By Maggie DeWitte, Executive Director Pulse Life Advocates
Summary:
Chuck Hurley from the Family Leader makes his case
• Chuck Hurley The Family Leader – filed an amici brief
• Sam Langholz Assistant Attorney General
• Chris Schandevel Legal Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom – filed an amici brief
• Alan Ostergren Chief Counsel The Kirkwood Institute – filed an amici brief (wasn’t at oral arguments; was at the briefing at the capitol after).
***
Today we heard oral arguments on the 24-hour bill. This bill was signed into law by Governor Reynolds in the 2020 legislative session. Before Governor Reynolds could even sign the bill into law, Planned Parenthood filed lawsuit against the bill, and filed an injunction so the bill could never be enacted or enforced. Planned Parenthood was successful in their injunction. This case made its way through the court system, finally landing in the Iowa Supreme Court, where we heard oral arguments regarding this case today.
The Planned Parenthood lawsuit noted two key issues:
From left to right: Kristi Judkins, Chuck Hurley, Maggie DeWitte
1) that a 24-hour waiting period was unconstitutional and
2) that it was a violation of the single subject process. The 24-hour bill was an amendment that was added to another bill, and Planned Parenthood argued that that was a violation. Attorney Langholz refuted that argument well today during oral arguments.
In addition to the 24-hour case, the 2018 ruling that created a so-called fundamental right to abortion in our Iowa constitution was presented and attorney Langholz stated it should be overturned. We are hopeful and optimistic that this ruling will go in our favor and expect to get the ruling on this case sometime before June 30.
From left: Kim Laube, Maggie DeWitte
If the ruling goes in our favor, then the 24-hour bill would need to go to trial. That process could take up to another year depending on how things are scheduled. Additionally, we would hope that the 2018 ruling would be reversed. This was a good day and a good start in helping us get to the point where we can finally make common sense regulations regarding abortion in our state to safeguard women and families. And then ultimately eliminate abortion in our state altogether!
We will continue our efforts to pass the Protect Life Amendment regardless of the court’s ruling this summer. We were successful in getting the PLA passed last legislative session. It must be passed in one more legislative session (2023) and then go before the vote of the people. We will continue to diligently work to get the Protect Life Amendment passed as we know that is the surest and best path forward to return our Iowa Constitution back to what is was before the 2018 ruling and put the role of creating law back into the hands of our duly elected legislators.
By Maggie DeWitte, Executive Director Pulse Life Advocates
Maggie DeWitte reporting from the Iowa Capital
February 18, 2022, was the first funnel this legislative session. Any bill that did not get through the subcommittee and committee process in one chamber was considered dead. We had several pro-life bills that we were working to get passed. Here is a list of the different bills.
SF2029 A bill relating to the post-fertilization age of an unborn child relative to an abortion and making licensee discipline and civil penalties applicable. This bill stated that if a physician determined the baby was 12 weeks old, they would not be able to perform an abortion. This bill would have changed our current 20-week abortion ban to 12 weeks. We registered in support of this bill. Unfortunately, it did not pass out of committee and is dead for this session.
HF2210 A bill relating to abortion complications and statistical reporting. This bill would provide reports on abortion complications and improve our abortion reporting here in Iowa. We registered in support of this bill, but unfortunately it did not pass out of committee and is dead for this session.
HF2289 This bill relates to the prohibition of abortion in our state. This is a ‘trigger’ bill that states should Roe vs. Wade be overturned, abortion in Iowa would be outlawed. We registered in support of this bill; however, it did not pass through the committee process and is dead.
HF2389 (previously HF2219) A bill related to medication abortions including required informed consent and the dispensing of abortion-inducing drugs to patients within the state, providing penalties. This bill requires that any woman entering an abortion clinic to obtain a chemical abortion, MUST be informed via written materials, signage and verbally that she can get an abortion pill reversal to stop the chemical abortion should she change her mind. It also states that RU-486 must be dispensed in a health care setting. This will hopefully eliminate mail order abortion pills in our state. We registered in support of this bill, and it passed the committee process and is now eligible for debate on the House floor.
HF2206 This bill related to the nonconsensual termination of a human pregnancy. This bill would correct a bad court ruling and make it a crime to attempt to cause a woman to abort. We registered in support of this bill, and it passed the committee process with bipartisan support and is now eligible for debate on the House floor.
HF2447 This bill relates to an assault of a pregnant person and providing felony penalties. We registered in support of this bill, and it passed the committee process and is eligible for debate on the House floor.
SSB3145 The MOMS Act: This bill would offer funding to nonprofits that help mothers who choose life. Iowa’s over forty pregnancy resource centers are already doing great work, but we believe this will help new centers start in needy areas of Iowa and help current centers expand their services. Because this bill includes an appropriation, it may need to take a few more steps for it to move through the process.
HF2420 (previously HF2267) This bill relates to the newborn safe haven act. Iowa already has a save haven law, but this bill will expand it from 30 days to sixty days in which a parent can voluntarily release custody of a newborn infant. We registered in support of this bill, and it passed the committee process and is eligible for debate on the House floor.
Sometimes the most beautiful blessings are born at inconvenient times.
Mary’s Helping Hands is one of those blessings.
Lauren Burke and Carissa Wright (above), co-founders of Mary’s Helping Hands, are both mothers right in the thick of things. Crying babies. Short nights. Older kids’ activities. Laundry and more laundry. It can be exhausting. Any average person would say, “let your kids grow up a bit before starting a non-profit organization.”
Not Lauren and Carissa. They couldn’t ignore the overwhelming sense that the Holy Spirit was leading them to serve underprivileged women experiencing unplanned pregnancies.
In their research, Lauren and Carissa realized that many mothers are done with their baby items and looking for a good place to donate them. So, with their kids in tow and a handful of volunteers, they led a donation drive at Sacred Heart in West Des Moines. A few cars turned into several and before they knew it, the parish center was full of all things baby: piles of all sizes of baby clothes, bottles, nursing gear, diaper bags, maternity clothes, books, toys, and the list goes on.
Mary’s Helping Hands was born. Starting in the homes of Lauren and Carissa, they quickly realized that they needed more space. They found a storage unit. More and more donations came in. That one storage unit quickly turned into 4 storage units.
Mary’s Helping Hands started serving mothers in our community on April 15th, 2021. Since that day, they have been able to serve over 220 mothers, 240 babies, and 50 toddlers. Over 17,000 items have been given free of charge, no strings attached.
Lauren explains what she sees first hand: “The needs are extreme. Many of the women who are coming to us for help are homeless and they have nothing. They are living in extreme poverty and are desperate for any help. We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg, there’s so many more women out there that haven’t heard about us yet. It’s the most humbling experience of my life. Mary’s Helping Hands is the answer for finding the help these women need and deserve.”
Mary’s Helping Hands goes far beyond the physical needs of the women they serve. Each and every woman that reaches out is given the respect and dignity they deserve. Their mission statement is: “We provide hope, love and support for expecting mothers who may need a helping hand with basic needs for their child’s first years of life.” Some of the women who ask for help have no support system. Mary’s Helping Hands is there for them in difficult times, providing an ear to listen, a heart to love, and prayers to strengthen.
It is true, the timing of Mary’s Helping Hands may not have been ideal for Lauren and Carissa, but their “yes” to Christ has led to an amazing blessing in our community. It’s a good reminder to not wait for that perfect time in our lives. Go ahead, accept those beautiful blessings at inconvenient times and see the glorious creations of God!
For more information on Mary’s Helping Hands, visit the website at: maryshelpinghandsiowa.org or email MaryshelpinghandsSH@gmail.com.
By Tom Quiner
I have shown tremendous restraint at avoiding politics on my personal Facebook page, including commenting on others’ political FB posts. There is little upside to commenting. People get mad. No one is persuaded. However, a recent bit of political satire (above) provoked me.
I interpreted the cartoon to suggest that left-wingers are charitable, interested in others, and altruistic in contrast to right-wingers who are selfish, uncharitable, and self-absorbed. (I acknowledge that I may have totally missed the point.)
I’m acquainted with the woman who posted the satirical cartoon. She attends my parish, so I responded with restraint:
“It’s an interesting assertion, but I’m not sure if it’s really accurate. If one wants to use political affiliation as a metric to gauge compassion, the liberal Huffington Post points out that Republicans (54%) are more likely than Democrats (45%) to donate money to charity. Even more, Republicans (33%) are more likely to volunteer their time for a cause than Democrats (24%). I typically avoid commenting on political posts on FB, but because of my respect for you, I thought you would be open to a different way of looking at things if the evidence was compelling enough. I certainly know generous people of all political stripes, as well as others who aren’t. And it’s very possible I missed the entire point of the cartoon. Thanks for letting me weigh in.”
She reacted to my commentary well and ‘liked’ it, eventually removing the cartoon from her page.
Relevance to the abortion debate
What’s this have to do with the biggest issue of our age, abortion? Generally, ‘right-wingers’ are pro-life while ‘left-wingers’ are pro-abortion.
When a man and a woman conceive a child, they are now a family, an ‘us.’ Left-wingers are not the least bit ‘us-oriented’ when it comes unborn family members; they are ‘me’ oriented.
So this piece of political satire misses the mark again. ‘Right-wing’ pro-lifers adopt unwanted babies; they support women’s pregnancy resource centers who offer authentic healthcare; they help fund post-abortive counseling resources to help women traumatized by their abortions; and they help women after their babies are born through pro-life organizations like Catholic Charities and the Knights of Columbus, to name but two out of many.
The abortion movement is me-oriented. The pro-life movement is actually you-oriented, although we view our unborn brothers and sisters as part of ‘us.’
Political satire is a great tool for conveying a political point of view with power and pithiness. It can also distort reality, as I believe this one does. Sometimes, we can’t let it pass. Sometimes, we shouldn’t let it pass.
[Have you registered yet for upcoming free webinar, “The Holy Family?” Don’t wait, register now. The 1st episode runs Sunday, March 6th at 7PM. Watch the trailer below:]
By
For nearly 50 years, the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade has been the nation’s biggest barrier to protecting and defending the lives of unborn children.
In Iowa, the biggest barrier to protecting innocent babies’ lives is the 2018 Iowa Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds.
But on Wednesday, Feb. 23, Iowa’s version of Roe v. Wade will face an oral argument challenge before a new group of State Supreme Court justices.
This is a very, very big day for protecting babies in Iowa, for if the State Supreme Court reverses or alters Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds, it could pave the way for legislators to once again pass pro-life laws in our state.
Coalition member and attorney Chuck Hurley of The FAMiLY Leader will be there, seated before the Court to represent pro-life Iowans during the arguments.
And here are 5 ways in which YOU can get informed and involved, too:
- Learn: 60 Iowa legislators signed on to a brief, urging the Court to overturn Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds. The court will read and consider the brief before oral arguments even begin. You can learn more, or even read the brief yourself, here.
- Watch live: The Iowa Supreme Court will broadcast the oral arguments, from 9:00-9:45 a.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 23, through this link.
- Watch for analysis afterward: Coalition members, The FAMiLY Leader and Pulse Life Advocates, will be on site, even at the table in the courtroom, and will follow up with an insider’s analysis of what happened during the hearing – so keep an eye on TFL’s website and Coalition social media accounts following oral arguments! Pulse Life Advocates will provide updates on our Facebook and Twitter pages.
- Pray: Invite your family, your friends, your small group, and your church to join with you in praying for innocent life to be protected!
- Give: The Iowa Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders works non-stop to protect life in the womb in Iowa – at the Capitol, in the culture, and on Feb. 23, in the State Supreme Court chambers itself! Join our work by giving today!
Cohabitation flourishes even though it is an inferior living arrangement compared to marriage. And yet couples increasingly cohabitate and defer marriage even though the happiness quotient is higher with married couples.
Pulse Life Advocates is concerned with the issue, as the incidence of abortion sky rockets with unmarried couples.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 19% of all pregnancies in the U.S. (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion in 2019. But the number plummets to 4% among married women compared to 28% for unmarried women.
Moving beyond abortion, Pew Research conducted comprehensive research on the subject of marriage. They discovered the happiness quotient is significantly higher among married couples compared to cohabitating ones as you can see the in the chart below:
The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting piece on Saturday, “Too Risky to Wed in Your 20s? Not If You Avoid Cohabitating First.”
The piece pointed out that today’s couples get married later than in decades past, and explains why:
“The thinking goes that, if you wait until 30 or later to marry, you’re much more likely to have the maturity required both to make a good choice and to be a good spouse. The fact that the median age at first marriage for American women is now almost 29 (it’s 30 for men)—and higher still among those with at least a college degree—suggests that this view is widely held.”
Some research shows that the likelihood of divorce drops if couples wait until 30 to get married, with this exception:
“As we recently discovered, however, there is an interesting exception to the idea that waiting until 30 is best. In analyzing reports of marriage and divorce from more than 50,000 women in the U.S. government’s National Survey of Family Growth (NFSG), we found that there is a group of women for whom marriage before 30 is not risky: women who married directly, without ever cohabiting prior to marriage. In fact, women who married between 22 and 30, without first living together, had some of the lowest rates of divorce in the NSFG.”
Let’s face it, divorce reduces the happiness quotient for everyone: the couple, their kids, their extended families, everyone (other than the attorneys!).
Twenty something couples who opt for marriage over cohabitation begin enjoying all the benefits inherit in relationships built upon commitment, beginning with a higher happiness quotient. And if the couple have a shared faith life and create ‘holy families,’ the happiness quotient is off the charts.
As we’ve discussed before, children enjoy better outcomes raised within a framework of marriage.
So the upside to living within not just a marriage, but of creating a holy family, is so off the charts, that we’ve created a free 4-part webinar beginning March 6th promoting it. How do you watch? Simply register today and learn more!
The Holy Family is the ‘soul’ solution for a wounded world.
Saint Mother Teresa posed a provocative question: “… if a mother can kill her own unborn baby, what is left of Western civilization to save?”
There’s no question that Western civilization is under attack.
‘Western Civ’ is a decreasingly required course in institutions of higher learning. And when it is taught, curriculum tends to focus on its negatives rather than its staggering achievements.
The progressive Left calls for a dismantling of the structures and values of Western civilization.
Rank and file citizens of the West display increasing apathy towards the rich heritage bestowed upon them by the superior values of Western Civilization.
So before answering St. Mother Teresa’s challenging question, we should ask, “what defines Western civilization?”
Values.
The values of Western civilization are superior values
The values of the West are superior to those of any civilization in recorded history. Although many Americans are increasingly indifferent, and even hostile, to these values, this is the place to which refugees flee, as immigration data reveals. Seven of the top ten nations on the list are the fruit of Western civilization.
The U.S. has more immigrants than the next four nations combined. Interestingly, the country most hostile to Western values, China, is dead last on the list.
So what are the values immigrants find so attractive here that they can’t find in their home country?
Immutable rights
The United States’ Declaration of Independence provides a concise summary of these values: a belief in immutable (God-given) rights of Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
From these flow more specific ideas:
• separation of church and state
• freedom of speech
• freedom of worship and religion
• rule of law
• rationalism
• self-criticism
• a disinterested, unbiased search for truth
• equality before the law
• conscience protections
• an embrace of human rights
• economic liberty
• civil liberty
The seeds of liberty were present from the earliest days of Western civilization as goals towards which to strive, even if unrealized at the time. But thanks to Western civilizations’ capacity for self-criticism, evils such as slavery were eradicated, even though the cost was great.
Tangible and intangible benefits
The tangible benefits of Western civilization are obvious: Lower rates of poverty. Higher rates of education and economic prosperity. Better health. No doubt, many immigrants come to America for these reasons.
But the intangible benefits are even better: the opportunity to become all you can to be, thanks to the liberty afforded each citizen.
This leads us back to St. Mother Teresa’s quote above. Abortion destroys the underpinnings of Western civilization. It takes away the right to life and the God-given liberty entitled each person. By eradicating a person’s life and liberty, the pursuit of happiness is meaningless.
So what is left of Western civilization to save?
We’ve eroded our inheritance due to abortion. But the riches and beauty of Western civilization are worth fighting for. The spiritual fruits are evident in the creations of masters such as Mozart, Michelangelo, and Rembrandt. Such breathtaking beauty, which is surely a reflection of the divine, reminds us of what we can become again.
The fight to save Western civilization begins and ends with abortion. Ultimately, the values of Western civilization revere creation and oppose death and destruction. Let us be chastened by St. Mother Teresa’s words and redouble our efforts to end abortion.
[Be sure to subscribe to our blog!]
The abortion debate exhibits a conscipuous empathy gap. Congressman Chris Smith from New Jersey’s 4th district invoked the word in his speech at last Friday’s March for Life in Washington DC. He has made it a theme of his pro-life speeches going back to 2009:
“Can Senator Obama not see, appreciate or understand that the abortion culture that he and others so assiduously promote lacks all empathy for unborn children—be they Black, White, Latino or Asian—and is at best, profoundly misguided when it comes to mothers?
Why does dismembering a child with sharp knives, pulverizing a child with powerful suction devices or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals, fail to elicit so much as a scintilla of empathy, moral outrage, mercy or compassion by America’s liberal elite?”
A simple definition for empathy is compassion. Its antonym is heartlessness.
Why are the elites of Big Abortion so comfortable at displaying their heartlessness towards the unborn? The empathy gap is especially troubling when it comes to the abortion rate for Down Syndrome persons.
Pro-life activist, Katie Shaw, who herself carries the extra chromosome that defines Down Syndrome, spoke at the March and addressed the issue:
“I am proud to be here today to march to show the world that people with a disability or not need a chance to show the world God’s plan for them. They need a chance to live their wonderful life outside the womb.”
Many people don’t know that there is a waiting list for people with Down syndrome to be adopted, and yet over 80 percent of babies with Down syndrome are not given the chance to be adopted. They are aborted and their equality ends.
It makes me very sad to think of all the friends I have that I might have lost if their parents did not believe equality starts in the womb. It makes me sadder to think of the friends I missed because they were aborted.”
Katie Shaw puts a face on the “choice” made by women who abort. This year’s March for Life presents an opportunity for us all to reflect on the impact abortion has had on our families and our communities.
As you listen to Ms. Shaw’s speech above, you quickly realize how much better off our world is with her in it.
Empathy is a virtue. It makes us more human, more fully alive. The violence of abortion does just the opposite.
[Support Pulse Life Advocate’s pro-life outreach with a financial gift today.]
On this day after Martin Luther King Day, pro-lifers speculate on whether Reverend King was pro-life or not. The Martin Luther King quote below is worthy of contemplation:
“Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.”
Think about the quote in the context of human abortion and paraphrase:
‘I cannot be what I ought to be if I abort you.”
Planned Parenthood embraces King as a supporter of abortion rights. Two years ago, they tweeted:
“We honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s life & legacy as the fight for racial justice, economic equity, & reproductive freedom are undeniably intertwined. This fight is one we cannot do alone, & we are proud to stand w/ our partners who are on the frontlines of this fight.”
Alveda King lashes back
Reverend King’s niece, Alveda King, lashed back, characterizing the Tweet as “inhuman” and “inhumane:”
“To dishonor a prophet by raising a political banner which supports killing innocent babies on MLK’s birthday is so inhuman. To dishonor a prophet by raising a political banner on his birthday is so inhumane.”
Reverend King observed:
“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
That’s why Pulse Life Advocates makes another pilgrimage to the March for LIFE in Washington DC tomorrow. We are part of a movement that demands freedom for the oppressed in the womb who have no voice. Planned Parenthood and their Big Abortion cronies and politicians will not voluntarily give back the freedom they have usurped from the vulnerable.
Pulse will pray for the vulnerable at the March for Life this Friday
Pulse Life Advocates will pray at the footsteps of the Supreme Court this Friday with Martin Luther King’s words in mind. ‘Each abortion affects us all indirectly.’ Reverend King may not have explicitly stated a pro-life position, but he came close with his observation on how African-Americans will ultimately lose their demands for freedom:
“The Negro cannot win if he is willing to sacrifice the futures of his children for immediate personal comfort and safety. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
That sounds pretty pro-life, don’t you think?
Two men of God quoted St. Thomas Aquinas as a guide to making moral decisions. Reverend Martin Luther King, whose legacy we honor today, wrote from a Birmingham jail the following in 1963:
A Baptist quotes St. Thomas Aquinas
“One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”
A Jesuit quotes St. Thomas Aquinas
In contrast, Fr. Pat Conroy, a Jesuit priest and former chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives, quotes St. Thomas Aquinas to rationalize an unjust law:
“How do we, within our constitutional system, how do we get to our Catholic value in this case, [when women have] the right to choose. By the way, I want to know the American who thinks the government should take away their choice in any area of their life — any area of their life. It’s an American value that each one of us can choose where our life is going. That happens to be a Catholic value, too. That we should all use our gifts and our talents and our intelligence as best we can to make the best choices we have the freedom to make.
Sometimes we don’t have the freedom to make really important choices because of fear, because of oppression, because of poverty, because of all kinds of things. Choice is a highly American value and it’s a church value. [Twelfth-century Italian priest and Catholic philosophical giant] Thomas Aquinas says if your conscience says to do something the church says is a sin, you are bound to follow your conscience. That’s Thomas Aquinas!
A good Catholic in our system could be saying: Given women in our system have this constitutional right, our task as fellow Christians, or as Catholics, is to make it possible for her to optimize her ability to make the choice.”
These are profoundly different takes on Aquinas’ teachings.
Clarification and corrections
John Huynh, Director of the Catechetical Institute for the Catholic Diocese of Des Moines (and a member of Pulse Life Advocate’s board), weighed in with some clarifications and corrections directed at Fr. Conroy’s interpretation of Aquinas:
John Huynh, Director of the Catechetical Institute for the Catholic Diocese of Des Moines
“Aquinas sees the goal of government legitimate only if it works to promote the common good in accordance with natural, divine, and eternal law.
We make many good laws that constrict people’s freedom to protect them and the common good. For instance, seat belt laws take away one’s choice to whether or not to put on a seatbelt when one drives.
Closer to the point about “this is my body and my freedom” are current laws prohibiting prostitution. In this sense, one of the government’s important goals is to protect and promote human life for the sake of the common good. Thus, the government does not diminish an individual’s freedom by promulgating laws which protect human life; in fact, it is doing the exact opposite: it promotes human flourishing for the human person in his/her journey towards a relationship with Jesus Christ who is Truth and who will set him/her free.”
Eternal and Natural Law have been violated
Clearly, laws that discriminated against people on the basis of race violated “eternal and natural” law, as King states. (These laws were overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, thanks in part to Reverend King’s social activism.)
Clearly, laws that discriminate against the unborn person in the womb also violate these same eternal and natural laws. And yet Fr. Conroy stakes out a slippery position, as Huynh points out:
“I should observe that Father Conroy seems to argue here that even if abortion is a sinful choice that we should still let the woman make it since it’s her right.
So it seems like he is conceding to the position that the choice to abort is a wrong one, but that we should still allow people to make the wrong choices.
Yet, when it comes to matters of life and death, I do not think most people take lightly a choice that leads to murder, even if the choice was made in ignorance (hence involuntary manslaughter is still a felony).”
To reiterate Reverend King:
“Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”
The principle applies to the abortion debate. Although King didn’t directly address the issue of abortion, he acknowledged that sacrificing black children was self-defeating:
“The Negro cannot win if he is willing to sacrifice the futures of his children for immediate personal comfort and safety.”
Sounds pretty pro-life, doesn’t it? St. Thomas Aquinas would approve.