Amy Coney Barrett Believes Life Begins at Conception. And So Does Every Scientific Textbook in the World.

By Katie Franklin

Amy Coney Barrett believes life begins at conception.

That is not a controversial notion. Virtually every scientific textbook in the world reflects this biological fact.

Yet last week, after the media went to work digging up “dirt” on Barrett, they discovered her noncontroversial viewpoint and decided to sound the alarms.

“Revealed: Amy Coney Barrett supported group that said life begins at fertilization,” reported The Guardian, a publication that openly supports abortion.

The story went on to describe how Barrett and her husband signed onto a newspaper ad created by Saint Joseph County Right to Life in 2006. The group, an affiliate of Indiana Right to Life which is now called Right to Life Michiana, had generated the ad as a pro-life educational piece surrounding the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion-on-demand.

The ad appeared in the South Bend Tribune, stating: “We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death. Please continue to pray to end abortion.”

The story isn’t so much a revelation as it is a confirmation of what we already knew: Barrett is Catholic and—unlike several pro-choice Catholic politicians—she takes her faith seriously. She was a member of the Notre Dame Faculty for Life group, and in 2013, she delivered a presentation around the 40th anniversary of Roe, sharing her legal and historical analysis of the decision, as well as “her own conviction that life begins at conception.” During her time as a judge for the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, she has voted favorably for life.

Yet the media is still lingering on where she stands on the question of when life begins.

“Does Amy Coney Barrett Believe Life Begins at Fertilization?” asked Vogue (perhaps the last place anyone should be seeking political news, aside from Buzzfeed.)

But shouldn’t everyone? It’s not so much a “belief” as it is a scientifically proven fact.

The controversy, of course, revolves around Roe v. Wade and how Barrett would rule should an abortion case come before the Supreme Court.

Barrett is an avowed originalist. She believes a judge is bound by the law and the original meaning of the Constitution rather than her personal biases.

But what is “biased” about the understanding that life begins at conception? It is a verifiable fact.

What is biased, however, is the unscientific belief that an unborn baby is a human life….well….whenever a woman wants it to be.

If human life doesn’t begin at conception, where would The Guardian or Vogue say it begins?

A couple centuries ago, people believed it began at “quickening,” the moment a mother first feels her unborn child move—something that is inconsistent from woman to woman and pregnancy to pregnancy. Now, for nearly half a century, the Supreme Court has operated under the equally inconsistent and inadequate standard that says human life may be protected when it is considered “viable.”

Yet over the years, viability has changed. Tiny, premature babies are surviving delivery earlier and earlier, before the 24-week mark that has typically been used to determine “viability.” The reality is that “viability” changes depending on what time period we are in and what country we live in—a premature baby in the first world has better access to proper medical care than one in the third world. But don’t both lives have value?

The viability standard has become increasingly unworkable and archaic, yet it continues to determine public policy.

Abortion advocates have no better scientific standard to offer, so instead they ridicule the truth.

Local abortion advocates told The Guardian that Right to Life Michiana is an “extreme” group because of its adherence to basic science and morality, and The Guardian ran with that label in its subheading.

The day before her nomination, Bill Maher disparaged Barrett as a “f—ing nut” because of her Catholic faith. But when she is shown to understand a rather elementary scientific concept, she is also written off as a zealot.

As disturbing as these lies and inconsistencies clearly are, pro-lifers should take heart. Barrett is not married to a fantasy about the beginnings of human life, meaning she is already better qualified for the Supreme Court than the many men who decided Roe and the subsequent justices who preserved it.

 

 

 

 

Indiana Right to Life PAC Endorses Todd Rokita For Attorney General

Indianapolis –Indiana Right to Life PAC today announced its endorsement of Todd Rokita for Attorney General.  Rokita is a long-time advocate for the unborn, compiling a 100% pro-life voting record as a member of Congress.  In addition, Rokita was endorsed by IRTL-PAC during his two terms as Secretary of State.

Rokita’s voting record in Congress includes:

  • Voting for the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act to establish a permanent, government-wide policy against funding for abortions.
  • Voting for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to generally prohibit abortion after 20 weeks fetal age and to provide substantial new protections for infants born alive during abortions.
  • Voting for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to enact an explicit requirement that a baby born alive during an abortion must be afforded the same degree of care that would be afforded to any other child born alive.
  • Voting for passage of the Defund Planned Parenthood Act to prohibit federal funds from going to America’s largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood.
  • Voting to amend federal law to clarify that states may, at their option, exclude abortion providers from the federal-state Medicaid program.

“Todd Rokita is the pro-life choice for attorney general,” states Indiana Right to Life PAC chairman Mike Fichter.  “We have absolute certainty that he will strongly defend Indiana’s pro-life laws in the courts, including future laws as well as those laws already being challenged in the federal courts.”

 

#  #  #

Ginsburg’s Legacy and the Future of Roe v. Wade

By Katie Franklin

The loss of a sitting Supreme Court Justice is great, and in the political climate we are currently living, that loss is all the greater.

Many are remembering Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a “champion of gender equality” and a “leading litigator for women’s rights,” all in line with the “Notorious RBG” canonization people have bestowed on her for years.

But unfortunately, her legacy also includes the defense of one of the most dehumanizing practices women and children have ever suffered in United States history.

That practice is, of course, abortion.

In her 27 years on the Court, Ginsburg went so far as to defend partial-birth abortion twice, once in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) and again in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007). Years later in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2015) and June Medical Services LLC v. Russo (2020), she sided with the abortion industry, knocking down Texas and Louisiana laws which aimed to hold abortionists accountable to basic health and safety standards.

While many commentators and news outlets are lauding her for her fight against pregnancy discrimination, in 2018, Ginsburg sided against America’s pregnancy help centers—life-affirming outposts which aim to help women through the many hurdles of an unexpected pregnancy and new motherhood (NIFLA v. Becerra).

And yet—despite her consistent defense and advocacy for legal abortion, Ginsburg held a nuanced opinion on Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion all across the U.S. in 1973.

That decision, she argued, was far too sweeping.

By knocking down abortion restrictions in all 50 states, legalizing the practice through all nine months of pregnancy, and orienting the decision around the practice of abortion rather than equality, the Court, she said, had created a “target” for pro-lifers.

“That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly,” she told a crowd of students at the University of Chicago Law School in 2013. “… My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.”

Indeed, since it was decided in 1973, Roe has remained one of the most controversial decisions in Supreme Court history.

In the following decades, more than 60 million abortions have occurred in the U.S. Yet many states have made advances in protecting unborn babies, challenging Roe and forcing the Supreme Court to consider limits to the culture of “abortion-on-demand.”

Abortionists like Philadelphia’s Kermit Gosnell and Indiana’s Ulrich Klopfer have revealed the grisly reality of abortion. Thousands, if not millions of women, have come to regret their abortions. And abortion survivors themselves are speaking out.

Additionally, more than 2,750 pregnancy help centers have risen up to meet the needs of women, men, and children all across the country, posing a loving alternative to the heartbreak of abortion.

Ginsburg was a studied, hard-working, and accomplished woman, and her colleagues—regardless of their Constitutional interpretation—clearly respected her as a person and legal mind.

As Planned Parenthood and NARAL dig in their heels and prepare to smear the yet-unnamed Supreme Court nominee, we must remember the truth: Roe v. Wade was an extreme decision that ushered in the deaths of millions of innocent babies. And not even Ruth Bader Ginsburg—an avowed defender of legal abortion—believed it was good law.

Indiana’s 18-Hour Ultrasound Law To Go Back Into Effect After State’s Largest Abortion Business Drops Suit

INDIANAPOLIS – Indiana’s 18-hour ultrasound law will go back into effect on January 1, 2021, as a result of Indiana’s largest abortion chain, Planned Parenthood, conceding it will not win its suit which has blocked the law since 2017. The ultrasound law, part of the 2016 Dignity for the Unborn Act signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence, requires that women considering abortion be provided the opportunity to view a fetal ultrasound at least 18 hours prior to an abortion.

A significant decline in abortions is expected in Indiana as a result of the ultrasound law going back into effect. From July through December 2016, while the ultrasound law was in effect, there were 496 fewer abortions in Indiana compared to the period of July through December 2017, when the ultrasound provision was blocked and abortions spiked to a 13 percent increase.

The concession underscores that Planned Parenthood and the ACLU did not feel they could win the suit in the Seventh Circuit in the wake of this summer’s June Medical Services vs. Russo decision by the Supreme Court. Two days after the June Medical Services ruling, the Court vacated a previous Seventh Circuit ruling blocking the ultrasound law and remanded the case back to the Seventh Circuit for reconsideration.

On August 7, the impact of the June Medical Services ruling was felt as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU were dealt a blow by the Eighth Circuit when it lifted injunctions against multiple pro-life laws in Arkansas.

“Indiana’s ultrasound law will save lives,” states Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter. “Women deserve the opportunity to see an ultrasound image of their unborn baby at least 18-hours before an abortion in order to have ample opportunity to reconsider an abortion. In the brief time this law was in effect in 2016, abortions dropped sharply in Indiana, only to rise quickly as soon as the law was blocked. Now we hope to see abortions drop once again, this time for the long term. We regret, however, that this life-saving law will not go back into effect until January.”

In a release earlier today, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill stated, ““For women considering abortions, ultrasounds are an important part of informed-consent counseling. Anyone interested in protecting women’s health, including their mental health, should support giving them as much information as possible to aid their decision-making. Empowering women with knowledge is fully consistent with the U.S. Constitution.”

Fichter is skeptical of Planned Parenthood’s claim that new ultrasound equipment at its office in Fort Wayne drove its decision to drop the suit. “Planned Parenthood is dropping this suit because it fears it won’t win now that the new standard of June Medical Services is being applied by the courts,” Fichter notes. “This move is to cut legal costs in what it knows will be a losing battle. The courts have clearly abandoned the Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt framework from 2016, and that’s great news for pro-life laws moving forward.”

Fichter also raised deep concern that the move is just another step in the direction of Planned Parenthood attempting to operate an abortion business in Fort Wayne, stating, “With Planned Parenthood, connecting the dots means it always comes back to the business of abortion. Always.”

When asked by the Seattle Times in 2019 if Planned Parenthood intends to do abortions in Fort Wayne, its CEO Chris Charbonneau replied, “Absolutely”.

# # #

 

Five Quick Facts About The Indiana SCOTUS Ruling

1. The Supreme Court ruled on two separate parts of Indiana’s Dignity for the Unborn Act (HEA 1337) signed into law by then-Governor Mike Pence in 2016:

1) The requirement that aborted babies be treated humanely by disposition of burial or cremation; and

2) A prohibition on abortions solely for the purpose of an unborn child’s race, sex, national origin, potential disability or Down syndrome.

2. The Court reversed a Seventh Circuit ruling that blocked Indiana law requiring the humane disposal of aborted babies through burial or cremation. Since 1973 and until this ruling, aborted babies in Indiana have been treated as common medical waste or garbage. One former abortion clinic employee testified before an Indiana legislative committee that she watched aborted babies being flushed down a drain into the Indianapolis sewer system.

3. The Supreme Court decided not to consider the issue concerning the civil rights protections, but did leave the issue open for future consideration, noting, “Our opinion likewise expresses no view on the merits of the second question presented, i.e., whether Indiana may prohibit the knowing provision of sex, race, and disability selective abortions by abortion providers. Only the Seventh Circuit has thus far addressed this kind of law. We follow our ordinary practice of denying petitions insofar as they raise legal issues that have not been considered by additional Courts of Appeals.”

4. The Court’s opinion was issued per curiam, meaning an opinion by the Court as a whole that does not identify any particular justice as the author. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion while Justice Ginsberg wrote a dissenting and concurring opinion stating she would have denied Indiana’s petition for review in its entirety. Justice Sotomayor stated separately that she would have denied the petition in its entirety.

5. The Court is also expected to decide soon if it will hear Indiana’s appeal on another provision of HEA 1337 requiring that a woman considering an abortion be provided with the opportunity to view an ultrasound of her unborn baby at least 18 hours prior to an abortion. The ultrasound provision is currently blocked by the Seventh Circuit, leading to a rise in abortions in Indiana.

Supreme Court Recognizes Humanity of Unborn in Indiana’s Fetal Remains Law

Denial to Hear Indiana’s Unborn Civil Rights Law is Disappointing, but Court May Hear Issue in the Future

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an order reversing the judgment of the Seventh Circuit regarding the disposition of fetal remains by abortion providers and establishing a victory for the pro-life movement. Unfortunately, it also denied hearing a second Indiana provision, the portion of the 2016 Dignity for the Unborn Law that prohibits abortions because of the child’s sex, race, national origin or a potential disability, like Down syndrome.

“The Supreme Court gave the pro-life movement a major victory by upholding Indiana’s fetal remains law,” said Mike Fichter, President and CEO of Indiana Right to Life. “The court sided with Indiana that unborn human remains must receive dignified disposal. Humane disposal takes us one step closer to recognizing the dignity of unborn children. Aborted children may no longer be treated as medical waste or garbage. Instead, these precious lives will be required by law to receive a burial or cremation.

“We are deeply disappointed the Supreme Court denied certiorari of the civil rights portion of the Dignity Law. Indiana was on the cutting edge of extending civil rights protections to the unborn. Justice Clarence Thomas made clear in his remarks that the issue of civil rights protections for the unborn must be addressed by the Supreme Court. He called out Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain, for using abortions to further eugenics. We are hopeful one day the Supreme Court will recognize the civil rights of the unborn.

“Here we now have a troubling dichotomy that cannot stand: on one hand we recognize aborted children have dignity and are not garbage, on the other hand the court refuses the inherent, God-given dignity of each unborn child by recognizing their civil rights. This once again places Roe on a collision course with itself. Rest assured, Indiana will continue leading the charge in the effort to protect life.”

A provision of the Dignity for the Unborn Law regarding ultrasounds was appealed separately to the Supreme Court. The Court has not given any indication on how it will rule on that case.

Indiana Right to Life’s mission is to protect the right to life, especially of unborn children, through positive education, compassionate advocacy and promotion of healthy alternatives to abortion.

###

Supreme Court Reverses Seventh Circuit On Issue Of Humane Disposal Of Aborted Babies

US supreme court building

Ruling Means Aborted Children Can No Longer Be Treated As Common Medical Waste Or Garbage

INDIANAPOLIS – The United States Supreme Court today reversed a U.S. Seventh Circuit ruling blocking Indiana law requiring the humane disposal of aborted babies. The ruling means aborted children in Indiana must now be buried or cremated, not discarded as common medical waste.

“Indiana law prohibits abortion providers from treating the bodies of aborted children as “infectious waste” and incinerating them alongside used needles, laboratory-animal carcasses, and surgical byproducts.,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurrence. “I would have thought it could go without saying that nothing in the Constitution or any decision of this Court prevents a State from requiring abortion facilities to provide for the respectful treatment of human remains.”

In the same ruling, the Court ruled it would not hear Indiana’s appeal regarding the civil rights of unborn children based on race, sex, Down syndrome, national origin or disability.

“Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever,” wrote Thomas.

Indiana Right to Life is reviewing the full ruling and will issue a statement later today.

Indiana Right to Life’s mission is to protect the right to life, especially of unborn children, through positive education, compassionate advocacy and promotion of healthy alternatives to abortion.

###