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.

Advertisements

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.

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.

What is wrong with Planned Parenthood and why Planned Parenthood must be defunded

Planned Parenthood claims to be a “trusted health care provider” who “delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide,” but is really a pro-abortion organization whose primary purpose is to make as much money as possible from abortions. In addition, there are many other things that are wrong with Planned Parenthood, including but not limited to the sale of fetal body parts that are harvested from aborted children, the cover-up of statutory rape and the sexual abuse of minors, encouraging children to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage through its sex education programs, lobbying to get pro-abortion politicians elected and to keep abortion legal, pressuring pregnant patients into undergoing an abortion, and lying to prospective abortion patients about the facts of fetal development. As such, Planned Parenthood should lose its government funding, and individuals and corporations should stop donating to Planned Parenthood.

One of the biggest problems with Planned Parenthood is that it misrepresents itself to the government, to its donors, and its potential patients. First, Planned Parenthood claims that without birth control, women are unable to choose when they want to have children and how many children they want to have, but women are actually able to make these decisions without birth control by choosing to completely abstain from sexual activity when they do not want to have children. Second, Planned Parenthood represents abortion as a safe procedure on its website and portrays abortion as being a safe procedure in its YouTube video on in-clinic abortion, but there have been incidents of botched abortions being performed at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, including an abortion performed at a Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic that resulted in the death of Tonya Reaves back in 2012. Third, even though Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of its services are abortions, Planned Parenthood performs abortions on approximately 92% of its pregnant patients and Planned Parenthood’s primary source of revenue is from the abortions performed at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Fourth, Planned Parenthood receives over $500 million dollars of taxpayer funding, but Planned Parenthood has lied to the government in order to receive taxpayer money that it should not have been able to receive in the first place. Moreover, Planned Parenthood misrepresents itself as a comprehensive woman’s healthcare provider that cares about women when they are primarily in the business of performing as many abortions as possible.

Another major problem with Planned Parenthood is that at least some Planned Parenthood clinics are believed to be involved in the sale of fetal body parts from babies who are aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics. It is also believed that Planned Parenthood is violating the law by profiting from the sale of fetal body parts, by altering the manner in which the abortions from which these fetal body parts are obtained, and by performing abortions with the knowledge that fetal body parts will be harvested from these aborted babies and resold. In addition, Abby Johnson has recently admitted that the Planned Parenthood clinic that she used to work for did harvest fetal body parts from aborted babies. Furthermore, there are even indications that Planned Parenthood might possibly be willing to kill babies who are born as a result of a failed abortion in order to harvest fetal body parts. Finally, many individuals are outraged by the harvesting and resale of fetal body parts that are harvested from babies aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics.

In addition to misrepresenting itself as a comprehensive woman’s health provider and in addition to possible involvement in the harvesting and resale of fetal body parts, Planned Parenthood is actively trying to increase demand for abortions in order to make additional profit, and they are taking several measures in an attempt to achieve this goal. First, Planned Parenthood is pushing comprehensive sex education to school-age children with the intentions of increasing the number of sexually active teens, increasing the number of unplanned teenage pregnancies, and increasing the demand for abortion. Second, Planned Parenthood imposes quotas on the number of abortions that each clinic must perform in order to maximize its profits. Third, Planned Parenthood promotes birth control with the knowledge that it will sometimes fail to prevent unplanned pregnancies in order to increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and in order to increase demand for abortion. Additionally, pregnant women who seek medical care at Planned Parenthood clinics are usually pressured into undergoing an abortion by Planned Parenthood employees because Planned Parenthood wants to do as many abortions as they can and because they want to make as much money as they can off of abortions. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is willing to cut corners on patient safety to maximize profits, to increase the efficiency of its abortion operations, and to increase the number of abortions that it can perform. Finally, Planned Parenthood actually cares more about the money than it does about protecting the health of women and reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies.

Individuals and corporations must stop donating to Planned Parenthood, and taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood by federal, state, and local governments must also be stopped for several reasons. First, Planned Parenthood is using the taxpayer funding and donations in order to increase demand for abortions. Second, Planned Parenthood misrepresents itself to the government, to the general public, to its patients, and to its prospective patients in order to receive donations and taxpayer funding that it would not otherwise receive. Third, Planned Parenthood might be covering the cost of abortions by overcharging Medicaid and other health insurance companies for other medical services that are rendered to patients who had undergone an abortion at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood contributes large sums of money to the campaigns of pro-abortion candidates in order to ensure that they can continue to legally make money off of its abortion services, and the large sums of money paid to these campaigns come from taxpayer funds, donations, and abortion revenue. If people and companies stopped donating to Planned Parenthood and if the taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood is stopped, there will be a reduction in the demand for Planned Parenthood’s abortion services and Planned Parenthood would not be contributing large sums of money to the campaigns of pro-abortion candidates.

The right to life of unborn children should be protected under international law

Both human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings that are separate from their mothers, and as such have a right to life under the natural moral law. What makes a human fetus or a human embryo a separate human being from his or her mother is the fact that he or she has an unique genetic makeup that is distinct from his or her mother, the fact that he or she will usually develop into a fully formed human being that is capable of survival outside of his or her mother’s body if he or she is not killed prior to birth, the fact that his or her genetic makeup is of the same kind as that of human beings who have been born, and the fact that he or she will usually develop a complete set of organs that are separate from that of his or her mother prior to birth.

The right to life of persons who have been born is currently recognized under international law and under the laws of most countries in the world and is generally recognized to be a fundamental right with respect to persons who have been born, but unborn children have been deprived of this right to life under the laws of some of the countries of the world due to the legalization of abortion in these countries. An unborn child’s right to life should be legally protected under international law and under the laws of each country because unborn children are human beings and were so from the moment of conception, because the right to life is not limited to human beings who have been born, and because the right to life is a fundamental and universal right that is derived from natural moral law. Abortion should be outlawed worldwide and international rights organizations should not force countries to keep abortion legal because abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being, because a right to abortion is in conflict with the right to life of unborn children, because the right to life of unborn children is more fundamental than a woman’s right to an abortion, and because the right to life of unborn children is a fundamental, universal right that is derived from natural moral law.

Why abortion should become illegal in the United States and why babies with severe fetal abnormalities should not be aborted

Some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks oppose the 20-week bans being proposed in Congress and in some of the state legislatures because these women felt that they needed to have an abortion after 20 weeks. However, not all of the women who choose to have abortions after 20 weeks choose to do so out of mere convenience to the mother, and the major reasons why women choose to have abortions after 20 weeks include severe fetal abnormalities, severe complications of pregnancy, changes in economic situations in the middle of a pregnancy, and pregnancies discovered after the first trimester. In addition, some of the abortions that are performed after 20 weeks involve pregnancies and aborted babies that were previously wanted by their mothers, and many of these abortions involve babies that were diagnosed with severe fetal abnormalities that could not be detected until after the 17th week of pregnancy.

Although it is understandable why some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks chose to have an abortion after 20 weeks and why some of these women would be opposed to a 20-week-ban on abortion, there are good reasons why abortion should become illegal in the United States. First and foremost, abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being and always violates a right to life that should not have been taken away from unborn human beings. Second, a pregnant woman who decides to undergo an abortion is usually aware that an abortion will result in the death of an unborn human being. Third, the fact that a pregnancy will normally result in the birth of a child if it is not aborted is usually essential to a woman’s decision to undergo an abortion. Fourth, the majority of women who undergo abortions choose to do so with the intention of causing the death of their unborn child. Finally, the government has legitimate governmental interests that justify the prohibition of abortion.

While it is understandable that some of the women who are pregnant with an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality do not want their children to suffer from these defects and even though it is understandable why some of these women would want to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality, the abortion of an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality cannot be morally justified because such an abortion is normally done with the intention of causing the death of the unborn child, because such an abortion is always inherently ordered by its very nature towards causing the death of the unborn child, and because such an abortion is always an intrinsically evil act that is always contrary to natural law and the law of God.

In addition to being morally wrong and morally unjustifiable, there are other major issues with the decision to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. First, there is the possibility that an healthy unborn child will be killed as a result of such an abortion. Second, such an abortion might involve the risk of serious complications to the mother. Third, the decision to abort an unborn child that is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality can still be emotionally painful for the mother. Fourth, an abortion might be very painful for an unborn child who is being aborted, but the natural death of an child who is born with a severe fetal abnormality is not always painful to the child. Fifth, any physical pain that might be felt in children who are born with a severe fetal abnormality might be able to be effectively managed through the use of painkillers. Furthermore, the choice to abort an unborn child who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality sends the message that the child is not unconditionally loved by his or her mother, even though the mother of such a child might believe that it is a compassionate or loving choice. Finally, the choice to have a baby who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality born alive sends the positive message that the child is unconditionally loved by his or her parents, despite a severe fetal abnormality.

While that there are some individuals who believe that abortion-on-demand should remain legal and that women should continue to have a right to an abortion, there are legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortion, and abortion should become illegal again in the United States. First and foremost, the government 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 these legitimate interests have already been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Second, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting an unborn child who might be born alive as a result of a failed abortion against any irreversible harm that might result from such an attempt. Third, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting unborn children against any pain that might be experienced during an abortion procedure. Fourth, the legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortions that are not “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” are compelling enough to justify banning abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Furthermore, an unborn child already has a right to be protected against being killed illegally against the will of his or her mother under fetal homicide laws that exist in 38 states. Finally, unborn children should have a legally protected right to life that should never have been taken away from unborn children in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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