Jaime Ballew

Concerned Women for America is actively engaged in the effort to end unethical fetal tissue research. We are working with Congress to stop funding of this gruesome practice and are asking the Trump Administration to change policy. Some fetal tissue contracts were made by the Obama Administration and cannot be rescinded, but the Trump Administration can decline to renew them.

In September the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized a contract with Advanced Bioscience Resources (ABR) for fetal tissue use in select research. Aside from the unethical nature of this research, taxpayer dollars should not be funding any sort of contract between the U.S. Government and ABR because ABR is still under federal investigation for illegal profiting from the sale of aborted fetal tissue.  After backlash from the pro-life community, the FDA announced a termination of the ABR contract, and Health and Human Services (HHS) promised an internal review of fetal tissue research policies.

Last week stemming from a report that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is funding fetal tissue research to the tune of $103 million annually, 74 Members of Congress, led by pro-life champions Chris Smith (R-New Jersey) and Vicki Hartzler (R-Missouri), sent a letter to HHS Secretary Azar asking for a moratorium on fetal tissue research in exchange for ethical research alternatives that, unlike fetal tissue research, are showing promise and producing results.  It is unconscionable that NIH research uses the organs of unborn children from elective abortions at 17-24 weeks gestation.

This week a seven-year fetal tissue contract between HHS and the University of California at San Francisco expired.  Instead of the expected long-term renewal, the contract was only renewed for 90 days. While this is a big step in the right direction, a pro-life administration should not be funding unethical, anti-life research. Fetal tissue research is the scientific version of the famed Alaska “bridge to nowhere[1]” and is a waste of taxpayer money.

Fetal tissue research is not groundbreaking or cutting edge; it began in the 1920s and has yet to produce positive results. In 2001 the first NIH-funded clinical trial using fetal tissue to treat patients with Parkinson’s was described as “absolutely devastating,” “tragic, catastrophic” and “a real nightmare” as the experimental introduction of fetal tissue worsenedthe patients’ symptoms.[2]This is just one example of several clinical trials, completed in the U.S. and abroad, where fetal tissue did not produce promising results. Instead, fetal tissue intervention often proved detrimental.

These catastrophic and devastating results are not exclusive to fetal tissue, but also to the use of fetal stem cells[3]. In 2009 a young boy developed spinal tumors after being injected with fetal stem cells[4]. There are promising research avenues, such as adult stem cell therapies, the use of cord blood, and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells.

Science is moving away from fetal tissue experimentation because it has failed to produce any significant scientific gains. The U.S. government should be funding promising research not dead-end projects that are outmoded and unethical.

[1]https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/the-bridge-nowhere-national-embarrassment

[2]https://s27589.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Prentice-writtentestimony-AZ-House-Judiciary-fetal-tissue-trafficking.pdf

[3]https://s27589.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Prentice-writtentestimony-AZ-House-Judiciary-fetal-tissue-trafficking.pdf

[4]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7894486.stm

Now that (most) of the election dust has settled, members have met their new colleagues, chosen their party leadership, and everyone is in the process of preparing for next year. On January 3, the largest Freshman (new members) class since WWII will be sworn into office. About 75% of House Republicans have never been in the minority and, inversely, about 65% of House Democrats have never served in the majority.

Come January 3, the House of Representatives will be very hostile to conservative issues, especially the life issue. The last time Democrats controlled the House there were about 40 pro-life Democrats who consistently voted pro-life, now there are 2. During this last election cycle, Democrat party leaders told candidates they were not welcome in the party if they were pro-life, because, as Penny says, “abortion is their religion.”

However, there are ways that members of the minority party can have influence outside of voting “no.” A motion to recommit (MTR) with instructions returns a bill to committee and can amend, or possibly kill, legislation. The MTR is a power held exclusively by the minority and can make things uncomfortable for moderate majority members who may oppose the bill or parts of the bill based on their districts. At a bare minimum, a MTR takes up legislative time. Democrats have said they do not plan on holding votes before 1:00 p.m. or after 7:00 p.m. in order to accommodate members with families, so time allotted for votes will be precious.

Floor speeches are also great ways for the minority party to message for or against something. One-minute speeches might not seem like much, but they are televised by C-SPAN, which can have an audience of 1 million typically engaged, voting citizens at any given time. For those issues that have bipartisan support but not leadership support, a discharge petition can be used to force legislation out of committee and put it on the floor. While it requires the majority of the House (218 members) and is rarely successful, it can be used for political pressure. In 2015, a discharge petition caused a major headache for Speaker Boehner over an immigration issue. Minority members can pick apart the majority’s position in minority committee reports. These reports officially state a position counter to the majority and can be written by one or more minority members of the committee.

These are all ways to draw attention to the stark contrast of the positions on the opposite side of the aisle and can make things uncomfortable for the majority, who is usually fighting to keep their caucus together on controversial issues. But ultimately, a divided government forces us to find common ground and work together.

We do know that the Democrats are drooling over getting rid of pro-life protections, and, thankfully, the Senate will serve as a backstop to make sure we don’t lose gains on that front. While the President can veto bills with concerning language, and we are encouraging him to do so, a pro-life Senate is an added layer of security. With the net gain of 2 pro-life Senate seats, we finally have a pro-life majority in the Senate. Although Senators Collins (R-Maine) and Murkowski (R-Alaska) are Republicans, they are not pro-life and usually vote against pro-life measures. With next year’s Senate makeup, we can lose Sens. Collins and Murkowski on a life issue and still win. This will be crucial during the Appropriations (spending) process, where many of our pro-life gains have been accomplished.

While things in the next Congress will be different, there is always hope, and there is always progress to be made. Like Justice Kavanaugh said during his opening statement, “I live on the sunrise side of the mountain, not the sunset side of the mountain. I see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone. I am optimistic about the future of America …”

Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced a final rule that provided much-needed relief to employers who had religious or moral objections to birth control or certain forms of birth control. After the Affordable Care Act became law, HHS was tasked with interpreting the intentionally vague part of the law that mandated all insurance plans provide essential women’s health services. HHS, not Congress, determined that, among other things, all FDA-approved forms of birth control must be covered in employer insurance plans.

Although there were narrow exceptions to this mandate and several corporations were “grandfathered” in, the Obama Administration failed to respect the conscience rights of religious employers. This bureaucratic overreach forced companies like Hobby Lobby and religious non-profits like the Little Sisters of the Poor to fight for their religious freedom at the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby’s request to provide 16 of the 20 forms of birth control, excluding only abortifacients (birth control that does not simply prevent conception, but prevents implantation of an embryo, therefore resulting in the loss of a unique human life).

The Obama Administration offered several accommodations to the Little Sisters of the Poor, but missed the mark with each one. In May 2017, the Trump Administration issued an interim final rule that provided relief to the Little Sisters. These new final rules are identical to the ones proposed in 2017 and respect the religious and moral objections of employers. This rule does not prevent the government from providing these services to women who want them; it is a necessary correction to the government’s overreach.

In every midterm election since 1876, with three exceptions, the President’s party has lost seats. Voter turnout is always significantly lower in midterm years than in presidential election years. Out of eligible, registered voters: 62.8% voted in 2008, 54.2% voted in 2012, and 58% voted in 2016. Meanwhile, only 40% voted in 2010 and an abysmal 37%, the lowest number in a century, in 2014[1].

Polls are fluctuating but generally show that the Democrats will take control of the House and Republicans will retain control of the Senate and maybe pick up 1-2 seats. Real Clear Politics takes the average of several polls to make their projections. As of November 1, Real Clear has projected 6 toss-up Senate seats: Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, and Nevada[2].

Democrats only need to pick up 23 seats in the House to take control and hand the Speaker’s gavel to Nancy Pelosi. Real Clear has categorized 15 House seats currently held by a Republican as leaning or likely Democrat, 30 as toss ups, and 43 as likely/leaning Republican. Meanwhile, only 2 seats currently held by a Democrat are categorized as likely/leaning Republican, 4 are toss ups, and 16 are likely/leaning Democrat.

I encourage you to take all of this, throw it out the window, and go vote anyway.

Back on Election Day in 2016, the New York Times projected that Hillary Clinton had a 99% chance of taking the Presidency. Pretty much no one thought Trump had any chance. As the night went on and results came in, that number got smaller and smaller, until around 3:00 a.m. when AP projected President Trump the winner.

There are an infinite number of theories as to why the polls were so wrong, and I am not here to speculate on those reasons. I am not a polling expert by any means, but the way we poll Americans has largely not changed. Most people don’t have landlines, don’t answer unknown numbers on their cell phones, and internet polls are unreliable and flawed (you can often vote more than once). Voter enthusiasm doesn’t always equate to voter turnout, this is especially true with young voters, and people who participate in polls or hold protest signs don’t necessarily show up to vote. However, angry people DO vote, and we have seen a lot of anger from the left.

The 2016 election will be analyzed for the rest of time, and unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, most people miss the point. 2016 was more than a referendum on President Obama’s policies, it was a referendum on D.C. as a whole. A very large population of the electorate felt intentionally ignored by both parties; people were tired of being promised the world and given nothing. Conservatives were tired of putting up good men only to see the left annihilate and slander them.

Now we are facing a similar situation. We know where the policies of the left will lead: government funded abortion, persecution for people of faith, , policies that deny ethical  scientific principles, disrespect for the rule of law, and mob rule. People were appalled at the behavior of the left during the Kavanaugh confirmations and it will get much, much worse if those tactics are justified. A win on Tuesday for radical leftists who are calling for incivility against their peers and fellow Americans, will do just this.

A couple of weeks ago, I laid out what we have to lose in this election. I witnessed first-hand the rage and frustration of the mob. This is not politics as we knew it five years ago, this is unhinged tyranny. So, what can we do? It’s really simple, just show up. Don’t fall for the lie that your vote doesn’t count or doesn’t matter. Last year, the control of the entire Virginia House of Delegates was determined by one vote. If everyone in your family. friend group, or church thought, “my vote doesn’t even really count; I’m just one person”, then that adds up to a lot more than one vote.

If you are able, help your neighbors and co-workers who have mobility or transportation challenges get to the polls. This Sunday encourage members from your church to vote. Ask your pastor to make an announcement reminding everyone to vote on Tuesday. We have a great resource online that details political guidelines for pastors and churches if you’re not sure what you can say. Lastly, please pray for our nation. Regardless of the results of Tuesday’s election, we have deep divisions that cannot be healed by politicians or humans, but only through God’s love and redeeming grace.