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.

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.

The beginning of human life and the governmental interest in protecting human life

Human life begins at the moment of fertilization because the process of fertilization creates a unique human being with a unique genetic identity. In the process of fertilization, a human sperm cell from the father enters an unfertilized human egg cell of the mother. The genetic material from the sperm cell combines with the genetic material contained in the egg cell. At this point, the fertilized egg cell takes on an unique genetic identity that is distinct from both of his or her parents. The fertilized egg cell will start to divide into multiple cells and is now an human embryo at this point. The newly formed human embryo will develop into a fully formed human being if it implants inside the mother’s womb and does not die prior to birth. What makes the newly formed human embryo human life is his or her unique genetic identity and the ability of the embryo to develop into a complete human organism.

In the Roe v. Wade case, the United States Supreme Court decided that the government’s interest in protecting potential human life gradually grows during the pregnancy. However, because a human embryo is human life and was so from the moment of fertilization, the government has a compelling interest in protecting human life since the moment of fertilization. States should be able to regulate or prohibit abortion procedures from the moment of fertilization because the compelling governmental interest in protecting human life already exists to the extent necessary to warrant the regulation of abortion procedures at the moment of fertilization.