By Joe Stopulos

I had been asked to do a Catholic voters guide edition of the show [MAN UP on Iowa Catholic Radio/click to listen above].  I initially rejected the idea because  of the polarization of the topic and the fact that usually those conversations tend  to stay very high level and not get into actionable steps.  The more I thought and prayed about it, one issue continued to come to light, and it is this.  That if we could draw up a perfect catholic political candidate for office, a person of integrity and virtue, who followed all of the teachings of the church and was bold in standing up for those convictions; a person who on paper voted 100% of the way I believe the Church would have us vote. If this person existed, but happened to have one notable exception to being in line with the teachings of Christ and the Church, that exception being in favor of abortion rights, I could not vote for them.   Even if every single other issue was perfectly in line with the Church, I could not vote for them.  Even if they have the most upstanding personal moral character, I could not vote for them

The more I thought about this, the more I could not help shake that notion.

INTRODUCTION

I think of it like this:  If today, that person I described was, instead of being pro-abortion, was pro-slavery, could you vote for them?   If they agreed with 100% on every other issue, but just happened to slip up on the issue of slavery, would you vote for them?  I do not think this is an apples and oranges comparison.  Both of those are clearly mortal sins.  Both of those are a disgrace to our country.  Both of those are an outrage before our Lord.   The reason we do not think this way is because of the culture we live in.   

FOUNDING FATHERS

The founding fathers knew that slavery was against the moral order.  They spoke out against it.  They also knew they would never be able to form the union with the southern states if they didn’t allow it.  Thomas Jefferson famously said about slavery, “”But as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”  So, while they knew it was wrong, they pushed it off to the following generation of leaders to fix.  Instead of being fixed in the following generation, the slave trade grew exponentially therefore making it more difficult to stop.  Here is a quote from a book I recently read on the topic:

“Thanks to both the South’s total reliance on slavery and the growing antislavery sentiment of the North, the arguments regarding slavery began to change.  Southern advocates began to argue the morality of slavery – particularly John C. Calhoun, an ardent white supremacist – and insisted that the federal government enshrine slavery for all time, force free states to return escaped slaved, and allow for the expansion of slavery into new territories. The positive argument for slavery was actually a new development – before the rise of abolitionism, even the slaveholder had tolerated, but derided the immorality of slavery.  Calhoun infamously stated that the key tenet of the Declaration of Independence, that “all men are created equal” produced “poisonous fruit” – such as the argument that slaves ought to be free.”

End quote. From slaveholders like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington who understood that it was amoral, but tolerated it, the landscape shifted over time to a vehement promotion of the goods of slavery.

I believe a similar thing has happened on the issue of abortion.  Not too long ago, Bill Clinton talked about abortion rights in the context of “safe, legal and rare”.  Today, we hear “shout your abortion”, it is “a positive good”, its “healthcare”.  The days of “safe, legal and rare” are long gone on the pro-abortion side.  Which isn’t totally surprising.  Safe and legal make sense, but rare?  Rare would imply that we do not want to have them for some reason.  It would mean that there is something in abortion that would lend itself to wanting to be rare.  That is heresy today.  At least the people on the pro-abortion side 30 years ago were able to admit it is something we did not to see the proliferation of.  They understood, rightly, that this is not a good thing.  But, as the progressive movement has shifted the landscape those people have been left behind.  Today, like slavery in the south in the 1850’s, it is a positive good.

CHANGE THE LANGUAGE

The progressives in favor of abortion have changed the language such that it numbs you to what is actually taking place.  It is now “healthcare” and a  “women’s right to choose”, instead of what it actually is, the murdering of unborn persons. This same thing happened during the years of slavery. In order to numb society to the  evils of slavery, the pro-slavery contingent purposefully used language to help desensitize people to the atrocity.  I should warn you that the following language is extremely offensive, and should serve to remind of you of the atrocity of slavery and the mindset enabling it:

• During the days of slavery, Blacks were called “dregs of humanity,” and were considered “exactly intermediate between the superior order of beasts such as elephant, dog, and orangutan, and European or white men.”[4]
• Other slave owners referred to the slave’s “ignorance, brutality, obscenity, animal appetite, viciousness, and illegitimacy,” and called them “ignorant, perverse, wicked, the pest of white men, and agents of satan.”[5]
• Today in America, the same dehumanizing terms are used as an effective weapon against the preborn. The following terms, used by anti-life writers to describe the unborn, are all extracted from pro-abortion literature; they liken babies to:
  • “Just like fingernail clippings or warts;”
  • Products of conception, contents of the uterus;
  • Little worms or maggots;
  • Blob of tissue, parasite, leech;
  • A kind of venereal disease;

WHAT ABORTION IS

These types of deceptions keep you from realizing the horrors of abortion and dehumanize it completely. Here is an actual summary of what happens in an abortion. Again, this is rather graphic, but important to understand:

Suction Aspiration (Suction Curettage)

The woman’s cervix is dilated and a suction instrument with a blade-like tip is inserted into the uterus. The placenta and the embryo or fetus is cut into pieces and suctioned out. This procedure is usually performed up to 16 weeks gestation.

Dilation and Extraction (D & X) procedure

The woman’s cervix is dilated for approximately two days before delivery with absorbent laminaria that are inserted into the entrance of the uterus. The day of the surgery, they are removed and the membranes are ruptured. An ultrasound is used to locate the fetus’ position in the womb. The doctor locates the fetus’ lower extremities, inserts large, grasping forceps through the vagina and cervical canal and into the uterus where he can grasp the child’s leg. The leg is pulled through the vagina until the lower extremities, torso, shoulders, and upper extremities are delivered. The child is situated spine up, face down with the head lodged at the opening of the cervix. There is usually not enough dilation for the skull to pass through. The doctor runs his fingers along the spine to find the base of the skull. Blunt, curved scissors are inserted into the skull and spread to enlarge the opening. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted into the skull to remove the brain. The head collapses and the now dead child is delivered. The placenta is removed with forceps and a suction curette is used to scrape the uterine wall for any tissue left in the womb. This procedure can be performed from 20 weeks into the pregnancy (second trimester) until full terms (40 weeks LMP).21

This is not healthcare.  This is not a women’s right.  This is not a positive good.  It is murder.  Plain and simple.  But, we, like the people who grew up in the south in the 1800s, have been purposefully deceived and desensitize.  Like the people in the south in the 1800s, we have been told that these are not human beings, we have been told this is a positive good for society.   

And they have been successful in doing so. In 2017, approximately 18% of U.S. pregnancies ended in abortion.  In 2016, approximately 34% of all pregnancies in New York City ended in abortion. More than 60 million legal abortions have occurred in the United States since 1973. 60 million. That is the population of entire state of Iowa, 20 times. That is the equivalent of the entire metro areas of NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, and Phoenix.  The numbers are staggering. 60,000,000 children who never had an opportunity to live.

MY STORY

This issue is also personal to me.  I had a lot of time to think about this while I was spending the night in the hospital after the birth of my fifth child a few weeks ago.  I have heard the heart beats of all of my children at 8 weeks.  I have seen them all in their 20 week ultrasound.  For anyone who hasn’t seen one, you are basically watching a fully formed human on a TV screen.  Head, arms, feet, toes, spine, heart, face, nose, everything.  It’s an incredible moment. In addition to my own children, I have a niece and a nephew who both gave me new perspective on the issue of abortion.

My during my sister’s third pregnancy, a test early on revealed that her child was going to be born with some serious complications and special needs.  This news was obviously not expected, but we all banded together and embraced what was going to be a life changing situation for my sister and brother-in-law, and our entire family.  It is in situations like this where abortions are common; where a person who is not as strong as my sister to make the life affirming decision, or someone who has been told it is just a clump of cells, or someone who has been convinced by the pro-abortion movement that this child is better off not being born and you are doing them a favor.  As the pregnancy processed, none of the signs changed, and while we held out hope for a healthy child, we prepared for the arrival of our special needs family member.  Fast forward a few months, and when she was born, she was a perfectly healthy baby girl.  Grace is also my god-daughter.  I shudder to think how many Graces out there are not alive today because of a faulty test.  Because of a society that says if you are not perfect in the world’s eyes, you are not worth being in the world.  Because of a child being a burden is too much to bear and you are encouraged to discard them in order to concentrate on your career, or other aspirations.

Another example in my life is of my nephew Alex.  My sister-in-law unexpectedly when into labor at 24 weeks.  For those of you who don’t have kids, that is about halfway through a pregnancy.  My wife and I don’t even start talking about names until well after that.  Point being, it is extremely early in the pregnancy.  Luckily for us they live 45 minutes from the University of Iowa Children’s hospital.  She gave birth to our nephew Alexander and he weighed in at 1 lb. 8 oz and could fit in your hand.  That said, he was just a little person.  Not a potential person.  Not a clump of cells.  A person.  Albeit, a very very little person.  Today, he is a perfectly healthy 6 year old.  He has zero complications.  He might be the most energic and smiley 6 year old I know.  The pro-abortion movement would say children at 24 weeks are not children.  They don’t have a right to live if the mother doesn’t want them to live.  People, this is demonic.  It is actually demonic.  When you see my nephew Alex and my niece Grace and you look at their faces and realize how many million children like them do not exist today under the guise of the “right to choose”, “women’s rights”, or “healthcare”

PRODUCT OF THE CULTURE

As I said before, we are a product of the culture we live in.  Every one of us is inherently influenced by our surroundings.  Just like the people who were in favor of slavery in the 1800s, I have empathy for many of the pro-choice people today.   It is easy to sit here in 2020 and look down on all of the people who were pro-slavery.  Earlier this year a favorite thinker of mine, Robert P. George, who is a professor at Princeton wrote this:

• Sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition. Guess what? They all would have been abolitionists! They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it.
• Of course, this is nonsense. Only the tiniest fraction of them, or of any of us, would have spoken up against slavery or lifted a finger to free the slaves. Most of them—and us—would have gone along. Many would have supported the slave system and happily benefited from it.
• So I respond by saying that I will credit their claims if they can show evidence of the following: that in leading their lives today they have stood up for the rights of unpopular victims of injustice whose very humanity is denied, and where they have done so knowing:
• (1) that it would make them unpopular with their peers, (2) that they would be loathed and ridiculed by powerful, influential individuals and institutions in our society; (3) that they would be abandoned by many of their friends, (4) that they would be called nasty names, and
• (5) that they would risk being denied valuable professional opportunities as a result of their moral witness. In short, my challenge is to show where they have at risk to themselves and their futures stood up for a cause that is unpopular in elite sectors of our culture today.

With the context of history, I do not fully condemn people for having certain views at certain times.  I would like to think many of those same people, if alive today, would be horrified at the stances they had, but were a product of the culture they grew up and lived in.

I believe, that just as we look back to the 1800s with horror at the sins of slavery on our nation, and just as we look back at the child sacrifice rituals of the Aztec and Inca cultures, we will similarly look back in our history with horror at the proliferation of abortion.  How casually we destroyed millions of human lives in the name of convenience and selfishness.

A couple final notes to mention.  Recently, Chrissy Teigen posted on Instagram an emotional picture and message explaining that they had lost their son Jack due to miscarriage.  The baby, I believe, was around 18 weeks.   The outpouring of support and condolences from all corners of the internet was overwhelming, in the 10,000,000 of millions of responses.  And rightfully so.  This person lost a baby.  She didn’t lose a clump of cells, or a potential baby, she lost her son, Jack.  We as a society have to understand this, and I believe most people in their hearts do.  What else could it be other than a baby?

Furthermore, to emphasize that I think we do understand this, we have laws that criminally punish people for the destruction of Bald Eagle eggs.   Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act the first criminal offense is a misdemeanor with maximum penalty of one year in prison and $100,000 fine. The second offense becomes a felony with maximum penalty of 2 years in prison and $250,000 fine. We are not talking about fully formed Bald Eagle, but an egg.

My nephew Alexander, was a human being at 24 weeks.  He was a human being at 20 weeks.  He was a human being at 8 weeks. He was a human being from the moment he was conceived.  We understand that with Eagles, I sure hope we can as a society understand that for humans.

All of that said, I know many people who are practicing Catholics who will echo the words of Jeannie Gaffigan, the wife of comedian Jim Gaffigan, that she wrote in the Jesuit publication America Magazine last week on this issue.  She says, and I quote

“How can we strive to heal the tragedy of abortion without acknowledging the deep wounds and life-threatening crises that drive people to it? How arrogant we are to condemn women of any color living in poverty, faced with the unimaginable and horrific circumstances that would drive them to seek an abortion, without taking a good look at how we have failed them by not offering adequate health care, child care, education and employment opportunities? Do we ever stop to think about how far we are from achieving a “culture of life” in light of the well-documented and video-recorded police brutality against Black Americans? Are refugee children, homeless pregnant women or the prisoners on death row not also “society’s most vulnerable”?”

Healthcare, racism, education, child care; these are all extremely important issues.  That said, those are issues with which we can have a debate on the best way to fix them.  To just turn a blind eye to the horrors and evils of abortion in the name of a preferred healthcare or education policy is not the answer.  We need people, especially people like Jeannie Gaffigan, to stand up to the pro-abortion candidates and say “I really want to support you for all of these reasons, but cannot because of your abhorrent stance on abortion.”  And I am not saying to then go support the other candidate if you don’t like them.  I have not voted in elections for specific offices (even president) where I did not believe I had a good choice.  But, to equate the importance your preferred education or healthcare policy on the same plane as the widespread legal murdering of children, is not an honest weighing of the issues.

It is with all of that in mind, that I cannot, under any circumstance support a candidate who is pro-choice. Just as I could not support a candidate, not matter how much I liked them, or hated the person they were running against, who was pro-slavery.  And furthermore, even if the candidate says “I am not personally for abortion, but I am not going to infringe my beliefs on a woman and her doctor”, that is the same thing as saying “I would not personally own slaves, but I am not going to infringe on the rights of someone to own slaves.”  If you “are not personally for abortion” there is probably a good reason for that.  We need to have politicians who can stand up against the radical pro-choice progressives of this country.

If all Catholics and Christians (and other believers) stood up and unanimously said, “we will not support any more candidates who are in favor of abortion” politicians would respond.  I have a lot of friends who are practicing Catholics who support many of the positions of certain pro-choice politicians, yet abhor abortion, and still vote for the candidate.   I am saying, if we all stand up against this, we can make change.  If we do not donate another dollar to pro-choice politicians, or cast one more vote for them, while explaining to them why, we will make progress.  If we, as Christians band together, regardless of our stances on education, immigration, healthcare and the like, and make it clear we will not go along with the pro-abortion movement any more, we can, and we will make change.   

[Thanks to Joe Stopulos and Iowan Catholic Radio for permission to publish Monday’s edition of “MAN UP.” You can listen to this show every Monday morning at 9AM and 9PM at 1150AM and 88.5 and 94.5FM.]

By Maggie DeWitte

Contrary to Danielle Burmeister’s October 2nd guest editorial, evidence does NOT suggest that abortion rates are reduced under Democratic presidents. Just the contrary. Let’s clear the air on several issues she touched upon.

She points out that NBC News reports that 30% of Republicans vote on a single issue: abortion. However, abortion is at least six issues, not one. For starters, Democrats want to federalize abortion and make it available for all nine months of a pregnancy in all fifty states. In Iowa, restrictions apply after 20 weeks.

The Hyde Amendment

The Biden ticket makes it clear they want to abolish the Hyde Amendment and make taxpayers pay for abortions in the U.S., even faithful Catholics, who consider abortion a grave sin. This is the second Life issue at stake this election. The third: a Biden presidency would quickly negate the Mexico City policy which prevents the U.S. government from using taxpayer dollars to export abortion to other countries.

Born-alive legislation

The fourth life issue is one-party’s refusal to support born-alive legislation. Hundreds of babies survive abortion every year. This law would require doctors to treat these survivors like any other baby instead of letting them die. It would sanction doctors who don’t. How could anyone oppose such compassionate legislation? And yet Democrats have blocked it more than 80 times.

A fifth: if the progressive wing of the Democratic Party has their way, they’d impose Medicare for All on the country. If it passes, it requires Catholic doctors and nurses to violate their consciences and participate in abortions, or lose their jobs.

The racism of abortion

And perhaps the worst part of this whole conversation, considering the times in which we live, is the sixth life issue. Abortion is racist.

The African-American community is disproportionately impacted by human abortion, because nearly half of all black babies in the womb are aborted. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, actively called for the reduction of undesirable populations, whom she called “human weeds.” But even Sanger opposed abortion. Today, blacks represent only 13% of our population, but 35% of all abortions. One party calls for more funding of Planned Parenthood, even though they know it affects blacks far more than any other group. The African-American birth rate is already below-replacement level because of abortion.

Do they actually want it to plunge even further?

So you can see that abortion is far more than a single issue. I haven’t even touched upon Kamala Harris’ plan to require “pre-clearance” on any pro-life legislation passed at the state level.

Snopes weighs in

As to Ms. Burmeister’s assertion that abortion rates drop more under Democratic presidents than Republican, even Snopes calls this false:

“At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama’s administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation.”

The real cause of the drop in the abortion rate

So what is the cause of the decline of abortion rates between 2008 and 2016? In fact, the cause is specific. Most of the pro-life strides come at the state level.

During Obama’s two terms, the Democrats suffered their largest drop of power since the Eisenhower years. When he came into power, his party controlled both chambers of 27 state legislatures, but only 13 when he left, including Iowa. In all they lost 816 state legislative seats, plus 13 Governorships.

Mr. Obama’s lack of coattails allowed pro-life representation to soar at the state level, resulting in a smorgasbord of life-saving legislation. In other words, any honest assessment of the data, as Snopes makes clear, needs to look at cause and effect, not just effect. The cause: more pro-life legislators elected at state levels; the effect: a decline in human abortion.

Progressive Catholic voters are spreading info that a vote for Democrats is actually a pro-life vote. Here’s how they express their rationale:

“For anyone who opposes Trump but hesitates to vote Democrat because of the abortion issue, here’s some food for thought:

Neither party wants to see abortions increase. The difference is in strategy:  the Republicans’ approach of “Make it illegal” vs. the Democrats’ approach of “make it unnecessary.”  Which is more effective? The numbers speak for themselves.”

This trope rolls around every election cycle. The graphic below is pretty convincing, isn’t it? How should pro-life Catholics (the term should be redundant) respond to their kids and friends who throw this in their faces every four years?

Let’s deconstruct the argument in a Q & A format.

Q. Generally speaking, is it really true? Do abortions really decline more during Democratic presidencies than Republican?

A. No, not according to Snopes who label the assertion false:

“The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well.

The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama’s administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation.”

Q. The chart above shows a nice decline during the Obama years compared to the George W. Bush years. So how do you explain that?

A. Most of the pro-life strides come at the state level. During Obama’s two terms, the Democrats suffered their largest drop of power since the Eisenhower years. When he came into power, his party controlled both chambers of 27 state legislatures, but only 13 when he left, including Iowa. In all they lost 816 state legislative seats, plus 13 Governorships.

Mr. Obama’s lack of coattails allowed pro-life representation to soar at the state level, resulting in a smorgasbord of life-saving legislation. In other words, any honest assessment of the data, as Snopes makes clear, needs to look at cause and effect, not just effect. The cause: more pro-life (Republican) legislators elected at state levels; the effect: a decline in human abortion.

Q. Progressive Catholics assert that “neither party wants to see abortions increase.” Is that accurate?

A. No. Democratic support groups encourage women to “shout their abortion,” even running billboards with those words. The doesn’t sound like a good way to decrease abortions, does it?

Nor do the Democrats’ reproductive policies. They call for an end to all regulations on abortion for an entire nine months of a pregnancy; they call for taxpayers to pay for it by a combination of ending the Hyde Amendment and passing Medicare for All; and they call for an end of the Mexico City policy, which prevents the use of taxpayer money to pay for abortions in other countries.

Each of these policies, if enacted, will increase the quantity of abortions, not decrease it.

Q. Let’s look at the chart again. There was a huge drop in abortions during the Clinton administration. How do you explain that?

A. The data cited comes from the CDC, which is not reliable when it comes to abortion reporting.  Even more, the state with the most abortions in the U.S., California, stopped reporting their numbers during the Clinton years.  So of course numbers would drop: California isn’t included.

By the same token, Republicans won control of the House of Representative for the first time in 4 decades, and installed a conservative, pro-life Speaker in Newt Gingrich to counter President Clinton’s abortion sympathies.

Q. Are there any other reasons why abortion rates have been steadily dropping since the 80s?

A. Stricter abortion laws at the state level, as demonstrated above, have made a difference. But there’s been a change in attitude, too. Women have an opportunity to see their baby in the womb via ultrasounds. Something like 8 out 10 women who view an ultrasound decide not to abort. And pro-life groups like Iowans for LIFE have been educating women on healthy alternatives to abortion and on the sanctity of life. It has made a big difference.

Q. How accurate is abortion data?

A. Not as accurate as pro-lifers would like, because chemical abortions aren’t reported with the accuracy of surgical abortions.

Even the Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood’s research group) admits that reporting on medical/chemical abortion is spotty.  As the brick and mortar abortion businesses close, the abortion industry has found a new and innovative way to kill babies and harm women. Here in Iowa, the RU-486 abortion pill is now being delivered via the U.S. Postal Service.

Q. Does any of the above matter to progressive Catholic voters?

A. It should. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the means do not justify the ends:

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

Not only does the Democratic party want to eliminate state abortion regulations and have taxpayers pay for abortions, they insist upon removing conscience protections for Catholic doctors and nurses who do not want to participate in abortion procedures.

So to the question: do abortion rates drop under Democratic presidents? No, they don’t. They decline IN SPITE of them. And if the party has an opportunity to implement their more ‘progressive’ reproductive policies they now call for, look for a spike in human abortion, not the decline that we’re seeing during the current administration.

Something happened halfway between Herbert Hoover’s presidency and Donald Trump’s that scarred our nation. To this day, it is the elephant in the voting booth.

The wound manifests itself in a variety of ways, most recently on display in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. It is again on display in the aftermath of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death (may she rest in peace). 

Ginsberg’s replacement?

Amy Coney Barrett, a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, is a leading contender to replace Ms. Ginsberg. Barrett’s Catholicism led adversarial Senators to grill her aggressively in her last confirmation hearing.

Like Barrett, Joe Biden identifies as a Roman Catholic. He even acknowledges his Church’s position on life:

“I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being:”

But he qualifies this view:

“… but I’m not prepared to say that to other God-fearing, non-God-fearing people that have a different view.”

However, he IS willing to allow these other ‘God-fearing’ and non-God-fearing people to impose their views on pro-life taxpayers and Catholic doctors and nurses, whom they insist must pay for and perform abortions.

Although she is not yet formerly nominated, nor may not be, a media frenzy has already been unleashed. A liberal website, Refinery 29, headlined a piece, “the Potential RBG Replacement Who Hates Your Uterus.”

Subtle.

“People of Praise”

Barrett is a member of a religious group called “People of Praise.” Newsweek suggested they were the inspiration for Margaret Atwood’s novel, “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They weren’t. Newsweek was forced to correct their piece.

Look for more media hysteria in the days to come. So what is the cause of all of this hysteria?

Consider the 90 year sweep since the Hoover presidency. Ninety-seven percent of judges put forward for the Supreme Court received an affirmative vote in the first half of this sweep.

97% verses 75%

Something strange happened in the second half: judges on average received but a 75% affirmative vote rate.

Let that soak in:  97% verses 75%. And President Trump’s two nominees have only been approved by 52% of Senators.

Something profound happened to alter the way judges were confirmed midway between Hoover and Trump.

And consider this: a voice vote was used 17 times to confirm judges in the first half of this ninety year sweep, and none since.

A voice vote is essentially unanimous approval.

A gash in American history

The Supreme Court inflicted a gash in American history on January 22nd, 1973 which altered the political landscape to this day. It made it more difficult to confirm judges who affirmed the original intent of the Constitution.

Of course, Iowans for LIFE refers to the Roe v Wade decision and the even more insidious Doe v. Bolton decision, decided the same day. They opened the door to human abortion for the entire nine month sweep of a pregnancy.

Roe and Doe weren’t subtle decisions. In an instant, they created a multi-billion dollar industry known as Big Abortion which seduced and coerced formerly pro life politicians to recant their sins and convert to a new, anti-life faith.

In an instant, it opened the door to not just a trickle of abortions, but a bloody gusher.

Sixty million abortions later, this single court decision remains the elephant in the voting booth.  The vast majority of election match-ups pit a pro-life candidate against a pro-abortion candidate.

Is the term ‘pro-abortion’ fair?

Some readers of this blog will bristle at our use of the term ‘pro-abortion,’ and yet it is an apt term. A generation ago, a pro-choice president, Bill Clinton, said that “abortion is a fundamental Constitutional right” that should be “safe, legal … and rare.”

Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, reiterated her husband’s view in 2008 in even more passionate terms when she said she wanted abortion “safe, legal, and rare, and by rare, I mean rare.”

And yet this makes no sense.

If candidates like Mrs. Clinton believe human abortion is a “fundamental Constitutional right,” how could it ever be rare?

And it especially makes no sense when her party campaigns for taxpayer funded abortions for the full nine months of a pregnancy. This policy will make Big Abortion bigger and richer as it makes abortion more prevalent.

The more abortions, the more lucre for Big Abortion and the greater the campaign donations for ‘pro-choice’ politicians.

60 million abortions is not rare

Yes, ‘pro-abortion’ is really a more honest expression. It is acutely honest in light of 60 million abortions since Roe, a figure which is certainly not “rare.”

The last great social gash in our history was slavery, and the riches it bestowed upon the slaves’ oppressors. Writing in the National Review, historian Victor Davis Hanson described the slave issue this way:

“But by 1861, an array of other differences had magnified the great divide over slavery. The plantation class of the South had grown fabulously rich — and solely dependent — on King Cotton and by extension slave labor.”

Today, many issues divide us, but none like human abortion.  As with slavery, the money is big for human abortionists.  When the late-term abortion “doctor,” Kermit Gosnell was arrested in his home, the police found $240,000 in CASH under his bed.

Shouldn’t we vote on more than a single issue?

Some readers of this essay will demur and claim that other issues need to be considered when voting for a candidate, that single issue voting makes no sense.

Do you really believe that?

After all, you can’t talk about immigration if the immigrant was aborted.

After all, you can’t talk about the price of health insurance if you were aborted.

And after all, you can’t talk about gay marriage, or gender reassignment, or plastic straws if you’ve been aborted.

The life issue is foundational. Besides, it is not a single issue. It is at least six as we covered last week.

The only nation founded on a Creed

This nation was built upon a creed that acknowledged life (along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness) as a fundamental, immutable, God-given right.

A vote for a pro-abortion candidate is a denial of this divine right for the millions of unique individuals who will be aborted before the next election cycle.

Abortion is a blight on America. It is a laceration that bleeds the blood of the innocent by obscene bucketfuls day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute.

It must stop.

Today, vote for candidates who affirm the dignity of the human person from fertilization to natural death.

By Amanda Ladwig

When I walked up to the bulletproof glass-enclosed reception desk I gave my name. The receptionist smiled warmly back and handed me a small brown paper bag with #18 written on it in red permanent marker. As she handed me the bag she kindly stated,

“you are number 18, please have a seat.”

The ‘counseling session’

As I walked to my seat I took in the room, the brown paneling on the walls, the small barred windows, the inspirational posters about courage. I quietly took my seat and glanced around at the other young women sitting quietly like painted dolls holding brown paper bags with red numbers written on them. I wondered who they were and if they were as scared and unsure as I was.  I took a moment and looked inside my bag to find a sanitary napkin and a cherry-flavored blow-pop. My thoughts were interrupted when my number was called and I was ushered into the back for my “counseling” session.

Once inside the small room, I was handed a gown and a plastic cup with #18 written on it in red. I was “counseled” about how to appropriately use the cup and where to place my sanitary napkin so it would be most effective. I began to ask questions and was told the doctor would take care of all my concerns. When I was alone in the room I began to wonder when I would have the chance to speak and share my thoughts and concerns.

#18 is called

Once again, my number was called. I walked to the next destination and was instructed to sit on the table. When the doctor walked into the room I began to cry. Finally, I could speak and get some kind of help and direction. Finally, someone would hear me.  I began to tell him through my sobs how unsure and scared I was and why I was there. He interrupted me and asked if I was number 18. I nodded to confirm that I was and he proceeded,

“you must be quiet or you will frighten the other girls waiting in the next room. It is too late to change your mind. We have everything ready to go. Everything will be over in a matter of minutes.”

So, I stifled my sobs and resigned myself to the fact that they had no desire to know me or hear me. I was #18, another number there for an abortion.

“Suck on your lollipop and be quiet about it.”

After my abortion was completed, my brown paper bag was returned to me and I was moved to the recovery room and seated in a reclining chair. I looked around the room and recognized some of the young women I had noticed in the waiting room. There they were lined up like  painted dolls holding their brown paper bags and sucking on lollipops. I began to cry. Actually, I began to wail because at that moment I realized all that I had lost and all that I had become in a “matter of minutes”. The recovery nurse took my bag and looked at the number. As she pulled the lollipop from inside she said in motherly tones,

“#18, none of that. It’s over. You did what you came here to do. It is finished. Suck on your lollipop and be quiet about it.”

My tears mixed with the sickeningly sweet taste of artificial cherry flavor and  I stifled my cries along with my grief. In a “matter of minutes”,  I, me, the woman I had been was erased along with the existence of my unborn child. I had become the 18th abortion of that day, voiceless and unknown.

My life spiraled out of control

It would be easy for me to stop there, and truth be told, for a part of my life it seemed like I did. It led to life spiraling out of control and claiming the name of “victim” or ” unworthy” as justification for all manner of self-destructive choices. I fluctuated between desperately attempting to reclaim what had been lost and recreating myself.  I even stood boldly shoulder to shoulder with my “sisters” holding a sign declaring, “my body, my choice”.

Years later as a newly converted Christian woman, I still felt detached and unsure of who I was.  And the existence of #18 was most certainly to be hidden from view because I had made the choice; I had accomplished what I went there to do. So, that part of my life sat quietly in the corner sucking on a lollipop.

Until one day I realized what had actually happened that day. I walked into that abortion clinic with a head full of false promises. They would hear my concerns and show me the right thing to do. They would take the time to know me and care. But, behind those thick metal doors, I was not an image-bearer of the God of the universe. No, when I gave my name at the reception desk that day, I and my unborn child were given a new name, #18. And neither of us would be known or heard because I was “to be quiet about it.”

“I have called you by name”

But, the story doesn’t end there:

“No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.” (Romans 8:37) And I will no longer be silent, I will speak and I will speak boldly. I will tell of the glory of the Lord and His healing and His redemption.

I will tell of how He knows His people, His image-bearers by name, even those in the womb. (Genesis 1:27 & Jeremiah 1:5)

I will tell of how He is the God who sees you, all of you. Your deepest thoughts and fears and what brought you to the clinic in the first place. (Genesis 16:13)

I will declare that the words “it is finished” is a declaration of self-sacrifice for your redemption. Yes, even what happened behind those doors. (John 19:30)

I will tell of how He invites you to eat at His table. And the food served is not artificial and meant to silence you. No, it is a King’s feast and He declares at that table, “Oh, taste and sees that the LORD is good! Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him!” (Psalm 34:8)

Take refuge fellow image-bearers you have been remade and renamed.

“But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.” Isaiah 43:1

[Thanks to Amanda Ladwig for permission to publish this essay. Amanda began speaking and writing in 2007. Her primary focus was on abortion and post-abortion healing. During these years, she had the privilege of speaking alongside some wonderful pro-life advocates. In 2013, Amanda put her speaking engagements aside in order to devote all of her time to rearing her children. In the midst of this time, she experienced tremendous growth and maturing, and now desires to return to encourage hurting Christian women. In our current society, much seems to be dictated by emotions. Amanda’s hope is to encourage women to discuss difficult topics, such as abortion and post-abortion healing, sexual abuse, depression, and anxiety; not by sending women off on an endless search of self-discovery, but through finding ultimate healing in Christ. View all posts by Amanda Ladwig]