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.

Advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States Supreme Court should uphold laws that prohibit abortion – Part 2

The United States Supreme Court had decided in Roe v. Wade that “state criminal abortion laws … that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy.” However, the United States Supreme Court had also decided in Roe v. Wade that “The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.” In addition, the United States Supreme Court also “conclude[d] that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation,” decided that “the pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy,” and also ruled that “the woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly” in the Roe v. Wade case. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court also ruled in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, that “if the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”

While the United States Supreme Court arrived at the conclusion that laws that prohibit abortion were unconstitutional under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment on the grounds that the prohibition of abortion impermissibly violates a pregnant woman’s right to privacy, the fact that a pregnant woman has a right to privacy should not have been sufficient to render laws that prohibit abortion unconstitutional because a pregnant woman does not have an absolute right to privacy and also because “governmental intrusion” involving a decision to undergo an abortion is not necessarily “unwarranted” because an abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being. In addition, there are acts that are still illegal to commit in the privacy of one’s own home or in other places where there is an expectation of privacy, including but not limited to murder, assault, child abuse, identity theft, wire fraud, mail fraud, incest, rape, statutory rape, the sexual abuse of a minor, illegal sexual relations between a teacher and a student, the possession of child pornography, the production of child pornography, the illegal possession of controlled substances, and the abuse of controlled substances, and the laws prohibiting these acts are not unconstitutional on the grounds that a person has a right to privacy or on the grounds that these acts are committed in places where there is an expectation of privacy. Furthermore, even though a woman generally has a legal right to abortion and contraception in the United States, the law still imposes restrictions on a woman’s right to decide on “whether to bear or beget a child” because a woman cannot legally choose to engage in sexual intercourse with an underage boy and because a woman cannot legally choose to engage in sexual intercourse with closely related individuals such as her brother, her father, or her son.

In the Roe v. Wade ruling, the United States Supreme Court decided 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.” However, the United States Supreme Court also effectively legalized abortion-on-demand in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, by broadly defining “health of the mother” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the [mother],” and Justice William Douglas will also state in his concurring opinion of Doe v. Bolton that “the right to privacy” encompasses “the right to care for one’s health.” Furthermore, even though the United States Supreme Court required that abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother” be legal during all nine months of pregnancy, the definition of health is not contained within the text of the United States Constitution, and the text of the United States Constitution does not make any kind of distinction between abortions that are not needed for the preservation of the health of the mother and abortions that are necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother, at least with respect to abortions that are not essential to preventing the death of the mother. Finally, the legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortion after viability are compelling enough to even justify prohibiting abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother, including governmental interests that were not acknowledged during the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases.

The Roe v. Wade decision should be reversed, even if some people are opposed to its reversal, for several reasons. First, the government has a compelling interest in protecting both the life of an unborn child and the health of the mother during all nine months of pregnancy, and this compelling interest has even been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in the final ruling of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Second, human life has already begun at the stages of pregnancy at which abortions are performed because human life begins at the moment of conception, and this fact is supported by both objective scientific fact and legal precedent. Third, our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn human beings, despite the fact that this right had been taken away from unborn children as a result of the Roe v. Wade decision, and the 14th Amendment was not intended to affect laws that prohibit abortion. Fourth, the fact that a woman has a right to privacy does not necessarily imply that a pregnant woman must have a right to an abortion because a woman does not have an absolute right to privacy and because a woman’s own privacy is not the only thing at stake in an decision to undergo an abortion. Fifth, the United States Supreme Court relied on false statements made by Sarah Weddington (the attorney representing plaintiff Norma McCorvey in Roe v. Wade) and Margie Pitts Hames (the attorney representing plaintiff Sandra Cano in Doe v. Bolton) in order to arrive at its conclusions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Sixth, many issues have arisen since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases that necessitate revisiting these two decisions, including but not limited to the dangers of abortion procedures to the lives and to the health of the women who undergo abortions and the danger of irreversible harm to babies who have survived failed abortions. Finally, the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton will allow states to enact laws that protect the right to life of unborn children, which is an unalienable right that should never have been taken away from unborn children.

The United States Supreme Court should uphold laws that prohibit abortion – Part 1

The United States Supreme Court should uphold laws that prohibit abortion, even though the United States Supreme Court had legalized abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy for any reason in the United States, because laws that prohibit abortion protect the right to life of unborn children, which should have never been taken away in the first place, and also because the government has other legitimate interests that justify the prohibition of abortion. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has already 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” in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, and these legitimate governmental interests would be furthered by laws that prohibit or regulate abortion procedures. Additionally, our founding fathers clearly intended for the constitutionally guaranteed right to life to extend to unborn children and did not intend to restrict the right to life to persons who have been born, and this position can be found in James Wilson’s Lectures on Law and William Blackstone’s Commentaries.

Despite the common argument that the Roe v. Wade ruling should not be reversed under the principle of stare decisis, the United States Supreme Court has already reversed prior United States Supreme Court rulings in cases involving federal constitutional law on matters other than abortion, and as such should reverse the Roe v. Wade decision if laws that prohibit abortion are permissible under the United States Constitution. If laws that prohibit abortion are indeed constitutionally permissible in the United States, then the United States Supreme Court should never have legalized abortion through the Roe v. Wade decision because Roe v. Wade was decided on the premise that laws that prohibit abortion are not constitutionally permissible under the United States Constitution. Furthermore, justices of the United States Supreme Court should not be blindly opposed to reversing the Roe v. Wade decision, and should be willing to do so if the United States Supreme Court determines that the prohibition of abortion is permissible under the existing provisions of the United States Constitution or if an amendment to the United States Constitution that allows the prohibition of abortion is ratified.

In order to answer the question of whether laws prohibiting abortion are constitutionally permissible under the United States Constitution, one needs to understand where our founding fathers and the authors of the 14th Amendment stood on the right to life of unborn children. First, our founding fathers said in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Second, our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children, and James Wilson, one of the founding fathers who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, will say the following in his Lectures on Law: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.” Third, both the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution state that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Fourth, at least 20 states had laws prohibiting abortion that were enacted prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and that remained in effect until the Roe v. Wade decision on January 22, 1973, and the 14th Amendment was never intended to affect these laws. Finally, the United States Supreme Court incorrectly decided that the right to life did not extend to unborn children in the final decision of the Roe v. Wade decision, even though our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children and even though the 14th Amendment was not intended to affect laws that prohibited abortion.

Even though United States Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun stated that “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins” in the Roe v. Wade decision, the United States Supreme Court has already made admissions that imply that human life begins prior to birth and that human life has already begun at the stages of pregnancy at which abortions are performed in cases involving the issue of abortion.  In fact, Justice Blackmun himself will admit in Colautti v. Franklin that abortion “result[s] in the death of the fetus,” and Justice Lewis Powell, who also supported the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, will also admit the same in Simopoulos v. Virginia. Additionally, Justice Potter Stewart, another supporter of both the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, will admit that “abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures, because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life” in the Harris v. McRae Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court had referred to the “life of the fetus that may become a child” as life in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. Finally, Justice Antonin Scalia will admit that abortion involves the “killing [of] a human child” in the Stenburg v. Carhart case.

The Doe v. Bolton decision was wrongfully decided and must be reversed

Here is what the United States Supreme Court decided in Doe v. Bolton:

  • Mary Doe and the physicians both had standing to sue in Doe v. Bolton.
  • A woman’s constitutional right to abortion is not absolute.
  • The health of the mother includes “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient.”
  • The requirement that a physician’s decision to perform an abortion must be based on his best clinical judgment is not constitutionally vague because this decision can be made in light of all of the circumstances.
  • The requirement that abortions in the state of Georgia be performed at hospitals accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals was determined to be unconstitutional.
  • The interposition of a hospital committee on abortion was determined to be unduly restrictive of the patient’s rights, which were viewed by the United States Supreme Court to already have been safeguarded by her personal physician.
  • Required acquiescence by two other physicians has no rational connection with a patient’s needs and unduly infringes on a physician’s right to practice medicine.
  • The restriction of abortion to Georgia residents violates the Privileges and Immunities clause of the United States Constitution.

Here are the facts of the Doe v. Bolton case that are actually false:

  • Mary Doe had been advised that an abortion could be performed on her with less danger to her health than if she gave birth to the child she was carrying.
  • On March 25, 1970, Mary Doe applied to the Abortion Committee of Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, for a therapeutic abortion under Georgia state law. Her application was denied 16 days later, on April 10, when she was eight weeks pregnant, on the ground that her situation was not one described under the laws of Georgia that were in effect at that time.
  • Because Mary Doe’s application was denied, she was forced either to relinquish “her right to decide when and how many children she will bear” or to seek an abortion that was illegal under the Georgia statutes.

Here are the true facts regarding Mary Doe and the pregnancy that was in question in Doe v. Bolton:

  • The plaintiff in Doe v. Bolton, Mary Doe, is actually Sandra Cano.
  • Sandra Cano was unwilling to undergo an abortion, even though she had been pressured by her attorney, Margie Pitts Hames, into having an abortion.
  • When Sandra Cano was seeking legal assistance from Margie Pitts Hames, she was only seeking to divorce her husband at that time and to regain custody of her children.
  • There is no record of Sandra Cano ever applying for a therapeutic abortion at Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta.
  • Sandra Cano had already had her fourth child and had already given up that child for adoption at the time that the Doe v. Bolton decision was made.
  • Sandra Cano believed that abortion was morally wrong and that the Doe v. Bolton decision was wrongfully decided.
  • Sandra Cano had consistently supported the reversal of the Doe v. Bolton decision.
  • Sandra Cano had believed that abortion is not in the best interest of the mother.

Here are reasons why the Doe v. Bolton decision was wrong and why Doe v. Bolton must be reversed:

  • The United States Supreme Court relied on false statements provided by Margie Pitts Hames, who was representing Mary Doe in Doe v. Bolton, to arrive at its final ruling in Doe v. Bolton, and these false statements had a material effect on the outcome of the Doe v. Bolton decision.
  • The broad definition of health provided in the Doe v. Bolton decision has enabled abortion-on-demand to be legal during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States, up to the moment of birth.
  • The Doe v. Bolton case was actually brought before the United Supreme Court against the will of Sandra Cano, who was the plaintiff in the Doe v. Bolton case.
  • Sandra Cano’s due process rights were violated in the Doe v. Bolton case, regardless of the outcome of the Doe v. Bolton case, the position of the Supreme Court justices that decided Doe v. Bolton, or the correctness of the final decision of the Doe v. Bolton case, because Doe v. Bolton was filed against her will and because she was not afforded an opportunity to get the true facts of her side of the story before the United States Supreme Court during the Doe v. Bolton case.
  • Margie Pitts Hames, who was the attorney representing Sandra Cano in Doe v. Bolton, engaged in unethical actions, including bringing the Doe v. Bolton case against the will of Sandra Cano and making false statements during the Doe v. Bolton case.
  • The procedural conditions on abortion under Georgia state law that were declared to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton were restricting the practice of medicine, which is a privilege afforded to validly licensed physicians and is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, and these procedural conditions should not have been declared unconstitutional because these procedural conditions were regulating privileges afforded to validly licensed physicians.
  • The rights of a pregnant woman are not always adequately safeguarded when she seeks to obtain reproductive medical services at abortion providers because abortion providers often coerce pregnant patients into undergoing abortions and because abortionists often make medical judgments that are not in the best interest of the pregnant woman who is considering an abortion.
  • The state has various legitimate governmental interests, including but not limited to a legitimate interest in regulating the medical profession, a legitimate interest in regulating an individual physician’s privilege of practicing medicine, a legitimate interest in protecting the lives of unborn children who are viable outside of the womb, and a legitimate interest in protecting pregnant women against serious errors in medical judgment that might lead to the death of an unborn child or serious harm to the mother, that justify regulations on abortion that are similar to those that have been wrongfully declared to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Doe v. Bolton.
  • The Doe v. Bolton decision must be reversed, even if legal support for abortion still exists in the United States, because this decision was attained in violation of the due process rights of Sandra Cano, because this decision resulted from false statements that materially affected the outcome of this case, because this decision resulted from judicial errors made by justices of the United States Supreme Court during this case, and because this decision is contrary to the intent of the provisions of the United States Constitution that were applied to this case and the Roe v. Wade case.

In an effort to reverse the Doe v. Bolton decision, Sandra Cano filed an affidavit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia back in 2003, and that affidavit can be found here.

Sandra Cano tragically passed away on September 30th from complications of throat cancer. Even though the Doe v. Bolton decision was unable to be successfully reversed during her lifetime, there is still hope that the Doe v. Bolton decision will be reversed.

Why the Obamacare HHS mandate is wrong

The mandated coverage of abortion, contraceptives, and elective sterilization under the Obamacare HHS mandate is wrong to begin with for several reasons. First, the mandate forces those individuals who are opposed to abortion, contraception, or sterilization to pay for procedures that they believe are morally wrong. Second, the mandate does substantially and unreasonably restrict the religious freedom of some Americans because it forces some Americans to engage in actions that violate their consciences and their deeply held religious beliefs. Third, mandating coverage for abortion, contraceptives, and sterilization under the Obamacare HHS mandate takes away money from other healthcare services that are clearly medically necessary. Finally, the Obamacare HHS mandate provides providers that are primarily in the business of providing elective abortions, elective sterilizations, and providing contraceptives for the purposes of preventing unplanned pregnancies, including Planned Parenthood, with federal funds that they need to stay afloat, even though these providers are providing services that are often medically unnecessary.

To understand why the Obamacare HHS mandate is wrong and how American society got into this controversial mandate, one needs to understand how American society has changed from a culture of life where abortion is illegal to a culture of death where abortion on demand is legal during all nine months of pregnancy. Our founding fathers clearly believed that the government should not impose unreasonable restrictions on the right of persons to freely exercise their religious beliefs, and our founding fathers also believed that the right to life should not be restricted to persons who have been born and should be extended to unborn human beings. Back in the 1700’s when the United States was founded, contraception and abortion were both considered to be morally wrong by the Catholic Church and the various Protestant churches that existed in the United States in the late 1700’s. Every major Christian denomination did consider contraception to be morally wrong until the Seventh Lambeth Conference in 1930, where the Church of England for the very first time considered it to be morally acceptable for married couples to use contraception if there is a serious reason to avoid pregnancy. Then in 1960, the birth control pill was made available for contraceptive use, and this will lead to the sexual revolution and the legalization of contraception and abortion nationwide in the United States. The availability of the birth control pill and the sexual revolution of the 1960’s will lead to the legalization of contraception and abortion nationwide. Since then, the culture of death and the support for legalized abortion have existed in the United States, but the promotion of the culture of death and the legalization of abortion and contraception has had many bad consequences for American society for over 40 years.

The sexual revolution, the legalization of contraception, the legalization of abortion, and pro-abortion politics have all paved the way for the Obamacare HHS mandate, and the Obamacare HHS mandate would not have existed without the legalization of abortion in the United States or the existence of a pro-abortion political climate within the United States. In fact, if the so-called constitutional right to an abortion were not created by the United States Supreme Court as a result of Roe v. Wade and if the United States Supreme Court had upheld the laws that were at stake in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, then legal abortion on demand would not exist in some states of the United States, the political climate on abortion would be very different in the United States, and the mandated coverage of abortion under Obamacare would not exist. Some of the bad consequences that have resulted from the culture of death of the United States have already occurred, including the deaths of over 50 million babies from abortion, a lowering of moral standards in American society, and an increased willingness to get rid of unwanted unborn children through legal abortion.

The legalization of abortion in the United States has led to a significant increase in the overall abortion rate in the United States and an significant increase in the number of abortion providers in the United States, but this trend has been reversing in recent years due to the closures of abortion clinics, decreased demand for legal abortion, and increased regulation of abortion at the state level in some states. Even though progress has been made in the pro-life movement in the United States, more needs to be done to reverse the culture of death that exists in the United States, including the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision and the abolition of mandatory coverage of abortion, contraception, and elective sterilization in Obamacare. More information about how to oppose the Obamacare HHS mandate can be found here.

The Fortnight for Freedom, which started today, and runs through July 4th, is intended to raise awareness of the effects of the Obamacare mandate and other proposed laws on the religious freedoms of Catholics and other Americans. The theme of the this year’s Fortright for Freedom is serving the poor and vulnerable in accordance with human dignity and the law of God. In addition to raising awareness regarding the Obamacare mandate and its effects on the religious freedoms of many Americans, the Fortnight for Freedom is also intended to raise awareness of the unjust discrimination being perpetrated against Catholics, conservative Protestants, and others who oppose abortion, contraception, and same-sex marriages. More information about the Fortnight for Freedom can be found at One More Soul’s Fortnight for Freedom 2014 page and USCCB’s Fortnight For Freedom page.