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.

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. states and territories should be allowed to outlaw abortion

Even though U.S. states and territories are not currently allowed to enact outright bans on abortion because of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, U.S. states and territories should be allowed to outlaw abortion because unborn children have a right to life that is universal, fundamental, and unalienable under natural law and because abortion by its very nature involves an attempt to bring about the death of an unborn child. In addition to depriving unborn children of the right to life, the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions have led to the deaths of over 57 million unborn children, the legalization of abortion for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States, taxpayer funding of abortion in the United States, an increased willingness to end unplanned, unwanted, or unintended pregnancies through a legal abortion, an increase in the overall abortion rate in the United States following the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, and a decreased respect for human life in the United States. Outlawing abortion in the United States will protect the right to life of unborn children and will lead to an increased respect for human life in the United States.

South Dakota has recently petitioned the United States Supreme Court to revisit the Roe v. Wade decision and to have the Roe v. Wade decision overturned. Other states should follow South Dakota’s lead and support efforts to either have Roe v. Wade reversed through a United States Supreme Court decision or to enact an amendment to the United States Constitution that would allow states and territories to outlaw abortion. If enough states are willing to outlaw abortion, then it would certainly be possible to outlaw abortion in a constitutionally permissible manner in the United States because the United States Supreme Court would face pressure from states to uphold laws that prohibit abortion and also because enough states would probably be willing to ratify an amendment the United States Constitution if such is needed to allow abortion to be outlawed in the United States.

While U.S. Congress and some of the state legislatures have recently undertaken efforts to reduce the abortion rate, to defund Planned Parenthood, and to prohibit most abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization on the grounds of fetal pain, there are a few things that are standing in the way of allowing the prohibition of abortion in U.S. states and territories. First, there are some Americans who still believe that abortion should remain legal. Second, some of the state legislatures in the United States are currently unwilling to outlaw abortion. Third, there are currently politicians in United States Congress who are opposed to prohibiting abortion. Fourth, the United States Supreme Court currently has at least four justices that are opposed to reversing the Roe v. Wade decision and a fifth justice that might uphold the Roe v. Wade decision. Fifth, there is strong opposition to laws that prohibit abortion by abortion providers. Furthermore, while most Americans do know that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, many Americans do not fully understand what the ramifications of Roe v. Wade are. Finally, most of the Americans who still support legalized abortion have been misguided as a result of the legalization of abortion in the United States, the Roe v. Wade decision, and pro-abortion politics.

In addition to making it constitutionally possible for states and territories to outlaw abortion, pro-life politicians should also support efforts to improve access to pro-life prenatal medical care for women who are in crisis pregnancies, to ensure that children who are born as a result of crisis pregnancies are properly taken care of, to ensure that taxpayer funding is spent on providing women in crisis pregnancies with pro-life medical care instead of paying for abortions, and that former abortion industry workers can obtain good paying jobs outside of the abortion industry. These additional measures will reduce the demand for abortion in the United States and sends the positive message that pro-life politicians actually do care about the women who are in crisis pregnancies and the children who are born as a result of crisis pregnancies. There is still hope for making it constitutionally possible for states and territories to outlaw abortion if more pro-life politicians who are willing to do much more than simply outlaw abortion are elected in the United States.

The flaws of the arguments made by reproductive rights advocates who support legal abortion

Some of the reproductive rights advocates do believe that abortion should be legal at all costs, despite efforts to impose additional regulations on the abortion industry and despite efforts to enact prohibitions on late-term abortion. However, there are flaws in the arguments that are being made by reproductive rights advocates who support legalized abortion-on-demand.

Here are some of the flaws in the arguments being made by reproductive rights advocates who support legal abortion-on-demand:

  • The arguments made by abortion rights advocates often fail to take into account the fact that abortion involves the killing of an unborn human being, but some of the supporters of abortion rights have already openly admitted that abortion does involve the killing of an unborn human being.
  • These reproductive rights advocates often argue that the decision to undergo an abortion should be a private decision between the mother and the doctor. Nevertheless, the government should have some say in the matter because an abortion involves the killing of an unborn child, because an abortion affects persons other than the mother and the doctor including the unborn child who is being aborted and the father of the aborted child, because neither the doctor nor the mother are above the law, because both the doctor and the mother are always subject to the law, because the medical profession and abortion industry are both subject to legitimate regulation by the government, and because the government has a legitimate interest in protecting pregnant women against the dangers that might result if a pregnancy is ended through an abortion.
  • It is frequently argued by abortion rights advocates that women should have a right to do whatever she wants with her own body, but abortion is by its very nature a life or death matter that involves the killing of a separate unborn human being. In addition, even though a woman generally has a legal right to undergo an abortion or to use birth control, there are laws that restrict what a woman can do with her own body, including but not limited to laws that prohibit the abuse of illegal drugs.
  • Even though reproductive rights advocates often argue that men should not have any say on the matter of abortion, men can and should have a say on the matter on abortion because pregnant women who are seeking to end their pregnancies through abortion are often placed in such a position by the choices made by the men who had gotten them pregnant, because men were involved in the decisions that legalized abortion and birth control in the United States, because abortion does affect the fathers of the unborn children who are being aborted, and because most of the men and women who oppose abortion do so because they believe that abortion constitutes the killing of an unborn human being.
  • Most reproductive rights advocates who support abortion often argue that enacting bans on abortion would cause women to lose access to essential health care, but abortion does not normally constitute essential health care because most pregnant women are able to safely their pregnancies to term with proper medical care and because the vast majority of abortions are performed for purposes other than preventing the death of the mother or treating an illness, injury, or disease of the mother. In addition, women would still have access to prenatal care, obstetric care, and gynecological medical care at healthcare providers who are not in the business of performing abortions if abortion becomes illegal.
  • While it is often argued by reproductive rights advocates that lives of pregnant women would be put in danger if abortion is outlawed, the lives of most pregnant women would not be in danger if abortion became illegal. In addition, Dr. Alan Guttmacher, an advocate for abortion rights, had already admitted prior to the legalization of abortion in the United States that it is very rare that an abortion is needed to save the life of the mother. Furthermore, several abortionists have openly admitted that abortion is not needed to save the life of the mother, despite arguments to the contrary being made by abortion rights advocates, pro-abortion politicians, and pro-abortion judges.
  • While abortion rights advocates frequently claim that abortion is safe for women, many women who have undergone an abortion have suffered physical and emotional harm as a result of a prior abortion. In addition, there are cases where women have suffered serious complications as a result of a legal abortion, and there have even been cases where women have died as a result of a legal abortion.
  • The arguments being made in favor of keeping abortion legal often fail to take into account the dangers that abortion procedures pose to the health of the women who undergo abortions.
  • Planned Parenthood, who is the nation’s largest abortion organization and is one of the most prominent advocates of abortion rights in the United States, is willing to lie about the dangers of abortion procedures in order to get additional abortion business that it would not otherwise receive, and these lies have been exposed through an undercover investigation performed by Live Action back in 2012.
  • Even though it is frequently argued that women will resort to illegal back-alley abortions if abortion is outlawed, most of the women who are in crisis pregnancies would be personally unwilling to end a pregnancy through an abortion if abortion becomes illegal and most of the women who are seeking an abortion are only willing to do so if it is legal and readily available.
  • Despite what is argued by reproductive rights advocates and despite a perceived need for abortion by women who are in desperate situations, many of the abortions that are being performed in the United States would not be necessary if these women had easier access to prenatal care through healthcare providers that do not perform abortions, if these women were given the support needed to carry their pregnancies to term, if these women are offered the assistance needed to give up their babies for adoption in the event that they do not want to take care of their unborn child after birth, and if these women were given the help needed to raise their children after birth in the event that their babies are not given up for adoption.
  • The vast majority of abortions that are performed in the United States involve unplanned, unintended, or unwanted pregnancies that are the result of consensual sexual intercourse, and these unplanned, unintended, or unwanted pregnancies could have been avoided in the first place if these women did not choose to engage in sexual intercourse, despite claims that these women are incapable of abstaining from sexual activity.
  • Even though reproductive rights advocates often argue that women need to have a right to abortion in order to complete their educations or to have successful careers, some of the women who had children prior to completing their education have been able to successfully complete their education and some of the women with children have been able to have successful careers. In addition, a woman who is unwilling to sacrifice her education opportunities or her career in the event of an unplanned pregnancy is usually able to avoid an unplanned pregnancy and is usually able to avoid having to be in position where she feels that she has to have an abortion by choosing to completely abstain from sexual intercourse.
  • While most of the women who undergo an abortion are aware that an abortion does end a pregnancy and while most of these same women are also aware that abortion will result in the death of a fetus, some of the women who are seeking an abortion are not fully aware of the gruesome reality behind abortion and some of these women would not have sought an abortion if they were aware of the gruesome reality of abortion.
  • Abortion rights advocates and the abortion industry often attempt to conceal the gruesome reality behind abortion in order to make abortion appear to be attractive to those who support abortion rights and to the women who are seeking to end pregnancies through abortion.
  • Abortion clinics often misrepresent the facts regarding fetal development to prospective patients so that they will not be deterred into undergoing an abortion. Live Action has conducted undercover investigations that show that Planned Parenthood employees will lie about the facts of fetal development so that they can get more abortion business.
  • Pregnant women who do not want an abortion and who obtain medical care at abortion providers are often coerced into having abortions that they do not want because these abortion providers really want to do as many abortions as they can and really want to make as much money as they can, despite widespread opposition to this kind of coercion by the majority of Americans and despite the popular claim by abortion rights advocates that a woman should have a right to choose whether or not to end her pregnancy through an abortion.
  • Even though pro-lifers are opposed to keeping abortion legal, most pro-lifers do support legitimate reproductive medical care that does not entail the performance of an abortion. Furthermore, the laws that these pro-lifers support do not prohibit licensed obstetricians, gynecologists, and urologists from providing legitimate reproductive medical care that does not entail the performance of an abortion.
  • Abortion rights advocates in the United States often argue in favor of keeping abortion legal on the assumption that Roe v. Wade will not be reversed and on the assumption that an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows states and Congress to enact bans on abortion will not be ratified. However, the United States Supreme Court has already admitted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 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,” and this admission will probably lead to the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in a future United States Supreme Court case on the issue of abortion.

If more people become aware of the flaws of the arguments that are being made by reproductive rights advocates who support legal abortion, support for keeping abortion legal in the United States would decrease. In addition, the demand for keeping abortion legal can be further reduced by providing pro-life assistance to women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or unintended pregnancies in a loving and caring manner.