Hillary Clinton and other political candidates are wrong on the abortion issue

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, and other pro-abortion candidates for political office are wrong on the abortion issue for several reasons. First and foremost, abortion involves the killing of an human fetus or a human embryo, both of which are always considered to be unborn human beings. Second, the fact that a pregnant woman currently has a right to an abortion does not necessarily imply that women should continue to have such a right. Third, the prohibition of abortion can become constitutional again in the United States if an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows the prohibition of abortion is ratified. Fourth, the United States Supreme Court has already found the abortion decision to be fundamentally different from ordinary medical decisions, even though Roe v. Wade has not yet been reversed. Fifth, the government has an interest in protecting the life of unborn children that is compelling enough to justify the prohibition of abortion. Finally, an unborn child should have a right to life, regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy and regardless of whether he or she is wanted by his or her mother.

Hillary Clinton insists on defending Planned Parenthood, even though every service that Planned Parenthood offers is available from providers who are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood. She also insists on keeping abortion “safe” and legal, providing access to contraception without interference from government or employers, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, and providing additional taxpayer funding to abortion providers by repealing the Hyde Amendment. Clinton claims that a woman’s right to an abortion is “fundamental to our country and our future,” but a woman’s right to an abortion is not essential to the survival of American society because American society existed for over 190 years without a woman’s right to abortion and because American society can adapt if women lose the right to abortion.

While presidential candidate Clinton claims that women should be “empowered to make their own reproductive health decisions,” the abortion decision is fundamentally different from ordinary medical decisions since the life of an unborn child is at stake in an decision to undergo an abortion. Most of the abortions are performed primarily for purposes other than preserving or improving the well-being of the mother, and the primary purpose of most abortion procedures is to prevent the live birth of an unborn child. As such, the abortion issue is primarily about killing unborn children, even though it is often represented as a “woman’s health” issue by pro-abortion politicians and pro-abortion candidates for political office.

Clinton and other supporters of abortion rights do believe that women should be able to decide whether and when they should have children, but they also believe that women should be able to prevent the live birth of unborn children that they do not want to have through an abortion. However, women are usually able to decide whether to have children and when to have children without abortion or birth control by choosing to abstain from sexual activity when they do not want to become pregnant. Most of the abortions in the United States occur because women are becoming pregnant when they do not want to have a child, and most of these pregnancies are the result of women voluntarily choosing to engage in sexual relations when they do not want to become pregnant.

Even though abortion rights supporters often argue that women need a right to an abortion in order to avoid poverty, in order to have economic security, and in order to be able to equally participate in society, most women would not even need a right to an abortion if they abstained from sexual activity when they do not want to become pregnant. In addition, some pregnant women, including some who are in unplanned, unwanted, or unintended pregnancies, are still able to “participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation” without the right to an abortion. Moreover, fewer women would seek abortions if pregnant women who are unable to work during their pregnancy have access to unemployment benefits and if more employers and educational institutions make reasonable accommodations for pregnant women. Furthermore, many of the pregnant women who are in crisis pregnancies would be willing to have their babies if they had easier access to prenatal medical care, pro-life professional counseling, and material assistance.

Although many pro-abortion politicians claim that politicians who oppose abortion “should stop playing doctor with women’s health,” politicians clearly have the authority to propose and enact laws that regulate abortion procedures because the government has legitimate interests that justify the regulation of abortion, including but not limited to a legitimate interest in protecting women from dangers incurred in abortion procedures. In addition, pro-abortion politicians frequently argue that women should continue to have a constitutional right to an abortion, but the prohibition of abortion would be constitutional again in the United States if an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows the prohibition of abortion is ratified. Furthermore, U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators always have the authority under Article V of the U.S. Constitution to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution that would allow abortion to be regulated or prohibited in the United States.

While many supporters of abortion believe that deciding whether to have an abortion or carry the pregnancy to term should be between the mother and the doctor, the government clearly has legitimate reasons to regulate such decisions for several reasons. First, the abortion decision is fundamentally different from ordinary medical decisions because abortion involves the killing of an unborn human being and also because most of the abortions are sought for the purpose of ending the lives of unborn children who are unwanted by their mothers. Second, the decision on whether to end a pregnancy through an abortion or to carry a pregnancy to term is affected by where the doctor stands on the abortion issue and by the personal beliefs of the doctor. Third, most abortionists and abortion providers operate on a business model that is based on maximum efficiency, maximum profits, and abortion-on-demand for any reason, and as such will steer women who are considering abortions towards undergoing an abortion. Finally, the government has various legitimate interests that justify regulating abortion decisions, including but not limited to protecting the lives of unborn children, protecting pregnant women against abuses by abortionists and the abortion industry, preventing medically unnecessary abortions, and preventing botched abortions.

Even though pro-abortion politicians have backing from some of their constituents, from the abortion industry, and from abortion rights organizations, there are several major problems with the position taken by pro-abortion politicians on the abortion issue. First, many of the voters who got these pro-abortion politicians elected do not properly understand the abortion issue, and many of these voters have been misled by society, by abortion rights organizations, and by pro-abortion political campaigns. Second, the pro-abortion politicians fail to respect the rights of unborn children, who should be entitled to the right to life, regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy and regardless of whether the child is wanted by his or her biological mother. Third, pro-abortion politicians insist on upholding a woman’s constitutional right to abortion, even though the prohibition of abortion can become constitutional again in the United States by amending the United States Constitution. Fourth, pro-abortion politicians, pro-abortion doctors, reproductive health organizations, and abortion providers often fail to properly consider alternatives to abortion for women who are in crisis pregnancies and often push abortion when other options are available. Finally, pro-abortion politicians often ignore the various legitimate governmental interests that justify regulating or prohibiting abortion.

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

While there are some individuals that believe that a woman should still have a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion, the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions should both be reversed for the following reasons:

  • The United States Supreme Court was inconsistent on its answers to various legal questions relevant to the abortion issue in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions.
  • The United States Supreme Court should not refuse to reverse the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, despite the United States Supreme Court deciding that “Roe’s essential holding should be reaffirmed” in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, for various reasons, including but not limited to the failure to properly address inconsistencies of both of these decisions, reliance on false statements in both of these cases, misinterpretation of the United States Constitution in both of these cases, and violations of the plaintiff’s rights in the Doe v. Bolton case.
  • The United States Supreme Court has already reversed prior decisions involving federal constitutional law, and as such should reverse Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton if the United States Constitution actually allows the prohibition of abortion in the United States.
  • The Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions have deprived unborn children of the right to life prior to birth by concluding that unborn children are not legally considered to be persons prior to birth in Roe v. Wade and by allowing unborn children to be killed prior to birth through legal abortion.
  • Our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children prior to birth, and the intent of our founding fathers can be found in James Wilson’s Lectures on Law and William Blackstone’s Commentaries.
  • Abortion was illegal in most states at the time that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, and the 14th Amendment was never intended to prevent states from prohibiting abortion.
  • The Doe v. Bolton case should never have been heard by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia or by the United States Supreme Court because the Doe v. Bolton case was filed against the will of the alleged plaintiff, because the attorney representing the plaintiff misrepresented the facts of the plaintiff’s pregnancy, and because the alleged plaintiff was denied the right to get her true story across before the United States Supreme Court.
  • The United States Supreme Court found various requirements imposed on abortions in Georgia prior to Doe v. Bolton to be unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton, including the requirement that abortions be performed in accredited hospitals, including the requirement that an abortion be approved by a hospital committee, and including the requirement that an abortion be approved by at least two other doctors.
  • While the United States Supreme Court found the procedural restrictions to be unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton on the grounds that these restrictions “unduly infringes on [the] physician’s right to practice [medicine],” procedural restrictions on abortion do not become unconstitutional on the grounds that they restrict a physician’s right to practice medicine because these laws restrict rights that are afforded only to licensed physicians, because the right of a licensed physician to practice medicine is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, and because the United States Supreme Court has consistently upheld in later decisions that states can restrict abortion to physicians who are licensed to practice medicine.
  • The United States Supreme Court was wrong in declaring the procedural restrictions to be unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton because the rights of a pregnant woman are not always adequately safeguarded by an abortionist, because the procedural restrictions that were declared unconstitutional in Doe v. Bolton actually do have a rational connection with a pregnant woman’s needs in some cases, because the United States Supreme Court found abortion to be fundamentally different from other medical procedures in Roe v. Wade and Harris v. McRae, and because the procedural restrictions do protect both pregnant women and unborn children from unnecessary abortions.
  • In the Doe v. Bolton decision, the United States Supreme Court had effectively enabled abortion on demand to be legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy by broadly defining health of the mother as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
  • The United States Supreme Court imposed the requirement that abortion be legal “where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” during all nine months of pregnancy in the Roe v. Wade decision, even after viability.
  • The United States Supreme Court was clearly wrong in concluding that the United States Constitution requires that abortion be legal “where necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother” because the United States Constitution does not even mention health of the mother or a right to health-preserving measures, because the United States Constitution does not distinguish between abortions that are “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother” and abortions that are not “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother”, and because the United States Supreme Court based this requirement on the existence of health exceptions in abortion statutes that were declared unconstitutional in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
  • Even though the United States Supreme Court found that a woman has a right to decide “whether to bear or beget a child” and that this right is fundamental in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, there are many constitutionally permissible restrictions of this right, including but not limited to the prohibition of statutory rape, the prohibition of incestuous sexual relations, and restrictions on assisted reproductive procedures such as IVF and artificial insemination.
  • The prohibition of abortion usually does not deprive women who are or who have been pregnant of the ability to decide whether to bear additional children because women are usually able to avoid becoming pregnant again by choosing to completely abstain from sexual relations.
  • Although Justice Harry Blackmun did not agree that a pregnant woman “is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses” in Roe v. Wade and although Chief Justice Warren Burger said that “the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand,” the Roe v. Wade decision explicitly required abortion-on-demand during the first trimester of pregnancy and effectively required abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy.
  • While the United States Supreme Court found that laws prohibiting abortion to be unconstitutional on the grounds that these laws violated the privacy of pregnant women, the United States Supreme Court also decided in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton that a pregnant woman’s right to privacy is not absolute and that a pregnant woman’s right to privacy is only protected against unwarranted governmental intrusion.
  • The fact that a pregnant woman has a right to privacy is not sufficient to make laws prohibiting abortion unconstitutional, even if the prohibition of abortion intrudes upon the woman’s right to privacy, because the intrusion into the privacy of a pregnant woman is clearly warranted when it comes to prohibiting abortion since abortion inherently involves the killing of an unborn human being and because the government has a compelling interest in protecting the life of an unborn human being.
  • Even though every person has a constitutionally guaranteed right to liberty under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, there are many restrictions on an individual’s right to liberty that are constitutionally permissible in the United States.
  • A pregnant woman’s right to liberty does not necessarily make laws prohibiting abortion unconstitutional, even if the liberty of a pregnant woman is restricted by such laws, because the state has legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortions, because laws that restrict the liberty of an individual are sometimes constitutionally permissible, and because the right to liberty in the 14th Amendment was not intended to prevent the prohibition of abortion.
  • Although the United States Supreme Court declared laws prohibiting abortion to be unconstitutional, the United States Supreme Court did not have sufficient grounds to declare laws prohibiting abortion unconstitutional because the constitutional rights that were the basis for a woman’s right to an abortion, including a woman’s right to privacy and liberty, are subject to reasonable restrictions by the government.

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.

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.

Pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic should not be supporting abortion

There are some pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic in the United States, including the current Vice President, a few of the state governors, some U.S. Congressmen, and some politicians in the state legislatures. All of those pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic are supporting a position that is contrary to divine law, natural law, and Catholic Church teaching. Those politicians who claim to be Catholic should not even be supporting abortion rights in the first place because the Catholic Church has taught the following:

  • Direct abortion is an intrinsically evil act which is always seriously offensive to God.
  • Direct abortion always offends against the sanctity of human life.
  • Direct abortion always constitutes the direct killing of an innocent human being.
  • Direct abortion is never morally justifiable in any circumstance, even when the mother is in danger of death.
  • Human life, including that of unborn human beings, must be protected and respected from the moment of conception.
  • Unborn human beings have an absolutely inviolable right to life under natural law and divine law.
  • Unborn human beings must be entitled to the rights afforded to a person since the moment of conception.
  • Engaging in sexual intercourse while using any form of abortifacient birth control is always intrinsically evil and always seriously offensive to God because such uses of abortifacient birth control are inherently ordered towards two different evil ends, frustrating the sexual act in its natural power to create new human life and causing the death of an unborn child that might be conceived through the abortifacient effects of abortifacient birth control.
  • The Catholic Church has always considered abortion to be morally wrong since the first century, and will always continue to teach that abortion is always morally wrong.

Those politicians and candidates for political office who claim to be Catholic and who support a woman’s right to an abortion are sending the wrong message to voters and to the people that they represent. They are sending the message that it is okay to support legal abortion as a Catholic, even though abortion is always considered to be morally wrong by the Catholic Church. In addition, these politicians and candidates for political office are also sending the message that it is okay to support actions that violate rights that unborn children always have under natural law and that should never be violated in any circumstance. Furthermore, some of the Catholic voters, Catholic candidates for political office, and Catholic politicians have been misled into thinking that it is okay to support abortion rights by pro-abortion Catholic politicians, by pro-abortion organizations that claim to be Catholic, by theologians who support abortion rights in contradiction to Catholic Church teaching, by non-Catholics who support abortion rights, by the influences of other reproductive rights organizations, and by secular influences in society.

Besides sending the wrong message to Catholics and to women who are in crisis pregnancies, supporting abortion rights offends God because abortion violates the God-given rights that unborn children have under divine law and natural law, because the support for abortion by politicians and abortion rights organizations leads some women who are in crisis pregnancies into choosing to have abortions instead of choosing life, and because the performance of abortions always offend God. Those individuals who have supported abortion rights and knew better will have to answer to God for their decision to support abortion rights when they die. Moreover, those individuals who choose to support abortion rights with the knowledge that doing so seriously offends God put their own salvation in jeopardy because they face the danger of eternal punishment in Hell if they die unrepentant of any serious sin.

If all of the pro-abortion Catholic politicians in the United States stopped supporting a woman’s right to an abortion, then a few positive things would likely happen in American politics and American society. First, Catholic voters, Catholic politicians, and Catholic candidates for political office would not receive the wrong message that it is okay to support abortion rights in contradiction of Catholic Church teaching. Second, the abortion rights groups and abortion providers would lose the backing of Catholic politicians if they stopped supporting abortion because these organizations are only willing to back politicians that support keeping abortion legal. Third, more pro-life politicians would likely be elected if Catholic politicians stopped supporting abortion because the attitudes of some voters would change, because some of the pro-life politicians who previously supported abortion rights might get re-elected, and because some of the pro-life candidates for political office who are running against candidates that previously supported abortion rights would get elected. Finally, Catholic politicians would likely support solutions to the problems faced by women who are in crisis pregnancies that do not involve abortion and that respect the right to life of unborn children if they stopped supporting abortion.

Women would not lose access to healthcare if Planned Parenthood is defunded

Although Cecile Richards had argued that women would lose access to healthcare if Planned Parenthood loses its taxpayer funding, women would certainly have access to healthcare if Planned Parenthood is defunded. Women have access to all of the non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood offers at thousands of federally qualified health centers that are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia, and pregnant women can obtain abortions at abortion providers that are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood in 45 states and in the District of Columbia. In addition, other healthcare providers that are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood would fill in the void that might result if Planned Parenthood is defunded. Furthermore, the truth that women would not lose access to healthcare if Planned Parenthood is very obvious to many Americans, including some who support abortion rights and including some of the supporters of Planned Parenthood.

Why would Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards falsely claim that women would lose access to “basic family planning [such as] mammograms” if Planned Parenthood is defunded? She would say this in order to prevent Planned Parenthood from losing its taxpayer funding and to increase the profits of Planned Parenthood, even though this lie is obvious to some of the Americans who support Planned Parenthood. In addition, Cecile Richards might also be saying this in order to persuade women of childbearing age to obtain these services at Planned Parenthood clinics instead of unaffiliated providers so that these women will turn to Planned Parenthood for abortions in the event that they become pregnant. Moreover, Planned Parenthood might be making this false claim in order to subsidize its abortion services.

Planned Parenthood should be defunded by the federal government, even if some individuals believe that they should still receive taxpayer funding, for the following reasons:

  • Women can obtain every service that Planned Parenthood offers at providers who are not affiliated with Planned Parenthood in 45 states and in the District of Columbia.
  • Women can obtain all of the non-abortion services at unaffiliated providers in all 50 states and in the District of Columbia.
  • Planned Parenthood has already fraudulently received government funding that it was not legally entitled to receive from state and federal governments.
  • Planned Parenthood clinics have billed Medicaid for non-abortion services that were rendered to women who have undergone abortions at Planned Parenthood.
  • Planned Parenthood will steer pregnant women who obtain non-abortion medical services at Planned Parenthood clinics towards having an abortion because abortion is their primary source of profit and revenue.
  • Planned Parenthood contributes millions of dollars to the political campaigns of pro-abortion politicians in order to protect its taxpayer funding and its abortion business, whereas most of the other providers that provide the same non-abortion healthcare services do not contribute the large sums of money that Planned Parenthood does to political campaigns.
  • Unlike most other providers that provide the same services as Planned Parenthood, approximately $400 million of private donations are donated to Planned Parenthood and its affiliates every year.
  • Even though Planned Parenthood is primarily in the business of performing abortions and its primary source of revenue is from the abortions performed at Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood also misrepresents itself as a comprehensive women’s health provider.
  • Planned Parenthood has been involved in the harvesting of body parts obtained from babies that have been aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics, and Planned Parenthood has illegally profited from the sale of fetal body parts to researchers.
  • An increase in the amount of taxpayer funding that Planned Parenthood receives does lead to an increase in the number of abortions being performed at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.
  • Defunding Planned Parenthood will reduce the number of abortions that are performed at Planned Parenthood clinics.
  • If Planned Parenthood is defunded and if the taxpayer funds go to other federally qualified health centers that do not perform abortions, more women would be able the same non-abortion medical services that are currently provided by Planned Parenthood.
  • Some of the federally qualified health centers provide essential medical services that are not even offered at any of the Planned Parenthood clinics, including but not limited to mammograms, prenatal care, and endometriosis treatment. A more complete list of services that Planned Parenthood does not provide can be found here.

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.