By Dave Andrusko
When we talk about the difference it makes to have a pro-lifer living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we frequently refer to the kind of men and women he or she would nominate to sit not just on the Supreme Court but at all levels of the judiciary. In one second I’ll give an example of this that is near and dear to my heart.
However, as important as it is, a pro-life administration is not only about choosing judicial candidates who believe fealty to the Constitution is preeminent. It’s also about signing pro-life legislation (when pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi is not Speaker of the House), signing executive orders, defending the unborn at the UN, making Planned Parenthood choose between promoting abortion or receiving Title X monies (they chose the former, of course), filling the executive branch with people who respect the unborn, and protecting freedom of conscience—which would be among the first targets of a Biden-Harris administration—to name just a few.
Freedom of conscience and how that is protected (or destroyed) by the composition of the Supreme Court came together in 2018 in the case of NIFLA v. Becerra. As you may recall, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) challenged The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act (FACT Act).
Astonishingly, this Act required licensed pregnancy resource centers—centers who exist to help women find life-affirming options–to disclose where women could receive free or low-cost abortions. Unlicensed centers were commanded to insert state-dictated material in their advertising, thus violating the First Amendment rights of all pregnancy resource centers in the state.
The FACT Act should have been overturned 9-0. Instead the vote was 5-4. Justices Clarence Thomas, who wrote the opinion, and Anthony Kennedy, who wrote a concurring opinion (and who would announce his retirement the following day), were absolute brilliant in laying out what was at stake.
Kennedy, for example, wrote
This law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression.
The vote of one justice saved the day.
Writing at Pregnancy Help News, Kirk Walden explained what Justice Neil Gorsuch—Justice Kennedy’s replacement—“means to our work.”
The case reached the Supreme Court, with the future of pregnancy centers and our ability to function at risk. The decision? In a 5-4 vote, we won. Neil Gorsuch, Trump nominee, was the swing vote.
For a moment, imagine what life would be like had a Democrat nominee had been in the Gorsuch seat. We don’t have to imagine, because in the NIFLA case, every Democratic appointment voted against free speech and against pregnancy centers.
If this law was upheld, several other states were ready to go with similar laws. To be frank, one vote—the other way—would have blocked hundreds of pregnancy help organizations from fulfilling our missions. In truth, all of us could have been at risk if the idea made its way to Washington D.C. and congress—with Hillary Clinton in the White House.
This is how monumental the NIFLA v. Becerra case was.
Walden added, “One vote saved our work in the United States. That of Neil Gorsuch. “
Pro-abortionists want—in every sense of the phrase—total victory.
They want to be able to execute babies up until birth. For now they pretend to be agnostic about what happens to abortion survivors, but it says everything that they will not allow legislation requiring equal treatment to see the light of day in the House of Representatives.
They want your money to pay for millions of elective abortions. The Hyde Amendment is anathema to them.
They want abortion to become an internationally recognized “right.”
And in some ways, most ominous of all, they want medical personnel to be compelled to participate. They look forward to the day when a Supreme Court with key Biden-Harris appointees makes it impossible for hospitals to function if they are not in some way, directly or indirectly, involved in abortion and/or “assisted suicide.”
All this and more is at stake on November 3.
Need I say more?
If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.