In a May 12 appearance before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), repeatedly denied U.S. law banned partial birth abortions. The problem? U.S. law does ban partial birth abortions and Becerra himself even voted against the law.

U.S. Code § 1531 which prohibits partial-birth abortions is the result of Congressional passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The Act, “Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

At the hearing, U.S. Representative Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) asked Becerra if he believed partial-birth abortions were illegal to which the HHS Secretary replied, “We will continue to make sure we follow the law. Again, with due respect, there is no medical term like partial-birth abortion and so I would probably have to ask you what you mean by that to describe what is allowed by the law. But Roe v. Wade is very clear, settled precedent and a woman has a right to make decisions about her reproductive health and we will make sure we enforce the law and protect those rights.”

The law defines “a ‘partial-birth abortion’ as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion: (1) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother’s body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother’s body; and (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.”

Next, Bilirakis asked Becerra if he agreed with the law banning partial-birth abortions.

Becerra responded, “Again, as I said there is no law that deals specifically with the term partial-birth abortion. We have clear precedent in the law on the rights that women have to reproductive health care.”

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), decried Becerra’s duplicity in a media release. She stated, “During his confirmation hearings, Xavier Becerra dodged questions about his stance on partial-birth abortion – when an unborn child is partially delivered and then killed – deflecting with repeated claims that he would ‘follow the law’ as head of HHS. Now the top health official in America, Becerra outright denies the existence of a law banning partial-birth abortion since 2003.”

“Becerra can hardly plead ignorance on this topic,” the head of the national pro-life group pointed out. “As a freshman congressman, he voted against the ban. This shameless lie is standard for the most radical pro-abortion administration in history. It should not be hard to recognize that partially delivering a baby and then suctioning his or her brain is not only illegal, but utterly inhumane.”

The questioning Dannenfelser referred to came from U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) regarding the vote Becerra cast while a Democrat representative from California, prior to serving as the state’s attorney general.

Romney asked Becerra, “Most people agree that partial-birth abortion is awful. You voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion. Why?”

To which Becerra indirectly replied, “I understand that people have different deeply held beliefs on this issue and I respect that. As Attorney General my job has been to follow the law and make sure that others are following the law. … I understand that we may not always agree on where to go, but I think we can find some common ground on these issues because everyone wants to make sure that if you have an opportunity, you’re gonna have a healthy life.”

According to Dannenfelser, a related Act is being blocked by Democrats in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In April, U.S. Representative Kat Cammack (R-FL) filed a discharge petition demanding a vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act (H.R. 619). However, if 218 representatives sign the discharge petition, it would force a vote in the Democrat-controlled House.

“The bill would ensure that babies born alive during failed abortions receive the same medical care that would be afforded a premature infant born at the same age,” she noted.

Based on the response from the left, you would think that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court would virtually guarantee the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Why, then, are some conservative and pro-life groups opposing his confirmation?

On the positive side, many pro-life leaders reacted enthusiastically to the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the highly-respected Susan B. Anthony List.

She said, “President Trump has made another outstanding choice in nominating Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, keeping his promise to nominate only originalist judges to the Court.”

In her opinion, Kavanaugh was “an experienced, principled jurist,” who has a “strong record of protecting life and constitutional rights.”

Many others were enthusiastic as well, including conservative think tanks and long-term pro-life leaders.

On the negative side, Jane Coaston wrote an article for Vox.com explaining, “Why social conservatives are disappointed that Trump picked Brett Kavanaugh.”

She pointed to a number of top leaders in the conservative and pro-life movement who had reservations about Kavanaugh or who called for outright opposition.

Upon hearing of President Trump’s nomination of Kavanaugh, the National Review’s David French wrote, “I’ll defend [Kavanaugh] vigorously from unfair critiques tomorrow, but tonight I join many conservatives in a slight sigh of regret. There was a better choice.”

Tim Wildmon, President of the highly influential American Family Association, wrote, “AFA has opposed the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S Supreme Court for some very valid reasons. We are deeply concerned about how he might ultimately rule on issues related to abortion and religious liberty. For these reasons, we consider this nomination to represent a four-star appointment when it could have been five-star.”

Other groups, like Columbia [South Carolina] Christians for Life sent out e-blasts with titles like, “ROE VS. WADE protector Kavanaugh: Another red flag for Jesuit-educated, Jesuit school director, BRETT KAVANAUGH.” (This was sent out August 30.)

Another pro-life activist sent out links to this video, with this warning: “President Trump broke his campaign promise to pro-lifers when he nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Ricardo Davis of Georgia Right to Life calls Kavanaugh’s pro-abortion position ‘morally reprehensible’ and urges pro-lifers and conservatives to demand Kavanaugh’s withdrawal and for Trump to replace him with a real pro-life nominee such as Amy Coney Barrett.”

How can we make sense of this?

On the one hand, there is agreement that someone like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, if appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, would definitely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade should the opportunity present itself. The downside is that many believe that in today’s climate, despite the Republican majority, she would not have been confirmed.

Others have suggested that it’s unlikely that there will be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade as much as an incremental challenge. What if something like the Fetal Heartbeat Bill became law and was challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court? How would Kavanaugh vote on that?

The real answer is that we simply do not know what a U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh would do.

According to Thomas Jipping, Deputy Director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and a Senior Legal Fellow, Kavanaugh’s “record meets the Schumer standard of a judge who does not predictably rule for a particular side. That is because Kavanaugh is the kind of judge who follows the law rather than his personal views.”

What, then, are we to make of the varied and passionate responses to Justice Kavanaugh? Does the left have reason to fear? Does the right have reason to rue a missed opportunity?

Here are a few things that seem clear.

First, we can be almost certain that Justice Kavanaugh will be a far better friend of the U.S. Constitution and of conservative values than any judge a President Hillary Clinton would have appointed. That is a very big positive.

Second, we who are pro-life do well not to put our ultimate trust in a man (Kavanaugh) or an institution (the U.S. Supreme Court) to change the direction of our nation. (This is not to deny the importance of both the man and the institution. It is simply to bring perspective.)

Third, it is possible that Kavanaugh himself cannot guarantee how he will rule if confirmed. There have been surprises in every direction from various appointees in the past, and even the best vetting process cannot guarantee the future.

Obviously, I hope that the leftist opposition to Kavanaugh is correct and that, should the opportunity arise, he would vote for life and for family and for our essential liberties.

But there may be a reason for the concern of some on the right, in which case we should be praying for Kavanaugh and the rest of the members of the Court that God would direct their hearts.

Scripture teaches that, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He will.” Surely He can turn the hearts of U.S. Supreme Court justices as well.

More importantly, He can turn the hearts of a nation. That is the greater goal when it comes to cultivating a culture of life, and it must always remain the foremost goal for all of us who love life. As powerful as the Supreme Court has become, it alone cannot transform hearts.

This article was originally published at Townhall.com

The U.S. House of Representatives has scheduled an October 3rd vote on H.R. 36, a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks up until the time of birth. The U.S. House passed a similar bill in 2015. During the debate on the bill, Congressman Sean Duffy (R-WI) gave one of the most impassioned speeches for protecting the lives of innocent pre-born children.

“This is not a debate about abortion or even non-abortion, pro-life or pro-abortion,” Duffy said. “Those who are even pro-abortion agree that these tactics are unacceptable. They have no place in our society, and that federal tax dollars should actually go to fund an institution that harvests baby body parts for sale is absolutely asinine.”

“What do we stand for in this institution if we do not stand-up for the most defenseless and voiceless among us?” concluded Duffy.

According to Lifenews:

During the hearing on the last bill, former abortion practitioner Anthony Levatino told members of the committee the gruesome details of his former abortion practice and how he became pro-life following the tragic automobile accident of his child.

Another bombshell dropped during the hearing came from Dr. Maureen Condic, who is Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine. She testified that the unborn child is capable of reacting to pain as early as 8-10 weeks. This is when most abortions in America take place.

Sadly, when it was brought to a vote in the Senate (where the Democrats then held a majority) it was defeated via filibuster.

U.S. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy hosted a press conference yesterday providing details of when the House will vote on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36). McCarthy was joined by pro life U.S. Representatives Diane Black (TN-06), Trent Franks (AZ-08), Vicky Hartzler (MO-04), and and other pro-life leaders such as Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.

The family of Micah Pickering was also present at the press conference, according to Lifenews. Micah Pickering is a miracle baby who survived after being born prematurely at 20 weeks. Today, Micah is a happy, healthy five year old.

SBA List Marjorie Dannenfelser stated the faces like Micah help bring this issue to life in many people’s minds.

“Micah really is the real face of this issue,” she urged. “Because it’s really easy to talk about it, the abortion issue, in abstract theoretical terms. But when you really have come across … and see a young man running around full of energy and love, you realize this is not any other political issue.”

U.S. Representative Trent Franks made similar references to Micah, according to Lifenews. “When Micah stands there,” he said, “you can’t ignore him. He’s as real as it gets.”

In a post press conference interview with MRC Culture Associate Culture Editor, Katie Yoder, Representative Franks also stated:

“I understand that mothers are in a great challenge in these circumstances and my heart is so deeply with them, but there’s nothing liberating about taking the life of a child. It doesn’t liberate the mother. It only puts her in a deeper heartache in the long run.

I’m convinced that if America will look at this as it is, and say ‘Okay, what’s the real question here? Does this thing kill a baby or not?’ If it doesn’t, then okay, it’s no big deal,” he concluded. “But if it really does kill a little helpless human baby, and it’s done that 60 million times now, isn’t it about time we changed direction?”

Representative Franks introduced the legislation back in January, and also proposed legislation in July in an effort to try to save the now deceased Charlie Gard.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representatives to ask him/her to support H.R. 36, the 20-week abortion ban, also known as the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”  The U.S. House is scheduled to vote on the bill on Tuesday, October 3rd.

It is inexcusable, in the light the pain these babies feel and the broad public support for such bans, that such a federal ban does not already exist.

IFI depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

-and, please-