Posted on October 27, 2020 6:37 AM

NEWSBREAK: Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed to U.S. Supreme Court

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Judge Amy Coney Barrett CONFIRMED JUSTICE OF THE U.S. Supreme Court BY 52-48 VOTE; MCFL APPLAUDS VOTE BY DIVIDED SENATE

 

Massachusetts Citizens for Life commends the U.S. Senate for confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett as Justice of the Supreme Court in a 52 to 48 vote, along party lines. 

"Justice Barrett has consistently demonstrated judicial prudence in her career, and a commitment to upholding the Constitution of the United States," said C.J. Williams, MCFL Director of Community Engagement, "More than that, she has shown by her own life that feminism is not contingent on an act of violence -- abortion."

Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas after the vote. Speaking from the White House Lawn, she told the nation: "My fellow Americans — even though we judges don’t face elections. We still work for you. It is your Constitution that establishes the rule of law and the judicial independence that is so central to it. The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences,”

Justice Barrett earned her J.D. summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School, where she was first in her class and received the Hoynes Prize, the law school’s highest honor. She went on to clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Beginning in 2002, Barrett taught law at Notre Dame Law School, where she was named “Distinguished Professor of the Year” three times. In 2017,  the U.S. Senate confirmed her to serve as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She is married to Jesse Barrett, an Assistant United States Attorney. The couple has seven children.

Roe v. Wade and abortion were raised repeatedly by extreme abortion supporters during Justice Barrett's confirmation hearings. In Massachusetts, even were Roe to be overturned, state laws promoting abortion would remain in place. Many citizens and national leaders have been troubled by this apparent litmus test and the double standard which makes acceptable dragging a personally pro-life judge through the mud while promoting pro-abortion candidates. 

"A judge should judge, not legislate," said MCFL President, Myrna Maloney Flynn, "A litmus test on personal beliefs exposes a deep ignorance  of--or purposeful intention to abuse--our judicial system."

During hearings before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Barrett said that she refused to be turned into a political pawn. "I certainly hope that all members of the committee have more confidence in my integrity than to think that I would allow myself to be used as a pawn to decide this election for the American people." 

With expectation and excitement, we welcome Justice Barrett to our nation's Supreme Court.

 

Press Contact: C.J. Williams

cj@masscitizensforlife.org

857 302 0466

 

Massachusetts Citizens for Life is the Commonwealth's single solely dedicated pro-life human rights organization. Founded in 1973, MCFL continues to advocate for the most vulnerable citizens in the Bay State: the preborn and the elderly and disabled.

 

Photo Credit: Associated Press

Posted on October 26, 2020 12:29 PM

Not Safe: Boston Planned Parenthood Hospitalized over 10 Women in 2019

This article originally appeared on Operation Rescue's web page, and was compiled by Cheryl Sullenger

Boston, MA – A public records request revealed that the Greater Boston Planned Parenthood abortion facility, located at 1055 Commonwealth Avenue, called 911 for emergency medical assistance that resulted in ambulance transports for ten women undergoing abortion procedures to hospital emergency rooms from April 2018 through April 2019.

The incidents took place on the following dates:

  • 05/19/18;
  • 05/30/18;
  • 07/05/18;
  • 09/07/18;
  • 09/11/18;
  • 10/19/18;
  • 11/28/18;
  • 02/04/19;
  • 04/20/19; and
  • 4/23/19

The Greater Boston Planned Parenthood conducts abortions through 20 weeks, 6 days of pregnancy.

A letter dated May 14, 2019, from the Boston Public Health Commission admits that 911 records were generated, including audio files, detailed Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) records, and Patient Care Records (PCRs) that are in the possession of Boston Emergency Medical Services. 

However, in Boston, all such records are now classified as “medical records” that the Public Health Commission said could not be released due to HIPAA privacy laws.

That reclassification seems to be a relatively recent one.  Unredacted CAD records were readily available to the public as late as 2017. These records contained no patient identifying information, so patient privacy was never compromised.

Boston’s handling of 911 records is an example of how local governments that have become less transparent, especially in jurisdictions that are controlled by pro-abortion Democrats.  In the past, if a record contained patient identifiers such as name or birthdate, such information was simply redacted and the records were released to the public. 

“We have seen records provided with dates and addresses of the incidents redacted, even though we requested the records by providing the date and address. In many cases, we can’t get any information.  It has gone beyond the absurd,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue.  “This has been getting worse since we started tracking and publishing information related to medical emergencies at abortion facilities on a regular basis. I don’t think that is a coincidence.”

Withholding this previously public information prevents women from understanding the  dangers of abortion, which should be their right when making such serious life-or-death decisions.  These incidents also reveal that serious medical complications to abortion happen more often that Planned Parenthood will admit. 

“The frequency that medical emergencies take place at abortion clinics – as evidenced by 911 records – blows the Abortion Cartel’s ‘safe and legal’ mantra out of the water,” said Newman.  “The last thing these people want is to be exposed as having lied to the American people about the basic premise used to decriminalize abortion.  That is a motive for Planned Parenthood to pressure jurisdictions to cover up for them.”

Posted on October 21, 2020 6:04 AM

Pro-Life Communication? It Isn't Complicated, But Stephanie Gray Shows You How

Stephane Gray has been defending preborn lives since she was a child. She began speaking as an 18 year old, and that pro-life action lead her to found Love Unleashes Life and an international speaking career. She makes effective, loving, and compelling communication in defense of our most vulnerable look easy. But the truth is, the principle that human lives have value is simple, but defending that reality, and the preborn children in our world, is far from easy.

Gray will headline our sponsored virtual debate hosted by Harvard Right to Life on Thursday, October 22 at 7PM (register here).  

"There are more people working full time to kill [preborn children] in the world today than to save them," Scott Klusendorf told Gray early on.

The fact that more people were professionally employed to take a child's life in our society than to care for them convicted Gray to the core.

After decades using communication to change our culture and society, what can Gray teach us?

This recording produced by Shalom World  featuring Gray walks you through the basic questions raised, from the so-called hard questions (rape, incest) to the basic presuppositions we must challenge before we begin a dialogue. Most importantly, it highlights the fact that effective communication always begins with respect and love. Human beings are complex, and we come to public square with both our heads and our hearts. With 1 out 3 millennial children aborted, nearly everyone you meet will have a personal experience of abortion violence, not simply an intellectual understanding -- or misunderstanding -- of it.

To be effective communicators, we must build relationships, not arguments alone.

Finally, this recording raises the knotty philosophical idea of "personhood" -- and Gray's reply is invaluably clear. This question will also come up in our debate on Thursday. Don't miss that fantastic opportunity to see and hear Gray live.

Until then, watch Shalom World's  feature on Gray's personal story, and the remarkable description of how she approaches and answers every pro-life debate.

Click the video thumbnail to go to the full YouTube video

Posted on October 20, 2020 6:24 AM

Press Release: MCFL FED PAC Endorses Colarusso for Congress (District 5)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MCFL FED PAC ENDORSES CAROLINE COLARUSSO FOR CONGRESS IN DISTRICT 5

BOSTON, MA -- OCTOBER 19, 2020 --The Massachusetts Citizens for Life FED PAC has formally endorsed Caroline Colarusso for Massachusetts District 5 Congressional seat. She will be on the ballot, November 3, 2020.

Colarusso has been identified as a leader  committed to protecting society's most vulnerable - the preborn, mothers, the sick, and the elderly - through legislative efforts that ensure a respect for human life in our law.

 

Massachusetts Citizens for Life is the Commonwealth's only organization solely dedicated to the pro-life mission. Founded in 1973, MCFL continues to advocate for the most vulnerable citizens in the Bay State: the preborn and the elderly and disabled.

 

 

Posted on October 13, 2020 12:51 PM

What's Your Response? "We Don't Have to Respond with Abortion"

Stephanie Gray, who will headline our sponsored pro-life  debate at Harvard on October 22nd, is a renowned pro-life speaker. She admits that there are situations that make bringing a child into the world look terrifying and unendurable. What about the children who are abused? What about children born into poverty?

Those are all good questions, and the women, babies, and families in those situations deserve a response.

From us.

But that response does not have to be abortion.

So what can a non-abortion response look like? Because we not only need to know what that response looks like, we need to continue to practice those responses, meeting the eyes of our women, and touching the lives of our pre-born children with concrete actions that say I support you

 

This is a "non-abortion response:"

          It can look like a couple who fostered children.

·         It can look like a couple who adopted 3 little girls from China who had severe cleft palates which required multiple surgeries.

·         It can look like a family who adopted a set of siblings from the foster care system in their own country.

·         It can look like two people Stephanie met in her travels who adopted two children when their first biological child was only one.  They since adopted two more children, both of whom have Down syndrome and serious heart conditions, all the while giving birth to 4 more children.

·         It can look like an unmarried 28-year-old Stephanie met on a recent trip to the US: In the last 4 years she has fostered over 21 children and adopted 2 of them.

·         It can look like a retired couple Stephanie knew who moved from their farm into a home for pregnant women in order to mentor them in motherhood.

·         It can look like a pastor Stephanie encountered who is in his mid-50s.  He and his wife have raised their own biological children and are now fostering—which is leading to adoption—3 young children.

·         It can look like foster father Mohamed Bzeek who takes in terminally ill children.

·         It can look like a mega Church in Texas whose pastor told me he is implementing a program where his church members make it their mission to foster and/or adopt local orphans.

·         It can look like Love Life Charlotte, a beautiful pro-life ministry on a mission to embolden its church members to care for orphans through what they term “Orphan Care Hospitality.”  Whether through fostering or adoption, learn more about what they are doing here and watch this short video about the Malone’s who have welcomed two children into their forever home through this amazing program.

·         It can look like the Lott family who adopted 4 of their 6 children.

·         It can look like Ryan Bomberger’s adopted family.  His mom, once an orphan herself, made a promise to God when she was a young girl that she would be a mommy to those without one.  She grew up, got married, and adopted 10 of their 13 children (Ryan, one of the adopted children, was conceived in rape.   Having now grown up, he has since adopted two children.

Says Stephanie:

                                                "Is the abuse of children—pre-born or born—an unspeakable evil?  Yes.  Does it demand a response?  Without a shadow of a doubt.  Can children be rescued and aided without abortion?  The lived experiences of the examples above are living proof of that."

We thank you for being the proof that the response to pain, or to a vulnerable child, can be love. 

 

We invite you to join Stephanie, and the movement for life in Massachusetts, on October 22nd at 7pm online for a debate with philosopher, Peter Singer.

Register here

Posted on October 08, 2020 3:58 PM

Vice Presidential Debate Lead By Pence's "I'm Pro-Life" Statement

Perhaps the strongest statement -- and the clearest -- made by either candidate in the vice presidential debate on October 7th, was Mike Pence's. "I couldn’t be more proud to serve as vice president to a president who stands without apology for the sanctity of human life," he said, "I’m pro-life. I don’t apologize for it, and this is another one of those cases where there’s such a dramatic contrast. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth. Late term abortion. They want to increase funding to Planned Parenthood of America."

But more important than any statement are actions.

We encourage every one of our members and fellow citizens first to review the impact of legalized abortion in the United States. Every 4th child conceived in our nation dies from abortion. Second, we encourage you look at Kamala Harris's treatment of investigative journalist, David Deleiden in California (during her tenure as state attorney general) and compare that to Vice President, Mike Pence's service in Indiana.

Harris flagrantly ignored basic first amendment rights, enforced searches and confiscations of private property without warrant, and has dogged pro-life citizens with unconstitutional restrictions on their free speech. Harris brags that she ran the second large department in the United States -- "second only to the federal department of justice." Large, yes -- but just and uncorrupt, no. Email correspondence unearthed by Deleiden's attorneys proved Harris met  Planned Parenthood leadership just a week before the unwarranted raid on his home. Text from a state Department of Justice document by attorneys also included a demand: “Planned Parenthood would like the computers used to produce the videos seized.”

"Are we gonna go back to the days of back-alley abortions? Women died before we had Roe v. Wade in place," said Harris recently; yet she has no words for women like Keisha Atkins, who died because of a "safe, legal" abortion in New Mexico, or thousands of others. Moreover, she has no words for the pre-born women who die by the thousands each day under Roe v. Wade. Her only words for citizens who expose a corporation that preys on women, sells live baby parts, and still demand federal funding, boil down to sit down, shut up, or go to jail.

In contrast, on issues of human life, Trump and Pence have followed through on commitments to support alternatives and cut off federal support for aborting American children.

President Trump is the first sitting president in United States history to attend and address the annual March for Life in person.

In one of his first acts as president, he reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, which prohibits taxpayer funding to groups that promote or provide abortions overseas. The change defunded Planned Parenthood’s international arm of about $100 million in U.S. tax dollars.

Pro-life democrats have decried their party's insupportable adhesion to abortion. So has the Trump/Pence administration. During the State of the Union address Trump slammed the governors of New York and Virginia for promoting abortion up to birth and infanticide. He also called for Congress to pass a ban on late-term abortions on babies who are capable of feeling pain.

Trump and his administration have made a number of changes to protect those who morally object to abortions, expanding conscience protections for medical workers who believe it is wrong to kill an unborn baby and increasing religious exemptions for Obamacare.

His administration also intervened to stop the United Nations from supporting abortion in a resolution about sexual violence. In 2018, under his leadership, the State Department removed references to the so-called “right” to abort an unborn baby from a global human rights report as well.

During his presidency, the administration also finalized a new Title X rule that requires health care entities to completely separate abortion from their taxpayer-funded services. Planned Parenthood, which already has said it will not comply, could lose about $60 million annually through the policy change. The abortion group is suing to block the cuts.

One key issue in the development of our nation's government in the next few years will undoubtably be judicial reform. To that point, who is nominated and confirmed to our Supreme Court will be critical if States' rights to decide to protect our most vulnerable citizens are to be restored. Roe v Wade should never have forced abortion on a nation with a nation with a pro-life, anti-abortion majority.  "Of course I want Roe v Wade overturned," remarked Pence, "though I'm not being nominated to the Supreme Court."

No, he isn't. But with a Republican candidate in his mid-seventies, and a Democratic candidate who is nearly eighty, we're looking very closely at the vice presidential picks. We're looking at what they will do about the 3,500 babies legally killed per day. We're looking -- and on November 3rd, we're voting.

 

Read more on the current administration's record: Which Mainstream Candidate is Pro-Life?

Read more on presidential candidate, Joe Biden's, extreme position on abortion here.

Posted on October 07, 2020 6:17 AM

Do You Argue? Pro-Life to Pro-Choice Interaction

By C.J. Williams, MCFL Director of Community Engagement

 

What do you do if you find yourself in a pro-life/pro-choice conversation where the other person seems closed off to all of your arguments? You may know someone, or be the someone, who always knows a clear and convincing argument for the fact that human rights begin at conception. But now you're in that dialogue outside the clinic, or at your work place, pro-life to pro-choice -- and no matter what you say, you feel like you're building a bigger wall.

At this point, Stephanie Gray (who will headline our Dr. Mildred Jefferson Symposium at Harvard (virtually!) on October 22nd, debating Professor Peter Singer) says -- look to the heart.

If you and your friend are drawing farther apart, it's likely that this is a heart, not a head, issue.

One out of 3 of my peers lost their life to abortion. Can you picture how many people you meet each day, and can you now visualize the numbers personally touched by abortion?

The tips in the following video remind us that we are not on two sides of an insurmountable mountain when we discuss abortion with our peers or fellow citizens. But we do meet, sometimes, in front of a deep wound that runs like a chasm between us.

That wound is abortion. 

We cannot argue to a heart; we have to love it. Thus, most of our intentional encounters that seem to run up against a wall need to be brought out of the head and onto the level of relationship.

A few reminders:

--Meet your friend, or the stranger on the street corner, as another human being -- what is their story?

--Whom do they care about, and why does abortion matter to them?

--Is there something you can do to answer their questions?

--Do we really want to base our concept of human rights on an act of violence?

I highly recommend listening to Stephanie's interview and discussion below on How to Effectively Argue About Abortion. She gets to the heart of the matter; and that's something I'm sure she will also accomplish in our sponsored debate, on October 22nd at 7pm on the question of: Is Abortion Moral?

Please register now -- space on the virtual debate platform is limited!

Count me in! Register me now.

Watch the full video by clicking the image above.

Posted on October 05, 2020 2:11 PM

Un-Appealing: MCFL Response to "UnPregnant" Movie (HBO)

Unappealing: MCFL’s Resoonst to Unpregnant (2020)

By Sonja Morin, Communications Intern


I spent Friday night last week watching the new HBO Max release Unpregnant. Based on the 2019 novel of the same name by Jenni Hendricks and Ted Caplan, the film follows Veronica (played by Haley Lu Richardson), an Ivy-League bound senior who finds out she’s facing an unexpected pregnancy. Worried about the backlash from her community, she decides to roadtrip with Bailey (played by Barbie Ferreira), her estranged best friend, to be able to obtain an abortion without parental consent. While the film itself aims to be a pro-choice manifesto masquerading as a girls’ road trip movie, it fails to satisfy either aim. 

Road trip films have certain components that distinguish the great from the lackluster, the first of these being a credible portrayal of the protagonists. Unpregnant is meant to be aimed at Generation Z, the younger component of the youth in America. Being part of this generation myself, I paid especially close attention to how people my age are portrayed in the film through the performances and script. What I found were stereotypes and weaponized characters, rather than compassionate examinations of Generation Z teens. Veronica is the Type A student, while Bailey is the loner tomboy. Much like these protagonists, all the other characters are one-sided and have a limited amount of defining qualities. 

Road trip flicks have lighthearted, funny situations sprinkled between moments of drama to add complexity to the plot. Many of the situations in the story are meant to mirror that particular mood, but a more serious consideration of the film makes the viewer realize just how many truly serious situations are made light. Both Veronica and Bailey have terrible support systems in their lives, which lead them to take the road trip without anyone knowing in the first place. Both girls are underage and hitchhike multiple times with complete strangers. Near-arrest, stealing a car, dangerous driving, and near-kidnapping are all results of these choices. It’s played off in the movie as a humorous series of incidents on the way to the clinic. But these aren’t lighthearted complexities, they are truly dangerous situations all justified only because of abortion. The utter disregard on the part of the writers for the justification of what would otherwise be incredible and insupportably dangerous behavior is obvious to any viewer, regardless of whether they are pro-life or pro-choice.

While it is clear that the film suffers in its attempt to be a road trip movie, let us examine whether it is successful in promoting its pro-choice message. A quality social justice film must be subliminal but strong in its messaging. Refusing to fall into preachy ground, it instead uses emotional, moving stories to convey its point. It’s more than obvious that Unpregnant is meant to be an antithesis to the 2019 release Unplanned. However, its failures in fulfilling the criteria for a quality social justice film makes it a less-than-compelling response from the pro-choice movement. 

From a propagandistic standpoint, this film gave me a similar feeling as a panoramic short film entitled Across the Line, which was produced by Planned Parenthood a little over five years ago. It overused demonizing stereotypes against the pro-life movement, blasted statistics, and overall felt preachy and burdensome in its messaging. It fails because its obviousness in its agenda alienates the viewers and throws aside any merit the story might have. Very similarly to Across the Line, Unpregnant characterizes the pro-choice people in an overwhelmingly positive light, while all the pro-life characters are delusional and hateful. It’s old stereotypes resurrected for the purpose of demonizing anyone with the slightest opposition to abortion. Unpregnant goes to the point of including a crazed, specifically Catholic couple, that goes as far as holding the protagonists captive while nearly driving off a cliff, all in the name of preventing Veronica from reaching the abortion clinic. 

One particularly propagandistic element of the film is the statistics. Multiple times, both Veronica and Bailey recite statistics regarding abortion and contraceptives. No member of Generation Z would go to the lengths of reciting a number to the decimal point regarding any of these topics, even when they are truly passionate about it. In fact, most people don’t memorize statistics to the decimal. The only point to include the numbers is to push a particular rhetorical point. If the movie is meant to be subliminal in its push for the pro-choice agenda, it certainly misses the mark. 

I am nearly positive the film was meant to enrage pro-lifers as well as rally pro-choicers. As a pro-lifer, I feel pity for the pro-abortion industry. Surely many on the pro-choice side feel the same. It is rather disturbing that the cultural leaders of the movement felt the need to sink to such a low in response to Unplanned. The result was a flick that not only justifies terrible actions and is a lackluster attempt at filmmaking, but fails to carry the intended message with conviction. In fact, it only unearths the dishonest, dehumanizing, demoralizing, and disempowering nature of abortion. My hope is that any who view the film, or even hear of it, are empowered to speak out against this ugliness that rises from abortion and its defense, as so clearly visualized in Unpregnant. 

 


 

Make a creative statement that gives life! Please donate to MCFL today: Donate here

You can also order or stream UnPlanned on Amazon Prime now. Check it out here (click through the "Amazon Smile" link to be sure your purchase supports life in our state) or read a list and reviews of some of my life-affirming film recommendations at this link.



Posted on October 01, 2020 8:41 AM

Take These 3 Actions for Respect Life Month!

What do you call a principle without any practice?

A phantom, because it doesn't have life or body!

With that Halloween-style lead-in, we'd like to invite you to join us during Respect Life Month putting our pro-life principles into practice. It doesn't take a national revolution to create tangible changes in society. Just one video posted by a pro-life individual saved Baby Myles.

Here are 3 things you can do during October to save babies, change lives, and give hope. Respect isn't an idea, it's an action. Being pro-life, as so many of you show us every day, is a verb, not a noun. Using your time like this member, and holding a sign at the abortion facility, literally saves lives. 

 

TAKE ACTION DURING RESPECT LIFE MONTH!

OUR 2020 VISION IS PRO-LIFE

  1.  Join 40 Days For Life. Sign up for a couple hours per week. If you would like to join someone who's done it before, please send us a note. We'll partner you with someone! Statistics show that no-show rates for abortions rise to over 50% when there's just ONE person outside the clinic. Be that person!
  2. Join the Massachusetts Walk for Life (virtually!). Clock 5 to 15k (or more) from now until the deadline for the R.O.E. Act. Here are some great ideas on how to make this a safely-distanced but still strong statement in defense of our women and preborn children. Much like other virtual walks, raise as much support as you can by asking friends and family to support you; and then walk or run whenever you can. (Have your official fundraising link set up by emailing C.J. - cj@masscitizensforlife.org)
  3. Join the first-ever Dr. Mildred Jefferson Symposium ONLINE, featuring a debate on the question, "Is Abortion Immoral?" A great opportunity to invite friends who may be pro-choice or on-the-fence, or get your chapter together for a watch party. Stay tuned for official registration details!
Posted on September 30, 2020 1:16 PM

NEWSBREAK: Joe Biden Says "I Am the Democratic Party," and That Means Abortion

 

While over 20 million Democrats would strongly disagree, Joe Biden declared last night that to be a Democrat equals being pro-abortion.

The National Right to Life has sent out concise press release demonstrating the abortion extremism of the Biden/Harris campaign.

For immediate release: Wednesday, September 30, 2020
For more information: Laura Echevarria, (202) 626-8825, mediarelations@nrlc.org

Joe Biden: “I am the Democratic Party”
The Democratic Party Equals Abortion on Demand
 
WASHINGTON — During last night’s first presidential debate, Joe Biden declared that he was the Democratic Party:
 
My party is me. Right now, I am the Democratic Party. I am the Democratic Party, right now. The platform of the Democratic Party is what I, in fact, approved of.
 
“The Democratic Party and its leadership want abortion at any time, anywhere, and under any circumstances,”  said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “In his own words, it means that Joe Biden wants abortion at any time, anywhere, and under any circumstances.”
 
A Biden/Harris administration would seek to:
  • enshrine abortion on demand in federal law;
  • appoint justices who will commit, in advance, to uphold abortion on demand;
  • reverse the Trump Administration’s pro-life policies;
  • reverse President Trump’s Title X rule that prevents family planning grantees from co-locating with abortion clinics, or from referring clients for abortion;
  • promote abortion around the world by reversing the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance program which prevents federal taxpayer dollars from being used by abortion groups to perform or promote abortion overseas;
  • abolish the Hyde Amendment and use federal tax dollars to pay for abortion on demand.
In an interview with The New York Times editorial board in January 2020, Joe Biden was asked what he would look for in a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said:
 
They have to have an expansive view of the Constitution. Recognize the right to privacy, unenumerated rights that exist in the Constitution... that means I know they will in fact support Roe v. Wade.
 
“Joe Biden would force taxpayers to pay for abortions, he would turn back the clock on pro-life policies, and he would run rough-shod over the wishes of the American people in an effort to please pro-abortion groups,”  said NRLC president, Tobias. “Women and their unborn children would suffer if Joe Biden were to win.”