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.

Advertisements

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.

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court, even if it leads to the closure of abortion clinics in the state of Texas, because the Texas Legislature did not intend to prohibit abortion clinics who are compliant with the requirements of HB 2 from performing abortions prior to 20 weeks post-fertilization, abortions necessary to prevent the death or “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, other than a psychological condition” of the mother, or an abortion of an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. In addition, several of the regulations contained within HB 2 are constitutionally permissible because these provisions of HB 2 regulate abortion in a manner that is “reasonably related to maternal health” and because they do not prohibit abortion providers who are compliant with HB 2 from performing abortions.

The United States Supreme Court should decide that laws that prohibit or regulate abortion are constitutionally permissible, even though the United States previously declared state laws that prohibited abortion as being unconstitutional in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, because these laws further the legitimate governmental interests “in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” which had been acknowledged in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. In addition, the state has legitimate governmental interests not acknowledged in the Roe v. Wade case that justify the prohibition of abortion, including but not limited to a legitimate governmental interest in protecting unborn children against pain that might be felt during an abortion, a legitimate governmental interest in protecting unborn children against irreversible harm that might result from an attempted abortion that fails to result in the death of the unborn child, and a legitimate governmental interest in deterring infanticide.

One of the major reasons why abortion providers in Texas are seeking to have HB 2 declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court is that some of the pregnant women who reside in the state of Texas and who are seeking to end pregnancies through an abortion would be deprived of the opportunity to have an abortion if HB 2 is upheld by the United States Supreme Court. However, a law that regulates or prohibits abortion does not become unconstitutional simply because of opposition by the abortion industry since these laws can be constitutionally permissible if these laws are not prohibited by the United States Constitution and if proper procedure was followed by the legislature and the governor in passing these laws. In addition, the United States Supreme Court should uphold HB 2 if it determines that the provisions of HB 2 are permitted under the United States Constitution, even if there is opposition to HB 2 by Texas abortion providers.

The majority of pregnant women who are seeking to end their pregnancies through an abortion choose to do so because they do not want to take care of their unborn children after birth. Having an abortion and raising the child on her own after birth are not the only options available for a woman who is in an unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy because she also has the option to give up her unborn child for adoption if she does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth. In addition, the denial of an abortion to a pregnant woman who is in a unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy is not unreasonable if the mother is able to safely carry the pregnancy to the stage at which her unborn child is likely to be viable outside of the womb with proper medical care, if the mother is able to safely deliver her unborn child alive with proper medical care, if the mother has access to proper prenatal medical care, and if the mother is able to transfer legal custody, physical custody, and financial responsibility to another individual who can take care of her child after birth if she does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth. Furthermore, there is always the risk that a pregnant woman will not be able to abort a pregnancy that is already at the stage at which her unborn child is viable outside of the womb, even if abortion is perfectly legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy, because there is always the risk that she will go into labor prematurely.

Improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance for women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancies in the state of Texas would reduce the demand for abortions in the state of Texas. Additionally, improved access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance in the state of Texas will provide real help to pregnant women who would no longer have easy access to abortion if Texas HB 2 is upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court. Furthermore, the plan to improve access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance in the state of Texas should include improved access to pro-life prenatal medical care, unemployment assistance to pregnant women who are unable to work because of a complication of pregnancy, improved access to material assistance to a parent of a child who is born as a result of a unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy, and making it easier for a woman who does not want to take care of her child after birth to give up her child for adoption. Finally, improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance would send the positive message that abortion is not the only option for those women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancies.

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court, even if some women would be denied abortions as a result of upholding HB 2, because the need and the demand for abortions in the state of Texas can be reduced by improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance and by making it easier for a pregnant women who does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth to give up her child for adoption. Furthermore, the failure to uphold Texas HB 2 will unnecessarily endanger the lives and health of women who undergo abortions in the state of Texas. Finally, abortion providers who operate abortion clinics in the state of Texas are seeking to have HB 2 declared unconstitutional in order to increase their profits and to avoid the expense of having to upgrade their existing abortion clinics or to relocate to new abortion clinics that meet the new standards.

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

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

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

What Americans should know regarding the issue of abortion

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

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

Texas abortion law should be upheld by the federal courts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion-on-demand is legal during all 9 months of pregnancy in the United States

The United States is currently only one of five countries in the world to have legal abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy. The other countries with legal abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy are Canada, China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Abortion-on-demand has been effectively legalized during all nine months of pregnancy in the United States as a result of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases.

In Roe v. Wade, 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.” The Supreme Court also decided in Doe v. Bolton case that “the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. And it is room that operates for the benefit, not the disadvantage, of the pregnant woman.” Even though the officially stated intent of the “health of the mother exception” was to ensure that pregnant women could obtain access to procedures that were necessary for the “preservation of the health of the mother,” the real effect of this exception was to allow abortion-on-demand to be legally justified after viability for any reason on the grounds that the “health of the mother” would be endangered if an abortion was not performed.

Despite the fact that the term “health” was broadly defined in Doe v. Bolton to include “physical, emotional, and psychological well-being”, the fact that the so-called “health of the mother” is in danger during the pregnancy does not necessarily imply that an abortion is necessary because the health of the mother is often capable of being preserved by means that do not entail an abortion, the termination of pregnancy, the death of an unborn child, or premature birth. In fact, in most pregnancies, an abortion is not the only means of preserving the so-called “health of the mother.” Caesarean section delivery and induced childbirth also have the effect of ending the pregnancy and are also capable of preserving the “health of the mother”, but these procedures differ from post-viability abortions because these procedures do not entail actively killing an unborn child like most post-viability abortion procedures do. Furthermore, most of the abortions being performed at American abortion clinics are being performed primarily for the purposes of getting rid of an unborn child who is unwanted by his or her mother, and most of these pregnancies could have been safely carried to term with proper medical care if there wasn’t an attempt to undergo an abortion.

While the officially stated intent of the “health of the mother exception” was to ensure that a pregnant woman would “benefit” from abortions performed in cases where the abortion was determined to be “necessary for the preservation of the health of the mother,” many post-abortive women have experienced harm to their “health” or their “physical, emotional, or psychological well-being” as a result of the complications of a prior legal abortion. Furthermore, there have even been cases where women have died from legal abortion procedures in the United States, including the death of Karnamaya Mongar by Kermit Gosnell at his former abortion clinic in 2009, the death of Tanya Reaves by Mandy Gittler at a Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic in 2012, and the death of Jennifer Morbelli by Leroy Carhart at his abortion clinic in 2013. It is obviously clear from the harm caused to the health of post-abortive women and the deaths arising from legal abortions that abortions are not always effective in preserving the health of the mother, and most of these post-abortive women who have been harmed as a result of legal abortion procedures would not have experienced this harm if they carried their pregnancies to term and had their babies. Furthermore, Karnamaya Mongar, Tanya Reaves, and Jennifer Morbelli would probably be alive today if they had chosen to carry their pregnancies to term and they didn’t undergo an abortion.

The requirement for abortion to be legal in cases where it is “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the health of the mother” has often failed to preserve the “health of the mother” due to the adverse harm that many post-abortive women experience as a result of a prior abortion. The death of an unborn child as a result of a prior abortion is one of the causes of the harm to the “emotional and psychological well-being” of a post-abortive women. The unsanitary conditions at many abortion clinics, the failure to take reasonable measures to protect the health of the mother, and the carelessness of many abortionists also contribute to the harm to the “physical, emotional, and psychological well-being” of post-abortive women. Furthermore, many post-abortive women face an increased risk of breast cancer and an increased risk of complications in future pregnancies as a result of undergoing an abortion. Even though the United States Supreme Court had admitted in Doe v. Bolton that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting women from harm resulting from an abortion, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton fail to take into consideration the harm that many post-abortive women face as a result of a legal abortion procedure.

Abortionists often make medical judgments that are not in the best interest of their patients in order to advance their business interests and to increase their profits. Additionally, many abortionists who perform elective abortions at American abortion clinics attempt to increase their profits by failing to maintain sanitary conditions, coercing potential patients into consenting to an abortion, rushing patients through abortions, and failing to follow up on complications arising from abortions. The carelessness of many American abortionists has led to complications that should not have occurred as well as deaths of post-abortive women that should not have happened. Increased regulation of abortion facilities in the United States is essential to protecting women from the dangers of legal abortions, and these regulations must be enforced, even if it affects the bottom line of abortion providers or if the regulations lead to the closure of abortion clinics, because the government has a legitimate interest in protecting women from the harm arising from abortion procedures.

The United States Supreme Court needs to revisit the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases for several reasons. First, these decisions have enabled abortion-on-demand to be legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy up to the moment of birth. Second, the imposition of the requirement of the “health of the mother” exception has led to abortions being performed in circumstances where the abortion is not needed to preserve the life or health of the mother. Third, the legalization of abortion-on-demand during all nine months of pregnancy has had adverse effects on the health of post-abortive women and will continue to result in harm to women who undergo abortions while abortion-on-demand is legal and available. Fourth, the legalization of abortion and the availability of abortion has led to the deaths of over 50 million unborn children, an increased willingness to abort unplanned pregnancies, and an increased willingness to kill unwanted children after birth through infanticide. Fifth, both of these decisions are the result of false statements made by the plaintiffs and their attorneys, judicial errors by United States Supreme Court judges, and a misinterpretation of the provisions of the United States Constitution that were applied in these cases. Finally, the reversal of these decisions will protect women from the dangers of abortion procedures, will reduce the demand for abortion in the United States, will reduce the number of unborn children being killed as a result of abortion, and will protect the right to life of unborn children.