March for Life

In the News

By

The world’s toughest, yet most rewarding job: Moms are heroes

(FOX NEWS) — A few years back, I watched a powerful video.

A company interviewed potential employees for a “Director of Operations” position. The job responsibilities included constant work on their feet (even overnight) and excellent negotiation and interpersonal skills.

The company was seeking someone with degrees in medicine, finance and the culinary arts. The shocked interviewees soon lost interest in the role when they were told there would be no compensation for the job, no breaks and no vacation days. The work was 24/7, 365 days a year. In fact, on holidays the employee’s workload would increase and it was required to be done in a cheerful disposition.

It turned out that the job posting was fake. The job description was that of being a Mom.

The interviewees quickly agreed that being a mom is the most challenging yet rewarding job in the world. This message is needed now more than ever in a world that so often takes mothers for granted.

People may think “moms don’t have a real job” or assume that their work requires no special talent or skills. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mothers across the world and for all time have worked tirelessly to ensure that her child feels loved and taken care of, and that her child will live a life better than she did.

This Mother’s Day, I want to highlight the strength of three mothers who have inspired me during my time in the pro-life movement. 

Rose was diagnosed with endometriosis and told she could never have kids. As she was grieving this news with her husband, a young woman nearby named Elizabeth was grieving for a different reason. Elizabeth just found out she was pregnant, but she was unmarried and terrified to raise a child on her own.

By the grace of God, the two women met and formed a deep, trust-filled relationship. Soon, Elizabeth would entrust Rose and her husband with adopting her baby. Their daughter, Maria Elizabeth grew up in a loving household, even having a strong relationship with her birth mom.

Later, Rose and her husband adopted another little one named Joe. Maria is now a 24-year-old, ninth-grade algebra teacher in Georgia, and 19-year-old Joe is working as a plumbing apprentice and personal trainer.

Rose and Elizabeth chose motherhood in different but equally beautiful ways, and their lives show how the choice for adoption rather than abortion can produce more joy and love than anyone ever imagined.

When Beverly was 18 weeks pregnant with her and her husband’s ninth child, she got a call that turned their lives upside down. Their child was diagnosed with “Trisomy 18,” a life-limiting prenatal diagnosis.

She was told by her doctor that her baby would be a “drain on [her] family” if she lived at all. Still, she decided to love her baby girl, no matter what conditions she may have. Her beautiful daughter, Verity, is now 7 years old and her family’s “most precious blessing.”

Beverly recently said, “True love puts others first. It requires self-sacrifice, not self-interest. True love invites us to serve others, especially the most marginalized and helpless in society. This is our calling, and yes, it sometimes involves hardship.”

 In Beverly, I see the unfathomable love and sacrifice characteristic of mothers across the world… no matter their child’s ability.

Francesca’s path to jail began at a young age. She was addicted to drugs and had been abused in her marriage. After losing custody of her four children, she despaired and spent the next 17 months of her life stealing cars and drugs for a living.

One day after being robbed at gunpoint, she decided to quit this hopeless lifestyle. She turned herself into the local jail where she served 10 months.

Soon after being released from jail, Francesca sat awaiting her psychiatric drug prescription. She was shocked when the doctor instead sent her home with prenatal vitamins. The child’s father was her former drug dealer.

Francesca turned in desperation to a local maternity home where she found love, support and hope. She stayed at that maternity home for two years and during that time turned her life around. She is now a thriving mom to her son, Brandon and found her calling as a manager at a mechanic shop.

It’s incredible what can happen when we invest in women and love them, no matter their circumstances. Francesca’s story makes it clear that motherhood empowers women to overcome deep brokenness and suffering and realize their dreams.

As these stories highlight, motherhood can look different for every woman, but one thing stands out among all moms: Women are incredible, and when we encourage and empower them in their motherhood, even in the most difficult situations, they become the world’s greatest heroes.

This Mother’s Day let’s all celebrate moms for all they do. A mother’s job never stops, and far too often their work goes unnoticed. No matter the circumstances of her motherhood, she is needed and loved by her child in a unique and beautiful way.

Moms deserve to be honored and celebrated today and every day for the heroes they are.

(Originally published in Fox News)

By

‘Leave it to the states’ won’t work: Why we need a federal abortion law

(THE HILL) — Over the last few weeks, we have seen intense debate reignite over the role the federal government plays in limiting abortion. The backdrop to such debates is the upcoming presidential election, as well as the cultural reverberations around the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

There has been some confusion about the Dobbs decision. It did not simply “return abortion to the states.” Rather, it returned the power to protect the unborn to the voters, who can exercise this power through both their state and federal elected officials.

The Dobbs decision empowers states to enact pro-life laws that cover the period before viability — that is, approximately 22 weeks into a pregnancy or earlier. Under the Roe regime, states were not able to enforce such laws. Thankfully, many states have now implemented life-protective laws since the decision came down. To date, 24 states protect women and unborn children prior to viability. (Three of these are currently in litigation.)

Of course, the reverse is also sadly true. Twenty-six states currently have few or no protections for unborn babies, even at the stages where their hearts are beating, where they suck their thumbs or where they can feel pain. Seven of these states, along with Washington, D.C., have virtually no limits on abortion — not even a prohibition on painful dismemberment abortions.

This is why the U.S. must enact some form of a federal limit that protects unborn children nationwide. Otherwise, we continue on our deadly path, where over half of the country is exposed to the harms of abortion, and the human rights of the unborn are ignored.

It can be hard to comprehend that the most developed country in the world, the U.S., permits late term abortion in more than half of our states, even though 65 percent of Americans consistently believe that abortion should be illegal at least after the first trimester (about 12 weeks), and 80 percent believe that it should be illegal after the second trimester (about 24 weeks).

Our nation is in shameful company with its lack of protections for the unborn. Only seven other countries allow late-term abortions, including some of the worst international violators of human rights such as China and North Korea.  In comparison, 47 out of 50 European countries have stronger protections for the unborn, limiting elective abortion to 15 weeks’ gestation or earlier.

Even pro-choice Americans know that a seven-pound baby, almost fully formed, who has not yet been born, deserves the right to live. But the law does not reflect this reality.

(Originally published in The Hill)

By

Appeals court restricts access to abortion pill, setting up potential Supreme Court review

(OSV News) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled Aug. 16 to restrict access to an abortion pill nationwide, finding that the government may not have followed its own rules when it loosened regulations on the drug. This ruling will not take effect unless the Supreme Court weighs in, meaning the drug will remain on the market for now.

A coalition of pro-life opponents of mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in a chemical abortion, filed suit in an effort to revoke the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill, arguing the government violated its own safety standards when it first approved the drug in 2000. However, proponents argue mifepristone poses statistically little risk to women using it for abortion early in pregnancy, and claim the drug is being singled out for political reasons.

The FDA in 2016 and 2023 expanded the availability of the drug beyond the 2000 standard, increasing the gestational limit on the drug from seven to 10 weeks, and making the drug available via telemedicine.

The appeals court’s ruling — if implemented by the Supreme Court — would roll back those expansions to their original limits.

“In loosening mifepristone’s safety restrictions, FDA failed to address several important concerns about whether the drug would be safe for the women who use it,” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in the court’s ruling. “It failed to consider the cumulative effect of removing several important safeguards at the same time.”

Erin Hawley, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom and vice president of the ADF Center for Life and Regulatory Practice, told reporters on an Aug. 16 press call that “the district rightly required the FDA to do its job and to restore crucial safeguards for women and girls, including ending illegal mail-order abortions.”

“The FDA will finally be made to account for the damage it has caused and help countless women and the rule of law by unlawfully removing almost every meaningful safeguard from the chemical abortions drug regimen,” added Hawley, who also is the wife of Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.

In a statement attributed to drugmaker GenBioPro, which manufactures generic mifepristone tablets, the company said that “we remain concerned about extremists and special interests using the courts in an attempt to undermine science and access to evidence-based medication as well as attempts to undermine the US Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory authority.”

“We will continue to use our company’s legal and regulatory tools to ensure access to mifepristone, which is essential to the health of many in the United States,” the statement said.

Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, said in a statement the group “is encouraged by the 5th Circuit’s acknowledgment of the FDA’s reckless decision to lift critical safeguards related to the administration of powerful drugs used in chemical abortion.”

“Most Americans oppose (63%) mail-order abortion which lacks any sort of meaningful medical oversight and places women in danger of serious, life threatening complications, and ends the lives of unborn children,” she said. “The FDA has a solemn duty to prioritize health and safety over politics and should be held accountable for failing to do so.”

The Catholic Church teaches that all human life is sacred and must be respected from conception to natural death and as such opposes direct abortion as an act of violence that takes the life of the unborn child.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement that mifepristone “remains FDA-approved and available in many states across the country, including via telehealth.”

“But the 5th Circuit’s opinion makes it clear that mifepristone’s approval is very much still at risk, as is the FDA’s independence,” McGill Johnson said. “Pregnant people should be the ones who make decisions about their own health care, and medical professionals should be the ones who make evidence-based decisions about the safety of medications — not judges. The Supreme Court should reject this clearly baseless and political attempt to interfere with our ability to get health care.”

A statement from the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNS, one of the groups behind the challenge to the drug, called the ruling “a victory for our patients.”

“Over the past two decades, the FDA has repeatedly removed necessary safeguards on the chemical abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol,” the statement said. “These deregulations have placed women and girls at greater risk of life-threatening complications, as well as coerced abortion by abusers and traffickers.”

“Today’s ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstating these basic safeguards and stopping the dangerous practice of mail-order abortions is a first step towards reprioritizing women’s health over the interests of the abortion industry and its allies within our profession,” it continued. “As physicians, we will continue to fight for all our patients to be able to receive the best fully informed and evidence-based healthcare possible.”

Even if mifepristone is pulled from shelves, another drug used in combination for chemical abortions, called misoprostol, would still be available. Misoprostol is sometimes prescribed by doctors for early miscarriage, and the FDA has not approved the drug for inducing an abortion by itself.

In January, the FDA eased restrictions on the sale of mifepristone, permitting its sale at retail pharmacies for the first time. The decision followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision last year that struck down its previous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, after which states moved to restrict or broaden abortion access.

The FDA states on its website that the drug’s approval was “based on a thorough and comprehensive review of the scientific evidence presented and determined that it was safe and effective for its indicated use.”

On its website as of Aug. 17, the FDA states that mifepristone “is safe when used as indicated and directed” through 10 weeks gestation. The agency’s adverse reaction guidelines for the drug state that “serious and sometimes fatal infections and bleeding occur very rarely.”

But opponents of mifepristone say those risks are more common and more dangerous than proponents of the drug say.

(Originally published in America Magazine)

By

Equality Begins in the Womb

From our nation’s birth, our founders recognized the dignity inherent to all people, making each one of us equal in our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because of this, Americans have fought for centuries to advance equality for every person, regardless of race, sex, or disability status. It has taken centuries, but discrimination is now acknowledged as unacceptable just about everywhere in America.

Everywhere, that is, except in the womb.

Americans discriminate against children in the womb routinely, and with disastrous effect.

Every year, thousands of mothers like Courtney Baker hear that their child will live with Down syndrome. Instead of giving advice on how to care for children with Down syndrome, or how much happiness these individuals bring to their families and communities, doctors tell parents like Courtney that they should abort them. Their “quality of life” would make them better off dead than alive.

Tragically, at least 67% of American babies with Down syndrome are aborted. While some lawmakers have attempted to prevent such discrimination, abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood have sued to keep these discriminatory practices legal.

Similarly, many abortion activists have fought against limiting sex-selective abortions, even though such abortions overwhelmingly target female children compared to male children. These activists argue that abortion is necessary for women to “participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.” They ignore the fact that abortion prevents tens of thousands of girls from participating in society at all.

The upcoming Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will have a major impact on whether laws that protect these smallest citizens can stand.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent legislative attempt to massively expand upon the status quo imposed by Roe v. Wade would make this discrimination permanent. Her bill would allow mothers to abort her children for no other reason than that they don’t like their child’s sex or health status. Pelosi has attempted to codify discrimination in the womb, and this threatens society even beyond the lives lost to abortion.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. So also, legalizing discrimination in the womb paves the way for discrimination later in life. It’s inconsistent to send the message that a disability makes a child in the womb “lesser” than their healthy counterparts, but that same disability has no impact on their dignity and worth later in life. And it’s unreasonable to expect such discrimination to magically cease at the moment of birth. By promoting abortion for children with disabilities abortion advocates deny the dignity and worth of all people with disabilities. Similarly, when society sanctions a mother’s “right” to abort her child based on the child’s sex, we are sending the message to everyone that one sex is “better” than the other.

Discrimination, therefore, begins in the womb. If we discriminate between unborn children, choosing who shall live and who shall die based on immutable characteristics, what is to stop us from doing the same to them throughout their life?

Despite the obvious dangers discrimination in the womb poses, pro-abortion activists do not want to stop sex-selective abortions, or abortions based on a fetal disability. Speaker Pelosi’s bill makes that clear. Perhaps they fear that by admitting these abortions are discriminatory, they must also admit that all unborn children in fact have human dignity, and all the rights to which this dignity entitles them—including the right to life.

As our country continues to advance along the path to a more just society, we cannot ignore the discrimination that is taking place against vulnerable unborn babies who some view as “less than” others. In order to create a more just society, we must recognize that equality begins in the womb.

 

(Originally published in USA TODAY)

By

History and Science Both Support Mississippi’s Abortion Law

Mississippi’s limit on abortion after 15 weeks—which the Supreme Court is gearing up to consider this fall—is supported by historical legal principles as well as the latest science.

The state’s obligation to protect life is rooted in centuries of common law and legal history. The United States ratified the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” in 1868. Long before that, our Founders outlined the obligation to protect life in the Declaration of Independence, and they in turn relied on the common law tradition, as described by William Blackstone.

This legal history supports the notion not only that the state must protect life, but also that it must protect unborn life.

In his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Blackstone contends that life “begins in contemplation of the law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” Similarly, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, 23 states explicitly referred to an unborn baby as a child, and nearly all had statutes limiting abortion.

Facing this historical precedent, some abortion advocates contend that a modern nation’s laws must rely on modern science. In the same breath, however, these activists rely on the scientific understanding of the 1970s. Yes, science increases our understanding of the world, and that understanding—combined with ethical ideals that recognize the humanity in people at all ages and stages—should inform our country’s laws. If our understanding increases, then we should change our laws accordingly. To behave otherwise is akin to closing your eyes, plugging your ears and refusing to acknowledge the truth.

Recent studies have shown that babies as young as 12 weeks can feel and react to pain. Yet dilation and evacuation (in which a doctor rips a fetus apart, often one limb at a time) remains the most common abortion procedure performed for pregnancies between 12 and 24 weeks.

Sadly, pro-abortion activists deny this scientific progress in order to justify America’s barbaric abortion practices. Even though we know unborn children can feel pain as early as 12 weeks, states still allow doctors literally to tear them apart as late as the 24th week. For context, the United States is one of only a handful of countries around the world (including China and North Korea) to offer elective abortions at all beyond the 20th week of pregnancy.

While this reason alone should be enough to vindicate Mississippi’s legislation, the law also incorporates a new understanding of how abortions impact women. With each gestational week after 10 weeks, the risk of complications from abortion increases 38 percent. Past studies have found that women who obtained abortions were 15 times more likely to die at 16 weeks pregnancy than at 12 weeks.

The threat which abortion poses to mothers, however, extends far beyond physical harm. In one legal case, approximately 1,000 women filed affidavits testifying that they suffered “long-term emotional damage and impaired relationships” because they had an abortion. Another study showed that women under the age of 25 who obtained abortions experienced elevated rates of depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior and substance use disorders. Abortion advocates may attempt to downplay the negative effects abortion has on a woman’s body and mind, but they cannot deny them.

Given the harm abortion inflicts on both mother and child, it is no surprise that Americans overwhelmingly support abortion restrictions past the first 3 months of pregnancy.

Mississippi’s law, which protects both children and their mothers, stands well-founded on the most up-to-date science as well as longstanding legal principles.

(Originally published in Newsweek)