What American voters must know regarding the abortion issue

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Enacting a 20-week-ban on abortion in the United States

A ban on abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization should be enacted, and such a ban should not include a rape or incest exception. Although it is perfectly understandable that women who become pregnant as a result of rape should not have to suffer through an unplanned pregnancy that was caused by an act beyond her control, rape and incest exceptions should not exist in laws that prohibit abortions because:

  • Abortion always kills an innocent human being
  • Rape-conceived pregnancies can usually be safely carried to term
  • Cases where rape-conceived pregnancies cannot be carried to term are already addressed through “life of the mother” exceptions and “health of the mother” exceptions to prohibitions on abortion
  • Women who do not want to take care of a rape-conceived children can give up their babies for adoption
  • Some women who become pregnant as a result of rape are actually unwilling to abort a rape-conceived pregnancy

In addition to the above reasons, most of the women who have been raped are aware that they have been raped, and these women can find out whether or not they became pregnant as a result of rape well before the 20th week of pregnancy through an ultrasound because a pregnancy will usually show up on an ultrasound by the 8th week of pregnancy.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act would prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization or after a gestational age of 22 weeks. Unborn children are possibly viable outside of the womb at the 20-week post-fertilization limit proposed under the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. In fact, Amillia Taylor was born at a gestational age of 21 weeks and 6 days and did survive being born that early. If Amillia Taylor could survive outside of the womb a day earlier than the 20-week post-fertilization limit proposed under the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, then other unborn children might be able to be saved if born at 20 weeks post-fertilization.

The United States Supreme Court had established the following trimester framework in the Roe v. Wade case:

  • During the first trimester of pregnancy, the abortion decision and the performance of the abortion must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
  • From approximately the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, the state can regulate abortions in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health in order to further its interest in protecting its interest in the health of the mother.
  • For the stage of the pregnancy subsequent to viability, the state can regulate and even go as far as prohibiting abortion, except where “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”, where “health of the mother” is defined as the “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” well-being of the mother.

Since unborn children are possibly viable outside of the womb at the 20-week post-fertilization limit proposed under the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the first part of the Roe trimester framework does not apply to abortions that would be prohibited under this act and the second and third parts of the Roe trimester framework are clearly applicable to abortions that would be prohibited under this proposed act.

Roe v. Wade has enabled legal abortion-on-demand in the United States for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy up until the moment of birth through the imposition of a “health of the mother” exception requirement in the Roe v. Wade trimester framework and through the broad definition of “health of the mother” in the Doe v. Bolton case. However, at least four of the United States Supreme Court justices that were involved in the final decision of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, including two justices that supported the final decision in both of these cases, did not intend for there to be a right to abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy.

Although the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act does provide exceptions for the life of the mother and for “the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including  psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant women,” this proposed legislation does not explicitly include an exception for the health of the mother and this proposed legislation is probably unenforceable due to the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, except in the case of partial-birth abortions through the intact dilation and extraction technique. This legislation will probably be challenged in the federal courts if it is enacted because this legislation does not include an explicit, broad “health of the mother” exception, and also because there would be strong opposition to this legislation by the abortion industry.

The United States Supreme Court is likely to hear a case involving a law that prohibits abortions after 20-weeks post-fertilization. The United States Supreme Court should uphold such a law, and the United States Supreme Court should also rule that states can even prohibit abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of mother after viability for the following reasons:

  • The bans on abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization being proposed by the United States Congress and by some states recognize a governmental interest of protecting unborn children against fetal pain.
  • Unborn children are possibly viable outside of the womb at 20 weeks post-fertilization.
  • Abortions can pose a serious danger to the “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” well-being of the mother, even in cases where an abortion is deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • Abortions performed for the purposes of preserving the life or health of the mother are sometimes ineffective in preserving the life or health of the mother.
  • The text of the United States Constitution does not distinguish between abortions that are necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother and abortions that are not necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • The imposition of a “health of the exception” requirement in the Roe v. Wade trimester framework implies the existence of a constitutionally guaranteed right to health-preserving medical care that is not essential to preventing the death of a patient, even though such a right does not exist within the text of the United States Constitution.
  • Except in the case of abortion, the United States Supreme Court has never declared a constitutionally guaranteed right to health-preserving medical care that is not essential to preventing the death of a patient.
  • The United States Supreme Court imposed the requirement for a “health of the mother” exception in the Roe v. Wade decision without citing any basis in the United States Constitution for such a requirement.
  • Even though the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions had the effect of legalizing abortion on demand during all nine months of pregnancy for any reason, at least four of the United States Supreme Court justices involved in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, including two that supported these decisions, did not intend for these cases to create a right to abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy.
  • The governmental interests that enable the government to prohibit abortions after viability in cases where abortions are not necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother still exist in cases where abortions are necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • The majority of Americans believe that abortion-on-demand should be illegal after viability.

Even if Roe v. Wade is not completely reversed, I predict that the following decisions will be made in future cases before the United States Supreme Court:

  • States will be allowed to regulate any abortion procedure performed after the moment of implantation.
  • After viability, states will be allowed to prohibit abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother in some circumstances.
  • States will eventually be allowed to prohibit abortions after viability in all circumstances, even when an abortion is deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

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

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

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

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

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

What Americans should know regarding the issue of abortion

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

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

Texas abortion law should be upheld by the federal courts

The Texas State Legislature passed House Bill 2 on July 18, 2013, which imposes the following restrictions on abortions performed in the state of Texas:

  • A physician who performs an abortion in the state of Texas is required to have active admitting privileges at a hospital that provides gynecological or obstetric health care services within 30 miles of the clinic where the abortion is performed or induced.
  • The telephone number of the physician, other health care personnel employed by the physician, or the facility where the abortion was performed must be disclosed to the woman whom the abortion is performed on.
  • The name and telephone number of the nearest hospital to the home of the woman at which an emergency arising from the abortion would be treated must be disclosed to the woman whom the abortion is performed on.
  • The physician performing the abortion must determine the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child being aborted prior to performing the abortion.
  • An abortion cannot be performed after 20 weeks post-fertilization unless the unborn child being aborted has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality or the abortion is required to preserve the life of the mother or to substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the mother.
  • The provision, prescription, or administration of an abortion-inducing drug must be in accordance with the guidelines approved by the Food and Drug Administration unless the provision, prescription, or administration of an inducing drug is in accordance with the clinical management guidelines defined by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Practice Bulletin as those guidelines existed on January 1, 2013.
  • Prior to the dispensation, prescription, or administration of an abortion-inducing drug, a physician must physically examine the pregnant woman and document in the woman’s medical record the gestational age and the intrauterine location of the pregnancy.
  • The physician who provides, prescribes, or administers an abortion-inducing drug must schedule a follow-up visit to occur within 14 days of the administration or use of the drug, and the physician is required to confirm that the pregnancy is completely terminated and to assess the degree of bleeding in that follow-up visit.
  • If the physician who provides, prescribes, or administers an abortion-inducing drug is aware of an serious adverse event arising from the abortion-using drug, the physician is required to report it to the Food and Drug Administration through the MedWatch Reporting System.
  • On and after September 1, 2014, the minimum standards for an abortion facility must be equivalent to the minimum standards required of ambulatory surgical centers.

Texas House Bill 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the federal courts because the regulations under this law are intended to protect pregnant women from the dangers of abortion procedures and to protect unborn children from being killed after viability. Over 400 women have died from abortions at legal abortion clinics and many post-abortive women have been harmed by abortions at legal abortion clinics since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, and the failure to uphold Texas HB2 will result in more harm to women who undergo abortions in Texas than if HB2 is upheld by the court.

Even though most of the provisions of HB2 do not pose an undue burden for abortion providers or the women who undergo abortions in Texas, the main provision of HB2 that is currently being challenged by the courts is the requirement for abortion facilities in the state of Texas to meet the minimum standards required by ambulatory surgical centers. This provision is being challenged because this provision has forced the closure of abortion clinics in Texas, because this provision has made it difficult for pregnant women to obtain abortions in Texas, and because it is difficult for most of the existing abortion facilities in Texas to comply with the new requirements of this provision.

Although Judge Yeakel ruled that HB2’s requirement that abortion clinics meet the minimum standards required of ambulatory surgical centers was imposed in order to close abortion clinics, the primary intent of this requirement was to increase the safety standards of abortion clinics in the state of Texas. As such, this requirement should be upheld and the existing abortion providers should be required to upgrade their existing clinics or relocate to clinics that meet the minimum standards provided under HB2. Additionally, even if this requirement makes it difficult for a pregnant woman to obtain an abortion in Texas or forces the closure of some of Texas’s abortion clinics, this requirement furthers the legitimate governmental interest of protecting the health of women who undergo abortions and helps protect women who are undergoing abortions from the dangers associated with unsanitary conditions at abortion clinics.

The vast majority of abortions that are performed at abortion clinics are performed for the purposes of getting rid of an unborn child who is unwanted by his or her mother, and the vast majority of pregnancies that are aborted could have been safely carried to term with proper medical care if these pregnancies were not aborted. As such, almost all of the abortions that are performed at abortion clinics are clearly elective to begin with. If the main issue at stake with the closure of abortion clinics resulting from HB 2 is really about access to assistance for women faced with unplanned pregnancies, then the state of Texas should be implementing programs that provide women who are in crisis pregnancies with the medical care and the assistance that they need to carry their pregnancies to term and to ensure that babies who are born as a result of unplanned pregnancies will be properly taken care of after birth. Increasing access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance for women who are faced with unplanned pregnancies will reduce the demand for abortions, protect pregnant women from the dangers associated with abortion procedures performed at legal abortion clinics, and save lives of unborn children who would otherwise be killed through abortion or infanticide.

Even though Judge Lee Yeakel struck down portions of HB 2 due to the loss of access to abortion that would occur as a result of abortion clinic closures in Texas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court need to uphold HB 2, even if the law will lead to the closure of abortion clinics in Texas for several reasons. First, the requirements imposed on abortion clinics under HB 2 are primarily intended to protect women from the dangers associated with legal abortion procedures and to ensure that continuity of care is there in the event that a medical emergency arises from the complications of an abortion. Second, the failure to uphold HB 2 will pose a greater danger to pregnant women who undergo abortions in Texas than upholding HB 2 would. Third, the services that women would be losing access to as a result of the regulations imposed under HB 2 are in most cases clearly elective and medically unnecessary. Fourth, providing women who are in crisis pregnancies with easier access to prenatal care, obstetric care, and pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance will reduce the demand for abortions in Texas and will lessen the need to keep abortion clinics open in Texas. Finally, some women who are in crisis pregnancies are actually unwilling to have an abortion if access to abortion is not easily available.