PoliticsRead Next
Issues
Israeli court upholds requirement that sperm donors remain anonymous
Bridget Sielicki
·Spotlight Articles
House Democrats plan to dismantle state pro-life laws, expand taxpayer-funded abortion
With the 2026 midterm elections on Tuesday, a Democratic congressional blueprint reveals plans to establish a nationwide right to abortion, override state pro-life laws, and eliminate longstanding restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions.
Among a Democratic House majority's priorities would be establishing a nationwide statutory right to abortion and eliminating federal restrictions that prevent taxpayer dollars from financing abortions.
Two bills feature prominently in the abortion-related recommendations: the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) - H.R. 12, and the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act (EACH) - H.R. 4611. For states that have spent the past four years strengthening their abortion laws, these proposals represent a potential reversal of significant legislative work.
The WHPA would create a federal statutory right to obtain and perform abortions while prohibiting numerous state restrictions on abortion businesses and abortionists.
The EACH Act would expand payment for abortions through federal healthcare programs and remove restrictions that currently stop government funds from financing many abortions.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries described the Supreme Court's Dobbs as unjust and committed House Democrats to advancing the WHPA and said Democrats plan to reverse Dobbs at their first opportunity upon regaining control of Congress by making abortion a federal right and preventing states from prohibiting abortions.
Democrats are also exploring and demanding changes to the Supreme Court itself, including expanding the number of justices that preside on the bench.
The proposals already submitted to Democratic leadership make clear that abortion will remain a major federal legislative battleground long after the polls close.
Americans will head to the polls on Tuesdayin one of the most consequential midterm elections for the pro-life movement since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
At stake is more than control of the United States Congress. The next congressional majority will help determine whether the federal government preserves the authority of states to protect preborn children or pursues legislation allowing abortion on a nationwide scale.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has already made his position on abortion clear. And a recently released congressional policy blueprint, prepared by a Democratic working group he convened, reveals just how aggressively some lawmakers want to pursue that agenda.
The document outlines proposals for the first 100 hours, first 100 days, and first year of the 120th Congress, which convenes in January 2027. Among its priorities are establishing a nationwide statutory right to abortion and eliminating federal restrictions that prevent taxpayer dollars from financing abortions.
For pro-life Americans, the implications are enormous.
In September, the House Democrats’ Cost-of-Living Healthcare Working Group, co-led by Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Terri Sewell of Alabama, delivered its policy recommendations to Jeffries. The group consulted extensively with Democratic lawmakers and outside organizations to develop a legislative blueprint for the next Congress.
The recommendations extend beyond healthcare costs and insurance premiums. They include proposals to expand abortion nationwide and reverse longstanding federal restrictions on abortion funding.
Two bills feature prominently in the abortion-related recommendations: the Women’s Health Protection Act, H.R. 12, and the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, H.R. 4611, commonly known as the EACH Act.
Together, these proposals would fundamentally change the legal and financial framework surrounding abortion in America.
The Women’s Health Protection Act would restrict states’ authority to regulate abortions. The EACH Act would expand government financing of abortions through federal healthcare programs. Although the memorandum is a set of recommendations rather than an officially adopted House floor schedule, it provides a revealing picture of the policies influential congressional Democrats want to advance.
And Jeffries has separately and publicly committed himself to pursuing the Women’s Health Protection Act.
On June 24th, the fourth anniversary of Dobbs, Jeffries stood alongside Democratic lawmakers and abortion advocates to reaffirm his opposition to the ruling.
The Dobbs decision overturned nearly five decades of federal constitutional precedent established under Roe v. Wade and returned authority over abortion regulation to elected lawmakers. For our movement, that decision marked a historic turning point in the effort to secure legal protections for preborn children.
Jeffries sees it differently.
During his June remarks, he described Dobbs as unjust and committed House Democrats to advancing the Women’s Health Protection Act. He also declared that Democrats intended to reverse the decision at their first opportunity upon regaining control of Congress.
His remarks were not an isolated statement. They show a sustained legislative position favoring federal intervention to prevent states from enforcing restrictions on abortion.
The September working-group memorandum gives that position additional significance by placing abortion legislation within a proposed early governing agenda.
A Democratic House majority would give Jeffries, if elected speaker, substantial influence over committee assignments, legislative scheduling, and which bills receive consideration on the House floor.
That authority would not guarantee enactment of the legislation. But it would create a pathway for abortion-related proposals that currently face substantial obstacles in Congress.
The congressional debate over abortion extends well beyond legislation. Democrats are also exploring and demanding changes to the Supreme Court itself, including expanding the number of justices that preside on the bench.
In August, Jeffries called for “dramatic Supreme Court reform” and indicated that multiple proposals are under consideration.
He identified Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, to lead those discussions if Democrats regained control of the House. In months prior, some Democrats have gone even further.
Representative Al Green of Texas introduced H.R. 8647 in May, proposing to expand the Supreme Court from nine to thirteen justices. House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn has also publicly supported adding four seats to the Court. The debate carries particular significance for the movement because of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs.
Expanding the Court could eventually change its ideological composition, depending on which president nominates additional justices and whether the Senate confirms them. This issue is consequential because future Supreme Court decisions could determine the constitutional limits of state abortion restrictions and federal abortion legislation.
Perhaps the most consequential proposal is H.R. 12, the Women’s Health Protection Act.
Despite its title, the legislation is not limited to establishing healthcare standards. It would create a federal statutory right to obtain and perform abortions while prohibiting numerous state restrictions on abortion businesses and abortionists. Under the legislation, states would face significant limitations on their ability to enforce their pro-life restrictions.
The bill would restrict several categories of state regulation, including waiting periods, facility requirements, and other measures applicable to cutting red tape on abortion businesses. These provisions would directly affect laws enacted in states following Dobbs.
In Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and other states that have enacted strong protections for the preborn, a federal law of this kind could invalidate important portions of the existing legal framework.
The legislation would not simply return the country to the constitutional arrangement that existed before Dobbs. It would create federal statutory rules limiting state legislative authority over abortion and the abortion industry.
Many organizations have argued that the legislation would allow abortions far beyond the limits currently established in many states. Democrats argue that the bill maintains that federal legislation is necessary to prevent states from prohibiting abortions.
The Democratic working group’s second major abortion-related proposal involves taxpayer money.
For nearly half a century, the Hyde Amendment has served as one of the federal government’s most important restrictions on financing abortions. First enacted in 1976, the Hyde Amendment generally prohibits the use of certain federal funds for abortions, subject to exceptions.
Hyde has been renewed through federal appropriations legislation under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The EACH Act would dismantle that longstanding approach.
The legislation would expand payment for abortions through federal healthcare programs and remove restrictions that currently stop government funds from financing many abortions. For pro-life Americans, the consequences extend beyond the abortion businesses that would receive payment.
The proposal raises a fundamental question about whether taxpayers should be required to finance procedures that we know take an innocent human life. We have long argued that federal healthcare dollars should support women, preborn children, and families rather than finance the destruction of preborn children.
Supporters of the EACH Act argue that existing funding restrictions prevent certain individuals from obtaining abortions through their government-sponsored health coverage. This legislation would change that arrangement by mandating abortions to be covered through specified federal programs.
The working group’s inclusion of the EACH Act shows that its abortion agenda is not confined to overriding state restrictions. It also includes changing how abortions are financed.
The implications for the Hyde Amendment deserve particular attention. Unlike a permanent nationwide prohibition on abortion funding, like the one included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Hyde has historically operated through annual appropriations restrictions.
That means congressional control matters.
A House majority can influence appropriations language, negotiate federal spending legislation, and determine which restrictions are included in bills moving through the chamber. Even without enactment of the EACH Act, disputes over Hyde could become a significant feature of future spending negotiations.
For us, preserving restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortion has remained a major federal policy priority. For congressional Democrats seeking to remove those restrictions, appropriations negotiations present another avenue for pursuing changes.
The outcome would still depend on the Senate and the president. Nevertheless, the House’s constitutional authority over federal spending makes its leadership central to these disputes.
The Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling did not itself prohibit abortion nationwide. Instead, it removed the federal constitutional barrier that had prevented states from enforcing many abortion restrictions.
That distinction matters.
Since the decision, states have adopted different approaches to abortion regulation. Some have enacted stronger protections for preborn children, while other states have maintained or expanded the circumstances in which they allow abortions to be committed.
Congressional Democrats now plan to establish federal rules that would restrict states’ ability to prohibit abortions.
➡ If enacted, the Women’s Health Protection Act would substantially alter the balance between federal authority and state law.
➡ The EACH Act would similarly change federal policy by expanding government financing of abortions.
➡ For states that have spent the past four years strengthening their abortion laws, these proposals represent a potential reversal of significant legislative work. The legal questions would also extend beyond the initial passage of either bill. Federal courts could be asked to determine the scope of congressional authority and the relationship between the new legislation and existing state restrictions.
➡ The result would be another major chapter in the national legal battle over abortion.
Congressional Republicans have generally supported
preserving the Hyde Amendment.
maintaining state authority to regulate abortion following Dobbs.
... although Republican lawmakers differ over the appropriate scope of federal abortion legislation.
House Democrats, meanwhile, have
endorsed the Women’s Health Protection Act.
introduced legislation to expand government financing of abortions.
Those differences have practical consequences.
The majority party controls House committees, determines which legislation advances to the floor, and plays a central role in federal spending negotiations.
A change in House leadership could therefore alter the legislative treatment of abortion even if the Senate and White House prevent the enactment of major new laws.
The next Congress will also exercise oversight over federal agencies whose policies affect abortion, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration.
Oversight hearings, appropriations decisions, and legislative proposals will all shape the federal government’s approach to abortion during the next two years.
The Democratic healthcare memorandum is particularly significant because of its proposed timetable. Its authors organized recommendations around the first 100 hours, first 100 days, and first year of the next Congress.
The abortion provisions are part of a broader effort to prepare legislative priorities before the new Congress convenes. Jeffries has not publicly guaranteed that both abortion bills will receive a vote on his first day as speaker.
But his personal support for the Women’s Health Protection Act is documented, and the working group’s proposals demonstrate the continued interest among House Democrats in expanding abortion through federal legislation.
The combination is consequential.
For the pro-life movement, the issue is not only whether a particular bill passes in January. It is whether Congress will pursue federal legislation that restricts states from protecting preborn children, expands government payments to abortion businesses, and removes longstanding limits on taxpayer-funded abortions.
Four years after Dobbs, the national abortion debate has entered a new legislative phase. The Supreme Court’s ruling gave elected lawmakers greater authority to determine abortion policy. The proposals now before Congress demonstrate how differently the two major parties intend to exercise that authority.
House Democrats have identified legislation that would establish a nationwide statutory right to abortion and expand federal payments for abortions. Jeffries has publicly committed himself to advancing the Women’s Health Protection Act and reversing the effects of Dobbs.
We maintain that preborn children deserve protection under the law and that taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance abortions.
Those positions are fundamentally at odds.
Tuesday’s elections will determine who controls the next Congress and, with that, which legislative proposals receive hearings, committee consideration, and floor votes.
For the millions of Americans, like us, who believe that every preborn child possesses inherent human dignity, the debate extends far beyond congressional procedure. It concerns whether the law recognizes and protects human life before birth.
The first 100 hours of the next Congress may not settle that debate. But the proposals already submitted to Democratic leadership make clear that abortion will remain a major federal legislative battleground long after the polls close.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Bridget Sielicki
·
Politics
Nancy Flanders
·
Guest Column
Mary Strow
·
Politics
Cassy Cooke
·
Politics
Bridget Sielicki
·
Politics
Nancy Flanders
·
Politics
Mark Wiltz
·
Politics
Mark Wiltz
·
Politics
Mark Wiltz
·
Politics
Mark Wiltz
·
Opinion
Mark Wiltz
·House Democrats plan to dismantle state pro-life laws, expand taxpayer-funded abortion
With the 2026 midterm elections on Tuesday, a Democratic congressional blueprint reveals plans to establish a nationwide right to abortion, override state pro-life laws, and eliminate longstanding restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortions.
Among a Democratic House majority's priorities would be establishing a nationwide statutory right to abortion and eliminating federal restrictions that prevent taxpayer dollars from financing abortions.
Two bills feature prominently in the abortion-related recommendations: the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) - H.R. 12, and the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act (EACH) - H.R. 4611. For states that have spent the past four years strengthening their abortion laws, these proposals represent a potential reversal of significant legislative work.
The WHPA would create a federal statutory right to obtain and perform abortions while prohibiting numerous state restrictions on abortion businesses and abortionists.
The EACH Act would expand payment for abortions through federal healthcare programs and remove restrictions that currently stop government funds from financing many abortions.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries described the Supreme Court's Dobbs as unjust and committed House Democrats to advancing the WHPA and said Democrats plan to reverse Dobbs at their first opportunity upon regaining control of Congress by making abortion a federal right and preventing states from prohibiting abortions.
Democrats are also exploring and demanding changes to the Supreme Court itself, including expanding the number of justices that preside on the bench.
The proposals already submitted to Democratic leadership make clear that abortion will remain a major federal legislative battleground long after the polls close.
Americans will head to the polls on Tuesdayin one of the most consequential midterm elections for the pro-life movement since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
At stake is more than control of the United States Congress. The next congressional majority will help determine whether the federal government preserves the authority of states to protect preborn children or pursues legislation allowing abortion on a nationwide scale.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has already made his position on abortion clear. And a recently released congressional policy blueprint, prepared by a Democratic working group he convened, reveals just how aggressively some lawmakers want to pursue that agenda.
The document outlines proposals for the first 100 hours, first 100 days, and first year of the 120th Congress, which convenes in January 2027. Among its priorities are establishing a nationwide statutory right to abortion and eliminating federal restrictions that prevent taxpayer dollars from financing abortions.
For pro-life Americans, the implications are enormous.
In September, the House Democrats’ Cost-of-Living Healthcare Working Group, co-led by Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Terri Sewell of Alabama, delivered its policy recommendations to Jeffries. The group consulted extensively with Democratic lawmakers and outside organizations to develop a legislative blueprint for the next Congress.
The recommendations extend beyond healthcare costs and insurance premiums. They include proposals to expand abortion nationwide and reverse longstanding federal restrictions on abortion funding.
Two bills feature prominently in the abortion-related recommendations: the Women’s Health Protection Act, H.R. 12, and the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act, H.R. 4611, commonly known as the EACH Act.
Together, these proposals would fundamentally change the legal and financial framework surrounding abortion in America.
The Women’s Health Protection Act would restrict states’ authority to regulate abortions. The EACH Act would expand government financing of abortions through federal healthcare programs. Although the memorandum is a set of recommendations rather than an officially adopted House floor schedule, it provides a revealing picture of the policies influential congressional Democrats want to advance.
And Jeffries has separately and publicly committed himself to pursuing the Women’s Health Protection Act.
On June 24th, the fourth anniversary of Dobbs, Jeffries stood alongside Democratic lawmakers and abortion advocates to reaffirm his opposition to the ruling.
The Dobbs decision overturned nearly five decades of federal constitutional precedent established under Roe v. Wade and returned authority over abortion regulation to elected lawmakers. For our movement, that decision marked a historic turning point in the effort to secure legal protections for preborn children.
Jeffries sees it differently.
During his June remarks, he described Dobbs as unjust and committed House Democrats to advancing the Women’s Health Protection Act. He also declared that Democrats intended to reverse the decision at their first opportunity upon regaining control of Congress.
His remarks were not an isolated statement. They show a sustained legislative position favoring federal intervention to prevent states from enforcing restrictions on abortion.
The September working-group memorandum gives that position additional significance by placing abortion legislation within a proposed early governing agenda.
A Democratic House majority would give Jeffries, if elected speaker, substantial influence over committee assignments, legislative scheduling, and which bills receive consideration on the House floor.
That authority would not guarantee enactment of the legislation. But it would create a pathway for abortion-related proposals that currently face substantial obstacles in Congress.
The congressional debate over abortion extends well beyond legislation. Democrats are also exploring and demanding changes to the Supreme Court itself, including expanding the number of justices that preside on the bench.
In August, Jeffries called for “dramatic Supreme Court reform” and indicated that multiple proposals are under consideration.
He identified Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, to lead those discussions if Democrats regained control of the House. In months prior, some Democrats have gone even further.
Representative Al Green of Texas introduced H.R. 8647 in May, proposing to expand the Supreme Court from nine to thirteen justices. House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn has also publicly supported adding four seats to the Court. The debate carries particular significance for the movement because of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs.
Expanding the Court could eventually change its ideological composition, depending on which president nominates additional justices and whether the Senate confirms them. This issue is consequential because future Supreme Court decisions could determine the constitutional limits of state abortion restrictions and federal abortion legislation.
Perhaps the most consequential proposal is H.R. 12, the Women’s Health Protection Act.
Despite its title, the legislation is not limited to establishing healthcare standards. It would create a federal statutory right to obtain and perform abortions while prohibiting numerous state restrictions on abortion businesses and abortionists. Under the legislation, states would face significant limitations on their ability to enforce their pro-life restrictions.
The bill would restrict several categories of state regulation, including waiting periods, facility requirements, and other measures applicable to cutting red tape on abortion businesses. These provisions would directly affect laws enacted in states following Dobbs.
In Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and other states that have enacted strong protections for the preborn, a federal law of this kind could invalidate important portions of the existing legal framework.
The legislation would not simply return the country to the constitutional arrangement that existed before Dobbs. It would create federal statutory rules limiting state legislative authority over abortion and the abortion industry.
Many organizations have argued that the legislation would allow abortions far beyond the limits currently established in many states. Democrats argue that the bill maintains that federal legislation is necessary to prevent states from prohibiting abortions.
The Democratic working group’s second major abortion-related proposal involves taxpayer money.
For nearly half a century, the Hyde Amendment has served as one of the federal government’s most important restrictions on financing abortions. First enacted in 1976, the Hyde Amendment generally prohibits the use of certain federal funds for abortions, subject to exceptions.
Hyde has been renewed through federal appropriations legislation under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The EACH Act would dismantle that longstanding approach.
The legislation would expand payment for abortions through federal healthcare programs and remove restrictions that currently stop government funds from financing many abortions. For pro-life Americans, the consequences extend beyond the abortion businesses that would receive payment.
The proposal raises a fundamental question about whether taxpayers should be required to finance procedures that we know take an innocent human life. We have long argued that federal healthcare dollars should support women, preborn children, and families rather than finance the destruction of preborn children.
Supporters of the EACH Act argue that existing funding restrictions prevent certain individuals from obtaining abortions through their government-sponsored health coverage. This legislation would change that arrangement by mandating abortions to be covered through specified federal programs.
The working group’s inclusion of the EACH Act shows that its abortion agenda is not confined to overriding state restrictions. It also includes changing how abortions are financed.
The implications for the Hyde Amendment deserve particular attention. Unlike a permanent nationwide prohibition on abortion funding, like the one included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Hyde has historically operated through annual appropriations restrictions.
That means congressional control matters.
A House majority can influence appropriations language, negotiate federal spending legislation, and determine which restrictions are included in bills moving through the chamber. Even without enactment of the EACH Act, disputes over Hyde could become a significant feature of future spending negotiations.
For us, preserving restrictions on taxpayer-funded abortion has remained a major federal policy priority. For congressional Democrats seeking to remove those restrictions, appropriations negotiations present another avenue for pursuing changes.
The outcome would still depend on the Senate and the president. Nevertheless, the House’s constitutional authority over federal spending makes its leadership central to these disputes.
The Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling did not itself prohibit abortion nationwide. Instead, it removed the federal constitutional barrier that had prevented states from enforcing many abortion restrictions.
That distinction matters.
Since the decision, states have adopted different approaches to abortion regulation. Some have enacted stronger protections for preborn children, while other states have maintained or expanded the circumstances in which they allow abortions to be committed.
Congressional Democrats now plan to establish federal rules that would restrict states’ ability to prohibit abortions.
➡ If enacted, the Women’s Health Protection Act would substantially alter the balance between federal authority and state law.
➡ The EACH Act would similarly change federal policy by expanding government financing of abortions.
➡ For states that have spent the past four years strengthening their abortion laws, these proposals represent a potential reversal of significant legislative work. The legal questions would also extend beyond the initial passage of either bill. Federal courts could be asked to determine the scope of congressional authority and the relationship between the new legislation and existing state restrictions.
➡ The result would be another major chapter in the national legal battle over abortion.
Congressional Republicans have generally supported
preserving the Hyde Amendment.
maintaining state authority to regulate abortion following Dobbs.
... although Republican lawmakers differ over the appropriate scope of federal abortion legislation.
House Democrats, meanwhile, have
endorsed the Women’s Health Protection Act.
introduced legislation to expand government financing of abortions.
Those differences have practical consequences.
The majority party controls House committees, determines which legislation advances to the floor, and plays a central role in federal spending negotiations.
A change in House leadership could therefore alter the legislative treatment of abortion even if the Senate and White House prevent the enactment of major new laws.
The next Congress will also exercise oversight over federal agencies whose policies affect abortion, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration.
Oversight hearings, appropriations decisions, and legislative proposals will all shape the federal government’s approach to abortion during the next two years.
The Democratic healthcare memorandum is particularly significant because of its proposed timetable. Its authors organized recommendations around the first 100 hours, first 100 days, and first year of the next Congress.
The abortion provisions are part of a broader effort to prepare legislative priorities before the new Congress convenes. Jeffries has not publicly guaranteed that both abortion bills will receive a vote on his first day as speaker.
But his personal support for the Women’s Health Protection Act is documented, and the working group’s proposals demonstrate the continued interest among House Democrats in expanding abortion through federal legislation.
The combination is consequential.
For the pro-life movement, the issue is not only whether a particular bill passes in January. It is whether Congress will pursue federal legislation that restricts states from protecting preborn children, expands government payments to abortion businesses, and removes longstanding limits on taxpayer-funded abortions.
Four years after Dobbs, the national abortion debate has entered a new legislative phase. The Supreme Court’s ruling gave elected lawmakers greater authority to determine abortion policy. The proposals now before Congress demonstrate how differently the two major parties intend to exercise that authority.
House Democrats have identified legislation that would establish a nationwide statutory right to abortion and expand federal payments for abortions. Jeffries has publicly committed himself to advancing the Women’s Health Protection Act and reversing the effects of Dobbs.
We maintain that preborn children deserve protection under the law and that taxpayer dollars should not be used to finance abortions.
Those positions are fundamentally at odds.
Tuesday’s elections will determine who controls the next Congress and, with that, which legislative proposals receive hearings, committee consideration, and floor votes.
For the millions of Americans, like us, who believe that every preborn child possesses inherent human dignity, the debate extends far beyond congressional procedure. It concerns whether the law recognizes and protects human life before birth.
The first 100 hours of the next Congress may not settle that debate. But the proposals already submitted to Democratic leadership make clear that abortion will remain a major federal legislative battleground long after the polls close.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Bridget Sielicki
·Politics
Nancy Flanders
·Guest Column
Mary Strow
·Politics
Cassy Cooke
·Politics
Bridget Sielicki
·Politics
Nancy Flanders
·Politics
Mark Wiltz
·Politics
Mark Wiltz
·Politics
Mark Wiltz
·Politics
Mark Wiltz
·Opinion
Mark Wiltz
·