Reproductive rights has long been a euphemism for destroying human life in the womb… A phrase that sounds like empowerment is a really only code for the subjugation of preborn children.
—Lila Rose, founder and president of the pro-life group Live Action—
If they’re just hearing one side — that women’s rights are being withheld in some way by pro-lifers — they’re going to want to do what’s most empathetic, but if they’re getting the perspective that a baby also has human rights, and that no woman has the right to kill her child — this viewpoint can be very compelling.
—Lila Rose—
Key points: Numerous abortion abolitionists (advocates for the preborn who are calling for immediate and total bans on abortion) apparently are focusing primarily on condemning those willing to accept incrementalism (regulating abortion) as a means by which the practice eventually can be made illegal. These abolitionists are hurting the cause in which they say they believe. However imperfect their approach to ending abortion may be, incrementalists do not pose the greatest danger to the unborn and to women facing unwanted pregnancies; pro-abortion radicals do that! Everyone who loves life and who is working to protect it urgently needs to expose the extremism of militant abortion activists. I plead with abolitionists to take this mission seriously and to work to accomplish it, even as they continue to work to end abortion altogether.
You can access all of the articles in this series on this page.
In this series of articles, we’ve been attempting to expose the extremism of Democrats and leftists on the issue of abortion. This is especially important as we move toward Election Day, November 5, 2024. On that day, proposals will be on the ballots of as many as 13 states — and pro-abortion forces will pull every trick in the book to make
-
- those who believe in reasonable limits on abortion,1 as well as
- those who believe abortion should be illegal in all cases,
look like the extremists, when they themselves are the extremists.
Full Disclosure
It is my strong conviction that human life is sacred from conception to natural death. I consider myself to be an abolitionist, even though some, perhaps many, abolitionists would say I am not. I believe abortion should be illegal in every case except to save the life of the mother. This is an extremely rare scenario, but one that, if and when it arises, would be, and should be, addressed by the woman, her family members, and the doctor(s) involved. I am not talking here about ectopic pregnancies, a matter we addressed in part 4.
I believe there should be provisions in our legal codes that hold women accountable for ending their babies’ lives through abortion. This does not mean, however, that every abortive woman in every case necessarily would be prosecuted, jailed, or punished in some other way for having an abortion. Each case would be considered separately, and the facts evaluated. Some women have been forced to obtain abortions. Others are flippant about the matter; some even want to get pregnant in order to abort. This absolutely is heinous. When women are totally callous about murdering their children through abortion, seeing them and hearing them talk will help a person understand why some would call for the death penalty as a possible punishment for such women. Genesis 9:6-7 declares,
Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.
As for you [Noah and the rest of humanity], be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.
At the same time, I believe it is a huge mistake for abolitionists to call for the death penalty for women for abortions in a manner that also readily can be seen as callous or cold. Specifically, calling for the death penalty for an abortive mother by saying we need to “dig a hole and put her down” is unacceptable. Advocates for life do not win hearts and minds this way, and this kind of rhetoric gives pro-abortion radicals ammunition to falsely portray both
-
- abolitionists and
- those who believe that some regulation of abortion is better than none
as extremists of the highest order.
That said, we also must not declare across the board (as some have done) that no woman ever should be legally held accountable for any abortion, because women are victims. I believe many women are victims — victims of Democrats and leftists who care nothing about innocent babies or about women, despite their rhetoric. Even so, being a victim gives no one a right or a license to take an innocent life. To fail to allow for a system that can hold a woman accountable for an abortion is treat all women as less than human. It is to say to them, You are incapable of refraining from killing your unborn child. It is to treat them as sub-human, as animals! I’ve written about this previously and would encourage you to read my case for holding mothers legally accountable for intentionally terminating their pregnancies and ending the lives of their preborn children.
I genuinely do want to arrive at a day when abortion is illegal. Yet I realize that to get there, this terrible procedure isn’t likely to be outlawed overnight.
Facing Reality
Here’s the reality. Abortion never will be outlawed apart from the political process in which we must operate. Therefore, we need to wisely and even shrewdly operate within it to achieve our desired goal of making abortion illegal. Compassion and love, as well as a desire for justice and truth, compel us. Abolitionists need to understand that those of us who are willing to accept incrementalism in this process are not necessarily compromising or giving up on the goal of making abortion illegal outright.
Abolitionists need to understand that those of us who are willing to accept incrementalism in this process are not necessarily compromising or giving up on the goal, which is making abortion illegal outright.
Along these lines, I have found this article to be extremely insightful. Abolitionist Ben Zeisloft would disagree, as would numerous other abolitionists. Note Zeisloft’s framing of his poll question: Do you agree or disagree? “It is always wrong to support any form of abortion, including to win elections.”
Framing his poll the way he did, Ben implies that voting for a candidate who is less-than-perfect on abortion has to mean supporting abortion in some form. While an overwhelming number responded in agreement, I believe Ben, though sincere, framed the question in a manipulative way.
No candidate is perfect. Our choices in specific races are limited, and often severely. Consider two candidates running against each other for a powerful office in government. One of them holds a position on a moral and ethical issue much closer to the biblical view than the other candidate but isn’t 100 percent in agreement with what is true and right. The other advocates polices that are blatantly evil and irrefutably wrong. I can make a strong case that it is extremely irresponsible to decline to vote for the former candidate simply because he or she isn’t 100 percent correct. This lack of engagement will pave the way for evil people to seize and wield power — people who are working relentlessly against righteousness and everything good. Of course, I don’t offer this advice as a one-size-fits-all recommendation. Every candidate and every race must be evaluated carefully. Generally speaking, though, it’s a reliable principle.
I believe Ben and certain other abolitionists are making a big mistake to focus primarily on opposing incrementalists when militant abortion activists are seeking to open the floodgates for unregulated abortion in state after state through referendums this coming November. These radicals will use every deceptive tactic available to them, and then some, to get what they want — and they want women to be able to legally murder their children whenever they wish.
Abolitionists who are focusing primarily on opposing incrementalists, even as militant abortion activists are seeking to open the floodgates for unregulated abortion in state after state through referendums in November, are making a huge mistake. They should be working unwaveringly to expose the pro-abortion radicals for the extremists they are.
It isn’t those who want protections for unborn babies who are the radicals, even if they’re willing, for now, to accept some protections for preborns without a total abortion ban. Mark it down! Currently, rejecting all proposals that fall short of total bans will almost certainly result in unregulated abortion in state after state, and even perhaps nationwide. This will make the work of all abolitionists, whether they are accepting of incrementalist policies or not, all the more difficult, if not impossible.
Trump Does Not Regret His Role in Overturning Roe vs. Wade
As you probably already know, the Dobbs decision by the US Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe vs. Wade, so abortion laws now are being left to the states. The reversal of Roe vs. Wade was a reality that needed to occur. Donald Trump, to his credit, helped make this possible. He is not shying away from this — even though (as we will learn in part 6) the left is consistently claiming that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade is assault on women and women’s rights.
Conservative political activist Gary Bauer is the senior vice president of public policy for the Dr. James Dobson Family Institute (JDFI). In that role, in the aftermath of the first presidential debate that took place on June 27, Bauer wrote,
The candidates [Joe Biden and Donald Trump] were specifically asked about the overturn of Roe v. Wade. President Biden’s campaign is spending millions of dollars attacking former President Trump for appointing three Supreme Court justices. The judges joined the majority in ending the falsehood that a “right” to abortion in all nine months of pregnancy is somewhere in our Constitution. It is not in our Constitution – and never was.
JDFI is committed to helping our nation reach the day when all our children will be welcomed into the world, protected by our Constitution, and be part of the American family. But that was not debated last night.
We are gratified that President Trump did not shy away from the sanctity of life issue. He strongly defended the role his Supreme Court appointees played in overturning Roe v. Wade. He emphasized that the abortion question is now up to the states and the people’s elected representatives rather than to unelected and unaccountable judges.
President Trump strongly defended the role his Supreme Court appointees played in overturning Roe v. Wade. He emphasized that the abortion question is now up to the states and the people’s elected representatives rather than to unelected and unaccountable judges.
Trump also repeated his belief in “exceptions” for rape, incest, and the life of the mother—the same position held by former President Ronald Reagan during his eight years in office.
President Biden took the exact opposite posture. He promised that if he is reelected, he and his allies in Congress will “codify” Roe v. Wade. That means a federal law would be enacted banning states from protecting innocent preborn babies. That would be a pro-life disaster.
At one point, President Biden claimed he was against late-term abortions. Here is a JDFI fact check: Joe Biden’s allies have introduced legislation in Congress called the Women’s Health Protection Act.
This proposed law goes well beyond Roe v. Wade. It would repeal every pro-life state law. That means no more parental notification laws, no more waiting periods, no more limits on taxpayer funding for abortion, and no limits on late-term abortions.
Nor is it those who want to ban abortion entirely who are the radicals. They are being absolutely consistent in their belief that every life is sacred from conception to natural death. Even leftist Bill Maher admits this. The extremists are those who want abortion on demand without any restrictions.
Why Women Get Abortions
It’s important for us to realize why women seek and acquire abortions, especially since pro-abortion activists cite situations such as rape and incest to justify unregulated abortion on demand. This is, and has been, a manipulative leftist tactic flying in the face of reason and clear thinking. Research reveals that:
-
- Rape and incest are cited as reasons for 0.4% of all abortions;
- Risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function accounts for 0.3%;
- Other physical health concerns account for 2.2%;
- Abnormality in the unborn baby accounts for 1.2%; and
- Elective and unspecified reasons account for 95.9% of all abortions.
Here is a PDF file of the graphic showcasing this information. The title of the article citing this evidence is “Research Confirms 95.9% of Abortions are Killing Babies as Birth Control, Just .4% for Rape.” Don’t be duped by leftist rhetoric. Militant abortion advocates want abortion as a means of birth control — regardless of who or how many die or suffer as a result.
More Evidence That Militant Abortion Advocates Are Extremists: Panic to Protect the “Right” to Kill Unborn Children
In part 1 we reviewed the actions of the New York State Legislature in early 2019 to “protect abortion rights,” or so pro-choices would say, if Roe v. Wade ever were overturned. The “New York legislature and then-governor Andrew Cuomo had just passed, signed into law, and celebrated the passage of what they called the ‘Reproductive Health Act.'” It had nothing to do with health and everything to do with, not just protecting abortion, but promoting it. Ironically, the legislation was called the Reproductive Health Act, yet in promoting abortion, it was all about thwarting reproduction. Leftists, you see, believe they’re too many people in the world. Again, just ask Bill Maher.
As we have noted already, Roe was overturned on June 24, 2022 when the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Again, this decision returned to the individual states the authority to set abortion policies. As we noted in part 1,
Leftists have, up to this point, been largely successful in framing the Dobbs decision as an attack on women and women’s “rights,” and many people are responding based on this perspective. It wasn’t. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who clearly favored abortion, disagreed “with the logic of the 1973 court’s majority opinion [in Roe vs. Wade] and the constitutional basis under which seven justices arrived at their conclusion.” Ryan T. Anderson, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), and Alexandra DeSanctis write,
The Roe Court removed nearly every question about abortion policy from the hands of the American people and turned them over to unelected judges, even though the Constitution contains nothing that could remotely support a right to abortion. Roe and the Court’s subsequent abortion jurisprudence created a legal minefield in which the supposed right to abortion was treated as sacrosanct for nearly five decades, protected at every turn by rulings that had more in common with legislation than judicial opinions.…
The decision in Roe and subsequent decisions upholding it were textbook examples of judicial activism, and were egregiously wrong. Roe and Casey created a “constitutional right” to abortion out of thin air. The majorities in those cases did not actually find textual, historical, or traditional evidence for any such right. Rather than seek a constitutional answer to the question of abortion, living constitutionalist Justices in Roe began from their desired conclusion—legal abortion in some form—and reasoned backward to pretend that the Constitution licensed their decision.
Never mind all of that! Forget about the Constitution! This essentially was the response of leftists and Democrats to the potential and actual overturning of Roe. The panic has been quite revealing:
It was just a few days after the RHA was signed into law in the state of New York that Kathy Tran, a Virginia Democrat in the House of Delegates, defended a bill she had filed that would permit abortion up to and at the point of birth.
We should note that Ms. Tran submitted another bill around the same time that is designed to protect “fall cankerworms” at certain times during the year. At the time, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam defended the Ms. Tran’s proposed abortion law. Northam is a former pediatric neurologist.
The warnings of Scripture are unmistakably clear. Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, God told Judah,
5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!
Who, Really, Are the Extremists?
Is there any point, or any instance, in which Northam and other radical Democrats would support laws to protect innocent life? Apparently not if the innocent life belongs to a preborn or a newborn.
Another question arises: Have we become so callous to the taking of innocent life that we no longer recognize it for what it really is? I plead with you to exercise discernment! Consider these two groups of people:
-
- Pro-lifers and abolitionists are in one group. Some of these believe that abortion should at least be regulated. Others believe it should be outlawed altogether.
- Militant abortion activists believe that abortion should be unregulated and legal for any reason or no reason. Note that former Governor Northam even advocated killing a baby who had survived a botched abortion.
Who are the extremists? The answer should be obvious.
My Pleas to Abolitionists
As I conclude part 5, I am compelled to issue a couple of additional pleas. Here I am speaking to abolitionists. Please make it your primary effort to expose the extremism of the militant abortion activists. They are the extremists, not pro-life advocates who are willing to accept incrementalism in order to reach a goal all genuine pro-lifers are striving to achieve.
Abolitionists, please make it your primary effort to expose the extremism of the militant abortion activists. They are the extremists, not pro-life advocates who are willing to accept incrementalism in order to reach a goal all genuine pro-lifers are striving to achieve. If you can’t do that, at least stop condemning incrementalists as promoters of abortion because they are willing to support proposals that would save more babies, even if though those proposals fall short of saving all.
If you can’t do that, at least stop condemning incrementalists as promoters of abortion because they are willing to support proposals that would save more babies, even if those proposals fall short of saving all. Try to win the incrementalists over to your side without calling them evil. Remember who the real extremists are.
Try to win the incrementalists over to your side without calling them evil. Remember who the real extremists are.
Gary Bauer eloquently describes the goal all genuine pro-lifers are working to attain: We are “committed to helping our nation reach the day when all our children will be welcomed into the world, protected by our Constitution, and be part of the American family.”
Part 6, which I will release soon, will further expose the extremism of leftists on abortion. They are so extreme, there is even more left for us to say.
Stay tuned!
You can access all of the articles in this series on this page.
Copyright © 2024 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.
Note:
1The phrase “reasonable limits on abortion” should not be understood to imply that abortion is reasonable in any context. Nor am I implying that it is reasonable not to work to end abortion altogether. The point here is the reasonableness of legal limits on abortion vs. abortion that is totally and completely unregulated. It is a small step from unregulated abortion to infanticide, the outright killing of infants already born.
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture passages in this article have been taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
top image credit: Photo by Anthony from Pexels
Be First to Comment