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.

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

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

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

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

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

“Necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” does not mean the same thing as medically necessary

Even though most Americans believe that “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” means the same thing as medically necessary, an abortion that is not medically necessary can be legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” because the United States Supreme Court broadly defined “health of the mother” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the [mother]” in the Doe v. Bolton case, which is the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. The broad definition of health in the Doe v. Bolton decision, along with the requirement that abortions after viability be legal whenever they are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” has allowed abortion on demand to be effectively legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States because abortionists can legally claim that an abortion is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother”, even when the abortion is medically unnecessary.

There are certain criteria that have to be met in order for a medical procedure to be medically necessary, and some of the abortions that are legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” under the criteria set forth in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions are not considered to be medically necessary under the criteria accepted by most of the medical profession and health insurance companies. Here are the criteria that have to be met for a medical procedure to be medically necessary:

  1. The procedure must be in accordance with the generally accepted standards of medical practice.
  2. The procedure is performed for the purposes of preventing the death of the patient or preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the patient.
  3. The procedure is clinically appropriate, in terms of type, frequency, extent, site and duration.
  4. The procedure is effective in preventing the death of the patient or in preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the patient.
  5. The procedure is not primarily performed for the convenience of the patient, the physician, or other health care provider.
  6. The procedure is less expensive than an alternative which is at least as likely to produce equivalent therapeutic or diagnostic results as to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s illness, injury or disease, or as to preventing the death of the patient.

Abortions that are legally considered to be “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” under the criteria established under the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions might not be considered to be medically necessary under the criteria accepted by most of the medical profession and health insurance companies for several reasons. First, such an abortion might not be in accordance with the generally accepted standards of medical practice. Second, most of the abortions that fall under the so-called “health of the mother exception” are performed for purposes other than and apart from preventing the death of the mother or preventing, diagnosing, or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the mother.  Third, most abortions are primarily performed for the convenience of the mother, and as such would not fall under the medical necessity criteria used by health insurance companies and most of the medical profession. Finally, an abortion might be considered to be clinically inappropriate under the criteria used by health insurance companies and most of the medical profession, even though abortion providers often consider these abortions to be clinically appropriate.

Many Americans misunderstand the difference between an abortion that is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother,” as defined by the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, and an abortion that is medically necessary under the definition accepted by most of the medical profession and by health insurance companies. This misunderstanding has allowed abortionists to legally perform medically unnecessary abortions during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States. In addition, this misunderstanding has enabled abortionists and abortion providers to file claims for abortions that are considered to be medically necessary by the abortion provider but would not be considered to be medically necessary by the health insurance provider. Moreover, some of the women who are seeking an abortion that is deemed to be “necessary, in appropriate judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother” by an abortionist might not understand why such an abortion might not be covered under an health insurance policy that covers medically necessary abortions but does not cover elective abortions. Furthermore, this misunderstanding has allowed abortion providers to receive taxpayer funding that it should not have been entitled to by claiming that the abortions are “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother.” Finally, if more individuals understood the difference between “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” and medically necessary, there would be increased support for prohibiting medically unnecessary abortions after viability and there would be decreased support for taxpayer funding of abortion providers.

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 the right to conscientious objection should be legally protected

There are some pro-abortion politicians who support requiring doctors to perform abortions, even if doing so would violate their consciences. There are good reasons why a physician’s right to conscientiously object to abortion, contraception, sterilization, assisted reproductive procedures, and physician assisted suicide should be protected by law. First, some of the procedures that doctors conscientiously object to, such as elective abortion and physician assisted suicide, are considered to be morally wrong by the majority of Americans. Second, some of the procedures that some physicians conscientiously object to are unethical according to the principles of ethics generally applicable in the medical field. Third, a physician might conscientiously object to a morally objectionable medical procedure on grounds other than the intrinsic immorality of abortion or the religious beliefs of the physician, such as a danger to the life or health of the mother that might result from the complications of an abortion. Fourth, depriving physicians of the right to conscientiously object to abortion, contraception, sterilization, and assisted suicide infringes upon the rights of some physicians to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Finally, depriving physicians of the right to conscientiously object to these procedures forces physicians to perform morally objectionable procedures in cases where the procedures are medically unnecessary or where the procedures go against a medical judgment that is made in good faith.

It is essential that a physician’s right to conscientiously object to abortion, contraception, sterilization, assisted reproductive procedures, and physician assisted suicide be legally protected, even if there is opposition to such protections, since the religious freedom of health professionals is not the only thing at stake if conscience protections are absent. In addition to protecting the religious freedom of health professionals, conscience protection laws do protect patients against the harm that might result from the complications of medical procedures, protect patients from being forced to undergo medical procedures that might violate the religious beliefs of the patient, prevent health professionals from being forced to perform procedures that are medically unnecessary, prevent health professionals from being forced to violate their consciences, and allow physicians and other health professionals to object to procedures that might have dangerous side effects on the basis of a professional judgment that is made in good faith.