U.S. states and territories should be allowed to outlaw abortion

Even though U.S. states and territories are not currently allowed to enact outright bans on abortion because of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, U.S. states and territories should be allowed to outlaw abortion because unborn children have a right to life that is universal, fundamental, and unalienable under natural law and because abortion by its very nature involves an attempt to bring about the death of an unborn child. In addition to depriving unborn children of the right to life, the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions have led to the deaths of over 57 million unborn children, the legalization of abortion for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States, taxpayer funding of abortion in the United States, an increased willingness to end unplanned, unwanted, or unintended pregnancies through a legal abortion, an increase in the overall abortion rate in the United States following the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, and a decreased respect for human life in the United States. Outlawing abortion in the United States will protect the right to life of unborn children and will lead to an increased respect for human life in the United States.

South Dakota has recently petitioned the United States Supreme Court to revisit the Roe v. Wade decision and to have the Roe v. Wade decision overturned. Other states should follow South Dakota’s lead and support efforts to either have Roe v. Wade reversed through a United States Supreme Court decision or to enact an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow states and territories to outlaw abortion. If enough states are willing to outlaw abortion, then it would certainly be possible to outlaw abortion in a constitutionally permissible manner in the United States because the United States Supreme Court would face pressure from states to uphold laws that prohibit abortion and also because enough states would probably be willing to ratify an amendment the United States Constitution if such is needed to allow abortion to be outlawed in the United States.

While U.S. Congress and some of the state legislatures have recently undertaken efforts to reduce the abortion rate, to defund Planned Parenthood, and to prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization on the grounds of fetal pain, there are a few things that are standing in the way of allowing the prohibition of abortion in U.S. states and territories. First, there are some Americans who still believe that abortion should remain legal. Second, some of the state legislatures in the United States are currently unwilling to outlaw abortion. Third, there are currently politicians in United States Congress who are opposed to prohibiting abortion. Fourth, the United States Supreme Court currently has at least four justices that are opposed to reversing the Roe v. Wade decision and a fifth justice that might uphold the Roe v. Wade decision. Fifth, there is strong opposition to laws that prohibit abortion by abortion providers. Furthermore, while most Americans do know that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, many Americans do not fully understand what the ramifications of Roe v. Wade are. Finally, most of the Americans who still support legalized abortion have been misguided as a result of the legalization of abortion in the United States, the Roe v. Wade decision, and pro-abortion politics.

In addition to making it constitutionally possible for states and territories to outlaw abortion, pro-life politicians should also support efforts to improve access to pro-life prenatal medical care for women who are in crisis pregnancies, to ensure that children who are born as a result of crisis pregnancies are properly taken care of, to ensure that taxpayer funding is spent on providing women in crisis pregnancies with pro-life medical care instead of paying for abortions, and that former abortion industry workers can obtain good paying jobs outside of the abortion industry. These additional measures will reduce the demand for abortion in the United States and sends the positive message that pro-life politicians actually do care about the women who are in crisis pregnancies and the children who are born as a result of crisis pregnancies. There is still hope for making it constitutionally possible for states and territories to outlaw abortion if more pro-life politicians who are willing to do much more than simply outlaw abortion are elected in the United States.

Advertisements

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court, even if it leads to the closure of abortion clinics in the state of Texas, because the Texas Legislature did not intend to prohibit abortion clinics who are compliant with the requirements of HB 2 from performing abortions prior to 20 weeks post-fertilization, abortions necessary to prevent the death or “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, other than a psychological condition” of the mother, or an abortion of an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. In addition, several of the regulations contained within HB 2 are constitutionally permissible because these provisions of HB 2 regulate abortion in a manner that is “reasonably related to maternal health” and because they do not prohibit abortion providers who are compliant with HB 2 from performing abortions.

The United States Supreme Court should decide that laws that prohibit or regulate abortion are constitutionally permissible, even though the United States previously declared state laws that prohibited abortion as being unconstitutional in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, because these laws further the legitimate governmental interests “in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” which had been acknowledged in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. In addition, the state has legitimate governmental interests not acknowledged in the Roe v. Wade case that justify the prohibition of abortion, including but not limited to a legitimate governmental interest in protecting unborn children against pain that might be felt during an abortion, a legitimate governmental interest in protecting unborn children against irreversible harm that might result from an attempted abortion that fails to result in the death of the unborn child, and a legitimate governmental interest in deterring infanticide.

One of the major reasons why abortion providers in Texas are seeking to have HB 2 declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court is that some of the pregnant women who reside in the state of Texas and who are seeking to end pregnancies through an abortion would be deprived of the opportunity to have an abortion if HB 2 is upheld by the United States Supreme Court. However, a law that regulates or prohibits abortion does not become unconstitutional simply because of opposition by the abortion industry since these laws can be constitutionally permissible if these laws are not prohibited by the United States Constitution and if proper procedure was followed by the legislature and the governor in passing these laws. In addition, the United States Supreme Court should uphold HB 2 if it determines that the provisions of HB 2 are permitted under the United States Constitution, even if there is opposition to HB 2 by Texas abortion providers.

The majority of pregnant women who are seeking to end their pregnancies through an abortion choose to do so because they do not want to take care of their unborn children after birth. Having an abortion and raising the child on her own after birth are not the only options available for a woman who is in an unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy because she also has the option to give up her unborn child for adoption if she does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth. In addition, the denial of an abortion to a pregnant woman who is in a unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy is not unreasonable if the mother is able to safely carry the pregnancy to the stage at which her unborn child is likely to be viable outside of the womb with proper medical care, if the mother is able to safely deliver her unborn child alive with proper medical care, if the mother has access to proper prenatal medical care, and if the mother is able to transfer legal custody, physical custody, and financial responsibility to another individual who can take care of her child after birth if she does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth. Furthermore, there is always the risk that a pregnant woman will not be able to abort a pregnancy that is already at the stage at which her unborn child is viable outside of the womb, even if abortion is perfectly legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy, because there is always the risk that she will go into labor prematurely.

Improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance for women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancies in the state of Texas would reduce the demand for abortions in the state of Texas. Additionally, improved access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance in the state of Texas will provide real help to pregnant women who would no longer have easy access to abortion if Texas HB 2 is upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court. Furthermore, the plan to improve access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance in the state of Texas should include improved access to pro-life prenatal medical care, unemployment assistance to pregnant women who are unable to work because of a complication of pregnancy, improved access to material assistance to a parent of a child who is born as a result of a unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy, and making it easier for a woman who does not want to take care of her child after birth to give up her child for adoption. Finally, improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance would send the positive message that abortion is not the only option for those women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancies.

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court, even if some women would be denied abortions as a result of upholding HB 2, because the need and the demand for abortions in the state of Texas can be reduced by improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance and by making it easier for a pregnant women who does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth to give up her child for adoption. Furthermore, the failure to uphold Texas HB 2 will unnecessarily endanger the lives and health of women who undergo abortions in the state of Texas. Finally, abortion providers who operate abortion clinics in the state of Texas are seeking to have HB 2 declared unconstitutional in order to increase their profits and to avoid the expense of having to upgrade their existing abortion clinics or to relocate to new abortion clinics that meet the new standards.

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.

Reasons why Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton should be reversed

Here are some of the reasons why the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions should be reversed, even if support for legalized abortion-on-demand still exists within the United States:

  • Unborn children are already human beings at the stage at which they are aborted, and as such do have a right to life that should never have been taken away from them, even when the unborn child is unwanted by his or her mother or the life or health of the mother is in danger.
  • Our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children and clearly did not intend to limit the right to life to persons who have been born. This position can be found in James Wilson’s Lectures on Law and in William Blackstone’s Commentaries.
  • Many Americans, including both opponents of legal abortion and supporters of legal abortion, do believe that abortion does constitute the killing of an unborn human being.
  • Some abortionists, abortion clinic owners, and abortion clinic employees have openly admitted that abortion does kill an unborn human being.
  • Some of the justices of the United States Supreme Court have admitted that abortion constitutes the killing of an unborn human being in at least seven different cases involving the issue of abortion that were decided after Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
  • Human life begins at the moment of fertilization, and as a result human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings. Because human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings, they have a right to life that should be legally protected, even when they are unwanted by their own biological mothers.
  • There are fetal homicide laws in some states that allow persons who cause the death of an unborn child through an act of violence against his or her mother to be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child as well as the act of violence against his or her mother, but these fetal homicide laws currently do not apply to the deaths of unborn children that result from legal abortions.
  • The right of an unborn child to be protected against being illegally killed against the will of his or her mother is already recognized under fetal homicide laws that exist in some states, and unborn children are already considered to be human beings for the purposes of these fetal homicide laws.
  • The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was the basis for the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, was never intended to preclude states from prohibiting abortion.
  • The United States Supreme Court never declared a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion prior to the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions on January 22, 1973, and this decision was made 104 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified.
  • 20 states had abortion bans that were enacted prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution that remained into effect until abortion was legalized nationwide during all nine months of pregnancy on January 22, 1973 as the result of the Roe v. Wade decision. The 14th Amendment was never intended to affect the constitutionality of the laws prohibiting abortion that existed in these 20 states, even though these laws were determined to be unconstitutional under the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings.
  • The Roe v. Wade decision, along with its companion decision Doe v. Bolton, have effectively legalized abortion-on-demand for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy within the United States by including a “health of the mother” exception requirement in the Roe trimester framework and by including a broad definition of “health of the mother” in the Doe v. Bolton decision, even though at least four of the United States Supreme Court justices involved in these two decisions did not intend to legalize abortion-on-demand.
  • In the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, the United States Supreme Court has failed to explain how a ban on late-term abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” is unconstitutional when a ban on late-term abortions would be constitutionally permissible when the abortion is not “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”.
  • The majority of Americans believe that abortion-on-demand should not be legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy, even though the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions have effectively made abortion-on-demand legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy.
  • The vast majority of abortions are not performed for the preservation of the life or health of the mother and are performed for the purposes of getting rid of an unborn child who is unwanted by his or her mother.
  • Most pregnant women are not willing to have an abortion simply because the life or health of the mother would be in danger if the pregnancy is carried to term.
  • Dr. Alan Guttmacher, who was president of Planned Parenthood back in 1967 and who was a supporter of legalized abortion, admitted back then that “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
  • The United States Supreme Court had already decided in the Roe v. Wade case that “For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
  • The government has various legitimate governmental interests that justify banning abortions of unborn children who are viable outside of the womb, including but not limited to protecting the right to life of unborn children, protecting unborn children against fetal pain that might arise as a result of a late-term abortion, deterring the commission of infanticide, and protecting unborn children against irreversible harm that might result if unborn children are born alive as a result of an attempted late-term abortion. These very same governmental interests even justify banning late-term abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • The inclusion of the requirement for an health of the mother exception in the Roe v. Wade ruling has led to the performance of medically unnecessary abortions and has resulted in actual harm to the health of women who have undergone abortions since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions.
  • In the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, the United States Supreme Court has already decided that “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting … the life of the fetus that may become a child.”
  • The United States Supreme Court did uphold a ban on partial-birth abortion through the intact dilation and extraction technique under the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in the Gonzales v. Carhart case, even though this ban did not include a health exception.
  • Over 57 million unborn babies have been killed as a result of abortion since January 22, 1973, when the United States decided Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
  • Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in the Roe v. Wade case, is now pro-life and supports the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision.
  • Sandra Cano, the plaintiff in the Doe v. Bolton case, was deprived of her due process rights in the Doe v. Bolton case because she was deprived of the opportunity to get her true story across before the United States Supreme Court.
  • The United States Supreme Court relied on false statements made by Sarah Weddington (the attorney who represented plaintiff Norma McCorvey in Roe v. Wade) and Margie Pitts Hames (the attorney who represented plaintiff Sandra Cano in Doe v. Bolton) in arriving at its final decision in both of these cases on January 22, 1973.
  • The principles of American justice were violated in both Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton because of the United States Supreme Court’s reliance of false statements in both of these cases and because of the violation of Sandra Cano’s due process rights in Doe v. Bolton.
  • The fact that the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings were arrived at in violation of the principles of American justice necessitate the reversal of both of these rulings, even if there is still support for a legal right to abortion in the United States.
  • Some women who have undergone an abortion will eventually regret their decision to have an abortion.
  • Many post-abortive women have suffered physical and emotional harm as a result of a previous abortion, and there have even been cases where women have died from the complications of an abortion.
  • Many of the issues that Sarah Weddington raised in the Roe v. Wade case could have been addressed without legalizing abortion on demand.
  • Women are able to abstain from sexual activity, and the laws prohibiting rape, statutory rape, incest, sexual activity between teachers and students, sexual activity between correctional officers and inmates, and prostitution are dependent on the ability to abstain from sexual activity.
  • Every unplanned pregnancy that is not the result of forcible rape could have been avoided if the pregnant woman had chosen to completely abstain from sexual activity.
  • Most of the abortions involve pregnancies that are the result of consensual sexual intercourse, and these pregnancies could have been avoided if the woman had chosen to completely abstain from sexual activity.
  • Most of the women who are seeking an abortion are only willing to have an abortion if abortion is legal and readily available.
  • The demand for both legal abortion and illegal abortion can be reduced by providing women who are in crisis pregnancies with the support needed to carry their pregnancies to term and by providing assistance where necessary to ensure that children who are born as a result of a crisis pregnancy are taken care of.
  • Despite the popular claim that women will resort to back-alley abortions if abortion is made illegal again, the majority of women who are in crisis pregnancies will not resort to illegal abortions if abortion is outlawed.
  • There is strong support for enacting bans on so-called sex-selective abortion, and the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton is needed in order to enact such a ban because such a ban is not currently constitutionally permissible in the United States as a result of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings.

What Americans should know regarding the issue of abortion

Here are some things that every American should know regarding the issue of abortion:

  • Over 1 million unborn children are killed every year as a result of a legal abortion in the United States.
  • 99 percent of the abortions that are performed in the United States are performed prior to the 21st week of pregnancy.
  • Abortion-on-demand has been legalized during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States as a result of the final ruling in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases in the United States.
  • Over 56 million unborn babies have died as a result of legal abortion in the United States since January 22, 1973, when the final decision of the Roe v. Wade case was made by the United States Supreme Court.
  • The Roe v. Wade decision has had many bad consequences during the last 42 years, including the following:
    • An increase in the abortion rate in the United States following the Roe v. Wade decision
    • Political support for legalized abortion at the state and federal levels in the United States
    • The deaths of over 56 million aborted babies in the United States
  • Only 35 percent of Americans who participated in a poll taken by Opinion Research Corporation in 2012 believe that abortion-on-demand should be legal in all circumstances.
  • The majority of Americans oppose unrestricted abortion on demand during all nine months of pregnancy, even though Roe v. Wade requires abortion to be legal during at least the first five months of pregnancy and also requires abortion to be legal during all nine months of pregnancy in cases where an abortion is deemed “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”.
  • The United States is only one of five countries in the world to allow abortion on demand for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy. The other 4 countries where abortion on demand is legal for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy are Canada, China, North Korea, and Vietnam.
  • Legal abortions are sometimes more dangerous than childbirth since some women will suffer serious complications following an abortion. Additionally, there have been cases where women have died from the complications of legal abortions performed in the United States since Roe v. Wade.
  • Some post-abortive women actually do regret having undergone an abortion, and some women who do not regret the decision immediately after the abortion will eventually regret that decision.
  • Substandard conditions can be found at many abortion clinics throughout the United States, and the substandard conditions do endanger the health of women who undergo abortions in the United States.
  • While abortion is constitutionally protected in the United States as a result of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, infanticide of a newborn baby by an act or omission after birth is not currently constitutionally protected like abortion is.
  • Some of the advocates of legalized infanticide of newborn babies call such acts of infanticide “after-birth abortions”, but the killing of a newborn baby by an act or omission after birth does not constitute an abortion because an abortion only includes the deaths of unborn children who are killed by an act or omission committed prior to birth or during the actual termination of pregnancy.
  • The infanticide of newborn babies who are unwanted by their mothers is still happening in the United States despite the availability of abortion on demand during all nine months of pregnancy within the United States.
  • Of the over 4 million pregnancies that are carried past the point of viability in the United States every year, only 10,000 of those pregnancies are ended through late term abortion.
  • Human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings and were so from the moment of conception.
  • A human fetus is always a human being by definition, even though there are some abortion rights advocates who deny that human fetuses are human beings prior to birth.
  • Some of the supporters of the right to an abortion have openly admitted that an abortion is the killing of an unborn human being.
  • Human fetuses are more than simply blobs of tissue for the following reasons:
    • Human embryos and human fetuses will develop into complete human beings if they do not die prior to birth.
    • Human embryos and human fetuses are complete human organisms that are separate from that of their mothers.
    • Human fetuses have already taken on human form after approximately 3 to 4 weeks post-fertilization.
  • One of the things that distinguishes a human embryo or a human fetus from the organs of the mother is that human embryos and human fetuses have a unique genetic identity that is different from the mother and that includes genetic material from the father.
  • Most of the pregnant women who are considering an abortion are only willing to do so if abortion is legal and easily available.
  • If more pregnant women who are in unplanned, unintended, or unwanted pregnancies were afforded easier access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance, fewer of these women would be willing to undergo an abortion.
  • There is a need for pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance in the United States, even if such assistance is opposed by the abortion industry or would hurt the bottom line of abortion providers, because pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance serves many purposes, including the following:
    • Lets women who are in crisis pregnancies know that there is hope and that abortion is not the only option available to them
    • Allows pregnant women to obtain counseling in an environment where they will not be coerced into having an abortion
    • Enables pregnant women to obtain prenatal medical care that is generally not available at an abortion clinic
    • Provides a pregnant woman who is considering giving up their unborn child for adoption with the assistance needed to give up their unborn child for adoption in the event that she chooses to give up her unborn child for adoption
    • Saves lives of unborn children who would otherwise be lost as a result of abortion or infanticide
    • Provides low-income women with the assistance that they need to raise their children if their children are not given up for adoption
  • The vast majority of pregnancies that are aborted in the United States are the result of voluntary sexual intercourse and could have been avoided in the first place through sexual abstinence.
  • Abortion rights organizations frequently argue that a woman should have a right to do whatever she wants with her own body, but this argument contains major flaws, including the following:
    • A woman does not have an absolute right to do whatever she wants with her body. For example, she cannot abuse illegal drugs, engage in incest, or engage in illegal sexual acts with a minor.
    • Most women are usually unwilling to undergo the elective removal of a healthy organ of their own bodies.
    • Both the fact that the woman is carrying an unborn human being and the consequences that will result if the pregnancy is not aborted are usually essential to a woman’s decision to undergo an abortion.
  • Abortion rights advocates frequently claim that women need to have a right to an abortion in order to continue their education, to have a career, or to have a good paying job, but this argument is flawed for several reasons, including the following:
    • Women are capable of choosing to abstain from sexual activity and are usually able to prevent unplanned pregnancies from occurring in the first place by choosing to abstain from sexual activity.
    • Some women are still able to continue their education, hold employment, or have a career while they are pregnant or while they are raising children.
  • Many pregnant women who seek reproductive medical services at abortion providers are often coerced into having abortions, and this coercion is done so that abortion providers can do as many abortions as they can, and this leads to increased profit for the abortion provider.
  • Many abortion clinics are willing to conceal the pregnancies of sexually abused minor girls by performing abortions and by failing to comply with mandatory reporting laws that require abortion clinics to report suspicions of sexual abuse and statutory rape.
  • Government funding of Planned Parenthood in the United States does enable Planned Parenthood to make additional profit off of abortions, and such government funding has led to an increase in the number of abortions being performed at Planned Parenthood.
  • Many abortion providers in the United States oppose pro-life laws that restrict abortion because of the adverse effects of these pro-life laws on abortion businesses, even though most of these pro-life laws do not make it legally impossible for abortion clinics to perform abortions.
  • Opposition to a pro-life law by the abortion industry is not sufficient to make a pro-life law unconstitutional.
  • A pro-life law that is opposed by the abortion industry can be constitutionally permissible in the United States if all of the following are true:
    • In the case of state laws, proper procedure was followed by the state legislature and by the governor
    • In the case of federal laws, proper procedure was followed by the United States Congress and by the President of the United States
    • The pro-life law restricts abortion procedures in a manner that is in and of itself constitutionally permissible
    • The pro-life law does not pose an undue burden on pregnant women who are considering undergoing an abortion
  • Planned Parenthood claims to be a non-profit organization, but this organization makes over 50 million dollars in profit every year. As such, Planned Parenthood should be stripped of its non-profit status.

Abortion-on-demand is legal during all 9 months of pregnancy in the United States

The United States is currently only one of five countries in the world to have legal abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy. The other countries with legal abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy are Canada, China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Abortion-on-demand has been effectively legalized during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States as a result of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases.

In Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court decided that “For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” The Supreme Court also decided in Doe v. Bolton case that “the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.” Even though the officially stated intent of the “health of the mother exception” was to ensure that pregnant women could obtain access to procedures that were necessary for the “preservation of the health of the mother,” the real effect of this exception was to allow abortion-on-demand to be legally justified after viability for any reason on the grounds that the “health of the mother” would be endangered if an abortion was not performed.

Despite the fact that the term “health” was broadly defined in Doe v. Bolton to include “physical, emotional, and psychological well-being”, the fact that the so-called “health of the mother” is in danger during the pregnancy does not necessarily imply that an abortion is necessary because the health of the mother is often capable of being preserved by means that do not entail an abortion, the termination of pregnancy, the death of an unborn child, or premature birth. In fact, in most pregnancies, an abortion is not the only means of preserving the so-called “health of the mother.” Caesarean section delivery and induced childbirth also have the effect of ending the pregnancy and are also capable of preserving the “health of the mother”, but these procedures differ from post-viability abortions because these procedures do not entail actively killing an unborn child like most post-viability abortion procedures do. Furthermore, most of the abortions being performed at American abortion clinics are being performed primarily for the purposes of getting rid of an unborn child who is unwanted by his or her mother, and most of these pregnancies could have been safely carried to term with proper medical care if there wasn’t an attempt to undergo an abortion.

While the officially stated intent of the “health of the mother exception” was to ensure that a pregnant woman would “benefit” from abortions performed in cases where the abortion was determined to be “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother,” many post-abortive women have experienced harm to their “health” or their “physical, emotional, or psychological well-being” as a result of the complications of a prior legal abortion. Furthermore, there have even been cases where women have died from legal abortion procedures in the United States, including the death of Karnamaya Mongar by Kermit Gosnell at his former abortion clinic in 2009, the death of Tanya Reaves by Mandy Gittler at a Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic in 2012, and the death of Jennifer Morbelli by Leroy Carhart at his abortion clinic in 2013. It is obviously clear from the harm caused to the health of post-abortive women and the deaths arising from legal abortions that abortions are not always effective in preserving the health of the mother, and most of these post-abortive women who have been harmed as a result of legal abortion procedures would not have experienced this harm if they carried their pregnancies to term and had their babies. Furthermore, Karnamaya Mongar, Tanya Reaves, and Jennifer Morbelli would probably be alive today if they had chosen to carry their pregnancies to term and they didn’t undergo an abortion.

The requirement for abortion to be legal in cases where it is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother” has often failed to preserve the “health of the mother” due to the adverse harm that many post-abortive women experience as a result of a prior abortion. The death of an unborn child as a result of a prior abortion is one of the causes of the harm to the “emotional and psychological well-being” of a post-abortive women. The unsanitary conditions at many abortion clinics, the failure to take reasonable measures to protect the health of the mother, and the carelessness of many abortionists also contribute to the harm to the “physical, emotional, and psychological well-being” of post-abortive women. Furthermore, many post-abortive women face an increased risk of breast cancer and an increased risk of complications in future pregnancies as a result of undergoing an abortion. Even though the United States Supreme Court had admitted in Doe v. Bolton that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting women from harm resulting from an abortion, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton fail to take into consideration the harm that many post-abortive women face as a result of a legal abortion procedure.

Abortionists often make medical judgments that are not in the best interest of their patients in order to advance their business interests and to increase their profits. Additionally, many abortionists who perform elective abortions at American abortion clinics attempt to increase their profits by failing to maintain sanitary conditions, coercing potential patients into consenting to an abortion, rushing patients through abortions, and failing to follow up on complications arising from abortions. The carelessness of many American abortionists has led to complications that should not have occurred as well as deaths of post-abortive women that should not have happened. Increased regulation of abortion facilities in the United States is essential to protecting women from the dangers of legal abortions, and these regulations must be enforced, even if it affects the bottom line of abortion providers or if the regulations lead to the closure of abortion clinics, because the government has a legitimate interest in protecting women from the harm arising from abortion procedures.

The United States Supreme Court needs to revisit the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases for several reasons. First, these decisions have enabled abortion-on-demand to be legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy up to the moment of birth. Second, the imposition of the requirement of the “health of the mother” exception has led to abortions being performed in circumstances where the abortion is not needed to preserve the life or health of the mother. Third, the legalization of abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy has had adverse effects on the health of post-abortive women and will continue to result in harm to women who undergo abortions while abortion-on-demand is legal and available. Fourth, the legalization of abortion and the availability of abortion has led to the deaths of over 50 million unborn children, an increased willingness to abort unplanned pregnancies, and an increased willingness to kill unwanted children after birth through infanticide. Fifth, both of these decisions are the result of false statements made by the plaintiffs and their attorneys, judicial errors by United States Supreme Court judges, and a misinterpretation of the provisions of the United States Constitution that were applied in these cases. Finally, the reversal of these decisions will protect women from the dangers of abortion procedures, will reduce the demand for abortion in the United States, will reduce the number of unborn children being killed as a result of abortion, and will protect the right to life of unborn children.

An abortion case at a Phoenix hospital back in 2009

Back on November 5, 2009, an abortion was performed on a 27-year-old pregnant woman who was suffering from pulmonary hypertension in the 11th week of pregnancy at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona. The doctors advised this pregnant woman that she would likely die from pulmonary hypertension unless she had an abortion. The termination of this woman’s pregnancy in this abortion case constituted a direct abortion because this pregnancy was directly terminated at a stage where the unborn child is clearly incapable of survival outside of the womb.

Even though the doctors in the Phoenix abortion case advised the pregnant woman to undergo an abortion, there have been cases where pregnant women with pulmonary hypertension successfully carried their pregnancies to term with appropriate medical treatment. Instead of advising her to have an abortion, the doctors should have given her the option of taking anti-hypertensive drugs to lessen the danger to her life and that of her unborn child. Unlike an abortion, which would directly terminate the pregnancy and indirectly target her pulmonary hypertension, the administration of anti-hypertensive drugs would directly target her pulmonary hypertension. If this woman had undergone the alternative option of anti-hypertensive drugs instead of having an abortion, she might have been able to safely carry her pregnancy to term and her unborn child might have been able to survive.

Here is M. Therese Lysaught’s account of the medical condition of the pregnant woman who had an abortion in the Phoenix abortion case: “Due to the age of the fetus, there was no possibility that it could survive outside the womb. Nor, due to the mother’s heart failure and cardiogenic shock, was there any possibility that the fetus could survive inside the womb. In short, in spite of the best efforts of the mother and of her medical staff, the fetus had become terminal, not because of a pathology of its own but because of a pathology in its maternal environment. There was no longer any chance that the life of this child could be saved. This is crucial to note insofar as it establishes that at the point of decision, it was not a case of saving the mother or the child. It was not a matter of choosing one life or the other. The child’s life, because of natural causes, was in the process of ending.”

Even if M. Therese Lysaught’s account of the medical condition of the pregnant woman in the Phoenix abortion case were correct, there were measures other than direct abortion that the doctors could have taken to save the life of the pregnant woman. The doctors could have chosen to allow the baby to die inside of the womb and administer anti-hypertensive drugs to the mother instead of choosing to directly terminate the pregnancy, and this choice might have been morally licit under the circumstances given in Lysaught’s account. There is a moral distinction between a direct abortion and merely permitting the natural death of an unborn child inside of the womb. A direct abortion is always intrinsically evil and never morally justifiable, but merely permitting the natural death of an unborn child who is naturally dying is not always morally illicit and can be morally justified in some circumstances.

Even if Lysaught’s account of the circumstances were correct, the circumstances would not have justified a direct abortion. Instead of advising St. Joseph’s Hospital of Phoenix that the abortion is indirect, she should have upheld that directly terminating the pregnancy in this case still constitutes a direct abortion until the pregnancy reaches the point of viability. Additionally, she should have advised the doctors to take other reasonable measures to preserve the life of the pregnant woman, such as the administration of anti-hypertensive drugs.

Bishop Thomas Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix was correct in stating that the abortion in the Phoenix abortion case constitutes a direct abortion. His analysis is correct, even if he did not have full knowledge of all of the medical facts of the Phoenix abortion case, since his analysis is based on Catholic Church teachings and laws of God which are always applicable in every circumstance. Bishop Thomas Olmsted did not need full knowledge of the medical facts to declare that the abortion in the Phoenix abortion case constitutes a direct abortion since a direct abortion always has the evil moral object of causing the death of an unborn child and is always intrinsically evil, regardless of the intention behind the abortion or the specific circumstances of the abortion.

Here are some links to articles regarding the Phoenix abortion case: