Deep Dive: Federal Elections and the Abortion Rate

Yesterday, Live Action News published an excellent article by Dr. Michael New entitled "No, Democratic presidents do not cause large declines in the abortion rate." The article debunks a recent round of memes which purport to show major abortion declines under Democratic presidents compared to Republican presidents — a claim so stale, Snopes rated it false four years ago.  

Dr. New correctly points out numerous problems with these memes. Among other things, they use data from the CDC (rather than the more reliable Guttmacher Institute data), treating California's refusal to report its abortion data to the CDC from 1997 onwards as if it were an actual decline during the Clinton administration instead of a statistical artifact. They also "neglect to mention that the U.S. abortion rate rose sharply during the presidential administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter." Dr. New does the service of providing the correct numbers:

Ranking those from best to worst (assuming you want a low abortion rate), that's Obama (D), Clinton (D), Reagan (R), Dubya (R), Bush Senior (R), and Carter (D). Data for Trump aren't yet available.

Image via Students for Life

This makes it seem like the occupant of the White House has very little to do with the abortion rate. Maybe all that matters is the state of the economy, you might fairly hypothesize, because studies show that most abortions are motivated by financial distress.

I don't doubt the impact of the economy. And yet we also know from prior studies that abortion restrictions like informed consent, parental consent, and waiting periods reduce the abortion rate. That's why pro-choice states have higher abortion rates than pro-life ones, despite similar pregnancy rates. 

So what gives? Does electing pro-life politicians matter or not?

One thing informed consent, parental consent, and waiting periods have in common is that none of them have been legislated on the federal level. No president, Republican or Democrat, has ever signed one into law. They are all state-level legislation. How you vote definitely matters for babies in your state. (See: the "Tea Party" wave during the Obama administration.)

But that's not to say what happens in D.C. stays in D.C. You may have noticed that the abortion lobby is constantly filing lawsuits over state-level legislation, and they usually do so in federal courts. It thus matters a great deal who a president has nominated to the federal judiciary, especially the Supreme Court of the United States. That effect, however, is time-delayed. Consider the recent setback in June Medical v. Russo, which struck down Louisiana's requirement for abortionists to have hospital privileges. June Medical was decided during the Trump administration, but the five Justices in the majority were appointed by Clinton (Ginsburg and Breyer), George W. Bush (Roberts), and Obama (Kagan and Sotomayor).

It's also important to note that past experience is no guarantee of future results. There are good reasons to believe that abortion policy will become increasingly federalized, and as that happens, the occupant of the White House will have a more immediate impact. The Hyde Amendment, which restricts taxpayer funding of abortion through federal Medicaid dollars, is Exhibit A. The Hyde Amendment has been in effect since 1976, covering all presidential administrations from Carter to Trump and saving over 2.4 million lives. But Democrats in Congress have signaled their desire to kill it if they have the votes to do so in 2021. Destroying Hyde would create a huge, federally-driven increase in the abortion rate.

Dr. New will speak on that very topic during our Out of Hyding virtual rally on Wednesday, September 30 at 9pm Eastern (6pm Pacific). We will celebrate the 44th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, affirm the dignity of Medicaid kids, and organize to preserve Hyde for the next generation. Registration is free. See you there!

Recap: SPL at the Democrats for Life of America Conference

Many of our followers know by now that SPL is run by three atheist women: Monica the conservative, Kelsey the independent, and me (Terrisa), the flaming liberal. Naturally, when Democrats for Life of America cleverly sought out a secular speaker for their national conference in Lansing, Michigan, I was happy to fulfill the role!

I work full-time in the pro-life movement and have been to countless pro-life conferences. The first thing that is noticeably different about the DFLA National Conference is just how much resistance it inspires from pro-choice groups. This year, a local groups took out three (yes three!) expensive billboards with the MSU specific message “Go Green, Go White, Go Home Dems for Life!'' Little did they know that DFLA Executive Director, Kristen Day, is MSU alumna! In addition, they dropped off flyers at the conference venue in the days leading up to the event. Similarly, last year at the 2018 conference in Denver, Colorado, a billboard was taken out exalting that “Abortion access is a Progressive Value” and NARAL hosted a press conference outside the venue to address the event!

I find these efforts kind of shocking considering what a relatively small pro-life effort we are. I’ve rarely if ever encountered anything similar at a more traditionally conservative event. Pro-life Dems are often referred to as unicorns, like we’re so rare were a myth. But it’s this effort to counter us that reminds me: Democrats who want to see abortion more restricted than it is today-contrary to the party platform-are actually in the majority. The abortion industry almost exclusively maintains political power through the financial relationship they have with our party. Pro-life Dems pose a unique threat to the future of that relationship.

The conference was lively, fun, diverse, and welcoming. Sure, it skewed a little older and more religious, but the topics and speakers were timely and engaged with topics relevant to us left-leaning types like protecting the life and dignity of immigrants, those who are incarcerated, death row inmates, the LGBT community, enemy combatants, and so much more. It’s pretty cool to be in a room full of people who align so closely in ideology to your own. Especially since being a pro-life activist alone can be so isolating. I presented a talk that Kelsey, Monica, and I developed together earlier this year, discussing the relationship between millennials, secularists, and leftists, why it matters, and what we can do about it to effectively win hearts and minds for life! Due to the nature of the conference it has a bit more of a left take on the concept but be assured, SPL is nonpartisan and welcome to all! Check it out here.

Then on Tuesday, DFLA hosted a press conference outside the Democratic Presidential debate in nearby Detroit, Michigan. They have created a political action committee to compel a qualified pro-life Democratic candidate to come forward and run for President of the United States in 2020! I spoke about the need for someone to represent the majority of Democrats and even Millennials by supporting abortion restrictions. Kristen Day urged the party not to ignore the 1 in 3 Democrats who are pro-life.

It’s an interesting time for being a pro-life Dem. Our party platform is as extreme as it gets, even calling for an end to the Hyde Amendment, which has saved more than 2 million lives. If you’re left-leaning and pro-life, now’s the time to be heard! Pro-life Dems are uniquely equipped to reach the next generation and replace the abortion influence with a culture of life. And together with our right leaning pro-life fam, we can end the abortion regime in America forever.

Thoughts on Oregon Measure 106

There are many pro-choicers who I have heard accusing pro-lifers of incrementalism—saying that they can’t give into something like a national third trimester ban, because pro-lifers wouldn’t stop at that. Once pro-lifers attained that, they would keep pushing for more and more, until the right to end the life of a fetus was completely lost. I do think that if this country could attain European-style limits on abortion (i.e. a limit somewhere mid-second trimester) the pro-life movement would lose its critical mass to be effective; mild pro-lifers just don’t get as riled up when the humans in question for extermination don’t look very much like a baby. But I don’t think these accusations are without merit. I certainly would still be politically anti-abortion, and I know many other activists would be as well.

But I think what doesn’t get talked about so much is the incrementalism of pro-choicers as well. The conversation among pro-choicers is often cast in the veneer of protecting Roe v. Wade, but that’s not all it is about these days. It is about pushing for more and more on the side of being able to kill your offspring in fetus form. Nowhere was this more evident in the recent decision by the Democratic Party to include in its platform, an effort to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortions.

I feel like this incrementalism is apparent even more so on the state level. In some states, we see forces like planned parenthood decrying “anti-choice” for requiring clinic regulations that would ultimately likely result in the closure of those non-complying clinics. A common refrain from pro-choicers is that it’s not like the government pays for abortions, so the pro-life movement should just back down and let people do what they want.

But that is not what is being said in my state of residence. Oregon, one of the few states to allow abortion up to the moment of birth, also has the distinction that state funds most certainly can be used to pay for these abortions. For whatever reason.

Enter Measure 106. This measure would put an end to all state funding of elective abortions. (Medical allowances would remain.) It’s been tried before and failed. Twice.

In this extreme pro-abortion rights state, this is what counts as where the battle line is drawn. Not requirements of hospital access. Not term limits. Not parental consent. There are none of those laws here. The battle line is drawn about whether or not a person should be compelled to pay for the killing of someone else’s unborn child.

Dear pro-choicers, of whom, I feel so many do mean well,

Not forcing your opposition to pay for the thing they are so strongly against, I feel like, is the tiniest, most basic of bones you could toss them. It is the very least you could do to try to get over this huge rift in our country and get to something to quell the useless moralistic outrage on both sides. The people against Measure 106 are my friends and neighbors of course, so it kills me when I can chat with them about how we don’t want to fund the next blood-for-oil war, and that it is unjust that we should do so, only to then have them later justify their opposition of 106 with a shrug and an “everyone has to pay for things they don’t believe in”. It so completely demonstrates to me how pro-choice activism ratchets up to pro-abortion through incrementalism.

So to me, I have come to a new frame of mind as a result of this local conversation. While I to believe it to be unjust, I personally have less political will to fight policy about RU-486, or super early term abortions. But I know we in the pro-life movement must treat those causes with as much seriousness as elective third trimester abortions. Because once the pro-choice side wins on that, they won’t clap their hands and go home. Next up, they will be demanding abortion up to birth in every state, then that every tax payer pay on demand for anyone to kill their child for any reason.

[Today's guest post by KB is par of our paid blogging program.]

The Democratic Party Needs Pro-Lifers

In the 45 years since Roe v. Wade, the Democratic Party has never had less control in Washington D.C. than it does now. Interestingly, the Democratic Party has also never had a more radical position on abortion. The official Democratic Party platform states:

Every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion... We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

In short, the platform advocates for taxpayer-funded abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever. The policy could not be more extreme than that. Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) believes the DNC’s radical position on abortion is largely responsible for the recent decline of the Democratic Party.

In DFLA’s position paper titled, “Open the Big Tent,” they note that 25 state legislatures are currently under complete GOP control, but only six are under complete Democrat control. The DFLA report also notes that the Democrats do not control a single legislative chamber in the South.

However, there is a lone bright spot for southern Democrats. John Bel Edwards, the governor of Louisiana, is a pro-life Democrat who recently signed a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks gestational age. As DFLA notes, Democrats have completely lost control of the South, but pro-life Democrats like Edwards prove this does not have to be the case. Democrats could win more elections in the South, but they need pro-life candidates to appeal to the South’s pro-life voters. The success of Governor Edwards and the failure of pro-choice Democrats in the rest of the South confirms this. 

Furthermore, the DNC’s position on abortion fails to reflect the views of their own voters. According to the Washington Times, 61 percent of Democrats support limiting legal abortion to the first three months of pregnancy. The New York Times “Abortion Memo” from February notes that only 24 percent of young voters support abortion under all circumstances. And earlier this month, the Washington Post stated Democrats must change to appeal to the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose late-term abortion, noting that “armies don’t shrink their way to victory.” 

The DNC party platform is terribly out of touch with American beliefs on abortion, and Democrats have suffered massive losses because of this. If the Democratic Party wants to gain political power, they must appeal to more voters by “opening the big tent” and welcoming pro-life candidates

[Today's guest post by Pat Thomas is part of our paid blogging program.]

More evidence that abortion restrictions decrease abortion rates.

As a follow up to our previous post (Pro-life laws stop abortions. Here's the evidence.) here in chronological order are more studies suggesting that abortion restrictions do decrease abortion—and not just legal abortion, but abortion in general. Note how many of the studies focus on how abortion policy affects birth rates rather than only the abortion rate itself.

"If all states observed the Hyde Amendment restrictions, many thousands of Medicaid-eligible women who would have obtained abortions under the 1977 funding policy would not receive them." The impact of restricting Medicaid financing for abortion. Family Planning Perspectives, June 1980

"Analysis of statewide data from the three States indicated that following restrictions on State funding of abortions, the proportion of reported pregnancies resulting in births, rather than in abortions, increased in all three States." Trends in rates of live births and abortions following state restrictions on public funding of abortion. Public Health Reports, December 1990

"The data show that 13% fewer had abortions in August through December than would have been expected on the basis of the number who had abortions in January through July." The Effects of Mandatory Delay Laws on Abortion Patients and Providers, Family Planning Perspectives, October 1994

"A maximal estimate suggests that 22 percent of the abortions among low-income women that are publicly funded do not take place after funding is eliminated." State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies, Providers, Politics, Demographics, and Economic Environment, Journal of Health Economics, October 1996.

"Access variables, including the restrictiveness of state laws regulating abortion, state funding of abortions for poor women and the availability of hospital abortions, affect abortion rates directly." The role of access in explaining state abortion rates, Social Science & Medicine, April 1997

"The incidence of abortion is found to be lower in states where access to providers is reduced and state policies are restrictive." The effects of economic conditions and access to reproductive health services on state abortion rates and birthrates. Family Planning Perspectives, April 1997

"The decline in geographic access to abortion providers during the 1980s accounted for a small but significant portion of the rise in the percentage of women heading families." State abortion policy, geographic access to abortion providers and changing family formation. Family Planning Perspectives. December 1998

"States legalizing abortion experienced a 4% decline in fertility relative to states where the legal status of abortion was unchanged." Roe v. Wade and American fertility, American Journal of Public Health, February 1999

"The Texas parental notification law was associated with a decline in abortion rates among minors from 15 to 17 years of age." Changes in Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental Notification Law, The New England Journal of Medicine, March 2006

"Our results indicate that much of the reduction in fertility at the time abortion was legalized was permanent in that women did not have more subsequent births as a result." Abortion Legalization and Lifecycle Fertility, The Journal of Human Resources, 2007

"Overall, the results show that laws that increased minors’ access to abortion in the 1960s and 1970s had a larger impact on minors’ birthrates than laws that increased oral contraceptive access." Fertility Effects of Abortion and Birth Control Pill Access for Minors, Demography, November 2008

"Approximately one-fourth of women who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable ... Studies have found little evidence that lack of Medicaid funding has resulted in illegal abortions." Restrictions on Medicaid Funding for Abortions: A Literature Review, Guttmacher Institute, June 2009

"Robustness tests supported the association between access to abortion and decreased birthrates, while the relationship between access to the pill and birthrates received less support." Abortion or Pill Access Is Associated with Lower Birthrates Among Minors, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, March 2009

"Minors in states with mandatory waiting periods were more than two times as likely to report an unintended birth." How Are Restrictive Abortion Statutes Associated With Unintended Teen Birth? Journal of Adolescent Health, August 2010

"A series of regressions on a comprehensive time series cross-sectional data set provides evidence that several types of state-level anti-abortion legislation result in statistically significant declines in both the abortion rate and the abortion ratio." Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era, State Politics & Policy Quarterly, March 2011

"[If Roe v. Wade were overturned] abortion rates would fall by 14.9 percent nationally, resulting in at most, 178,800 additional births or 4.2 percent of the U.S. total in 2008. A ban in 17 states would result in a 6.0 percent decline in abortions and at most, 1.7 percent rise in births." Back to the Future? Abortion Before & After Roe, National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2012

"The empirical results add to the substantial body of peer-reviewed research which finds that public funding restrictions, parental involvement laws, and properly designed informed consent laws all reduce the incidence of abortion." Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era - A Reassessment, State Politics & Policy Quarterly, July 2014

"We estimated that each year more than 4000 US women are denied an abortion because of facility gestational limits and must carry unwanted pregnancies to term." Denial of Abortion Because of Provider Gestational Age Limits in the United States American Public Health Association August 2014

"I estimate an increase in the birthrate of 4% to 12% when abortion is restricted. In the absence of anti-abortion laws, fertility would have been 5% to 12% lower in the early twentieth century." The Effect of Anti-Abortion Legislation on Nineteenth Century Fertility, Demography, June 2015

"Counties with no facility in 2014 but no change in distance to a facility between 2012 and 2014 had a 1.3% (95% CI, −1.5% to 4.0%) decline in abortions. When the change in distance was 100 miles or more, the number of abortions decreased 50.3% (95% CI, 48.0% to 52.7%)." Change in Distance to Nearest Facility and Abortion in Texas, 2012 to 2014 Journal of the American Medical Association, January 2017

"Increases in distance have significant effects for women initially living within 200 miles of a clinic. The largest effect is for those nearest to clinics for whom a 25-mile increase reduces abortion 10%." How Far is Too Far? New Evidence on Abortion Clinic Closures, Access, and Abortions National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2017

"This law caused an increase in viewing rates and a statistically significant but small increase in continuing pregnancy rates." Evaluating the impact of a mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound viewing law: A mixed methods study PLoS One July 2017

"We estimate that over the past 25 years, parental involvement laws have resulted in half a million additional teen births." Did Parental Involvement Laws Grow Teeth? The Effects of State Restrictions on Minors' Access to Abortion, Institute for the Study of Labor, August 31, 2017 (See the SPL blog post about this specific paper here.)

"Trends in sexual behavior suggest that young women’s increased access to the birth control pill fueled the sexual revolution, but neither these trends nor difference-in-difference estimates support the view that this also led to substantial changes in family formation. Rather, the estimates robustly suggest that it was liberalized access to abortion that allowed large numbers of women to delay marriage and motherhood." The Power of Abortion Policy: Reexamining the Effects of Young Women’s Access to Reproductive Control, Journal of Political Economy, November 2017

"Participants were asked if they had considered abortion for this pregnancy and, if so, reasons they did not obtain one...more participants who had considered abortion in Louisiana than Maryland reported a policy-related reason (primarily lack of funding for the abortion) as a reason (22% Louisiana, 2% Maryland, p < 0.001)." Consideration of and Reasons for Not Obtaining Abortion Among Women Entering Prenatal Care in Southern Louisiana and Baltimore, Maryland, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, October 2018

"Existing estimates suggest 10% of Louisiana pregnancies end in abortion. If Medicaid covered abortion, this would increase to 14%. 29% of Medicaid eligible pregnant women who would have an abortion with Medicaid coverage, instead give birth." Estimating the proportion of Medicaid-eligible pregnant women in Louisiana who do not get abortions when Medicaid does not cover abortion BMC Women's Health, June 2019

"We find that a hundred-mile increase in distance to the nearest clinic is associated with 25 percent fewer abortions and 4 percent more births." Undue Burden Beyond Texas: An Analysis of Abortion Clinic Closures, Births, And Abortions in Wisconsin National Bureau of Economic Research, October 2019

"Greater exposure to ARs [abortion restrictions] was associated with increased risk of UIB [unintended birth]." Implications of Restrictive Abortion Laws on Unintended Births in the U.S.: A Cross-Sectional Multilevel Analysis APHA's 2019 Annual Meeting and Expo, November 2019

"...the abortion rate is predicted to fall by 32.8% (95% confidence interval 25.9-39.6%) in the year following a Roe reversal." Predicted changes in abortion access and incidence in a post-Roe world Contraception, November 2019

"We examine characteristics and experiences of women who considered, but did not have, an abortion for this pregnancy....Interviewees who considered abortion and were subject to multiple restrictions on abortion identified material and instrumental impacts of policies that, collectively, contributed to them not having an abortion." Complex situations: Economic insecurity, mental health, and substance use among pregnant women who consider – but do not have – abortions PLOS ONE January 2020

"A highly restrictive policy climate, when compared with a less restrictive one, was associated with a significantly lower abortion rate by 0.48 abortions per 1000 women, representing a 17% decrease from the median abortion rate of 2.89 per 1000 women." "This study provides evidence that a highly restrictive state legislative climate is associated with a lower abortion rate. The methodology used suggests that this abortion rate drop is related to the imposition of restrictive policies rather than other factors that may drive the abortion rate." Association of Highly Restrictive State Abortion Policies With Abortion Rates, 2000-2014, JAMA Network, November 2020

"Restrictive state-level abortion policies are associated with not having an abortion at all." State abortion policies and Medicaid coverage of abortion are associated with pregnancy outcomes among individuals seeking abortion recruited using Google Ads: A national cohort study, Social Science & Medicine, April 2021

Further reading:

• Pro-life laws stop abortions. Here's the evidence. Secular Pro-Life Perspectives, August 9, 2017
• International "unsafe abortion" studies are highly flawed. Secular Pro-Life Perspectives, January 10, 2018
• Pro-life laws prevent abortion primarily by preventing unplanned pregnancy. Secular Pro-Life Perspectives, July 20, 2018
• Link collection: Evidence that pro-life laws mean fewer unintended pregnancies. Secular Pro-Life Perspectives, July 31, 2018
• Deconstructing Three Pro-Choice Myths: Abortion restrictions don't stop abortions. (Video presentation.) Secular Pro-Life, September 2018
• Stop Saying That Making Abortion Illegal Won’t Stop People From Having Them, Rewire News, October 4, 2018
• 'Abortion Restrictions Don't Work': A Dubious Claim, National Review, April 15, 2019

Permanently Protect Our Conscience Rights and Support Student Mothers: Oppose Senate Bill 320

Following the tumultuous social events of summer 2017, San Jose State University President Mary A. Papazian sought to reassure San Jose State students during her opening semester address stating, “As a civilized, caring community, we condemn this outrageous, indefensible behavior while affirming our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity, and respect for individual differences.” A new law being considered at this very moment in our state capital challenges the spirit of Pres Papazian’s call for “respect for individual differences.” This law, Senate Bill 320 or SB 320, would require on-campus student health insurance plans offered by California State University, the California Community Colleges and the University of California to include coverage of the abortion pill, which can be taken up to 10 weeks after a woman’s last period. And without additional safeguards for conscience, SB 320 may one day require all SJSU students, including pro-lifers, to directly fund chemical abortions. The bill will also turn our collectively used Student Health Center into an on-campus abortion center.

This law is deeply offensive to the conscience rights of many SJSU students and is bad policy for the women and community of SJSU. A 2016 poll “found that 53 percent of college aged Americans believe abortion should be illegal in at least most circumstances… That is up 9 percentage points from a 2012 survey conducted by Students for Life, which found 44 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds tended to back pro-life policies and 44 percent pro-choice policies.” These gains in pro-life support come even as these same young voters are overwhelmingly liberal on social issues such as same-sex marriage and drug legalization. Assuming SJSU is representative of college age opposition to abortion, over 15,000 pro-life SJSU students may be forced to fund abortions on campus through required student fees. Abortion advocates constantly argue that abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor. Why, then, should the law require the student body to become involved?

San Jose State University students protest SB 320

Some supporters of SB 320 contend that these concerns are unwarranted because amended language in SB 320 states that “private moneys” will fund the program. Pro-life students have several issues with this. First, the original language of SB 320 did not include any such provision; the “private moneys” amendments were only added after political pressure from pro-life activists. Second, even this particular language of the bill does not provide for permanent conscience protections. The exact language states: “Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted as requiring public universities to support implementation of abortion by medication techniques with General Fund appropriations or student fees” (emphasis mine). Therefore, nothing in SB 320 guarantees protection of student fees from forthcoming additions to SB 320 which may alter the funding mechanism, or from overzealous pro-abortion university administrators who wish to divert student fees toward the SB 320 program. Lastly, pro-life students contend that student fee funding for the student health centers is inseparable from the provision of the implementation of SB 320. The overarching infrastructure and employees that will be used to distribute the abortion medication is paid for by student fees, regardless if the medication itself is privately funded or not. Money is fungible and therefore student fees can still be used even indirectly in the implementation of SB 320.

Bills such as SB 320 directly and intentionally circumvent federal conscience protections against the funding of abortion and invent out of whole cloth a positive right to state- or university-funded abortions. The Supreme Court has twice ruled in favor of taxpayer conscience protections like the Hyde Amendment, ruling in favor of the constitutionality of restricting public funding for abortions. In the 1979 case Maher v. Roe, the Court ruled that Roe v. Wade does not establish a woman's right to a free abortion, holding that Roe v. Wade “did not declare an unqualified 'constitutional right to an abortion'” and “implies no limitation on the authority of a State to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and to implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds.” The court reiterated that position the following year in Harris v McRae, stating: “The funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment do not impinge on the 'liberty' protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment held in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 168, to include the freedom of a woman to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy.”

In essence the Court ruled that “regardless of whether the freedom of a woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy for health reasons lies at the core or the periphery of the due process liberty recognized in Roe v. Wade, it does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices.”

Despite the Hyde Amendment protections and the aforementioned judicial rulings, 17 states including California use taxpayer funds to fund abortion. According to a September 2016 report, California’s Medicaid program (Medi-Cal) spent more than $27 million on more than 83,000 induced abortions in 2014. According to California’s Department of Health and Human Services, Medi-Cal provides abortions “regardless of the gestational age of the fetus” and, furthermore, “medical justification and authorization” are “not required.”

The move toward bills such as SB 320, which lack strict explicitly articulated conscience rights of students, is the latest attempt to circumvent the Hyde Amendment’s conscience protections and is yet another indicator that the abortion lobby is moving away from their slogan of “safe, legal, and rare,” to a policy of “any time, for any reason, at no cost.” We at Spartans for Life believe abortion is never void of costs. Abortion is an act of violence which costs a child a lifetime of potential, costs a mother and father the joys of parenthood, and costs our campus community a proper respect for life.

SB 320 offers no choice for a campus pro-life community and no real choice for our pregnant students. SB 320 offers a choice between choosing between one’s education and one’s child. This is not “choice,” this is not “empowering,” this is not “feminist,” and this is certainly not “respecting our differences.” We at Spartans for Life believe California can do better. We believe that women can do anything they set their minds to. We believe all student fees would be better served aiding our pregnant Spartans in being both mothers and students. We believe this policy represents real choice for all our students. As such, we respectfully ask our campus community to make their voices heard and vocally oppose SB 320’s implementation across our state.

[Today's guest post is by Nick Reynosa. He is a student at San Jose State.]

Three Major News Items Today

Mississippi passes 15-week abortion limit: Last night, Mississippi governor Phil Bryant signed a law limiting abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, except to save the life or health of the mother. Here, for reference, is what a 15-week-old human looks like (via the Endowment for Human Development):



While much media coverage noted that the new law is exceptionally "tough" or "strict," that's only true if you have a narrow, USA-centric frame of reference. Mississippi's 15-week limit is mundane in the context of other developed nations like Spain, France, Germany, and Belgium (14 weeks LMP); Italy (12 weeks LMP); Portugal (10 weeks LMP); and Ireland, Malta, and Poland (right to life recognized without regard to age).

Mississippi's sole abortion business has already filed suit to block the law. It will likely remain unenforced while the case works its way through the court system. The current Supreme Court is 5-4 in favor of abortion, so the law will only be upheld if a Justice soon retires or dies.

Illinois Primaries: Both the Democratic and Republican primary races in Illinois, being held today, are critical for pro-life advocates. On the Democratic side, abortion extremists have targeted Dan Lipinski, one of the last remaining pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives. His challenger, Marie Newman, is funded primarily by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Pro-Life Action League, Susan B. Anthony List, Democrats for Life, and many others are working phones and knocking on doors for Rep. Lipinski. Illinois has an open primary; pro-lifers of all stripes, including the independent and unaffiliated, who live in the 3rd Congressional District are strongly encouraged to cross over and vote for Lipinski. We must beat back those in the Democratic Party who would impose an abortion litmus test and treat the fundamental human right to life as a partisan issue.

Meanwhile, on the GOP side, Illinois primary voters have the opportunity to boot Governor Bruce Rauner from office. Gov. Rauner is infamous for signing a bill to destroy the Hyde Amendment in Illinois, introducing widespread taxpayer subsidies for the abortion industry. He betrayed not only those pro-lifers who voted for him, but the more than 144,000 Illinoisans who owe their very lives to Hyde Amendment protections. His primary opponent, Jeanne Ives, is an unapologetic pro-life advocate.

Today at the Supreme Court: The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments today in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra. NIFLA is an umbrella organization for pregnancy resource centers and clinics, who are challenging a California law that forces them to advertise abortions. Pro-life advocates from across the nation (including our own Terrisa Bukovinac, flying all the way from San Francisco!) are convening outside the Court this morning to stand up for life and freedom of speech. It's going to be an incredible rally, and if you can't make it in person, you can watch it live at the March for Life facebook page.

Behind Enemy Lines: Undercover at a NARAL training session

All over the country, student and activist pro-life groups regularly meet to discuss the intimidating task of developing a sound messaging program to effectively reach members of their communities. Which key words will connect with women the most? How do we handle the most difficult questions with the appropriate amount of care? Often overlooked in all this is that simultaneously, as a foil to this work, abortion rights advocates are meeting in these very same communities, discussing these very same issues of messaging. Just as pro-lifers grapple with how to message about issues such as restricting reproductive freedom, bodily autonomy, and abortion in the case of rape, conversely, abortion rights activists are laboring to present their views on parental consent, late-term abortion, and public financing of abortions in the most palatable terms to the general public. 

Out of a desire to better understand our opponents’ viewpoints and be prepared for the types of messaging young women at risk for abortion may be hearing, our Students for Life group decided to secretly infiltrate a NARAL training session in California. What we encountered there was a pro-choice movement that is both shrewd in its marketing and emboldened in its goals.

Messaging Tactics                   

The messaging tactics seem to be emotionally aware and politically savvy. The issue of abortion was highly shrouded in the language of social justice. The “lived experiences of women” and “meeting women where they are at” were highly emphasized. It seemed that the objective question of “the morality of abortion” was countered with the subjective “lived experiences” of women obtaining abortions—as if obtaining an abortion was a form of identity, that could not be understood or questioned beyond the person experiencing it. Euphemisms were also used abundantly. As the trainer noted, while many Americans do not mind abortion being legal, a clear majority of Americans have strong ethical qualms with abortion. As such, the word “choice” can lose its power if many people view the choice as immoral. Therefore, incorporating more universal terms such as “economic security” can be more effective. As pro-lifer writer Jill Stanek has noted, “The pro-choice movement has been reduced to euphemisms about euphemisms.”

In a moment of shocking honesty in a portion on parental notification, the trainer noted that many parents do not feel that their children should have rights to abortion, prioritizing their child’s safety over their child’s personal privacy. She added that it’s important to relay to the parents, that of course their kid will come to them, but what about children who are more unfortunate and don’t have anyone to trust? Never mind that they’re advocating for the right of all children to circumvent their parents; at least the parents they’re talking to feel good about their kids. For someone willing to be so disingenuous with parents, she was strikingly honest with us about these tactics.

Above: Pro-abortion signs with "access" messaging

Policy Goals

Another component that jumped out at us was how far the conversation has shifted as the pro-choice has become more dissatisfied with the status quo and more emboldened in their policy goals. Long gone are the reverence for the trimester regime of Roe, the regulations provided for by Casey, the consensus of Hyde and the cautious verbiage of the 90’s which sought to make abortion “safe, legal and rare.” In their absence, “accessibility” has become the catch-all word. The NARAL spokeswoman made it clear that this prioritization of accessibility is the main driver behind 2018’s SB 320 in California, and the 2016 Democratic party platform, explicitly including the overturning of the Hyde Amendment. When directly asked about this by one of our members, the spokeswoman said that assuming a Democratic victory in 2020, the overturning of Hyde will be a top legislative priority in 2021. She also acknowledged that she never imagined a day when two national candidates would both advocate overturning Hyde. How far we’ve come. It is clear to us, that within the next 5 years it is highly likely that the battle over Hyde will be the front lines in the abortion debate.

The Litmus Test

Being as the training was held at a county Democratic Party office, it was only natural that the infamous “litmus test” question to arise. Ever since Tom Perez’s well-known snafu, Democrats have been contentiously debating whether their big tent can tolerate the presence of pro-lifers. It was here that the level of extremism was made evident. The NARAL spokeswoman said that if they feel confident their candidate can maintain the Democrat seat in question, then they would primary the only three Democrats that voted for the 20 week abortion ban. She also noted that NARAL endorsed Hillary over Bernie. This is rather remarkable, given that they did not endorse Hillary in 2008; but Bernie, who has a 100 percent voting rating from NARAL and a 0 rating from the National Right to Life, made the unpardonable sin of endorsing a pro-life Democrat from Nebraska. Apparently it is not just pro-life Democrats who will not be tolerated by NARAL, but also stalwart pro-choicers who merely wish to co-exist with pro-life Democrats.

Conclusion

Having discussed the abortion issue for over 10 years now, I felt a strange connection with the people there. I could relate to their passion and excitement about the issues being discussed. I myself have been in many similar pro-life talks and have the same types of conversations they have with the public week in and week out. It was interesting to think that these people have devoted their lives to defending that which my moral intuition tells me is the greatest moral wrong. In that moment, I realized perhaps they view me and my friends as doing the same and being equally misguided. 

Although, I can say that the evening did not end with moral ambiguity. As the training was wrapping up the spokeswoman did a brief Q&A. Answering one question she tongue-in-cheek replied “We’re very live and let live here” and then belly-laughed saying, “Sorry, I have a very dark sense of humor.” Dark indeed. 

At last: something we can agree on.

[Today's guest post is by Jeremy R.]

The dying gasps of an industry

Suppose that you were the CEO of a business in crisis. Industry-wide, sales are down a shocking 21 percent. What would you do?

You might start by trying to improve your company's public image. If that fails, you might go negative, increasing your customer base by scaring them away from alternatives to your product. And if you're truly desperate, you might seek a government subsidy.

The Centers for Disease Control recently released its 2014 abortion statistics. The number of abortions in the United States fell to a new record low—from the previous record low set in 2013. In the ten-year period from 2005 to 2014, abortions plummeted 21 percent. And while the CDC's consistently delayed reporting is obviously an issue, all signs point to the abortion industry being in even more dire straits today than it was in 2014.

Pro-life legislation is certainly one cause of the drop in abortions. But even in states that are hostile to life, babies were better off in 2014 than they were in 2005. Other contributing factors include improved contraceptive methods; a spike in sexual abstinence among young adults; pro-life educational efforts, which have a greater reach than ever thanks to social media; and the continued work of pregnancy resource centers, many of which have harnessed innovative marketing tools to reach mothers in crisis.

So what's an abortion vendor to do?

Try to improve your company's public image: Last year, Planned Parenthood blew $4 million on an effort to "refresh our brand."

Go negative on your competition: The abortion lobby has dramatically increased its attacks on pregnancy resource centers, but has little to show for it. A recent attempt to smear pregnancy centers with fake online reviews fell flat, and the reviews were taken down for violating Google and Yelp terms of service. Laws forcing pregnancy centers to advertise for abortion have run into First Amendment obstacles.

Seek a government subsidy: Naturally, Planned Parenthood is working overtime to preserve its existing $500 million annual taxpayer subsidy. But Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups are also out to destroy the Hyde Amendment, which is a restriction on federal funding of abortion through the Medicaid program. The Hyde Amendment has prevented over two million abortions since it was first enacted in 1976; if you were born through the Medicaid program during that time frame, there's a 1 in 9 chance the Hyde Amendment saved your life. Eliminating the Hyde Amendment would create a massive subsidy for the abortion industry, and could even reverse the downward trend in abortion numbers.

The days of "safe, legal, and rare" are long gone. As I wrote a few years ago:

There is a kernel of fundamental tension between the movement for "choice" and the movement for "access." They can coexist while there are a million abortions a year. But in the long run, in order to have access, a critical mass of women have to make the "right" choice.

"Choice" has fallen by the wayside. The abortion lobby's current priorities—rebranding, attacking on pregnancy resource centers, and pushing for subsidies—points to one goal: increasing the number of preborn babies who die by abortion.

I realize there are still moderate pro-choicers out there. If that's you, I have a message: Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and all the other "pro-choice" organizations stopped representing you a long time ago. The abortion industry is dying, and as it struggles to stay afloat, it has quickly shed any pretense of charity. It is acting like the profit-driven business it has always been. If you find this appalling, please consider joining our efforts to help women and children. Even if you aren't 100% on board with the anti-abortion stance, look into what your local pro-life charities are doing. You'll find many opportunities to advance true choice.

Illinois Governor kills life-saving ban on abortion funding through Medicaid

#HelloHyde, my name is Stargift.

Last year on September 30, we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the life-saving Hyde Amendment with a social media photo campaign, using the hashtag #HelloHyde. Tomorrow is the 41st anniversary, and while 41 may not be as eye-catching, the Hyde Amendment remains a crucial tool to protect low-income children from abortion

Sadly, we mark this anniversary with tragic news: Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner just signed legislation that will destroy the Hyde Amendment in Illinois.

 #HelloHyde, my name is Gina.

First, some background: the Hyde Amendment is a limitation on taxpayer funding of abortion through the Medicaid program (which serves low-income families). The Hyde Amendment is an annual federal budget rider, first passed in 1976 and renewed every year since. A white paper issued on the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment found that it has prevented over two million abortions. Of all the children born through the Medicaid program over the past 41 years, one in nine would be dead today without the Hyde Amendment.

Last year, our #HelloHyde campaign focused on Medicaid kids, presenting their photos (complete with #HelloHyde name tags) and challenging abortion supporters: who among these people should have died a taxpayer-subsidized death?

  #HelloHyde, my name is Noah. 

Though the Hyde Amendment is great a pro-life success, it isn't all-encompassing. The Medicaid program is jointly funded by both federal and state revenues; the Hyde Amendment only covers the federal portion. Most states have followed suit and instituted their own Hyde-like protections, but a handful have not.

Naturally, the abortion industry—struggling to stay afloat as the abortion rate plummets—wants a government bailout, which means destroying the Hyde Amendment wherever possible. Subsidizing abortion will increase abortions, and therefore increase abortion profits; it's Econ 101. And they set their sights on preborn children in Illinois.

#HelloHyde, my name is Cateri.

The Illinois legislature recently passed a disastrous bill known as HB40 that would eviscerate Illinois' Hyde Amendment protections. The Charlotte Lozier Institute reported that the Hyde Amendment has saved the lives of over 144,000 low-income children in Illinois, and Illinois Right to Life projected that HB40 would, if enacted into law, cost the lives of 12,000 preborn babies annually.

A few days ago, HB40 landed on Governor Rauner's desk for signature. Governor Rauner had given mixed signals. He is a pro-choice Republican who at one point said that taxpayer funding of abortion was too extreme and promised that he would veto HB40. But he started wavering, and the abortion lobby put him under immense pressure to sign the bill.

#HelloHyde, my name is Jackie.

Of course, the pro-life movement pressured him too. I personally called his office, and so did many of you. But it was an uphill battle: he never respected preborn children for the human beings they are.

Yesterday, he signed a death sentence for approximately 24,000 babies.

I say 24,000 because that's 12,000 times two years; Governor Rauner is up for re-election in 2018, and we will defeat him. We must reverse this horrific decision as soon as possible. Not only Governor Raner, but every legislator who voted in favor of HB40, will face the full electoral wrath of the pro-life movement. These politicians have effectively told 144,000+ constituents that they should be dead! We are not going to let that slide. Let the attack ads begin. And let them feature Illinois residents born through Medicaid.

Pro-life laws stop abortions. Here's the evidence.

[Today's guest post by Candace Stewart is part of our paid blogging program.]

One of the most popular pro-choice arguments I've come across doesn't have anything to do with the personhood of the unborn or bodily rights. Instead, many pro-choicers try to render philosophical and biological arguments moot by saying that anti-abortion laws (whether they be incremental pro-life laws such as those passed in various US states or total bans on elective abortions) just don't work.

The source for this claim is nearly always a joint study done by WHO and the Guttmacher Institute (an explicitly pro-choice organization with former ties to Planned Parenthood) published in the Lancet. This study estimates abortion numbers and rates for women in different world regions. They claim to find that abortion rates are similar in regions where abortion is permitted on broad grounds (North America, Europe, etc.) and regions where it is largely illegal (Latin America and Africa). The only difference, the authors say, is that abortion is generally safe in regions where it is legal and unsafe in regions where it is illegal.

While I don't doubt that illegal abortions are taking place in significant numbers in many developing countries, I do doubt the accuracy of many of Guttmacher's estimates. It's beyond the scope of this post to get into all the reasons why, but I'll link here an admission by the UN (which tends to favor legalized abortion) that Guttmacher's estimates are "quite speculative because data are missing from the large majority of countries." (Note the study that the UN is referencing is an older one from 1999, but it was compiled by the same authors using the same methods, and those estimates are used as the basis for later estimates, so the UN's statement still applies). Despite the speculative nature of such estimates and Guttmacher's political dog in the fight, these numbers are often repeated uncritically by the media and even many pro-lifers take them at face value. Many people who are generally uncomfortable with legal abortion are convinced not to support banning it because of this study. In fact this argument was part of the reason (among others) that I was pro-choice (in the first trimester) for a few years, even though I was morally opposed to abortion.

About a year ago I started to question my former position on abortion and read a lot of pro-life material, and I did read some pro-life responses to the Lancet study.

Pro-life New York Times columnist Ross Douthat noted in his columns that the study doesn't compare like to like, and he points out that when comparing abortion rates between generally pro-life US states versus generally pro-choice states, pro-life states have significantly lower abortion rates (this holds even when accounting for women that cross state lines to obtain abortions). This piqued my interest because it contradicted the finding of the Lancet study: that laws restricting abortion weren't associated with lower abortion rates. Now correlation isn't necessarily causation, but obviously US states are much more directly comparable to each other than Uganda is to Germany. So I decided to do some research into this question. Rather than comparing different countries, I figured the best way to measure the effectiveness of abortion laws was to compare abortion rates in that country (or state/region) before and after either legalization of abortion or a restrictive law. I also wanted to be sure to find studies that weren't conducted by pro-life organizations to eliminate any possible bias in favor of anti-abortion laws. Some of these I came across while reading pro-life blogs, but most I found while searching Google Scholar.

This list is what I feel are the best studies showing the effectiveness of different types of anti-abortion laws. I will just summarize the abstract next to the link.

Effects of Abortion Legalization 

• http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.89.2.19 -- States that legalized abortion before Roe experienced fertility declines as a result http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/harwpaper/9910.htm -- Found that women who became pregnant before Roe were far less likely to abort a pregnancy compared to women who became pregnant after Roe  
• https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2009/03/abortion-or-pill-access-associated-lower-birthrates-among-minors -- Abortion legalization was more instrumental in lowering teenage birth rates in the 60s/70s than increased contraception access 
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11990636 -- Decrease in infants relinquished for adoption in states that legalized abortion pre-Roe 
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecin.12017/full -- Teenage childbearing decreased as a result of pre and post Roe legalized abortion 
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1353/dem.0.0026 -- Another study finding that pre-Roe legal abortion caused a drop in teenage birthrates 
• https://economics.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/lahey2_april_6.pdf -- Restrictive abortion laws enacted in the 19th century were estimated to have decreased abortions and increased births 
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2016.00060.x/full -- Fertility in Mexico City decreased as a result of abortion legalization, after accounting for prior trends and trends in surrounding areas 
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387813001740 -- Closeness to a newly opened legal abortion center in Nepal decreased chances of a subsequent birth among women who had a child before abortion was legalized 
• http://www.economics.uni-linz.ac.at/papers/2016/wp1606.pdf -- Legalization of abortion in Uruguay caused a decline in births from unplanned pregnancies 
• http://community.middlebury.edu/~cmyers/Power_JPE.pdf -- Found that access to abortion after Roe was estimated to have caused a 34% reduction in first birth, 19% reduction in first marriage and 63% reduction in shotgun marriages in the 1970s. According to this study, access to contraception had little effect on these trends and it was mostly access to abortion that drove family formation changes.  

Effects of Restricted Public Funding for Abortion

• http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.71.1.77 -- Found that restrictions in public funding decreased abortions, no evidence that they increased illegal abortions 
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020078406216 -- When public funding for abortion ran out of money in North Carolina, it decreased abortions and increased births 
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19069064 -- Found that public funding and proximity to a clinic influences abortion decisions 
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8135922 -- Finds that Michigan's public funding of abortion restriction increased births  
• https://lozierinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/OP_hyde_9.28.3.pdf -- Analysis of several peer-reviewed studies on the impact of the Hyde Amendment (which prevents federal Medicaid funds from directly funding abortion) estimating two million people were born as a result of the amendment since 1976 (note this study was conducted by an anti-abortion organization but uses unbiased studies in the analysis) 

Waiting Period/Counseling Effects 

• http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/418044 -- Mississippi's two visit waiting period law decreased resident abortion rates
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1083318896700074 -- Counseling before abortion in Singapore decreased the abortion rate
• http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049386716300603 -- Utah's 72 hour waiting period resulted in fewer counseled women obtaining abortions 

Effects of Declining/Increasing Abortion Facilities

• https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/1997/03/effects-economic-conditions-and-access-reproductive-health-services-state -- Fewer abortion providers and more restrictions were estimated to account for a portion of the decline in the rate from 1988-92
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1996.tb00616.x/abstract -- Finds that regions with longer travel distances to abortion clinics have lower abortion rates and pregnancy rates 
• https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/baylor-ir/handle/2104/9884 -- HB2 law in Texas resulted in an increase in births and decrease in abortions 
• http://www.jstor.org/stable/2134397?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents -- More travel distance to a clinic lessens chance of abortion
• https://www.dartmouth.edu/~dstaiger/Papers/2004/LevineStaiger%20JLE%202004.pdf -- Abortion and pregnancy rates decreased after modest restrictions were enacted in Eastern Europe in the 80s and 90s 
• http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0046958017700944 -- Another study on HB2 showing lower abortion rates, accounting for travel outside the state 
• http://www.nber.org/papers/w23366 -- Yet another HB2 analysis
• https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01084114?LI=true -- Fewer abortion restrictions and more facilities lead to lower fertility rates 

Note that many of these studies find effects of abortion laws on fertility (lower when abortion legalized and higher when abortion is restricted) which means that it can't be argued that unreported illegal abortion can make up the difference in abortion rates. If abortion restrictions don't change the rate of abortion, then abortion laws shouldn't have any measurable effect on fertility.

I think there are enough studies here to refute the notion that abortion laws don't work. This argument is very prominent among pro-choicers and it has proven influential in convincing people that are morally opposed to abortion not to oppose it legally. But it's simply a myth. Laws do matter, abortion availability does matter, and pro-lifers should not be deceived by pro-choice lobbying groups to give up the legal fight against abortion.

A crazy week in Washington, D.C.

Your president, Kelsey Hazzard, here. I'm in Washington, D.C. and staying with my friend Lauren Handy, sidewalk counselor extraordinaire. She's a Christian, but takes a totally secular approach to sidewalk counseling. As she describes it, she's doing crisis intervention—if you were rescuing people from a burning building, you wouldn't pause to proselytize, so why on earth would anyone do such a thing when a mom is about to have an abortion? She gets it. She's written for this blog before, and I was excited to shadow her and learn some life-saving skills.

And boy, did we pack a lot of activity into one day yesterday! First stop was an abortion center in Bethesda, where on an average morning, at least 5 to 10 women have abortion appointments...

...but no one came! We're not clear on what happened or why; an abortion worker did arrive and turn the lights on, but the abortionist never showed, and there were no clients. Lauren says I must have been a good luck charm. I'll take it!

Next, we headed over to the Capitol for a press conference on the federal heartbeat bill. Secular Pro-Life hasn't taken an official position on this legislation, but I thought it would be wise to at least get informed about it and take some pictures.

Toward the end of the press conference, a pro-choice woman passed by and struck up a conversation with me. She was upset that no women of color spoke at the presser. I agreed that women of color should have been included, and shared some photos of the diverse pro-lifers I met in San Francisco last weekend. We wound up having a wide-ranging discussion and finding a lot of common ground, including the desire for women to have as many non-violent reproductive choices as humanly possible (and also some totally non-abortion-related things; she's an entrepreneur with a career in solar energy, which is pretty cool). I gave her my email so we can follow up.

That conversation lasted so long that Lauren had to leave in the middle of it for lunch. In my attempt to meet up with Lauren later, I proceeded to get hopelessly lost. Finally we reunited and ate in a Congressional cafeteria, where the TVs displayed the House debate on the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act (which would make the Hyde Amendment permanent).

I about flipped when I saw this:

That 2 million statistic comes from a Charlotte Lozier Institute report which they produced at the request of our #HelloHyde campaign last September. Not a bad ripple effect!

Next, we met up with a larger pro-life group and watched Rep. Marsha Blackburn receive an award for her right-to-life advocacy. That larger group included some 20-somethings from Created Equal, whom I had never met. I wound up networking with them for the remainder of the afternoon, which included a nice visit to the Museum of American History.

I told them to pose "like an album cover."

So that was yesterday! Today should be slightly more relaxed. Here's where you'll find Secular Pro-Life for the remainder of this week:

• On Thursday beginning at 9:00 a.m., check out our booth at the March for Life Expo on 999 Ninth Street NW.
• On Thursday night from 7 to 9 p.m., we're co-hosting a happy hour with Beltway Right to Life benefiting Capitol Hill Pregnancy Center. It's a shame we weren't able to make karaoke happen, but come out anyway and socialize with a great group of folks for a good cause. Our venue is the 201 Bar at 201 Massachusetts Ave NE.
• On Friday morning, we'll probably be at the Expo again.
• On Friday at 11:00 a.m., meet us for the March for Life! Our meetup location is near the official rally site; get the exact coordinates here. Immediately following the March for Life, there are a number of events going on, including a consistent life ethic meeting, a Pro-Life Future happy hour, etc. Take your pick.
• On Saturday, it's the Students for Life of America east coast national conference! Don't forget to register at SFLAlive.org.

This time of year is a whirlwind for us. We have no paid staff and rely entirely on volunteers to maximize our participation in Roe anniversary memorial events. We're so grateful to everyone who came out to San Francisco last weekend, and to everyone who's joining us in D.C. this weekend.

If you aren't able to help out in person, we understand. Please consider making a donation to our work. We want to build on the energy of this week to make 2017 our best year yet!

Election Reflection

In some ways, nothing has changed.

Regardless of who is in office, all pro-life people have an obligation to advocate for policies that will reduce abortion. Priorities will include confirming a pro-life replacement for Justice Scalia, and preserving the Hyde Amendment (which has saved the lives of over two million Americans) against attacks from the abortion industry. During campaign season, an apparent bipartisan consensus emerged on paid maternity leave; we'd like to see that bear fruit.

For our part, Secular Pro-Life will continue to make the science- and human-rights-based case for the right to life. We'll continue to work with student groups to expand their reach across religious divides. We will continue to do our part to prevent unplanned pregnancies, and to support those who face challenging pregnancies. We'll keep doing what we've been doing, outside the political arena, for the past seven years.

In some ways, everything has changed.

In his victory speech, President-elect Trump pledged to be "president for all Americans" and called for unity among Americans "from all races, backgrounds, and beliefs." I hope, for everyone's sake, that Trump's presidency adheres to that vision. But that is, to put it mildly, a very different vision from the one I have seen Trump espouse for the last year and a half.

The pro-life leaders and organizations that endorsed Trump are now in a position of power and responsibility. They will have the President's ear. I hope that they do not take that for granted, because they won't be the only ones seeking influence. I hope they not only encourage him to pass anti-abortion laws, but guide him toward a pro-life, pro-woman path, emphasizing the need for genuine respect of every human life. And yes, that includes the lives of people of color, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault, Muslims, Mexicans, and so on. It may get uncomfortable. I hope these leaders appreciate that our movement (particularly our youth movement) is largely made up of marginalized people, who identify with preborn children for that very reason.

One final thought: I have definitely been guilty of failing to look outside my college-educated social-media echo chamber. I thought Clinton was sure to win. Trump's victory took me completely by surprise. It should not have. I am going to make a concerted effort to expand my horizons, and suggest that we all do the same.

Big plans

Secular Pro-Life is riding high.

On September 30, our #HelloHyde campaign celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, which has saved the lives of over 2 million children born through the Medicaid program. We educated tens of thousands of people about the life-saving power of the Hyde Amendment and highlighted the faces and stories of Medicaid kids. We built an alliance of pro-life organizations that will continue to put Medicaid kids first as the Hyde Amendment comes under attack by the radical abortion lobby.

Last week, we caught the attention of the left-leaning news outlet Slate, which featured Secular Pro-Life in a fantastic article about the Millennial generation of pro-life advocates. We are building on the work of pro-life pioneers, incorporating new ideas, and busting stereotypes. Young people are increasingly liberal on "social issues" like marriage, but we aren't budging on abortion. We recognize that the right to life for all ages is a fundamental human rights issue, and we're not going anywhere.

And this weekend, we're off to Austin for the Life/Peace/Justice conference, where pro-life advocates focused on abortion, the death penalty, suicide prevention, etc. will network and learn from one another.

Our busy schedule doesn't end there. January's anniversary of Roe v. Wade is just around the corner. As always, we will be at the March for Life in D.C., the Walk for Life West Coast in San Francisco, and speak at the west coast and east coast Students for Life of America conferences corresponding to each. And in 2017, for the first time, we will be at the March for Life expo, which is attended by pro-lifers of all ages, from all over the country. We're so excited to help them make the secular case for life in their communities!

All of this costs money. The #HelloHyde campaign in particular was expensive, as we used paid advertising to reach people with our campaign videos. That was 100% worth it, but our bank account needs to be replenished as we gear up for January.

If you're able, please donate to Secular Pro-Life. We greatly appreciate your generosity.

Thank you for your continued support of our life-saving mission. Together, we will change hearts and minds until the day abortion is unthinkable for all.