Why pro-life candidates should be elected in the 2016 election and why Hillary Clinton should not be elected as President

Getting a pro-life president elected, electing more pro-life U.S. representatives, and electing more pro-life U.S. Senators in the upcoming 2016 election are all needed in order to get abortion-on-demand outlawed in the United States. These pro-life candidates for political office should let voters know that they will help women who are in crisis pregnancies by providing them easier access to prenatal medical care, obstetric medical care, and postpartum medical care through healthcare providers who are not in the business of performing abortions and in a loving and caring manner. In addition, these pro-life candidates should let voters know that they will ensure that low-income women will continue to have access to legitimate gynecological medical care that does not involve the killing of unborn children in the event that abortion providers lose government funding or in the event that abortion becomes illegal.

The pro-life strategy that should be undertaken by politicians in the United States should involve more than simply outlawing abortion, and should include the following components:

  • Ensuring that pregnant women have access to prenatal medical care and obstetric medical care through providers that are not in the business of performing abortions
  • Improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance, pro-life prenatal medical care, and obstetric medical care for women who are in crisis pregnancies
  • Providing pregnant women who are unable to work due to a complication of a pregnancy with access to unemployment benefits and medical coverage during the remainder of her pregnancy
  • Letting pregnant women who do not want to take care of their children after birth know that there are couples who really want to adopt these children and who will take care of these children in a loving and caring manner
  • Making it easier for pregnant women who do not want to take care of their children after birth to give up these children for adoption
  • Cutting government funding to abortion providers, including but not limited to Planned Parenthood
  • Increasing taxpayer funding to healthcare providers that provide prenatal medical care and obstetric medical care to women who are in crisis pregnancies and that are not in the business of performing abortions
  • Increasing taxpayer funding to pro-life crisis pregnancy centers who are not in the business of providing abortions

The above strategy will reduce the demand for abortion in the United States and will send the message that there is hope for pregnant women who are in desperate situations. In addition, the above pro-life strategy will also address the problem of the infanticide of newborn babies who are unwanted by their mothers. Furthermore, this approach will lead to an increased respect for human life in the United States.

Hillary Clinton, who has already announced that she will be running for President in 2016, clearly supports keeping abortion legal. While she has recently said that she will reduce the abortion rate in the United States by half, she will likely fail to implement the policies that are needed to reduce the demand for abortion in this country. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton has also recently said that religious beliefs that prohibit abortion need to be changed, but these religious beliefs cannot be changed because abortion by its very nature constitutes the killing of an innocent human being, is always an intrinsically evil act, is always gravely evil in the eyes of God, always offends against the sanctity of human life, and always violates natural moral law. Hillary Clinton should not be elected as President of the United States because she will promote policies that will keep abortion legal in the United States, because she will fail to take the measures that are needed to reduce the demand for abortion in the United States, and because she will attempt to impose her own personal beliefs on religions, religious denominations, and churches in the United States if she is elected President of the United States.

If a pro-life presidential candidate wins in the 2016 United States presidential election and if more pro-life candidates are elected into the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives in the 2016 Election, pro-life policies that would encourage women in crisis pregnancies to choose life instead of abortion will likely be implemented and more pro-life laws will likely be enacted at the federal level. In addition, a pro-life president will likely appoint additional pro-life justices to the United States Supreme Court that might be willing to reverse the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. Furthermore, the 115th United States Congress must enact legislation that will help women in crisis pregnancies choose life for their unborn children, including providing these women with access to quality pro-life prenatal medical care, making it easier for women who do not want to take care of their children after birth to give up their children for adoption, and defunding abortion providers who are primarily in the business of performing abortions, including but not limited to Planned Parenthood.

There are few important things that voters who are eligible to vote in the upcoming 2016 Election need to know regarding the abortion issue, and here are some of the things that voters must know regarding the abortion issue:

  • Women are usually able to prevent unplanned, unwanted, or unintended pregnancies from occurring by choosing to completely abstain from sexual activity.
  • The vast majority of pregnancies that are aborted in the United States were conceived as a result of consensual sexual intercourse and these pregnancies could have been prevented in the first place if these women had chosen to completely abstain from sexual activity.
  • The vast majority of abortions that are being performed at abortion clinics in the United States are being performed for purposes other than the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • Many of the pregnant women who are seeking abortions are only willing to do so if it is legal and readily available.
  • If abortion is outlawed in the United States, most of the women who are in crisis pregnancies will not seek an illegal back-alley abortion, despite the popular claim that women will resort to illegal back-alley abortions if abortion is outlawed.
  • The majority of pregnant women who are choosing to end a pregnancy through an abortion are choosing to do so because they feel that they would be unable to take care of their unborn children after birth.
  • Most of the women who are seeking to end pregnancies through abortion would not have chosen to end a pregnancy through an abortion if they were provided with the necessary support to choose life for their unborn children.
  • Improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance, quality pro-life prenatal medical care that does not involve the performance of abortion, and unemployment benefits for women who are unable to work because of a complication of pregnancy will reduce the demand for abortion.
  • Some of the newborn children who are unwanted by their biological parents are being killed through infanticide in the United States, despite the availability of legal abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States.
  • Implementing pro-life policies that reduce the demand for abortion in the United States will also reduce the likelihood that newborn children who are unwanted by their biological parents are killed through after-birth infanticide.
  • Human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings and were so since the moment of fertilization, and as such should have a legally protected right to life, regardless of whether these unborn human beings are wanted by their parents.
  • Abortion should be outlawed in the United States, but it should be done through an approach that will encourage women who are in crisis pregnancies to choose life for their unborn children.

The flaws of the arguments made by reproductive rights advocates who support legal abortion

Some of the reproductive rights advocates do believe that abortion should be legal at all costs, despite efforts to impose additional regulations on the abortion industry and despite efforts to enact prohibitions on late-term abortion. However, there are flaws in the arguments that are being made by reproductive rights advocates who support legalized abortion-on-demand.

Here are some of the flaws in the arguments being made by reproductive rights advocates who support legal abortion-on-demand:

  • The arguments made by abortion rights advocates often fail to take into account the fact that abortion involves the killing of an unborn human being, but some of the supporters of abortion rights have already openly admitted that abortion does involve the killing of an unborn human being.
  • These reproductive rights advocates often argue that the decision to undergo an abortion should be a private decision between the mother and the doctor. Nevertheless, the government should have some say in the matter because an abortion involves the killing of an unborn child, because an abortion affects persons other than the mother and the doctor including the unborn child who is being aborted and the father of the aborted child, because neither the doctor nor the mother are above the law, because both the doctor and the mother are always subject to the law, because the medical profession and abortion industry are both subject to legitimate regulation by the government, and because the government has a legitimate interest in protecting pregnant women against the dangers that might result if a pregnancy is ended through an abortion.
  • It is frequently argued by abortion rights advocates that women should have a right to do whatever she wants with her own body, but abortion is by its very nature a life or death matter that involves the killing of a separate unborn human being. In addition, even though a woman generally has a legal right to undergo an abortion or to use birth control, there are laws that restrict what a woman can do with her own body, including but not limited to laws that prohibit the abuse of illegal drugs.
  • Even though reproductive rights advocates often argue that men should not have any say on the matter of abortion, men can and should have a say on the matter on abortion because pregnant women who are seeking to end their pregnancies through abortion are often placed in such a position by the choices made by the men who had gotten them pregnant, because men were involved in the decisions that legalized abortion and birth control in the United States, because abortion does affect the fathers of the unborn children who are being aborted, and because most of the men and women who oppose abortion do so because they believe that abortion constitutes the killing of an unborn human being.
  • Most reproductive rights advocates who support abortion often argue that enacting bans on abortion would cause women to lose access to essential health care, but abortion does not normally constitute essential health care because most pregnant women are able to safely their pregnancies to term with proper medical care and because the vast majority of abortions are performed for purposes other than preventing the death of the mother or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the mother. In addition, women would still have access to prenatal care, obstetric care, and gynecological medical care at healthcare providers who are not in the business of performing abortions if abortion becomes illegal.
  • While it is often argued by reproductive rights advocates that lives of pregnant women would be put in danger if abortion is outlawed, the lives of most pregnant women would not be in danger if abortion became illegal. In addition, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, an advocate for abortion rights, had already admitted prior to the legalization of abortion in the United States that it is very rare that an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother. Furthermore, several abortionists have openly admitted that abortion is not needed to save the life of the mother, despite arguments to the contrary being made by abortion rights advocates, pro-abortion politicians, and pro-abortion judges.
  • While abortion rights advocates frequently claim that abortion is safe for women, many women who have undergone an abortion have suffered physical and emotional harm as a result of a prior abortion. In addition, there are cases where women have suffered serious complications as a result of a legal abortion, and there have even been cases where women have died as a result of a legal abortion.
  • The arguments being made in favor of keeping abortion legal often fail to take into account the dangers that abortion procedures pose to the health of the women who undergo abortions.
  • Planned Parenthood, who is the nation’s largest abortion organization and is one of the most prominent advocates of abortion rights in the United States, is willing to lie about the dangers of abortion procedures in order to get additional abortion business that it would not otherwise receive, and these lies have been exposed through an undercover investigation performed by Live Action back in 2012.
  • Even though it is frequently argued that women will resort to illegal back-alley abortions if abortion is outlawed, most of the women who are in crisis pregnancies would be personally unwilling to end a pregnancy through an abortion if abortion becomes illegal and most of the women who are seeking an abortion are only willing to do so if it is legal and readily available.
  • Despite what is argued by reproductive rights advocates and despite a perceived need for abortion by women who are in desperate situations, many of the abortions that are being performed in the United States would not be necessary if these women had easier access to prenatal care through healthcare providers that do not perform abortions, if these women were given the support needed to carry their pregnancies to term, if these women are offered the assistance needed to give up their babies for adoption in the event that they do not want to take care of their unborn child after birth, and if these women were given the help needed to raise their children after birth in the event that their babies are not given up for adoption.
  • The vast majority of abortions that are performed in the United States involve unplanned, unintended, or unwanted pregnancies that are the result of consensual sexual intercourse, and these unplanned, unintended, or unwanted pregnancies could have been avoided in the first place if these women did not choose to engage in sexual intercourse, despite claims that these women are incapable of abstaining from sexual activity.
  • Even though reproductive rights advocates often argue that women need to have a right to abortion in order to complete their educations or to have successful careers, some of the women who had children prior to completing their education have been able to successfully complete their education and some of the women with children have been able to have successful careers. In addition, a woman who is unwilling to sacrifice her education opportunities or her career in the event of an unplanned pregnancy is usually able to avoid an unplanned pregnancy and is usually able to avoid having to be in position where she feels that she has to have an abortion by choosing to completely abstain from sexual intercourse.
  • While most of the women who undergo an abortion are aware that an abortion does end a pregnancy and while most of these same women are also aware that abortion will result in the death of a fetus, some of the women who are seeking an abortion are not fully aware of the gruesome reality behind abortion and some of these women would not have sought an abortion if they were aware of the gruesome reality of abortion.
  • Abortion rights advocates and the abortion industry often attempt to conceal the gruesome reality behind abortion in order to make abortion appear to be attractive to those who support abortion rights and to the women who are seeking to end pregnancies through abortion.
  • Abortion clinics often misrepresent the facts regarding fetal development to prospective patients so that they will not be deterred into undergoing an abortion. Live Action has conducted undercover investigations that show that Planned Parenthood employees will lie about the facts of fetal development so that they can get more abortion business.
  • Pregnant women who do not want an abortion and who obtain medical care at abortion providers are often coerced into having abortions that they do not want because these abortion providers really want to do as many abortions as they can and really want to make as much money as they can, despite widespread opposition to this kind of coercion by the majority of Americans and despite the popular claim by abortion rights advocates that a woman should have a right to choose whether or not to end her pregnancy through an abortion.
  • Even though pro-lifers are opposed to keeping abortion legal, most pro-lifers do support legitimate reproductive medical care that does not entail the performance of an abortion. Furthermore, the laws that these pro-lifers support do not prohibit licensed obstetricians, gynecologists, and urologists from providing legitimate reproductive medical care that does not entail the performance of an abortion.
  • Abortion rights advocates in the United States often argue in favor of keeping abortion legal on the assumption that Roe v. Wade will not be reversed and on the assumption that an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows states and Congress to enact bans on abortion will not be ratified. However, the United States Supreme Court has already admitted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” and this admission will probably lead to the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in a future United States Supreme Court case on the issue of abortion.

If more people become aware of the flaws of the arguments that are being made by reproductive rights advocates who support legal abortion, support for keeping abortion legal in the United States would decrease. In addition, the demand for keeping abortion legal can be further reduced by providing pro-life assistance to women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or unintended pregnancies in a loving and caring manner.

Prohibitions on same-sex marriage should not be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court should not force the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage through a Supreme Court decision in which prohibitions on same-sex marriage are declared to be unconstitutional, even if some of the justices of the United States Supreme Court personally believe that same-sex marriage should be legal nationwide. Similar to what happened when abortion-on-demand was legalized nationwide in the United States, forcing the legalization of same-sex marriage through a United States Supreme Court decision will lead to increased support for same-sex marriage in the United States, will lead to an increased willingness to enter into same-sex marriages by homosexual persons who are in a same-sex romantic relationship, and will lead to an increase in the number of children who are raised in same-sex households as a result of the increase in same-sex marriages that would occur if it is legalized nationwide through a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Even though some of the supporters of same-sex marriage claim that a ban on same-sex marriage constitutes discrimination against homosexual persons, a prohibition of same-sex marriage does not constitute discrimination against homosexual persons because the prohibitions on same-sex marriage apply to all persons and not only to homosexual persons, because non-homosexual persons do not have the right to same-sex marriage in places where it is illegal, because the prohibitions on same-sex marriage are equally applicable to all persons in places where same-sex marriage is illegal without exception, and because homosexual persons who are not legally married have a legal right to contract a marriage with a person of the opposite gender. A ban on same-sex marriage can only constitute discrimination against homosexual persons when two non-homosexual persons of the same gender have a legal right to enter into a same-sex marriage but two homosexual persons of the same gender do not have a legal right to enter into a same-sex marriage, but there is no support for this kind of discrimination.

Traditional marriage, or marriage between a man and a woman, has existed in many cultures throughout the world for thousands of years. There are still many individuals throughout the world who still adhere to the traditional belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman who love each other, despite increased support for legalizing same-sex marriage in Western countries. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman is materially different from same-sex marriage, and the fact that same-sex marriages are between two persons of the same gender and traditional marriages are always between a man and a woman is not the only material difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Because there are many material differences between traditional marriages and same-sex marriages, the law should uphold the traditional definition of marriage, which is defined as a legally recognized union between a man and a woman. In addition, the legalization of same-sex marriage will destroy traditional beliefs that have been deeply upheld by many individuals, many cultures, and many religions throughout the world for thousands of years.

Although the legalization of same-sex marriage will give same-sex couples legal rights that were previously restricted to couples who are in legally recognized traditional marriages, traditional marriage is a substantially different reality from same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are always incapable of having biological children together, but some of the couples who are in traditional marriages are able to have biological children together. Additionally, same-sex marriages by their very nature deprive children who are raised by a same-sex married couple of at least one of their biological parents because children who are raised in same-sex marriages always have a biological parent who is of the gender that is opposite that of the same-sex couple and who is not a party to the same-sex marriage. Furthermore, a traditional marriage is intended to be consummated through an act of marital relations that is open to the conception of a new child, but same-sex marriages are incapable of being properly consummated because same-sex couples are incapable of engaging in sexual acts between each other that can result in the conception of a new child.

There are some homosexual persons in the United States who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, and not every person who suffers from same-sex sexual attraction is willing to enter into a same-sex marriage. In addition, some of the individuals who have previously suffered from same-sex sexual attraction did end up in a successful marriage with a person of the opposite gender. It is often possible for individuals who suffer from same-sex sexual attraction to overcome such an attraction with appropriate help. The individuals who are supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States are sending the wrong message to those who are suffering from same-sex sexual attraction because the supporters of same-sex marriage fail to take into account that there is hope for those individuals who are suffering from unwanted same-sex sexual attraction.

A decision by the United States Supreme Court that legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide will have many bad consequences for American society. Like what happened when abortion was legalized nationwide as a result of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, there will be increased support for keeping same-sex marriage legal in the United States following a Supreme Court decision that legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide, and the support for legalized same-sex marriage in the United States will continue to exist for decades if it is legalized nationwide through a United States Supreme Court decision. In addition, the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage will lessen the incentive for individuals who suffer from same-sex sexual attraction to obtain help in overcoming such an attraction, will lead to an increased demand for assisted reproductive technologies by same-sex couples, will lead to more children being adopted by same-sex couples, and will deprive more children of at least one of their biological parents. Such a decision will also ultimately lead to the destruction of the traditional family structure in the United States as a result of the increase in the number of same-sex marriages that would exist subsequent to the nationwide legalization through a United States Supreme Court decision as well as an increase of the number of children who would be raised in same-sex households.

Mothers should not be held criminally liable for miscarriages and stillbirths under anti-feticide laws

Even though the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions should be reversed and abortion should be outlawed in the United States, a mother should not be held criminally liable simply because her child was miscarried or stillborn. In order to hold the mother criminally liable for the death of a baby who was not born alive, the prosecution should be required by law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of the baby was caused by the voluntary commission of a criminal offense by the mother, that the criminal offense was committed with the knowledge that the conduct would result in the death of her unborn child, that the unborn child was not killed against the will of the mother, and that the death is not the result of a legal abortion.

The primary purpose of anti-feticide laws or fetal homicide laws is to hold an individual who causes the death of an unborn child through an act of violence against his or her mother responsible for the death of the unborn child in addition to the act of violence against his or her mother. Legal abortion procedures are currently excluded from the applicability of these anti-feticide laws, and most of the states that have these anti-feticide laws also currently exclude the death of an unborn child that is caused by the conduct of his or her mother. Although the United States Supreme Court had decided that unborn children do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to life prior to birth in the Roe v. Wade case, an unborn child does have a legal right to be protected against being killed illegally against the will of his or her mother in some states under anti-feticide laws.

Purvi Patel was recently convicted under Indiana’s anti-feticide law as a result of the death of her unborn child. The majority of Americans do agree that a mother should not be arrested or subject to criminal prosecution simply because the pregnancy resulted in a miscarriage or stillbirth. Purvi Patel should not have been held criminally liable for the death of her child solely because of the death of her child, nor should she have been held criminally liable for her child’s death simply because she did not want to be pregnant. Law enforcement should have been required to establish probable cause showing that Purvi Patel had broken Indiana’s feticide law through evidence other than the dead body of her child prior to arresting her. In addition, Purvi Patel should not have been convicted under Indiana’s feticide law unless the criminal prosecution had actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she had actually violated Indiana’s anti-feticide law.

Although abortion, feticide, and infanticide should all be illegal, the law should protect the mother of a stillborn or miscarried baby from being arrested or criminally prosecuted solely on the basis of a pregnancy that ended in a natural miscarriage or in a stillbirth, even in cases where such a pregnancy was unplanned or unwanted by the mother. In addition, appropriate support should be given to women who have grieved the loss of an aborted, miscarried, or stillborn child, and those women who are in unplanned or unwanted pregnancies should be encouraged to have their babies and should be given the necessary support to do so.