacted writes:

Details of the current NIAID [Fauci’s National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases] grant for WIV [Wuhan Institute of Virology] bat coronavirus surveillance and WIV bat coronavirus gain-of-function research are available at: https://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=9819304&icde=49645421&ddparam=&ddvalue=&ddsub=&cr=1&csb=default&cs=ASC&pball= [summary of NIH grant to EcoHealth Alliance for Project 2R01AI110964-06]. The key activity for bat coronavirus surveillance is ‘Aim 1 … We will sequence receptor binding domains (spike proteins) to identify viruses with the highest potential for spillover which we will include in our experimental investigations. (Aim 3).’

The key activity for bat coronavirus gain of function is “Aim 3 … We will use S protein sequence data, infectious clone technology, in vitro and in vivo infection experiments and analysis of receptor binding to test the hypothesis that 0/0 divergence thresholds in S protein sequences predict spillover potential.” Translated into lay language, this equates to: “In Aim 3, we will use de novo synthesis to construct novel viruses encoding different spike proteins in an otherwise-constant genomic context, and we will test the ability of the resulting novel viruses to infect human cells in culture and to infect laboratory animals. We hypothesize that there is a direct correlation between the receptor binding affinity of the spike protein and the abilities to infect human cells in culture and to infect laboratory animals. We will test this hypothesis by asking whether novel viruses encoding spike proteins with the highest receptor-binding affinity have the highest abilities to infect human cells in culture and to infect laboratory animals.”

The reason I am writing is that the experimental strategy proposed in Aim 3 (“infectious clone technology”), if performed using commercial or in-house gene synthesis to prepare the infectious clones, *** would leave no signatures of purposeful human manipulation***.

(All the emails are here) 

Today Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), the state’s oldest and largest pro-life organization, launched a 7-figure TV and digital ad buy in a campaign to defeat the proposed so-called “Equal Rights Amendment” that would enshrine unlimited abortion in the Minnesota Constitution. MCCL’s efforts also include print, radio, and social media advertising. MCCL will hold a press conference on Thursday morning about the amendment and the campaign to defeat it.

“MCCL is going to make Minnesotans very aware of what some groups and lawmakers are trying to do,” said MCCL Co-Executive Director Cathy Blaeser. “This proposed amendment is just too extreme for our state. Abortion-up-to-birth isn’t a Minnesota value, whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice. Minnesotans are compassionate. We want to protect women and babies.”

MCCL first TV and digital ad, titled “Way Out There,” begins airing today. It features a conversation between two women about Minnesota’s current abortion policy and the effort to pass a constitutional amendment—and then calls on viewers to contact their legislators. A second MCCL ad is expected in early May.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Minnesota law already allows abortion without limits, but the version of the ERA proposed by groups like Gender Justice and ERA Minnesota would enshrine it into the Constitution and prevent future lawmakers from enacting even commonsense abortion policies. The proposal also excludes language safeguarding conscience and religious rights, removing protection for “creed” that was included in a previous version.

Lawmakers in Maine and New Hampshire have recently rejected similar sweeping abortion amendments.

The post Minnesota Pro-Life Group Launches Campaign Against Amendment for Abortions Up to Birth appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Adam Fadel is a licensed clinical therapist and, after many years of practice, he’s concluded what we know to be true: abortion trauma is real. The founder of the Charlotte clinic “The Corner: Institute for Transformation” explained what he had learned about the trauma that so often goes undiagnosed in a column written for The Fayetteville Observer.

He writes, “As state lawmakers consider the issue of abortion, they need to keep people like Sarah [a pseudonym] in mind — women who aren’t shouting their abortion, but instead are silently grieving.”

In one powerful paragraph Fadel explains

But traumas associated with abortion aren’t ended by the procedure. In fact, many of them begin there. A study conducted by Support After Abortion found that 34% of women suffer “adverse impacts” like anger, shame and regret from medication abortions. Most of these women said they had nobody to talk to afterwards, and had no idea where to go to understand and address their complicated grief. [Underlining added.]

This study results contrast sharply with the endlessly lauded “Turnaway Study.” Fadel explains, “The Turnaway Study is regularly cited by major media outlets as a rebuttal against the idea that abortion harms mothers who terminate their pregnancies.” 

Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.10"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

According to the study, women who were able to have an abortion were compared to women who were turned away — thus the name. It “found that just 5% of women regret their abortions.”

Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, NRLC’s Director of Education & Research, has demolished the study in multiple stories written for NRL News Today. As he pointed out in the conclusion to his five-part critique of the “Turnaway” study,

“Within a week after their ‘denial,’ even before the baby was actually born, 35% of those women were no longer willing to say that having the abortion would have been the right decision. After the birth, we know that 86% were living with the baby; 59% perceived their relationships as good or very good; and nearly half (48%) had full-time jobs.”

But even if we grant, for purposes of argument, that “only” 5% of women regret their abortions, it’s “a huge number,” Fadel writes. “Guttmacher estimates that 23.7% of women have abortions, which using the Turnaway Study’s numbers means that nearly two million women regret their abortion. Leaving these women to suffer in silence is a disservice to them, their families, and their communities.”

Sarah “was also hesitant to approach me because like most women who want to seek healing after abortion, she preferred anonymity out of fear of rejection and judgment.” Fadel concludes

Sarah deserved better than to suffer years of silent regret and shame. I was grateful to be able to help her learn how to address the traumas she had endured, and to heal. As abortion continues to be debated across the state, therapists, lawmakers, abortion advocates, and abortion opponents must put aside differences and make people like Sarah a priority.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.

The post Women Who Regret Their Abortions are Suffering Years of Regret and Shame appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Joe Biden’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a new rule on Monday cracking down on prosecutors’ ability to obtain abortion records.

The rule strengthens a 1996 privacy law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), by providing protections for those seeking an abortion, as well as those who perform the procedure, according to a HHS press release. The new provision takes aim at the various red states that have imposed abortion restrictions since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

“Many Americans are scared their private medical information will be being shared, misused, and disclosed without permission,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “This has a chilling effect on women visiting a doctor, picking up a prescription from a pharmacy, or taking other necessary actions to support their health.”

“The Biden-Harris Administration is providing stronger protections to people seeking lawful reproductive health care regardless of whether the care is in their home state or if they must cross state lines to get it. With reproductive health under attack by some lawmakers, these protections are more important than ever,” Becerra added.

The Biden administration first announced its plans in April 2023 to help protect women who are traveling out of state for an abortion from investigation. HIPAA had allowed for the disclosure of some health information to law enforcement officials.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! To help us fight Joe Biden’s abortion agenda, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Melanie Fontes Rainer, director of the HHS’ Office for Civil Rights, said that following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, health care providers have voiced concerns over whether the records of their patients who travel to see them will be requested.

“Patients and providers are scared, and it impedes their ability to get and to provide accurate information and access safe and legal health care,” Fontes Rainer said in a statement. “Today’s rule prohibits the use of protected health information for seeking or providing lawful reproductive health care and helps maintain and improve patient-provider trust that will lead to improved health outcomes and protect patient privacy.”

The rule follows an Arizona Supreme Court decision allowing an 1864 law to take effect that prohibits abortion in all cases except for when the life of the mother is at risk. Abortion will likely be on the ballot in the battleground state this fall, potentially joining Florida, New York and Maryland.

LifeNews Note: Mary Lou Masters writes for Daily Caller. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.

The post Biden Issues New Rule to Shield Abortionists Who Kill Babies in Illegal Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Joe Biden took his presidential campaign to Florida today and promoted abortions – because apparently killing one million babies a year in abortions is not enough.

He told the handful of pro-abortion voters gathered for the small event that they should hold Donald trump accountable for overturning Roe so states could set their own policies on protecting babies from abortions.

“Donald Trump is worried voters are going to hold him accountable for the cruelty and chaos he’s created,” Biden said. “The bad news for Trump is that we are going to hold him accountable. He should be held accountable.”

Biden also urged those in attendance to support a statewide amendment that would legalize abortions up to birth.

However, polling data in the Sunshine State shows voters support Trump over Biden.

A Florida Atlantic University PolCom Lab/Mainstreet Research poll released last week found Trump leading Biden by 10 points, while an Emerson College poll earlier this month had Trump leading by 15.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! To help us fight Joe Biden’s abortion agenda, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Students for Life of America told LifeNews that Biden has little to campaign on other than promoting more abortions. And it chided him for keeping the details of the event low key to avoid pro-life advocates protesting the event.

“As always, with the Biden-Harris Administration, they will talk a big game of their love for abortion, while keeping event details secret,” said Students for Life Action President Kristan Hawkins.

“Florida’s importance as a swing state explains in part the get-out-the-vote effort radical abortion extremists are engaging with a ballot initiative that would strip away legal protections for a baby with the universal sign of life – a heartbeat – to open the door to intentional abortion through a pregnancy. With a strong pro-life presence in Florida, SFLAction will rally and feature our brand-new video billboard truck to send Biden a special message,” she said.

“Biden may hide his location from us, but he can’t hide plans for abortion from the young voter generation, and he must answer for the abortion pollution ignored by his FDA’s negligently reduced standards for distributing the deadly drugs,” stated Hawkins. “Nine in 10 Gen Z and Gen Y voters reject the No Test, Online Distribution of Chemical Abortion Pills pushed by the Biden Administration. The youth vote is waking up.”

The post Joe Biden Campaigns in Florida for More Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Campaigners are calling on MPs to reject a new amendment tabled by Labour MP, Stella Creasy, to the Criminal Justice Bill that would make extreme changes to abortion laws.

The amendment (NC40) proposes making the biggest changes to abortion laws since the Abortion Act was introduced in 1967.

The proposed change to the law would make it more likely that healthy babies are aborted at home for any reason, up to birth, by removing key deterrents against performing an abortion at any point right through to birth.

The amendment would remove the possibility of custodial sentences for abortions after 24 weeks and by not suggesting any meaningful alternative sanctions, the amendment would remove a key deterrent against late-term abortions.

The amendment would also require the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) personally to approve prosecutions of women or abortion providers who perform abortions after the legal limit up to birth. This would introduce an extra hurdle before prosecutions can take place, which may deter police investigations, making abortions up to birth more likely. It would also likely lead to unreasonable pressure being placed on the DPP.

These changes to the law would likely lead to a significant increase in the number of women performing late-term abortions at home, endangering the lives of many more women.

They would also likely lead to an increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended well beyond the 24-week abortion time limit and beyond the point at which they would be able to survive outside the womb.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Making it easier to cover up infanticides

Stella Creasy’s amendment would remove key deterrents against hiding the body of a dead baby included in Section 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Section 60 makes it an offence to conceal the birth of a child by hiding the dead body of a child after its birth, including in circumstances when the baby has been killed through infanticide. This law change could make it easier to cover up infanticides.

Removing a series of key safeguards provided by the Abortion Act

The amendment would also remove a series of key safeguards provided by the Abortion Act through to 24 weeks.

It proposes making this law change by removing offences for women and doctors committed under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act (ILPA) through to 24 weeks.

As the Abortion Act was passed to create exemptions to sections 58 and 59 of the OAPA and the ILPA, removing such offences committed under sections 58 and 59 of the OAPA and the ILPA would make key safeguards provided by the Abortion Act 1967 redundant through to 24 weeks.

This means abortion would be available on demand, for any reason up to 24 weeks.

If the proposal becomes law, sex-selective abortion would become legal in England and Wales. Sex-selective abortion usually targets baby girls due to a preference among certain parents and some cultures for having sons. The Government maintains that, under our current legislation, abortion on the grounds of the sex of the baby is illegal because it is “not one of the lawful grounds for termination of pregnancy” set out in the Abortion Act, which stipulates that abortion can only be performed under specific grounds.

Under the proposed law change, the Abortion Act and the grounds under which abortion is permitted would effectively be made redundant up to 24 weeks, allowing abortion on demand, for any reason, including sex-selective abortion.

Section 1(3) of the Abortion Act restricts abortion to hospitals or places approved by the Secretary of State. Without this safeguard, there would be no legal restrictions on places where abortions could be performed up to 24 weeks.

The amendment would also result in there being no legal requirement that abortions take place under the care of a qualified doctor. Currently, the Abortion Act requires that an abortion takes place under the care of a registered medical practitioner (qualified doctor) who leads or directs the abortion process.

Under the proposed law change, there would also be no legal requirement that two qualified doctors certify an abortion. Section 1(1) of the Abortion Act requires two registered medical practitioners (doctors) to certify that an abortion is legal and is being performed under one of the grounds set out in the Abortion Act. Without this safeguard, there would be no legal requirement that two doctors certify an abortion up to 24 weeks.

Strong opposition from the public and medical professionals

Polling undertaken by ComRes, shows that only 1% of women support introducing abortion up to birth and 70% of women would support a reduction in the time limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks or below. The same polling showed that 91% of women agree that gender-selective abortion should be explicitly banned by the law.

Polling published by the Daily Telegraph shows that more than half of the general public agree that it should remain the case that a woman is breaking the law if she has an abortion of a healthy baby after the current 24-week legal time limit up until birth. Only 16% disagreed.

Over 750 medical professionals have now signed an open letter to MPs opposing making extreme changes to abortion legislation part of the Criminal Justice Bill.

A number of high-profile commentators in the media, some of whom take a pro-choice position on abortion, have come out against making extreme changes to abortion legislation, saying the proposals go “too far”.

Major campaign launched to oppose abortion up to birth

Following the tabling of Stella Creasy’s extreme abortion amendment, pro-life organisation Right To Life UK, has launched a major nationwide No To Abortion Up To Birth campaign focused on defeating attempts to hijack the Criminal Justice Bill that would introduce extreme changes to our abortion laws.

Right To Life UK is encouraging members of the public around the country to urgently contact their MP using the tool at www.righttolife.org.uk/uptobirth to ask their MP to oppose the introduction of extreme abortion laws.

Right To Life UK spokesperson, Catherine Robinson, said:

“These extreme changes to the law would remove key deterrents against performing an abortion at any point right through to birth. This would make it more likely that healthy babies are aborted for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, right up to and during birth”.

“It would likely lead to a tragic increase in the number of viable babies’ lives being ended through late-term abortions performed at home well beyond the 24-week abortion time limit, as well as the lives of many more women being endangered”.

“These extreme and radical abortion amendments have no place in the UK. Recent polling clearly shows that the public does not support these changes to the law. We are calling on MPs to reject these amendments and instead support Caroline Ansell’s amendment to lower the time limit, for which polling shows widespread public support”.

“We are calling on members of the public around the country to urgently contact their MP using the tool at www.righttolife.org.uk/uptobirth to ask them to oppose the introduction of extreme abortion laws”.

The post Pro-Life Groups Ask British Parliament to Defeat Measure Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Xavier University’s health insurance plan not only appears to cover abortion – it looks like the school specifically added it into the coverage.

But the Catholic Cincinatti university denies its student health insurance plan covers abortion.

A “policy endorsement” on the plan appeared to delete an “exclusion” of abortion.

The plan lists abortion as a “Non-EHB [Essential Health Benefit] benefits added to plan via additional endorsement.” It includes, like other covered benefits, the amount the plan pays for in-network and out-of-network providers.

The following page shows the “policy endorsement” appears to be signed by university President Colleen Hanycz.

“Benefits will be paid at the benefits levels indicated in the schedule of benefits,” the endorsement states.

The Jesuit university’s public relations specialist said “no” when asked if the plan covers abortion. He said “nothing has changed regarding this policy from previous years.” He said there are few enrollees in the plan.

The College Fix asked for clarification since the language appears to indicate abortion is coverage. The Fix said there was possibly confusion on its end due to the double-negatives of deleting exclusions.

Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page!

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.10"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

“The confusion regarding the wording is definitely understandable — but again, the answer to your question is, no, elective abortions are not a covered benefit under the policy,” spokesman David Hamilton said in late March.

He did not respond to another inquiry sent two weeks ago that asked why the plan includes deductible amounts for a non-covered benefit.

United Healthcare has not responded to multiple email and phone contacts in the past weeks that sought clarify on what the policy says.

The Archdiocese of Cincinnati has also not responded to multiple requests for comment on the policy.

The Catholic Church has always condemned abortion as a serious evil.

“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church states. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

Pro-life group American Life League criticized the plan’s apparent endorsement of abortion.

“Catholic teaching is explicitly clear that abortion is never ok…The Catholic Church never allows for any exceptions for abortion,” Director of Communications Katie Brown told The Fix via a media statement. “Abortion is the intentional killing of a child, every single time.”

When asked what the university should do to reconcile this apparent coverage, Brown said “Xavier should swiftly redact this policy. We encourage the Bishops in Ohio to hold the college accountable for promoting this evil.”

She called it “discouraging,” as a Catholic to see the university “make policies that directly contradict our faith.”

“However it’s a great opportunity for our Bishops and Church leaders to remind the laity why abortion is always evil, and what incredible life affirming options exist,” Brown said.

Other Catholic universities cover abortion in their health plans, including St. Xavier University in Chicago and the University of San Diego, as previously reported by The Fix.

LifeNews Note: College Fix contributor William Hurley is a student at Hope College where he studies political science and theology. He is active in many clubs including Hope Republicans, Hope Catholics, and Students Cherishing Life. He has written for the Hope College student newspaper, The Anchor. This column originally appeared at The College Fix.

The post Catholic Xavier University Puts Abortion in Its Health Insurance Plan appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Donald Trump is an anomalous political figure, a force of nature who is truly one of one.

He doesn’t, to put it mildly, march in lockstep with establishment positions of either the left or the right. In a time of increased political despair, it makes sense that so many Americans gravitate towards him.

As with so many other issues, Trump has the finger on the pulse of everyday Americans when it comes to abortion, more so than the political left or right.

In a recent statement, Trump said that abortion extremists “support abortions up to and even beyond the ninth month. The concept of having an abortion in later months and even execution after birth . . . is unacceptable and almost everyone agrees with that.”

He’s correct!

A new national McLaughlin/Priests for Life poll proves exactly that.

A clear majority of respondents — 61% — would vote for a political candidate who is pro-life but favors certain exceptions.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

On the other hand, only 24% of respondents would cast their vote for a candidate who supports abortion with no restrictions whatsoever up to the moment of birth, as well as taxpayer funded abortion.

According to the survey, nearly half of voters (46%) would support a candidate who wants to protect babies as soon as their heartbeat is detected.

Only 27% would support a candidate who is in favor of unrestricted abortions up to the moment of birth.

About three-quarters of voters say they favor abortion — but only with restrictions.

Even a plurality of anti-abortion voters wants to see time limits in place (31% versus 21% who support abortion at any time).

Of Democrats, 40% believe abortion should be banned no later than the first trimester.

Abortion will be a highly significant and charged issue in the upcoming general election. It is the first Presidential election since the historic 2022 Dobbs decision, (Dobbs vs. Jackson Womens Health Organizaton, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), which marked a pivotal turn from the era of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Dobbs returned the issue of abortion back to where it belongs: We the People, rather than an unelected judiciary.

Trump’s recent statement was consonant with the ruling, “My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land — in this case, the law of the state.”

Though there remains a federal role for abortion policy, most people in our poll prefer it be dealt with at the local level.

The survey demonstrates that there is widespread antipathy not only toward late term abortions, but taxpayer funded abortions, lack of parental notification, abortion on demand, and forcing medical professionals who oppose abortion for moral and religious reasons to support or perform abortions, as well.

That is because, as the survey also makes evident, there is a prodigious culture of life in the United States. There is a deeply rooted, bedrock desire for policies that are life-affirming in the widest sense: ones that are pro-parent, pro-woman, pro-baby, pro-child, pro-family, and pro-community.

This is where Trump gets it right and where others get it wrong.

The majority of survey respondents said it is good when a woman with an unplanned pregnancy decides to keep her baby; 85% support financial, medical, and

emotional assistance for women with unplanned pregnancies and young mothers; 82% support reduced legal and financial barriers to adoption and foster care; and 77% support faith-based organizations providing social services to pregnant women and young mothers.

This widespread support of a culture of life — in the broadest sense — is paired with profound dejection about our country’s current political landscape.

The polling found that voters across the political spectrum are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the direction of the United States and its leadership.

A whopping 71% of American voters believe the country is on the wrong track.

Predictably, during a Democratic administration, Republican and pro-life voters feel this way, to the tune of 90% and 80%, respectively.

But what may be surprising is that even 52% of Democrats and 66% of pro-abortion voters feel similarly.

More than three-quarters (77%) of independent, pro-abortion women believe the country is heading in the wrong direction.

Tapping into a culture of life would go a long way to addressing the existential angst and aimless ennui that too many Americans are experiencing.

The abortion debate is a clash of absolutes and is nowhere close to being resolved.

But a good start may be to realize that nearly two-thirds of Americans are more anti-abortion than the mainstream position of the Democratic Party’s leadership.

It has come to embrace abortion on demand.

Donald Trump, who is in tune with everyday Americans, understands this reality.

He is not only perceptive; he is correct.

Americans want less abortion, not more.

And this election will bring one or the other.

LifeNews.com Note:  Frank Pavone is the national director for Priests for Life.

The post Americans Want Less Abortions Not More appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States, two consolidated cases questioning whether the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) supersedes Idaho’s near-total abortion ban and can force physicians to perform abortions in emergency situations.

Idaho’s “Defense of Life Act” was enacted in 2020 and took effect when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. The law makes it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion unless it’s necessary to save the life of the mother. Soon after Roe’s overturning, the Biden administration sued the State of Idaho arguing EMTALA trumps the state’s abortion law and requires doctors to perform abortions under a broader set of exceptions than just to preserve the life of the mother. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill agreed and prevented Idaho from enforcing the law where it conflicted with EMTALA. A three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals briefly overturned that decision stating even if EMTALA does preempt Idaho’s law, its exemption for the life of the mother was sufficient to keep the laws out of conflict. However, the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and quickly reversed that ruling forcing the State and Idaho Speaker of the House Mike Moyle to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ//

In January 2024, the High Court agreed to hear the case and granted Idaho’s emergency request to enforce the ban in hospital emergency rooms while it decides the issue, which temporarily denies a Biden administration effort to force hospitals to perform abortions in the state.

Under EMTALA, Medicare-funded hospitals are required to provide necessary emergency care to pregnant women without discrimination, including if they cannot pay for the treatment. Even though the scope of EMTALA only deals with discrimination and does not even mention abortion, Secretary Xavier Becerra of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has interpreted the law differently. He issued policy guidance in July 2022 to hospitals stating that EMTALA preempts state abortion laws and requires hospitals receiving Medicare funding to perform emergency abortions.

The guidance set forth an interpretation that state abortion laws with more narrow exceptions than EMTALA are “preempted,” and that physicians “must” perform an abortion if they feel abortion is “the stabilizing treatment necessary” to resolve an emergency medical condition. Under the guidance, hospitals could lose federal funding for failing to comply.

While the Biden administration argues that the HHS “guidance” is just clarifying existing federal law, the Idaho legislature and state officials called the disputed HHS guidance an “unauthorized power grab” and stated it would have been “odd” for Congress to negate “state abortion laws” in a provision that “does not even mention abortion.”

Now that SCOTUS has allowed Idaho’s protections for unborn babies to remain in effect for the time being, doctors who perform abortions are subject to penalties ranging from two to five years in jail, fines, and suspension or revocation of their medical licenses.

The outcome of this case will likely affect a nearly identical dispute in Texas. In January 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Biden administration cannot use EMTALA to override Texas’ near-total abortion ban and force Texas doctors to perform abortions. In Texas v. Becerra, a three-judge appeals court panel called the guidance “unlawful” and unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that struck down the guidance.

Authoring the ruling, Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt determined that EMTALA does not discard the unborn child during a life-threatening medical emergency, and he noted that the law requires hospitals to “stabilize both the pregnant woman and her unborn child.”

“The question before the Court is whether EMTALA, according to HHS’s Guidance, mandates physicians to provide abortions when that is the necessary stabilizing treatment for an emergency medical condition. It does not,” wrote Judge Engelhardt. “EMTALA does not mandate medical treatments, let alone abortion care, nor does it preempt [state] law.”

Dr. William Lile, who is board certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology and who has delivered thousands of babies, told Liberty Counsel that the goal in treating a pregnant woman is always to preserve the lives of both the mother and her unborn baby when possible.

Dr. Lile stated, “It’s the delivery of the baby that cures the mother’s condition, it’s not the stoppage of baby’s heart and the killing of the baby that helps the mother.”

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act does not preempt state abortion laws, nor does it require the killing of an innocent life. Emergency rooms are only required to stabilize patients, which includes the unborn patient. This so-called ‘guidance’ by the Secretary of Health and Human Services is another lawless act of the Biden administration that will be struck down.”

The post Supreme Court Should Shut Down Joe Biden’s Attempt to Force ERs to Do Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Recently, a colleague sent me a new report published in the journal Fertility and Sterility, which is the professional journal of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine. The report is a retrospective cohort study on all assisted reproductive technology cycles reported to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology via their Clinic Outcome Reporting Systems. Data was gathered on embryo transfers done to U.S. gestational surrogates from 2014 to 2020 and compared surrogacy between surrogates and commissioning parents in both domestic and international arrangements.

First, it struck me as strange, that the report referred to the patients who were in fact the intended parents. Seems to me the surrogate mother and by extension, the baby(s) she carried would be the patient. But this is just another example of diminishing the mother-child dyad and centering the moneyed interests as the focus of the report.
The actual results were striking too, in reporting not only the rise in international purchasing parents using American women, but also who these people are who are hiring American women.

Of 40,177 embryos transferred during 2014 to 2020, 32% of these arrangements were foreign contracts. In 2014, the figure was 22%. In 2019, it was 39.8%. And then in 2020, the figure decreased to 31.8%, which was probably due, in part, to the Covid travel bans. The profile of the international intended parent(s):

• More likely to be a male (41.3%)
  Largely from China (41.7%) then France (9.2%) and Spain (8.5%)
• U.S. gestational carriers for international arrangements were younger than 30 years (42.8%)
• Cycles for international arrangements more often used donor eggs (67.1%)
• More often used introcytoplasmic sperm injection (67.1%)
• Preimplantation genetic testing used (79.0%)

As many countries prohibit surrogacy, these restrictive (and good) laws only encourage the explosion in Big Fertility here in the U.S. I can see all sorts of ethical and legal risks in the role the U.S. plays in the international reproductive tourism landscape. First, it should be a red flag that many of these arrangements are with single men. My pedophile, baby trafficking radar is on high alert. Second, the high percentage of Chinese nationals hiring women to buy a baby that has the bonus of U.S. citizenship, what is commonly referred to as “anchor babies.” As we fight for the abolition of the baby trade, we would do well, to close our borders to these international nefarious arrangements that exploit women at home. What a big dent we could make in the multi-billion-dollar baby markets if we just closed our borders. Seems like something our State Department should investigate.

The post The Rise of International Gestational Surrogacy in the U.S. appeared first on The Center for Bioethics & Culture Network.

A pro-life woman who is running a campaign for the Democrat nomination for president for the express purpose of airing graphic abortion ads is set to launch ads shortly.

Tomorrow, the Terrisa Bukovinac for President Campaign announced it will begin airing explicit anti-abortion ads in the New York City market-the largest media market in the world reaching more than 7 million people. Bukovinac is on the ballot in New Jersey for the Democratic Primary as President Joe Biden’s only challenger.

The advertisement will air during The Today Show on NBC in NYC.

Last year, Bukovinac ran ads in the Boston and New Hampshire markets. The ads ran during Jimmy Fallon’s show on NBC in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, where she was on the ballot for the Democratic primary

The 30-second TV ad shows in gruesome detail the gut-wrenching remains of five babies killed by later abortion, featuring footage captured by Bukovinac when she recovered the remains last year outside an all term abortion business in Washington DC. This effort is part of the campaign’s strategy to engage voters on the atrocity of later abortion during the 2024 presidential election by embracing the power of visual storytelling to expose the brutality of abortion. The ad condemns the Biden administration and the Democratic party’s extreme, out-of-touch abortion platform, which stands at odds with 30% of Democrats.

Here is the commercial. WARNING: CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES.

Although this strategy has generated controversy, the Bukovinac Campaign remains steadfast in exposing the violence of abortion.

Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ//

Bukovinac stated that her aim with this advertisement is to “disrupt the consciences of the American people, particularly leftists who are complicit in abortion by supporting pro-abortion candidates.”

Bukovinac also states: “pretending like millions of pro-life Democrats like myself don’t exist isn’t a winning strategy. The right to life must be protected at every age, everywhere, and that is why I am on the ballot as a presidential candidate—to be a voice for the innocent and oppressed and rekindle the debate inside the Democratic Party. ”

FCC regulations stipulate that news stations “have no power of censorship over the material” in campaign ads. The campaign aims to communicate the gravity and urgency of the abortion issue to American voters through impactful visuals. As the 2023 presidential race intensifies, the Bukovinac Campaign remains dedicated to educating voters about the violence associated with abortion.

The post Pro-Life Candidate Will Run Graphic Ads on Television Exposing Horror of Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1782027360272834824.html

Every member of the Idaho Congressional delegation has released a joint statement urging the Supreme Court to stop Joe Biden from forcing Idaho to turn its ERs into abortion centers.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hold a hearing on the case to stop Biden.

As LifeNews.com reported previously, the Supreme Court ruled in January that Joe Biden can’t force Idaho to turn its emergency rooms into abortion centers. The nation’s highest court ruled that Joe Biden can’t exploit a federal law to try to weaken Idaho’s abortion ban by allowing emergency room doctors to do abortions.

But that decision was a temporary victory and Idaho officials are fighting in court to win the entire case, Idaho v United States. This is the first case to be heard by the Supreme Court directly relating to the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v. Wade.

Below are quotes from Idaho’s congressional delegation asking the nation’s highest court to stop Biden’s radical abortion agenda.

“The Biden Administration’s attempt to preempt Idaho’s pro-life laws with a false interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTLA) would set a precedence that is harmful to America’s women and children. EMTLA was deliberately created to protect women and children in active labor. Every American has the fundamental right to life, including the unborn, and Idaho has strong laws in place to ensure innocent lives are protected. I have faith our justice system will stop this blatant use of federal overreach and put an end to Biden’s harmful abortion agenda.” — Senator Crapo

LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news

“Idahoans have passed a strong law to protect the lives of mothers and the unborn, yet the Biden administration is seeking every opportunity to expand abortion. This administration cherry-picked pieces of existing statute and wrongfully reinterpreted it to fit their agenda. Their manipulation of federal law cannot usurp state law, and there is no federal right to an abortion. I submitted an amicus brief that demonstrates how the administration’s substantial federal overreach is aimed at undermining pro-life protections not only in Idaho but around the nation. I hope the Court stands with us in our fight to protect Idaho’s law and life itself.” — Senator Risch

“The Biden administration’s overreaching efforts to expand abortion nationwide is an attempt to take power away from the American people. The Supreme Court rightfully ruled that states have the right to protect life, yet this administration continues to undermine that decision. I strongly support the right of all states to protect the unborn, and I reaffirm this priority by joining this amicus brief.” — Congressman Simpson

“The Biden Administration’s attempt to preempt Idaho’s pro-life laws with a false interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTLA) would set a precedence that is harmful to America’s women and children. EMTLA was deliberately created to protect women and children in active labor. Every American has the fundamental right to life, including the unborn, and Idaho has strong laws in place to ensure innocent lives are protected. I have faith our justice system will stop this blatant use of federal overreach and put an end to Biden’s harmful abortion agenda.” — Congressman Fulcher

Last year, the Justice Department filed suit Aug. 2 against the state of Idaho, hoping to undermine its new law prohibiting most abortions by claiming that the state law conflicts with EMTALA and medical treatment for pregnant women in emergency rooms.

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit that challenges Idaho’s protective law — arguing that it would prevent supposedly medically necessary abortions. Despite false reports that abortion bans would prevent doctors from treating pregnant women for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, pro-life doctors confirm that is not the case. Some 35 states have laws making it clear that miscarriage is not abortion and every state with an abortion ban allows treatment for both.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill found that Idaho’s law conflicts with the federal law because it bans abortions in nearly all circumstances. But the state argued the any emergency abortion is allowed under its abortion ban on elective abortions.

The nation’s highest court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday.

Brandi Swindell, Founder and CEO of Stanton Healthcare, which provides medical care and provides support for pregnant women in need, told LifeNews that the Supreme Court should side with her state.

“It is deeply troubling to see President Biden ignore and disrespect the voices of Idaho’s women as he attempts to advance a radical abortion agenda through federal regulations,” she said. “The Dobbs decision made it clear there is no federal or constitutional right to abortion. Our hope and prayer is the Supreme Court will respect the rights of Idaho’s voters and not allow our emergency rooms to be turned into abortion clinics by the federal government.”

The case involves the Biden administration’s unlawful attempt to use a law that ensures indigent patients receive emergency room care to force doctors to perform abortions that are illegal under Idaho law.

Idaho’s pro-life law imposes penalties on physicians who perform prohibited abortions unless doing so is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or other exceptions apply. The federal government claims—and the lower court ruled—that EMTALA requires abortions in violation of this law if an emergency room doctor thinks it is appropriate.

“Hospitals—especially emergency rooms—are centers for preserving life. The government has no business transforming them into abortion clinics,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the Center for Life and regulatory practice. “Emergency room physicians can, and do, treat ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening conditions. But elective abortion is not life-saving care—it ends the life of the unborn child—and the government has no authority to override Idaho’s law barring these procedures. We urge the Supreme Court to halt the lower court’s injunction and allow Idaho emergency rooms to fulfill their primary function—saving lives.”

After the Supreme Court returned the issue of abortion to the states in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the federal government sued the state of Idaho, claiming that EMTALA, an ancillary provision of the Medicare statute, preempts Idaho’s pro-life law. But as explained in the emergency application, “EMTALA is silent on abortion and actually requires stabilizing treatment for the unborn children of pregnant women.”

“The United States’ position conflicts with the universal agreement of federal courts of appeal that EMTALA does not dictate a federal standard of care or displace state medical standards. The district court accepted the United States’ revisionist, post-Dobbs reading of EMTALA and enjoined Idaho’s Defense of Life Act in emergency rooms. The district court’s injunction effectively turns EMTALA’s protection for the uninsured into a federal super-statute on the issue of abortion, one that strips Idaho of its sovereign interest in protecting innocent, human life and turns emergency rooms into a federal enclave where state standards of care do not apply,” Hawley notes.

Idaho’s abortion ban permits a physician who does an abortion to raise the affirmative defense that the abortion was necessary to save the mother’s life or that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest that was reported. In both cases, the physician must choose a procedure that is most likely to save the life of the baby and protect the mother. The law explicitly excludes contraception from the definition of abortion, and women upon whom abortions are performed may not be prosecuted.

The pro-life laws in Idaho and other states include clearly defined exceptions that allow abortions in the cases when a mother’s life is at risk. Because the pro-life movement cares about the lives of both mother and child and there are rare cases in which only the mother’s life can be saved, it supports such exceptions.

But these exceptions mean the Biden administration’s guidance is unnecessary. Undermining Idaho’s life-saving efforts and expanding abortions appear to be the administration’s real goal.

The post Pro-Life Congressmen Ask Supreme Court to Stop Biden Form Turning ERs Into Abortion Centers appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has denounced the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for violating religious freedom and forcing all employers to provide accommodations for employees to have an abortion.

CatholicVote previously reported that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a new rule on April 15 that requires employers “to provide reasonable accommodations,” such as leave time, to employees if they wish to have an abortion. The rule falls under the implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).

Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee for Religious Liberty, said in a news release that “No employer should be forced to participate in an employee’s decision to end the life of their child.”

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

“The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, as written, is a pro-life law that protects the security and physical health of pregnant mothers and their preborn children,” he added. “It is indefensible for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to twist the law in a way that violates the consciences of pro-life employers by making them facilitate abortions.”

CatholicVote reported in August 2023 that in addition to being supported by pro-life organizations, the PWFA was approved by pro-abortion groups, as the language left room for facilitating abortion access.

“The original act required employers to reasonably accommodate a worker’s pregnancy, childbirth, and ‘related medical conditions,’ but left the interpretation of those terms to the Biden administration’s EEOC, the federal agency responsible for regulating workplace discrimination laws,”  CatholicVote reported at the time.

LifeNews Note: Hannah Hiester writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Catholic Bishops Slam Biden for Trying to Force Christian Employers to Fund Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just released a new policy platform on abortion titled, “More Choices, More Life.”

“Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in American politics,” states Kennedy’s official campaign webpage on abortion. “We’ve been offered two positions — pro-life and pro-choice — with hardly any room between or outside them.”

Kennedy’s campaign claims that his proposed abortion policy “will dramatically reduce abortion in this country, and it will do so by offering more choices for women and families, not less.”

The policy clarifies that a Kennedy administration would seek to “make it easier for women to choose life.”

In order to accomplish this goal, the policy seeks to “make our society as welcoming as possible to children and to motherhood.”

“The centerpiece of More Choices, More Life is a massive subsidized daycare initiative,” the policy continues:

We will safeguard women’s reproductive rights while redirecting the funds being spent on the war in Ukraine to subsidize community- and home-based daycares, along with stay-at-home parents. Instead of padding the pockets of our weapons manufacturers, we will pay 100% of care for the three million children under five who live beneath our poverty line. And we will cap the cost at 10% of family income for everyone else.

“[W]e will also strengthen our adoption infrastructure to make it the best in the world,” the policy platform goes on to state. “We will increase the child tax credit, and we will fund sanctuaries for women in need to have babies, places like Angie’s House where they get support not just in pregnancy and birth but also in those precious months afterwards.”

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

“That way, [women’s] only ‘choice’ isn’t abortion,” the policy indicates. “They have another choice, a viable choice to give birth.”

Kennedy’s campaign adds that the proposed policy “won’t end the debate, but it offers a way forward that most Americans can support.”

CatholicVote President Brian Burch issued a statement in reaction to the announced platform.

“RFK Jr.’s abortion policy offers a stark contrast to the ‘shout your abortion’ extremism coming from the Biden campaign,” Burch said.

“While RFK Jr. is wrong for pledging to continue to protect the ‘right’ to destroy innocent lives, he deserves credit for not ducking the need to help women choose life,” he continued.

“Abortion is not simply a state’s rights issue,” the CatholicVote president pointed out. “The federal government does indeed have a role in helping to reduce abortion by empowering pregnant mothers to keep their children.”

“[Kennedy] also deserves credit for recognizing the unique role of stay at home parents by proposing that any day-care subsidies equally apply to mothers or fathers who choose to stay home to raise their children,” Burch outlined.

“Kennedy’s position, while problematic in principle, aims in the right direction,” he concluded. “Abortion is always a tragic choice, and we must do everything we can to help as many women as possible choose life.”

Kennedy is a self-professed Catholic.

LifeNews Note: Joshua Mercer writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Robert Kennedy Jr Releases New Abortion Policy Supporting Abortions Up to Birth appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Earth Day is now beyond us. I am sure you will be exhausted from hearing your leftist neighbour go on and on about the celebrations. This little guide is a help on useful things to do (and not to do) the day after. So let us start without further ado: Do not kill and compost […]

Just north of Bennington, VT, nineteen monks at the Charterhouse of the Transfiguration live and die in seclusion. There are no signs or markers pointing the way there. A bumpy side road passes a small reservoir, turns a corner, and the monastery appears, blank and quiet. At all times monks must “diligently keep themselves strangers to all worldly news.” They cite the model of Jacob, who didn’t see God face to face until he had sent his retinue forward and walked alone.
 

 

The post The Carthusians of Vermont appeared first on The Catholic Thing.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller has rebuked local Belgian authorities who tried to shut down a conference he spoke at this week, comparing them to “absolutist rulers of the past.” The former head of the Vatican’s doctrinal office strongly criticized the mayor of Brussels and his supporters for their attempt to cancel the National Conservatism conference that took place April 16-17, calling them political activists who desired the withdrawal of the “fundamental right to freedom of assembly.”

 

 

The post Cardinal Müller rebukes Belgian mayor: Politics is about ‘dignity of man in the Image of God’ appeared first on The Catholic Thing.

Christianity did not grow because of miracle working in the marketplaces (although there may have been much of that going on), or because Constantine said it should, or even because the martyrs gave it such credibility. It grew because Christians constituted an intense community, able to generate the “invincible obstinacy” [against paganism] that so offended the younger Pliny but yielded immense religious rewards. And the primary means of its growth was through the united and motivated efforts of the growing numbers of Christian believers, who invited their friends, relatives, and neighbors to share the “good news.” . . .

Let me state my thesis: Central doctrines of Christianity prompted and sustained attractive, liberating, and effective social relations and organizations.

I believe that it was the religion’s particular doctrines that permitted Christianity to be among the most sweeping and successful revitalization movements in history. And it was the way these doctrines took on actual flesh, the way they directed organizational actions and individual behavior, that led to the rise of Christianity. – from The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (1996)

The post Why Christianity succeeded appeared first on The Catholic Thing.