Des Moines City Council member, Josh Mandelbaum
As we reported last month, City Council Member Josh Mandelbaum wants Des Moines to ignore pro-life laws on the books in Iowa, and for Iowa taxpayers to pay travel expenses for city employees who seek out-of-state abortions.
To that end, he has written a pro-abortion proposal that he is trying to get placed as an agenda item this Monday, October 3rd, at their scheduled 5PM council meeting. To be clear, the proposal posted below is NOT yet an agenda item. Mandelbaum wants a vote this Monday to put it on the agenda two weeks hence.
He needs four votes to get it on the agenda. He has two for sure: his and Indira Sheumaker’s. Pro-lifers need to contact the remaining council members and strongly encourage them to nip this anti-life proposal in the bud.
Here is the language of Mandelbaum’s proposal:
***
PROPOSED
WHEREAS, access to health care including reproductive health care is a fundamental human right; and
WHEREAS, access to safe and legal abortion is a deciding factor in long-term health, safety, and quality of life; and
WHEREAS, Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision that recognized the constitutionally protected right for a pregnant person to choose to have an abortion prior to viability, had been the law of the land for almost 50 years; and
WHEREAS, a growing majority of lowans support abortion access in most or all cases; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, rolling back essential protections for millions of people; and
WHEREAS, just a week before the Dobbs decision, the Iowa Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds, reversed the Iowa Supreme Court precedent, significantly limiting state constitutional protections for the right to access abortion; and
WHEREAS, residents across Des Moines, the state of Iowa, and the country are now at risk of losing access to essential health care services that many of them have had access to for their entire lives;
WHEREAS, despite the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds, the Iowa Constitution continues to recognize the rights of all men and women to enjoy and defend liberty and pursue and obtain safety and happiness;
WHEREAS, eliminating legal access to abortion has been empirically proven to dramatically increase the risk of death, bodily injury, and infertility, especially within low-income communities and communities of color;
WHEREAS, under Section 364.1 of the Iowa Code, the City ofDes Moines is empowered to “exercise any power and perform any function it deems appropriate to protect and preserve the rights, privileges, and property of the city or of its residents, and to preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort, and convenience of its residents”;
WHEREAS, under this power, the city may determine the appropriate use of city resources and services;
WHEREAS, city services are already under significant resource constraints due to limited budgets and staffing shortages; and
WHEREAS, the resources of the City must be dedicated to the health and wellbeing of its residents;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT the City ofDes Moines supports the codification of the right to abortion into state and federal law; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City ofDes Moines remains committed to providing our employees the same access to health care including reproductive health care that they have had previously and the City Council directs the City Manager and human resources director to develop a policy related to travel reimbursement to access health care services that become inaccessible in state; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT it is the policy of the City of Des Moines that, except to the extent otherwise required by state or federal law, City funds will not be used to do any of the following:
• Store or catalog any report of an abortion, miscarriage, or other reproductive healthcare act;
• Provide information to any other governmental body or agency about any abortion, miscarriage, or other reproductive healthcare act, unless such information is provided to defend the patient’s right to abortion care or the healthcare provider’s right to provide that care;
• Conduct surveillance or collect information related to an individual or organization for the purpose of determining whether an abortion has occurred, except for aggregated data without personally identifying information or personal health information which is collected for purposes unrelated to criminal investigation, enforcement, or prosecution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the policy stated above does not apply in cases where coercion or force is alleged to have been used against the pregnant person, or in cases involving an allegation of conduct criminally negligent to the health of the pregnant person seeking care, or where the abortion, miscarriage, or reproductive healthcare is not the crime being investigated but evidence of another crime.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT it is the policy of the City ofDes Moines that the investigation or support for the prosecution of any allegation, charge or information relating to the outcome of a given pregnancy, including abortion and abortion-related care, or any party thereto, will be the lowest priority for enforcement and the use of City resources and personnel, except in cases (a) where coercion or force is used against the pregnant person, (b) of criminally negligent conduct involving the health of the pregnant person seeking care, or (c) where the abortion, miscarriage, or reproductive healthcare is not the crime being investigated but evidence of another crime.
BE IT FUTRHER [sic] RESOLVED THAT the City Council directs City Manager to work with staff to draft an ordinance to prohibit discrimination based on reproductive health actions so that no person could be denied housing or employment for any perceived or actual pregnancy outcomes, including obtaining an abortion, or accessing any other reproductive health care.
***
Should Des Moines become a sanctuary city for abortions?
If Mandelbaum has his way, he’d turn Des Moines into an abortion sanctuary city. To prevent the use of taxpayer monies for the abortions of city employees; and to prevent the willful disregard of existing pro-life laws on the books, Pulse encourages you to contact EACH of the city council members below and tell them to vote NO on Josh Mandelbaum’s pro-abortion proposal:
Frank Cownie, Mayor: 515-283-4944 | fcownie@dmgov.org
Linda Westergard: 515-988-4288 |LindaW@dmgov.org
Carl Voss: 515-210-0237 | carlvoss@dmgov.org
Joe Gatto: 515-402-2626 | joegatto@dmgov.org
Connie Boesen: 515-240-7929 | connieboesen@dmgov.org
Your email can be short and sweet:
Dear Council person [last name]: My name is [your name]. I understand the Council is considering a pro-abortion proposal that would involve using taxpayer money to pay abortion travel expenses for city employees. I strongly encourage you to vote no on such a terrible idea.
Respectfully,
[Your Name]
These council members need to hear from a LOT of pro-lifers, because we know Planned Parenthood is hard at work galvanizing their troops.
Monday’s meeting takes place at City Hall, 400 Robert D Ray Drive. The meeting begins at 5PM. We encourage you to arrive early and let the Council know you support life.
Life Chain 2022 takes place this Sunday from 2PM to 3:30PM. If you’ve regularly attended this event in the past, be aware it’s moved to a new location:
Des Moines Fellowship Church • 950 35th Street • Des Moines, IA (just south of Kingman Blvd.) • 2PM to 3:30PM
Abortion zealots are loud and profane. You have an opportunity to diffuse their invective with quiet prayer at Life Chain 2022. Life Chain 2022 provides you with a prayerful opportunity to stand up for society’s most vulnerable people, the unborn, in the public square.
Life Chain 2022 allows you to pray in gratitude to big pro-life victories this year, including the overturning of Roe v Wade and the Iowa Supreme Court’s judicial correction of the Reynolds decision.
As people drive by, several things occur:
- Fellow pro-lifers can see that they’re not alone. You give them courage to be even bolder in their defense of our unborn brothers and sisters.
- Moderate pro choice supporters notice how loving and peaceful the pro-life movement is, in contrast to zealous abortion advocates who curse and make obscene gestures. Love is the most powerful weapon for opposing human abortion.
- And more than a few hardcore abortion zealots may feel their consciences squirm seeing such a Godly, loving expression of support for the weakest members of our society: the unborn.
If you’re a shy person who doesn’t feel comfortable talking about abortion with your pro-abortion family and friends, Life Chain 2022 is the perfect way to stand up in the public square for your convictions. God will smile upon your efforts. So will the 63 million victims of abortion from their perch in heaven.
RECAP: Life Chain 2022, Sunday, October 2nd, 2 to 3:30PM, Des Moines Fellowship Church, 950-35th Street, Des Moines, IA.
Democratic voters are not the enemy of the pro-life movement. They are our friends, even though too many are misguided on abortion policy in our view. It is our job to make the case for life and encourage them to ask questions.
Most of these voters hold views that are far more pro-life than their party’s leadership, as we discussed yesterday.
A Harvard Harris poll revealed that only 10% of all voters agree with Democratic leaders’ insistence on allowing abortions through all 40 weeks of a normal pregnancy.
Politicians flip flop on abortion
Various polls affirm that 7 out of 10 Americans support limits on abortion. In fact, President Biden supported limits on abortion at one point in his career, asserting that the Supreme Court had gone “too far” on abortion with the Roe v Wade decision. Said then-Senator Biden:
… a woman shouldn’t have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.”
But he changed his position during his vice presidency, claiming …
… the government doesn’t have “a right to tell other people that women, they can’t control their body.”
A 100% flip flop.
Democratic voters tend to disagree with President Biden on abortion
Most Democratic voters disagree with his new positions on many other aspects of the abortion debate, including taxpayer funding (he’s for; most of his party is against) and conscience protections (he’s against; most of his party is for).
And yet despite the more pro-life tilt of rank and file Democratic voters, party leaders continue to promote abortion-on-demand without restriction, as Ohio Senator Tim Ryan makes clear:
Q: "What restrictions, if any, do you believe there should be on abortion?"
OHIO DEMOCRAT TIM RYAN: ……
Q: "So should there be some restrictions?"
RYAN: ……
Q: "It sounds like you're saying no restriction."
RYAN: "Well…" pic.twitter.com/JTac0jk1qA
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) August 28, 2022
Democratic leaders won’t dialogue on abortion
One of the most prominent U.S. Catholics, Bishop Robert Barron, attempted to dialogue on the subject of abortion with leaders from the Democratic Party a couple of years ago.
Barron wrote of the encounter:
“Would they, I asked, consider the banning of third-trimester abortions? Absolutely not, came the reply. Would they, I pressed, be open to restricting partial-birth abortion, the procedure by which a pair of scissors is inserted into the brain of a baby already in the birth canal? No way, they said.
All right, I wondered, would they be agreeable to supporting born-alive legislation, designed to protect the life of a baby who has miraculously managed to survive an abortion? No, they said. And lest you think this intransigence was peculiar to this particular group, recall that, just a few months ago, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) made a born-alive proposal, and it couldn’t muster enough votes to break the Democratic filibuster.”
That’s how out-of-touch Democratic leaders have become, not just from the entire country, but much of their own party.
Democratic leaders are increasingly antagonistic to pro-lifers
Prominent Democrats have smeared pro-lifers for years, labeling them as “chumps” (Biden) and “deplorable” (Hillary Clinton).
Just Wednesday, Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono went on the Senate floor threatening violence to pro-lifers for supporting Lindsay Graham’s proposed legislation to limit abortion to 15 weeks. Said Hirono:
“This is an outright attack on women in this country. That’s how I see it … That is how more and more women and those who support our right to make decisions about our own bodies, that is how we see it. And why? Because that’s what’s happening … But clearly, this is a — literally call to arms in our country.”
After many crisis pregnancy centers have been firebombed by Democrats, crazy Mazie Hirono calls for more pro-abortion violence https://t.co/Jq3giaNUxi
— Matt Wolking (@MattWolking) September 14, 2022
Hirono’s ‘literal’ call to arms threat of violence to pro-lifers is scary, especially in light of the 66 attacks on women’s pregnancy resource enters (including 2 in Des Moines) and 72 Catholic churches since the Dobbs decision was leaked in May (none of which have been solved).
The pro-life movement rejects violence as a solution to the violence of abortion
The pro-life movement needs to reject both the rhetorical and physical violence that defines the abortion movement and focus on changing the hearts and minds of ambivalent Democratic voters. After all, 60% of Democratic voters, according to the Harvard Harris poll, agree with Republicans that abortion should be banned after 15 weeks.
For 50 years, Pulse Life Advocates (formerly Iowans for LIFE) has informed, educated, and inspired new generations to value the sanctity of all human life from fertilization to natural death.
In recent years, we’ve produced a growing body of video content to address in a very direct way the pro-life concerns on the minds of Democratic voters, such as this:
And this:
If you tend to vote Democrat, we encourage you to push your party’s leadership in a more moderate direction on life issues. You won’t be alone. Most of your rank and file voters will agree with you. We certainly don’t view you as an enemy and hope you’ll be open-minded to sincerely dialogue with us on the critical life-and-death issue of abortion. Thank-you for reading to the end. We appreciate it.
[It’s time to reserve your seat at our November 19th Christmas Gala, “The Stars Are Brightly Shining.” Order online today.]
The leaders of the Democratic Party are out of touch with the rank and file members of their party. Despite media reports to the contrary, real Democrats are more in alignment with Republicans on this issue than with President Biden, Speaker Pelosi, Iowa Representative Cindy Axne, and the rest of the party’s leadership.
Democratic Party leadership is even wildly out of synch with the rest of the world.
The position of the party’s leadership is clearly defined in the dishonestly named “Women’s Health Protection Act,” which includes these elements:
- The end of all abortion regulations at the state level.
- Limitless abortion for the full nine months of a pregnancy.
- The end of conscience protection rights for doctors, nurses, and anyone who doesn’t want to participate in the process of ending the life of the unborn via abortion.
- Taxpayer funding for abortion.
Polling reveals the divide
A Harvard/Harris Poll just released in June shows that real Democrats are more in alignment with Republicans on abortion than with their own party leadership.
Sixty percent of real Democrats say that abortion should not be permitted after 15 weeks, putting them at odds with their leadership that calls for abortions through the entire 40 weeks of a normal pregnancy.
Eighty percent of rank and file Republicans agree with Real Democrats on restricting abortions to less than fifteen weeks.
For that matter, 47 out of 50 European countries have abortions bans between 12 and 15 weeks.
Only six other countries in the world have abortion laws as permissive as ours, including North Korea, China, and Vietnam.
In other words, it is Democratic Party leadership that is the outlier here. Real rank and file Democratic voters are more in touch with Republican voters and the rest of the world than their party leadership.
Nearly a third of Democrats believe abortion should be left up to the states
A large swath of real Democrats, 32%, believe abortion regulations should be left up to the individual states, affirming the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe v Wade.
By contrast, the Democratic leadership is adamant at ‘codifying’ Roe at the federal level via the previously mentioned “Women’s Health Protection Act.” This puts real Democrats more in alignment with Republican voters, 52% of whom agree that abortion regulations be handled by state legislatures.
Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham introduced a bill Tuesday called the Protecting Pain-Capable Unborn Children from Late-Term Abortions Act. It would prohibit most abortions after 15 weeks, keeping it in synch with the views of real Democrats as well as the international community. It allows exceptions for standard life and health issues of the mother. And it allows individual states to regulate abortion within 15 weeks of fertilization.
Pro-life dust-up on Fox News
Senator Graham went on Fox News Jesse Watters’ show (above), and the conservative host took the Senator to task:
“What were the Republicans doing? On the day inflation roared back, and the market crashed, I thought I’d see Republican senators holding press conferences in front of grocery stores and gas stations, you know, promising to bring prices down if you put them back in charge. But that’s not what happened. Instead, Lindsey Graham called a press conference to propose a nationwide abortion ban.”
Watters misspoke. The bill calls for a 15 week ban, not a nationwide ban. Watters blasted the Senator for the timing of the bill:
WATTERS: “You know that’s not smart politics, right?”
GRAHAM: “There’s no bad time to defend the unborn.”
WATTERS: “No one is saying you need to sit on the sidelines, but yesterday wasn’t the day to do that. Yesterday was the day they lost all momentum when this inflation thing punched them right in the face, and you gave them an out.”
Pulse Life Advocates agrees with Senator Graham. There’s no bad time to defend the unborn. And the bill being proposed is not only NOT extreme, it aligns with a significant portion of real Democratic voters, as well as Republicans.
That’s the message pro-life politicians and their supporters need to emphasize non-stop between now and the midterm elections. Democratic leadership may be on the same page with North Korea and Red China, but they are wildly out of synch with the rest of the world, including their own party.
[It’s time to reserve your seat at our November 19th Christmas Gala, “The Stars Are Brightly Shining.” Order online today.]
The act of killing a living human being in the womb is grotesquely violent. Proponents justify the violence in the name of rights of the mother at the expense of the rights of the unborn child. Since the Dobbs decision was leaked earlier this year, we can see that even the politics of abortion is violent.
Tracking the violence
Catholic Vote tracks the political violence of pro-abortion groups. Since May, these abortion zealots have attacked 66 women’s pregnancy resource centers and offices, including two attacks in Des Moines.
Two domestic terror groups, Jane’s Revenge and Ruth Sent Us, have taken ‘credit’ for these attacks.
In addition, 72 Catholic churches have been attacked since May, bringing the total number of attacks on Catholic churches to 210 since May 28th, 2020. The attacks have focused on damaging Catholic churches as opposed to theft. Damage includes:
- arson
- destruction of historic churches
- spray painting and graffiti of satanic messages (interesting how Satanism correlates with abortion)
- windows broken by rocks and bricks
- statues destroyed, often with heads cut off.
Violence is anti-life
The pro-life movement opposes violence to women and their babies wrought by abortion, as well as the destruction and defacement of property, whether inflicted by pro-abortion or pro-life advocates.
Pulse Life Advocates calls on federal law enforcement agencies to track down the perpetrators of these attacks on Catholic churches which stretches across 39 states thus far, and 29 states for women’s pregnancy centers. To be clear, these pro-abortion groups proudly threaten violence with threats like:
“If abortion aint (sic) safe you aint (sic) safe” as you can see in the photo above.
So far, no one has been brought to justice. President Joe Biden, who identifies as a Catholic, tells the violent abortion protestors to
“keep protesting, keep making your point.”
By contrast, when churches were under attack in the 1960s, another Catholic president, John Kennedy, quickly labeled the violence as “cowardly” and “outrageous.” He said :
“As soon as we’re able to find out who did it, we’ll arrest them.”
Thanks to Catholic Vote for running ads like the one below, calling the most pro-abortion president in history and a politicized FBI to account. Abortion is violent. If the FBI doesn’t bring people to justice for these attacks, the violence will continue to spread and people (in and out of the womb) will get hurt.
If you have a 70th birthday approaching, you should be prepared to begin making a qualified charitable distribution (QCD) each year.
For those 70 1/2 and older, the IRS allows you to make nontaxable distributions from your IRA, as it will count towards your individual minimum distribution.
You simply direct the trustee of your IRA to make your QCD directly to an organization, such as Pulse Life Advocates, a 501 c(3) corporation, which is eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.
Talk to your financial planner for details. This is a great way for you to support Pulse Life Advocates.
[You can also support Pulse by attending our November 19th Christmas Gala. Get details here.]
Des Moines City Council member, Josh Mandelbaum
Des Moines city councilman, Josh Mandelbaum, has drafted a proposed resolution that would codify abortion-on-demand in Des Moines at the expense of abortion regulations enacted by the state legislature.
Josh Mandelbaum’s proposal reads (with emphasis added):
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT the City of Des Moines supports the codification of the right to abortion into state and federal law; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Des Moines remains committed to providing our employees the same access to health care including reproductive health care that they have had previously and the City Council directs the City Manager and human resources director to develop a policy related to travel reimbursement to access health care services that become inaccessible in state; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City of Des Moines shall not use its resources to investigate anyone seeking reproductive health care services or health care providers facilitating access to such services; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council directs City Manager to work with staff to draft an ordinance to prohibit discrimination based on reproductive health actions so that nobody could be denied housing or employment for getting an abortion or accessing reproductive health care.
Rank and file Des Moines voters were unaware of Mandelbaum’s extreme position on abortion. Most were probably unconcerned since the council’s historic role focused on development, safety, and infrastructure issues for Iowa’s capital city, not negating state law. His foray into the culture wars is a wake-up call for Des Moines voters to be very attentive next election (his term expires January, 2026).
Mandelbaum’s social media posts
He spelled out his pro-abortion philosophy on his Facebook page:
“We should do what we can at every level of government to protect access to abortion and reproductive health care. I have drafted a resolution with specific actions that we can take as a city. If you agree that the city Council should act like and share this post.”
On Twitter, he explained the need to circumvent state law:
“Governor Reynolds is trying to ban abortion in Iowa through court action. That is why cities like Des Moines should take the steps we can to protect access to reproductive health care. Read about the steps that I’ve proposed for Des Moines.”
For the record, Governor Reynolds is simply trying to implement the laws overwhelmingly passed by the state legislature.
And for the record, abortion has nothing to do with “healthcare.” There is nothing healthy about performing unnecessary surgery on a healthy, pregnant woman that violently ends the life of her healthy unborn child.
Abortion kills a unique human being at the same time it inflicts physical, emotional, and psychic trauma on the mom.
Not all council members are on board
Mandelbaum acknowledges he doesn’t have the votes to get his resolution onto the council agenda.
For example, councilwoman Linda Westergard is opposed:
“I support women’s rights, but this is not a city council issue.”
However, council woman Indira Sheumaker is on board with Mandelbaum:
“We’re dealing with human rights and we have to do our part to protect them. I would love to see a solution brought forward.”
Ms. Sheumaker is correct at invoking human rights, only she wants to deny them to the unique, unborn human being in the womb. In fact, she joins Mandelbaum in opposing human rights for an especially vulnerable class of persons.
Pulse Life Advocates encourages you to contact council members and tell them you oppose Mandelbaum’s pro-abortion resolution:
Frank Cownie, Mayor: 515-283-4944 | fcownie@dmgov.org
Linda Westergard: 515-988-4288 | LindaW@dmgov.org
Carl Voss: 515-210-0237 | carlvoss@dmgov.org
Joe Gatto: 515-402-2626 | joegatto@dmgov.org
Connie Boesen: 515-240-7929 | connieboesen@dmgov.org
Josh Mandelbaum’s anti-life resolution would thwart the will of Iowa voters who have elected legislators in multiple sessions to implement common-sense abortion regulations.
[Pulse Life Advocates is at work on a new video series, “How to Raise Pro-Life Children.” Help us reach more people. Donate today. Thank-you!]
Big Abortion won the war of words in Kansas. They used a strategy of slick, if misleading, messaging coupled with anti-Catholic bigotry to absolutely bury a pro-life amendment.
To recap: Kansas faced the same dilemma as Iowa. Their state Supreme Court uncovered a fundamental right to abortion mysteriously hidden in their state Constitution.
Pro-lifers crafted an Amendment to the Constitution which would make it abortion neutral. They named the amendment the ‘Value Them Both Amendment.’
Voters rejected it 59% against, 41% for. A major blowout victory for Big Abortion.
Big Abortion swayed moderates
The abortion rights strategists focused their messaging on moderate voters who were kind of against abortion with ads like this:
“They call it a constitutional amendment. The truth? It’s a strict government mandate designed to interfere with private medical decisions, a slippery slope that could put more of your individual and personal rights at risk.”
No one likes ‘mandates.’ The term is becoming prevalent, though, as abortion pressure groups characterize pro-life laws as ‘mandating birth’ or forcing birth.
Another ad appealed to anti-maskers, a group that tends to tilt right. It says:
“Kansans don’t want another government mandate.”
Then they showed a storefront sign indicating a mask mandate quickly followed by another that says, “All Masses cancelled.”
Slick. Effective.
Another ad shows a doctor who says:
“Do no harm. That’s the oath we take as doctors. The government wants to force doctors in Kansas to break that oath by passing a constitutional amendment that could put a mother’s life at risk. It’s a government mandate that could ban all abortions with no exceptions, even rape and incest.”
Of course the Amendment wouldn’t ban abortion, but the deceit delivered more votes for Big Abortion from misled voters.
The war of words turns anti-Catholic
A pro-abortion Kansan legislator, Cindy Holscher, characterized the Amendment as a ‘bailout’ for the Catholic Church. You’re probably scratching your head over that one.
Her rationale goes something like this: Half of Catholics are pro-choice; the Church is losing liberal members who disagree with Church teachings on abortion; if the Amendment passes, it takes the issue off the table so the Church doesn’t have to talk about it anymore.
Writing in the Kansas City Star, she ripped on the Catholic Church for lobbying for the amendment, and for pouring big resources into the campaign. (Big Abortion still outspent pro-lifers by more than a million dollars.)
She said,
“There are many reasons to vote no on this amendment. One of the most compelling being the fact the government already provides unparalleled support to churches through their tax exempt stats. In Kansas, roughly 18% of the population is Catholic. Getting the entire state to confirm [sic] to church doctrine would be a huge win.”
(For the record, pro-life support goes far beyond the Catholic Church.)
She concludes:
“And that brings us to the final reason to vote against this amendment: No state or body of citizens in a democracy should have the religious doctrine of one faith imposed upon them. Period.”
An ad featuring a Protestant pastor played off of Ms. Holsher’s theme:
“As Christians, we are instructed to love one another, and we do so when we respect and trust women as God does. I’m voting ‘no’ on the proposed amendment because it replaces religious freedom with government control.”
That’s an effective line, “it replaces religious freedom with government control.”
Of course, it’s a lie.
Iowa pro-lifers are paying attention
Pulse and our fellow members of the Iowa Pro-Life Coalition are grateful to have seen this war of words played out in Kansas as we contemplate our strategy to advance the Protect Life Amendment here in Iowa.
Here’s what we have learned from Kansas messaging:
- Big Abortion plays dirty. Truth is quickly be replaced by deceit.
- Religious bigotry is fair game.
- Messaging will attempt to sway swing voters by transforming the amendment into something that it isn’t.
Rest assured, we have taken notes and will be ready.
[Pulse Life Advocates is at work on a new video project called, “How to Raise Pro-Life Children.” Help us reach into every corner of Iowa with pro-life messaging. Donate to the cause of Life today.]
Kansas and Iowa faced similar pro-life dilemmas: their respective state supreme courts discovered a fundamental right to abortion in their respective state constitutions, curtailing their legislatures’ ability to regulate abortion. Kansas put forth the “Value Them Both Amendment” to return the power to the legislature.
Kansas voters rejected the amendment in a lopsided loss for pro-lifers: 59% against and 41% for. Iowa legislators are at work on a similar amendment, the Protect Life Amendment (PLA).
The PLA has passed one legislative session already. It must pass another legislative session, at which point it goes to a vote of the people, just as Kansas’ Value Them Both amendment did.
In light of Kansas’ voters rebuke of a pro-life Amendment, how does this affect Iowa’s efforts, if at all? Let’s take a closer look at what happened in Kansas.
What was the wording of the Value Them Both Amendment?
“§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.”
Critics claim the wording was unclear. And at 88 words, it is much longer than Iowa’s more succinct 53 word Protect Life Amendment:
“Life. To defend the dignity of all human life and protect unborn children from efforts to expand abortion even to the point of birth, we the people of the State of Iowa declare that this Constitution does not recognize, grant, or secure a right to abortion or require the public funding of abortion.”
Which side spent the most money on the Kansas amendment, pro-lifers or pro-abortion?
According to Flatland, the Kansas City PBS’ digital magazine, the pro-abortion side outspent pro-lifers by about $1.2 million. Most of their money flowed from out-of-state special interests. In contrast, most of the pro-life monies came from in-state sources, such as the Archdiocese of Kansas city, KS and the Catholic Diocese of Wichita. The spending differential hurt the pro-life side.
Did the overturning of Roe v Wade have any effect on the Kansas vote? In other words, was the pro-abortion side energized?
Apparently yes, according to Chuck Weber, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference who said the Dobbs decision “really changed the trajectory of the abortion legal landscape. That energized the abortion industry beyond I think anyone’s anticipation.”
Was media reporting balanced?
No, according to Weber. The end of Roe created confusion among voters who didn’t realize the Roe didn’t ban abortions:
“That created an environment of confusion, we believe, that led the country, but also particularly in Kansas, into a narrative that the abortion industry pounced upon: that women were not going to get the authentic productive health care that they deserved if the Value Them Both amendment was passed.”
Of course, that was a “blatant despicable lie,” in Weber’s words. And the media had no interest in correcting the lie:
“Not only was the secular news media quiet about that despicable lie. But they actually served as an echo chamber. That turned into a disastrous recipe for us on election night …”
In other words, the pro-abortion side, with some help from the media, led voters to believe that a vote for the Value Them Both amendment was a vote to ban abortion.
Why would Iowa’s outcome be any different than Kansas’?
- Timing matters. The soonest Iowa voters would vote on the Protect Life Amendment is 2024, long after post-Roe passions have cooled.
- Iowa has a pro-life governor, Kim Reynolds. Kansas has a pro-abortion governor, Laura Kelly. The governor’s bully pulpit can be persuasive, especially when it comes to correcting misinformation from the other side.
- Iowa’s amendment is much clearer and concise than the wording used with the Value Them Both amendment. Big Abortion’s spokespersons will have a harder time bamboozling Iowa voters.
Pulse executive director, Maggie DeWitte, assessed the impact of the Kansas vote as follows:
“It is very clear that in Iowa and across America, life is winning. The Iowa State Supreme Court has corrected itself, the U.S. Supreme Court has corrected itself – both courts correctly ruling there is no right to kill pre-born children.
Now state after state is standing up to cherish and protect the sanctity of human life. And while the Kansas vote is disappointing, across the nation, more and more Americans are recognizing that the little child in her mother’s womb – she’s a baby, and she deserves a birthday.
In Iowa and across the U.S., life is winning. Governor Reynolds has done an excellent job appointing justices to our State Supreme Court who are faithful to the Iowa Constitution and who correctly ruled it contains no ‘fundamental right’ to abortion. These and other factors will be taken into consideration as pro-life Iowans, as always, seek the best strategies to protect mothers and pre-born children in our state.”
The pro-life movement has the momentum in Iowa and beyond, but the Kansas debacle shows that our pro-life educational outreach is more vital than ever.
[As you can see, our work is cut out for us. Pro-life educational outreach is more necessary than ever to sway more Iowans to the pro-life side side. Your financial support helps us reach more people every single week.]
James Martin S.J.
Writing in last week’s Wall Street Journal (Houses of Worship: Abortion and the Grumbling Crowd), Fr. James Martin said Jesus broke bread with sinners, which makes the case against denying communion to pro-abortion politicians, by his way of thinking. He also drew a moral equivalence between abortion and the death penalty, quoting San Diego Robert W. Bishop in the process:
“Bishop McElroy also notes that the focus of these restrictions is often highly selective. Why target only abortion? There are other important “life issues.” Consider former Attorney General William Barr, who supported the death penalty, which the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” clearly declares “inadmissible.” Yet there was little outcry about Mr. Barr’s receiving communion. By focusing only on abortion, pastors risk politicizing something sacred. “The Eucharist must never be instrumentalized for a political end, no matter how important,” Bishop McElroy says.”
Pulse board president, Tom Quiner responded to the Journal as follows:
“Fr. James Martin claims that support for the death penalty is the moral equivalent as support for abortion. [Abortion and the Grumbling Crowd, July 21st.] Let’s contrast the issues:
Some 800,000 innocent unborn American were ‘executed’ (aborted) for the crime of being inconvenient last year in contrast to the 11 criminals who were executed for the crime of murder.
There is no moral equivalency between human abortion and the death penalty.”
Fr. Martin’s essay drew other sharp rebukes. Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, IL, points out that one needs to turn away from sin to truly follow Christ:
“Jesus broke bread with sinners, but he called them to conversion. He didn’t leave them in sin. He required that they choose between following him and rejecting his call … But with a public figure who publicly and obstinately persists in promoting grave evil, the matter is laid bare for all to see, adding scandal and confusion of the faithful to the weight of the sin.”
And Rev. Brian A. Graebe, S.T.D. agrees with Quiner that drawing a comparison between abortion and capital punishment is a false equivalence and reduces the unique gravity of abortion:
“Many progressives risk diminishing the unique evil of abortion through false equivalences. A favorite, cited by Fr. Martin, is the death penalty. The church has always taught that the state has the inherent right to carry out capital punishment. How and when is a matter for debate. The last three popes have sought to limit its application, and Pope Francis has declared it “inadmissible.” The designation is something of a theological unicorn: The pope says that capital punishment should never actually take place. But that’s not the same as saying it is wrong in itself. To say that would be to contradict the apostolic faith of the church.”
Fr. Martin has a gift for sowing confusion with Catholic laity and the secular community at-large. Abortion has been a great divider in our country. By reducing pro-lifers to the lowly rank of being mere ‘grumblers,’ he has succeeded in dividing us even more.
[We’re working on an exciting new video project: “How to Raise Pro-Life Children.” We could use your financial support to make this project really special. Donate online today.]