The NRLC concluded a 2 day conference with dozens of workshops focusing on abortion-related legislation and litigation, euthanasia, preservation of the lives of babies with Down syndrome, and many other pro-life subjects.

Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas remarked that pro-choice (that is, pro-abortion) advocates “have been emboldened by the most pro-abortion White House in American history.” However, he also said the the pro-life movement has made great strides in recent years, passing laws in many states to shield the unborn from the worst abuses of the abortion industry.

He referred to the Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court in 1973 as a moral and constitutional travesty. In previous posts I have provided information on the case involving the Mississippi law which is now before the Supreme Court. Pro-life factions hope the Court will substantially deal with issues in the context of 2021 values and modern science concerning the beginning of life, fetal viability, and the concept that a fetus is a person with a right to life. Pro-abortion factions are threatened with a limitation to their profits and are fighting viciously to keep abortion a first choice for women in distress with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

The National Catholic Register of August 15, 2021 (a publication of EWTN), carries a story about the Texas Fetal Heartbeat Act signed by Gov. Abbott in May. I have previously posted information about this new law, and the reader might like to refer to that for background.

The law will go into effect September 1 and states that a doctor “may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child.” (Except to save the life of the mother) This covers both abortion pills taken at home and surgical abortions in a clinic. Violators of the law would face stiff monetary penalties for each count of violation.

The reader may know that Texas enacted a law in 2011 requiring a woman seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound within 24 hours of the procedure (including the taking of the abortion pills). The law requires the physician to display the ultrasound and make the fetal heartbeat (if present) audible to the mother. The new law prohibits the abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected. A fetal heartbeat may be detected as early as 6 weeks by vaginal ultrasound (which would not be done for this purpose) and maybe not until 8 weeks by abdominal ultrasound.

Planned Parenthood has a history of challenging state laws which restrict abortion in any manner, suing the state and often having the law placed on “temporary” hold by a US district judge. However, the Texas law provides that private citizens can bring a legal action against anyone violating the law, and that the State of Texas may not enforce the law. The intent is that the Texas cannot be (successfully) sued for infringement on a “constitutional right” to an abortion (and thus that implementation of the law cannot be restricted by the court) because the State does not in any way enforce any law restricting abortion.

However, Planned Parenthood, along with other abortion providers, (predictably) filed a lawsuit against Texas last week, naming not only government officials, but also some private individuals who they have identified “who are likely the people who would come forward to enforce the law.”

Mike Lee Dickson with Right to Life of East Texas is among those named as defendants. He began a movement for “sanctuary cities of the unborn” in 2019. He has helped municipalities to pass ordinances banning abortion within the city limits. Such an ordinance went into effect in the city of Lubbock in June 2021. That ordinance is enforced by lawsuits brought by private citizens in the same manner as the new Texas heartbeat law.

Planned Parenthood (predictably) sued the city. US District Judge James Hendrix dismissed the case, writing that “the plaintiffs fail to show that any relief provided by this court is likely to redress the injury at issue–citizen suits brought in state court–the court lacks jurisdiction.”

He also cited the 2001 case of Okpalobi v. Foster in which the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Louisiana law that permits women to sue their abortion providers for 10 years after the procedure. A significant percentage of women have regrets, suffer from depression, drink alcohol to excess, use illegal drugs, and endure other sequelae after abortion. (This is denied by abortion providers, but I document the decisive studies in my book.)

One can see that abortion providers are in a quandary and have to try to bring a lawsuit to prevent implementation of the new Texas Law. However, the nature of the law and the established precedents in federal court make it seem unlikely that such lawsuits will be able to proceed. Planned Parenthood will undoubtedly hope to appeal to the US Supreme Court in (what can be called by any standards) desperation.

However, before that could happen, the Court will rule (probably in June 2022) in the case of the Mississippi law restricting abortion after 15 weeks gestation. At issue is the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which states that the individual states may make laws regarding issues which are not specifically delegated to the United States (eg Congress) by the constitution. Mississippi asserts the right to regulate abortion according to the values of the people in the state. Depending on how the Court rules, the numerous laws “temporarily” on hold by US District Courts throughout the US will be permitted to become law or will be vacated. This is the most important case of its kind in 50 years. (Please see my earlier posts on this case.)

Supporting the new Texas law are Students for Life, both men and women who are seen in a picture accompanying the article. They hold signs reading “I am the Pro-life Generation” and “The Future is Anti-Abortion.” Their web site is: https://studentsforlife.org/ One has to be impressed by such a well-organized group of young adults who are solidly dedicated to respect for life.

At the same time as individual municipalities and states are increasingly pro-life, let us remember that the real battle is for the hearts and minds of the women with an unwanted pregnancy who finds herself in a desperate and untenable situation. The Pro-Abortion group sees abortion as the only option that they want women to know about. The Pro-Life faction wants every woman to know what resources are available to remedy the worst situation and help her have a healthy baby, even if she must give it up for adoption.

Surgical abortion is on the way out (one way or another), but use of abortion by pills is increasing. Please read this column for updates.

More Pro-Life women than ever before were elected to the House, while at the same time, voters elected the most pro-abortion administration in history. https://www.sba-list.org/pro-life-women-in-the-house

EWTN airs Pro-LIfe Weekly every Sunday at 9:30 AM and it repeats every Thursday at 9:00 PM. Check your TV provider for the channel (on Direct TV/ATT it is #370). You can also subscribe to the update by requesting it: https://www.ewtn.com/tv/shows/ewtn-pro-life-weekly

The Supreme Court is scheduled to begin to hear arguments in the Mississippi abortion law case in October. Mississippi claims that the 10th Amendment to the constitution provides that the states have constitutional power to make laws in matters not specifically delegated to the US Congress by the constitution. Of course, it has been argued for decades that the Court, in Roe v. Wade, was mistaken to ignore the 10th Amendment when ruling that a woman has a right to an abortion as a matter of “privacy” in which they cited other Amendments. In Casey the Court backed away from the decision in Roe v Wade to rule that the states did have limited rights to regulate abortion.

Pro-life advocates hope the Court will rule in favor of the 10th Amendment. Pro-Abortion advocates are very concerned that any ruling which expands the rights of the states to regulate abortion will prevent women from getting an abortion (saying that it would be bad if women did not get an abortion). It is hard to make an argument that it is morally wrong or “bad” not to have an abortion, however, any ruling that resulted in more women not getting an abortion would affect the financial health of the abortion industry. The abortion industry lobbies hard and makes huge financial contributions to lawmakers who protect their bottom line. Pro-Life advocates do not have those financial resources, but they do have a lot of public support.

The pro-life voting population has been increasing in the last two decades, and now has unprecedented strength. Now, there are hugely more pregnancy help centers in the country than there are abortion clinics. These resources are preparing to serve an increased number of women, providing every need so that a woman can choose life for the baby, even if she must give it for adoption.

A matter of consternation with pro-life people is that pro-abortion people will not support any programs and resources to help women in distress due to an unwanted pregnancy; their only recommendation to such a woman is abortion, only abortion…no other options…and afterwards, no help to deal with the emotional impact (which has been linked in many women to depression and drug abuse, etc).

Pro-Life people openly report that they feel puzzled and confused . One might think that, if a person supported abortion as a choice, that they would be quite willing to support alternatives and every kind of support for a woman who chose to have her baby, and even more so to those who had an abortion. But, that is not the case.

So, it has lead to accusations that pro-abortion people are more interested in reducing populations of poor Black and Hispanic babies for the financial benefit, and that is why Planned Parenthood (which does 40% of abortions) places 86% of their clinics in such neighborhoods.

Considering all of these issues, it is not surprising that vitriolic language is ramping up in the pro-abortion camp. The author finds this unnecessary and reprehensible. What happened to honest and open debate? What happened to putting the welfare of women first while preserving not only free choice, but providing every alternative and every resource and every form of material and emotional help.

In my book I speak at length on the circumstances and pressures women face with an unwanted pregnancy, thus why they consider an abortion. In the final chapter I describe the vast resources that are available to women who request them. These facts are well known to all parties, but it is only the pro-life faction which attempts to mitigate those circumstances and prevent the choice of abortion by helping the woman to obtain everything she needs.

As this case before the Supreme Court unfolds, take note of which faction is blasting the Court, denigrating pro-life people, and using words which need to be “bleeped.” You are likely to see pro-life factions demonstrating in a more restrained manner, praying, and not using vulgarity. The case is made that loving life, loving women in their anxiety and distress with an unwanted pregnancy, and striving to be there to help is a better path. The last two decades of making this case have influenced many people to believe that.

Abortion Survivors celebrate the fact that they are alive and were not killed in the womb. They assert that they are real people and more than a “choice.” https://connect.xfinity.com/appsuite/#!!&app=io.ox/mail&folder=default0/INBOX

The 40 Days for Life campaign begins world wide in September. A Planned Parenthood manager said, “It seems kind of silly.” An ACLU spokesperson said it is “the greatest threat to choice because it is so highly organized and effective.” https://connect.xfinity.com/appsuite/#!!&app=io.ox/mail&folder=default0/INBOX

These links connect to my email in box and will be left up for only one week.

The House has passed President Biden’s budget proposal (along party lines) without the Hyde Amendment attached, as he pledged to do when running for office. (Scroll down to view previous posts on this story). If passed by the Senate, federal funds will be used to pay for abortions on women receiving Medicaid for the first time since the budget amendment was introduced in 1976. Henry Hyde was a Catholic and supported respect for life and was a member of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men’s organization which is devoted to respect for life and the dignity of the individual.

Public opinion on the issue shows that voters are strongly against use of tax money to pay for abortions. Nevertheless, many states (along partisan lines) require the state portion of Medicaid to pay for abortions. Without the Hyde Amendment to the budget, the federal part of Medicaid funds will be used to pay for such abortions.

This is a continuation of the current administration plan to expand abortion as much as possible nationally and internationally. The first action by Biden toward this goal was to rescind the Mexico City Policy, freeing up US tax dollars to fund abortion internationally.

Planned Parenthood has made donations in the many tens of millions of dollars to politicians supporting the expansion of abortion at any gestational age, for any reason, on demand. They proudly declare this fact publicly, and are required by law to disclose the information in any case.

However, some people are saying that the budget will not pass the Senate without the Hyde Amendment. Among organizations applying political pressure to senators are the Knights of Columbus and the US Catholic Bishops. They are joined by many pro-life organizations, including churches. As noted above, the notion of taxpayer funded abortion is not popular, and democrats are properly concerned that passing a budget without the Hyde Amendment may receive a strong negative reaction at the mid-term election in 2022.

A “friend of the court” petition has been filed in to this case concerning the constitutionality of the Mississippi law restricting abortion after 15 weeks gestation.

The petitioners cite reasons why the Court should make certain findings. A huge issue is whether the 10th Amendment allows the individual states to pass laws concerning issues which are not explicitly relegated to the United States (eg, the US Congress).

If you do not have sufficient experience reading such documents, let me assure you that you do not need to be a lawyer and understand every word or phrase to get something significant out of glancing through the petition.

https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2021-07/2021-07-26%20Hawley%20Amicus%20Brief%20FINAL%20-%20PDFA.pdf

Unfortunately, although I deal with the background to the cited Roe and Casey findings by the Supreme Court in my book (not yet in publication), there is not room to provide such information under a tab on this web site. Nevertheless, this petition is a good read for those who wonder how the Court may rule, and why. (Hint: it is likely to be a cluster of findings; the power of the states to regulate abortion is likely to be expanded; the issue of fetal viability is likely to be revised; guidance will be given to lower courts who have placed temporary injunctions of state laws attempting to regulate abortion according to the will of the people in those states, so that many can be lifted; there likely will be a number of unexpected rulings; and it is likely that pro-life people will not be completely satisfied.

It is absolutely certain that pro-abortion people will explode with hate-mongering…they are already at it just because the Court decided to take the case. However, the findings in Roe and Casey are far out of date (Roe was nearly 50 years ago) and those findings are far out of touch with our modern concept of the beginning of life and the medical facts of fetal viability and when the fetus can feel pain. But, the big issue is the 10th Amendment.

Pro-abortion sentiment has become woven into a hugely profitable abortion industry, and, as might be expected, those making tons of money will do everything possible to protect their income streams. At the same time, political interests have used every false fear-mongering tactic to mobilize women into pro-abortion groups to vote for that political party. They will also do everything possible to keep their power.

However, the pro-life movement has become armed with the truth, sometimes horrified by the truth, and has rapidly been gaining strength over the last two decades. The hate speech and lies that permeate the pro-abortion tactics are born out of fear of loosing money and power and control. And, worse yet, the uninformed who are mislead by this rhetoric, have genuine fears that women will be forced to become baby factories or have “back -alley” abortions, and some believe that pro-life people hate women and want them to suffer, etc.

What is missing from all of this railing against those who respect life and the dignity of the individual, is any discussion of what can be done to help pregnant women who are distressed and in anguish, filled with fear and uncertainty, confused and often alone and without support. The pro-life faction has taken the challenge and opened pregnancy resource centers within reach of women everywhere. Sadly, the pro-abortion people cling to the proposition that these women do not need health care, do not need material support, do not need emotional support….they need to have an abortion, and then to be abandoned back into the hopelessness with which they started.

The Supreme Court has its challenges in trying to find a path which protects mother and unborn child, but which also does not force women into those situations which the fear-mongers falsely warn against. Nobody in pro-life has ever advocated putting women at risk for harm or in any way promoted an assault against their dignity. The precise opposite is true. And, that is why the Pro-life faction must be attacked viciously and constantly. If those women who have been mislead by hate speech into becoming pro-abortion advocates found the truth and changed their beliefs, they likely would change their voting as well.

All of this prevents an honest discussion of how to prevent situations which drive women to abortion out of despair and hopelessness, seeing no other choice. Of course, there is no “one size fits all” typical woman who seeks an abortion; some women relish the idea and it is a simple inconvenience. The pro-life people want to be available to those women who need help and want help. They do not want any woman to feel like she has to get an abortion because nobody will help her and and because nobody cares.

I would love to hear the conversations between the pro-life and pro-abortion justices, and those in between (if there are any). I wonder if they will talk about the social situations in which women find themselves pregnant. I wonder if we will ever see any discussion in the media on these issues. What if they did? What if people began to support help for women? What if communities demanded that their sons become men and a father to their child?

I just received an email from Melissa Ohden who founded the Abortion Survivors Network https://abortionsurvivors.org . When she found out her mother tried to abort her by saline injection in 1977, she also discovered that her mother never knew that she survived after being expelled from the womb.

As a teenager, she felt “alone, like an accident, like a mistake.” One can hardly imagine the anguish she felt. As an adult she rebelled against the “silence and shame” of the “abortion culture” and began to speak publicly. When others revealed their stories to her, she founded the Abortion Survivors Network to provide a means for abortion survivors to contact each other and learn how to heal from the knowledge that they were not wanted and their mothers tried to kill them.

Now there are 397 members of the Network. Many of their stories are found on the web site. An Empowered by Life healing retreat was just held at Jordan Ranch in Schulenberg. Through peer support and educational programs abortion survivors are demanding to be recognized as more than a piece of tissue, more than a “choice,” and some are in training to become speakers to share their stories and bring survivors “into the light out of the darkness of abortion.”

At the other end of the spectrum, Shawn Carney, President of 40 Days for Life, has announced the confirmed survival of the 19,000-th (+) baby due to a 40 Days for Life campaign to pray outside abortion clinics for a change of heart in women headed for abortion: https://www.40daysforlife.com . The next campaign is September 22-October 31.

Meanwhile, Teresa Strack, Executive Director of Life First https://lifefirst.org , continues her leadership role in “Building a Respect for Life from the Ground Up” through prayer vigils, referral to pregnancy resource centers, and educational outreach. Life First is hosting a table at the Texas Youth Summit August 27-28, and will lead a 40 Days For Life Kick-Off Rally at the Planned Parenthood clinic on Louetta on September 18. Visit the web site for details and to learn more about the astonishing array of programs of outreach to the community.

Don’t forget to check this web site under the Upcoming Pro-Life Activities tab for other events which you might be able to attend.

On July 13, a Pro-life group at St. Paul’s Catholic Church in Brooklyn held a monthly mass followed by a prayer vigil at an abortion clinic. They were met by a pro-abortion group that blocked their path and engaged in shoving and yelling of obscene epithets. This was not the first time the church group has been met with counter protesters, but they report that the anger is accelerating and they have expressed concern for increased violence and suppression of freedom of speech. Similar anti-abortion actions are held monthly on Manhattan and Staten Island, and in the Bronx.

On July 12, a House subcommittee advanced a draft of a federal spending bill which does not include the Hyde Amendment which has prohibited since 1976 the use of taxpayer money to fund abortions for women on such Federal programs as Medicaid. Pro-life members of Congress are opposing the bill and hope some day to make the Hyde Amendment a federal law rather than an add-on amendment to the budget. At the same time, pro-abortion members of Congress want to make the Supreme Court findings in Roe v. Wade federal law so that future court findings cannot modify the original court rulings in 1973.

On May 29, a Canadian Pro-life group released an animated video encouraging pregnant women to choose life for their baby with the theme “yes, you can do this.” The video has received hundreds of thousands of views and is in the process of also being released in languages other than English.

A panel of women on MSNBC recently discussed the upcoming case before the Supreme Court in which Mississippi asks the court to rule that their law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks gestation is constitutional. The concern by pro-abortion groups is that the court may recognize the right of the states under the 10th Amendment to the constitution to decide all issues which are not specifically designated to the United States. Therefore, the issue is one of whether the individual states can decide the circumstances under which abortion is legal. The panelists agreed that such a ruling would allow the states to treat women “like incubators with mouthparts.” They also took the position that incumbent democrats should add many more pro-abortion justices to the Supreme Court right away to prevent such a ruling. They did not discuss making resources available to women in desperate circumstances so they could have a healthy baby without resorting to abortion. In contrast to those who believe abortion should be an unrestricted first choice, Pro-life groups believe in helping women so that abortion could be the last choice any woman had to make.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileoni recently commented that “one cannot claim to be a devout Catholic and condone the killing of innocent human life.” While decrying the concept of “abortion as an issue of health and fairness to poor women,” he continued to comment, “What about the health of the baby being killed?” San Francisco is the hometown of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who supports abortion and elimination of the Hyde Amendment which has prohibited the use of federal money to pay for abortion since 1976. She has cited her Catholic faith as her reason for doing so. By calling herself a “devout Catholic” (along with President Biden and numerous other pro-abortion members of Congress), a very divisive controversy has been set in motion within the Catholic Church, which officially opposes abortion and supports respect for life and the dignity of the individual. The Archbishop reaffirmed that it is the “people of faith” who operate pregnancy resource centers to “provide poor women life-giving alternatives to having their babies killed in their wombs.”

Some of the above notices have been discussed to some extent in earlier posts, and more information is available on some topics under tabs on this site.

On May 16, 2021, the International Society for Stem Cell Research called for consideration of research on human embryos beyond 14 days of gestation. Current policy is to destroy such embryos before that date when the nervous system begins to develop.  Stem cell research on human embryos is legal in the US, but there are restrictions on government funding and their use.  (See the tab on this page)

Science has irrefutably concluded that human embryos are people in the earliest stages of development.  Two US Congressmen have stated that the ISSCR has shown an utter disregard for the value and dignity of human life. 

The Society also recommended lifting restrictions on creating “chimera” embryos that contain both human and animal cells. The same two Congressmen have also introduced the “Human-Animal Chimera Prohibition Act.”  Pro-life supporters find the concept of destroying a human life and creating a life form consisting of a mixture of human and animal cells a horrifying idea.

In response to a new Pro-Abortion administration and renewed funding of abortion with US tax dollars since January 2021, 46 states have introduced 536 pro-life bills and 61 have become law. These are being challenged by the pro-abortion faction, and the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case involving a Mississippi law that I reported on in a previous post.

In London, Parliament is considering a proposal to legalize assisted suicide. A Catholic Bishop urges lawmakers to value the sanctity of life and emphasize caring over killing.

An Italian Bishop at the March for Life in Rome proclaimed that we must not be afraid to confront a culture of rampant death.

Thousands of people gathered in the Croatian capitol of Zagreb on June 2, 2021, for their annual March for Life. An event coordinator proclaimed that the right to life is a fundamental human right. Abortion is legal in Croatia until the 10th week. Such marches are spreading throughout Europe. In the US Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade in 1973, the court decided that human babies in the womb were not persons with a right to life under the US constitution.

A new pro-life campaign in Poland known as “Every Life is a Miracle” tells the stories of children born with disabilities after doctors advised their mothers to consider having an abortion. The founder has stated that people cannot be killed before birth because of a suspected disease or disability. The stories relate how much joy these children have brought to their families. This follows a ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal in Warsaw October 22, 2020, that abortion for fetal abnormalities was unconstitutional. The ruling was followed by protests, and the pro-life campaign was founded to reinforce the decision of the Tribunal.

Also in Poland, the “Yes to Life Foundation” has forged a bronze bell 4 feet in diameter and weighing 2000 pounds decorated with a DNA double helix and an ultrasound image of an unborn child. It is called the “Voice of the Unborn” bell and will tour churches in Poland to memorialize the 42 million babies aborted annually in the world. The foundation says they have received inquiries from Ecuador and Ukraine about the possibility of forging a similar bell for organizations in those countries.

In Spain, the Assembly of Associations for Life, Freedom and Dignity, consisting of 140 organizations, has announced plans for massive demonstrations throughout the country against the agenda of the current “far-left” coalition government. In March 2021, the country passed a euthanasia law. The Assembly seeks to replace it with a palliative care law. The group will also seek to block a proposed law that would criminalize demonstrating and sidewalk counseling near abortion clinics by pro-life groups.

On July 3, 2021, at least 39 local pro-life rallies will be held in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland. On July 4, a Virtual Rally for Life will be held with several prominent activists planning to speak. On January 1, 2019, a law went into effect in the Republic of Ireland which repealed the Eighth Constitutional Amendment that guaranteed the right to life of the unborn. Since then, there have been about 6,600 abortions. Those who promoted the change in the law had argued that abortions would be rare and almost only in cases where there was detection of a life-limiting condition in the unborn baby. However, organizers cite a lawsuit arising from the case of a misdiagnosis which led to abortion of a healthy baby, leaving the parents bereft and devastated. They question how many other babies have been aborted due to such a mistake. And, women seeking abortion for any reason have been far greater in number than was anticipated.

Nothing has divided Catholics more in recent times than the controversy over worthiness of Catholics to receive Holy Communion. The issue became public when President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (both Catholics by baptism) advocated that women should have unrestricted access to abortion both nationally and internationally, and that taxpayer dollars should pay for the procedure on Medicaid patients in the US and by making grants for that purpose to foreign entities. In a prior post I discussed that Biden has acted promptly to reverse the policies of the Trump administration toward enacting those goals to expand abortion widely.

In the Bible, Paul’s letter in 1 Corinthians 11:27 reads “whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” For 2000 years the Church has taught that one should not take Holy Communion if one is aware of having committed a grave sin. One should repent of the sin and receive absolution before taking Communion.

The Church teaches that life begins at conception and must be respected until natural death. The US Catholic Bishops have repeatedly emphasized that it is the obligation of all Catholics to support human life and the dignity of the individual and that abortion is a grave sin. Thus, advocating and facilitating abortion is a grave sin.

Religious and devoted Catholics have raised the question of whether the Church will now approve Holy Communion for those unrepentant and engaging in other grave sins if the Church will give Communion to Catholics who support abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.

At the spring assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Bishops voted 168 to 55 to draft a document clarifying the existing Church teaching on worthiness to receive Communion while emphasizing that they will not introduce any new norms or national policy. Understandably, this may not answer the question that has been posed by lay persons.

Indeed, a vocal minority of Bishops has pushed back on the proposal to clarify Church teachings. Some have expressed concerns that such clarification will make it obvious that public officials who say they are Catholic and take Communion while advocating a grave sin without repentance, are defying the teachings of the Church. Lay people then ask what other sins can people do and still take Communion.

Shortly after the vote was announced, sixty House Democrats released a statement asking the bishops not to move forward. However, the Bishop of Sioux Falls, South Dakota has maintained that the Church is scandalized by not taking a position sooner because the faithful are confused when the clergy says one thing and does another.

The proposed document is expected to re-affirm the Church’s teachings about Communion without mentioning any specific grave sin. Public figures who advocate for abortion and euthanasia, and against other Catholic moral and social teachings in a manner that the Church considers gravely sinful are at the same time free to decide whether their actions are in fact a grave sin and whether they can take Communion. Evidently, it leaves the door open for all lay people to decide for themselves what is a grave sin according to their own values and whether they should take Communion. Many prominent Catholic figures wonder how this can do anything except weaken any sense of cohesiveness in the teachings of the Church and a commitment by the people to a virtuous life.

The June 19 edition of Science News contains an article entitled The Science and ART of Human Reproduction as part of their Century of Science series reporting the impact on society of major scientific advances of the last 100 years.

In my book, and in abbreviated versions under tabs on this site, I discuss how people began to think about the origin of life from antiquity. Philosophers debated issues of when a growing fetus became a human being, the timing of ensoulment, and the morality of abortion and neonaticide. In this Science News article, the authors point out that, until the 17th century, the prevailing theories were that minuscule humans already existed fully formed either in the mother’s menstrual blood or in the father’s semen. There was no belief, unlike the common assertion today, that the “thing” in the mother’s body is a “piece of tissue” to be discarded for convenience.

In any case, fertility was never a sure thing, and even today about 15% of couples worldwide are not able to conceive naturally. Many of us understand how sorrowful this can be. The advent of in vitro fertilization changed everything. Variations on this technique are now known as assisted reproductive technology (ART). Some 9 million babies have already been born this way, and tens of millions of embryos are frozen and waiting their turn to become babies. This article recognizes that all of these embryos are human beings whether implanted to grow into a baby or frozen for future use.

The impact of ART on society has been huge since infertile couples can now have children, as can same-sex couples and single adults. Sometimes this involves a surrogate mother to bear the child to delivery. ART is currently used roughly 3 times more often in Europe than in the United States.

Sometimes women or men who need to be treated for cancer will donate eggs or sperm to be frozen and used later. Sometimes men and women headed into combat donate sperm or eggs to be frozen and used in case they do not return. In other cases, women freeze their eggs to be used at another date when it is a better time in life to have a baby, perhaps when she is older and she has a more favorable life-style situation. This has become known as “social freezing.” In one study, only 6.5% of women ever returned to use their frozen eggs or embryos.

The article goes on to explain that technological innovations now permit the doctor to inject a single sperm into an egg to produce fertilization. In the seminal study, this was done to 47 eggs, 15 cells grew to embryos to be implanted, and 4 live births ultimately occurred. This method is now used in roughly two-thirds of ART cycles and thus has largely replaced IVF. There is still a lot of wasted life.

Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) involves sampling the growing embryo to check such things as sex and markers for genetic diseases. This is now common, and doctors may use the findings to decide to implant the egg or not. Many state laws have been passed to forbid abortion of a pregnancy on the basis of sex selection and for a diagnosis of Down Syndrome, and sometimes for other circumstances. Most of these have been struck down by federal courts, but a case involving a MIssissippi law soon will be heard by the Supreme Court, and pro-life supporters hope the court will rule that the individual states have the right to regulate such matters.

In the meantime, there is open discussion of using the gene-editing CRISPR technology in the future to perform certain changes to the embryo such as for disease prevention or to design certain other characteristics into the developing child. Identifying which regions of the genome are responsible for developing into various characteristics has its origin in 1924. Breakthroughs occurred in 1965 and again in 1995. Ultimately, society will need to address the issue of designer babies. In China, a doctor has already (illegally) manipulated the genome of two children who were born healthy.

While being sympathetic to the circumstances many people experience in wanting a child, we meet the concurrent waste of human life which is inherent to the success from bringing a child to birth. It makes many feel ambivalent and uncomfortable. The issues of how to use PGD and how to regulate designer babies also must be faced.

The purposes of this blog is to provide the reader with information and education on complicated issues concerning human life and dignity. I trust the reader to use the information wisely when it is time to shape the future of our society.

In February 2020, Judicial Watch discovered that the Department of Health and Human Services had been purchasing organs from aborted human fetuses to create “humanized mice” for research. In June, they discovered that the Food and Drug Administration had been purchasing fetal organs between 2012 and 2018 that were “fresh and never frozen,” also to create “humanized mice.”

The purchases were made from a California company called Advanced Biosciences Resources (ABR). ABR bought the aborted fetuses from Planned Parenthood for $60 and dismembered them for sale in pieces for as much as $2000 per fetus.

For an historical perspective, in 2001, President George W. Bush restricted the use of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, and federal law still prohibits transfer of “any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration.”

However, in 2008, a California company run by men from Ecuador conspired with Planned Parenthood to obtain aborted fetal parts in exchange for financial “donations.” In an attempt to evade US law, the parts were sold internationally. This was discovered in 2015, and the company was prosecuted and the owners deported. However, the California Attorney General declined to prosecute Planned Parenthood in exchange for substantial donations to her political campaign. The US Department of Justice was reportedly looking into the matter in 2020, but no charges were forthcoming. We recall that officials in the DOJ were themselves involved in illegal activity between 2017-2020.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. For a long time it has been evident that we cannot point a finger at leadership in foreign countries and decry corruption in their public officials. We have our own problems!

As many know, the 40 Day For Life prayer vigils outside abortion clinic around the world have persuaded many women to choose life for their babies. In addition, they are reporting that the last 5 abortion clinics that closed following a 40 Day for Life campaign were in such diverse locations as Chicago, Seattle, Mexico City, and London (2 locations).

As important as these vigils are, the back story is that more women are using oral contraceptives, the Plan B pill, and the abortion pills so that there is a smaller percentage of women with unwanted pregnancies seeking a surgical abortion.

This means that the activities of pro-life people are more needed than ever to espouse alternatives and to reach young women in the communities where they live no ;later than age 15. Planned Parenthood is diligently promoting abortion as the first and best alternative a woman has in such a situation.

Education, emotional support, and material aid by pregnancy resource centers is essential. They can direct women to heath care and state sponsored programs to meet all their needs. If we cannot help directly, let us support those who are in the trenches working directly with women seeking help. But, our biggest challenge is to make young women aware that such resources exist.

We need to address the issues of the family unit and absentee fathers who drive women to abort out of despair.

Senator Dick Blumenthal (D-CT) called a meeting on June 16, 2021 of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution to promote his bill, Protecting Roe: Women’s Health Protection Act. This is in fulfillment of the Democrat promise to codify into the law of the land the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade so that the findings cannot be reversed (all or in part) by a future Supreme Court decision.

This comes in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision May 17, 2021 to hear a case in which the state of Mississippi has passed a law challenging the findings in Roe v. Wade concerning such things as fetal viability and the rights of the states to regulate abortion under the 10th Amendment to the constitution. The court already has acknowledged the latter (to a limited degree) in their ruling in Casey. See the “Abortion” tab on this page. I have also written extensively on this issue in my book (pending publication).

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) invited Melissa Ohden to testify at the hearing. She narrowly survived a late term saline abortion. As an adult she founded the Abortion Survivors Network where 356 survivors (so far) have found support and healing from the pain they experienced in knowing that their mothers tried to kill them.

Ms. Ohden’s testimony has been echoed across Washington through the lobbying efforts of the ASN’s Education and Policy Center which has met with critical congressional leadership and sympathetic members of the House and Senate.

We will be watching the progress of this bill and the Supreme Court case.

In the meantime, please visit: https://abortionsurvivors.org and https://educationandpolicycenter.com

As he promised, Biden has reversed US policy that was preventing taxpayer support for abortion in foreign countries only 8 days after inauguration. However, it will take quite a bit of time for institutions in these countries to gear up for performing an increased number of abortions again, perhaps as much as 2 years in some cases.

Since Reagan began the policy in 1984, every democrat president has canceled it and every republican president has restored it. Trump took the policy to a new level. Now there is discussion of a new federal law to make it impossible for future republican presidents to enact a version of the “Mexico City Policy” in the future.

Some people have expressed a deep discomfort with a policy by which white people promote and subsidize the abortion of brown and black babies.

In California lawmakers are debating a bill to eliminate out-of-pocket expenses by women seeking an abortion, such as deductibles and co-pays. This comes at a time when most other states are passing laws restricting abortion.

The Guttmacher Institute is reporting that there have been 559 abortion restriction bills introduced in 47 state legislatures so far in 2021, and 82 laws have already been enacted. Only a few laws have been proposed to make it easier and cheaper to have an abortion.

Abortion opponents assert that California should make birth and maternity care more affordable. Wynette Sills, director of Californians for Life has said, “If we are trying to look out for the economically disadvantaged, I think it’s repulsive that the best we can offer is a free abortion.”

The North Carolina legislature has passed a law prohibiting abortion on the basis of the race or sex of the baby or whether there is a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. North Carolina already has a law prohibiting abortion on the basis of sex selection. The legislation was led by Republicans and passed with a vote along party lines. The Democrat governor is reportedly “likely” to veto the bill because he had rejected restrictions on abortion in the past.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic are urging that the governor veto the bill.

A federal appeals court has blocked Missouri from enforcement of a 2019 law banning abortion after a gestational age of 8 weeks. The law also would have prevented abortion on the basis of the fetus having Down Syndrome. The lawsuit was filed by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union. The law had been blocked by a lower court pending the judicial process. Similar laws have been struck down in North Dakota and Iowa. The state says it plans to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In 2021 several states have passed laws banning abortion based solely on a prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. An appellate court in Ohio has said that the state can implement a 2017 law. The governors of South Dakota and Arizona recently signed such bills. Texas has introduced a bill prohibiting “discriminatory abortion” for a long list of conditions and “any other type of physical, mental, or intellectual abnormality or disease.”

Louisiana lawmakers have passed a bill to the governor’s desk requiring doctors prescribing abortion pills to inform women of the option to seek reversal of the procedure. The pills may be prescribed up to 9 weeks of gestation. The Democrat governor opposes abortion and regularly signs anti-abortion legislation.

The law would require a doctor prescribing the two pill process to provide a written statement to the woman: “If after immediately taking the first pill you regret your decision, please consult a physician or healthcare provider immediately to determine if there are options available to help you in continuing your pregnancy.”

The American Pregnancy Association states that a woman must act as soon as possible and receive large doses of progesterone (which promotes gestation, as the name implies) starting within 24-48 hours of taking the first pill (mifepristone, or RU-486) to block the effects of the pill. Some abortion reversals have occurred as long as 72 hours after taking the first pill.

Legislatures in Arkansas, Idaho, South Dakota, and Utah have passed similar legal requirements in recent years.

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology points out there have been no scientific (strictly speaking, randomized, blinded, and placebo controlled) clinical studies to determine timing or the proper dose of progesterone or the efficacy of attempted reversal. One can easily appreciate the ethical issues, among other things, and see why such a study is not likely to be funded, if anyone were even interested to conduct such research.

However, a group of physicians reported an observational case series of 547 attempted reversals in an article in Issues in Law & Medicine in 2018. Women received different doses of progesterone by different techniques within 72 hours of taking the first pill. Those who took high oral doses had 68% success. Those taking injections (a variable number from 1 to 11) had an average of 64% success.

However, success was also mitigated by gestational age. Those at 5 weeks (who took mifepristone within a few days of being late for their menstrual cycle and then immediately sought reversal) only had 25% success (combing data from delays up to 72 hours and all techniques of taking progesterone). If the woman takes the mifepristone pill only and does nothing, the pregnancy persists about 25% of the time. Thus, there was no clear benefit to taking progesterone in the 5 week group, although those promptly starting progesterone by injection or by high oral doses had greater success.

There was 46% success at 6 weeks, 49% at 7 weeks, 61% at 8 weeks and 77% success at 9 weeks. It is felt like success rates would have been higher if progesterone was started within 24-48 hours of taking the first pill and if the most successful techniques had been used by all. There were no adverse reactions in mother’s and no birth defects in babies.

So, a woman who takes the first abortion pill and changes her mind about wanting an abortion within 24-48 hours and then receives progesterone either by a series of injections or by high oral doses has a good chance of saving the pregnancy. Since about 40% of abortions in the US are now by these pills (and about 60% in Europe), women should receive proper notification of their options.