What American voters must know regarding the abortion issue

With the 2016 elections less than 11 months away, American voters must know the following regarding the abortion issue:

  • Abortion on demand is legal for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy in the United States because of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions.
  • Most of the abortions performed in the United States are performed by providers who are primarily in the business of performing abortions.
  • Approximately 1 million abortions are performed in the United States every year, and the vast majority of these abortions are performed primarily for the purposes of ending the life of an unborn child who is unwanted by the mother.
  • Most of the abortions in the United States are performed on healthy women who would still be in good health if they had chosen to carry the pregnancy to term and had the child born alive.
  • The business model of abortion providers is based on maximizing profits, maximizing the number of abortions performed, and performing abortions on demand for any reason, and as such are willing to cut corners on patient safety or on conditions at abortion clinics in order to increase the number of abortions and increase its profits.
  • The abortion industry opposes restrictions on abortion that are considered to be reasonable by the majority of Americans on the grounds that these regulations would hurt the bottom line of abortion providers, that these restrictions would lead to the closure of legitimate abortion clinics, that some women would lose access to legal abortion, and that the abortion providers consider the restrictions to be unnecessary.
  • The abortion providers that perform late-term abortions want abortion-on-demand to remain legal after viability for reasons other than the preservation of the life or health of the mother, including but not limited to the ability to harvest fetal body parts from aborted fetuses, the ability to perform additional abortions, and the ability to make additional profit.
  • Many of the women who are in crisis pregnancies would choose to carry a pregnancy to term if they had access to prenatal medical care, if they had the material and emotional support needed to carry their pregnancies to term, and if they are given the support needed to either raise the child or to give up the child for adoption.
  • Even though abortion rights supporters often argue that women would resort to illegal back-alley abortions if abortion is outlawed, most of the women who are in crisis pregnancies would be unwilling to seek an illegal abortion if abortion becomes illegal again.
  • Infanticide of babies who are unwanted by their mothers is still happening in the United States, even with abortion on demand legal during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States.
  • It is possible to reduce the demand for illegal abortions if abortion is outlawed by improving access to pro-life professional counseling, pro-life prenatal medical care, adoption placement services, and material assistance to women who are in crisis pregnancies.
  • Even though the abortion industry, abortion rights organizations, and pro-abortion politicians often claim that abortion is usually a safe medical procedure, there have been at least 30 documented botched abortion incidents at 19 different abortion clinics where the patient had to be rushed to the emergency room in 2015.
  • Since Roe v. Wade has been legalized in the United States, there have been over 400 women who died from legal abortions, many women have suffered bodily injuries and emotional harm from legal abortions, and over 57 million unborn children have been killed as a result of legal abortion.
  • While it is perfectly understandable that a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest should not have to suffer being pregnant as a result of rape or incest, there should not be rape or incest exceptions in laws prohibiting abortion because an abortion of a rape-conceived or incest-conceived pregnancy still involves the killing of an unborn child, because some of the women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest actually do not want to abort an rape-conceived or incest-conceived pregnancy, and because some of the women who carried rape-conceived or incest-conceived pregnancies to term are actually opposed to the rape and incest exceptions.
  • Unless Roe v. Wade is reversed or unless an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows states to restrict abortion is ratified, abortion providers will continue to fight laws that restrict abortion in federal courts, including appeals all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, in order to prevent closures of abortion clinics and in order to protect the bottom line of abortion providers.
  • The United States Supreme Court has already found that abortion is fundamentally different from ordinary medical procedures in the Harris v. McRae decision because abortion, unlike other medical procedures, “involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.”
  • In the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, the Supreme Court decided 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” even though the Supreme Court has not yet reversed the Roe v. Wade decision.
  • Even though there are some individuals who believe that Roe v. Wade should not be reversed, Roe v. Wade must be reversed because the U.S. Supreme Court relied on false statements made by Sarah Weddington, because the Roe v. Wade decision contains inconsistencies on the question of a pregnant woman’s right to privacy, because the 14th Amendment, which was the basis for the Roe v. Wade decision, was never intended to prevent states from prohibiting abortion, because the Roe v. Wade decision was based on assumptions that do not necessarily hold true, and because issues have arisen since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that necessitate revisiting these two decisions.
  • The Doe v. Bolton decision, which was the companion case to Roe v. Wade, must be reversed because plaintiff Sandra Cano’s own rights were violated in Doe v. Bolton, because the conclusions of that case were based on material misrepresentations of the facts of Sandra Cano’s pregnancy by attorney Margie Pitts Hames, because Doe v. Bolton is inconsistent with the realities of the abortion industry, and because the broad definition of “health of the mother” in Doe v. Bolton had effectively legalized abortion on demand for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy.
  • It is possible for the United States Supreme Court to have been wrong in deciding Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton because these cases were decided over 100 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, because a woman’s right to abortion was not popular in the United States before the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, because the United States Supreme Court relied on false statements and misrepresentations of the relevant facts in these two cases, because the right to an abortion is not explicitly guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and because the 14th Amendment was never intended to prevent states from prohibiting abortion.
  • Although Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton have not yet been reversed, the United States Supreme Court has already reversed prior decisions involving federal constitutional law on matters other than abortion and as such should reverse Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton since these decisions were improperly decided and because the main conclusions of these two cases are inconsistent with other findings made by the United States Supreme Court in these two cases.
  • Abortion rights organizations, including but not limited to NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Federation, Center for Reproductive Rights, and RH Reality Check, all support keeping abortion on demand legal in the United States, but the arguments being made by these organizations ignore the fact that those who oppose legalized abortion have good reasons for opposing legalized abortion.
  • Although the abortion rights organizations attempt to defend support for legal abortion, these organizations fail to give good reasons why abortion on demand should be legal for any reason during all 9 months of pregnancy.
  • Abortion deprives unborn children of the right to life, which is a universal right under the natural moral law that should never have been taken away from unborn children. The right to life of an unborn child should never have been dependent on whether or not the unborn child is wanted by his or her mother, and unborn children should have had this right legally protected regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy and regardless of the health of the mother.
Advertisements

An unborn child should not be aborted “out of love for the unborn child”

Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and other similarly situated women should not have made the choice to abort an unborn child who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality through late-term abortion, even if they claim that they had an abortion “out of love for the unborn baby” or to “spare the unborn child of pain or suffering,” because the choice to abort an unborn child “out of love” or “to spare the unborn child of pain or suffering” still involves the choice to intentionally cause the death of the unborn child and as such violates the right to life of the unborn children that they have chosen to abort. In addition to causing the death of their unborn child, these women have put their own health at risk by choosing to undergo an abortion “out of love of the unborn child,” even if they are lucky to have escaped major complications of their decision to have an abortion. Furthermore, the government has legitimate reasons to prohibit late-term abortion, even under the circumstances under which Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and similarly situated women sought a late-term abortion.

One of the biggest problems with the decision to abort an unborn child who was diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality, even when it is claimed to have been done “out of love” for the unborn child who is being aborted, is that it is not loving to intentionally choose to end the life of an unborn child through an abortion, even if the unborn child would naturally die from a congenital defect if he or she is born alive. The choice to intentionally end the life of a child through abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, or murder is not truly loving because a mother who truly loves her child would respect her child’s right to life while her child is still alive and would not make choices that violate her child’s right to life. Besides not being truly loving, the choice to undergo an late-term abortion would still be morally wrong when the unborn child has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality because late-term abortion is inherently ordered towards causing the death of an unborn baby.

Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and other similarly situated women have probably been misguided and might not have even sought a late-term abortion if they were not misguided. These women have likely been influenced into having a late-term abortion by the availability of legal late-term abortion and by the influences of pro-abortion physicians, pro-abortion politicians, pro-abortion professional counselors, abortion providers, and abortion rights organizations. Furthermore, they might not even be fully aware of the gruesome reality of late-term abortion because late-term abortions often involve either poisoning the unborn child or dismembering the unborn child and because late-term abortion might be very painful for the unborn child who is being aborted. If these women were actually fully aware of the gruesome reality of late-term abortion, they might have chosen life instead of late-term abortion for their children, even after their children were diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality.

Christy Zink had claimed that she chose to abort her son who was diagnosed with “agenesis of the corpus callosum” in order “to spare [her] son’s pain and suffering” and that her son “would have experienced near-constant pain” if the son that she aborted were born alive, and that her abortion is “basic medical care.” However, her unborn son’s death through a late-term abortion might actually have been more painful than if he were born alive and died naturally. Additionally, Christy Zink’s son who was aborted could have been given strong painkillers to relieve the “near-constant pain” if he were born alive. Moreover, her abortion was not “basic medical care” because her abortion was sought primarily for the purposes of ending the life of her unborn son. Furthermore, Christy Zink could have sought counseling from a pro-life professional counselor, prenatal medical care from a pro-life physician, and palliative care for her son through a perinatal hospice instead of choosing to end the life of her son through a late-term abortion.

Although Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and other women want late-term abortion to remain legal, late-term abortion should become illegal, even in cases where the unborn child has been diagnosed with a serious fetal abnormality, for several reasons. First, the unborn child always has an universal right to life under the natural moral law, regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy and whether or not the unborn child is wanted by his or her mother. Second, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of the unborn child since the moment of conception, even when the unborn child is unwanted by his or her mother and even when the unborn child has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. Third, there is the risk that the diagnosis of a severe fetal abnormality of an unborn child is wrong, and there is also the risk that a healthy unborn child who had been wrongfully diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality would be killed if a late-term abortion is performed. Finally, there are options other than late-term abortion for pregnant women who are faced with the diagnosis of a severe fetal abnormality, including pro-life professional counseling, prenatal medical care from pro-life physicians, perinatal hospice, and palliative care.

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.

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.

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.

Mississippi H.B. 1390 should be upheld

The State of Mississippi had enacted H.B. 1390 back in 2012 that requires the following:

  • That abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital
  • That abortionists are board certified or eligible in obstetrics and gynecology
  • That a staff member who is trained in CPR be present at the abortion clinic when the abortion clinic is open

Even though the enforcement of H.B. 1390 would force Mississippi’s only abortion clinic from closing, H.B. 1390 is in and of itself constitutionally permissible because its primary purpose is to protect women who undergo abortions against the dangers that would be involved. In fact, the United States Supreme Court had already ruled that “From the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health” in the Roe v. Wade case. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court had also ruled 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” in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case.

The United States Supreme Court should uphold H.B. 1390, even if it leads to the closing of the last remaining abortion clinic in Mississippi, for the following reasons:

  • H.B. 1390 does not prohibit new abortion providers that can comply with the requirements set forth in H.B. 1390 from operating abortion clinics in the state of Mississippi.
  • Pregnant women who are U.S. citizens currently have a right to obtain a legal abortion at an abortion clinic in any other state of the U.S. under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution as a result of the Doe v. Bolton case.
  • Furthermore, pregnant women who are not U.S. citizens also have a legal right to obtain abortions in any other state of the U.S. under applicable state law.
  • 60 percent of Mississippi women who undergo abortions already obtain these abortions at out-of-state abortion clinics that are geographically closer to them than Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
  • Most abortion-seeking women who are in unplanned pregnancies are only willing to undergo abortions if it is legal, readily available, and easily accessible to them, and most of these same women are personally unwilling to undergo an abortion if it is illegal, not readily available, or not easily accessible.
  • The admitting privileges requirement provided under Mississippi H.B. 1390 ensures that continuity of medical care is there if a complication arises as a result of an abortion.
  • In addition to ensuring continuity of medical care, having admitting privileges at a local hospital can save the lives of patients who are suffering from life-threatening complications by ensuring that these patients are able to obtain emergency medical care immediately.
  • All three of the restrictions contained within H.B. 1390 are intended to minimize the dangers of abortion procedures on the life and health of the woman who is undergoing an abortion.
  • The State of Mississippi has a legitimate governmental interest in protecting the health of the women who are undergoing abortions at abortion clinics that are located in the state of Mississippi, and all three of the restrictions contained in H.B. 1390 further this legitimate governmental interest.
  • There are some constitutionally guaranteed rights that might require travel to another state or to Washington, D.C. in order to exercise that right, and the fact that a right is guaranteed by the United States Constitution does not necessarily require that one has to be able to exercise that right in his or her state of residence so long as the right can be exercised elsewhere in the United States. For example, a person who is appealing a federal criminal conviction might have to travel to an appellate court in another state or to the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in order to appeal the conviction. As an another example, a woman who is seeking to undergo a late-term abortion might have to travel to an out-of-state late-term abortion clinic that is willing to perform a late-term abortion.
  • Many of the women who are considering abortions choose to seek one because they do not want to take care of their unborn child after he or she is born, and many of these same women would choose to have the baby if they have easier access to pro-life prenatal care, they are provided with the support needed to have the baby, and they are provided with the support needed to take care of the baby if he or she is not given up for adoption.
  • H.B. 1390 would be clearly constitutionally permissible if Roe v. Wade is reversed or if an amendment to the United States Constitution that gives states the authority to prohibit abortions is ratified.

Today is the 42nd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton

Today is the 42nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, both of which enabled abortion-on-demand to be legal in the United States during all nine months of pregnancy. Over 57 million unborn children have been killed as a result of legal abortion in the United States since abortion-on-demand was legalized nationwide during all nine months of pregnancy on January 22, 1973. The debate over whether abortion should become illegal in the United States is far from over, despite what the United States Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton 42 years ago.

The United States House of Representatives is currently proposing two major pieces of pro-life legislation. The first major piece, known as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization on the grounds that unborn children can feel fetal pain at that stage of pregnancy. The second major piece, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, would prohibit federal funding of most abortion procedures, would prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion coverage under healthcare plans, and would require full disclosure of any abortion coverage under any healthcare plan provided pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Obama is likely to veto both of these pieces of legislation if these pieces of legislation pass in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. In addition, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection act would probably be challenged in federal courts if it becomes law because of opposition to this piece of legislation by the abortion industry and also because this law might not meet the health exception requirement under the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings.

The United States Supreme Court should uphold Texas HB 2, which was passed by the Texas Legislature in the second special session of the 83rd legislature and signed into law on July 18, 2013, because the intent of the law is to protect women who are undergoing abortions from the dangers of abortion procedures and also because the Texas Legislature did not intend to prohibit abortion providers from performing legal abortions at abortion clinics that meet the standards required under HB 2. In addition, the United States Supreme Court should also rule that prohibitions on late-term abortion and partial-birth abortion are constitutionally permissible in every circumstance, even when the an abortion has been determined to be necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Both of these actions would benefit American society, would lead to a reduction in the overall abortion rate, and would lead to decreased demand for abortion in the United States if the United States Supreme Court upholds HB 2 and rules that prohibitions on late-term abortion are constitutionally permissible in every circumstance.

In addition to prohibiting taxpayer-funded abortions and prohibiting late-term abortions, more needs to be done to help women who are in unplanned pregnancies to ensure that these women will not resort to abortion and to ensure that their children are taken care of after birth. Improving access to prenatal care for women who are in unplanned pregnancies through healthcare providers that will not pressure them into undergoing abortions will encourage these women to choose life, will reduce the demand for abortion, and will lead to more healthy babies being born. In addition, providing assistance to low-income women and improving access to adoption placement assistance for pregnant women who do not want to raise their unborn children after birth will reduce the demand for abortion.