24/HR CRISIS HOTLINE: +1.800.712.HELP (4357)

News & Articles

Keywords:


State's brief for coming high court case says landmark abortion decision violates Constitution's provisions on states' rights

 

Mississippi asked the Supreme Court Thursday to abolish federal abortion rights, arguing in a brief that Roe v. Wade and other precedents entitling women to end their pregnancies in some circumstances trample on states' 10th-Amendment powers to decide public policy within their borders.

In May, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Mississippi's appeal of a 2019 appeals court decision striking down a state law prohibiting abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, is to be argued after the court's new term begins in October, with a decision expected by next summer.

The Mississippi case has been regarded as a bellwether for abortion rights, challenging precedents that set viability—the fetus's ability to survive outside the womb—as the baseline for expanded government power to restrict the procedure. In its initial appeal, filed in June 2020, Mississippi argued its Gestational Age Act complied with existing precedent, suggesting that Roe be overruled only if the court found no other way to uphold the state law.

But the brief filed Thursday reframed the arguments, taking direct aim at the 1973 Roe decision and a 1992 follow-up, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that narrowed Roe's scope. Under current precedent, regulations that place an undue burden on women seeking abortion are unconstitutional.

"Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition," Mississippi argued. "Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution."

Even if there were policy reasons to allow women the right to end a pregnancy in 1973, the state argued that times had changed.

"The march of progress has left Roe and Casey behind," Mississippi said in the brief. "Those cases maintained that an unwanted pregnancy could doom women to 'a distressful life and future,' that abortion is a needed complement to contraception, and that viability marked a sensible point for when state interests in unborn life become compelling."

But "today, adoption is accessible and on a wide scale women attain both professional success and a rich family life, contraceptives are more available and effective, and scientific advances show that an unborn child has taken on the human form and features months before viability," the state argues.

"If Roe falls, half the states in the country are poised to ban abortion entirely," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the Jackson Women's Health Organization in the case. "Women of childbearing age in the U.S. have never known a world in which they don't have this basic right, and we will keep fighting to make sure they never will," she said.

When Mississippi filed its initial appeal in June 2020, the court's direction hung on the vote of Chief Justice John Roberts, who has been skeptical of abortion rights but, in recent cases, reluctant to discard wholesale the precedents recognizing them. With the court otherwise divided between other conservatives hostile to abortion rights and four liberals committed to their defense, antiabortion activists typically framed litigation to chip away at precedents rather than overruling them.

 

The September death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg changed the calculus, allowing then President Donald Trump to appoint Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who in private life had belonged to an antiabortion organization. As is typical for judicial nominees, Judge Barrett said during her confirmation hearing that her personal views wouldn't influence her approach to deciding cases.

During a 2016 campaign debate, Mr. Trump said were he given three Supreme Court appointments, Roe would be overruled "automatically." With Justice Barrett joining Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the Mississippi case now is poised to test Mr. Trump's prediction. Two other justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, have consistently voted against abortion rights.

In March Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican, hired Scott Stewart, a veteran of the Trump Justice Department and former law clerk to Justice Thomas, as state solicitor general. Mr. Stewart is expected to argue the case.

The opposing brief from the Jackson Women's Health Organization, the state's only abortion clinic, is due Sept. 13. In an initial brief filed last August, the clinic argued that 50 years of precedent had established viability as a clear marker where the balance between a woman's rights over her body begin to yield to a state's interest in protecting potential life.

"Before viability, the State's interests, whatever they may be, cannot override a pregnant person's interests in their liberty and autonomy over their own body," the clinic argued.


Opinion by Bishop Robert Barron - The Catholic bishops of the United States are facing a great deal of political pressure these days. We are told that we must pursue dialogue with those who disagree with the divine and natural law on the issue of abortion

The Catholic bishops of the United States are facing a great deal of political pressure these days. We are told that we must pursue dialogue with those who disagree with the divine and natural law on the issue of abortion — or who agree privately as Catholic believers but decline to govern according to this moral teaching.

But here is my honest question: What precisely is there to dialogue about? It's a question I've posed to politicians in the past.

Two years ago, I had the privilege of offering an address at the Library of Congress. To an audience of senators, representatives, lobbyists and Hill staffers, I spoke of the vocation of the politician. I asked each person in that room to remember the purity and idealism of the moment when he or she first thought of pursuing a life of public service. 

I told them that in the measure they felt the urge to fight for justice, they were responding, at least inchoately, to the summons of God, who is Justice Itself.

I'm the son of a dyed-in-the-wool Chicago Catholic Democrat. My father, whose family was very involved in city politics, would sooner have become a Lutheran than vote Republican. But my trouble with modern Democrats, I explained, has to do with abortion policy, where the party has lately staked out an especially extreme position.

My interlocutors insisted upon the necessity of an ongoing dialogue between pro-choice politicians and the Roman church. I replied, "OK, I'm with you. In fact, the Catholic Church, though it opposes all abortions, would be willing to support legislation that sets at least some limits to the procedure. If you'll give even a little bit, we're happy to talk." 

I then commenced to test the waters. Would they, I asked, consider the banning of third-trimester abortions? Absolutely not, came the reply.  Would they, I pressed, be open to restricting partial-birth abortion, the procedure by which a pair of scissors is inserted into the brain of a baby already in the birth canal? No way, they said. 

All right, I wondered, would they be agreeable to supporting born-alive legislation, designed to protect the life of a baby who has miraculously managed to survive an abortion? No, they said.  And lest you think this intransigence was peculiar to this particular group, recall that, just a few months ago, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) made a born-alive proposal, and it couldn't muster enough votes to break the Democratic filibuster. 

Any authentic dialogue involves some willingness to give and take. Over the years, I've been involved in a number of ecumenical and inter-religious dialogues. No one expected the participants in those exchanges to adopt a stance of religious neutrality, but at the very least, there was a shared sense that we could find points of contact. 

As I said, the church is happy to consider any proposal that would set some restrictions on the taking of unborn life. We're willing to reach out. But if protecting the life of a baby struggling to breathe, after surviving a brutal attack on his life, is a bridge too far for pro-abortion-rights politicians, then I ask again, what are we dialoguing about? And let's be honest, in regard to the baby under consideration, all of the standard justifications for aborting a child — he's not really a person, he's not capable of independent existence, he experiences no sensation of pain, etc. — simply fall away. 

Sometimes, the term "dialogue" is used in a casual sense to signal friendliness and kindness to those with whom we disagree. And if that's what you mean by the term, then I'm all for it. As Saint Thomas More said to his wife in "A Man for All Seasons," "whatever can be accomplished through smiling, you may rely on me to do." 

But if the term is taken more seriously and in a more restricted way, then it has to imply a mutual willingness on the part of the conversation partners to find common ground.

So may I offer a challenge to pro-abortion-rights Catholic politicians and may I be very specific?  If you're truly interested in dialoguing with the church on this crucial matter, show a little profile in courage and support born-alive legislation. If you can take this small step in the direction of protecting innocent life, I'll know you're serious about the conversation. 

Robert Barron is the auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles.

Twitter: @BishopBarron

The question Attorney General Cameron is asking the U.S. Supreme Court is whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law.

WASHINGTON – On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court set October 12 as the day justices will hear oral arguments from Kentucky's Attorney General Daniel Cameron regarding his appeal to be allowed to defend Kentucky's dismemberment abortion ban (Kentucky House Bill 454). The law was passed in 2018 and signed by pro-life former Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin.

The law, which bans the dismemberment of living unborn children, never took effect. It was immediately enjoined and then struck down in 2019 by U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley, Jr. Following the ruling, newly-elected pro-abortion Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear declined to defend the law, choosing not to appeal McKinley's decision.

In March 2021, pro-life Attorney General Cameron was granted the right to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to be allowed to intervene to defend the law as the duly elected attorney general. He filed his appeal last month and the U.S. Supreme Court has now set October 12, 2021 as the date to hear oral arguments on his request.

"We applaud Attorney General Cameron's dedication to defending Kentucky's law which is based on National Right to Life's model legislation," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. "Despite the change in administrations, this law was duly passed by the representatives of the people of Kentucky and deserves the full support of those charged with defending the law."

The case is Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky v. EMW Women's Surgical Center.


Susan B. Anthony List plans campaign aimed at blunting President Biden's ability to appoint judges

Groups on Both Sides of Abortion Debate Prepare for 2022 Battle

ANTIABORTION GROUP SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST plans to mount a $73 million campaign in the 2022 midterms to topple Democratic congressional majorities, especially in the Senate to blunt President Biden's ability to appoint judges. The group spent $61.5 million to re-elect former President Donald Trump and a Republican Senate in 2020. It sees a decades-long effort to install an antiabortion judiciary and build power at the state level nearing its pinnacle with a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court advantage and a slew of challenges to Roe v. Wade coming through the litigation pipeline.

"We've always put all our eggs in the Senate basket," said Mallory Quigley, the SBA List's vice president of communications. "We relish the opportunity to talk about what the court means for abortion."

The Supreme Court will hear a case on Mississippi's legislation to prohibit abortions after 15 weeks in the coming term, and likely reach a decision next June or early July, four months before the election. SBA List plans to blanket the airwaves around the decision and deploy local canvassers to knock on doors in competitive states and districts. The first group of canvassers began training this week, in Arizona and Georgia, Republicans' top two 2022 target seats.

Planned Parenthood, on the other side of the issue, has also already begun its effort to defend the Democratic Senate majority. In recent weeks the organization's New Hampshire affiliate has been running digital ads against Gov. Chris Sununu, the top Republican choice to run against Sen. Maggie Hassan, though he has not said definitively whether he'll run. He recently signed a budget that enacts new abortion restrictions.

 


A Naples teenager is accused of attacking a man who was holding a "babies are murdered here" sign in front of a Planned Parenthood in Fort Myers Monday.

Lee County Sheriff's Office deputies responded to the Planned Parenthood at 6418 Commerce Park Drive after reports of a battery, according to the Lee County Sheriff's Office. 

18-year-old Victoria Martinez was arrested after a man told deputies she knocked over his chair and took his sign before hitting him and pushing him. Deputies said Martinez came out of the building yelling obscenities and approaching them in an aggressive way when they arrived. The 18-year-old told deputies that she was pregnant but refused a medical evaluation after hurting her knuckle in the altercation, according to the arrest report. 

The plastic sign the man was holding was valued at $100, deputies said. The victim suffered minor injuries to two fingers and decided to press charges against the teen. Martinez is facing charges of battery on a person 65 years of age or older and petit theft.


Physician: 'Fanaticism' — not science — governs CDC's aggressive push to vaccinate even those with natural immunity

Public health insiders increasingly are calling out the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over the 'insanity' of pushing COVID vaccines on people who have already acquired natural immunity.

Click here to continue reading this article


Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois speaks to the issue of Eucharistic Coherence

Since being appointed bishop of Springfield, Illinois in 2010, I have been asked many times about the matter of Holy Communion for Sen. Richard Durbin, whose home is in Springfield. In April 2004, Sen. Durbin's pastor, Msgr. Kevin Vann (now Bishop Kevin Vann of Orange, California), said he would "be ­reticent" to give Sen. Durbin Holy Communion because his pro-­abortion position placed him outside of unity with the Church's teachings on life. My predecessor, now ­Archbishop George Lucas of ­Omaha, said that he supported Msgr. Vann's decision. I have maintained that position.

This determination is based on Canon 915 of the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law, which states that those "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." In our 2004 statement on "Catholics in Political Life," the bishops of the ­United States said,

Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.

Because his voting record in support of abortion over many years constitutes "obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin," the determination continues that Sen. Durbin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion until he repents of this sin. This provision is intended not to punish, but to bring about a change of heart. Sen. Durbin was pro-life when he started out in politics in central Illinois. The denial of Holy Communion is a medicinal remedy that seeks to foster a change of heart and encourage him to repent and return to being pro-life.

Sen. Durbin's case has particular relevance since the election of a baptized Catholic, Joseph R. Biden Jr., as president of the United States of America. On the day of Biden's inauguration, the Most Reverend José Gomez, president of the USCCB, ­issued a statement:

I look forward to working with President Biden and his administration, and the new Congress. As with every administration, there will be areas where we agree and work closely together and areas where we will have principled ­disagreement and strong ­opposition. . . .

As pastors, the nation's bishops are given the duty of proclaiming the gospel in all its truth and power, in season and out of season, even when that teaching is inconvenient or when the gospel's truths run contrary to the directions of the wider society and culture. So, I must point out that our new president has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten ­human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences.

In response, Cardinal Blase ­Cupich, archbishop of Chicago, said that "there is seemingly no precedent" for a USCCB president's making such a statement. There is indeed no precedent for a Catholic president of the United States of America who is virulently pro-abortion in his policies.

On his campaign website and in various public statements, Biden has made clear that he seeks legal protection for the killing of unborn human beings through abortion, and that he seeks to fund this killing at taxpayer expense. Biden has said that he would seek to codify into federal law the abortion license of Roe v. Wade if the Supreme Court were to overturn that decision, and that he supports repealing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortion. Shortly after his election, President Biden issued an executive order rescinding the Mexico City Policy, thereby allowing U.S. taxpayer dollars to support abortion overseas. He has pledged to reinstate the contraceptive and abortifacient mandate originally issued under Obamacare.

Proposing and voting for legal measures that promote an intrinsic evil raises the question of ­cooperation with evil. On this question, Catholic moral theology distinguishes between formal and material ­cooperation. Formal cooperation occurs when a person shares the evil intent of the wrongdoer or agrees with, condones, or approves of the wrongdoer's action, at least to some degree. Formal cooperation in wrongdoing is always wrong.

Material cooperation, by contrast, occurs when a person does not share the intent of the wrongdoer, but is in some way involved in the wrongdoing. Material cooperation is considered immediate when the cooperator's act assists in the performance of the wrongdoing in an essential way. It is considered mediate when there is a degree of causal separation between the wrongdoing and the cooperator's act. According to the degree of causal separation, mediate material cooperation may be either "proximate" or "remote." Absent a proportionately grave reason, one may not materially cooperate with an evil act. The more proximate the cooperation, the graver must the reason be in order for the action to be justified.

Applying these principles to the question at hand, we find that the formal, political act of a public official (such as voting in the Senate or signing a law or executive order as president) constitutes at least ­material cooperation with a gravely evil act. If undertaken with the intent to support or promote access to abortion, the act would in fact constitute formal ­cooperation, which is always gravely sinful.

It may be argued that cooperation is mediate when a person's actions, such as casting a vote or signing an executive order, are not directly essential to the procurement of an abortion. But mediate cooperation in a grave evil requires a proportionately grave reason in order to be justified. More than 860,000 abortions took place in 2017 in the U.S., the latest year for which data is available as reported by the Guttmacher Institute. For a politician to justify promoting or voting for pro-abortion legislation or opposing pro-life legislation, he would need a reason grave enough to outweigh the killing of 860,000 babies per year.

Some argue that their positions consistent with Catholic teaching on other moral issues outweigh their support for abortion. Sen. Durbin, for example, after being denied Holy Communion in 2004, released a ­report titled, "Evaluating the Votes and Actions of Public Officials from a Catholic Perspective." The report ranked the twenty-four U.S. Catholic senators based on their votes in three areas: domestic, international, and pro-life issues. Commenting on this "scorecard," the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights issued a statement:

To say that a senator votes better on Catholic issues because he has voted to increase the minimum wage while voting against a ban on killing a baby who is 80 ­percent born is ludicrous.

It entails "lumping together policy ­issues that do not have the same moral weight."

One of the issues that is frequently proposed as morally equivalent to abortion is the death penalty. But capital punishment is not in the same moral category as abortion. Whereas abortion is an intrinsic evil, the death penalty has been called "­inadmissible" by Pope Francis—a different moral judgment, reflecting a kind of prudential judgment about the penalty's efficacy.

Others try to use the "consistent ethic of life" attributed to the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, archbishop of Chicago—often called the "seamless garment" approach—as justification for downplaying abortion while promoting other social issues. I served as Cardinal ­Bernardin's chancellor from 1992 until his death in 1996, and I can attest that he did not approve of this misinterpretation of the "consistent ethic of life." In an interview with the National Catholic Register in 1988, Cardinal ­Bernardin said,

I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don't hold anybody's feet to the fire just on abortion. That's a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it.

Though we cannot judge people's consciences, we can judge external situations to determine whether they are manifestly gravely sinful and whether the person exhibits obstinate persistence. Likewise, the reception of Holy Communion is an external, public act. Nevertheless, the question of the proper disposition of the soul while receiving Holy Communion is eminently pastoral. It has long standing in the Church, going back to the early centuries.

The Bible clearly teaches about the proper disposition to receive Holy Communion. In the First Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul writes:

Whoever . . . eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (1 Cor. 11:27–29)

This biblical teaching is reflected in Canons 915–16 of the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law. Canon 915 addresses the minister of Holy Communion, who is not to admit individual persons to the Sacrament under the circumstances clearly defined in that canon. Canon 916 is addressed to the person who is "conscious of grave sin." Thus, whereas Canon 915 puts the burden of discernment on the minister of Holy Communion, Canon 916 ­places responsibility for self-discernment on the person who desires to receive the Sacrament. These principles for the proper disposition for being ­admitted to Holy Communion are in keeping with the maxim that "law follows ­theology"—that is, that the laws of the Church are not created in a vacuum but are practical applications of biblical and theological truths in ­actual situations.

In seeking Eucharistic coherence in an incoherent era, we must remember that our goal is conversion and ­readmission to Communion, not exclusion and permanent expulsion from the community of faith. Even when a difficult decision must be made not to admit someone to Holy Communion until there has been repentance and reconciliation, such discipline does not contradict the love by which it is motivated. 

Thomas J. Paprocki is bishop of Springfield, Illinois.


The University of California San Francisco, a hub for all things abortion in the U.S., is harvesting aborted babies' genitalia and other organs for research, according to documents obtained by pro-life advocates.

The Daily Wire reports Pro-Life San Francisco made the gruesome discovery in documents that it requested through the California Public Records Act. UC San Francisco is a public, taxpayer-funded university.

Among the documents provided by the university were "Arrival/Departure and Collection Lists," or logs listing the human tissue that was collected from aborted babies, according to the report.

Live Action, which reviewed the documents, found that many of the lists included "genitalia and/or gonads" from aborted babies. According to the report:

Out of 43 logs, 42 document the harvesting of genitalia and/or gonads. It seems ironic that these "scientists," who work for an institution that postures itself as a frontline warrior in the battle for so-called "reproductive justice," spend their days mutilating the reproductive organs of people whose lives have been brutally ended under the banner of "reproductive choice."

The dates on the university documents also suggest the harvesting of aborted baby body parts continued during the COVID-19 pandemic while many other businesses, schools, houses of worship and other entities were shut down in California, according to Live Action.

Pro-Life San Francisco described UC San Francisco as the "late-term abortion training capital of the U.S." It runs more than 100 abortion training programs across the country, including training on how to abort viable, late-term unborn babies after 21 weeks of pregnancy, according to the organization.

With this in mind, the Pro-Life San Francisco asked the university for documents pertaining to its practices and protocols for babies who survive abortions. However, it received none.

Attorneys for the university told Pro-Life San Francisco that such documents do not exist "because UCSF/the Women's Options Centers have no protocol for determining the viability of abortion survivors, or for providing care to them," according to the report. "This is a tacit admission of the possibility that abortion survivors are simply left to die, without so much as the basic humane provision of palliative care."

Pro-Life San Francisco has been demanding answers from the university and calling on its Board of Regents to stop the gristly, unethical abortion practices.

During the regents' June meeting, pro-life volunteer Emma Craig accused the university of "complicity in human torture" and asked the board for answers about babies being born alive in botched abortions.

"We demand action against UCSF for their complicity in human torture and for requesting continued funding for research that creates an artificial dependency on aborted body parts," Pro-Life San Francisco wrote online after the meeting.

The pro-life organization is encouraging people to make a 1-minute public comment over the phone to the UC Board of Regents demanding that they be transparent and end the "appalling," unethical experiments with aborted baby body parts.

ACTION ALERT: Contact the University of California Board of Regents with your complaints.


For the seventh time since 2014, senior high school students from Effingham, Illinois, recently got a look at life in the womb thanks to a unique partnership between their school, the community pregnancy resource center, and the local hospital.

'Window to the Womb' is the brainchild of Effingham resident Valerie Kemme, who conceived the idea after reading articles about the high percentage of abortion-vulnerable women who choose to keep their babies after viewing ultrasounds.

Kemme wondered, "What if we were able to get everybody to see an ultrasound?" Aware that the abortion industry acts as if "that's not a baby" inside the pregnant woman's body, Kemme thought, "Wouldn't it click with so many more people if they would see what's really going on in the womb, then they would value life?"

Kemme's first contact was with the religion teacher at the local Catholic high school "to see if they were even open to having the students even have this kind of experience." While the teacher was very enthusiastic, getting buy-in from the hospital proved more challenging initially. Kemme and the teacher started with a bottom-up approach, speaking to staff at various departments in the hospitals, who were all supportive of the idea; however, a champion was still needed to make the project a reality.

READ: 'Game changer': High school students see the miracle of life through live ultrasounds

Ultimately, Kemme told Live Action News, "It was kind of a God thing. I was talking to somebody about another project and they mentioned this director of philanthropy at the hospital… it kind of clicked with me, 'Hmm. Maybe we could talk to the director of philanthropy and he would know who we could talk to.'" Once she spoke to the director, she said "he jumped on it; he was really on board and within a week he was talking to the heads of the imaging department and the CEO of the hospital, and the CEO is actually who made this project possible."

The top-down approach of the CEO's support for the project quickly opened all the necessary doors to launch the project, in which seniors at St. Anthony High School travel to St. Anthony Hospital to view an ultrasound as part of their senior religion class study of the sanctity of human life.

The first six Window to the Womb events occurred at the hospital. But this year, to maximize safety for all involved, the Family Life Center — a local pregnancy resource center — hosted the event on a day when the building was closed to the public. "That ended up being a real blessing because so many of the students weren't even familiar with the Family Life Center," said Kemme. The presentation this time around included a tour of the facility for students before they saw the ultrasound.

In the ultrasound room, Kemme said, "The first few minutes, they're looking at the screen and the ultrasound techs are talking to them about what they're seeing. Here's the heartbeat, they're showing them different organs and pointing out things and talking to them a little bit about the development of the baby at this stage." Then the students are engaged in what Kemme calls "a brief but frank discussion about the legality of abortion."

She asks the students, "Do you think that the baby on this screen could legally be aborted?" and explains that under Illinois law that child could legally be killed up until birth, and that the father has no say legally. Kemme said the students typically react to this information with "a sense of surprise."

"We want them to see the value of life," she explained to Live Action News, "but then we also want them to understand that even though this life is so far developed and it's so valuable, and it's been valuable since the moment of conception, that it is not protected at all by our legal systems."

Kemme shared that "after the students do this project, they write a reflection" on their experience. The feedback, she said, is "overwhelmingly positive" with students feeling it was "very impactful."

Many, many comments talk about how eye-opening it was, even for students who already considered themselves pro-life.

READ: Mom considering abortion found purpose when 'she laid eyes on that little baby' in an ultrasound

"I've always been pro-life, but this opened my eyes to what I'm truly fighting for in being pro-life," said one student.

Another shared, "I am against abortion. However, it was in seeing that sonogram that I truly understood what being pro-life is about. It is about protecting that baby, who even in the womb had arms and legs, who had a spine and a brain, who had a heart and kidneys, who hid from the camera and yawned in exhaustion. It is my job to stand up for that child – as they are just like me."

For her part, Kemme said that when the students are watching an ultrasound, "They are just riveted to the ultrasound screen. You don't have to make sure that they're paying attention… It's just a few minutes of watching it, but they're definitely engaged."

Since the program's inception, Kemme has learned of "a rare few other people" doing something similar, including a school classroom in Nebraska that brought an ultrasound machine and pregnant volunteers on-site.

"Like" Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!


The Biden-Harris White House posted a fact sheet outlining the administration's international commitments to be presented to the United Nations' Generation Equality Forum which is taking place in Paris.

WASHINGTON – On Wednesday, the Biden-Harris White House posted a fact sheet outlining the administration's international commitments to be presented to the United Nations' Generation Equality Forum which is taking place in Paris.

In July 2019, over 80 pro-abortion groups published a multi-year, multi-effort agenda they called the "Blueprint for Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice" that outlined the steps to achieving the goal of expanding abortion on demand domestically and internationally.

"The Biden administration is closely following the Blueprint established by pro-abortion groups and adhering to the goal of these groups to expand abortion and have it paid for with U.S. taxpayer dollars," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. "Sadly, women and their unborn children will be the losers in this scheme."

In January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order rejecting the Geneva Consensus Declaration (2020) established under President Trump that reaffirmed "the inherent 'dignity and worth of the human person,' that 'every human being has the inherent right to life.'" The Geneva Consensus Declaration also reaffirmed that abortion is not health care and that sovereign nations have the right to protect all innocent human lives by rejecting abortion.

Tobias added, "It was disappointing that the Biden administration withdrew the U.S. from the Geneva Consensus Declaration. Instead of defending the right of sovereign nations to make their own laws on abortion, the Biden administration is determined to overrule the wishes of other countries, forcing an unwanted abortion policy on them."

The domestic and international commitments made by the Biden Administration include:

• Eliminating the Hyde Amendment and using taxpayer funds to pay for abortions; 
• Funding for Title X "with several modifications" to "ensure access" to abortion services; 
• Resuming funding for the pro-abortion UN Population Fund (UNFPA) that also includes a $56 million increase in the 2022 budget; and 
• Committing to working with other "like-minded" countries to expand abortion services globally.

Polling through the years has shown that taxpayers oppose having their tax money used to pay for abortions. A 2019 Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 49% supported the Hyde Amendment while only 33% opposed it.

A 2020 Marist poll found that 60% opposed federal funding of abortions. And in a January 2021 Marist poll, 58% "oppose using tax dollars to pay for a woman's abortion."

In that same poll, 77% of respondents opposed using tax dollars to pay for abortions in other countries.

"These polls clearly show that the actions by the Biden administration go against the will of the people," said Tobias.