capitol with words 11.27.21-01.jpg
caleb-perez-a6h5e59r15o-unsplash_edited.jpg
kelli-mcclintock-wBgAVAGjzFg-unsplash_edited.jpg
5F082A1A-FEA2-4694-86E1-50577C50D2EF_edited.jpg

CURRENT ISSUES

"Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from

Late-Term Abortions Act"

Bill draws mixed reactions about the path to end abortion in America

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced a bill Tuesday, Sept. 13, that seeks to protect pain-capable pre-born babies from abortion.

 

The legislation, titled the “Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act,” would prohibit abortion after 15 weeks gestation—a point in development at which research shows pain can be experienced by a fetus.

 

Center for Urban Renewal and Education President Star Parker, speaking alongside Graham, Tuesday, noted that the United States Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision “returned abortion policy to the democratic process” and thanked Graham for introducing the “life-affirming legislation.”

 

Many pro-life advocates–including several who spoke at a press conference with Graham, Tuesday, believe that though this legislation does not go as far as many desire in protecting life at every stage, it is a step in the right direction and provides a first-step piece of legislation that can garner broad support. Others were less enthused by Graham's announcement, some seeing it as a an impotent measure that will merely serve to upset enough Democrats to activate their voting base ahead of midterm elections, and others seeing it as a morally flawed effort that misses the mark in setting an arbitrary point at which some abortions would remain legal and essentially acceptable.

Pastor and abolitionist Dusty Deevers said as much in response, Tuesday, via Twitter.

"No. This is atrocious. Senator @LindseyGrahamSC has been trained by the Pro-life establishment. Write a law to ban ab0rt1on after 14 weeks, & the same law, by consequence, federally mandates ab0rt1on before 15 weeks. Foolishness. God demands equal protection for all preborn," Deevers' post read.

Conservative commentator and author Allie Beth Stuckey offered guarded optimism for the efficacy of the bill.

"This is great, if Republicans play it right. When Dems vote against it, it serves as a reminder to those middle-of-the-road voters that they’re truly radical on abortion," Stuckey tweeted Tuesday.

Fellow conservative David Limbaugh said he was "between enraged and sad" after watching a clip of Graham's press conference.

"...Lindsey Graham offered a fed. bill to cut off abortion at 15 weeks because that’s when unborns feel pain. Pathetic. Pain matters, of course, but the issue is life. The baby is a human being at 0 weeks, Lindsey. Shame on you," Limbaugh tweeted.

Further reaction to this legislation may shape Republicans' position on how to end abortion in the days to come. Some call for an incremental approach, and others call for absolute and immediate abolition. Many who describe themselves as pro-life find themselves in a confusing middle ground, desiring to support incremental advances in eradicating abortion and supporting a swift-as-possible end to the atrocity that has claimed more than 63 million lives in the United States. Both sectors of the anti-abortion movement say they desire to see an end to abortion, although some holding the abolitionist position have questioned in recent months whether the incremental approach is simply a fundraising issue for political gain. It is easier, some say, to raise money when there is a perpetual crisis with which voters resonate and which they are compelled to help solve through financial support.  It is unclear at this point which philosophy will maintain control of the "pro-life" effort overall and set the direction for conservative public policy.

What does seem clear, though, is that the majority of Americans appear to support ending abortion access at some point before birth. (Conversely, some Democrats support measures that allow babies to be killed days after birth, and Democrats in Congress have repeatedly refused to support measures to require medical care for infants accidentally born alive in failed abortions,)

 

Despite Democrats’ claims that the majority of the nation does not support limits to abortion, National Right to Life News cited in a Sept. 13 news release that according to a recent Harvard poll, 72 percent of Americans oppose abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Further, according to a January 2022 Marist poll, 71 percent of Americans oppose abortion after the first three months of pregnancy.

 

March for Life President Jeanne Mancini reported similar statistics during the Tuesday press conference—statistics that are unlikely to appear on mainstream news reports regarding public sentiment on abortion. 

 

“Ninety percent of Americans reject the view that abortion should be legal up until birth, which is what the Women’s Health Protection Act stood for.” Mancini said. “Politicians voting against this bill will stand against science and against the American public, not to mention basic compassion for women and babies.”

“Ninety percent of Americans reject the view that abortion should be legal up until birth ...Politicians voting against this bill will stand against science and against the American public, not to mention basic compassion for women and babies.”

 

- Jeanne Mancini

 

The text of the bill highlights the fact that doctors operating on fetal patients use anesthesia to prevent the sensation of pain. It follows logically, then, that aborting a child through suction (D&C) or through dismemberment (D&E) would inflict a great deal of pain and that no reasonable person should support inflicting such severe pain on a child.

 

“In considering the use of anesthesia for invasive medical procedures performed on the fetus, doctors have concluded, based on the evidence, that, from as early as 12 weeks gestational age, and certainly by 15 weeks gestational age, the fetus is extremely sensitive to painful stimuli, making it necessary to apply adequate analgesia and anesthesia to prevent fetal suffering,” the bill reads.

 

Graham was asked by a reporter about how he “squares” introducing legislation on a national level rather than leaving the issue of abortion to be decided solely in the states.

 

“Pretty easy,” Graham said. “After they introduced a bill to define who they are, I thought it’d be nice to introduce a bill to define who we are.”

 

Graham acknowledged that some legislation can require years to be passed and said that while passing this with the current Democrat-controlled Congress would be difficult, chances may improve if Republicans gain more seats in upcoming elections. This legislation, he explained, allows the nation to begin having the conversation about why babies who can feel pain should be protected from being dismembered and killed in the womb. Some, however, desire the conversation to focus on why babies of every age deserve equal protection under the law.

 

“There is a discussion going on in America about abortion,” Graham said. “We’re not afraid to talk about it. We’re proud to be pro-life. We’re not going to apologize to anybody about being pro-life. We respect people who disagree with us. We just want to vote. We want to have the discussion.”

"We’re not going to apologize to anybody about being pro-life. We respect people who disagree with us. We just want to vote."

- Sen. Lindsey Graham

The full text of the bill is linked here

 

Watch the press conference here

"Respect for Marriage Act"

An assault on religious freedom & biblical convictions

The House of Representative already passed H.B. 8404, misleadingly named the “Respect for Marriage Act,” and soon the Senate will consider it as well. This legislation does not respect marriage as instituted and defined by God — between one man and one woman, for life — and it would codify the Supreme Court’s overreaching and detrimental decision in Obergefell v Hodges. H.B. 8404 poses a serious threat to religious liberty in the United States. If passed, the legislation would put Christians and Christian organizations at legal risk simply for holding biblical convictions and could jeopardize 501(c)(3) status for non-profit organizations committed to a biblical understanding of and respect for marriage.

The full text of the bill is linked here

 

Read the articles linked below to better understand what is at stake, and then call your senators to urge them against supporting this legislation.

 

The Washington Stand: "HICE: We Must Not Codify Same-Sex Marriage"

Alliance Defending Freedom: "The Respect for Marriage Act Can’t Answer the Question: What is Marriage?"

Contact your senators: Click here to locate contact information.

edit 1.jpg
flag2.jpg

Truth and virtue in an age of vice

Philippians 4:8 drives the aims of Colter & Co. Advocacy. Whatever things are true and noble, excellent and praiseworthy those things we promote and defend. Colter & Co. Advocacy is committed to engaging today's culture and equipping other Christians to do the same, working with leaders across the globe in an effort to affect positively the spheres of church, family and public policy.

Join our contact list

Thank you.

Articles, Interviews, and Resources