The last several months have certainly presented new challenges and new reasons to both celebrate and remain hopeful for the future. However, our adversaries on the issue of respect for the life and dignity of every person are wailing vociferously and bitterly with renewed determination to undermine our movement.

Knowing what I know and what I have experienced as a medical doctor, having written a book and lectured on the topic, and being involved with other pro-life leaders every day, I still find it astonishing that people would bitterly oppose honoring motherhood while refusing to help pregnant women in distress with the resources she needs to have a healthy baby.

The laws in Texas protect incipient human life from conception. In doing so, the Texas legislature has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars to be sure pregnant women and girls who are anxious and distressed with an unplanned pregnancy have healthcare and other resources to meet their needs. The Texas Pregnancy Network has nearly 200 locations in the state and also oversees the Alternatives to Abortion Program, which is funded with another $100 million.

At the same time, there are nearly 300 private pregnancy help centers in Texas unrelated to the state services and receiving no money from the state. There are nearly 3000 such offices nationwide. Several states are also following the example of Texas with their own pregnancy networks.

Pro-abortion advocates support abortion as a first choice when an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy occurs, often until the moment of birth, and with some radicals calling for the option to let a baby born alive die from neglect if the mother so chooses.

Having failed to gain influence in Texas, they attack Texas laws on the basis of proposed exceptions…such as for pregnancies arising from rape and incest, or when the developing baby has a chromosomal abnormality or a birth defect.

Perhaps they should hear from people who were conceived from rape who say that they did not deserve the death penalty for a crime someone else committed. One is angry that such events occur so that we even need to discuss it, and the heart is wrenched with compassion for women in that situation. Fortunately, pregnancies from forcible incest (technically also rape) are very uncommon. I elaborate on issues of rape and incest and offer comments by others in my book Building a Culture of Life (see under My Books).

One of the most common birth defects is Down Syndrome. People who know such individuals also know them to be very likable persons. Those affected who are able to discuss the matter will also attest to the value of their lives. Special Olympics organizations promote opportunities for people with developmental disabilities to associate with others and have normal life experiences. Abortion advocates say that caring for such people is too much trouble and the baby should be killed.

Other birth defects with extra genetic material or missing genetic material can be very debilitating, often incompatible with life at birth or offering only a few years of life while requiring much care. Parents who choose to give birth to such a child and provide loving care give testimonies to the unparalleled positive impact on their lives and those of their other children. I also elaborate on those issues in my book where compassion for another human being supersedes causing the premature death of that person. They deserve compassion and care, though their lives may be short.

So, what is wrong with our society in which death of the innocent is so readily embraced. It is admittedly easier to admire people who have made the choice to give life and love to individuals who will be handicapped or who will not live long than it might be to have that experience and make that choice ourselves. However, the testimonies of those who have done so exhibit no regrets.

Before leaving that subject, let us address the claim by those supporting abortion that pregnant women in Texas (as an example) are subject to being neglected by doctors when their own lives are threatened by a complication of pregnancy. They say that doctors are afraid to perform live-saving abortions to save the mother.

For thousands of years (for example in ancient Hebrew writings in societies where abortion was abhorrent), the life of the mother was always valued over the life of a developing child in tragic situations. The same is true today, and this is encoded in Texas law and the rules of the Texas Medical Association. Whereas such instances are very uncommon, there have been 132 such terminations of pregnancy in Texas since June 2022. No pregnant woman has gone without necessary medical care.

There are other political issues to abortion on which the previous federal administration made choices. These are also elaborated in my book, so I will not do so here. I will only say that the Hyde Amendment to the federal budget was vacated for 4 years so that tax money was used to pay for abortions while no money was appropriated to offer solutions for women in distress. Likewise, the Mexico City Policy (see the book) was vacated so that tax money was used to promote abortion in other countries.

With election of Donald Trump, these policies were reversed (again). Trump also pardoned many pro-life advocates that he felt were unfairly targeted and excessively punished by jail time for the actions they took to protest abortion. It must be noted that the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City Policy will need to be encoded in law to prevent reversal back and forth in future.

Despite these happy events for pro-life people, their are those who are concerned about Trump’s views that the federal government should not regulate abortion. He actually has no choice in the matter. The Supreme Court ruled in the Dobbs decision in June 2022 (when Roe was overturned) that the 10th Amendment clearly and unequivocally gives the individual states the right to debate the issue and make laws in those states according the will of the people. In Texas, that led to current laws. In those states where there is a majority of people in the political party that supports abortion, their laws reflect that sentiment.

In another executive order issued by Trump, “…it is the policy of my Administration to ensure reliable access to IVF [in vitro fertilization] treatment, including by easing unnecessary statutory or regulatory burdens to make IVF treatment drastically more affordable.” This procedure is also discussed in my book, so I will not recapitulate here. However, the matter of creating fertilized eggs in the lab that have the potential to become people just like us, but which are discarded, thus ending the lives of people before they even get started, is very troublesome on the same moral and ethical levels grounds by which we oppose abortion for birth control.

At the same time, many couples with infertility who want to have a child have much distress over the matter, longing to be parents and raise a child with hope for grandchildren. Whereas we could talk about adoption (and many do), that process is prolonged and not easy, so many of those who can afford to do so sometimes choose IVF so that their child will be their own “flesh and blood.” I know such a couple who have a daughter by IVF, and she is a wonderful young woman. It is a difficult area in which we can only hope for a solution to the waste of human life in a manner similar to abortion, albeit without being implanted in the womb.

Much progress has been made in the minds of the public on the sanctity of human life, but the political battle continues with expenditure of much money and a vicious campaign to denigrate those who are pro-life. LifeFirst ( https://lifefirst.org/ ) does remarkable work in educating the public on the value of every human life and that such life begins at the moment of conception, and the Abortion Survivors Network ( https://abortionsurvivors.org/ ) makes an unparalleled impact when those who have survived an attempt to end their lives in the womb proclaim the value of their lives both in the womb and as a grown adult.

In January, the National March for Life in Washington, DC, attracted huge crowds to celebrate an incoming federal administration that promised to support the life and dignity of all persons from conception. President Trump addressed the crowd remotely and Vice-President Vance reinforced the values upon which they campaigned. In Austin, the Texas Rally for Life did likewise with exciting speakers before an enthusiastic crowd.

I conclude this post with an exhortation to celebrate our progress, but not to be complacent. There are powerful forces with a lot of money that want to reverse public policy and bring back abortion as a women’s “right” issue. We must continue to show up at every pro-life event that we can attend to be sure we preserve our recent gains and teach our children the value of every human life.

At the same time, we have much work to do. Our adversaries tell women that their lives will end in disaster if they do not have an abortion, that they cannot afford a baby, that they will not be able to continue their education, that they will not be able to get that job promotion, etc.

I elaborate on the reasons women seek an abortion in my book, and there are significant challenges. We must understand these issues, and I give a lecture on “the future of the pro-life movement after Dobbs.” We must petition lawmakers on social reform so that every pregnant woman retains all of the opportunities in life that non-pregnant women enjoy. By erasing such barriers, the mothers themselves will protect the lives of their babies. In the long run, this is the way we build a culture of life.

It is worth our time to review this history courtesy of Allen “Chip” Hradecky.

The March for Life is an annual event in Washington, D.C., where tens of thousands of people gather to demonstrate their opposition to abortion. It began as a grassroots response to the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973, which legalized abortion nationwide. The March is grounded in a pro-life philosophy, emphasizing the belief that life begins at conception and that the unborn deserve protection.

Origins and Motivation

The March for Life was founded by Nellie Gray, a lawyer and outspoken advocate for the rights of the unborn. After the Roe v. Wade decision, Gray felt compelled to take action, rallying individuals and groups who opposed the ruling. Her vision was to unite pro-life Americans in a public demonstration of their beliefs and to urge Congress to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision.

The inaugural March for Life took place on January 22, 1974, exactly one year after the Roe v. Wade ruling. Despite being organized on short notice, it drew an estimated 20,000 participants. The success of the first march inspired Gray and her team to establish the March for Life as an annual event. The movement’s motto, “A world where the beauty and dignity of every human life are valued and protected,” encapsulates its mission.

Goals of the Movement

The March for Life has three primary objectives:

1. Advocacy for the Unborn: The march seeks to bring attention to the humanity of the unborn and to promote policies that protect their right to life.

2. Legislative Change: From its inception, the march has called for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Participants advocate for laws at both state and federal levels to restrict abortion access and provide alternatives.

3. Cultural Shift: Beyond legislative goals, the March for Life aims to foster a culture of life by encouraging society to value the dignity of all human life, from conception to natural death.

Growth and Evolution

Over the decades, the March for Life has grown exponentially. What started as a relatively small gathering has transformed into one of the largest pro-life events in the world, drawing people from across the United States and even internationally. Participants include individuals, families, faith-based organizations, and advocacy groups. The march is notable for its inter-generational appeal, with young people, especially college and high school students, playing a significant role.

Speakers at the March for Life have included members of Congress, religious leaders, and, more recently, U.S. presidents. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both addressed marchers via telephone, while Donald Trump became the first sitting president to attend and speak at the event in person in 2020. These high-profile endorsements have amplified the movement’s message and visibility.

Key Milestones

The March for Life has seen several significant milestones over the years:

• 1993: Nellie Gray coined the term “pro-life feminist,” highlighting the inclusion of women advocating for both women’s rights and the rights of the unborn.

• 2003: The march commemorated the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade with record-breaking attendance.

• 2022: After decades of advocacy, the March for Life celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

This marked a significant victory for the movement, as it returned the regulation of abortion laws to the states.

Challenges and Criticism

The March for Life has faced criticism from those who support abortion rights, who argue that the movement undermines women’s autonomy and healthcare access. Opponents also question the separation of church and state, given the heavy involvement of religious groups in the march. Despite these criticisms, the March for Life has maintained its momentum, adapting its message to address contemporary issues such as prenatal care, adoption, and support for mothers in crisis.

Broader Impact

The March for Life has inspired similar events worldwide, such as Canada’s National March for Life and Europe’s March for Life in Berlin and Paris. Its influence has also extended into cultural and political discussions about the sanctity of life and the ethics of abortion.

The March’s legacy is one of perseverance and dedication to its core principles. While the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 represented a major achievement for the pro-life movement, the March for Life continues, now focusing on advocacy at the state level and addressing what organizers call “the human rights issue of our time.”

In conclusion, the March for Life began as a response to a pivotal Supreme Court decision and has grown into a global symbol of pro-life advocacy. Its history is marked by determination, the influence of faith and philosophy, and a commitment to promoting a culture that values life at all stages.

I have not posted in a while because we have been busy promoting a change in the Federal administration to one that is more pro-life. After the election of Donald Trump, we have been pushing for attendance by larger crowds than ever at the Texas Rally for Life in Austin. As we now turn our attention from the inspiring speakers at the National March for Life in Washington, DC, and the Texas Rally for Life in Austin, let us also celebrate Trump’s recent pro-life executive orders.

Many of us saw the speakers at the National March for Life via EWTN television on January 24 and therefore heard comments by President Trump and Veep Vance.  The Texas Rally for Life was livestreamed from the web site after the March for Life on January 25, and I supply below a link for those who missed it in real time by which one can see and hear comments by the speakers.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ku-dOQq_iqqXQAdj_mDaDwGXVm6vwl0e/view?usp=drive_link

However, Trump was concurrently very busy fulfilling his own pro-life agenda, which received virtually no media attention.  Indeed, Trump has been all over the map attending to so many urgent matters that the media, with their limited time segments, have not been able to keep up.

Therefore, I am posting the link below to a report that Trump has:

1.  Reinstated the Mexico City policy

2.  Ordered the Hyde Amendment to be enforced

3.  Pardoned 23 pro-life activists convicted of civil disobedience

4.  Affirmed that the DOJ will bring no more cases under the FACE Act except under “extraordinary circumstances”

https://washingtonstand.com/news/a-rundown-of-president-trumps-3-prolife-executive-orders

Please note that #1 and #2 need to be encoded in law by Congress so the policies cannot be reversed again by future presidents except through an act of Congress.  Those who have read my book know the history of abortion well (through 2020, when the book was published). This includes remote antiquity as well as modern day political turmoil.

https://buildingacultureoflife.org/?page_id=194

For those interested, I also give a lecture on the future of the Pro-Life movement, which fills the gap following the Dobbs decision in June 2022. If there is an entity that would like for me to speak on this subject, please provide my contact information.

In the meantime, let us support legislative action to encode the Mexico City Policy and the Hyde Amendment into law. I hope pro-life legislators will also address the issues I address in my lectures so our society will honor motherhood and ensure that every pregnant woman retains all of the advantages in society that non-pregnant women enjoy.

[This article was written following a specific request.  I have decided to share it with a larger audience since there is clearly a need to understand the issues facing our society when it comes to regulating abortion and helping pregnant women in difficult circumstances.   Please consult the references made herein for more in-depth information.  The reader may share with others, but please contact me for permission to publish to the public.  drgabrooks@comcast.net.  George A. Brooks.  All Rights Reserved.]

It cannot have escaped the attention of anyone that we are deep into a contentious national election cycle, so it is not surprising to see ads that are inflammatory with untruths and half-truths.  The goal of such ads is to demonize political opponents when the person sponsoring the ads does not have a record of beneficial service to report to the electorate.   One of the issues, although not the one of highest priority for most of the public, is that of which authority gets to regulate abortion.  Almost everyone believes some regulation is necessary.  Until 1973, all states had laws regulating abortion in various ways determined by the people in those states.

In January 1973, the US Supreme Court ruled that women have a “right” to an abortion.  This opened the door to establishing abortion clinics across the country, and it saved Planned Parenthood from imminent bankruptcy.   At the same time, people opposing abortion as a form of birth control mobilized to establish pregnancy help centers for women in distress so they would not be pressured into abortion as their only choice when in difficult life situations.

Since then, abortion has become a hugely profitable industry, and much of the money produced from abortions has been used to support political campaigns to elect those who will promote abortion and ensure continued profitability for abortion facilities. 

The history of abortion dates back at least 5000 years.   I begin my book Building a Culture of Life with history from antiquity to the modern era…through the year 2020.  I wrote the book because of my personal belief in the sanctity of human life, and because very few people really know the history of how abortion became a tool for political power and money.  There will never be a better time than the present for people to become acquainted with the issues and conversant in the truth.  https://buildingacultureoflife.org/?page_id=194

As a medical doctor, I was trained in providing care for pregnant women and managing complications of pregnancy and childbirth.  I delivered hundreds of babies, both normally and by C-section.  I have performed many procedures to remove products of conception from the womb after miscarriages to stop bleeding and prevent infection.  I have delivered babies known to be dead who died in the womb after being strangled by an unusually long umbilical cord.   I have operated to terminate an ectopic (outside of the womb) pregnancy and save the woman from certain death.  I helped abort a pregnancy in a woman with lupus who was in a coma with her only hope to live being to terminate the pregnancy.  One night, I was called to an operating room where a pregnant woman was in surgery for a gunshot wound to the abdomen.  She was about 34 weeks pregnant.  The bullet struck and killed the baby. 

I have seen the happiness, the sorrow, and the tragedy.  I know the history, I understand the issues, and I know current law.  Nobody can lie to me about why women seek an abortion, the impact on women who have had an abortion, or the impact of laws regulating abortion.

Recent ads on television have called Texas laws that regulate abortion cruel and dangerous.  The public know little about these laws, so that leaves a way for such assertions to be used to demonize a political opponent and attempt to get more votes for the one sponsoring the ads.

In order to understand how we got to this point in the modern era, I recommend Chapter 1 of my book.  When the United States gained freedom from the common laws of England in 1783, every state decided on its own set of laws.  Abortion was considered socially unacceptable, but was not illegal in most states.  Antiabortion statutes began to appear in the United States in the 1820s.  The reader is invited to read my book and become familiar with events from 1820 to 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Roe v Wade that women in the United States have a “right” to an abortion. 

Then, in June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that Roe v Wade was flawed in its reliance on possible alternative interpretations of fragments of constitutional amendments.  They ruled that the 10^th Amendment clearly stated that, in absence of a federal law passed by Congress, the individual states have the right to debate the issues and elect people to make the laws governing their own states.  That returned us to the way we lived in 1972.

Now, let us discuss the specific issue of laws in Texas concerning abortion.

On December 29, 1845, Texas officially joined the Union, with transfer of federal governing authority taking place on February 19, 1846.  In what follows, I rely on the Texas State Law Library.  The reader wishing to delve into additional details will find this link useful: https://guides.sll.texas.gov/abortion-laws/history-of-abortion-laws

[some of the text below is copied and pasted from that web site]

In 1854, the General Laws of Texas Act, Supplemental to “Acts Concerning Crimes and Punishments” made it a criminal offense to attempt to “procure the miscarriage of any woman being with child.”  In 1907, a bill added a definition of “abortion” to the existing statutes. The statutes regulating abortion were renumbered in the 1925 Penal Code. 

In the aftermath of the Roe v Wade ruling in 1973 that the Texas laws were unconstitutional, the Texas Legislature reorganized the Texas Penal Code and laws regarding abortion, which could no longer be enforced due to the ruling in Roe.  The laws were moved to the Revised Civil Statutes.  The Legislature never removed the laws from the statutes.

One should observe from the foregoing that since 1854 it is has always been the people of Texas, through their elected representatives, who have decided on laws regulating abortion (with the exception of the Roe years), and that is once again the case today.  Ads currently claiming that Texas laws are “cruel” to women and “put their lives at risk” are not only being untruthful concerning the facts, but they are also denigrating the democratic process and the right of the people to debate the issues in a free society and elect representatives to make the laws that govern themselves.

In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v. Robert P. Casey, et al. (“Casey”) that there could be a new standard for courts to use in evaluating the constitutionality of abortion laws.  The Court created an “undue burden” standard for whether a law is putting a “substantial obstacle” in the path of a woman seeking an abortion prior to the fetus’s viability.  This allowed states to regulate or prohibit abortion once the fetus was “viable” to survive outside the womb. 

In 1999, Texas legislators passed a law preventing a physician from performing an abortion on an “unemancipated minor” without permission from the minor’s parent or guardian. 

In 2003, the Woman’s Right to Know Act was passed.  It required the physician providing an abortion to discuss specific medical risks from the abortion process and tell her about sources of support to help her keep the baby. It also gave the woman the right to review informational materials published by the state on the same topics.

In 2011, the legislature added to existing “informed consent” laws the requirement for a sonogram in order for informed consent to be legal prior to performing an abortion. This bill required that a physician provide a sonogram within 24 hours before performing an abortion. The doctor performing the sonogram was required to do the following:

• Display the sonogram so that the patient can see it;
• Describe the images on the sonogram; and
• Make the heartbeat audible so that the patient can hear it.

The patient had the option to view the sonogram and hear the heartbeat, but was required to hear the description of the sonogram unless the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, the patient was a minor, or if the fetus had an irreversible medical condition.

In 2013, the legislature passed HB 2, requiring physicians performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion was performed.  It also required that abortion clinics conform to stricter standards than they previously observed.  It required them to meet “ambulatory surgical” standards, which covered a broad range of topics like construction, plumbing, lighting, medical equipment, and staff qualifications. 

HB2 also required the doctor to estimate the “post-fertilization age” of the fetus. It prohibited the doctor from performing the abortion if the fetus was 20 weeks or older, with some exceptions. This put the point at which a woman could no longer obtain an abortion slightly before the third trimester.

In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down the provisions in HB 2 related to admitting privileges and clinic standards in their Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellestadt decision, ruling that the law posed an “undue burden” to abortion access under the ruling in Casey.

In 2017, SB 8 added to the Woman’s Right to Know Act subchapters prohibiting “partial-birth” abortions and “dismemberment abortions,” these being considered horrifying to many people.

This bill also added new provisions about how to dispose of embryonic and fetal tissue, requiring these remains to be cremated or given a burial. The federal Fifth Circuit found these laws to be unconstitutional in 2018 in the Whole Woman’s Health v. Smith decision and prevented these laws from being enforced. Following the Dobbs ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2022, that decision was reversed in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Young.

In 2021, SB 4 placed new restrictions on “chemical abortions” (use of abortion pills).  This bill:

1. Prevented abortion-inducing medicine from being delivered by mail, delivery service, or courier.
2. Required a physician to examine in person a woman seeking a medical abortion.
3. Prevented a physician from prescribing abortion-inducing medicine for a pregnancy with a gestational age of more than 49 days.

The legislature also passed SB 8 (2021), known as the “Texas Heartbeat Act.”  It added a new subchapter to the Woman’s Right to Know Act prohibiting abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as 5-6 weeks gestation.   However, the law explicitly permitted an abortion by a doctor who felt that “a medical emergency exists.” Moreover, the law explicitly stated that a woman shall not be prosecuted for having an abortion.

SB 8 (2021) also created a “civil enforcement” measure.  It allowed any person, other than a state or local government employee or officer, to sue anyone involved in providing an abortion or intending to provide an abortion after the detection of a fetal heartbeat. This included third parties who “aid and abet the performance or inducement of an abortion,” including paying for the abortion.  The United States Supreme Court declined to hear an emergency challenge to this law in Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, allowing it to go into effect.

In addition, in 2021 the legislature passed HB 1280, The Human Life Protection Act, which contained a “trigger” provision that would ban most abortions (with noted exceptions) 30 days after one of the following events occurred:

• The issuance of a judgment by the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade;
• The issuance of any other judgment by the United States Supreme Court giving the states the power to prohibit abortion; or
• The adoption of an amendment of the United States Constitution giving the power to prohibit abortion to the states.

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court issued an opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, finding that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. It found that there was no right to abortion included in the United States Constitution. Through this ruling, it allowed individual states to regulate abortion under the 10^th Amendment according to the will of the people.

A judgment in a Supreme Court case overturning Roe was one of the potential “triggers” listed in HB 1280. Therefore, Texas law HB 1280 prohibiting most abortions went into effect on August 25, 2022.  It supersedes previous laws, and is the current law in Texas.

The Guttmacher Institute published an article June 6, 2022, when it appeared highly probably that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe.  https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/06/13-states-have-abortion-trigger-bans-heres-what-happens-when-roe-overturned

In that publication, the authors stated alarmingly that 26 states were “certain or likely to move quickly to ban abortion” with terrible consequences to women. It was noted that 13 states had “trigger laws” in place that would take effect automatically if Roe was overturned.  Actually, no state has passed laws banning abortion, but all states have laws regulating abortion. The article is lengthy and very informative about the laws in the various states at that time, but further comments are beyond the scope of this writing.

However, the reader should note that there is widespread support in the nation for restrictions on abortion, although some states have legislation favoring minimal or no restrictions.  There have even been proposals to allow an unwanted baby born alive at term to die from lack of care.  All but the most fratricidal persons among us have rejected this horrible thought. 

Others have defiantly proclaimed that they know abortion is “murder” and they do not care.  They still support unrestricted abortion on demand.  At the same time, there remains much controversy over the lives of babies who are born alive after a failed abortion.  Some people assert that the babies were meant to be killed and should be allowed to die.  Some people advocate for exceptions to state laws banning abortion that include the presence of certain birth defects or a pregnancy that occurs due to rape or incest.  Still others vow to codify Roe through a law passed by Congress and signed by a president that supports abortion, thereby hoping to make unrestricted abortion legal throughout the United States.

So, where do we in Texas stand today on laws regulating abortion? 

Please note again that HB 1280 superseded the older laws cited above when it took effect in 2022 and is currently the law in Texas.  HB 1280 protects unborn children from elective abortion beginning at conception. That law has an exception for medically necessary abortions when the pregnancy causes “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.” 

However, there are many inflammatory statements currently being made to try to persuade voters that the laws are cruel and put women’s lives at risk.  The Texas Alliance for Life (TAL) monitors Texas legislation on matters of respect for life, monitors the propaganda of those supporting abortion, and sets the record straight.  https://www.texasallianceforlife.org/

                     [some quotations made herein are also published by TAL]

In a communication dated October 1, TAL reports statements by current political candidates favoring unrestricted abortion claiming that doctors cannot perform or are not willing to perform abortions in Texas (and in other states with pro-life laws) in cases where the pregnancy endangers a woman’s life.  These are debunked as outright lies by citing data from Texas Health and Human Services showing that from July 2022 through May 2024 Texas physicians conducted 116 inducted terminations of pregnancy pursuant to the exceptions in HB 1280.  The Texas data are consistent with data from other states with pro-life laws that have reported abortions for medically necessary reasons. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4909792

In addition, the Texas Medical Board has issued rules explaining the law, including the provision that the medical necessity exception does not require the woman’s life or injury to be at imminent risk before a doctor can perform an abortion.  https://www.tmb.state.tx.us/idl/1C5CBA1C-052B-403F-A0D1-FAF22ADD05CB

No woman has been refused a life-saving abortion and no doctor has been prosecuted or sanctioned by the Texas Medical Board for performing an abortion to prevent risk to a woman’s life or impairment of bodily function. Complications of pregnancy continue to be treated in the standard manner, intervening to save women’s lives when necessary.

But, what about babies with Down Syndrome or birth defects that, it is claimed, will make the baby’s life short and miserable?  And, why not provide exceptions for rape or incest?

People with Down syndrome do not deserve the death penalty.  Many children with serious birth defects have lived happy lives loved by their parents.  If they died early, their parents had a chance to love them and mourn their loss.  There are many advocacy groups for these children.  Such children do not deserve to be killed.  In my book, I discuss these issues and cite statements by parents and professionals about their experiences and recommendations.

Pregnancy due to incest is a difficult and emotional topic.  It almost always involves children and is technically rape.  The reader is likely to be surprised to learn that very few parents recommend to abort the baby.  Most babies are reared alongside their child-mothers.

Pregnancy due to rape is also a very difficult topic.  The reader may also be surprised to learn that most women choose to keep the child.  There are relatively few abortions due to rape. Many such children have grown to adulthood and expressed gratitude for their lives.  The child does not deserve the death penalty for the heinous crime of another, although the suffering of the victim of rape cannot be discounted.

I also address the issues of incest and rape in my book in detail.  I strongly suggest that the reader take the time to be well informed on these and other issues, which is the reason I published the book, to inform and educate. 

Before leaving that topic, however, I must assert that abortion is never the answer that solves all problems and makes everything good again.  I have researched this issue and written about the suffering of so many women in the aftermath of killing their babies.  The experiences of these women are also something that people should understand before they flippantly advocate for abortion on the impulsive demand of an uninformed mother under great duress.

I will conclude this article with comments on the future of the Pro-Life movement, which I also present in a follow-on lecture to the conclusions in my book.  The book ends in 2020, and the overturn of Roe in 2022 gave pro-life advocates a completely new set of opportunities. Surely, we must continue to do everything that we have done in the past, but thereby we are doing little or nothing to stem the tide of new women entering the system with despair and hopelessness due to an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy in difficult life situations.

We need to advocate for social reforms by which mothers are honored for their role in society.  Pregnant women must be able to retain every benefit and opportunity in society that non-pregnant women have.  At present, pregnant women in desperate life situations hear the narrative that their life will be over if they keep the baby.  They will not be able to get their education; they will not be able to advance in their career; they will not be able to afford childcare; their baby will grow up unwanted and a burden on society, likely to become a criminal….and, it goes on.  They are told that the responsible thing to do is have an abortion.

Also in my book, I include data obtained from the women themselves who had an abortion.  They give an average of 4 reasons for having an abortion.  We know what the problems are.  They are complex and inter-related in many cases.  We cannot fix everything, but we can fix many of the problems, and we should advocate for doing so.  If we can offer real solutions to real problems, the mothers themselves will take care of their babies. 

Happily, in Texas our legislature has also provided much relief for women and families, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into the effort.  In addition to federal and state programs, there are also many county programs.  Hundreds of churches, pregnancy help centers, and maternity homes help fill the gaps.  Nevertheless, that is not the case everywhere in the United States, which leaves us with much work to do in future through our federal representatives.

I hope the reader has learned much from this article.  Please read my book for a comprehensive rendering of the history and the issues.  Make your vote in the upcoming election reflect your values.  To be pro-life requires you to be pro-woman, and to be pro-woman requires you to be pro-life.  Let us strive to be sure that the future of our society honors our wives, our mothers, our sisters, and our daughters.  Let it be said that it was our generation that started the journey back from a culture of death toward a culture of life !

Catholics who went to mass on this past weekend heard the announcements concerning Respect Life Month and encouraging respect for the life and dignity of every person from conception to natural death.  The issue is not just about abortion. It transcends all segments of society. Life is denigrated in many ways of which we are constantly reminded by the senseless violence that permeates our schools and streets and even our political venues.

However, assertions about the sanctity of life and that we must protect the dignity of every person are now being challenged every day by political ads that counter Catholic beliefs by pointing out the “cruelty” of laws that do not permit women to seek an abortion under certain circumstances. Do not be deceived by these cleverly designed political ads

These ads are “chipping away” at anything that restricts access to abortion at any stage of development.  By getting you to agree that a woman should be able to choose abortion under one circumstance, they invite you onto a slippery slope where they hope you will agree to more and more exceptions, until you have “flipped” on the issue and vote accordingly in support of those advocating more abortions.

Whereas there is not enough space to write here concerning all of the issues, I have addressed these concerns in my book “Building a Culture of Life” and I give short summaries on my web site https://buildingacultureoflife.org/  concerning abortion, contraception, incest, rape, human sex trafficking, neonaticide, infanticide, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.

I discuss in my book the entire history leading up to the Roe v Wade ruling by the Supreme Court in 1973.  The majority opinion held that the Court “did not know when a new human life begins” despite the fact that all of the medical books in the world at that time were in agreement that a new human life begins at conception.

The court also did not address the issue of when the baby growing in the womb became a person entitled by the 14th Amendment to protection of its life…”No state shall make or enforce any law which shall ….deprive any person of life…without due process of law.” 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Instead, the Court made comments to assert a new “right” to an abortion based upon interpretations of fragments of other amendments, which they asserted could mean that there is such a right.  Legal scholars at the time were baffled at the reasoning explaining the court’s decision.  For example: 

” It’s “a very bad decision,” wrote Yale Law professor John Hart Ely, a former clerk to Chief Justice Earl Warren, “because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

Those critics included a young Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In the years before she became a justice, she said the court made a mistake by going too far, too fast in its first ruling on the constitutionality of abortion.”

In my book, I quote blistering comments by the dissenting Justices in a Court largely described as “liberal”  …a Court wanting to make a decision in search of a justification for that decision.

By contrast, in June 2022, a more “conservative” court ruled that the 10th Amendment was clear in its simplicity: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The constitution says nothing about abortion (which was an anathema to the Founding Fathers) and there is no federal law making abortion a legal procedure.  Therefore, regulation of abortion is reserved to the States by the constitution…or, Congress can pass a law legalizing abortion, as has been promised by some people running for office in the present election…or, Congress could propose a new constitutional amendment legalizing abortion.

One can see that the issue of what a new federal law “legalizing abortion” could look like would be hugely controversial and divisive in a country where there is already misinformation flying everywhere.  A constitutional amendment would face similar obstacles.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Therefore, other candidates for political office embrace the Court’s decision that the people in the individual States have the right to debate the issues and elect people to make the laws in their own States.

Whereas, Catholics believe in the sanctity of human life and advocate for protection of the life and dignity of every person in all stages of life and in all conditions and circumstances, abortion advocates want to narrow these concerns to the issue of abortion and make us argue about it.

The Catholic Church is unequivocal in its position on respect for the life and dignity of every person and that a new human life begins at conception.  The issue of when a new human life begins has been accepted by medical science for nearly 200 years since discovery of the human ovum in 1827.  The discovery of DNA in the 1860’s and the elucidation of how it works in our development should have ended that part of the discussion.  Rather, those who want abortion on demand at any time for any reason assert that a baby does not become a person until it passes through the “magic tunnel” at childbirth, and some people even want the right to kill a newborn baby if it is not wanted.

The position of the Catholic Church is the reason why those currently in political power have attacked the Church.  For the same reason, Pro-Life advocates have been attacked.  At the same time, other abortion advocates have spoken and written that they know that abortion is “murder” and they do not care [see documentation in my post on that subject on my web site under “Current Events…it was a while back].  These individuals evidently just wanted to create angst and throw that accusation back into the faces of Pro-Life advocates.

Be that as it may, the real issue that I address when I speak about the future of the Pro-Life movement beyond June 2022 is not only to continue these arguments about protecting the life and dignity of every person and engaging in pro-life activities, but to address the issues cited by the women themselves who felt like they had no practical choice but to have an abortion.

There is not space here to get into these details, but it is clear that some political candidates support abortion and wish to make it a divisive political issue involving money and power, whereas it was refreshing to hear a hint in the recent vice-presidential debate that we must find solutions to the problems women face that drive them to seek an abortion. 

For that reason, we must continue everything we are doing, but we must press our leaders to address the social structure that forces women into untenable situations.  Our pregnancy help centers and both federal and state laws provide much help to women in need, many of whom are in extremely difficult circumstances.  Often, they think about abortion first.  Our job is to be sure that there are answers to every problem a woman faces and that she knows that there are solutions, that she will get help.  For example, every pregnant woman must be able to retain all of the options in life that non-pregnant women have for education and career advancement or to just choose motherhood.

In my book, I list all of the reasons women cite for getting an abortion;  there are an average of four reasons per individual.  Therefore, the challenges are before us.  However, it is certain that some of our political candidates have no intention of offering solutions to women or providing any help at all to avoid the dreadful decision to have an abortion.  The long term impact on women who have had an abortion is also callously disregarded.

We are at a crossroads in our society where respect for life has become so disregarded for so long that the consequences are felt in the tragic violence that we hear about every day.  Let this be the moment that we turn away from the path we have been on and seek fundamental solutions beginning at conception.  As we find solutions for mothers so they can choose life for their babies, we create a society that also respects the lives of older children, those with special needs, adults, the disabled, and the elderly.  It is certain that the decision we make on this issue will define who we are as a society, and each of us will feel the impact, for better or worse.

Let this be the month that we resolve to be part of the solution.  Let us change our society together.

The topic about which I am most often asked to speak is the future of the Pro-Life movement. In that talk, I make the case that we are like people in a sinking boat who are so busy bailing water that we do not fix the leak. In the case of helping women and babies through all of our current efforts, we are failing to address the reasons why women seek abortion in the first place.

Those who have read my book are also well informed on how policies on abortion over which the incumbent president has control flip back and forth with every new administration. We in the Pro-life movement are failing to notice that we must elect the president, vice-president, and members of Congress in order to have legislation passed to codify pro-life positions so they cannot be changed by the next pro-abortion president.

Therefore, I wish to interject into the current debate in which some declare that the Republicans have “abandoned” the Pro-Life movement. We should listen to ourselves. Our elected officials who have supported the Pro-Life movement with us are the same people. Their policies and voting records of the past stand to testify, and we can visit them and discuss the issues if we are uncertain. By all means, we should do so regularly and set goals together.

However, let us not pursue the status quo of flipping back and forth with changes in the presidency and digging in to only support our pregnancy help centers and legislate protection of life on a State level. We must fix the reasons women feel that abortion is their only practical choice.

Our adversaries on the issue constantly declare to women voters that Republicans want to take away their choices in life; they want to force women to have babies so all of their opportunities in life will go away; they care only for the baby and nothing for the mother. Those who have read my book have also noticed which populations are targeted for abortion, heralding back to Eugenics and Malthusian propositions.

I post these remarks so we will consider the derisive remarks being made because the new Republican political platform does not contain the strongest pro-life rhetoric, in fact seemingly softening the position of Republicans on the issues. Rather than speculate, let us ask our representatives…have they changed their minds on the issues that are important for us ? Let us also understand that these issues have been made purposefully divisive by our adversaries in order to keep Republicans from being elected. We must not take the bait.

Expressing concern is certainly appropriate, and asking those questions of the people we helped place in office is certainly a duty, but drawing conclusions and raising an alarm with intent to turn voters against the people who got us to this point and who could shape the future, is counterproductive, to say the least. Which of us has ever gotten everything we wanted when we first asked for it? It took 50 years to overturn Roe, and it was not the Democrats who strived to do so, and it was not a Democrat president who appointed judges to the Supreme Court who are devoted to what is actually meant by the words in the constitution and its amendments by which we have agreed to live.

A Democrat president and Democrats in Congress will do everything possible to undo all of our progress in respect for the life and dignity of all people in all stages of life and in all circumstances. Let us be careful not to give ammunition to our adversaries. And let us not be so short-sighted as to be satisfied with fighting the battles in our States and doing diaper drives for our local pregnancy centers.

We must change our society so that pregnant women are respected and motherhood is revered, and we must ensure that all of the life choices of pregnant women are preserved. This will not be easy, but we passed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Civil Rights Laws… we can change society to respect women and motherhood and protect all of their opportunities in life, and we can declare the personhood of the baby still in the womb. But, we cannot expect Democrats who embrace abortion and get re-elected using huge sums of abortion-tainted money to give us this legislation.

Whereas I do believe we should unite behind organizations that continue to advocate the sanctity of life and the personhood of the baby in the womb, let us also acknowledge that the Republican platform is not a “disaster.”  The positions were adopted to come more into alignment with what people think around the country, to mitigate the divisiveness fostered by the current administration, and persuade voters to choose Republicans to lead the country.

By making the Republican Party more inclusive of people with various opinions, we unite people behind things that must be done to rebuild our economy, infrastructure, and military, thereby to prevent escalation of foreign wars into global conflict. Only then can we tackle the end-game of personhood for the baby in the womb, preservation of life choices for pregnant women, and reverence for those who chose motherhood.

Before we can more forward…and do so in the next generation… the Republicans must get elected president and vice-president and also down the ballot. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 10th amendment to the Constitution gives the individual States the right to debate issues not decided in the Constitution or by federal statute.  The Democrats want to codify the essence of Roe so it would not be just a SCOTUS ruling that could be overturned by a future Court, but would the law of the land.  The Republicans under Trump’s leadership want to keep the debate in the States.

If Trump is elected, one can expect new leadership at the FDA so that their own regulations must be obeyed.  There is reason to hope that there will be a ruling that the abortion pills are unsafe to be used without supervision of a doctor and should be prescribed by a health care provider only after it has been verified that the pregnancy is in the womb.  We would like for the abortion pills to go away, but that is not going to happen;  women get them easily and are harmed, sometime killed, because of current FDA rulings. 

I believe it is necessary not to make the Republican platform largely controversial and divisive, and one should not reasonably believe that our pro-life Republican elected officials have gone off the rails and changed their minds on the sanctity of life.  In fact, one saw at the Republican National Convention that there are strong exhibitions of faith and support for the life and dignity of all persons.

We must be in this for the long term, changing the hearts and minds of the people.  In a talk I give on the subject, I define the problems we face in the future of the Pro-Life movement.  It must not be more of the same.  Fighting over every little detail, while sometimes necessary to maintain the conversation, is a tedious endeavor that obscures the end game. We must develop the vision of a society in which the life and dignity of every person is valued with pregnant women and motherhood revered.  Every pregnant woman must retain all of the opportunities in life that non-pregnant women have.

I hope the reader heard that part of comments made at the RNC when it was observed during the Trump administration that a meeting of senior advisers to Trump consisted of 5 mothers with a total of 19 children.  Let us not take one vote away from Trump by arguing that the Republican platform did not completely satisfy our own agenda.  We must be patient while being persistent. In the long run, we must have social reform on the scale of the civil rights movement respecting pregnant women and mothers and removing the obstacles that drive many women to thinking they have no real choice but to have an abortion.  Democrats will not give that to us.

As soon as Trump is (hopefully) elected, and I know that there is a sympathetic ear in the White House, I will begin this advocacy.  Obviously, our success depends on more than one 4-year term.  Trump has selected a young and charismatic (Catholic) vice-president who he hopes will carry the torch forward.  Our long term success to change our society also requires us to engage in activism, change the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens, refute the lies, and continue to elect Pro-Life candidates for Congress down the ballot. In this way, we can pass legislation that will give women every reason to protect the life of her own baby. Family life is thereby restored, and children are loved and reared with values that respect others. Let us hope and pray.

These considerations convey much emotion, and I am especially conflicted with sympathy for those who want children and are unable to conceive by natural means. Whereas children are a gift from God, there are many reasons why couples struggle with infertility. The Catholic Church has taken positions of great sympathy as well, but resists means to achieve conception which denigrate natural love and waste human life. I discuss some of the issues in my book, but technology marches along rapidly, and often gets ahead of morality and safety.

Now a bill has been introduced in Congress to establish a “right” of access to reproductive technologies. I received an email reproduced below form the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

“The need to accompany and support the increasing number of families struggling with infertility is real. But members of Congress – including many who consider themselves pro-life – are in a rush to promote access to a new national “right” to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other such technologies that destroy preborn human lives and treat people like property (like surrogacy, gene editing, and cloning). Some of the current proposals would also threaten Catholic hospitals, charities, schools, and other organizations and also threaten people that do not enable or cover these procedures. The legislation could even allow minors to receive the procedures despite parents’ objections. Please tell your members of Congress to oppose bills that promote so-called “rights” to IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies (ART) that cause the death of countless human embryos and violate human dignity.”

A form letter was suggested to send to congressional representatives in the jurisdiction where recipients live:

“Please oppose bills and provisions promoting a supposed right to in vitro fertilization (IVF) or “assisted reproductive technologies” (ART). ART can include IVF, commercial surrogacy, gene editing, reproducing children of deceased parents, chimeras, cloning, and more. Many of these practices exploit vulnerable women and commodify both them and their children. Some are also illegal in certain States, but those laws would be overridden by a new federal law. Some recent proposals would restrict the freedom of faith-based charitable employers or hospitals (and health workers) or even allow minors to overrule parents. IVF and related technologies have been associated with increased health risks for mothers and children. Restorative reproductive medicine, on the other hand, though often overlooked, can help treat the underlying causes of infertility and is worthy of greater support. Most importantly, however, IVF causes the death or abandonment of millions of children and is not pro-life nor pro-child. Please oppose these measures.”

I agree with the USCCB that this legislation is dangerous and would open the door to horrifying practices currently explicitly forbidden in the United States and many foreign countries. I sent the following addition to the form letter:

“The above form letter is well made by USCCB, but I wish to add that the federal government has no business inventing another “right” to unregulated “reproductive care” without boundaries.  Many of the practices that could thereby become lawful in the United States are forbidden in countries throughout the word as too horrifying to contemplate. The issues of lawful practice of established medical procedures, although attached to issues of morality and the wasting of human life, should be debated in the states, and laws governing these procedures should be regulated in those states by the people.  Other practices must remain forbidden by federal law. This legislation is also part of a back door approach to making abortion a codified “right.”  This proposed federal legislation must be opposed !”

I received the following reply from Texas State Senator Cornyn:

Dear Dr. Brooks:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the Right to IVF Act (S. 4445). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.

S. 4445 was introduced on June 3, 2024, and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. S. 4445 would establish a statutory right to fertility treatments. On June 13, 2024, I voted against this bill because this legislation goes beyond simply expanding access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments and would prevent states from ever implementing any sort of common-sense limits on assisted reproductive technology, such as gene-edited embryos or age restrictions for minors. S. 4445 would also waive conscience and religious liberty protections included in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (P.L. 103-141). As a pro-life senator, I am concerned about the precedent this would set for other issues of religious beliefs. For these reasons, I could not support S. 4445.

IVF has helped many parents complete their families and bring long-awaited children into this world. This medical advancement has helped mothers and fathers across the country overcome the devastating diagnosis of infertility, and it is the most effective fertility treatment option currently available.

Infertility occurs when a couple is unable to conceive after at least one year. This condition can be caused by a number of health factors, including genetic or hormonal disorders. Physical or emotional stress, weight, alcohol use, and age can also contribute to infertility. The CDC estimates that over 13% of women and 1 in 5 married couples struggle with infertility. Over the last forty years, the use of IVF has grown substantially across the United States. In 2021, almost 100,000 infants were born because of successful fertility treatments, primarily IVF.

While IVF is an important tool, we should also be looking at addressing the underlying causes of infertility. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Reproductive Empowerment and Support through Optimal Restoration (RESTORE) Act (S. 4533), which would take a more holistic approach to addressing the heartbreaking issue of infertility. Specifically, the RESTORE Act would improve education and training opportunities for women and health care providers to better diagnose and resolve reproductive health conditions. This bill was introduced on June 13, 2024, and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Committee. I hope my Democratic colleagues will be willing to consider this legislation during the 118^th Congress.

I am always appreciative when Texans take the time to reach out and share their concerns about an issue that is personal to so many. Thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely, JOHN CORNYN, United States Senator

To the above, I add that millions of people in the earliest stages of development have been frozen during the IVF process and await their chance to be born. Most will be discarded. Those that are chosen to develop into a baby scream at us that each of these frozen embryos is a real person…just very tiny and in the earliest stages of development. Given a chance, they become babies, toddlers, teenagers, and adults like us. We all developed this way.

Abortion survivors, those intended to die from abortion but lived to develop into a baby, also inform us that they may have been tiny and still developing in the womb, but they were people then just as they are now and that their lives matter and should have been protected.

I admitted up front that I am conflicted on the issue of IVF, such is my compassion for those with infertility. One of my best friends and his wife resorted to IVF. Their daughter is a lovely young lady, very bright and productive, a credit to all good things in society. Perhaps technology will one day rescue us from the waste of human life that comes with the procedure as it is now. In the meantime, I invite the reader to read the Catholic position on reproductive technology and ponder all of these issues.

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology

I have been busy with much to do the last two months so I did not realize that it has been so long since my last post. April, May, and June are usually my busiest months, and April/May have not disappointed. June promises to be more of the same.

From the title of this post, one can see that I am departing somewhat from the content of my typical messages. However, we who are Pro-Life respect the life and dignity of all persons in all stages of life, in all conditions, and in all circumstances, from conception to natural death. This often leads us into conflict with persons who disagree on those points and with governing authorities that enforce another view. At the same time, violent conflict in other places around the world threatens the life and dignity of large populations. We care very much about the plight of others, both at home and abroad, but there often seems to be little that we can do about circumstances in other countries.

However, in our current world, we are assaulted daily with information that is designed to change our beliefs and cause us to voice an opinion or take some action to benefit the party propagating the information. Have-truths and completely false information are flung at us out of historical and contemporary context. Deceit and corruption manipulate us. Hatred and violence destroy lives and threatens to drag us into the fray.

Over the last four years I wrote a book that I have titled “A Timeline of the Journey of Humankind.” This required much research so I could tell the story of humankind and not omit important events that have shaped the modern world. It is being printed at this time and will be available on Amazon and wherever books are sold in a few weeks.

During my research and writing, I learned much about what has shaped current events. It has become evident that the public is largely ignorant of history, that there will be no attempt to teach history in schools so that our young people will be critical thinkers, and that public figures, even if they know the facts, do not want to share them with the public.

In fairness, the information we receive today is in sound bites and videos that are designed to titillate our senses, and we have not been taught to investigate supposed facts, do our own research, and form our own opinions. For that reason, I wrote both about the good, the bad, and the ugly in history, in context, throughout the manuscript, so we can observe our successes and failures and, hopefully, find a better way forward.

What has disturbed me a great deal in recent months concerns the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East. I am frustrated with the mixing of fact and fiction, the way in which the American public is being manipulated with misinformation, and the human tragedies that are a part of armed conflicts.

As the war in Ukraine enters its third year, we are asked to demonize Putin, as if he is responsible for all the evil in the whole world. Similarly, we are called to lust for the blood of Russian soldiers. Nations that could have prevented the war are now planning to prolong the violence. Yet, there is no discussion of why Russia took this action and how it should have been prevented.

In my book, I relate how NATO made an agreement with the Soviet Union that allowed Germany to rearm a military after WW2 and join NATO. There was to be no further expansion of NATO to other countries near borders with Russia. After invasion of Russia by Tartars, Mongols, French (Napoleon), and Germans (Hitler), Russia wanted (and was granted) the Eastern Block countries as a buffer zone against future invasion from the west. Ukraine provided a buffer zone along the south and protected Moscow while ensuring access to the Black Sea by the Russian navy .

Instead of abiding by that agreement, more and more countries were allowed to join NATO, especially after the breakup of the Soviet Union, until a hostile force of nations armed with nuclear weapons was pointed at Russia. Ukraine also became independent, but eastern Ukraine (heavily ethnic Russians) protected Russia (Moscow) from the south.

However, Ukraine has continuously been consumed by corruption, and western Ukraine is heavily influenced by Europe. In the Donbas (eastern Ukraine) and in Crimea, the people are Russian-speaking ethnic Russians with family and friends and historical ties to Russia. Corrupt Ukrainian governments with ties to Europe have exploited these populations and bred discontent. Then, the Ukrainian government began to discuss an economical union with Europe (choosing that option over Russia/Asia in a blatantly corrupt process). Then, to threaten Russia, there was movement for Ukraine to join NATO. Europeans showed such interest in this prospect while Russia began to see its sovereignty threatened.

Whereas I must simplify the discussion and leave out details that are in my book, these decisions led to insurrection in the Donbas and civil war in 2014, with Russian invading and annexing Crimea (without a shot being fired) to secure the bases for the Russian navy there in the context of the civil war.

After years of civil war in Ukraine, and with Russia supporting eastern Ukraine, the West and Russia became more polarized. Russia began to see the need to use force to establish a buffer zone against an increasingly hostile Ukraine that was progressively aligning with Europe. Russia was not going to have a hostile NATO country on its border and was not going to give up its naval bases in Crimea.

Nevertheless, Putin advanced the prospects for a treaty between Russian and NATO in which (1) NATO would decrease its weaponry along borders with Russia, and (2) NATO would agree that Ukraine would never become a NATO member. NATO dismissed the proposition and did not agree to any further talks on these issues. In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine in force.

Many people on both sides have needlessly died, suffered, and been displaced. We are asked to demonize Russia, kill Russians, and not to ask why the violence could not have been prevented. In the meantime, corrupt Ukrainian officials have made a fortune off US funds and moved abroad. Western countries seem only interested in prolonging the violence and the suffering of the Ukrainian people, which is largely the result of their own poor leadership.

In the Middle East, hatred of Jews has led to even worse carnage. Iran continues to provide money and weaponry to militants in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. They make no secret about wanting all of the Jews out of the Middle East. The militants they sponsor openly call for the murder of Jews, simply because they were born to their parents. But, why the hatred of Jews? When hatred is mindless, one just has to accept it without logical explanation.

However, we can know some factual information to provide context to the current situation. The history of the Middle East is woven through over 3000 years of conflicts that go back to when Biblical Israelites that fled from slavery in Egypt settled the area. But, we must fast-forward to WW1. The Ottoman Empire controlled vast parts of the Middle East and aligned with Germany. When the Allies defeated Germany, the Ottomans were also defeated and the British took control of what is now Israel and Jordan after being part of the Ottoman Empire for 400 years.

Whereas, once again, there is not enough space here to recite information available in my book, we can only note that a movement arose among Jews in Europe to find a place where Jews could live and not be persecuted, displaced, and murdered. The following is an excerpt from an appendix in my book:

“Forced deportation of Jews dates as far back as 733 BC when
ordered by King Tiglath-Pileser III (745–727 BC) of the neo-Assyrian
Empire when he conquered the Kingdom of Israel. Other than
massacres, expulsions, and slavery after the Assyrian and Babylonian
conquests, Jews were expelled from Rome in 139 BC, AD 19, and
AD 41–53, then from lands occupied by the Roman Empire after
the Jewish-Roman and Kitos wars and following rebellion against
Byzantium in 629.

Other such expulsions were from Alexandria in 38 and 415;
from Minorca in 418; by the Visigoths in 612; by Muslims throughout
the seventh century; from Mainz in 1012; during the Crusades
(1095–1350); by Muslims in Spain in the mid-thirteenth century;
from Bavaria in 1276, 1442, and 1551; from France in 1182, 1254,
1306, 1322, 1359, and 1394 (often readmitted for a ransom/bribe);
from Vienne, France, in 1253; from Naples, Italy, in 1288, 1293,
1495, and 1510; from England in 1290; from Berne, Switzerland, in
1294 and 1392; from Hungary in 1360; from Austria in 1420; again
from Vienna in 1669; from Passau in 1478; from Ravenna in 1491;
from Spain in 1492; from Sicily in 1493; from Portugal in 1497;
from Nuremberg 1499; from Berlin in 1510; from Regensburg in
1519; from Pressburg in 1526; from Calabria, Italy, in 1554; from the
Papal States in 1569 and 1593; from Milan in 1597; from Frankfurt
in 1614; from Yemen (by Muslims) in 1679; and from (French controlled)
Haiti in 1683.

This list is by no means complete and does not address other
systemic persecutions, malign treatments, disparagement, and
discrimination over the last 2,800 years. To the shame of modern
cultures, this prejudice is persistent today in corners of society and
widely in some nations around the globe, some with deadly intent.
Ulysses S. Grant expelled Jews from Tennessee, Mississippi, and
Kentucky in 1862. The Russians carried out pogroms from 1880 to
the 1910s with emigration of 2.5 million Jews. The Nazis killed six
million Jews while millions more Jews suffered horribly in World
War II. The Fascists in Italy expelled Jews from Italian cities from
1943 to 1944.

In 1948, the state of Israel was established in the historical
Jewish homeland. Jews from all over the world have immigrated to
Israel with hope of being safe from persecution. Unfortunately, the
state of Israel exists under constant threat of destruction by other
countries in the region.”

On October 7, 2023, thousands of rockets were launched from Gaza at Israeli cities, and the world saw acts of pure evil as hatred of Jews included murder, rape, dismemberment, and taking of hostages, including the elderly and children as young as 9 months of age. This has led to war in Gaza with much destruction and loss of life. The organization that initiated this conflict is known as Hamas, and they have earned the designation as a terrorist group more than any other.

However, Hamas was elected by the people in Gaza over a somewhat less militant competitor group vying to govern the territory. Hamas then began to control the people of Gaza and promote hatred of Jews, requiring the glorification of murdering Jews, requiring even small children to recite slogans denigrating Jews and calling from their infancy for the killing of Jews; no more elections were allowed to change leadership.

Sponsored by Iran, Hamas developed a spider web tunnel system under Gaza of about 450 miles through which they could move men and weaponry. These tunnels connect weapons facilities and rocket launchers with mosques, schools, and hospitals so that Israel could not strike the terrorists and their weaponry without risking collateral damage of propaganda value to Hamas, even if non-combatants were not harmed. Hamas also carries out its strikes against Israel from population centers so that civilians are guaranteed to become casualties, sometimes from Hamas’s own ordnance. Likewise, Hamas has usurped fuel, food, water, and medical supplies so that non-combatants are left in desperate situations, once again to blame Israel.

Now we see anti-Semitism raising its ugly head again all over the world, even in the United States, despite our Civil Rights laws. After WW2, and the defeat of Germany with its eugenics programs and attempts to exterminate Jews, anti-Semitism dropped out of popularity. Criticism of those promoting hatred of Jews has driven them back to a position where they now begin to declare themselves not to be “anti-Semitic,” just “anti-Zionist” (despite their vitriolic attacks on all Jews everywhere just for being Jewish).

So what is a Zionist. Zionism became a movement after WW2 to establish a place where Jews could live and not be subject to discrimination, persecution, deportation, and murder. The United Nations decided to create in the former Ottoman territories occupied by Great Britain in the aftermath of WW2 the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Sparsely populated territories were divided for both a Jewish state and a Palestinian state (now called a “two-state solution”).

As the British withdrew according to the UN plan, the state of Israel was declared in the territory allocated to it, but surrounding Arab nations would not tolerate coexistence with a Jewish presence in Palestine. They also did not want an independent Palestinian state. They wanted the Jews gone. They attacked Israel from all sides with intent to kill the Jews and drive out any survivors, making the Middle East once again totally Muslim. That war and subsequent wars resulted in Israel prevailing and establishing more defensible boundaries.

So, what is Zionism? It is the movement to preserve a place where Jews can live and not be subject to discrimination, persecution, deportation, and murder…a place where they can fight back. So, simply put, when one runs from the label of anti-Semitism to that of anti-Zionism, it is a statement that a nation-state where Jews can defend themselves is not to be tolerated, that there should be no place where Jews can escape discrimination, persecution, deportation, and murder. One cannot say that such a position is ignorance; it is driven by mindless hatred that neither we nor they can understand.

As groups around the world call for a “cease-fire in Gaza,” they mean that Israel should stop its military from destroying weapons and armaments being used to attack and kill Jews (along with the militants operating these devices) and to give up on rescuing the surviving hostages. Israel should let Hamas continue its attacks against Israel and just keep the hostages. Seriously ??

It is hard to know about the suffering of non-combatants in Gaza and not be able to do anything about it. However, Hamas could end the violence at any time by declaring a ceasefire and agreeing to release the surviving hostages and the bodies they are also holding in captivity. Instead, they plan to fight until they do not have the means to continue to attack Israel. That leaves Israel with no choice, and non-combatants are caught in the middle.

Hamas reports increasing numbers of civilian casualties to promote sympathy for their own casualties. They also travel with their families and carry out their activities with their families so that their women and children get killed with them. However, the UN has now decreased substantially the estimated number of civilian casualties. They are over-reported by Hamas for propaganda purposes. Hamas wants the suffering to continue because the goal is to make it so horrible for so long that the world will turn against Israel, even thought Hamas still holds hostages. Are the hostages just to be discarded?

Well, Hitler would not do anything to limit the suffering of the German people either. Millions died while he knew the war was hopeless. Whereas there are no really good data, it is also estimated that nearly one million German POW’s and as many as nine million civilians died of starvation after WW2. Who is responsible for that? Who started the violence that brought down the wrath of the world on Germany that led to that tragedy?

The boundaries of the nations and territories in the Middle East are derived from very complex situations arising out of decades of conflicts. Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen are in shambles with violence and poverty and suffering of the people. Egypt is in poverty with limited resources despite avoiding to being drawn into violence again, and they refused to administer Gaza in the aftermath of loosing a war with Israel. Jordan prospers after refusing to be drawn into this morass of hatred and violence again, but they abandoned the West Bank territory, refusing to administer it after a failed war with Israel. Thus, these areas are a cesspool of poverty, ignorance, and violence, partially administered by an ineffective Palestinian Authority with a simmering hatred of Jews.

Now, the people of the world have become pawns to be fought over through propaganda appealing to compassion for those non-combatants that are suffering. In that statement we come full circle. We in Pro-Life respect the life and dignity of all persons, and we are called to do so even when those people are not likeable. We can do that in our prayers when it is not possible to be of material help. We can only hope and pray for an end to violence.

Unfortunately, in this messy business, where we are slammed with images and slogans and our hearts are wrenched by the suffering of the innocent, it is not possible to conclude the suffering of the people by prolonging the violence. Yet, there are calls from some leaders to reward Hamas by meeting some of their demands. By encouraging Hamas, the people of Gaza suffer longer as the violence is prolonged, since Israel will not ever stop seeking the release of the hostages. They understand very well what is at stake.

Hamas must be rendered incapable of attacking Israel again and the surviving hostages must be freed. It is baffling that the leaders of the world do not call for this every day. If a terrorist group is ever allowed to benefit from its violence and the taking of hostages, this will become a tactic to be repeated again and again.

As messy as it is, Israel must be supported in its war to eliminate those who resort to violence and the taking of hostages. They must be helped to do so as quickly as possible so the people of Gaza can receive relief. That is where Pro-Life people must take their stand. We respect the life and the dignity of the hostages also. They must be freed, and this tactic of taking hostages as a means to try to obtain a political goal must not be repeated. It only leads to more violence and the suffering of more innocent people.

As we prepare on this Good Friday to celebrate our hopes through the resurrection of Jesus, let us reaffirm the value and inviolability of every human life. On March 25 we observed the International Day of the Unborn Child, and it was on this day in 1995 that Pope St. John Paul II issued his timeless encyclical Evangelium vitae (The Gospel of Life). I have selected excerpts from his writings for this post, for who could deliver this message better. He reaffirms the “greatness and the inestimable value of human life.” For the sake of brevity in this limited space, I have copied parts of his text with intent to make the overall message flow with fidelity. However, I urge the reader to soak up this wisdom by meditating on the entire encyclical: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

For people of all faith traditions, he offered the following quotation from Vatican II thirty years previous to his encyclical in 1995: “The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: ‘Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator’.”

He goes on: “The end result of this is tragic: not only is the fact of the destruction of so many human lives still to be born or in their final stage extremely grave and disturbing, but no less grave and disturbing is the fact that conscience itself, darkened as it were by such widespread conditioning, is finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between good and evil in what concerns the basic value of human life.”

“Today there exists a great multitude of weak and defenseless human beings, unborn children in particular, whose fundamental right to life is being trampled upon. If, at the end of the last century [the 1800s] the Church could not be silent about the injustices of those times, still less can she be silent today, when the social injustices of the past, unfortunately not yet overcome, are being compounded in many regions of the world by still more grievous forms of injustice and oppression, even if these are being presented as elements of progress in view of a new world order.”

“To all the members of the Church, the people of life and for life, I make this most urgent appeal, that together we may offer this world of ours new signs of hope, and work to ensure that justice and solidarity will increase and that a new culture of human life will be affirmed, for the building of an authentic civilization of truth and love.”

“In fact, while the climate of widespread moral uncertainty can in some way be explained by the multiplicity and gravity of today’s social problems, and these can sometimes mitigate the subjective responsibility of individuals, it is no less true that we are confronted by an even larger reality, which can be described as a veritable structure of sin. This reality is characterized by the emergence of a culture which denies solidarity and in many cases takes the form of a veritable ‘culture of death’.”

“Individuals, families, groups and associations, albeit for different reasons and in different ways, all have a responsibility for shaping society and developing cultural, economic, political and legislative projects which, with respect for all and in keeping with democratic principles, will contribute to the building of a society in which the dignity of each person is recognized and protected and the lives of all are defended and enhanced.”

“The family has a special role to play throughout the life of its members, from birth to death. It is truly “the sanctuary of life: the place in which life-the gift of God-can be properly welcomed and protected against the many attacks to which it is exposed, and can develop in accordance with what constitutes authentic human growth. Consequently the role of the family in building a culture of life is decisive and irreplaceable.”

“No less critical in the formation of conscience is the recovery of the necessary link between freedom and truth. As I have frequently stated, when freedom is detached from objective truth it becomes impossible to establish personal rights on a firm rational basis; and the ground is laid for society to be at the mercy of the unrestrained will of individuals or the oppressive totalitarianism of public authority. Where God is denied and people live as though he did not exist, or his commandments are not taken into account, the dignity of the human person and the inviolability of human life also end up being rejected or compromised.”

While reading his entire encyclical, one sees that he makes the case for how the Church’s teachings regarding human life are at the heart of Jesus’ entire Gospel message. “The Gospel is meant to permeate all cultures and give them life from within, so that they may express the full truth about the human person and about human life. “

“We need to begin with the renewal of a culture of life within Christian communities themselves. Too often it happens that believers, even those who take an active part in the life of the Church, end up by separating their Christian faith from its ethical requirements concerning life, and thus fall into moral subjectivity and certain objectionable ways of acting. With great openness and courage, we need to question how widespread is the culture of life today among individual Christians, families, groups and communities in our Dioceses. With equal clarity and determination we must identify the steps we are called to take in order to serve life in all its truth. At the same time, we need to promote a serious and in-depth exchange about basic issues of human life with everyone, including non-believers, in intellectual circles, in the various professional spheres and at the level of people’s everyday life.”

Indeed, there is much work to be done if we are to honor what Jesus has called us to so. Let us all find that place in which we can do our part in “Building a Culture of Life.”

I will end this post, fittingly, I hope, with an admonition of Pope St. John Paul II that I hold dear to my heart: “Never tire of firmly speaking out in defense of life from its conception and do not be deterred from the commitment to defend the dignity of every human person with courageous determination.”

If you have been reading my posts, you know about the challenging issues of when a new human life begins and when preborn humans in the womb become people. The seminal issue in the pro-life movement now is the assertion that a fertilized human egg becomes a person at the moment of conception and is entitled by our Constitution to protection of its life.

The scientific fact that a new human life with unique DNA begins at the moment of conception is indisputable. That does not keep some people from saying that they know that abortion is the killing of a developing human being and that they still think abortion should be a free choice by the mother. Of course, that leads to questions concerning what age in the womb or after birth and at any other time in life should a person be legally able to take the life of another human being. If we do not respect life in all stages, then why respect life in any stage. If it is OK to kill an unborn child, then why should we be concerned when someone puts a newborn baby in the trash or shoots up a school to kill children or shoots down our citizens in the streets?

In my book Building a Culture of Life, I discuss the demographics of women who choose abortion and the reasons for that choice. I have a talk on this subject, as well. Therefore, I will not at this time delve further into the difficult circumstances in which women often find themselves, nor will I elaborate on what we can do to minimize such hardships. I also cannot spend space here on the issues of IVF. There is a brief discussion of IVF under a tab on the home page, and it is further discussed in my book.

Rather, at this time, let us return to the question of whether a human egg fertilized by sperm outside the body is a person from the moment of that fertilization. In IVF, several fertilized eggs are allowed to undergo several cell divisions in the lab, the beginnings of development into a baby. Then, some of the eggs that are judged to be the “best” are implanted into the womb of the mother. The others are frozen for possible use in the future if a viable pregnancy does not occur with the first attempt.

At first, the answer would seem to be that a new human person begins development into a baby from the moment the egg is fertilized, no matter whether it was fertilized in the woman’s body or in the lab outside her body. That seems intuitive. However, it not only raises question of whether the frozen embryos are people, but whether they are property, and are they heritable, and what act is it if those embryos are destroyed. If killing a baby in the womb is homicide, then the question is whether destroying frozen embryos is also homicide. And, that gets us to the point of this post.

At a fertility clinic in Alabama, three women underwent IVF and delivered healthy babies. Their excess fertilized eggs were frozen for possible use in future. “In December 2020, a patient of that hospital entered the fertility clinic’s cryo-preservation unit and opened one of the tanks in which frozen embryos are stored. These embryos are stored at sub-freezing temperatures, so when the patient put his hand in and grabbed some of the embryos, he burned himself and dropped the embryos, which hit the ground and were destroyed.” (Johns Hopkins, 2-27-24).

The plaintiff couples brought lawsuits against the fertility clinic and the hospital under the Alabama Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. The trial judge dismissed the case, saying that embryos that exist in vitro are not people or children for the purposes of the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.

On appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court, the lower court ruling was reversed on February 16, 2024, finding that the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies “to all unborn children without limitation. And that includes unborn children who are not located in utero at the time they are killed.” The court also cited a 2018 Alabama constitutional amendment that says “it is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children,including the right to life.”

In other words, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are children. It follows that implanted embryos, by natural or IVF means, are children, distinct human persons, from the moment of conception. The lawsuit seeking punitive damages for the wrongful death of their children was allowed to proceed.

When embryos are thawed and prepared for implantation in the woman’s womb during IVF, they may be damaged or destroyed. This gave concern for legal liability and the question of whether such loss of an embryo could be homicide. This sent shock waves through the medical community involved with IVF and those who favor abortion for any reason at any stage of development.

Then the argument ensured that IVF is actually a pro-life procedure, that it creates new life. That comment leaves those who believe in a divine Creator feeling somewhat uncomfortable, and it leads into theological issues of ensoulment (which we will skip !) However, IVF has provided many couples with the ability to have children they otherwise could not have. The emotional impact on these people must not be overlooked, but the fact that tiny humans in development are being frozen and manipulated and willfully discarded also cannot be overlooked. There are roughly one and one-half million embryos in frozen storage around the world at this time.

Alabama lawmakers promptly acted to pass legislation providing “criminal immunity for manufacturers of products used in IVF treatment if embryos are destroyed, though not civil immunity. Manufacturers of goods used in IVF found responsible would be required to compensate for damages, based on the cost of the fertilization treatment paid by the family.” “In Louisiana, intentionally destroying “viable” embryos is prohibited, which means doctors are not allowed to dispose of any embryos that are still dividing. An embryo that fails to continue developing within a 36-hour period is deemed non-viable and loses its limited legal status as a person.” (Alabama Reflector 3-11-24)

All parities agree that this complicated and emotionally charged issue is far from settled. There is much discussion taking place, but there are no easy answers in this intersection of science, where it means so much to couples to have children, with the horror of discarding human lives in the process.

Watch this space for follow-up on this issue over time, as well as follow-up on the issue before SCOTUS of whether the FDA abrogated its responsibility in approving the abortion pills, and if so, where will we go from here on the availability of such drugs. In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, we are likely to see additional ramifications over time. Let us realize that the issues are very much alive and in dispute so that we do not become complacent but ensure that we understand the issues, make informed decisions, and be sure our voices are heard.

A prayer by George Washington:

Almighty God: We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large. And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

Abraham Lincoln once said, ““I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom, and that of all about me seemed insufficient for the day.””  And, he penned this prayer:

Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people, the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those whom in Thy name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth. In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

It is well that we pray the same, share these prayers with others, and add our own.

As we prepare to vote for the future leadership of our country, let us remember the ways in which freedom of religion has been attacked over the last few years and that Catholics have been especially targeted for fundamental belief in the sanctity of life.  The right of religious people to assemble has been infringed and prayers for the protection of life and dignity for all persons have been mocked. 

It does seem odd that so many people do not embrace the sanctity of life but readily support the taking of life for almost any reason.  Perhaps they do not realize that, when they accept the taking of the life of an unborn child, that acceptance leads inevitably to violence against our children in schools, shooting each other in the streets and in our homes, and calls for assisted suicide and euthanasia.  By such acts, the perpetrators view their actions as ridding society of lives that they consider without value. 

It should be clear that, when life is not respected in all stages and conditions of life, it is not respected in any stage or condition of life.

Let our mantra be that we respect the life and dignity of all persons in all stages of life, in all conditions, and in all circumstances, from conception to natural death. 

Let us demand no less from our leaders when we vote.

I will devote the space for this post to educate concerning the controversial statues that are named Now (2023) and Witness (2023) by artist Shahzia Sikander. As noted when I began posts on this web site, my purpose is to inform and educate, to keep the reader up to date on relevant pro-life topics. This one is certainly mired in all kinds of misinformation and controversy. It all started when the statue Now was displayed in New York, and much has been said and written about it.

It probably would have been well to just ignore the thing as a weird piece of art. However, the artist has attempted to explain it with several comments on symbolism that are wrapped up in controversial political issues, and the imagery itself suggests all kinds of things that the artist apparently did not intend. Therefore, it is fair to say that the object makes no statement regarding anything good, and it seems also fair to say that the artist has simply injected into the piece her own political opinions and cultural perspective. People viewing the statue will not know what she is thinking, so she has had to try to explain it, and that has led to even more controversy.

It is best to let the artist and her critics speak for themselves:

First, a January 28, 2023 article from the Catholic News Agency: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253489/how-the-satanic-new-york-city-courthouse-statue-is-all-about-abortion “An unusual new 8-foot-tall golden statue standing on top of a New York City courthouse has sparked controversy, with many across the country reacting to its unveiling with shock and disgust. One media outlet even called it a ‘satanic golden medusa.’ ” “According to the artist who created the statue, it’s a symbol of women’s empowerment and an expression of support for abortion. The “satanic” imagery so many have pointed out closely resembles that employed by a pro-abortion group dedicated to banning religion from the public square.” The article goes on and is worth reading.

An article published by Fox News on January 26, 2023, says:

‘Satanic golden medusa’ abortion statue outside New York City courthouse ruthlessly mocked: ‘Monstrosity’

The sculpture is meant to represent the fight for abortion rights

…and goes on to say:

“Twitter [at that time still “Twitter”] users ruthlessly mocked and condemned a new statue installed atop a New York City courthouse, with many claiming that it had allusions to “demonic” imagery.

The new eight-foot-tall golden statue by Pakistani American artist Shahzia Sikander now stands on the roof of the state courthouse in New York’s Flatiron district next to previous statues of respected lawmakers [sic] Moses, Confucius and Zoroaster [the latter two dubiously included by the author as “lawmakers”]. 

The Now statute, with curling braids and tentacle-like arms rises from a lotus flower, was created to pay homage to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her fight for abortion. The statue is adorned with the late Supreme Court Justice’s signature lace collar. 

Sikander said the statue is part of an “urgent and necessary cultural reckoning underway as New York reconsiders traditional representations of power in public spaces and recasts civic structures to better reflect 21st-century social mores.’”

“Was there any public input whatsoever before a satanic golden medusa demon with tentacle arms was installed atop a downtown courthouse?,” NYC Councilwoman Vickie Paladino asked. “Christopher Bedford, the executive editor of an upcoming journal at Common Sense Society, compared the statue to a demon and a “terrifying” civilization that practiced human sacrifice found inside an archeological dig.” “

“Speaking more to the statue, the artist said the statue was called Now because it is needed in a moment when women’s reproductive rights are under siege. “

“She is a fierce woman and a form of resistance in a space that has historically been dominated by patriarchal representation,” she added.

That is how the controversy started. But, Sikander is Muslim, so she may have inadvertently (or perhaps not) set into motion another angle on the statue. February 3, 2023, Umm Jafar wrote in MuslimSkeptic:

“Shahzia Sikander, 53, the paradigm-busting Pakistani American artist behind the work, said the sculpture was part of an urgent and necessary cultural reckoning underway as New York, along with cities across the world, reconsiders traditional representations of power in public spaces and recasts civic structures to better reflect 21st-century social mores.”

“It’s also no coincidence that a “Muslim” artist was commissioned to design this statue, one that is dedicated to the fight for unrestricted abortion rights. Not only is it a blatant effort towards warping this idea that Muslims are dedicated to their traditional values and morals, but it is also a clear attempt to socially engineer and further liberalize Muslims through the normalizing and propping up of degenerate Muslims.”

“Sikander claims the horns represent female “sovereignty” and “autonomy.” The body “loops out and into itself” representing the idea that the body cannot be “fixed, grounded, or stereotyped.” “

“This satanic monstrosity, dedicated to promoting the murder of unborn children, symbolizes much of what the West’s new religion is. It is a religion emphasizing the worship of the self.”

“Indeed, the artist was correct in morphing the female shape into an animal-like form since the worship of the self along with its desires removes oneself from being human. It morphs you into an untamable beast, endlessly ramming your horns into all values and morals just to attain the thing you desire the most at that moment in time.”

There is some wisdom there, which is shared by many holding Christian beliefs, but it risks to impugn Western society at multiple levels, denigrating the good with the bad.

On June 21, 2023, Bible Discovery jumped into the fray: https://biblediscoverytv.com/commentary/2023/satanic-nationalism-and-the-pitchfork-in-the-road/

On February 12, 2024, I received an email from Houston Coalition for Life advising me that “A deplorable 8 ft. tall statue celebrating abortion and honoring Ruth Bader Ginsburg was brought to the University of Houston main campus [Cullen Family Plaza] under the stealth of night last Thursday [February 8]. It was supposed to be installed there on February 28th [and displayed through October 31]. The university probably thought that if it was brought earlier they could avoid any protest.”

“It has been referred to as a “satanic golden medusa” with tentacle-like arms. The hair is parted in the middle and twisted into braids similar to the goat horns of the baphomet [a goat-headed horned pagan deity, also used as a symbol for Satanic organizations].” Thus, it is particularly offensive to Christian religious groups.

HCL has asked people to call university officials and/or sent email expressing opinions on the issue, and I have already done so, politely:

“Therefore, I encourage the university to display the object just long enough to stimulate discussion, and then to move it along…it will have served its purpose.  Keeping the object displayed for a prolonged period of time will inevitably be seen in a negative way as an attempt to influence the direction of debates and to stir up acrimonious exchanges and to influence political elections.  People will be drawn into the one hot button issue; the university would be seen as a partner with those who do not see the value in every human life.

If the university wants to take a stand in public, let it be said that the university respects the life and dignity of all persons in all stages of life, in all conditions, and in all circumstances.

That would cover issues of race, religion, sexuality, special needs, disability, elderly, etc, and also the issues faced by those women who choose motherhood and those women who are pregnant in very difficult circumstances.  Let us debate how we can draw humankind together, how we can understand and respect one another, and how we can help women with unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.  Those who know anything about the issue know that abortion is not the solution that solves all the problems a woman has with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. 

Let us not simplify the issue to that of “to abort or not to abort,” especially if it is advanced for the purposes of money and power.  Let us not just decide one way or another and then walk away from these women as objects in a debate, leaving them in the same untenable circumstances, but even further damaged.”

The work was co-commissioned by Public Art UHS (underwritten by the Brown Foundation) and the Madison Square Park Conservancy. Now remains displayed in New York. The statue Witness is temporarily on display at U of H.

The U of H web site explains the statue Witness as “a grand allegorical female figure that allows for multiple meanings and possibilities. With its unrooted arms and legs, the figure is literally ungrounded, floating, resisting permanence. She is part of a diaspora whose home is where one chooses to put roots. Her skirt is made to mimic the domed and stained glass ceiling of the Manhattan Appellate Courthouse, and also operates as the figure’s uplifting protection. It also references longitudinal and latitudinal lines.This skirt is adorned with Arabic writing (“havah”) that is decorated with mosaics composed of many small colorful tiles. The golden figure shines in the sun and glows in the night’s light, with a radiance appropriate for an everyday-goddess. Her head is decorated with golden rams horns—two thick braids—that form a crown of female potency.” https://publicartuhs.org/event/shahzia-sikander The reasons advanced to explain why Sikander’s work was chosen to be displayed are contained under “Frequently Asked Questions.”

Despite the explanation of the art, the central figure in the sculpture closely resembles the statue Now, and has evoked similar controversy. From Hyperallergic.com: “Referencing the death of RBG [Justice Ginsburg] and the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, Sikander also speaks to the fact that those very rights afforded to women are at imminent risk. “In the process, it is the dismissal, too, of the indefatigable spirit of the women, who have been collectively fighting for their right to their own bodies over generations,” Sikander said. “However, the enduring power lies with the people who step into and remain in the fight for equality. That spirit and grit is what I want to capture in both the sculptures.” “

As is often the case with controversial subjects, there are elements in her statements with which reasonable people can agree…women, along with men, often exhibit an “indefatigable spirit” and “grit.” But, she missed the fact that equality of opportunity for women and men is already encoded in US law. However, the “right” of women to have an abortion is measured against the right of children in development in the womb not to be killed by their mother. She may view pregnancy as an inconvenience and that a woman should have the right to kill the child growing within her, but pro-life advocates view that incipient life as a person from the moment of conception, thus entitled to protection of its life under the US Constitution.

Sikander’s failure to recognize the value of every human life and that most women embrace motherhood as an honor and that most men respect and honor women for their role as wives and mothers (not to exclude their right to a career) is at the core of the controversy. Western civilizations do not denigrate women and oppress them systemically and do not cause women to struggle the way they do in some Muslim societies. Sikander should take her message on the road and let it be heard in those societies.

Houston Coalition for Life held a “peaceful prayer vigil” at Cullen Family Plaza on February 13 at 3:00 pm. Most of us could not be there, but let us all make our voices heard by phone or emails. HCL asks us to please call and email the President of the University

Mrs. Renu Khator

President, University of Houston

Email: president@uh.edu

Phone: (713)-743-8839

And please emailthe contacts for the Arts department at U of H:

Emily Messa- eamessa@central.uh.edu (Senior Associate Vice Chancellor and Senior Associate Vice President for Administration)

Rachel Mohl- rgmohl@central.uh.edu (Executive Director and Chief Curator for Public Art UHS)

Joseph Blanchard- jsblanch@cougarnet.uh.edu (GA representative on the UHS Public Art Committee)

The US Supreme Court has announced that it will hear an appeal by the FDA in the case of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine [AHM] (et.al.) v. FDA (et.al.) in which AHM alleges (essentially) that the FDA has violated its fiduciary responsibility to the public and its own policies by approving the abortion pills (mifepristone and misoprostol) without adequate investigation of the safety of the drugs, and that the FDA “acted unlawfully in removing common-sense safeguards for women by authorizing dangerous mail-order abortions.”

The issues being alleged are (1) that the drugs are unsafe and can cause injury and death to the women using them, and (2) that it is unlawful for the FDA to remove the “common sense safeguards” of requiring a health care provider to examine the patient and give proper advice concerning the risks of using the drugs before they are provided by prescription.

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine cites its mission: “The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) upholds and promotes the fundamental principles of Hippocratic medicine. These principles include protecting the vulnerable at the beginning and end of life, seeking the ultimate good for the patient with compassion and moral integrity, and providing healthcare with the highest standards of excellence based on medical science.” Joining AHM in its action is George Delgado, MD, who pioneered the abortion pill reversal procedure. [He will be speaking at https://lifefirst.org/2024-dinner-for-life/ on April 20]

The original case was filed in November 22, 2022, and made its way to the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in August 2023 that the FDA “failed to address several important concerns about whether the drug would be safe for the women who use it.”

The court further said that the FDA failed “to consider the cumulative effect of removing several important safeguards” and “to gather evidence that affirmatively showed that mifepristone could be used safely without being prescribed and dispensed in person.”

About 60% of abortions in the United States are now done by these drugs and that number is expected to rise to 80%. That makes this case regarding safety of the pills and access to the pills by tele-medicine rival the importance of the Dobbs case in which Roe v Wade was overturned.

In February 2022, Judicial Watch decided to investigate whether the FDA had acted properly in approving the abortion pills, and especially whether there is a safely issue that has been properly addressed. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) refused three requests for the records until forced to release 588 pages after being sued under the Freedom of Information Act. These records included an “Annual Report for Mifepristone” covering September 28, 2000 to September 27, 2021.

Of the 32 reported adverse events, one was “hemorrhage due to a ruptured ectopic pregnancy that resulted in death.” About 2% of pregnancies are ectopic (not inside the uterus). Whereas ectopic pregnancies occur randomly, there are risk factors that greatly increase the risk for ectopic pregnancies. If a woman was seen by a health care provider and properly assessed, an ultrasound would be indicated to verify the dates of the pregnancy and that the pregnancy was in the uterus before the pills were prescribed.

Another reported adverse event was “post abortal (sic) parametritis/endometritis, adult respiratory distress syndrome and bilateral pneumonia.” These are extremely serious life-endangering complications, although it appears that this woman survived.

In other studies that Judicial Watch reviewed, one woman had a fatal Clostridium sordelli infection, another needed blood transfusions, and another was hospitalized and died.

In 2002, Danco labs (which produces the drugs) wrote a “Dear Health Care Provider” letter acknowledging reports of ruptured ectopic pregnancies and one death. The letter advises that ectopic pregnancy “should be ruled out before initiating Mifeprex treatment (sic).” The letter also acknowledged two serious systemic bacteria infections (sepsis) and that one woman died. Another woman age 21 died of a heart attack 3 days after taking Mifeprex and misoprostol. Judicial Watch also reported on a safety study by Exelgyn Laboratory in which several cases of excessive bleeding and sepsis were reported, including one death.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed all of this data when making its findings. Despite serious concerns about the safety of these drugs, and despite compelling evidence that they should not be prescribed without proper assessment by a health care professional in person with full disclosure of the risks, the Biden administration has appealed the finding to the justices of the Supreme Court.

If it were not for a pattern of behavior in so many other areas where the safety of the public seems secondary to a political agenda, it would be hard to believe such callous irresponsibility. It is also hard to imagine women’s groups that support abortion advocating the pills without proper evaluation of the woman and accurate medical advice concerning the risks. In view of the evidence available to the justices, let us hope and pray that common sense will prevail.

It is ironic that we who advocate for women to consider every possible alternative before resorting to abortion should be the ones who are advocating for the safety (as much as possible) of women who make the decision to use the pills. Those who advocate for abortion are also the ones who would accept the suffering and possible death of young women without proper advice and a discussion of the risks before they decide to use the abortion pills. Ironic.

This post is indisputably much different from previous posts referencing contemporary events concerning how respect for life and the dignity of the individual is denigrated in our time. However, this post is timely in the context of the recent murders of people simply because of the parents to whom they were born or the place in which they were residing. Of course, I am referring to the murder of some 1400 persons living in Israel near the border with Gaza on October 7. Some 240 hostages were taken so that the terrorists could torment their relatives. Some of those hostages have been tortured and murdered already. Since those innocent people, including some children, are still held by murderous terrorists, their fate is very much in doubt, inflicting much anxiety and fear on their families, and causing those responsible to be despised.

I will not say anything about all of the circumstances and military responses because these are well reported by news media. However, I do call attention to the shocking hatred exhibited by these terrorists, their total disregard for life, and total absence of empathy, compassion, and mercy. Documents carried on their persons called for killing as many Jews as possible, calling Jewish ethnicity a disease that can only be cured by killing them and mutilating their bodies. Indeed, they carried out that plan, even killing children and babies in most hideous ways.

As horrifying as these events are, the plan also was to provoke a war with Israel in hopes of being able to kill even more Jews…and without regard for the loss of their own lives or the lives of innocent civilians who would inevitably be caught in the middle. Indeed, their plan was to fortify schools and mosques and hospitals where they placed rocket launchers and artillery batteries and under which they built enormous tunnel complexes in which they can take refuge and store fuel, medical supplies, and munitions. Their idea is to force the Israelis to strike such targets and to be sure that civilians are not able to escape these areas. The war is not just to kill Jews, but to cause as many deaths of non-combatants as possible and parade the denigration of Jews before the world, blaming them for the loss of innocent lives.

Not told in the media so far, is that children in Gaza have been taught hatred of Jews from infancy, having no idea what a Jew is, but simple parroting phrases of hate, urging the killing of Jews. The videos of these sessions are still found on the internet. Now those children are young adults carrying out that mission. However, only some are unable to show pity for their victims, unable to show mercy, unable even to spare children from violence.

There is a medical term for violent people who are unable to show empathy and compassion for others and unable to give mercy: homicidal sociopaths. This is a condition for which there is no cure. They must be separated from society, and this often involves their suicide or violent death while trying to evade capture. Such are those who planned and carried out this action, knowing that it would bring down the fury of the Israeli military and result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. In fact, they were counting on those deaths and have ensured that they will occur for their propaganda value.

As despicable as it is to promote the deaths of innocent people for propaganda, we have also observed an outrageous and unprecedented display of antisemitism in the United States with hate speech, violence, and threats, some of it allegedly because of the propaganda promulgated as part of the overall plan to destroy Israel. We thought we had begun to understand our prejudices in terms of preconceived notions based on lack of education, misunderstandings, and lies. We thought our civil rights laws had contained any acts by fringe elements. Now, we have learned that hatred of Jews is actually being taught in our schools and colleges. This is echoed across the world in predominantly Muslim countries and in several Western countries, in many cases led by Muslim immigrants who willingly believe the lies and also hold hatred of Jews as a part of their religious beliefs.

I cite these events as the antithesis of what I promote in my book “Building a Culture of Life,” in my talks, and in these pages. We must respect life and the dignity of all persons in all stages of life, in all conditions, and in all circumstances. However, societies around the world have disregarded the sanctity of incipient life and wantonly destroyed it. In the United States alone, we have killed 64 million developing babies in the last 50 years. If we kill our children in the womb, why are we surprised when someone kills children in school or when groups of adults are shot down in public places or when our youth shoot each other in the streets. If life is not uniformly valued in a society, then who is it that gets to decide which life has value and which does not?

We have seen an appalling response to that rhetorical question in recent events.

Many groups of people around the world have grievances that they wish to present before world opinion. However, when the motivation is hatred and the eventual goal is genocide of an entire ethnic population, the civilized people of the world must stop it.

About 2860 years ago, the kingdoms of Israel (on the west side of the Jordan river) and of Moab (on the east side) disputed an area between them. On the Mesha Stele, King Mesha of Moab wrote, “Chemosh [the Moab god] said to me: ‘Go! Seize [Mount] Nebo from Israel!’ I went in the night…and slew seven thousand men and boys, women and girls, and pregnant women.” I cite this because we need only change the names, places, and dates in order to write today’s headlines. Has humankind learned nothing? Are we no better now than 3000 years ago?

I have written a book titled “A Timeline of the History of Humankind,” which will be in print within about 2-3 months. In my writings, I bring the reader through events that shaped the modern world. Despite our achievements, that journey is not pretty.

In modern history, over 10,000,000 civilians died in WW1.

The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia also resulted in more than 10,000,000 civilians being killed.

Hitler tried to exterminate many people for many reasons, but he especially wanted to wipe out the Jews of Europe, and about 6,000,000 died, including women, children, and babies. Another 5,000,000 other people were also killed by the NAZI’s. Over 38,000,000 non-combatants died in WW2. Let us be reminded of the German cities bombed by Allied forces in order to destroy the German war machine, causing the tragic loss of many civilian lives.

In Japan, the military establishment wanted to continue the war even after the US burned Japanese cities and used the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Military targets were destroyed, but many civilian lives were lost. The US dropped leaflets warning civilians to evacuate the cities that were to be destroyed in order to minimize needless loss of life. The Japanese military forbade people to pick up the leaflets and tried to keep them from fleeing the cities. The Japanese military was ready to accept the additional deaths of 5,000,000 Japanese civilians in order to fight for an armistice instead of surrender.

In the 1990’s, NATO intervened in the wars in Bosnia where “ethnic cleansing” threatened to exterminate Muslims. Roughly 100,000 non-combatants died.

The point of reciting these events is to call attention to how small groups of people with fanatical ideas backed up by weapons and propaganda led to needless loss of the lives of non-combatants. What we see playing out today is yet another page in this tragic accounting of how hatred leads to destruction and the deaths of innocent people.

We in the United States have traditionally attempted to minimize civilian casualties when necessary to engage in warfare. Weapons have been developed that can target specific objectives rather than cause widespread and indiscriminate destruction. Israel has benefited from these advances in technology and has warned civilians to flee the areas where its military will operate. Israel realizes, of course, that the terrorists plan to get as many civilians as possible killed in order to claim that Israel is engaged in genocide.

While these events play out, we must be sure that hatred in any form is not accepted in the United States, However, we have learned that antisemitism is deeply rooted in the US and is being taught to our youth. It reminds us a great deal of how the NAZI’s promoted hatred of Jews and other groups in Germany. Let us not let our society descend into that hell. It is simply not possible to hate one group of people and respect the life and dignity of all others. We learned that from the NAZI’s as one group after another was targeted and taken away to be killed. There was no place at which to stop the hate. Modern day terrorists and their sympathizers have not learned that lesson and will bring down destruction on their own heads.

Let us renew our commitment to life, promote tolerance of others, and protect the dignity of every person. That starts with protecting the life of the unborn and ensuring that pregnant women have all the help needed to have a healthy baby while retaining all the opportunities in life for education, careers, and experiences that non-pregnant women have.

Just as there is no stopping place for hate, respect for the life and dignity of others is infectious and will be returned in kind. Let us learn from that and build a culture of life.

I wish to inform you of a few things as we are on the cusp of Respect Life Month. Please check the Upcoming Activities tab for opportunities to participate. Herein, I present info related to the outstanding efforts by a few pro-life organizations so that you might be encouraged, but also exhorted to play a more active role as we demand respect for the life and dignity of every person in all stages and conditions of life.

Before I go on, I want to reaffirm my belief in the sanctity of human life and that all lives have meaning and purpose. I have had the honor to see that belief reaffirmed by abortion survivors who declare that they were real persons in the womb; by children born of a pregnancy resulting from rape who might have been aborted, who declare the value of their lives; by people born with Down Syndrome who could have been aborted, who are loved and happy; by a woman who was born with no arms, who works and drives a van with her feet; and by a man born with no arms and no legs who lives a happy, productive and inspiring life; and how about you and me, we could have been aborted…and do not our lives also matter ?

Let us ask the question of who has the right to terminate a life based on assumptions about the value of that life. Let us answer that question from our hearts as we ponder whether it could have been your life or mine that was terminated, and who had the right to make that decision.

Turning to the efforts of those who believe that every life has value that must be respected, I first call your attention to the Texas Alliance for Life led by Joe Pojman: you must visit https://www.texasallianceforlife.org/post-roe-texas-video-series/ I especially call attention to the lecture on “The Beauty Behind the Biology of Conception.” If you do not know, this is the organization that sponsors the Texas Rally for Life every January. Start preparing in November to fill a bus and be there for this event !

The Abortion Survivors Network, led by Melissa Ohden, a true force of nature, has continued to be busy changing hearts and minds. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSEFonKaP3M and this interview on Fox and Friends https://www.foxnews.com/video/6337859595112 and explore the web site: https://abortionsurvivors.org/ You will be changed.

Another force of nature is Teresa Strack who leads LifeFirst. The effort of LifeFirst is to change the culture of abortion through education and creating the pro-life leaders of tomorrow. They have the most creative and innovative methods: https://lifefirst.org/when-does-life-begin-faqs/ Explore the web site and be impressed.

Adding to our list of forces of nature is Kristin Hawkins and her incredible team at Students for Life https://studentsforlife.org/ You are invited to attend this webinar: “Join us on Wednesday, October 11th at 8pm ET for our webinar, Abortion and Personhood: Aren’t the Preborn People, too? featuring neuroscientist and associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Dr. Katrina Furth.” https://studentsforlife.org/webinar/

I would be remiss in honorable mentions if I did not applaud Shawn Carney and the 40 Days for Life teams and their fall and spring campaigns. What a huge impact they make worldwide, much to the consternation of pro-abortion factions that constantly attack them! https://www.40daysforlife.com/en/

I apologize to all my other friends, pro-life leaders and all those I cannot mention at this time.

We need these leaders and their teams of dedicated pro-life warriors because the top level leadership of our country has set the goal of codifying the essence of the Roe decision into federal law permitting abortion nationwide at any stage of pregnancy for any reason. If the pro-abortion faction, which is rooted in bigotry, corruption, and pursuit of financial gain, has control of both houses of congress and the presidency, then all of our gains in the movement for respect for life and the dignity of every person will be wiped out.

In my recent talks, I point out that, in order to minimize the number of women seeking an abortion, we must do all of the things we are doing to change the hearts and minds, but we also must do something new. In my book, I discuss the data on why women seek an abortion. Whereas I cannot go into much detail here, the major reasons are connected to poverty, ignorance, jobs, education, housing, and lack of support by the father and/or family, and the latter arises out of the deterioration of the nuclear family.

We must have social reforms that lead us to respect and honor pregnant women and to provide answers to their concerns that do not include abortion. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) already enforces laws that make it illegal to fire or otherwise discriminate against workers on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which took effect June 27, 2023, requires covered employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” to a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an “undue hardship.” The EEOC is required to issue regulations to carry out the law.

One can see immediately that the law does not go far enough. It does not address the issue of lost wages due to complications from pregnancy, the need to be off work at times to care for a baby, the issues of lost pay when needing to care for the baby, the cost of day care, loss of seniority in a job position, and it leaves many women in jeopardy due to the issue of “covered employers” and the loophole of “undue hardship.”

The EEOC has also proposed a regulation within the PWFA that would require employers to accommodate employees who choose to get abortions, such as by giving them leave to obtain one. https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-pregnant-workers-fairness-act One can follow links on that page. The Catholic Bishops have also objected to that proposal and provide a way for us also to object. https://www.votervoice.net/USCCB/Campaigns/107379/Respond

To conclude my comments in this post, I call attention to the conversation among Republican candidates on the subject of abortion. Whereas there is much to be said, and so much so that I cannot go into it here, one can search “Republican candidates on abortion” and find a plethora of comments by many agencies. I will only say that one prominent candidate advanced the proposition of a federal law requiring a nationwide ban on abortions after the baby can feel pain. Although purportedly to protect life by limiting abortions in this manner across the nation, that proposition does nothing to address the fact that the growing baby is a person. Nobody on either side of the issue would be happy with such a ridiculous and naive proposition in any case.

So, I finish by noting that our activism is essential, our opinions must be expressed, and we must vet our political candidates for their determination to protect the dignity of every human life in all conditions and circumstances.

Now is also the time for the pro-life movement to lead the way in demanding social reforms that are pro-woman and provide an answer for pregnant women in situations that drive them to abortion. When pregnant women are respected and honored and have the resources that preserve the options that non-pregnant women have, the women themselves will protect their babies.

“The mere existence of abortion survivors like Penny proves that abortion isn’t health care; it’s designed to kill a person.“

That quote from an email I received from Shawn Carney (of 40 Days for Life) and a recent communication from Melissa Ohden (founder of Abortion Survivors Network) prompted the title for this post. The reference is to the introduction of the name of “Penny,” an abortion survivor, by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on August 23. You can read the full story here: https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2023/08/26/desantis-penny-abortion-providers-debate-candidate/

It is an ugly story that happened under unusual circumstances in 1955. Unfortunately, DeSantis missed the opportunity to talk about recent survivors of attempted abortion by modern surgical techniques. This opened the door for declarations by abortion supporters that no pregnancy (today) survives an abortion (and, after all, “it is just a piece of tissue”).

It is necessary for abortionists to assert that position. The horror of institutionalized killing of a developing human being in the womb could cause voting people to reject the procedure. Therefore, it cannot be admitted that the pregnancy is a real person who, if born alive, is just as real a person as the rest of us.

That is why the work of Abortion Survivors Network is so important, and why abortionists deny the existence of such people. Visit the web site and read the stories: https://abortionsurvivors.org/ “Most people do not realize that sometimes abortion procedures fail, are stopped, or reversed (abortion pill), and survivors exist. Our research estimates that 85,817 infants have been born alive after failed abortions since 1973. The average number of abortion survivors each year is approximately 1,734.” https://abortionsurvivors.org/who-we-are/testimonials/

Melissa recently shared with me how Penny was subsequently harassed publicly and privately. “The media and abortion industry would love nothing more than to make us ashamed and scared to ever speak up.” Nevertheless, hundreds of abortion survivors do speak up, demanding that they be recognized as a person when developing in the womb, just as they are entitled to the rights of a person when a baby and an adult. It is one continuum of life that must be respected.

Melissa herself survived an abortion. Her painful story, and her triumph, are told in her book “You Carried Me” https://www.amazon.com/You-Carried-Me-Daughters-Memoir/dp/0874867886/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=you+carried+me&qid=1694896646&sr=8-1 Melissa was kind enough to help me with references to abortion survivors in my own book “Building a Culture of Life.” https://www.amazon.com/Building-Culture-Life-George-Brooks-ebook/dp/B0B5351KLG/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3GCHPPFIDQVJ4&keywords=building+a+culture+of+life+by+george+brooks&qid=1694896943&sprefix=building+a+cuture+of+life+by+george+brooks%2Caps%2C119&sr=8-1

Melissa is a force of nature, crossing the country back and forth…Washington (DC), Ohio, Tennessee, Illinois… attending national leadership meetings, recording training sessions, talking with members of congress, recording videos and podcasts, making appearances at various events… I get tired just thinking about it !

She also shared with me these upcoming links, which deserve your attention: Karen’s story: https://youtu.be/61XKFhWUxHo?feature=shared Lauren’s story: https://youtu.be/61XKFhWUxHo?feature=shared Lauren. Karen and Melissa: https://youtu.be/-Lp-JB-7-gY?feature=shared and she promises me the upcoming story of “an adoptive mom, sharing about her 12 year old who survived a late-term abortion at 28 weeks.”

Those of us who are passionate about protection of incipient life, that of a real person developing in the womb, must be aware of the real people who were trying to live and who narrowly survived an attempted abortion, as well as the 64 million very real people who did not survive. We must know about Abortion Survivors Network, we must look into the faces of abortion survivors, we must hear their stories, feel their pain, and celebrate their healing from the awful knowledge that their mothers tried to kill them. Imagine feeling worthless, a piece of trash to be discarded because you are an inconvenience.

There are many ways in which we can oppose this violence, so each of us should find our niche and participate. On the back of my business card I have placed a quotation to remind me not to get tired, not to weaken in my resolve: “Never tire of firmly speaking out in defense of life from its conception and do not be deterred from the commitment to defend the dignity of every human person with courageous determination.” Pope St. John Paul II

In a future post, I will address the topic about which I am most asked to speak: what do we do now that Roe is overturned, how do we deter abortion in those venues where it is still legal? In addition to the quip “everything,” I offer the prospects for creating the circumstances in which women do not want to seek an abortion. I do not say that it will be easy to get there. In the meantime, we work to change the hearts and minds. Recognition that the growing entity in the womb is a real person is critical to our success on all other fronts. Congratulations Melissa Ohden and thank you !

Give

The last two months have passed quickly ! I actually did not realize that it has been so long since my last post. June through August have been especially busy for me, but it is time to observe that our adversaries have not been resting. They have regrouped and become more determined than every with the lust for blood unabated.

I realize that the “lust for blood” comment is a bit unkind to those who are motivated by misinformation, those who have a fixed delusion, and those who have been motivated by the lies that generate fear that losing the “right” to abortion is part of a larger plan to take away the social gains that women have achieved in the last 100 years. However, those who perpetuate the lies and those who lust after money and power deserve the label.

To begin the discourse today, let us note that our fearless pro-abortion leader and his political party are going to make the “right to life” movement an issue in the next presidential election. Well…they have no accomplishments at home or abroad that they can point to in order to get votes, so maybe they can scare women into voting for them.

“President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign launched a new pro-abortion ad in several swing states…six states that Biden narrowly won in 2020: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Wisconsin. It also targets one state that former President Donald Trump narrowly won in 2020: North Carolina.”

Illinois and Vermont recently passed laws that force Pregnancy Help Centers “to pay a penalty if they ’employ unfair or deceptive acts or practices.’ ” That involves the assertion that is is “deceptive” not to offer pregnant women the option of abortion. Whereas Pro-Life organizations are fighting back in the courts, the reader should observe what I have reiterated before: this is no time for complacency.

Indeed, we must double down with increased energy, get out of our comfort zones, and advocate respect for the life and dignity of all persons in all stages of life, in all conditions, and in all circumstances with fierce determination.

Make no mistake about it, our adversaries are serious, determined, and well-funded. “More than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, pregnancy centers and other pro-life organizations and churches remain targets of abortion extremists.” (Written by  Gayle Irwin Published in NEWS… citing vandalism and graffiti). And, “Abortion activists claimed a pivotal victory in a swing state Tuesday night, as Ohio voters rejected a measure making it more difficult to add a constitutional “right” to abortion to the state constitution.” (Written by  Ben Johnson Published in NEWS).

Other issues involve trying to prevent pro-life activists from exercising free speech and attempting to force health care workers to do abortions and prescribe contraceptive devices against their personal or religious beliefs. This is part of a larger plan to punish individuals and to force pro-life organizations to spend vast amounts of precious financial resources in lawsuits to defend constitutional rights.

So, do you still think the war against abortion on demand was won by the reversal of Roe ? In fact, the nature of the struggle has changed and become more complex, and it is shaping up to be even more vicious. The might of the federal government and the partisan Department of Justice is being brought to bear against anyone who dares to help pregnant women and give them a choice to choose life for their baby.

The fear that a future president would once-again reverse federal pro-abortion policies by executive order the way it was done in 2016-2020 is part of a driving political force that we see being played out every day. These federal policies are off and on depending on which political party controls the White House. I discuss these laws, regulations, and policies in my book, so I will not elaborate on this complexity here. But, it matters who we vote for at all levels of government.

I have been asked to talk on the subject of what we must do going forward. To these groups it is easy to reiterate the need for activism…prayer vigils, rallies, marches… also to support those entities that educate the public, particularly our youth who will be the leaders of tomorrow. We must also support those who advocate legally to protect our conscience and our right to demonstrate, and we must elect those who will defend life in all its stages and conditions.

However, I am also advocating that we must not be guilty of what we are often accused of…that we only care about the life of the baby and that we care nothing about the impact of an unwanted pregnancy on the mother and her life choices.

In my book, I make note of which women seek an abortion and why women seek an abortion. I cannot recite such detail here, but it is rather obvious that an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy creates a lot of stress on a woman with few resources, often unmarried, often without support by the father, and often concerned with issues related to housing, job, and education, as well as the cost of a baby.

So, we must continue our activism and we must educate the public, and particularly our youth, on the issue that life begins at conception and the growing entity in the womb is a real person. Taking the life of a developing person in the womb must become abhorrent.

However, we must do something new. We will not see an end to most abortions until pregnant women do not feel driven by society to untenable situations. Pregnant women must be assured of all the options in society that non-pregnant women. They must be able to keep their jobs and aspire to go further. Pregnant (often single) women must have an agreeable solution to housing issues that will accommodate a new baby. They must be able to pursue education and new opportunities. They must be able to be away from work at times for personal medical care and to care for the baby. Lately, the cost of childcare is also becoming an important reason for choosing abortion.

If the prospects for social changes along those lines seem challenging, they are. But, did we not overcome obstacles with the Civil Rights Act? Did not Obama get his horribly-complex “Obama-care” legislation passed? Social reform for pregnant women of a sweeping nature must remove much of the uncertainty and fear so many women experience when they have an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. Pregnant women should be treated with the utmost respect (men, think of our own mothers, our wives, and our sisters). These women must know that they have the support of society and that they will retain all of the opportunities in life that non-pregnant women have. Otherwise, many will continue to be driven to abortion.

Let the Pro-Life movement be that which advocates for women’s rights and the dignity of pregnant women. As it is, the Pro-Life movement is like a bunch of people bailing water in a leaky boat…working hard to keep up, but not taking time to fix the leak. Our ultimate success depends on fixing the reasons why women want an abortion in the first place.

I have had a bit of a hiatus from posting current events, not that there is nothing to talk about. However, there has been a lot of reorganizing, posturing, and planning (on both sides of the issue of how to regulate abortion) in the aftermath of Dobbs in June 2022. One must not get drowned in the noise by paying too much attention to the minutiae.

At the same time that there are events that we should be aware of, it is clear that we have been entering a new era with the development of new strategies on both sides…a bit of action and reaction… as we settle in for the battle to recognize that life begins at conception and that the entity growing in the mother’s body is a real person.

The forerunners of the “new plan” actually began before the Dobbs decision in June 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade. It has now been one year since that decision. We first went through the phase of anger, fear, hate, and violence directed against pro-life advocates as the evil behind those driven by power and money revealed itself. Then over the last several months, as legal battles played out, with successes and losses on both sides, new long term strategies have been firming up.

The main topic about which I have been asked to speak lately is “where is the pro-life movement now” and “what should we be doing.” Accordingly, I will share with you the consensus that is emerging.

First and foremost, access to abortion in the United States (taken as a whole) has been only slightly attenuated over the past year, overall down a few percent (but obviously much less in “pro-life states”). However, the number of women with unplanned pregnancies remains a serious social problem.

It must be recognized that the concept of morality and abstinence until marriage has been eroded, along with the secularization of society in general. For decades, young women reaching maturity have faced issues such as engagement in sex outside of a commitment in marriage, concern for sexually transmitted diseases, little education in contraceptive options, the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, and the indoctrination that the “thing” causing a positive pregnancy test is a “piece of tissue” and that the only responsible choice in untenable life circumstances is abortion.

When abortion was readily available everywhere, pro-life organizations basically engaged in damage control with pregnancy help centers, maternity homes, and parish “Gabriel Projects” (in Catholic communities) seeking to educate women and help them choose to have their baby instead of having an abortion. However, in the aftermath of Casey in 1992, pro-life legislators in many states introduced laws pushing back against Roe, trying to take back the right of the states to debate and regulate abortion in their own communities. With Dobbs, success was finally complete.

The overturn of Roe was not without some anticipation and not without contingency plans and laws on the books in many states that would be “triggered” when Roe was overturned. Within a few weeks of the Dobbs decision, numerous organizations held conferences to share strategies, and dozens of national organizations spoke to the many fronts on which the upcoming battles would be fought.

As we now celebrate the one year anniversary of the return of the debate to our communities, those in the trenches working with women and those doing fundraising to help those on the front lines are asking the questions concerning what we should do going forward, where shall we place our effort.

That discussion involves both short-term and long-term strategies, but we must first identify the goals for which we strive. With the battleground now in the communities of the fifty states, and with many of those states dominated by those who support abortion, the prize is in the hearts and minds of the people. When most people awaken to the fact that a new human life begins at the moment of conception and that the growing baby in a woman’s body, no matter how tiny, is a real person, then abortion as a form of birth control will be abhorrent.

Since this is going to be a process that we will pursue over time, our short-term strategy must be to continue providing free help to pregnant women who seek it, showing them the tiny developing baby on ultrasound, engaging the father when possible, providing education, maternal and baby items, and emotional support, as well as offering solutions through community resources to meet her needs.

Our short-term challenges are related to fifty years of women being indoctrinated into thinking that their lives will be ruined by having a baby in the context of the difficult circumstances in which many women find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy. These are very real concerns.

So, our long-term strategy is to educate the public and pursue legislative strategies to progressively restrict abortion where it is now widely available and sometimes actively encouraged. If women cannot legally get an abortion, they will turn increasingly to various sources for help. Victories in the battle over hearts and minds will progressively result in legislation pushing women in the direction to choose life for her baby, a real person who could grow to be among the movers and shakers, the workers and clerks, and the leaders who will solve the problems of our society.

If only it were that simple.

The facts are that women are now able to use contraception, back it up with the “morning after pill,” use a highly accurate over-the-counter pregnancy test if late for her menstrual cycle, and take the abortion pills if she is pregnant. That would seem to make abortion a private matter in future. However, we do not yet envision a society in which women are educated in such matters, are able to carry out such a plan, and have the financial means. All of the poverty and ignorance that we encounter today will persist. Women will continue to present later in pregnancy and be faced with decisions to accept help and keep the baby or to have an abortion.

At the same time, the difficult circumstances in which women find themselves with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy are very real and can cause immense anxiety and stress. Consider a 17-year-old young woman about to leave high school and go to college. Consider a 25-year-old woman who is working a dead end job but going to night school to try and break out of poverty. Consider the woman sharing an apartment with another woman….if she has the baby, she will have to move.

These topics are better discussed orally in the talks I give in which I can speak to the chapter in my book on which women have an abortion and why they have an abortion. In almost all cases, there is more than one reason, and often 3-4 reasons, which amount to an overwhelming drive to end the pregnancy, even when it is not legal to do so, and even when there is abundant help available.

So, the issue is hugely complex. Surely we must continue to provide direct care to those asking for help. We must also protect life through legislation. And, we must educate the public so that it becomes more real to more and more people that the tiny, unseen entity growing in the woman is a real person.

But, our impact will be limited as long as we do not address the conditions in society that propel a woman to the dreadful decision to kill her baby. A woman must be able to pursue education, continue her job, be off work as necessary when pregnant or to care for a sick child or to keep doctor appointments, have a means for childcare, have a solution to housing issues… all the overwhelming issues a woman faces when pregnant and in poverty and/or without support by the father and her family.

There is much more that we could discuss, and I address much of this in my book and in my lectures. I hope the reader will be motivated to learn more, to contemplate solutions, and be prepared to support those propositions that will enable more women to reject abortion, have her baby, and still be able to pursue all the good things in life that she desires.

The Pro-Life movement is often criticized with the assertion that we only care about the baby. Let us be sure that we do not forget the mother. We do care about the mother, to be sure, and we are sometimes able to continue some degree of support for even three years after the baby is born. But, we need to understand what drives women to seek an abortion, and we must find solutions.

Admittedly, it is often hard to create a decent title when creating a post. In this case, the title fits, for we have a spectrum of things to celebrate, to lament, and to wait and see how things develop.

First, let us congratulate Melissa Ohden of Abortion Survivors Network https://abortionsurvivors.org/ as ASN received the highest 2023 Pro-Life Impact Award at the National Prayer Luncheon for Life on April 21. After bring nominated, several worthy pro-life entities were subjected to a competitive voting process by their supporters. ASN’s supporters stepped up and ASN was (deservedly) the winner of the top award! ASN also has a new and very impressive web site that displays the wonderful work they do and the astonishing stories of many abortion survivors. More than 640 people have now joined with others to proclaim that they were persons in the womb when their lives almost ended, just as they are persons now.

Next, a follow-on to the story in my last post concerning the FDA’s controversial approval of abortion pills without safety studies, the wrongful product labeling, and permitting women and girls to have access to the pills by mail without an examination or consultation with a doctor. The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 that the status quo will stand while the current lawsuit and appeals play out.

The case is now headed to the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which has set arguments in the case for May 17. This decision is lamented by pro-life organizations, but it should have been reasonably anticipated. However, the case may eventually be headed to the Supreme Court. Any appeal to the Supreme Court would follow within three months of a ruling, but with no deadline for the justices to decide whether to review the case.

In another legal complication of the issue, GenBioPro, which makes the generic version of mifepristone, has filed a lawsuit to block the FDA from removing its drug from the market if court rulings go against the FDA. I will continue to report on the progress of this multi-faceted issue as it emerges.

And now for the ugly, and there is plenty of it. On March 9, a bill was introduced in the Colorado legislature to ban the abortion pill reversal procedure and penalize medical professionals attempting to do so. The bill, named “Prohibiting Deceptive Practices at Anti-Abortion Centers,” was fast-tracked and passed after only 23 days, calling it (incredibly) the “safe access to protected healthcare” legislation.

Within hours a legal challenge was filed on behalf of Colorado clinic Bella Health and Wellness, a Catholic healthcare provider. Part of the contention surrounds the claim by abortion supporters that the abortion pill reversal protocol is not standardized and proven effective in placebo-controlled studies supervised by an Institution Review Board and an ethics committee, as if it could ever be morally acceptable to do a placebo-controlled study in a situation where a woman is wanting to save her baby….what?… give her a placebo and tell her “good luck !”

The lawsuit reports that Bella has had dozens of successes reversing the abortion pills without complications (and there are published protocols and affirmative positive results, depending on how rapidly progesterone is provided to reverse the hormone-blocking agent). The lawsuit also claims that the wording of the bill demonstrates a clear bias against faith-based organizations, and asserts that “Every day that Bella is forced to remain silent about abortion pill reversal, women in Colorado are deprived of information about highly qualified and local doctors and nurses who would help them if they have willingly or unwillingly taken mifepristone.”

Abortion supporters retort by claiming that “For years, we’ve heard from young people across the state about the harm anti-abortion centers cause — especially students on campuses near anti-abortion centers… There is a clear pattern of anti-abortion centers deceiving young people to shame and mislead them away from accessing essential health care during their most vulnerable time.” [I told you this is ugly, and there are a lot of other problems with the hastily worded law, some parts ambiguous and others with vague implications. After all these “years” they decided to rush through a decidedly messy legislation in just 23 days.]

On April 17, a federal judge granted Bella a temporary exemption from Colorado’s ban on the abortion pill reversal regimen, saying (in response to the lawsuit) that the law “burdens their own First Amendment rights,” but the judge did not exempt other providers of abortion pill reversal.

Adding to the complexity is a provision under the law that bans abortion pill reversal as “unprofessional conduct” at least until October 1. Whether or not the law remains in effect depends on a decision by regulatory agencies concerning whether abortion reversal is a “generally accepted standard of practice.” If they decide it is not, then the ban remains in place.

The Medical Board and the Board of Nursing “held emergency meetings and voted unanimously not to enforce the law until they decide whether abortion pill reversal is a ‘generally accepted standard of practice,’ a determination they are unlikely to make before September,” according to filings in federal court.  

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office and several district attorneys overseeing criminal prosecutions also filed statements in federal court stating that they would not enforce the law until there was a decision by the Medical Board and the Board of Nursing. In their statements, the prosecutors also doubted whether Senate Bill 190 even makes it a “deceptive trade practice to advertise or offer abortion pill reversal.” It seems that the wording is only in the bill’s “legislative declaration”– essentially an introduction to the bill–and does not actually appear in the legal language of the legislation.

The implications, if the law is upheld and enforced, could provide other pro-abortion legislators a path to prevent abortion pill reversal in other states. This is also a process to be watched.

It is time to catch up… a lot can happen in one month. As older subscribers know, I attempt to search various sources for the most important current events and keep them informed as situations evolve. We should try to be informed and coordinate our actions to make a difference.

There are many very strong nation-wide organizations with resources to mobilize the pro-life community for in-person and on-line events and for petitioning our representatives. Herein, I attempt to keep the subscriber informed on some of the most important and far-reaching actions that are a threat to our belief in the sanctity of life and the dignity of every person, especially the pre-born person.

At the same time, I wrote my book Building a Culture of Life in order to explore the fundamental topics and present a depth of knowledge which is presumed when I comment herein. If, the subscriber needs to know more, I hope that tool may be useful.

One of the most interesting recent events was the ruling by a federal judge in Amarillo, Texas. The ADF https://adfmedia.org/ filed a lawsuit in November 2022 claiming that mifepristone was improperly classified as a drug used “in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses” to “provide meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing treatments.”

“But pregnancy is not an illness, nor do chemical abortion drugs provide a therapeutic benefit over surgical abortion,” their lawsuit reads. “In asserting these transparently false conclusions, the FDA exceeded its regulatory authority to approve the drugs.” “The FDA never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use, ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls, disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than surgical abortions, and eliminated necessary safeguards for pregnant girls and women who undergo this dangerous drug regimen.”

The Judge agreed https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/07/texas-abortion-drugs-fda-ruling/ calling abortion providers “abortionists” and describing the use of mifepristone as killing or “starv[ing] the unborn human until death” and ordered that the drug would become an “unapproved” drug as it is currently authorized by the FDA under its description and without adequate proof of safety. The judge’s order also prohibits abortionists from sending chemical abortion drugs through the mail.

However, it was immediately noted that the FDA is not obligated to prevent the manufacturing, selling, or dispensing of unapproved drugs. Furthermore, a federal judge in Spokane, Washington ruled nearly simultaneously that “federal officials could not hinder access to mifepristone in at least 17 of the states where Democratic attorney generals had sued to maintain availability.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/analysis-4-questions-answered-about-the-courts-and-the-abortion-medication-mifepristone .

In response to an emergency appeal regarding these conflicting rulings, the US Supreme Court has issued an order that the Texas judge’s ruling is “administratively stayed” until April 19. This is standard procedure in a case like this. It allows the Court time to hear the parties’ arguments and to examine existing laws and case histories before making a ruling.

Unlike the ruling in Dobbs that the 10th Amendment gives the states the authority to regulate abortion, the issue here is whether a federal agency has violated its own policies, thus violating federal law, in approving mifepristone without safety studies and with inappropriate labeling. In addition, the issue of sending the product by mail (with or without prescription and without physical exam and counseling in person by a licensed health care professional) should be settled.

I will continue to follow this story and provide updates as they emerge.

There are many other interesting developments recently, which I will summarize in a separate post soon.