Culture of Life

  • Matthew Walther writes on the reversal of Roe v. Wade and the consequence of the pro-life movement’s acceptance of subsuming “a clear moral question into the murk of judicial theory and political strategy.”

    Abortion, Walther writes, is the “state-abetted killing of hundreds of thousands of infants each year.” Yet an allegedly conservative U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decision in Dobbs premised on constitutional neutrality on abortion—and in this way it delivered a decision that would have been as explosive in 1973 as Roe v. Wade itself was. “No one believed abortion was constitutional prior to the Supreme Court deciding it was in Roe,” a friend told me recently. Yet the Supreme Court has advanced in Dobbs precisely that view: that the constitutional is compatible with what Walther calls “state-abetted killing” of preborn persons. Walther:

    For too long, too many members were more focused on overturning Roe v. Wade than on persuading the American people about the nature of personhood. This equivocation about means and ends, which subsumed a clear moral question into the murk of judicial theory and political strategy, has always given me pause.

    In the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court case that overturned Roe, I am sad to report that my misgivings have been vindicated. The court’s decision may have been a great victory for proponents of states’ rights and a necessary prelude to ending abortion, but the pro-life movement appears less powerful now than it has in years. Certainly, the blithe assumption that the movement included an overwhelming majority of Republican politicians and voters was spectacularly mistaken. …

    It wasn’t always this way. In the early 1970s, opponents of abortion were often zealous activists like L. Brent Bozell Jr., whose anti-abortion sit-ins, explicitly modeled after those of the civil rights movement, were frequently denounced by the conservative press. After 1973, when Roe was decided, these opponents called for overturning the decision not simply because it was poorly reasoned and insufficiently grounded in the text of the Constitution, but because they regarded abortion as an unthinkable moral atrocity to which no one had a right, constitutional or otherwise. Roe may have been a weak piece of jurisprudence (as even many proponents of legal abortion conceded), but the ultimate goal of those who denounced it was not to rectify the state of the judiciary.

    These priorities should not have changed when the judicial philosophy known as originalism emerged as the most likely means of overturning Roe. But at some point during the intervening years, the wires got crossed.

    For decades now, originalism and opposition to abortion have been treated as synonymous by proponents and detractors alike. Pro-life organizations have routinely issued statements that are indistinguishable from originalist rhetoric in their denunciations of “judicial activism” and their emphasis on “the role of a Supreme Court justice, which is to interpret the Constitution without prejudice and to apply the law in an unbiased manner.” Justice Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most prominent originalist, appears as a matter of course on lists of pro-life heroes, even though he maintained that democratic majorities could legitimately legalize abortion if they chose to do so.

    The pro-life movement is not the Republican Party and it should not be one and the same as the conservative legal movement. It’s conceivable that the Republican Party could one day become for the anti-abortion cause what it was for the anti-slavery cause, namely a wholly committed vehicle for social justice on an issue that appeared intractable. But the Republican Party is not that today, and neither is the conservative legal movement.

    When Americans United for Life filed our first Supreme Court amicus brief in Roe v. Wade, we explicitly argued for constitutional personhood. Yet this is a moral principle, to say nothing of a legal argument, that is now widely rejected within the conservative legal movement, as far as I can tell. I think it rejects this sort of argument because it has come to accept at least three premises of liberalism: First, that even unjust laws can and should carry the force of law. Second, that the Constitution functions without any grounding moral or metaphysical realities. And finally, that human will, or the strictly positive law, is all that there is.

    These three premises are fatal for a pro-life movement that would warm America’s heart to the brutal injustices of post-Roe abortion culture. Walther is writing about the imperative of moral persuasion and cultural change on abortion post-Roe, and that is truly important. But I think he is too quick to write off the importance of reforming how we think about the law and the judiciary, and the vision we cast for their priorities in the years to come.

    Little by little does the trick, and this is an important moment for the pro-life movement to renegotiate the terms of its political alliances if the aim is truly abortion’s abolition.

  • Jacob Neu writes at The Lamp on Roe, Dobbs, and the future of pro-life advocacy:

    We’ll need to remember the same tactics that got us this far: perseverance and planning. Little by little does the trickLet not our zeal outrun our discretion. Every plan begins with the intended result, and our goal remains the same as when we began on January 22, 1973. We seek to make abortion illegal in the United States. But not only do we want to make it illegal, we want a culture that will, in the words of Pope John Paul II, “respect, protect, love, and serve life, every human life!” To get where we want to be, we must also acknowledge our current position. Here we must be brutally honest. In many ways we start further from our goal than we did in 1973, and the terrain is more treacherous. …

    It is plain that in Dobbs the Supreme Court did the bare minimum we could have asked for. Yes, it overruled Roe, but the opinion limited itself to Roe’s myriad and manifest defects in legal reasoning. Dobbs does not take up the invitation of several amicus briefs that sought to establish fetuses as persons under the Fourteenth Amendment entitled to certain basic rights, whether on originalist or natural law grounds. In fact, the Court hardly articulates a reason for promoting the dignity of the child or the child’s right to life beyond acknowledging that it is something about which the country is fervently divided.

    The Court could have chosen a different path, one exemplified by the West German abortion case in 1975. Two years after Roe, the German Constitutional Court interpreted statements in its constitution that “human dignity shall be inviolable,” and that “every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity,” as obligating West Germany to protect the fetal life developing in the mother’s womb, even against the mother, for the duration of the pregnancy. The German court held that “it should not be forgotten that developing life itself is entrusted by nature … to the protection of the mother. To reawaken, and … to strengthen the maternal duty to protect, where it is lost, should be the principal goal of the endeavors of the state for the protection of life.” The court permitted the state to withhold punishment for abortions undertaken where the woman’s life was in danger or cases of similar gravity, and West Germany subsequently established a system requiring doctor examination, counseling in favor of the child’s life, and a three-day waiting period. Nevertheless, the court held that “in the extreme case, … the lawgiver can be obligated to employ the means of the penal law for the protection of developing life.”

    If only our Supreme Court had recognized in Dobbs an affirmative obligation of the state to protect the life of the child as well as the life of the mother. We should not neglect this “teaching function” of law, whereby the law provides the bounds for acceptable behavior and molds peoples’ attitudes over time. In 1980 in the US there were twenty-nine abortions per one thousand women of childbearing age; in Germany, there were nine. How many abortions could have been prevented had the Supreme Court adopted a position similar to that in West Germany?

    If the justices think they will be out of the abortion business they are wrong. I anticipate numerous challenges from progressives. These will include serious questions, such as resolving conflicts between the application of state laws and any federal laws, and ridiculous ones, such as whether the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery makes a total abortion ban unconstitutional.

    Still, many of the coming legal fights will occur in the state courts. Four states have explicitly rejected the right to an abortion, while eleven state courts have found a right to abortion in their constitutions already. We will need to overturn those provisions while articulating state-specific reasons why their constitutions protect the life of the child. Our strategy must be multifaceted. We must seek to change hearts and minds. We must make political alliances where possible to build support for reasonable, and increasingly restrictive, abortion laws. We will have to amend state constitutions. We will continue asking the Supreme Court to not merely be neutral, but to obligate the state to protect the child’s life.

    Only this “whole of society” approach will do. For even if we could enact perfect laws, a community not ready to accept them will despise both the laws and the virtues they promote. As St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Treatise on Law, “The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Whereupon it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous. … Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils.” In other words, we must seek laws that lead the states that are strongly pro-abortion to true human dignity, and we must also prepare them as a community to joyfully accept that dignity. Little by little does the trick.

    The sooner we recover the classical legal tradition’s insight that the “purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue,” the better.

  • Rafael de Arízaga wrote the following after John Roberts handed the pro-life movement a tactical defeat in June Medical Services v. Russo:

    “Conservatism has two modes in its inevitably futile opposition to revolutionary politics. The first is to moderate it, declare opposition to it, but to do so chiefly in the interest of restraining its most offensive excesses. By focusing on what he considers to be those excesses rather than on the principle that explains them, the moderate ends up being pulled to a position somewhere midway between his own and the revolutionary’s. But because there can be no real reconciling between the first principles of the true (Catholic) conservative and those of the true (liberal) revolutionary, this partial capitulation always results in a victory for the revolutionary. The stretch of political road, as it were, that the liberal revolutionary has forced the moderate to traverse in the argument is now legitimized by the fact of him traversing it.

    “The second mode is to conserve the achievements of the revolution once they are attained. Because he does not wish to be seen as supplying principles or arguments that may rock the foundations of social order, whatever they may be, the conservative cannot but assent to the new arrangements that the revolutionary has created at his expense. The revolution’s new order is the law now, and the law must be obeyed, says the conservative, for if we try to uproot it, will we not be supplying the revolutionary a further pretext to uproot other good institutions?”

    Yet more evidence that the binary between “progressive/liberal” and “conservative” is unhelpful. When even conservatives, at their best, produce “partial capitulations” resulting in “a[n incremental] victory for the revolutionary,” the game is over.

    I think this partly explains the interest one the last few years in the classical legal tradition, for which Hadley Arkes and more recently Adrian Vermeule have been advocates.

    I think it also explains why Alasdair MacIntyre’s plenary session talk last fall at Notre Dame was so explosive. We’ve spent decades talking, more or less constantly since the end of World War II, of human dignity. MacIntyre asks us to go deeper, to think instead about the characteristics of the good regime, one oriented to justice:

    MacIntyre escapes the binary and shows us how we might, too.

  • Hadley Arkes writes that although the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed Roe v. Wade, the cultural and moral logic of Roe has altered the American heart on abortion:

    With Roe, the Court removed abortion overnight from a thing to be abhorred and forbidden — and turned it into something that should be endorsed, celebrated, and promoted. Roe is gone, but that moral teaching remains strong, and it is now vibrant in the most populous states where abortions may now be performed massively, with almost no restrictions and inhibitions.

    We now find ourselves in our new version of the “House Divided,” and it is an unsteady balance. The power to tilt it one way or another will be in the federal government, and if one side does not reach for those powers, the other side surely will. And if the culture of abortion flourishes in the blue states, the decisive leverage may well fall to them. The pro-life side has become soberly aware now that the overruling of Roe has not diminished the burdens of their work or delivered several hundred thousand unborn children from lethal dangers.

    Earlier in the piece Arkes writes that although Dobbs “returned [abortion] to the political arena in the states,” it’s “a trick of the eye to see no role for the federal government any longer on this issue.”

    The Supreme Court’s relinquishing of exclusive control over abortion actually raises the stakes, as abortion must now be confronted directly by presidents, governors, and lawmakers just as directly as by those judges and justices who will continue to confront abortion-related litigation.

    Focusing on the states without providing clarity for those at the federal level, or simply hoping for the best from a future pro-life president, will not get the job done.

  • Hadley Arkes soberly assesses the Dobbs decision in a letter in the Wall Street Journal:

    The majority in Dobbs sought [like the dissenters in Roe] also to avoid speaking those key words about the human standing of the child, though it would have been no strain to speak them.

    Following “conservative jurisprudence,” the court held back from pronouncing any judgment on the moral substance. That is why Justice Brett Kavanaugh could write that “many pro-life advocates forcefully argue that a fetus is a human life”—as though there has been no long-settled, empirical truth on this matter, found in all the textbooks of embryology and obstetric gynecology. If the court had set down those simple, key words, it is hard to imagine that your editorial board could offer a warning to “those who believe life begins at conception.” Clearly, there are people who affect to “believe” that pregnant women carry living, growing offspring that may not yet be human. The editorial urges pro-lifers on to persuade these people, but on the anchoring premise that there is no ground of truth on which to test the arguments.

    The court, in Dobbs, overruled Roe, and I have been working in that cause for 49 years. But Roe also changed the culture. It transformed abortion from a thing to be abhorred, condemned and discouraged into a thing to be deeply approved, even celebrated and promoted. It would be a folly to think that Dobbs did anything to impart moral conviction or momentum to the pro-life side as it seeks to rescue even a handful of lives from the 800,000 annual U.S. abortions. As we survey the debris from Dobbs, I wonder whether some of us came to hate Roe v. Wade more than we hated abortion itself.

    I was speaking with someone in their late 70s recently about the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade. This person asked me why the Court didn’t go further in Dobbs—why the Court didn’t rule to the effect that abortion was unconstitutional, and in fact not a matter for states.

    “No one,” this person said, “believed abortion was constitutional prior to the Supreme Court deciding it was in Roe.”

    Yet today, a majority of conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court appear to believe what those seven pro-abortion justices who imposed Roe believed: that the constitution permits abortion.

  • The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade triggered a wave of corporate pledges from Fortune 500 companies. Now that Roe is dead, states can go their own way on the issue of abortion. At least 26 states have or are moving in the pro-life direction, and the remainder are attempting a middle way or are pledging to become more pro-abortion than ever before.

    And lots of companies are doing what Disney, Mastercard, and Tesla are doing: offering to pay for their employees to travel from pro-life states like Texas to pro-abortion states like Illinois in order to ensure a child never sees the light of day.

    Fortunately, some companies are responding in an uplifting and empowering way: increasing parental leave, instituting child-care benefits, and even offering financial support for employees who would prefer to make an adoption plan.

    Meanwhile Jim Harbaugh, Michigan’s head football coach, made headlines this week for promoting radical hospitality:

    Michigan football coach Jim Harbaugh had social media abuzz with his remarks during an anti-abortion event last week where he was the guest speaker. The former NFL coach has since doubled down on his stance on ESPN, saying that he and his wife will “raise the baby” if family members, players or staff should a have an unwanted pregnancy.

    During a Right to Life event in Plymouth, Michigan on July 17 that both Harbaugh and his wife Sarah attended, the Wolverines coach told the audience why he’s “pro-life.”

    “In God’s plan, each unborn human truly has a future filled with potential, talent, dreams and love,” Harbaugh said according to multiple outlets including Sports Illustrated. “I have living proof in my family, my children, and the many thousands that I’ve coached that the unborn are amazing gifts from God to make this world a better place. To me, the right choice is to have the courage to let the unborn be born.”

    During an interview with ESPN’s Gene Wojciechowski on Saturday, July 23, Harbaugh elaborated on his comments.

    “I’ve told [them] the same thing I tell my kids, boys, the girls, same thing I tell our players, our staff members,” the college football coach said to ESPN. “I encourage them if they have a pregnancy that wasn’t planned, to go through with it, go through with it. Let that unborn child be born, and if at that time, you don’t feel like you can care for it, you don’t have the means or the wherewithal, then Sarah and I will take that baby.”

    He continued when asked about his part in the rally.

    “Faith, family, football … those are my priorities. I just think that … the abortion issue is one that’s so big that it needs to be talked about. It needs serious conversation. What do you think? What do I think? What do others think?

    “It’s a life-or-death type of issue. And I believe in, and I respect, people’s views. But let’s hear them. Let’s discuss them because there’s passion on both sides of this issue. So when you combine that with respect, that’s when the best results come. … [I’m] just contributing to that conversation and that communication, which I think is really important, in my opinion.”

    What corporations, institutions, and leaders have to contribute to the conversation over abortion will shape the country—lives will be saved and lifetimes will be lived the more that we speak up for the natural right to life and our common responsibilities to one another.

  • Dr. Christina Francis and Catherine Glenn Foster write in Newsweek that physicians can save pregnant women’s lives without abortion. I think this is an important piece, because it helps to clarify what abortion is.

    Abortion is a specific intervention whose direct and intentional purpose is to end the life of a preborn child. This is why abortion laws hinge in intent.

    If a medical intervention is not done with the primary intention of ending a child’s life—even if the foreseen but unintentional result of that intervention is the demise of the child—then it is not an abortion:

    We are now living in a post-Roe v. Wade America, and women are already being bombarded by heavy-handed pro-abortion messages suggesting that abortion bans will block access to authentic medical care and treatments. Women in states that enact legislation protecting life, fear-mongering pro-abortion voices shout, won’t be able to receive treatment for pregnancy complications that thousands face every year—from ectopic pregnancy to miscarriage. …

    The main problem for the pro-abortion narrative is that abortion is, in fact, not necessary to treat pregnancy complications. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an induced abortion is a procedure intended to terminate a pregnancy so that it does not result in a live birth. In other words, the specific purpose of an induced abortion is to end the life of a preborn child. From a medical standpoint, this is never necessary. This fact is clear in the case of miscarriage management, which in no way involves ending a life, only the removal of an embryo or fetus who is already deceased.

    Other difficult pregnancy conditions may require doctors to separate a mother from her preborn child to save her life—but this is not the same as an abortion. For example, even Planned Parenthood acknowledges that managing an ectopic pregnancy—in which the embryo implants outside of the uterus, often causing life-threatening hemorrhage—is not an abortion. Other pregnancy complications, such as chorioamnionitis—an infection of the fetal membranes potentially leading to sepsis—must be treated by separating the mother and preborn child via premature delivery. These treatments are done with the explicit intent of saving the woman’s life. They allow doctors to attempt to preserve the child’s life—or, if that’s not possible, to treat them with the dignity they deserve. Abortion offers preborn children no such respect.

    There is a crucial disconnect between how abortionists define abortion, and how physicians and lawmakers define abortion, and this piece speaks in to that to connect some of the dots for folks who wrongly believe, for instance, that miscarriage management involves abortion.

  • Dr. John Bruchalski, a physician who previously performed abortions, was the recipient of Notre Dame’s 2022 Evangelium Vitae Medal:

    Dr. Bruchalski founded, alongside his wife, Divine Mercy Care and Tepeyac. I’ll be speaking with Dr. Bruchalski in an episode of AUL’s “Life, Liberty, and Law” in the coming weeks.

    “Dr. Bruchalski is a shining example of the Church’s untiring commitment to directly serving mothers, children, and families,” said O. Carter Snead, director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture. “His personal conversion story is a compelling example of the power of God’s grace to transform hearts, and his visionary work at Tepeyac OB/GYN over the past 27 years is an invitation to each of us to employ our talents in service to building a civilization of life and love.”

    My wife and I were drawn to Tepeyac through word of mouth from friends. We can attest: it’s a praiseworthy and distinctive medical practice. I wish more medical practices were like Tepeyac.

  • Catherine Glenn Foster, President & CEO of Americans United for Life, writes today in First Things on the grim reality of how abortionists dispose of their victims:

    In most jurisdictions, the victims of abortion are denied the dignity of a humane burial or cremation. Once those children’s bodies have been reassembled in bloody pieces on an examining table—for the macabre purpose of ensuring that the abortionist has left no part of the dead child in her mother—that child’s body is unceremoniously sealed up and callously labeled as medical waste. This treatment is itself a tragedy that reflects the dehumanizing logic of abortion culture. Yet it also raises urgent moral questions: What happens to that “medical waste”? And how do we know, precisely, whether the medical waste in our community includes the bodies of the human victims of abortion? …

    The CDC’s ambiguous language surrounding medical waste provides further political cover for abortion businesses to dispose of victims as a form of solid waste. CDC guidelines describe medical waste as the equivalent of household waste: “No epidemiological evidence suggests that most of the solid- or liquid wastes from hospitals, other healthcare facilities, or clinical/research laboratories is any more infective than residential waste.” “Precisely defining medical waste,” the guidelines state, “is virtually impossible.” The CDC’s ambiguity, combined with abortion businesses’ lack of oversight in most jurisdictions, means abortion providers are often free to do whatever they want when it comes to the bodies of their victims. …

    In 2016, Fox News reported on leaked footage from National Abortion Federation conferences. The footage showed a Michigan abortionist stating that there were “about 45 [abortion] clinics in the Detroit metropolitan area and many of them were using garbage disposals” to dispose of human remains, citing “a 40-year-old law in the state of Michigan that said medical waste was fine to go in the sewer system.” …

    Earlier this year, activists from Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising (PAAU) announced at a press conference that they had recovered the remains of 115 aborted children killed at Washington Surgi-Clinic, an abortion facility in downtown D.C. The bodies of the children, contained in a large box (labeled “Curtis Bay Energy” and “Biohazard”), were allegedly turned over to the activists by an employee of the Curtis Bay medical waste company. Curtis Bay publicly disclosed on its website that it manages “the largest medical waste incinerator in the US” and “utilizes Waste-to-Energy incineration to safely convert infectious/biomedical waste and non-hazardous pharmaceuticals into useful energy.” After PAAU’s press conference, Curtis Bay’s website was scrubbed of any reference to its Waste-to-Energy program. The “Our Process” page now simply references their “sustainable and consistent environmental processing technology.” …

    We know that human victims of abortion are treated as medical waste by abortion businesses. We know, too, that medical waste is routinely incinerated, increasingly through “waste-to-energy” initiatives. Abortion businesses are never going to advertise that they dispose of aborted persons as medical waste. Waste disposal companies, for their part, have little incentive to track the precise journey of solid or medical waste originating from abortion businesses, let alone to publicly disclose such information. But lawmakers, regulators, and investigative reporters can and should connect the dots. 

    This is one of those things no one really wants to think about. But we must think about it, for the sake at least of the health and safety of our utilities and waterways, and much more directly for the sake of our humanity.

  • Roe v. Wade has fallen

    Fulfilling the hopes of so many, the U.S. Supreme Court has finally overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in its Dobbs decision. The ruling came down last week just prior to our planned traveled to Europe for the summer. It could not have been a better parting gift.

    We’re in Rome this week, and I’m in a state of amazement and thanksgiving for the bravery and courage of a Supreme Court that had every practical incentive to simply continue with the lie that it first perpetuated nearly 50 years ago. After the decision was released on Friday morning, I took the Metro to Union Station to speak to American Moment’s Summer Fellows at the Monocle about the opportunities of a post-Roe America. Afterwards I walked two or so blocks to the Supreme Court to take in the scene—I took the photo I’m sharing with this post during my hour or so there.

    In the immediate aftermath of Roe, all Americans of good will must work together to ensure that everyone will truly be welcomed throughout life and protected in law. In practice, the fall of Roe will mean that states dominated by pro-abortion politicians will not only continue to kill, but will adopt the attitude that John C. Calhoun maintained toward the scourge of his time. We will be told by pro-abortion activists, in other words, that abortion represents a positive good that deserves not only tolerance but the endorsement of the state.

    In the longer run, over the course of the next generation or longer, we must secure constitutional personhood for preborn children. We must end the scourge of abortion for all time to come. We must end this social ill that warps the very commonweal, our very basis for relating as a free people, upon which any social order rests.

    We released a statement at Americans United for Life that I’m excerpting:

    Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced the reversal of Roe v. Wadein its 6-3 decision in the Mississippi case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

    Dobbs involved Mississippi’s “Gestational Age Act” (HB 1510), a prohibition on elective abortion after 15 weeks of gestational age. In taking the case, the Supreme Court announced its intention to resolve the question, “Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional?” Mississippi asked the Court to go further, however, and answer that question in the negative by overturning Roe, arguing that “nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion.” With today’s decision, the Supreme Court has righted its historic wrongs in RoeCasey, and subsequent jurisprudence, and made it possible once more for American lawmakers to uphold the human right to life.

    “Today, the U.S. Supreme Court has correctly and courageously reversed Roe v. Wade and restored a future full of hope for Americans of all ages, backgrounds, and beliefs. No more will the national fiction of abortion violence be perpetuated as if it could be a constitutional right. After nearly fifty years and the loss of more than sixty-two million American lives, Americans can once more choose to protect human life through their elected lawmakers,” said Catherine Glenn Foster, President & CEO of Americans United for Life.

    “Today is a promise of hope for all members in the human family, but especially for women and those millions who will now be protected from prenatal violence,” said Catherine Glenn Foster. “The work of Americans United for Life and the Pro-Life Movement has truly just begun. We invite all Americans to walk alongside us in the days, months, and years to come to enshrine pro-life laws in every state to uphold the human right to life, and to work toward the urgent and still necessary goal of abolishing abortion in American culture. We must clarify, as a constitutional matter as much as a matter of fundamental justice, that abortion shall not exist in the United States of America. And we must simultaneously strengthen American programs ensuring every person, born and not yet born, is equipped and empowered to thrive.”

    We must also continue to win elections and to ensure those holding public office at all levels affirm the fundamental humanity of every member of the human family.