God's Miraculous Hand in Missouri's HB 126 8 Week Abortion Ban

Nine years ago, April 29, 2010, I suffered a traumatic miscarriage. It was a turning point for me personally in my stand for life. Before that event, I had been pro-life, but I had never shed a single tear over the issue of abortion. I knew in my heart and mind that abortion was wrong and grieved God’s heart, and I had been leading Bound4LIFE St. Louis with my husband for several years.

This event in my life was the thing that finally broke my heart and showed me a glimpse of the Father’s heart for the unborn. It was this experience that opened the flood gates for me and brought the tears. It was also shortly after going through this that I got pregnant. It is always challenging to have hope and faith in God for a different outcome after going through loss and disappointment. I knew I wouldn’t make it through the pregnancy without a word from God, a promise that I could stand on.

God brought me to a scripture that is now my life verse and what I cling to during trying times.

Psalm 126:5-6:

“Those who sow with tears WILL reap with songs of JOY. Those who go out weeping, carrying seed to sow, will return with songs of joy, carrying sheaves with them.”

These verses would not have been as meaningful to me before the miscarriage because I didn’t know what it meant “sow in tears,” that concept was foreign to me. So that’s what I have done for nine years. I have stood at my kitchen sink, on the sidewalk outside abortion clinics and courthouses, and in our prayer room and shed tears as I have prayed for LIFE in my state, and asked God to release the harvest of joy. In many ways, I have been pregnant with this promise of a harvest of joy for nine years! It’s the longest pregnancy ever!

Then in February 2019, I happened to be at our state capitol with another pro-life organization on the day that House Bill 126 passed the Missouri House of Representatives. It was a momentous occasion. This bill is a sweeping pro-life piece of legislation that would ban abortions at eight weeks, among other things. It is known as the strongest pro-life bill in the nation! However, the most defining thing about this piece of legislation was that it was 126th bill filled in this session. God was speaking of my promise, and I knew it immediately!

We continued to follow the progress of the bill as it made its way through our Senate. At the end of April, I had three dreams in the span of a week, and a dear friend had another that we felt were clearly from God. In my dreams, I was pregnant and giving birth; in each one, there was an obstacle in the way of the baby being born. In my friend’s dream, I was also pregnant and had given birth to a baby we named “Steady Endurance.” We took all these dreams to the Lord in prayer and asked for a revelation of what He was speaking so we could pray in line with God’s will for our state. With each of my dreams, I woke up during the hour of 4 am. We felt this was a strategic prayer assignment and felt led to cover the hour of 4 am in prayer.

In partnership with a local House of Prayer, we had a small band of prayer warriors commit to get up and pray at 4 am, two people each day the Senate was in session. Along the way, God was speaking to us through His word and encouraging us to keep going! We committed to the prayer strike until the bill passed, and it ended up lasting three weeks. On May 16th, the last day of our scheduled prayer strike, at 4:01 am the Senate chamber announced that HB 126 had passed by a vote of 24-10! God, once again, was showing his faithfulness to His promises!

HB 126, banning abortions after the eighth weeks of pregnancy with no exception for rape or incest,  now heads to Governor Mike Parson’s desk, who is expected to sign it into law.

- Melissa Jacobs

Gorsuch Confirmation Hearings Highlight the Fact that Roe v. Wade is Unsettled Law

As I have attended and prayed through the first two days of confirmation hearings for Judge Neil Gorsuch, I have had a keen ear for all things discussed related to abortion. I think every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee has brought up Roe v. Waderepeatedly as a means to incite fear about this man’s appointment to the high court, even though Judge Gorsuch has never ruled on a case directly affecting abortion.

In the first half of Tuesday’s proceedings, an important pro-life judicial matter emerged that is certain to lead the American public to grapple with abortion matters in a fresh and new way.

Senator Feinstein asserted that Roe v. Wade enjoys a “super precedent” status in the judicial system. Her meaning was that in the times abortion-related matters have been challenged, Roe has survived. Judge Gorsuch simply affirmed that Roe v. Wade is, in fact, still on the books. The question is whether Feinstein and other pro-abortion Senators are right. Is Roe so settled that it can never be questioned again? Is it beyond challenge at this point?

The answer is, “Absolutely NOT!”

This isn’t the first time this kind of jargon has made an appearance in Supreme Court nominee hearings. In the hearings of Justice Roberts (2005) and Justice Alito (2006), the term “super duper precedent” was invoked. Back then, Senator Specter used the term with Roberts as they discussed the Court’s future approach to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Roberts didn’t take the bait to affirm such an illustrious status to those cases. He deftly acknowledged that their current precedent would be the starting point. Any theory of precedent that suggests those cases are beyond revisiting is highly questionable.

The point of using such a term is to dupe the public and other courts into not touching a “sacred” decision for the left. Feinstein is misleading Americans by dragging out this language yet again and for suggesting that Roe is settled. Roe is anything but settled law. 44 years of repeated challenges prove that Roe isn’t settled or possesses any super duper status.

Science is exposing truths about life in the womb that is inconvenient to lawmakers bent on protecting Roe. As I sat there listening to Senator Feinstein make her overreaching assertions, I couldn’t help but think about how new information has emerged in recent years that has the potential to dismantle the flawed logic on which Roe was based. In fact, this new evidence is already emboldening lawmakers and eroding Roe at an increasing rate. Make no mistake—Roe sits on shifting sand.

A short time later in the hearing, Senator Graham highlighted this very issue when he informed Judge Gorsuch that he is currently making the case in the Senate for a “pain capable” abortion ban. This piece of legislation, introduced in the House on January 3 as the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36), is based on the scientific medical evidence that we now know babies in the womb feel the excruciating pain of dismemberment as early as 20-weeks of development. Many note that this ability exists even sooner.

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was introduced in the House of Representative on January 3, 2017.

Senator Graham mentioned the new legislation and let Judge Gorsuch know that it will likely be coming before the Supreme Court in the future—presumably a court he would be seated on—when legal challenge is brought against it by pro-abortion antagonists.

The point is that abortion is anything but a settled issue in American society and culture. Roe rests on a viability argument that modern science is increasingly challenging. That’s why abortion activists work so hard to deny women information about life in the womb—science is against them.

Graham hypothetically pondered: what if in the future medical practice is able to sustain life outside the womb at an even earlier stage of development. Does new medical science affect the logic which Roe is built on?

The answer is, “Absolutely YES!”

Attorney Allan Parker clarifies this important perspective saying:

“Judge Gorsuch gracefully and accurately stated that a decided case of the Supreme Court should be given deference and is binding precedent until it is overturned by the Supreme Court under the doctrine of stare decisis.  But all opinions of the Supreme Court are subject to review and correction even under the doctrine of stare decisis.

When a case is no longer just, when facts and circumstances have changed to make the rule of the case unworkable, when a wrong decision has not been accepted by the American people, the case should be overruled. These are just a few of the reasons the Court uses for overturning their decisions.

The Supreme Court has overruled its own decisions on constitutional grounds over 200 times already. If the Court did not—or could not—then we would still have segregated “separate but equal” public schools because Plessy v. Ferguson was the ‘law of the land’ for 58 years until Brown v. Board of Education overruled it.”

The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a key focus of prayer for Bound4LIFE. Please join with us by contending in prayer for the passage of this impactful piece of legislation that is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans.

Read more about the unique way God led Bound4LIFE to pray for Judge Neil Gorsuch.

---

About Matt Lockett

As a full-time missionary, Matt Lockett serves as Executive Director of Bound4LIFE International and Justice House of Prayer DC. He travels and teaches on the subjects of prayer, fasting and governmental intercession—topics covered in his new book Prayer that Impacts the World. Matt and his wife Kim have four children. They live and minister in the Washington, DC area.

The Biggest Pro-Life Goal for 2017 is Halting U.S. Taxpayers’ Funding of Abortion

It’s been a whirlwind of activity since the inauguration, giving hope to pro-life advocates that our persevering prayers to end abortion will soon be answered. Now that a Constitutional champion has been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, we consider other key goals.

Halting government funding for abortion is a vital part of our strategy. When people pray outside abortion centers, we call it a Silent Siege. And when an army sieges a city, victory is only achieved when the supply lines of the enemy are cut off.

There are three major initiatives underway to get taxpayers out of the abortion business: restoring the Mexico City Policy, defunding abortion providers and making the Hyde Amendment permanent. Let’s consider each one—starting with one already realized!

More than 300,000 pro-life advocates made their voices heard at March for Life 2017 (Photo: Aaron Bernstein / Twitter)

President Trump made a significant stride in fulfilling his pro-life campaign promises when he reinstated the Mexico City Policy on his first Monday in office. This one executive order will halt $600 million U.S. tax dollars, over the next four years, from funding organizations overseas that promote and provide abortions.

President Ronald Reagan first signed the Mexico City Policy in 1984. Since then, Democratic presidents have repealed it soon after taking office—while Republicans have reinstated it as President Trump did. Yet success is always met with opposition.

Eight nations are now vowing to raise their own funding so there is no “gap” in providing and promoting abortion worldwide. The primary beneficiary of this funding will be the International Planned Parenthood Council, currently chaired by Alexander Sanger; he is the grandson of racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

Globally, pro-abortion groups are also turning to wealthy philanthropists. Bill and Melinda Gates, whose foundation does remarkable work stopping the spread of disease and educating underprivileged communities, have nonetheless been approached to fund “family planning”—including abortifacient forms of birth control.

Bill Gates seems to support the pro-abortion cause in a recent interview, saying, “When government leaves an area like [family planning], it can’t be offset, there isn’t a real alternative. This expansion of this policy, depending on how it’s implemented, could create a void that even a foundation like ours can’t fill.”

Perhaps his foundation should change its slogan to All Lives Have Equal Value (except in the womb). It’s tragic that pro-abortion philanthropists refuse to see their humanity. Clearly this issue of global abortion funding will continue to animate pro-choice activists.

Bound4LIFE team members pray silently at the Supreme Court, with the U.S. Capitol behind them (Photo via Bound4LIFE)

A second aspect of the President’s pro-life platform is to defund abortion providers. Current policies prevent the U.S. government from directly funding abortion services; however, by funding abortion providers, tax money continues to prop up its business.

The nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, currently receives $553 million dollars every year from U.S. taxpayers. Dr. Brent Boles, a practicing OB-GYN in Tennessee, has spent years scrutinizing Planned Parenthood and their practices after having to save young women from botched abortions in his medical office.

“The group plays an enormously profitable shell game with their finances,” Dr. Boles states in a recent post. “Planned Parenthood uses funds at least partially derived from U.S. taxpayers to promote, protect and advance their radical abortion agenda.”

If new legislation passes, groups taking innocent lives would no longer receive federal funding. But it will take more than one bill to achieve this goal.

President Trump, Speaker Paul Ryan and Vice President Mike Pence meet on Capitol Hill (Photo: Caleb Smith / Wikimedia)

This week, the U.S. House released its budget reconciliation bill—designed to fund federal government operations, which currently expire at the end of April. This bill has been paired with certain provisions to repeal and replace Obamacare.

Family Research Council provides an overview: “Congressional leaders agree with the importance of making sure this bill has rock solid pro-life protections. However, there is still a pro-life concern in the bill because it could allow funds from the refundable credits to pay for abortions in health savings accounts.”

Essentially, the reconciliation bill will halt 75 percent of public funding to abortion providers for one year. By tying the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the defunding of Planned Parenthood to this “must pass” bill, Republican congressional leadership hopes both have a greater chance of passing despite opposition.

Reconciliation bills only need a simple majority of Senators to pass, versus the usual three-fifths majority—and they are not subject to filibusters. The move eases their chances of passing the defunding measure, since Republicans have a 52-48 majority in the new Senate.

Planned Parenthood currently receives over $553 million in taxpayer funding every year (Photo: Wikimedia)

What about the other 25 percent of funding to abortion providers? It will take state-level efforts to halt those dollars. Since the release of investigative videos revealing Planned Parenthood practices, 24 states have attempted to halt Title X funding for the group—thus far, 15 have prevailed.

Two days before President Trump entered office, the Obama Administration instituted an administrative measure banning states from withholding federal dollars from groups that provide abortions. It’s a federal overreach that only makes sense in light of how the abortion industry funds Democratic candidates.

On February 16, 2017, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.J. Resolution 43 by a 230-188 vote to overturn this rule. Now the action on this bill goes to the Senate, which must pass S.J. Resolution 13 to reverse President Obama’s last-minute gift to Planned Parenthood.

States should have the freedom to exclude certain providers from receiving funding, especially in the case of Planned Parenthood when their unethical practices are actively under investigation.

Photo: American Life League / Flickr

The final aspect of preventing abortion funding gets a little technical, but it is nonetheless important: “codifying” or making permanent through legislation, the Hyde Amendment—a policy attached to every appropriations bill annually since 1976, ensuring that no taxpayer funds directly fund abortion services.

The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which already passed the U.S. House on January 24, would compel even future lawmakers to follow the path of life by making the Hyde Amendment permanent—instead of an annual renewal always debated.

Now the Senate version awaits a vote before President Trump can sign it into law. Pro-life leader Rep. Diane Black (R-Tennessee) provides an excellent explanation of why this policy matters in her speech on the House floor.

(Rep. Black Challenges Dems on Opposition to No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act)

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of pro-life advocacy group Susan B. Anthony List, recently said: “There’s never been a time, ever, when the muscle of the pro-life movement has been so strong.” Will that strength result in true pro-life policy change?

We must never let our successes be taken for granted, It’s paramount for all pro-life citizens to continue to fight and pray every step of the way. No voice should be silenced!

---

About Debby Efurd

Debby Efurd serves as president of Dallas-based Initiative 180 and its program of recovery, Peace After the Storm. She earned a bachelor’s degree in counseling from Dallas Baptist University. Debby is the author of Go Tell It! (which released in 2015) and a blogger for Bound4LIFE International, a grassroots movement to pray for the ending of abortion, carry the spirit of adoption, and believe for revival and reformation.

“Crime Against Humanity”: 9 Pro-Life Leaders React to Supreme Court Ruling on Texas Abortion Law

On June 27, in a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down two of the four provisions in HB 2—a Texas pro-life law that passed in 2013 by bipartisan majority vote. In a win for abortion providers who sued the State of Texas, the two provisions deemed unconstitutional by the high court established health and safety requirements for abortion practices.

Dozens stood silently in prayer outside the court, as hundreds of pro-life advocates gathered to await a decision on the Texas case.

Following the ruling, Matt Lockett leads a group in prayer and communion outside the Supreme Court (Photo: Josh Shepherd)

Several leaders involved directly in crafting and defending this law, many who have participated in the Texas Loves Life prayer coalition, react to the breaking news.

Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, Texas Legislator Who Authored Pro-Life Law HB 2

Outside the Supreme Court on March 2, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stands with State Rep. Jodie Laubenberg (center) and other leaders (Photo: Office of Ken Paxton / Twitter)

“This decision is bad news for women and a sad day for our nation,” said Representative Jodie Laubenberg, the Texas State legislator who authored HB 2. “Women deserve the same standard of care at abortion clinics as they would receive at a medical facility.”

“Obviously, the politics of abortion supersedes the health and safety for women,” she concluded. Her statement mirrors the disdain expressed in scathing dissenting opinionswritten by Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Alito stated in part: “The court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter.”

Matt Lockett, Executive Director of Bound4LIFE International

Matt Lockett (L) appears on the front page of USA Today on June 28, 2016 (Image via USA Today / Newseum)

“Much prayer and God-inspired activism were behind Texas’ common sense law HB 2. Therefore, I know there will be good fruit produced from it in spite of the Supreme Court’s nonsense ruling,” says Matt Lockett, who has been praying weekly (or, at times, daily) outside the U.S. Supreme Court since 2005.

“The ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt sends a clear message to America: This Supreme Court is willing to protect abortion at any costs—even at the expense of quality health care that women deserve. What a clear majority of Americans call ‘common sense,’ the Supreme Court has bent over backward to call ‘unnecessary.’ Women lost in this case, and that is an unacceptable tragedy.”

Yet Lockett has hope for the future. “Too many miracles occurred along the way for this to be so easily dismissed. I await with eager expectation to see what will develop next in the efforts to save lives and protect women. I enthusiastically ask again today, ‘Where do I sign up?’”

Christina Marie Bennett, Pro-Life Advocate Serving in Pregnancy Care Center

Christina Marie Bennett leads a pro-life rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court (Photo via Christina Bennett)

“As a woman of color whose people group is disproportionally affected by abortion, this decision is particularly disheartening,” said Christina Marie Bennett who has served for years at a pregnancy care center in Connecticut. “In an attempt to make abortion convenient, the Supreme Court is allowing women to pay the ultimate cost by sacrificing their safety and dignity.”

Bennett, who led a pro-life rally for this case outside the Supreme Court on March 2, continues: “In today’s decision, the Supreme Court chose access to abortion services over quality care for women. The safety regulations for abortion clinics protected women from abuse at the hand of a multi-billion dollar industry that profits from their painful circumstances. The common sense regulations for abortionists—to have admitting privileges to hospitals—ensured women received continuity of care.”

“Lest we forget, Texas’ HB 2 law was a response to the Philadelphia grand jury’s report during the trial of former abortionist Kermit Gosnell. In order to prevent further mistreatment of women, the grand jury suggested responsible and reasonable regulations. Those regulations were wrongly struck down today. Women deserve better and the Supreme Court has failed them with their decision.”

Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America

Outside the Supreme Court, Kristan Hawkins leads a pro-life rally on June 27, 2016 (Photo: Students for Life of America)

After leading a pro-life rally outside the Supreme Court today, Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America spoke out in a brief interview: “Women lost today. The Supreme Court decided that the right to abortion is more important than keeping women safe and alive. They’ve ruled that states don’t have the rights to protect half their citizens. This is, once again, five unelected judges politicizing this human rights issue which is a travesty.”

Hawkins, whose network recently marked the launch of its 1000th local campus group, continues, “We’ve got to keep praying, because we don’t know how the Lord is working. We don’t know what His plan is. Even though today’s decision was a devastating blow—more women and children will suffer because of it—we know God ultimately has a plan and He is in control. We can do what He’s called us to do; we can be faithful to that.”

“We are changing our culture,” she says. “The majority of Americans agree with these common sense laws. We’re releasing polling data this week that shows 53 percent of millennials are in favor of making abortion illegal in all or most cases. This is huge. We’ve seen the tide turn; the problem is, we have antiquated thinkers in Washington, DC who’ve been here since the 1970’s and probably still haven’t seen an ultrasound. Laws are downstream from culture, so we still have hope.”

Jonathan Saenz, President of Texas Values

Jonathan Saenz with Nicole Hudgens (R) and Christiana Holcomb outside the Supreme Court (Photo: Josh Shepherd)

“Our main concern is the protection of innocent life and Texas women,” states attorney Jonathan Saenz who leads the Austin-based group Texas Values. “We will continue to stand for women to keep them safe so they are not maimed or die in abortion clinics.”

“Even though the number of abortions and abortion clinics in Texas are already declining due to women choosing life and public opinion growing in support of the value of the human child in the womb, the Supreme Court is attempting to control the ability of Texas leaders to keep women safe,” says Saenz.

He continues, “We want to specifically thank HB 2 bill authors Rep. Jodie Laubenberg and Comptroller Glenn Hegar, Gov. Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Solicitor General Scott Keller for their leadership in defending this important law. This effort to protect the life of women and children is far from over.”

Dr. Alveda King, Director of Civil Rights for the Unborn

Dr. Alveda King, niece of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., leads a pro-life prayer gathering (Photo: Aaron Wong)

“This decision will hurt women and kill babies. The Supreme Court and the abortion industry cannot serve the public by killing the public. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere!” stated Dr. Alveda King, echoing her uncle Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She serves as director of Civil Rights for the Unborn, affiliated with Priests for Life.

“In the end, natural law, God’s law will always trump common law. Don’t be misled—you cannot mock the justice of God. You will always harvest what you plant,” continued Dr. King, citing Galatians 6:7. “Do not fear or be confused or deceived. Remain prayerful. Keep looking up. God will have the final word in this matter.”

Allan Parker, Attorney Working on Behalf of Women Harmed by Abortion

Allan Parker serves as President of The Justice Foundation based in San Antonio, Texas (Photo: Josh Shepherd)

President of The Justice Foundation based in San Antonio, Texas, Allan Parker has been engaged in pro-life legal advocacy for over 20 years. His public interest legal group submitted an amicus brief in the Texas case on behalf of 3,348 women injured by abortion.

“Having represented the ‘Roe’ of Roe v. Wade and the ‘Doe’ of Doe v. Bolton, in their efforts to overturn their own cases, which the Supreme Court refused to even hear, I believe today the Supreme Court committed another crime against humanity,” said Allan Parker, referencing his legal clients Norma McCorvey and the late Sandra Cano. “With the Texas decision, more women will suffer physical and psychological injuries and death from abortion.”

Parker is also a man of great faith, as evidenced by his statement which continues, “Without massive repentance, America is doomed as a nation. But God is still saying, ‘America, return to me and I will return to you.’ Time is very short. The abolitionists called the Dred Scott decision a ‘covenant with death and an agreement with the grave’ based on Isaiah 28, words that still ring true today.”

“His Word states in Isaiah 28:18: ‘Your covenant with death will be annulled, your agreement with the grave will not stand.’ We will continue to speak up for the poor and helpless, both women and children, and see that they get justice.”

Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life

Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, speaks at a pro-life summit prior to the annual march on January 22, 2016 (Photo: Aaron Wong for Bound4LIFE International)

“Being pro-life means wanting what is best for women and babies,” begins Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life, in reacting to the decision. “The Texas law was in the best interest of women’s health. Because of the decision today, beauty parlors, veterinarian clinics and public pools will be held to higher sanitary and health standards than abortion clinics.”

“As president of an organization that works for a culture where abortion is unthinkable, my hope is that no woman would choose abortion. But can’t we agree to care about safety and health standards?” Mancini asks, backed by her decade of experience defending women’s lives and health.

“For years, abortion advocates have equated greater access to abortion with improving women’s health. In doing so they have advocated for substandard health regulations. This is not pro-woman. Women and babies are the real losers of today’s decision,” she concludes.

Dr. Michael New, Associate Scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute

Michael New, Ph.D. has lectured at Notre Dame and served as a research fellow at Harvard (Photo via Dr. Michael New)

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is both a disappointment and a setback for pro-lifers,” says Michael New, Ph.D., who teaches at Ave Maria University and authors research analysis at Charlotte Lozier Institute, a think tank committed to principles of human dignity. “After the Kermit Gosnell trial in 2013, I do not know how any serious person could think that abortion clinics need less regulation.”

“Furthermore Justice Breyer’s majority opinion is poorly argued. He claims that in the aftermath of HB 2, abortion would only be available in Texas cities. However, in many states, the only abortion clinics are located in cities. That is not unique to Texas. He also claims abortion is a safe procedure. However, reporting of abortion deaths and injuries is very weak—partly because clinics are so poorly regulated.”

“In light of this decision I would like to offer pro-lifers some encouragement,” New shares from his years of pro-life policy work. “Very often the judiciary has struck down pro-life legislation. However, in light of these decisions pro-life legislators have been able to re-draft legislation in such a way so that subsequent versions were upheld by the court. This was the case with partial-birth abortion bans, parental involvement laws, and informed consent laws. A revised version of HB 2 may well be upheld.”

“Overall, pro-lifers should hold their heads high. Every year, abortions are going down, more people identify as pro-life, and more states are enacting pro-life legislation. Today was a setback, but future victories await pro-lifers!”

---

About Josh Shepherd

Josh M. Shepherd serves as communications manager at Bound4LIFE International – a pro-life movement driven by prayer and advocacy. He previously worked on staff at The Heritage Foundation and Focus on the Family. He earned a degree in Business Marketing from the University of Colorado. Josh and his wife Terri live in the Washington, DC area.