Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Trump Administration's Two New Rules are Prolife Victories

Dept. of Health and Human Services
Secretary Alex Azar
On November 7, the Trump Administration's Department of Health and Human Services announced a prolife victory: two new rules were established regarding abortion coverage in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

The first rule affects taxpayer funding of insurance plans that cover elective abortions.

Back when the Affordable Care Act was being debated in Congress in 2010, a long train of peculiar circumstances led to a small band of prolife Democrats in the U.S. House being the final legislative obstacle. These prolife Democrats objected to provisions in the bill that would essentially lead to taxpayers funding abortions.

In order to placate these prolife Democrats, President Obama promised to sign a (phony) executive order that said taxpayer dollars would be kept separate from insurance plans that cover elective abortions. The prolife Democrats caved, and the Affordable Care Act became law and a source of never-ending political heartburn in America.

When the Obama Administration released the rules for how it was going to keep taxpayers dollars separate from abortion, it became clear that the Obama Administration would not follow the law or their own phony executive order, and even took steps to withhold information about insurance plans that cover abortion from the public.

In Michigan, we dealt with this "abortion surcharge" by passing our Abortion Insurance Opt Out Act in 2013. Sadly, taxpayers in Michigan are still paying for abortions in other states with the federal government and insurance companies acting as the middleman. In some states, no plans are available on health care exchanges that don't fund elective abortions.

In 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GOA) confirmed that taxpayers are subsidizing the purchase of abortion-covering plans on a massive scale

On November 7, the Trump Administration proposed a rule to finally require real separation between your tax dollars and abortion coverage. People who purchase insurance coverage of abortion would have to separately pay for it themselves, not with taxpayer subsidies.

While amending or repealing the Affordable Care Act would be preferable, a lack of prolife majorities in the current U.S. Senate and incoming U.S. House leaves this rule as the best available option.

The second rule affects the HHS Mandate.

Back in 2011, the Obama Administration issued regulations to the Affordable Care Act that required health plans to provide all FDA-approved contraceptive methods. The regulations were called the "Dept. of Health and Human Services Contraceptive Mandate," or HHS Mandate for short.

Some of those methods (particularly emergency contraceptives) can potentially cause an early abortion. This led to cries of injustice against religious freedom from groups like Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby, who would be coerced to buy services they were morally against. Failure to purchase potentially abortion-inducing drugs would have resulted in crippling fines meant to punish the groups for their views.

Both Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor had to take their cases to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they won.

Last year, President Trump proposed rules that would protect religious freedom for all who do not want to pay for certain contraceptives or abortion through their health care plans. On Wednesday, November 7, these rules were finalized.

The first part provides an exemption from the HHS mandate to entities and individuals that object to in on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. The second part provides a similar exemption for nonprofit organizations, small businesses, and individuals that have non-religious moral opposition to the services.

In other words, whether you are religiously-opposed or morally-opposed to the HHS Mandate, these rules essentially make the HHS Mandate optional.

These two rules changes show the prolife commitment of the Trump Administration to stop policies from pro-abortion administrations that break the letter or spirit of laws on the books.

Wednesday, November 7, 2018

Election 2018: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Photo courtesy of MI Senate
Before we look at the results, thank you to the many prolife volunteers around the state who outdid themselves these last few weeks. Right to Life of Michigan and our many volunteers made more than 2,050,000 voter contacts in the general election campaign, and our election posts on social media collected more than 625,000 views. That’s a lot of people reached with RLM-PAC endorsement lists and prolife educational information. That doesn’t include many TV and radio ad spots. Though the top of the ticket was an “up-mountain” battle with the proposals on the ballot, these efforts made a critical difference down the ballot.

The Good 
Most importantly, we have a prolife majority in the U.S. Senate. This secures the ability of President Trump to nominate fair justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous lower courts. With a better margin, even better judicial appointments can be approved by the Senate. We continue to remake a judiciary that has been enshrining abortion-on-demand as the law of the land for four decades; the end of Roe v. Wade remains in sight. It’s clear that the ugly attacks against Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his nomination fight made an impact on Election Day.

Michigan also defended prolife majorities in our State Senate and House. Even with a pro-abortion governor now, this means we don’t have to worry about pro-abortion legislation. Thanks to Michigan’s unique citizen-initiated legislative process, we have also preserved an avenue for passing prolife legislation by making Gretchen Whitmer irrelevant to the process.

The Bad 
We could have had a 100% prolife governor for the first time in 16 years, but sadly, Gretchen Whitmer defeated Bill Schuette. We lost an opportunity to easily make many life-saving advances in our state law. This also means the number of apathetic or hostile bureaucrats in state government will increase, further frustrating efforts to enforce our laws.

There is now a pro-abortion majority in the U.S. House. The national prolife legislative agenda will remain stalled outside of further enforcement or regulatory changes by President Trump. We have a precarious 4 to 3 prolife majority on the Michigan Supreme Court.

Justice Elizabeth Clement won, but Justice Kurtis Wilder narrowly lost. There’s no room for error when it comes to upholding our state’s prolife laws in the courts.

The Ugly 
We could have had a truly excellent Michigan attorney general in Tom Leonard. Instead, Michigan voters elected Dana Nessel by a slim margin. Nessel stumped on her campaign by saying she wants to shut down prolife pregnancy centers and not enforce prolife laws. Though her duty is to enforce the law, her words seem to indicate that she believes her duty is a crusade for her extreme beliefs.

Nessel is a volatile figure, and there’s no telling what she will do. Whatever happens, it’s our duty to do everything we can to make sure our prolife laws remain enforced and to stand 100-feet tall in defense of prolife citizens and organizations who may find themselves unjustly targeted by our state’s new top law enforcement officer.

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Abortion? Shhh... We Don’t Talk About That

The election is only days away. The candidates are working overtime in hopes of coming out on top on November 6th.

Abortion is on the front of every voter, candidate and reporter’s mind, right? It's the leading cause of death in America and in Michigan—more than heart disease, cancer, or opioid abuse. A possible fifth vote in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade was added to the U.S. Supreme Court this fall. It's a big issue, right? Wrong, apparently.

If Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, Michigan’s law that bans abortion except to save the life of the mother could go back into effect. That is, if fair elected officials like the governor and the attorney general to uphold the law.

But even with the stakes this high, abortion has barely been discussed in the news surrounding the election since the primary.

We know that Gretchen Whitmer’s record on prolife issues—even on common-sense topics like letting women see their own ultrasounds and holding abortion clinics to the same safety standards as other medical clinics—is extremely bad. She has emphatically stated that she would promote abortion as governor, but often says it without actually saying the word "abortion":

"As Governor, I will work fiercely to defend the rights of every Michigan woman, including women’s access to all forms of reproductive care and contraception. I am going to fight like hell to pass state laws that will protect women's legal right to control their bodies and make their own decisions about whether and when to become a parent."

Whitmer’s campaign website lists her stance on Women’s Rights. After clicking the link to the page on this topic, there is another vague statement about reproductive health care inside a statement about equal rights and pay. Only after clicking another link to “"Read Gretchen’s Full Plan" is there a mention of Roe v. Wade and abortion.

For someone who promises to "fight like hell" to advance abortion, even up to and during the process of birth, she seems strangely hesitant to say it outright.

The media has never done a decent job of covering prolife issues, but this election season, it seems they don’t want to discuss abortion even from the "pro-choice" perspective. Pro-abortion candidates don't want to use the word "abortion" either.

The topic of abortion was not featured in either of the gubernatorial debates and has been discussed little elsewhere, even the euphemisms. Perhaps the pro-abortion candidates and media are so used to covering the topic in euphemisms, they hope that one day the debate will disappear completely. Perhaps discussing the topic at all makes it too difficult to convince themselves and others that abortion is something other than taking a human life.

For whatever reason, it seems that abortion is an "off-limits" topic in this election, when it should always be front and center.

We made this Whitmer Translate GIF as a helpful gimmick to help people understand Whitmer’s (and other elected officials) euphemisms when it comes to abortion. Perhaps what we need more is a search bar to find and expose her real extreme views on the topic.

Friday, October 19, 2018

It’s Raining Fetuses: Seeing a Culture of Death in Real Time

Seats at the Gosnell trial reserved for reporters

When a crime involves inappropriate treatment of dead bodies and suspicious, inhumane, and unethical behavior from the professionals involved, you would expect the story to be met with outrage and a flood of media coverage.

Sadly, there seems to be no shortage of stories like these. Though it is outrageous, it is not uncommon to hear of criminals storing or selling body parts and lying to family members, patients, and customers about what is really going on. Recently, there have been three notable cases with extreme examples of these situations.

Just last week, state investigators found remains of 11 infants hidden in the ceiling between the first and second floor of the former Cantrell Funeral Home in Detroit. The funeral home had been shut down in April due to other violations of state law. The building had new owners who had no idea how many corpses were stashed throughout the building, but an anonymous tip led investigators to the remains.

The authorities have not been able to discover the identity or families of all the bodies they found, and are hoping to discover more through investigating hospital records.

Another recent disturbing example was Arthur Rathburn, a man who ran a “body broker” business out of a warehouse in Detroit. Rathburn dismembered the corpses he received, stored them in undignified and unsanitary conditions, sold the parts of corpses with various diseases such as HIV to unknowing doctors, and lied to the family members, even giving them sand in place of ashes because he had sold every part of the body.

The bodies of four unborn babies were found in Rathburn’s warehouse. Their bodies were not mentioned in his criminal case, even though selling fetal tissue is illegal. Right to Life of Michigan is still working on trying to find the source of the bodies, but the trail is going cold with a famous New York museum being the last bizarre tip.

Finally, there was the case of convicted murderer Kermit Gosnell, perhaps one of the most underreported crimes in history. Not only did the Philadelphia abortionist collect feet as trophies of the babies he killed through abortions, he also killed hundreds of babies after birth, negligently killed one woman during a botched abortion, and had absolutely zero health or safety standards in his clinic. One clinic worker testified, “It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.”

Gosnell’s clinic had been ignored for years by health and safety regulators, and even after the death of the adult patient there was no investigation. What finally brought investigators to his clinic was a report of illegal prescription drug use.

While many have tried to ignore Gosnell—despite his status as potentially America’s most prolific serial killer in history—the efforts of people who recognize that the story needs to be exposed have brought his crimes to the silver screen. The movie “Gosnell” is currently in theaters, giving the American people a front-row seat to the ways a culture of death can sow corruption.

In all three cases of Cantrell, Rathburn, and Gosnell, the criminals’ shocking abuse of human life is crystal clear. What is less apparent, but still telling, is the media or investigators’ tendency to too often look the other direction when it comes to the most vulnerable of lives. In a world that does not protect life in the womb, nor, in many cases, life right before death, how can we expect our culture to reflect anything other than death and the destroying of life?

"Look, in this advanced democracy, in the year 2000, is it our crowning achievement that we have learned to treat people as things? We are not debating policy options. This is a debate about our understanding of human dignity. Our moment in history is marked by a mortal conflict between a culture of life and a culture of death." - Henry Hyde

***Editor's Note**** The plot thickens... another Detroit funeral home is being investigated for mishandling the bodies of babies.

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Gretchen Whitmer, Where Are the Cures You Promised?

Cure Michigan Co-Chairs Joe Schwarz & Gretchen Whitmer

During the gubernatorial debate on Friday, October 12, Gretchen Whitmer brought up her role of leading "Cure Michigan" in the effort to pass Proposal 2 in 2008. Proposal 2 amended the Michigan Constitution to specifically allow destroying human life for medical research.

The debate moderator asked a question about recreational marijuana use, and Whitmer specifically mentioned her role with Cure Michigan as proof of her commitment to helping the sick and disabled.

She said, "I was the co-chair of the embryonic stem cell initiative as well, because I took care of my mom at the end of her life and I know what the promise of cures or the promise of relief during treatment would mean."

In a later rebuttal on the same topic, she said Michigan needs a governor "who knows how to get things done."

In reality, Proposal 2 didn't get anything done; Cure Michigan delivered zero cures. It's another prime example of how Whitmer's words don't match reality.

This issue should matter a lot. Whitmer is right in that the promise of cures or relief mean a lot to ailing patients. Sadly, Whitmer and Cure Michigan sold false hope to ailing patients and their family members. Patients deserve real hope and results, not rhetoric.

Supporters of Proposal 2 touted a ready-made study showing all of the benefits that could occur if Michigan voters agreed to pass the proposal. The study said Proposal 2 could save 770,000 lives, save Michigan $80 million in health care costs, increase worked productivity by $27 million, and create a biotech revolution in Michigan.

Cure Michigan ran TV ads with patients suffering from debilitating conditions pleading for voters to help unlock cures in Michigan.

Now that 10 years has passed, what actually got done? Nothing.

Human embryonic stem cell research hasn't led to a single cure or treatment anywhere. No lives were saved in Michigan and no economic benefits have been realized. Human embryonic stem cell research has largely been passed by other promising ethical fields of research. Those facts were fairly obvious back in 2008 to those who weren't significantly invested in research on human embryos.

Why would Whitmer tout her work leading a proposal that promised cures and delivered nothing? Does she not think people will do their homework on the issue? Has she not done her homework on it? Did she have to tout it since it was one of the few things she has actually accomplished? You be the judge.

The end result of her effort is not up for debate, however. Like much of the rest of Whitmer's political career, there were a lot of words and not a lot of results.

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Gretchen Whitmer's Record

Gretchen Whitmer has been a loud and vocal opponent of legal protection for the most vulnerable. Below are examples of how her voting record fails to live up the important standard that every human life has value. Click on each link to learn more about her record.

Partial-Birth Abortion - Whitmer opposed our efforts to ban the barbaric partial-birth abortion procedure. She supports abortion-on-demand through the process of birth.

Ultrasound - Whitmer believes abortionists should be able to hide ultrasounds from women seeking abortions. Every patient ought to be entitled to proper informed consent and their own medical records.

Coercive Abortions - Whitmer failed to support protecting women who are coerced into having abortions against their will. She's not "pro-choice," she's pro-abortion.

Women's Health - Despite her rhetoric, Whitmer looks the other way on numerous health and safety violations in the abortion industry. She has a financial incentive to do so, since she profits from their campaign donations and political support.

Abortion Insurance - Whitmer believes every person should be forced to pay for abortion with their insurance premiums. She opposed our legislation protecting the conscience rights of porlife individuals with with blatantly incorrect arguments.

Tax Funding of Abortion - If elected, Whitmer will lead every other Planned Parenthood-endorsed legislator to get rid of our 1987 ban on Medicaid-funded abortions. This law alone has saved more than 230,000 lives.

Gretchen Whitmer's Record on Abortion Funding

In 1987, a law was passed that saved more than 230,000 Michigan lives. Gretchen Whitmer will try to repeal this law if elected governor.

The 1987 law eliminated Medicaid abortion coverage on all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother (in 1993 this was amended to include cases of rape and incest because of the Clinton Administration).

This law went into effect in 1988 after facing the Michigan voters as Proposal A. 57% of Michigan voters supported the law. The very next year there was a 22% drop in Michigan abortions, saving 10,190 babies almost immediately.

Assuming a steady 22% fewer abortions per year, this law has saved about 230,000 lives in the past 30 years. It is likely that some of your acquaintances, friends, or even family are alive today because of this law. If you are under 30, consider the possibility that you may be alive today because of this law.

Planned Parenthood has long opposed our ban on Medicaid-funded abortions. Part of their endorsement requirements include supporting "access" to abortion for low-income women. Gretchen Whitmer proudly accepted Planned Parenthood's endorsement; they gave her a sole endorsement during the primary election, even though several of her opponents were also extremely pro-abortion.

Whitmer has made repealing our Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act a specific campaign promise, forcing you to pay for abortions through your health insurance premiums.

If Whitmer is elected governor and has pro-abortion majorities in the Michigan House and Senate, she will take every opportunity to advance abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy. Even if you are opposed to ending the lives of babies in the womb, you will be coerced into directly paying the abortion industry.

It is easy to see large number like 230,000 as just a number. But each number that adds up to the final total represents a unique human life saved. Gretchen Whitmer refuses to acknowledge the individual dreams, skills, and contributions that each of these lives offers us.

Gretchen Whitmer is not content to ignore the good that comes from these lives, but to also force you to help end the lives of thousands of others.

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

October is National Down Syndrome Awareness Month

October is National Down Syndrome Awareness month.

This month, your social media feed may be filled with adorable photos and videos of Lucas Warren, the first Gerber baby with Down syndrome, and other beautiful witnesses of life with Down syndrome. Some videos may have facts about life with down syndrome; facts highlighting that their life is a life worth living and are not so different from any other life. There may be stories about individuals with Down syndrome, and reasons why they are wonderful daughters, sons, siblings, students, employees, coworkers, and even husbands and wives.

What the social media posts most likely will not highlight is the fact that for every three faces you see with Down syndrome in these pictures or in person, there are seven faces who never had a chance to live outside the womb because they were killed in an abortion. In the U.S., there is an estimated average abortion rate of 67% for babies diagnosed with Down syndrome in the womb. Other countries like Iceland and Denmark boast of eliminating Down syndrome almost completely, with abortion rates of nearly 100%.

Children’s lives like the ones all over social media who smile, laugh, clap, and grow up tying their shoes, getting A’s in class, succeeding at sports and jobs, living independently, and being worthy of life every bit as much as everyone else who can do these things, are being targeted for termination through abortion.

Even though an overwhelming majority of children’s lives are ended because they were diagnosed with Down syndrome, the majority opinion in the U.S., according to a recent Gallup poll, is that Down syndrome abortions should not be legal. The poll shows that 51% of Americans believe it should not be legal to abort a baby with Down syndrome even in the first trimester, and 71% believe it should not be legal in the third trimester.

However, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton make it legal to abort Down syndrome babies at any point for any reason, even though a majority of Americans find that morally abhorrent.

Would more children with Down syndrome be given a chance at life if doctors weren’t able to suggest an abortion after the diagnosis? What if instead they offered encouragement and support or other options such as adoption? Perhaps our social media and our daily lives would see more of these faces if 67% of them weren’t missing and more were given the opportunity to live their valuable lives.


Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Gretchen Whitmer's Record on Abortion Insurance

Should people who disagree with abortion be forced to pay for them? This is a question that a majority of Americans consistently answer by saying, "no."

Gretchen Whitmer disagrees, believing every person should be forced to pay for abortions.

Following passage of the Affordable Care Act, prolife people faced an ugly choice. Because of the way the ACA radically changed the insurance market, we faced a situation where insurance coverage for elective abortions could become baked into every insurance plan. Instead of the government forcing you to pay for abortions with your tax dollars, the government could force you to pay for abortions with your insurance premiums. In several states, the only health insurance plans available on the exchanges had abortion coverage.

The ACA did have an escape valve in it; states could vote to opt-out of this abortion coverage. Michigan did exactly that by passing our Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act in 2013, partly via citizen petition drive. The law requires that those who want their health insurance to cover abortion must purchase a rider to their policy, ensuring that their money would be paying for abortions, not yours.

There are also secondary concerns regarding the coverage besides funding. We know of cases where children have had abortions using their parents' health insurance, and the parents were completely unaware of it at the time.

When this legislation came before the Michigan Legislature, Gretchen Whitmer led an enraged opposition to it. She called this effort to protect the conscience rights of prolife people "one of the most misogynistic proposals I have ever seen." Legislators opposing the bill called it "rape insurance," and even made ludicrous claims that women having miscarriages would have insurance coverage taken away from them.

Let's ignore the hyperventilating for the cameras and look at the facts.

The vast majority of abortions in Michigan have always been paid for with cash. That's because the average cost of a first trimester abortion (about $400-$500) is well below the average health insurance deductible. Because of the ACA, your average bronze plan deductible for a young person making little more than minimum wage is about $6,000, more than 10 times the cost of a first trimester abortion. Only late-term abortions are expensive enough to be a major consideration with health insurance.

In 2009, the year before the ACA was signed into law, there were only 222 abortions in Michigan paid for by health insurance, according to numbers from the State of Michigan. In 2012, the year before our Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act passed, there were 739 abortions paid for by health insurance. By 2017, there were 1,602 abortions paid for with health insurance.

Did you read those numbers? Our Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act didn't lower the number of women paying for abortions with health insurance at all. No woman has had her health coverage for a miscarriage taken away. It was a defensive measure to prevent abortion from being baked in to every health insurance policy in the state.

To this day, Whitmer puts opposition to our Abortion Insurance Opt-Out Act at a high priority. If you look at the facts instead of her grandstanding, however, our law was preventative in nature. If elected, Whitmer would instead go on offense and force every insurance plan in the state to cover abortion.

Every time we pass prolife legislation, Whitmer and other pro-abortion legislators predict doom—this doom never happens. The bottom line in this case is that people who disagree with abortion should not be forced to pay for abortions.

Tuesday, October 2, 2018

Another abortion facility closes

Women's Center in Warren

In the long battle for the rights and lives of the unborn, prolifers have great reason to rejoice in the permanent closing of Women’s Center of Michigan in Warren, previously owned by Jacob Kalo. With his facilities in Warren and Lathrup Village now closed, Kalo is down from five abortion facilities to three.

This closing should stand as a moment of celebration as well as a rallying point for the continued fight for life. Since our Prolife Omnibus Act passed in 2012, 16 abortion facilities in the state have closed.

Not unlike so many other abortionists and their facilities, Jacob Kalo has a terrifying track record.

In 2014, Kalo’s Women’s Center at Southfield had its license suspended for health and safety violations. Kalo’s office completely failed to keep any medical record of the patient’s condition or medical record during the abortion, and also any record of recovery, post-operative care, and the follow-up visit itself.

Just as frightening, despite the desire of the abortion industry to portray abortions as quick, safe, and easy, there are multiple records of Kalo sending women to the emergency room from botched abortions.

Back in 1984, 18-year-old Juanessa B. underwent an abortion by Jacob Kalo and experienced pain and vaginal discharge for an extended period afterward. At a two-week follow-up visit, Kalo’s office sent Juanessa home apparently unworried. Eighty days (nearly three months) after her abortion, Juanessa finally went to the emergency room where doctors found a child without a heartbeat still inside her body! More real-life examples include Ms. Cummings, a 25-year-old, and Jessica D., 29, who also ended up being rushed to the ER after botched abortions by Kalo.

Also documented against Jacob Kalo are reports of biohazard waste found in dumpsters behind Kalo’s clinic. In addition to patient records and bloody abortion instruments, these dumpsters held the recognizable remains of 23 babies, intermingled with other garbage such as a McDonald’s bag.

Adding to the long list of horrors already stated, Kalo has been accused of multiple, specific instances of sexual misconduct, perhaps the most public of which occurred just this July! In the midst of all else happening in the lives of these patients, the vulnerable, trusting women are abused at the hands of Kalo.

When we fight for life, we are fighting not only for the life and rights of the baby, but also for the life and rights of the mother. On so many different levels, we see the horrors that abortion facilities like Kalo’s are inflicting on both women and infants. At the closing of Jacob Kalo’s Women’s Center of Michigan, prolifers unite to rejoice and to continue passionately in the fight for life!

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Gretchen Whitmer's Record on Women's Health

Gretchen Whitmer, candidate for Michigan governor, talks about women's health and protecting women. What is her actual record on that?

No, we're not talking about her failure to prosecute serial rapist Larry Nassar. We are talking about similar situations, however, where the government officials charged with protecting people fail in their duties.

We've documented years and years of abuses within the abortion industry that put women's health at risk, everything from medieval clinic conditions to abortionists with criminal histories of violence and drug abuse.

In an effort to stop the worst abuses and the worst abortionists, we passed our Prolife Omnibus Act in 2012 that reformed how abortion facilities are regulated. By simply forcing abortion facilities to follow the same rules as other outpatient surgical facilities, we forced the worst of the worst out of business. Since 2012, 14 abortion facilities have closed in Michigan.

Even with these regulations in place, there are still abortionists operating in Michigan who you wouldn't trust to operate on your cat. In 2016, a young mother named Cree Erwin died following a botched abortion at the Planned Parenthood facility in Kalamazoo. To this date, the abortionist and the Planned Parenthood facility responsible for her death has not been held accountable. Preventing and prosecuting abuses in the abortion industry is an ongoing, difficult struggle, mostly because of apathetic or rabidly pro-abortion officials who look the other way.

Will Gretchen Whitmer stand up to protect these women? No. She voted against the Prolife Omnibus Act, and would prefer it if the abortion industry were free to regulate itself. These are just simple, common-sense health and safety regulations that other outpatient facilities routinely follow.

Gretchen Whitmer receives campaign contributions directly from the abortion industry, including Planned Parenthood. She financially benefits from abortion and will never hold the abortion industry accountable, nor will she appoint health regulators and bureaucrats who care when young women like Cree Erwin die from botched abortions at Planned Parenthood or other abortion facilities.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Gretchen Whitmer's Record on Coercive Abortions

For the longest time, prolife sidewalk counselors have seen tragic situations where women are essentially dragged into abortion clinics against their will, whether it's a parent, the father, or someone else in their life. Much research backs up what prolife people have seen at Michigan abortion clinics and a large number of personal testimonies from around the country.

The abortion industry holds itself out as being "pro-choice," but in reality it profits from coercive abortions and hasn't addressed this glaring problem.

We wanted to address this problem by making coercion to abort a specific crime, to hold people accountable who force women to take the life of their own child. In 2012, the Michigan Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of two bills to make coercive abortions a crime. The votes on House Bills 4798 and 4799 where 29-8 and 29-9 in favor of the bill. These bills eventually became law.

Gretchen Whitmer voted "no" on both bills. Confronted with the issue of women being coerced into abortions against their will, Whitmer decided they didn't need additional legal protection.

Whitmer talks about "reproductive rights," "health" and "choice," but she actually means abortion. Women who are forced into having abortions deserve legal protection, not to have their stories ignored. They certainly don't deserve to be treated as collateral damage by those bent on protecting abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy at any cost.

Thursday, September 13, 2018

Gretchen Whitmer's Record on Partial-Birth Abortion

There's a lot of adjectives you should use to describe partial-birth abortion: brutal, barbaric, medieval, inhumane.

Pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy cast the deciding vote in the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision Gonzales v. Carhart to uphold a ban on the procedure, also called an "intact dilation and extraction" in the euphemistic language of abortionists. In his decision, Justice Kennedy wrote, "No one would dispute that, for many, D and E is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life."

Gretchen Whitmer has repeatedly voted against efforts to ban partial-birth abortions in Michigan. In 2008, she voted against a ban in the Michigan Senate, stating that, "This is a bill that is emotional, that is often argued on the basis of emotions and not always from facts."

Well, let's talk about facts. This is how a partial-birth abortion works. The woman is dilated over the course of three days. On the third day, the intact child is "extracted" via a breach birth. Before the birth process is completed, the abortionist grabs the shoulders of the child before her head is out of the birth canal. The abortionist takes a sharp instrument, and stabs the baby in the back of the head. The abortionist then uses a suction catheter to suck out the brain of the child, killing her, just mere inches before her life is considered valued and protected.

Anyone who supports that should be disqualified from holding office as a matter of basic humanity.

Gretchen Whitmer will try emotional appeals to get you to ignore the facts about this gruesome procedure, claiming it's for saving women's lives. First of all, why use a three-day-long procedure in an emergency? Second, why not just allow the baby to be born? Third, let's examine the facts. One of the pioneers of the procedure, abortionist Martin Haskell, said about 20 percent of the partial-birth abortions he performed were because the child had a disability, and 80 percent where for social or economic reasons.

Gretchen Whitmer's abortion fanaticism leads her to defend stabbing viable babies in the head during the process of birth rather than simply allowing them to be born.

If elected, Gretchen Whitmer will take the first opportunity she has to expand abortion, including making partial-birth abortions legal once again.

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

New Abortion Poll With Dishonest Headline

"Republicans divided over abortion," the headline reads. The Hill teamed up with a sister company of the Harris Poll for a survey on the topic of abortion.

The major takeaway in their mind is that Republicans are divided on abortion: 20% of Republicans polled said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, 51% said it should be legal in cases of rape, incest, and the mother's life is at risk, 20% said it should be legal in the first and second trimester, and 9% said abortion should be legal at any point for any reason.

Well, they are less divided than Democrats, even though the article said Democrats are merely "somewhat divided."

How can the article so blatantly contradict the data? The authors are pulling a bait and switch using Roe v. Wade, with it being the hot topic as Judge Brett Kavanaugh inches closer to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The only category in the poll that lines up with Roe v. Wade is those who want abortion legal at any point for any reason, an opinion shared by only 9% of Republicans and 25% of Democrats.

Because of dishonest media narratives and downright legal and historical ignorance, a lot of people believe abortions are only legal before viability/third trimester because of Roe v. Wade. Using that metric, only 29% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats agree with Roe v. Wade. When you include everyone together, only 45% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in the first or second trimester.

That ought to be the headline, right there: "55% of Americans Would Ban Most Abortions."

Sadly, many Americans don't see clearly about the issue of abortion and rape yet, but those exceptions—along with the life of the mother—count for a tiny amount of abortions. Fewer than 1 percent of abortions are because the woman is pregnant from sexual assault. Well more than 90% of abortions are for purely social and economic reasons.

Through dishonesty or ignorance, the journalists reporting on this poll are deceiving Americans about what Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton did. Even 44% of Democrats believe abortion should be entirely illegal or would ban more than 90% of abortions.

Who again is more divided?

Prolife people should be encouraged, because a majority of Americans are on their side about Roe v. Wade, and the abortion industry can only hold on to the status quo by straight-up deceiving people. They know being honest about abortion is a losing proposition for them.

Here's some other groups in the poll who would ban more than 90% of abortions:
  • Women: 53%
  • Young adults ages 18-35: 56%
  • Hispanics: 59%
  • Asians: 71%
  • People without high school degrees: 60%
  • College graduates: 53%
  • Independents: 51%

The only demographic groups in the poll with a majority believing abortion should be generally legal in the 1st and 2nd trimester are:
  • The "Silent Generation" (born before WWII): 53%
  • People with post-graduate education: 57% 
  • Democrats: 55%

In other words, old college professors are abortion's key demographic, not young women.

Friday, September 7, 2018

Gretchen Whitmer's Record on Ultrasounds

Patients have a right to see their own medical records. That principle should be simple enough. Sadly, when it comes to abortion, principles and rights can suddenly no longer count.

Michigan passed legislation in 2006 to require abortionists to provide women with the option to see their ultrasound before an abortion. We know from eyewitnesses that some abortionists were dangerously not doing an ultrasound before the abortion, and that some were not letting the woman see an ultrasound if they asked.

As a legislator in the House, Gretchen Whitmer voted against this Ultrasound Viewing Option, H.B. 4446. She put abortion industry profits above a woman's right to see her own medical records, even above a woman's safety. Whitmer routinely sides with an unregulated, unaccountable abortion industry over basic common sense.

Even the very pro-abortion Governor Jennifer Granholm signed the ultrasound bill into law. There should be nothing controversial about allowing people to see the results of tests or scans. The only reason an abortionist has to hide the information is to ensure the woman stays in the dark, and Gretchen Whitmer is OK with that.

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Fact-checking Rep. Brian Elder

Rep. Brian Elder
Rep. Brian Elder has yet to withdraw his unconstitutional legislation attacking the free speech of prolife pregnancy centers. Rep. Elder is defending his bill, claiming it's different from California's attack on pregnancy centers, and therefore the recent decision in NIFLA v. Becerra doesn't apply.

Let's examine his claim.

First, it's important to note that many journalists often don’t read legislation before reporting on it, and even some legislators don't read legislation. At Right to Life of Michigan, however, we do read it.

In this case, we've read both the California law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Rep. Elder's legislation. The relevant sections closely mirror each other, even using identical phrases and terms, merely in a slightly different order; NIFLA v. Becerra definitely applies. Not only that, but Rep. Elder's bill is actually 10 times worse than California's law.

The only major difference is Rep. Elder’s legislation doesn’t require pregnancy centers to advertise free abortions. That’s because he can’t do that here. Michigan voters banned taxpayer-funded abortions in 1988. California forces taxpayers to pay for abortions. Given the above and Rep. Elder's switcheroo on abortion, an entrepreneurial journalist would ask Rep. Elder if he now believes taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortions.

Don't take our word on this, though. You can judge for yourself. Here's the relevant sections of California's law and Rep. Elder's bill:

“Unlicensed covered facility” is a facility that is not licensed by the State of California and does not have a licensed medical provider on staff or under contract who provides or directly supervises the provision of all of the services, whose primary purpose is providing pregnancy-related services, and that satisfies two or more of the following:
  • The facility offers obstetric ultrasounds, obstetric sonograms, or prenatal care to pregnant women.
  • The facility offers pregnancy testing or pregnancy diagnosis.
  • The facility advertises or solicits patrons with offers to provide prenatal sonography, pregnancy tests, or pregnancy options counseling. 
  • The facility has staff or volunteers who collect health information from clients. 

 "Unlicensed covered facility" means a facility that meets all of the following: (i) Is not a health facility or agency that is licensed under article 17 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20101 to 333.22260, and is not directly conducted, maintained, or operated by the United States or a department, officer, or agency of the United States. (ii) Does not have a licensed medical provider on staff or under contract who provides or directly supervises the performance of the services described in subparagraph (iii). (iii) Its primary purpose is providing pregnancy-related services to the public. (iv) Two or more of the following apply to the facility:
  • It offers obstetric ultrasounds, obstetric sonograms, or prenatal care to pregnant women.
  • It offers pregnancy testing or pregnancy diagnosis.
  • It advertises or solicits clients with offers to provide prenatal sonography, pregnancy tests, or pregnancy options counseling.
  • It has staff or volunteers who collect health information from clients. 

An unlicensed covered facility shall disseminate to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising materials including Internet Web sites, the following notice in English and in the primary threshold languages for Medi-Cal beneficiaries as determined by the State Department of Health Care Services for the county in which the facility is located. (1) The notice shall state: “This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.” (2) The onsite notice shall be a sign at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches and written in no less than 48-point type, and shall be posted conspicuously in the entrance of the facility and at least one additional area where clients wait to receive services. (3) The notice in the advertising material shall be clear and conspicuous. “Clear and conspicuous” means in larger point type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language. REP.

The notice must be included in all print or digital advertisements of the unlicensed covered facility, and on all of the facility's internet websites, in larger point type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language. (b) The notice must be included in all broadcast advertising of the unlicensed covered facility. (c) The notice must be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to the unlicensed covered facility, in each room or area in which clients or potential clients wait to receive services, and in each room in which services are provided to a client or potential client, written in a bold font and in at least 24-point type on a sign that is at least 8.5 inches by 11 inches in size.

“This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of services.”

"This facility is not licensed as a health facility or agency by the State of Michigan and the services provided at this facility are not provided or directly supervised by a licensed medical provider."

Covered facilities that fail to comply with the requirements of this article are liable for a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) for a first offense and one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each subsequent offense.

An unlicensed covered facility that violates this act is responsible for a civil fine of not more than $5,000.00 for a first violation and not more than $10,000.00 for a second or subsequent violation.

How are they meaningfully different? Rep. Elder would only force pregnancy centers to post disclaimers in 24-point font, as opposed to 48-point in California. However, Rep. Elder would impose 10-times the fine California would for violations. The formerly prolife Rep. Elder wants to punish prolife pregnancy centers 10-times as bad as pro-abortion California legislators.

Is Rep. Elder’s proposed attack on pregnancy centers constitutional, because he left out the portion forcing them to advertise free abortions? No. Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion in NIFLA v. Becerra from a few weeks ago clearly addresses this practically identical requirement notice for unlicensed centers:

"Even if California had presented a nonhypothetical justification for the unlicensed notice, the FACT Act unduly burdens protected speech. The unlicensed notice imposes a government-scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirement that is wholly disconnected from California’s informational interest. It requires covered facilities to post California’s precise notice, no matter what the facilities say on site or in their advertisements. And it covers a curiously narrow subset of speakers."

It's essentially the same disclaimer, imposed in the same ways, and targeted at prolife pregnancy centers in the same exact way California did. Simply changing the word order doesn't turn unconstitutional legislation into constitution legislation, any more than slightly changing the word order excuses plagiarism.

This legislation has no chance of surviving a court challenge. The only justification for this plainly unconstitutional legislation is making a political or policy statement. Rep. Elder chose nonprofits dedicated to helping women as the target for this statement. That's why we called him an "abortion radical," he's using legislation crafted by pro-abortion organizations, helping to advance their top priority of shutting down pregnancy help centers. His bill is neither original nor independent.

In defending himself, Rep. Elder points out that he is a lawyer, and is thus well qualified to understand legislative text. Rep. Elder either hasn't read California's law together with his own legislation (meaning someone shoved it in front of him and told him to sponsor it, or else), or he has read them and he's being dishonest.

Again, we encourage prolife constituents to contact Rep. Brian Elder and ask him to stop making excuses and withdraw this obviously unconstitutional legislation attacking pregnancy help centers. You call his office at (517) 373-0158, or e-mail him at BrianElder@house.mi.gov.

Thursday, August 16, 2018

Brian Elder: Profile in Cowardice

Rep. Brian Elder
Flashback: August 2, 2016. It was a great night for the Right to Life of Michigan Political Action Committee (RLM-PAC). It was primary election night, and RLM-PAC endorsed candidates won in 91.7 percent of their races.

The greatest victory of the night was the lone head-to-head matchup between the RLM-PAC and Planned Parenthood. In the Democratic primary race for the 96th state house district, Planned Parenthood endorsed Don Tilley, who received 40 percent of the vote. The RLM-PAC endorsed Brian Elder, who won with 47 percent of the vote.

As the national Democratic Party largely endorses abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy, it warms the heart of prolife people to see courageous prolife Democrats buck the party line. It’s sadly becoming rarer to see Democrats win elections while acknowledging the human value of unborn children, but there are still a few of them, and their courage is to be admired.

State Rep. Brian Elder was once such a man.

Fast forward to April 24, 2018. Just minutes after the filing deadline for the primary election, Rep. Elder told us he was not seeking the RLM-PAC endorsement.

Two days later, we received an e-mail from a reporter at the capitol. She said Rep. Elder was announcing he would not seek our endorsement, saying Right to Life of Michigan had become too political. The reporter wanted our comments.

Rep. Elder criticized us for an endorsement of an Alabama senator candidate we didn’t make, and for ignoring his opinion on legislation. He said his views on abortion haven’t changed, but said he had "absolutely no plans to do anything substantive on the issue."

We could generously say the timing of all this was curious, but it’s very plain what happened. Rep. Brian Elder was receiving interest in the leadership race for the House Democrats. Rep. Elder denied in the article that his campaign for House leadership had anything to do with his sudden announcement, but only a fool would believe that. He waited until moments after the filing deadline for the primary election to inform us, cynically taking no risk of being challenged by a real prolife Democrat in the primary election.

Because of his curious choice in only telling his story via a subscription capitol news service, Gongwer, we didn’t say anything publicly. Perhaps he was only being forced to denounce Right to Life of Michigan to be allowed to run for leadership. Perhaps he would continue to vote for some prolife legislation in the future.

Our field representative for Rep. Elder’s area set up a meeting to talk with him directly about the situation. Rep. Elder told her that despite his disagreement with us, he still considers himself prolife and would consider voting for prolife legislation. While the apparent political calculation and pressure from his fellow caucus members seemed clear to us, we were content to move forward, hopeful we could still work with Rep. Elder in the future.

Fast forward to August 15, 2018. After less than four months, the formerly 100% prolife Rep. Elder has introduced legislation attacking prolife pregnancy centers. Yes: not Right to Life of Michigan, not our legislation, but nonprofits dedicated to helping women, the same thing he accused us of not caring about in his blindside attack.

Well, news flash Rep. Elder, we care.

Rep. Brian Elder’s bill is a close copy of California legislation that the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down in NIFLA v. Becerra. It would effectively end the ability of any prolife pregnancy center to advertise their free help services to women. Rep. Elder would compel them to deface their own advertisements with a disclaimer that’s larger than the message they seek to include in their advertising. A billboard that simply said “choose life” would have to be accompanied by a paragraph disclaimer in a larger font.

It’s one thing to suffer the dishonor of having to renounce former friends to advance your career, but to attack innocent third parties in such a blatantly hypocritical way is something else entirely.

In his blindside attack, Rep. Elder said he had no substantive plans on addressing the abortion issue. He apparently wasted no time, however, working on plans to undermine the First Amendment, ignore a fresh U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and go after non-political prolife volunteers trying to help women. Today, Rep. Elder is an abortion radical, using legislation that has zero chance of passing and being upheld in court simply to send a political message.

If Right to Life of Michigan was being too political, he could have simply denounced us without changing his views on the fundamental value of human life. If he wanted to focus on helping women, he could have continued promoting the good work of prolife pregnancy centers around our state. If he was forced to act legislatively to appease Planned Parenthood, he could have simply stopped voting for prolife legislation.

Instead, Rep. Elder has chosen to attack nonprofit help organizations that aren’t involved in politics, only so he can be a slightly more powerful politician. Who is being nakedly “political” here?

People can and do switch sides on issues all the time. Sadly, many politicians do that simply for their own personal ends. But to go from 100% prolife candidate to attempting to shut down the free speech of people trying to help women? In less than four months?

For shame, Rep. Elder. For shame.

If you are a prolife constituent, please contact Rep. Brian Elder and ask him to withdraw his pointless unconstitutional attack on prolife pregnancy centers. You call his office at (517) 373-0158, or e-mail him at BrianElder@house.mi.gov.

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

Does Destroying the Unborn Make Us Richer?

At a pro-Roe v. Wade rally, Chelsea Clinton made the following claim: "It is not a disconnected fact—to address this t-shirt of 1973—that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right? The net, new entrance of women—that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973."

So, does abortion make us richer? No, in fact, it does the opposite.

Chelsea Clinton may have a doctorate from Oxford, but she fails to grasp basic economics with her claim.

Before we discuss that, however, we should examine the moral claim here: taking the life of unborn children is good because it makes us more prosperous. How is that any different than ancient cultures engaging in human sacrifice to appease the gods for a better harvest? Or, more recently, chattel slavery: we dehumanized an entire group of human beings for our own economic benefit.

There is no real economic benefit to dehumanizing unborn children, however.

Clinton claims that abortion enabled many women to enter the workforce between 1973-2009. To be incredibly generous to her claim, let's assume it's true that every woman who has had an abortion since 1973 has been able to enter to the labor force only because of abortion.

We know the repeat abortion rate has been consistently around 50 percent, so for the nearly 1 million abortions happening in a year, there are 500,000 women having their first abortion; the other 500,000 have already had one or more. There have been about 60 million abortions because of Roe v. Wade in 1973, so when you add it up using our rough estimate, that's about 30 million women who've had abortions.

If all 30 million post-abortive women entered the labor force, that indeed has boosted American productivity. However, there are always trade-offs in economics. What's the trade-off here?

If we didn't have Roe v. Wade, we'd have 60 million more people in the country, roughly 30 million men and 30 million women. Let's be generous to Clinton, and assume zero of those women killed by abortion would ever have had a meaningful job if they lived. That means 30 million women entered the workforce, and 30 million men never joined it because they died in abortion facilities. That's an addition of 0 net workers.

Where did Clinton go wrong? She believes the unborn child has zero moral worth, so she also pretends they never existed. She committed a cardinal sin of economics: never thinking about the trade-off—the "opportunity cost."

If you look at our gross domestic product per capita, 60 million abortions has destroyed about $3.5 trillion in potential productivity, the same amount Clinton claims was created by legalizing the death of 60 million productive citizens.

Clinton, like far too many, also misses a critical element of how abortion harms our economy. Abortion destroys future productive workers: the key word there is "future." Our society is aging, and this demographic imbalance is starting to be keenly felt. As older citizens lose productivity, we are not creating enough young citizens to take up the loss. Not only that, but it takes additional effort to care for the old and infirm. That duty falls on an ever-shrinking pool of younger citizens.

Social Security and Medicare have long been on a trajectory of unsustainability, and we're practically there. Their respective trust funds are predicted to run out in 2034 and 2028. We desperately need more young people to pay in to those programs, or we must face inevitable cuts or sharp tax increases.

It's not just the entitlement programs where we feel abortion's squeeze on our wallets. Health care costs continue to rise. About half of those costs come in people's retirement years. Who is paying the bulk of health insurance premiums? Younger, more healthy workers. Who is receiving the majority of health insurance payments? Older people in generally poorer health. While the problem is not as stark as the insolvency of Medicare, the same economic dynamic is at work.

It's more than a pity that the only way Clinton can see for women to join the workforce is through the death of the next generation: it's a tragedy. Can we place a price tag on children's lives? Clinton not only says yes, she says we should take it to the bank with a smile.

Has abortion made us richer? No. It's destroying our future at the cost of our moral authority.

Check out our factsheet detailing these points, Destroying our Future.

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

2018 Primary Election Overview

With the dust settling from the primary election on August 7th, we are reviewing its results, celebrating the victories, and preparing for the general election in November.

The most notable victory for life was John James’ win in the U.S. Senate primary. John James is a 100%, passionately prolife candidate. With John James’ win in the primary, he will be running against incumbent Senator Debbie Stabenow in the November general election. If John James wins the Senate race, Michigan will have a prolife voice representing our state, especially when it comes to judicial appointments.

Another avid defender of life who emerged from the Michigan primary is Bill Schuette, winner of the primary election for Michigan governor. Bill Schuette, our current Attorney General, will be facing Democrat Gretchen Whitmer in the November general election. The race for governor offers voters a clear choice between an active, pro-abortion governor who would attack prolife legislation, or one that would defend life at every opportunity.

In the entire election, RLM-PAC endorsed candidates had a total win percentage of 93.05%. RLM-PAC-endorsed candidates won in 201 out of 216 races, with 267 total endorsements overall.

In the 31st State Senate race for the Bay City Senate seat, both the Republican and Democratic prolife candidates won.

RLM-PAC-endorsed candidates lost in six state house races; the endorsed candidates in three of those races lost by a small margin of 40 votes or less.  Every vote matters!

In preparing for the November general election, it is important to keep in mind the weight of this race for the prolife movement. With the beginning of the end of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in sight, it is crucial to have elected officials that will stand for the rights of the unborn when the question of abortion finally returns to the states and the voters.

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

New Grants to 6 Metro Detroit Pregnancy Centers

It is an important time to be a pregnancy help center in the Detroit area. With more than 40% of abortions in the state of Michigan happening in the Detroit area, crisis pregnancy centers are doing crucial work on the front lines to give women support in choosing life over abortion.

Right to Life of Michigan has been reaching out to these pregnancy centers in Detroit, including giving grant money to support the work they do for mothers and babies in 2017.

There were six pregnancy centers who received grant money in 2018: Image of God Crisis Pregnancy Center of SW Detroit, Image of God Crisis Pregnancy Center of SE Detroit, Care Net Pregnancy Center Detroit, Pregnancy Aid Inc., ICU Birth Choice, Lincoln Crisis Pregnancy Center, and Detroit Pregnancy Test and Help Center.

On July 25, we visited the three new grantees to award them the grant money and hear their stories of the people they impact and lives they save.

First, we arrived at Lincoln Park Crisis Pregnancy Center, located on the southern side of Detroit. We received a tour of their center and learned that all their items come from community donations and the center is run solely by volunteers. They still manage to be open five days a week! The grant money they received will help them set up a safe system to receive online donations.

The second center we visited was the Detroit Pregnancy Test and Help Center. This center is located only two doors away from Summit Medical Center, the largest abortion provider in Detroit. Walking into the pregnancy center, it was easy to imagine how many lives had been saved from the abortion clinic down the road. Executive Director Denise Chandler said that when they first arrived at this location in November, 2017, they received huge pushback from Summit Medical Center both on social media and from them telling women who came to their clinic that the pregnancy center was dangerous. Despite the pushback, Denise had many success stories of sidewalk counselors bringing women to her center and choosing life for their baby, and she is determined to keep fighting to save more lives.

Our last visit was to ICU Birth Choice. This center is unique because it is a mobile center located in an RV. With a mobile location that has space for counseling and support—as well as an ultrasound machine—the center can serve multiple areas where they are most needed. Executive Director Bev Dixon explained that the center’s location schedule rotates, but their locations are almost always right outside of abortion clinics in hopes that women will see an alternative to abortion. Bev told us multiple stories about women receiving an ultrasound from ICU Birth Choice who said that they never knew the truth about what an unborn baby looks like inside the womb. Bev even said that many women who had previously had an ultrasound at an abortion clinic told her that they were never shown the true image of their baby, and would have never known otherwise if it weren’t for the pregnancy center.

Pregnancy help centers like these do amazing work for mothers and babies every day. To see our full list of pregnancy and adoption help agencies available in Michigan, click here.

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

"Zombie Law"? You Must Mean Roe v. Wade

Selling baby body parts
Zombies are frightening. Even though they are dead inside, they keep shambling around the landscape, devouring the brains of unsuspecting victims, consuming the lives of millions in an apocalypse of Hollywood proportions.

Forget for a moment that it's the abortion industry that wants to suck the brains out of children or sell them for science experiments.

The pro-abortion news website Rewire recently published an article about how the Democratic candidates for Michigan governor are committing to do everything in their power to make sure abortion remains totally legal and unregulated. The candidates promise they will repeal Michigan's pre-Roe v. Wade "zombie law" that protects unborn children, if elected.

What is this "zombie law"? Since 1846, Michigan has legally protected the lives of unborn children. The most recent update of our law is from 1931. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, this law may have an opportunity to go back into effect.

Abortion supporters like the three Democratic candidates running for Michigan governor call this a "zombie law" because they somehow believe it's already dead. Except that's not true at all.

Just a few weeks before Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton overturned the laws of all 50 states and forced abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason on America—and the lives of nearly 60 million innocent human beings—Michigan voters had a chance to vote on the "zombie law." Abortion supporters tried to repeal it through Proposal B of 1972, but 60% of Michiganders voted to keep our law.

Can you really call a law that got a supermajority of support last time it faced the voters "dead"? Can you call a law that's actually still in legal effect "dead"? We don't think so.

Roe v. Wade, however, is definitely a case befitting the walking dead. Only 13% of Americans believe abortion should be generally legal in the third trimester, but that's law of the land because of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. That's 87% of Americans who oppose its effects.

Roe v. Wade is legally indefensible. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg can't give you a legally-compelling reason to believe Roe v. Wade was decided correctly based on the law. Laurence Tribe, a well-known lawyer and abortion supporter, is forced to admit, "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."

Roe v. Wade has the outer husk of an actual judicial decision, but it is dead inside and dangerous to innocent lives. That's much different than our state law, which is based on facts like the humanity of unborn children, and has received large public support.

Once you get past the verbal smokescreen of terms like "zombie law," you can see where Abdul El-Sayed, Shri Thanedar, and Gretchen Whitmer actually want to take Michigan if elected governor. None of these extreme abortion positions featured in the Rewire article have broad popular support:
  • Forcing all hospitals to do abortions.
  • Removing waiting periods before abortions.
  • Forcing people to pay for abortions through their insurance plans.
  • "Prohibit government interference with physician-patient treatment programs or laws that place a burden on access to abortion," i.e., repealing every prolife law on the books, from abortion clinic regulations to our state's partial-birth abortion ban.

Think about that. These three candidates are demanding that women in the third trimester can walk straight into an abortion clinic and begin a partial-birth abortion that day. The child is birthed until only their head remains in the birth canal. The abortionist then stabs the child's head, and sucks their brains out. You will be forced to pay for this real act of zombie-esque violence. If you work in the medical field, you will be forced to participate. If something goes horribly wrong during the procedure, nothing will happen because the state won't be regulating abortion clinics anymore.

Is that "women's healthcare"? It's not enough for these candidate to affirm Roe v. Wade and abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason, they demand every popular, common-sense abortion regulation that's been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court since 1973 be repealed.

Like a zombie, the abortion extremism of these three candidates refuses to stop. Their positions resemble something closer to Resident Evil than the opinions of most Michigan voters, and we eagerly await the opportunity to educate Michigan citizens about these on-the-record promises in the coming months.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

Why John James?

In the 2018 Primary Election for U.S. Senate, only one candidate received the Right to Life of Michigan Political Action Committee Endorsement. Why?

From his service to the nation as an army captain, to his enthusiasm for Michigan, to being the only 100% pro-life candidate in the 2018 U.S. Senate election, there are many reasons for everyone to love John James. If James won the election, this would mean that there would finally be a prolife voice representing Michigan in the U.S. Senate.

James served in Operation Iraqi Freedom after graduating from West Point in 2004. He served for eight years, flew Apache helicopters, led two platoons, and received several awards including a Combat Action Badge and two Air Medals.

James’ educational background includes a Bachelor of Science from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, a Master of Supply Chain Management and Information Systems from Penn State University, and a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) from the University of Michigan.

When he returned to Michigan after his service, he was inspired to continue serving by working in his local community: “I am called to a life of service. I want to serve my country and my community and my state. When I would come back from Iraq on leave during the great recession, the economic and societal devastation I saw here in my own state floored me.”

From his work in his family business, James Group International, he and has created 100 jobs in Michigan since 2012.

James describes himself as unapologetically prolife. He said, “We must commit ourselves to protecting the sanctity of life, born and unborn. I am 100 percent prolife.”

He currently lives in Farmington Hills, Michigan with his wife Elizabeth and two young sons.

James’ opponent in the Republican primary, Sandy Pensler, has claimed to be prolife, but has also has openly admitted to believing that abortion is permissible in some cases, and he ran for congress in 1992 as a pro-choice Republican. John James’ firm position with the prolife movement makes him the 100% prolife candidate in the Senate election.

Who will you choose to challenge pro-abortion U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow in the November election? Who will you choose to be responsible for judicial nominees, who will be deciding life and death issues like the fate of Roe v. Wade?

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Overturning Roe is Pro-Choice

On July 9, President Trump announced he would nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacant U.S. Supreme Court seat following the retirement of Anthony Kennedy.

Judge Kavanaugh is undeniably qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. Yet before his nomination was even announced, criticism began. The Women’s March embarrassed itself by sending out a press release naming the nominee as “XX.” They forgot to paste in the name of the nominee before predicting a “death sentence for thousands of women.”

The potential that Kennedy’s replacement may create a majority in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade is the cause of these unhinged reactions. What would actually happen if Roe was overturned?

It’s important to note that thousands of women across the fruited plain will not die in childbirth, or however else the Women’s March expects them to brutally die at the hands of the nefarious Justice XX.

What would actually happen is the U.S. Supreme Court would correctly recognize that the U.S. Constitution is silent on abortion. Abortion laws would once again be in the hands of the voters to choose.

Letting voters choose abortion laws poses a serious problem for pro-abortion organizations. A vast majority of Americans reject the effects of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which together legalized abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy.

Gallup routinely does polling on abortion. In May, they released a detailed poll about the legality of first or third trimester abortions in specific cases. Only 29% polled believe third trimester abortions should be legal for children diagnosed with Down syndrome. An Indiana law banning abortions targeted at children with Down syndrome was recently overturned because of Roe v. Wade.

More than 90% of abortions are done purely for social or economic reasons. According to the Gallup poll, only 45% of Americans believe first trimester abortions for those reasons should be legal. Roe v. Wade takes away any opportunity to address that in any significant way.

If we want to uphold our core democratic values, we must not reject fair judges simply to disenfranchise a majority of American voters. Groups calling themselves “pro-choice” should welcome the opportunity to give voters a chance to debate abortion in the public square.

Would Judge Brett Kavanaugh potentially be the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade? We won’t know until we get there. If we do, we have nothing to fear but democracy itself.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Supreme Court Supports Free Speech in NIFLA v. Becerra

In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court struck down a controversial 2015 California law that would have forced the more than 200 prolife crisis pregnancy centers in the state to promote abortions.

The case, NIFLA v. Becerra, challenged the law's requirement that those centers to go against their personal convictions on the issue of abortion. The law also went further, specifically targeting just the prolife crisis pregnancy centers who opposed abortion rather than any health center or charity.

In the majority opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court said the law violated the First Amendment: you can't force people to speak against their beliefs. During the oral arguments there was uneasy feelings and lack of support from several of the pro-abortion justices. The final vote by the pro-abortion justices is also very telling: when it came down to it, none of them were willing to cross over and vote against the abortion industry.

This is a huge win for prolife advocates all over the United States. If this case would have gone the other way, prolife pregnancy centers in any state with a pro-abortion majority could find themselves unable to even advertise their services without being forced to promote the taking of human life.