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:

---

CALIFORNIA LAW'S DEFINITIONS:
“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. 

REP. ELDER’S DEFINITIONS:
 "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. 

---

CALIFORNIA LAW'S REQUIREMENTS:
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.

REP. ELDER’S REQUIREMENTS: 
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.

---

CALIFORNIA LAW'S DISCLAIMER:
“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.”

REP. ELDER’S DISCLAIMER: 
"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."

---

CALIFORNIA LAW'S PENALTIES:
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.

REP. ELDER’S PENALTIES: 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.