Rasmussen reports Thursday that Angle has now broken the 50 percent threshold of likely voters, and enjoys a four point lead over Reid (46 percent).

Just two percent of voters would prefer another candidate, and two percent say they are undecided. In Nevada, voters have the option to vote “none of the above,” which conservative activists fear may work to Reid’s advantage rather than Angle’s.

The U.S. Senate Majority Leader, once considered pro-life, was the legislative godfather of the unpopular “Affordable Care Act,” which pro-life advocates roundly attacked for having back-door abortion funding provisions. If Angle takes down Reid on November 2, it would be a major blow to Senate Democrats, who would likely nominate pro-abortion U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) as their next caucus leader.

Reid has waged a fiercely negative ad campaign, intended to make his pro-life and Tea Party-endorsed opponent look kooky and out-of-touch with Nevada voters.

But the tide seems now to be turning in Angle’s favor, as voter dissatisfaction with Reid scores higher than voter problems with Angle.

According to a Fox News/Pulse Opinion Research-Rasmussen poll of 1000 likely voters, 56 percent said the Senate Majority Leader had “been in office too long,” while 53 percent said Angle’s views were “too extreme.” Reid also had higher unfavorable ratings (55 percent) than Angle (53 percent).

According to that poll, Angle is ahead of Reid by three points, 49 percent to 46 percent, and leads in several key voting demographics: women, independents, and voters over 40.

The GOP state senator has consolidated 85 percent of her GOP base, and has the support of a majority of women and independents (both 51 percent).

Reid has the support of his Democrat base (87 percent) and leads Angle among younger voters aged 18-39. But he only slightly beats Angle among men, 49 percent to 48 percent, and trails when it comes to getting the support of women voters (43 percent) and independents (42 percent).

Angle also leads Reid by three points among older voters ages 40-64 (49 percent), and is ahead 10 points among voters ages 65 and up (52 percent.)

The poll results fall within the three-point margin of error.

A CNN/Time poll also has Angle leading Reid, but just by two points (42 percent to 40 percent.)

A new Sunshine State News Poll now has Scott, a Republican, as “favored to win” on November’s election day against Sink, the Democrat nominee. While that poll shows Scott leading with 44 percent of the vote to Sink’s 42 percent, and 14 percent undecided, which is all within the poll’s 3 percent margin of error, Sunshine State News reports the pro-life GOPer has solidified a lead in key voting groups.

Jim Lee, president of Voter Survey Service, which conducted the poll, told the Sunshine State News that Scott possesses a decisive edge over Sink, with a three-point advantage among those most likely to vote, and a four point advantage among those who voted in the ‘08 and ‘06 general elections.

However Lee said Sink would take the lead if she can capture all those one-time voters that turned out for President Obama in 2008.

“These (presidential-cycle voters) are the key to Sink if she can gin up turnout. No small task,” Lee told the news agency.

However the prevailing political winds in Florida are not favorable to President Obama, as 56 percent of Floridians disapprove of his job performance, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Friday. Independents in the state have run away from Obama, and more independents (46 percent) have lined up in support Scott over Sink (40 percent). That Quinnipiac poll, conducted September 23-28, shows Scott leading Sink 49 to 43 percent.

A Rasmussen Reports poll of 750 likely voters, conducted on September 30, adds to the evidence of the election trending toward the pro-life Scott. In that poll, Scott wins 46 percent of likely voters, with Sink winning only 41 percent.

Sink’s campaign is supported by the pro-abortion Emily’s List, a political action committee (PAC) dedicated to putting pro-abortion women into public office.

Emily’s List has denounced Scott as “extremely anti-choice,” citing his opposition to Roe v. Wade, and his support for a bill vetoed in June by Gov. Charlie Crist that would have required an ultrasound to be performed on abortion-bound women.

The ultrasound bill was seen as a key step forward for the pro-life movement in Florida. Had it become law, abortionists would have been obligated to perform an ultrasound to show women the child they sought to abort, and describe to them the parts of the baby as revealed on the ultrasound image.

Scott also opposes embryonic stem-cell research.

Florida Right to Life (FRTL) PAC has also endorsed Scott in the governor’s race, and he is the nominee of Florida’s Tea Party, which has an official ballot line in the state.

Matt Ozolnieks, chairman of FRTL PAC, told LifeSiteNews.com in a telephone interview that he was “not surprised” that polling trends show Scott leading the race.

“There is a wave of pro-life enthusiasm in the state of Florida this cycle, as we’ve never seen before,” Ozolnieks explained. “I’ll put our candidates against Planned Parenthood’s any day of the week.”

Ozolnieks also praised Scott’s selection of pro-life state Rep. Jennifer Carroll (R-Fleming Island) to run as his lieutenant governor as “an amazing choice.”

“She’s a solid pro-life woman that leads a really good example for our young folks out there that are looking at public service, and perhaps say ‘do I need to be quiet on this issue.’ No, you don’t. Here is an accomplished woman that will be our next lieutenant governor,” continued Ozolnieks. He added that if Scott wins, Carroll would be in a good position to run later for Senate or governor, ensuring more strong pro-life leadership for Florida.

A former chairman of Solantic and leader of Conservatives for Patients Rights, Scott was one of the individuals honored as “Business Person of the Year” at the 2009 Paul Weyrich Awards dinner in Georgetown’s Four Seasons Hotel, Washington, D.C.

LSN had a chance to interview Scott at that event, where he emphasized that social and economic conservatives do have a commonality of interests; he said that the fight over health-care reform and its specter of health-care rationing was an instance of the two viewpoints aligning in a common fight.

“I’m a conservative, and every conservative I know cares about people,” said Scott. “So they know that doing the right thing on health-care is going to be better for you as an individual, your family, and your kids” (see story).

The order from Appeals Court judges Judith Rogers, Thomas Griffith, and Brett Kavanaugh, followed two days after oral arguments for and against U.S. District Chief Judge Royce Lamberth’s August 23 injunction that banned the NIH from funding further embryo-destroying research under the 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment.

Lamberth previously denied the U.S. Justice Department’s request to stay his order, saying that Dickey-Wicker was “unambiguous” in its intent, and therefore prohibits federal dollars from going to research that destroys human embryos. Lamberth’s order nullified President Barack Obama’s executive order allowing the NIH to fund up to 75 new lines of stem cells derived from human embryos, which are killed as soon as researchers harvest their stem cells.

The D.C. Court of Appeals had granted the U.S. Justice Department’s motion for an emergency stay on Lamberth’s order on September 9, temporarily lifting Lamberth’s injunction while they reviewed the merits of the government’s argument that the banned scientific research would cause “irreparable harm.”

Dr. Francis Collins stated in written testimony that $546 million dollars had been invested by the NIH in hESC research since 2002, and that $54 million to 24 research projects would be prevented by Lamberth’s order.

The three-judge appeals panel has now dissolved that emergency stay and made their stay of Lamberth’s order permanent for the rest of the appeals process.

The lawsuit against the NIH funding of embryonic stem cell research was filed by two scientists involved in adult stem cell research, Drs. James Sherley of Boston and Theresa Deisher of Seattle, and Nightlight Christian Adoptions, which helps couples adopt human embryos stored in fertility clinics. Sherly and Deisher both sued claiming that President Barack Obama’s order meant the NIH was favoring hESC researchers, starving researchers involved in ethical adult stem cell research for grants.

The case is Sherley v. Sebelius, 10-5287, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

“We dodged a cannonball by a whisker,” Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life Committee’s Legislative Director told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).

The Senate voted Thursday to invoke cloture and proceed to debate the  “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act” (S.3628). However, they did not succeed in getting 60 votes to overcome a GOP-filibuster.

The motion failed 59 – 39. Every single Democrat, including Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), voted for the bill, but not a single Republican crossed the aisle. GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska did not vote.

“I’m not ready to declare it dead yet, but the chances of it being enacted in this congress have fallen substantially,” said Johnson.

“They threw everything they had at it and they still weren’t able to punch it through the Senate.”

President Obama made a big push for the bill, urging Congress to pass the DISCLOSE Act, alleging that “shadow groups” were trying to influence the midterm elections. He said that the bill is “about how much influence special interests should have over our democracy.”

In a rare moment of agreement with conservative and pro-life groups, the American Civil Liberties Union has denounced the bill as a threat to free speech and crippling to free participation in the political process.

The ALF-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the U.S., also said they “reluctantly” were opposing the bill, saying that the “new, costly, and impractical record-keeping and reporting obligations” did not have any “ corresponding public benefit.”

Johnson said that it was likely opponents of the bill could keep it “bottled up for the rest of the session” and that is unlikely, now that every Senator has voted twice on the matter, that their positions would change. Still, he added, anything could happen in December’s lame-duck session, so pro-life groups should remain vigilant.

NRLC sent a detailed letter to the Senate in July warning that a vote for cloture would count against individual senators on NRLC’s legislative scorecard.

The bill has been condemned by the pro-life organization as “a blatant political attack on the First Amendment rights of NRLC, our state affiliates, and our members and donors.”

The DISCLOSE Act would force grassroots organizations – including most 501(c)4, 501(c)5, 501(c)6, and 527 groups – to list all donors of $600 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Groups must also post a hyperlink on their website to the FEC, where a list of the names of their donors can be accessed. Critics of the bill say this could possibly expose donors to political retaliation by motivated groups or individuals.

In addition, the bill requires that every time an organization runs a campaign ad, its CEO must appear in the ad and twice state his name and the organization’s name. The top five funders of the organization behind the ad – even if they had nothing to do with the ad’s funding – must also have their names listed in the ad.  In addition, the most “significant” donor to the organization must list his name, rank, and organization three times in the ad.

Opponents of the bill say it would frustrate the ability of grassroots entities to communicate effectively with the public about public policy, and level criticism against incumbents. The disclaimer rule has been singled out for criticism by those who say the requirement would devour valuable airtime that would otherwise be used to inform voters about a candidate’s record.

The DISCLOSE Act exempts large 501(c)4 groups – like the 4 million strong NRA and 750,000 member Sierra Club – from having to report their donors if they have at least 500,000 members, over 10 years of existence, chapters in all 50 states, and if they receive no more than 15% of total contributions from corporations.

Other affected entities under the bill will likely include vocal liberal and conservative groups that communicate through the Internet. While traditional media organizations like newspapers and television stations are exempt from the bill, bloggers, the vanguard of the “new media,” are not.

The Gallup poll, commissioned by the NAE, found that 76 percent of Evangelicals believe sex between an unmarried man and woman is morally wrong, 77 percent believe abortion is morally wrong, and 79 percent say that having a baby outside of wedlock is also morally wrong. A high 87 percent of Evangelicals also said that teen pregnancy is morally wrong.

But the NAE also noted that pastors may have a challenge on their hands when it comes to the pastoral care of unmarried women who become pregnant and then fear that having the baby will lead to rejection from the church community.

“We need to encourage couples to courageously and responsibly honor the gifts of sex and life,” said Aaron Mercer, NAE Generation Forum Project Director. “The Bible’s standard for sex is very clear: abstinence outside of marriage and fidelity within it.”

“But when unmarried individuals do have sex and end up conceiving, might they fear rejection from their church family whether or not they carry the baby to term? Whether or not this fear is warranted, we need to consider its possible consequences,” continued Mercer.

The NAE poll also indicated that church communities have confidence in their pastors, and look up to them to engage the challenges of unmarried and teen pregnancy and abortion within their communities.

Approximately 89 percent said they would go to their pastors or other leaders in their church for advice or counseling if they were having problems in a relationship or marriage.

But at the same time respondents said that national leaders were not doing nearly as good a job at addressing the issues of abortion and unplanned pregnancy as local pastors.

On the issue of unplanned pregnancies, only eight percent said national leaders were doing a “very good job” and 18 percent said they were doing a “good job.” National leaders fared little better when it came to abortion: just nine percent said they did a “very good job” addressing the topic, while 21 percent said they did a “good job.”

Local pastors got higher marks: 38 percent said their local pastors were doing a “very good job” talking about abortion, while 29 percent said they were doing a “good job.”

“This data should be a call to action for national religious leaders to more productively engage on this country’s terrible abortion problem,” observed Mercer. “It is also a reminder to local pastors that they are on the front lines. They have the confidence of their congregations and the relationships with their neighbors needed for real success in lowering the abortion rate in their local communities.”

Democrats failed to muster the 60 votes needed for cloture as all members of the GOP caucus held together, and two Arkansas Democrats, Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, also crossed party lines to join the Republican-led filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also voted against the bill, but only as a procedural tactic. Under the Senate rules, this gives him the opportunity to bring up the matter at a later time. It is anticipated that Reid will reintroduce the measure sometime during the Congressional lame-duck session in December.

The $726 billion Defense Authorization Bill has one amendment, originally sponsored by Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), that strikes a section of the U.S. Code, which has prohibited Department of Defense facilities from being used to perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest, and risk to the life of the mother.

Top conservative groups including the Family Research Council (FRC), the Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List, and the American Family Association are warning that the FY2011 Defense Authorization bill, if passed, would “turn every U.S. military hospital in the world into an abortion clinic.”

FRC president Tony Perkins noted that, because it is not an appropriations bill, the controversial authorization measure is “not necessary to fund our military.”

Also at stake was the 1993 law banning homosexuals from military service, a law that is commonly, but erroneously identified as the Pentagon policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) led the charge to block the repeal of the 1993 law and DADT.

Heavy pressure was put on Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to buck the GOP filibuster and vote for cloture. However Collins, who supports a repeal of the 1993 law, and voted for it in committee, said she would not help advance the bill unless Reid would allow the GOP to submit their own amendments, adding they “deserve to have a civil, fair and open debate.”

“I will defend the right of my colleagues to offer amendments on this issue, and other issues that are being brought up in connection with the defense authorization bill,” Collins said on the Senate floor.

Snowe expressed similar reservations, but added that since DADT had been in place for 17 years, Congress deserved a chance to review the Defense Department’s upcoming December report on the issue first.

Earlier today, Marine Gen. James Amos, President Obama’s nominee to replace Gen. James Conway as Marine Corps Commandant, testified before the Senate that most Marines oppose repeal of DADT.

“I’ve heard at the Marine bases and the Marine input for the online survey has been predominantly negative,” Amos told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“The message from CCHD managers at the Portland Archdiocese, although supportive of the booklet’s overall mission, was made clear in terms of funding: If Planned Parenthood remained in the booklet, CCHD, in keeping with Catholic teaching, could no longer fund Street Roots, the publisher of the Rose City Resource guide,” wrote Street Roots Managing Editor editor Joanne Zuhl in a 5,000 word report on the situation.

Apparently, the archdiocese had contacted Street Roots back in the spring over a page 25 listing for Planned Parenthood on the resource guide, which described some of the basic contraceptive services the abortion giant seeks to offer to those in poverty seeking health care.

After discussions, Street Roots decided to opt to keep the listing and reject CCHD’s grants.

However, in an editorial posted on Street Roots’ blog, they decried the move, saying that “being defunded ($5-10k annually) by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) … is a shot to the heart.” They then accused the CCHD of harming “our entire community that is working to end homelessness.”

“Knowing the paramount importance of health care for people in poverty, particularly for young women, we have an obligation to note the tremendous resources of Planned Parenthood, and a host of other health organizations, working with people on our streets. And we’re proud to do so,” the editorial continued.

Zuhl wrote that the reason Street Roots and other anti-poverty organizations have lost funding due to being at odds with Catholic teaching was due to a coalition of “Catholic conservative groups that via the prolific capacity of the internet” have called for the defunding of such organizations and even the “radical overhaul” or “disbandment” of CCHD.

Street Roots Executive Director Israel Bayer called the Catholic reform movement a “witch hunt born out of fear and intolerance.”

CCHD has been embroiled in controversy over its funding practices since September, when the Texas-based Bellarmine Veritas Ministries (BVM) began releasing reports with evidence that numerous CCHD grantees are involved in promoting abortion, same-sex “marriage” and contraception, among other things. The movement to reform CCHD by Catholic groups gathered momentum, with other groups, such as Human Life International, and American Life League, joining in the fight. At least 10 bishops have suspended November collections for CCHD until the national organization undergoes real meaningful reform.

However, a number of diocesan CCHD branches, like the Portland Archdiocese, are taking reform to heart and keeping on eye on what causes the money of faithful Catholics is going to support.

In Chicago, reform of the CCHD office there has led the organization to focus on aiding mothers in crisis pregnancies and the centers that serve their needs. Through the efforts of Chicago CCHD director Rey Flores, one crisis pregnancy center will soon upgrade to a 4-D ultrasound machine, allowing mothers to see a highly detailed, live-action, three dimensional images of their living unborn children.

According to the Shreveport Times, the DHH revoked the operating license of Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, after agents found the abortion facility’s staff failed to provide women a physical examination prior to abortions, or follow necessary protocols for the administration of anesthesia and monitoring their clients’ vital signs.

“These are some of the most basic medical practices they were excluding,” said Anthony Keck interim secretary for the Louisiana DHH, according to the Times.

The Times reports that the abortion facility is the first that has been shut down under a new Louisiana state law that empowers the Department of Health and Hospitals to shut down the operation of an abortion facility if a DHH investigation rules that the facility is violating the law and poses “an immediate threat to the health and safety of a patient or client.”

Under the law, if the licensed owner of the facility in violation loses his operating license, then all abortion facilities licensed under that owner would also have to cease their operations.

The law brought outpatient abortion clinics into compliance with Louisiana’s regulations that already apply to hospitals.

According to the Times, DHH investigators performed an unannounced annual survey Aug. 11-13 from the DHH’s Health Standards division, reviewing the procedures of 14 abortions. Keck told the Times that the Hope Medical Group’s violations “were so egregious and so consistent that we felt it was necessary to order them to cease and desist immediately.”

In the cases reviewed, no physicals were given before anesthetizing patients, which is necessary to prevent devastating health reactions to anesthesia, and the abortion centre failed to have a trained professional monitor their clients respiratory, cardiovascular, and consciousness levels after the administration of intravenous and gaseous anesthesia.

The abortion clinic has thirty days to file an appeal of the DHH’s decision. Before the law was enacted, abortion facilities could still carry on operations while the appeals process was fought out.

The Court of Appeals for the 5th District of Texas struck down the previous ruling that said that two homosexual plaintiffs  married in Massachusetts, identified as J.B. and H.B., had a right to a same-sex “divorce” in Texas based on the “full faith and credit clause” of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs obtained a marriage license from Massachusetts in September 2006, moved to Texas in 2008, and later that year J.B. demanded a no-fault divorce.

Although the plaintiffs said they were not looking to challenge the state ban on same-sex “marriage,” the trial court judge said the state’s ban on same-sex “marriage” and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) also violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

However, the Texas appeals court rejected those arguments, and ordered the trial court to reverse its decision, saying the standard of constitutional review for marriage was the “rational basis” test, not equal protection.

The Texas state court ruling strikes at the heart of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling on Proposition 8. Walker ruled that Prop. 8 had no “rational basis” for excluding homosexuals from marriage, and was built on “a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.”

The Texas court enumerated many reasons for the state having such a rational basis for restricting marriage to a man and a woman, which not only excludes same sex unions, but also polygamous ones.

“The persons singled out and favored by Texas’s marriage laws, namely opposite-sex couples, have such a distinguishing and relevant characteristic: the natural ability to procreate,” the court said.

“Thus, although a person’s sexual orientation does not affect his or her ability to contribute to society in general,” stated the decision, “it does bear on whether he or she will enter a relationship that is naturally open to procreation and thus trigger the state’s legitimate interest in child-rearing.”

The court also added that this rational basis for limiting marriage to heterosexual unions in no way concludes that homosexuals are “a suspect class.”

“Disparate treatment of different but similarly situated groups does not automatically violate equal protection.”

Furthermore, it concluded that Texas’s constitutional amendment on marriage does not “violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a provision never before construed as a charter for restructuring the traditional institution of marriage by judicial legislation.”

The Texas state court affirmed that it was “reasonable for the state to conclude that the optimal familial setting for the raising of children is the household headed by an opposite-sex couple.”

It continued, “The state also could have rationally concluded that children are benefited by being exposed to and influenced by the beneficial and distinguishing attributes a man and a woman individually and collectively contribute to the relationship.”

Statistically speaking abortion is the number one surgical procedure that women undergo in the United States, and most abortions are performed in the first trimester.

However in Virginia, as in many other places around the country, abortion facilities have often escaped the health and safety standards that are mandated for other medical facilities, such as hospitals, that engage in out-patient surgery.

Just recently, Louisiana corrected that problem by giving its Health Department the regulatory authority to shut down facilities that failed to live up to hospital health and safety standards.

But many abortion clinics in Virginia have operated under the law as “physician’s offices” rather than medical facilities. If the state follows Cuccinelli’s legal advice, that could soon change.

“It is my opinion that the Commonwealth has the authority to promulgate regulations for facilities in which first trimester abortions are performed as well as providers of first trimester abortions, so long as the regulations adhere to constitutional limitations,” Cuccinelli wrote in a legal opinion released Friday.

The opinion was written in response to an inquiry from Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Prince William) and Senator Ralph K. Smith (R-Roanoke), who asked whether the state had the authority to regulate facilities that perform 1st trimester abortions.

Cuccinelli pointed out that under Virginia statute, the definition of “hospital” can include abortion facilities because they fall within the Code’s broad definition of a “hospital.” In Virginia, a hospital is “any facility … in which the primary function is the provision of diagnosis, treatment, and of medical and nursing services, surgical or non-surgical, for two or more nonrelated individuals including … outpatient surgical [hospitals].”

He also pointed out that the Board of Health has already classified “abortion outpatient clinics” as outpatient hospitals, under its authority to classify hospitals.

“The attorney general’s comments on this issue points out to a real problem involving abortion practice in the United States, and that simply is that abortion across the United States is the single most commonly performed procedure on American women. And yet it does remain the most unregulated, underreported, and under-investigated of any form of medical care provided to American women,” Olivia Gans, President of the Virginia Society for Human Life, told LifeSiteNews.com. “So it is quite scandalous that women’s lives are literally hanging in the balance along with their children at these abortion provider’s hands.”

Cuccinelli also pointed out that abortion clinics may not be able to hide from the Board of Health’s regulations as “physicians’ offices,” since the Board has the authority to investigate that claim. He said that the Board of Medicine has broad authority to regulate all health practitioners in the state, and can therefore regulate standards of care in first trimester abortion facilities.

Cuccinelli also said that these positions had been upheld previously in federal court.

However, abortion advocates are protesting the attorney general’s opinion, arguing that if most abortion clinics carried out the same standards of care for women that are mandated at hospitals they soon would be out of business.

According to the Washington Post, abortion advocates predict that only four out of 21 abortion clinics would be able to fulfill that standard of care if mandated by the state Board of Health. The rest would be shut down.

Tarina Keene, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, cast Cuccinelli’s opinion as “his first pitch” to make abortion inaccessible.

“These so-called regulations are only an attempt to shut down abortion clinics in the Commonwealth of Virginia,” Keene told the Post.

Gans told LSN that while NARAL was often prone to “hyperbole,” “it is at time to time the case that serious and quite startling infractions of what would be normal medical practice and care are seriously violated in the practice of abortion.”

Gans added that the biggest reason that abortion facilities operate with “a cloak of invincibility” under the law is due to the confusion surrounding what states can and cannot do under current interpretations of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

“It does strike one as astonishing that NARAL would reject every effort to protect the lives and well-being of the women who are actually seeking abortions, as often as they reject any measure that would ultimately also protect the unborn child,” said Gans. “One has to ask who is NARAL or NOW or Planned Parenthood or any of these pro-abortion groups supportive of? And it appears too often that they are protecting the interests of the abortionists and not the children and their mothers.”