Is July Over Yet?

Pro-abortion forces, and the media that agrees with them, often try to paint the pro-life side as extreme.  Issues proven popular with most Americans, such as parental consent for minors seeking an abortion, protecting unborn children at 20-weeks, or even religious protections for entities and individuals that oppose abortion, are described by groups like abortion-giant Planned Parenthood as part of a diabolical scheme in a mythical “War on Women.”

However, during the month of July, pro-abortion Senators in the U.S. Senate exposed what true extremism is by holding a hearing on one radical piece of legislation, and a floor vote on yet another.  First up was a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on what is unquestionably the most anti-life bill ever seen in the U.S. Congress, S. 1696,  “The Women’s Health Protection Act” (WHaPA).  The WHaPA would override the tremendous success of protecting women’s health and limiting abortion that we have seen in the states.  Not since the radical “Freedom of Choice Act,” supported by President Obama, have we seen a bill that is so anti-mother and child.

An analysis by the Charlotte Lozier Institute found that that S. 1696 would turn back the clock on such pro-life gains as 20-week laws, conscience protections, bans on sex discrimination abortions, sonogram and fetal heartbeat requirements, and prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion and it would also eliminate regulations of abortionists like Philadelphia butcher Kermit Gosnell.  The bill is so radical that only two Senate sponsors even bothered showing up for the hearing, while pro-life Senators were well represented.  This bill is quite obviously a desperate cry from those who profit off of the misery of abortion, yet it should be taken as a serious threat to life everywhere.

Later that same week, Senate Democratic Leadership rushed to the Senate floor a vote on legislation introduced by Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) that was supposedly an answer to the Supreme Court ruling on Hobby Lobby.  The bill, S. 2578, the Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act, was more than a simple response though – it was an outright attack on both the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and it would give the government the power to define conscience.

Pro-life Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) described the Senate Democrats’ bill to limit religious liberty as one that “targets religious freedom as the problem.  It treats certain religious beliefs as simply unworthy of recognition and religious exercise in general as a second- or even a third-rate value.”  The bill failed to gain the 60 votes it needed to proceed, but it is a good warning how fragile our religious freedom is.  As President Ronald Reagan once said “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

 

Hobby Lobby Victory!

On Monday, June 30, the Supreme Court released its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Specialties Wood Corp. v. Burwell.  The court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Health and Human Services contraceptive mandate – which the Green and Hahn families opposed because it forced them to provide access to 4 drugs and devices that can end life at its earliest stage – imposed an undue burden on the religious freedom of these family businesses, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  

A human embryo, small and fragile though it may be, is a human life that the March for Life seeks to protect.  Nothing is more important than that!  That’s why the Hobby Lobby case matters.  This mandate forces organizations to cover drugs and devices that destroy precious human life in its most fragile stages.  

The March for Life was at the court all morning awaiting the decision.  Here are pictures from the rally and press conference, as well as remarks from Jeanne Monahan.

 

Unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation from pro-abortion forces has followed the court’s decision, especially in regards to why the Green and Hahn families opposed certain abortifacients.  National Review Online published a piece from Jeanne Monahan entitled “Abortion Advocates Downplaying the Science of Abortifacients.”  Below is a segment of her article:

There is a world of difference between a drug that prevents life and a drug that can destroy life in its earliest and most vulnerable stages. The HHS mandate and the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby provide an excellent opportunity to educate the public about such life-destructive drugs and devices. Women deserve the right to know how they work upon their bodies and the nascent life in their wombs. 

For a recap of the genesis of the HHS mandate, and for reactions from lawmakers and other interested parties, check out Tom McClusky’s blog post:  

The HHS mandate comes from a provision in President Obama’s health care law, commonly called “Obamacare.”   This provision requires all employers who offer health insurance to include coverage for “preventive services”.   The term “preventive services” was then defined by pro-abortion Obama Administration to mean contraceptive drugs and devices, including so-called emergency contraception, some of which can cause abortions.  In addition sterilization was classified as a preventive service. 

For a full recap of the morning, and reactions on Twitter, check out our Storify of the day: