On Tuesday, Biden will give a speech to the DNC in which he’ll pledge to codify abortion rights soon after the next Congress convenes, provided he has comfortable majorities in both the House and Senate:

CatholicVote
@CatholicVote
·
Follow
This. Is. VILE!

President Biden makes the Sign of the Cross at an abortion rally in Florida!

You cannot be Catholic and support abortion!

You cannot invoke GOD and promote Death!

5:18 PM · Apr 23, 2024 //

Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
·
Follow
Wow. Biden in Tampa on Trump: "He said there has to be punishment for women exercising their reproductive freedom ... maybe it's coming from that bible he's trying to sell. I almost wanted to buy one just to see what the hell is in it."

3:21 PM · Apr 23, 2024

Jennifer Oliver O'Connell @asthegirlturns
·
Now add promotion of how Life Wins in every state by Republican elected officials of that state. Learn what's happening in your own backyard and support it. Half of these reps have no clue.

Bonchie @bonchieredstate
Trump took the right position on abortion.

Practically, more babies are saved by 6-week bans in some states than some compromise that allows abortion until 15-20 weeks nationwide and that Dems build on.

The only way you preserve pro-life wins is keeping it a state issue.
10:42 PM · Apr 8, 2024 //

But no amount of legislation is going to convert hearts and minds. That is up to us. We must not just promote a culture of Life, but emulate it at every turn, and Fr. Pavone reaffirmed that this is where the church is critical. //

Indylawyer
an hour ago
Pro-lifers need to understand that the battle has shifted from a court battle to a legislative one. Prior to Dobbs, the overriding political objective for pro-lifers was overturning Roe, and a key part of doing that was to keep the fight against it alive. It was critical that at least one party maintain a pro-life position to show that the Roe could not be regarded as settled by consensus.
...
The symbolism of a pro-life political party is less critical because many of America's states have now enacted laws prohibiting it in most situations. Instead, we need to be actively pushing legislation in every state to maximize the protection of the unborn. A 15 week ban might still be useful to highlight Democrat extremism in a state like Illinois or New York, but it should be regarded as abject surrender in most red states. Federal legislation may be necessary to support state laws and perhaps eventually prevent a handful of states from providing abortion havens to undermine their pro-life sisters. But that is far in the future and we have a hard fight to get there. For now, the main thing we need from the federal government is to stay out of the way and allow the states to protect the unborn. A federal half-measures like a 15-week limit would be difficult to enforce, would have little impact on the number of abortions, and would undermine the state efforts to go farther. I hope Trump speaks out against some of the radical pro-abortion ballot measures that are being proposed, he'd be a valuable voice in that fight. But his basic position for now is correct - it is a state issue and should stay that way.

As Lincoln understood about slavery back in the 1850s, the eventual political consequences of tolerating abortion in some states will be the acceptance of it in all the states. (We’ve already seen this with the abortion referendums in Kansas and Ohio, with more referendums on the way.) Moral neutrality on abortion — Trump’s “popular sovereignty” approach — will weaken the foundation for legal prohibition and open the way to tolerance and eventually political acceptance. //

Because of the first principles at stake here, the logic of America’s antebellum slavery debate applies entirely to the abortion debate of our time. Indeed, the two issues are closer than even most pro-lifers realize. Today’s Democrats view abortion just as antebellum Democrats viewed slavery. They think the constitutional rights of an entire class of people (women) depend for their vindication on the denial of all rights to another class of people (the unborn). This is precisely what southern Democrats believed about blacks and slavery, and why they were so adamantly against emancipation.

But the two issues are alike in another way as well: They both represent a grave danger to freedom itself and the survival of our republic. //

Abortion is more than that, though. It cuts right to the heart of our understanding of democracy and self-government — which, as Lincoln said, must have limits, or it becomes despotism. If one person can snuff out the life of another, and no third person is allowed to object, then in what sense do we have self-government? Democratic practice, after all, must be rooted in the principle of human equality. There are some things even a majority cannot justly decide to do, and to deny that is to open the way to tyranny. //

Trump, using the same flawed logic, thinks he can compromise with the pro-abortion power.

He’d be better off following Lincoln, who knew that America could not continue forever divided between slave states and free states, that we would “become all one thing or all the other.”

Throughout American history, abortion was regulated by the states, and it was not the province of the federal government until the Supreme Court announced its Jan. 22, 1973, Roe v. Wade decision, which preempted state abortion laws.

Because pro-abortion forces focused on the federal courts, leading to the high court, rather than through the state legislatures or Congress, the best way to judge a president's pro-life record is to examine their Supreme Court appointees and how they dealt with abortion rights.

For this piece, the focus is on Republican presidents, which puts Trump in context with other GOP chief executives. //

Beginning in 1969 and ending in 2020, Republican presidents have put 15 justices on the Supreme Court. Eight have been pro-abortion, and seven have been pro-life—three of them put on the high court by Trump.

In the same time frame, Republican presidents have nominated all three chief justices, Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, and John G. Roberts Jr.—both Burger and Roberts were pro-abortion. //

After Griswold, conservative legal scholars and jurists recognized that if they accepted the concept of unenumerated constitutional rights, the Constitution would be dethroned, and liberals on the high court would have a blank check to do whatever they wanted.

The response to the advocates for unenumerated rights was the strict constructionist movement, which was committed to the text as it was written and understood as it was written. //

The action is now in the states after 50 years in Washington, generally, at the Supreme Court, specifically.

Some people in the pro-life movement sound like Cold War veterans complaining that the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union fell, but the fact remains that Roe and Casey are gone — and Trump made it happen.

For all the recent triumphalism of the pro-abortion movement, none of them like what Trump did to them — and for the unborn.

The Court's abortion decision two years ago said it was up to the individual states to restrict or permit the gruesome end-of-pregnancy operation.

Now, Donald Trump has said that is his position, too, that there should not be a one-size-fits-all policy on abortion in the form of a national ban. That is basically the same states-rights position that the Founding Fathers sought so hard to enshrine across the new government at the very beginning of our national history.

And it has also been the Republican Party's position for all these years.

Some pro-lifers want all or nothing. Now, even Trump is signaling a willingness to take the win and move on to other matters.

We got what we wanted. And that’s what some members of our party are mad about. They want a federal law controlling abortion. Except that’s not what we promised.

It’s hard to understand how one justifies dishonesty as a political strategy. That’s what this is. They are asking that we conduct a bait and switch. We promised that every state would decide for itself, and now it’s, “No, now we’re going to decide for you.” How do you expect people to react to that? We overturned Roe with the understanding that some states would be awesome and largely ban the barbarian practice and that other states, like my own California, would declare open season on fetuses. And that’s what has happened. But you know what? Thousands and thousands of lives have been saved. In the butchery states? No, abortion continues there. But we’ve made progress. We’ve saved lives.

We have to stop making the good the enemy of the perfect and start understanding that progress is made incrementally. The left imposed Roe v. Wade, which made a huge, horrifying leap in one fell swoop. And look what happened. It got overturned in one fell swoop.

The battle against abortion is not going to end by passing a law at the federal level. It just isn’t. First of all, it’s not clear Congress even could enact one. You know, we just threw out a ruling that said the federal government could make abortion laws. //

The Democrats have been beating us around the head with abortion. What they’ll do is call us liars if we try and pass an abortion law, and they have the advantage of truth because we didn’t promise this. We promised the opposite. It’s electoral poison, and there’s a lot more at stake than abortion – free speech, economic prosperity, and peace, to name just a few. But as for abortion itself, if the Democrats get the power, they’ll legalize it up to the moment that a kid gets his driver’s license. If you want to kill more kids, push for a federal abortion ban because that is a certain way of killing more kids.

The way to change abortion is to change hearts and minds one state at a time. I wish we could wave a magic wand and make this barbaric practice disappear. But I’m not a child. I understand that even things I believe in deeply are not going to just happen through the sheer power of rightness. We’ve got a lot of work to do. We can’t just wish the practice away because we accurately assess it as horribly wrong.

Is Donald Trump immoral for feeling the way he does about abortion? There are lots of pro-life people who are ticked off at him, but these people need to understand that Donald Trump, first of all, represents most Americans’ position and, second, that he was the most successful pro-life president in American history. This man has saved thousands upon thousands of lives through his judicial appointments who tossed out Roe. Trump hasn’t betrayed anybody. He just disagrees at the margins.

Trump is looking at things realistically and, yes, politically. And he damn well better look at things politically because there’s a lot more at stake here than abortion in 2024. A lot more.

In a historic decision Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the state must adhere to a 123-year-old penal code provision barring all abortions except in cases when “it is necessary to save” a pregnant person’s life.

The law, which can be traced to as early as 1864, also carried a prison sentence of two to five years for abortion providers.

to what extent is providing IVF treatment to families the best option? To what extent does it truly protect the life of the mother and the unborn? //

This experience taught me a lot about the need to advocate for my own health. I can’t imagine how many women a year go into those clinics desperate for a child, blindly trusting these doctors and unaware of any restorative approaches to treating their reproductive systems. How many women wind up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars putting their bodies through so much pain? How many human embryos are created and frozen because the doctor was lazy — or greedy? How many doctors know the actual outcomes of IVF but aren’t upfront about the heartache and risks?

States like Alabama need to rethink how they are fighting the pro-life fight. Women need to know there are safer, more affordable, and more effective options. I’m so grateful I learned about this holistic method and was able to give birth to a healthy baby.

Democrats have stated that abortion will be on the 2024 ballot, and this manufactured IVF controversy is one of the many wedges being used to ensure this. How do we know this? Because ASRM, while praising the Alabama legislation, once again claimed that it was not enough. They want the Alabama Supreme Court decision that human embryos are persons rescinded. From another recent press release:

We are pleased that the legislation passed into law by the Alabama General Assembly will at least allow our members in the state to care for their patients, however it clearly offers only a temporary solution. It fails to correct the underlying mistake the Court made when it conflated an in vitro fertilized egg with a child. //

Democrat lawmakers, under the sway of ASRM, have created a wedge issue. Its goal: to erode Dobbs' impact. ASRM thanked Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and other Democrat legislators who will have as their SOTU guests "prominent people in the fertility community." This is window dressing and a solid Democrat tactic: Muddy the issue for the purpose of moving abortion back under federal control. Sadly, Republicans continue to play the game instead of educating themselves and going on offense for Life. //

Random US Citizen
11 minutes ago
Is a fertilized egg a person, or not. That's the crux of the entire debate. And if not, at what point does it become one? After the first cell division? After some arbitrary amount of time? After the unborn child can feel pain? Only when it's viable outside the womb?

The reason the abortion debate is so fraught is that many tentatively pro-life people aren't completely comfortable with the logical conclusion of their position. That conclusion is that life starts at conception. That a fertilized egg is just as much a "person" as a twenty-week unborn baby or a toddler. If that's true, then an "embryo" removed from the womb and "destroyed" kills a person just as surely as when a "fetus" is.

We need to clearly understand that this is what we're asserting and then stand by it. The solution isn't to allow IVF clinics to remove "embryos" and then "accidentally" destroy them. It's to force abortion proponents to define when they think life starts and then pound them with their position. Because their position is almost always extreme--allowing abortion up until the moment of birth and often encompassing infanticide. Both of which are losers with the general voting population.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius

New documents obtained via public record request by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) reveal contracts and conversations between Planned Parenthood and the University of California San Diego (UCSD) where the abortion provider agreed to supply aborted fetal body parts to the school explicitly for “valuable consideration.” In exchange, the university would grant Planned Parenthood ownership of all “patents” and “intellectual property” developed through research and experiments using the supplied fetal tissue. //

CMP and Daleiden say they are still reviewing thousands of pages of documents connecting UCSD faculty and researchers to patents held by the University of California “as a result of its supply of aborted babies.” //

Transferring aborted human fetal tissue for “valuable consideration” is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000.

Here is the conversation that needs to be had: Why do we wish to discard children, especially potentially special-needs or health-challenged children, rather than do all we can to help them survive and thrive, no matter how long that might be? Why do we not give families making this difficult decision the support necessary to see life not as an option but as the only quality choice? //

edhuff bk
9 hours ago
The public really didn't want to know about this ladies' personal reproductive health problems and because the termination "services" she sought were readily available in adjacent states, the public was unswayed by the legal theatrics.

Ed in North Texas edhuff
8 hours ago
The "theatrics" will be played over and over again in 2024 and subsequent elections.

George Orwell Ed in North Texas
7 hours ago
So be it. Evil has always sought compromise and that compromise has always led to more evil.

The message of life and hope must be clearer, smarter, and louder.

This message must permeate all media on every platform.

The message must grab and hold the viewer. Make them pause and think, but also feel the goodness of life in the message.

This requires a ton of talent and messaging skill, enough money to produce the messages, and a ton of money to get those messages to the people being lied to.

It's gonna be hard.

Will we even try? //

DaveM
2 hours ago edited
I thought the Texas Supreme Court got it right here.
The Supreme Court did not deny her a medically necessary abortion.
What I found really interesting was their statement that a woman does not need a court order to get a medically necessary abortion. What she does need is a determination from a medically competent professional that she needs one. And that medical professional is expected to use reasonable medical standards in making that determination.

Greg Price @greg_price11
·
Right now on the Senate floor: Sen. Lindsey Graham, Todd Young, Dan Sullivan, Joni Ernst, and Mitt Romney are trying to confirm by unanimous consent the military promotions that @TTuberville is blocking until the Pentagon stops funding the killing of unborn babies.

7:18 PM · Nov 1, 2023