As we promised in last week’s blogpost, here is “the speech I’d like to hear.”
Pulse Life Advocates wrote and produced this speech because of the paucity of thoughtful and inspirational pro-life speeches this election cycle. And yet abortion is the most important issue our country faces.
Abortion violates America’s Creed of immutable fundamental rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
It violates the spirit of the preamble of the U.S. Constitution that calls on us to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Abortion kills our posterity. It violates a human being’s fundamental Blessings of Liberty.
It kills God’s creation.
If we’re not willing to fight for the rights of the most vulnerable people in our midst, our unborn brothers and sisters, then who will we fight for?
Every single demographic subset of this great land, from trans to gay, black to brown, has activists standing up in the public square screaming for rights they already possess, while the unborn are being killed at shocking rates.
LGBTQ people may be killed with impunity in places like Iran, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. But unlike our unborn black, brown, and white brothers and sisters, they enjoy protected status in the U.S.
Pulse’s executive director, Maggie DeWitte, presents “the speech I’d like to hear” in response to the heartless embrace to late term abortion, which has now morphed into the justification for letting babies die who survive their abortions.
This level of heartlessness is breathtaking.
Pulse asks you to spread this speech as follows:
- Post it on social media: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tok Tok, YouTube, etc.
- Email it out to your families and friends.
- Show it to your pastor. Ask him to preach on it.
- Send it to other pro-life organizations. Ask them to post it on their social media platforms, and even their own websites.
Roe v Wade corrupted the United States of America. It took a half-century to undo it. It’ll take another half century to sort out the carnage it left in its wake.
Do your part. Share this speech. Support Pulse in our pro-life educational outreach. Creating a video like “the speech I’d like to hear” takes money. And by all means, attend our Christmas Gala on November 23rd at the Iowa Events Center.
[Don’t wait. Reserve your seat at Pulse’s “A Child Is Born” November 23rd Christmas Gala right now.]
The Catholic vote often swings elections. Barack Obama carried the Catholic vote by two points in 2012. Donald Trump carried it by seven points in 2016, but lost it by a point to Joe Biden in 2020.
The Catholic vote isn’t solid Democrat anymore, as it once was. Nor is it solid Republican. The abortion issue clearly conflicts many Catholic voters who once looked upon the Democratic Party as the party of the little guy. But the party’s support of abortion without limits has compromised their brand.
In this year’s election cycle, Kamala Harris staked out a commanding 50% to 43% advantage over Donald trump in an EWTN News/RealClear Opinion Research survey conducted on August 28-30. However, a new Pew survey shows that Harris’ support among Catholics has plummeted in the past six weeks. Trump now leads among Catholic voters 52% to 47%. Quite a dramatic swing.
The Catholic vote often swings elections. It may once again this year.
By Tom Quiner
Maggie DeWitte prepares to deliver “the speech I’d like to hear”
The Baby Boom generation was spoiled by the likes of Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan. These rhetorical masters knew how to give a speech. It wasn’t just their delivery which was dynamic, it was their words. It was the ideas behind the words. It was the passion behind the words and the ideas.
These men believed in grand ideas and persuaded a nation to listen and follow them through the power of one great speech after another, a forsaken art in this god-forsaken political campaign.
I saw the recent movie, “Reagan,” and was once again inspired in a way that no other politician has been able to inspire me since. Love him or hate him, he believed in grand ideas and created a movement that followed him, as did Reverend King.
I miss being inspired.
This blog was particularly harsh on Nikki Hailey, not for her speechmaking ability, which is solid enough, but her unwillingness to lead on the Life issue. Pulse Life Advocates is all about protecting innocent human life from fertilization to natural death. Donald Trump did a fine job in 2016, but has backpedaled this cycle.
By contrast, Ronald Reagan led on the life issue.
I was in college when the Roe decision was imposed on our country. I was so naive, I didn’t even know what abortion was. It was Reagan who elevated the issue in our nation’s consciousness, helping to transform the Republican Party into the pro-life party at the same time the Democratic Party began shifting toward the pro-choice position. It was Reagan who made me pro-life.
Said Reagan in a pro-life speech:
“We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life. Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart.
This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade.
[T]he great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to — any more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the issue is clearly framed and presented.”
Isn’t it nice to hear a politician who can speak in sentences and present a coherent idea?
The Reagan flourish
Richard Land described a vintage Reagan moment. Mr. Land is head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. He said Reagan was invited to speak at a gathering called the National Affairs Briefing in 1980. Said Land:
“This was a huge gathering in Reunion Arena of pro-life and pro-family activists and he said, ‘I understand that you can’t endorse me, but I’m here to endorse you’ — to thunderous applause.”
What a masterful flourish.
I had the opportunity to hear one of Reagan’s last speeches before Alzheimer’s ended his public life.
He spoke in West Branch, Iowa, for the re-dedication of the Hoover Library. His speech was excellent, although he lost his place at one point, only to bounce back and regain his footing. An indication of what was to come?
The next week, he went to the Republican convention. I happened upon the speech on YouTube and share it with you below. I found myself hanging on every word for the entire 40 minutes.
The only public figure in his league today is Italy Prime Minister, Georgia Meloni.
Pulse Life Advocates would love to hear a good pro-life speech this election cycle. And we’re tired of waiting, so we’re producing our own.
We hope to release it late next week. Our Executive Director, Maggie DeWitte, shot it today, and God willing, we’ll release it as soon as next Friday.
Pulse wants YOU to be inspired about the cause of life. We need to hear some good speeches. Since few are forthcoming, we will release our own.
Check back next week.
By MAGGIE DeWITTE
[The Des Moines Register published Pulse Executive Director, Maggie DeWitte’s, op-ed in their October 6th edition. Here is her complete text.]
Iowa on the Right Path in Protecting Women and Babies
A pro-life family at this year’s Life Chain
A recent poll by the Des Moines Register suggests that Iowans oppose our recently passed Heartbeat Law. They are using this poll to rally support in voting out the Republicans that supported this protection for Iowa families. But they aren’t stopping there; they are stating the only way for women to be free is to be able to kill their unborn child.
How absurd.
The first question of this poll was:
“Iowa law currently bans abortion around the sixth week of pregnancy. Do you favor or oppose that law?”
Iowa doesn’t have a six-week abortion ban.
Iowa has a law that states when a baby’s heartbeat can be detected via an abdominal ultra-sound, an abortion cannot be performed. The detection of this fetal heartbeat varies from woman to woman, ranging from six to ten weeks. Starting the poll with such an inaccurate question, taints the entire poll.
In the editorial, “Opinion: Most Iowans back abortion rights. Vote out the Republicans who took them away,” they actually called this life-saving law, which actually protects human life at an early stage, ‘dehumanizing.’ They assert that it bans abortions before women know they are pregnant.
How insulting to women.
Do they really think that women are too stupid to know their own bodies?
What IS dehumanizing is abortion, NOT the law trying to save mothers and babies. This law reflects what science reveals; from the moment of fertilization, a new unique human being has been created. A life that deserves equal protection.
This editorial suggests that the answer is to vote out Republicans and vote in Democrats. Are Democrats really in line with the values of Iowans?
No. In fact, many Democrats do not support the radical position of their own party, defined by abortion-on-demand with no restrictions up to the point of birth, and even beyond. AND they want the taxpayers to fund it.
Marist Poll results
According to a 2024 Marist poll, 66% of Americans support placing legal limits on abortion. Additionally, 83% support pregnancy resource centers that help women before, during and after their pregnancy. The Democratic party calls them ‘fake clinics’ and does not want them receiving any government funding.
These Pregnancy Resource Centers, over fifty-five across the state of Iowa, have provided countless services to women and families who find themselves in an unplanned pregnancy. According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, their recent survey reported that Pregnancy Centers across the country provided over $350 million of Services and Goods.
This same poll states that two-thirds of Americans believe healthcare professionals with religious objections to abortions should not be legally required to perform them. The Democratic party does not believe in conscience-protection for doctors and nurses and believe abortion is a fundamental right.
Abortion isn’t the answer
We must give Iowa a vision in which they see that abortion isn’t the answer. Killing an unborn child in the womb will solve nothing. Abortion is violent, traumatic, and barbaric. It is not freedom, but enslavement. It won’t end poverty, but rather creates more poverty. It won’t end inequality but creates more inequality. It won’t end mental health issues but creates more mental health issues. It’s never the answer and it’s never the solution.
Abortion Hurts Women: We Don’t Need Abortion. In a civilized society, every human being deserves the law’s protection. And that law shouldn’t limit your protection based on your size or location. The Heartbeat law is a big step in that direction. I believe a woman’s life should be protected. And I also believe that a baby’s life, a life that has her own DNA, fingerprints, and beating heart, should be protected.
Tuesday’s Vice Presidential was refreshingly substantive and civil. Once again, though, the debate moderators were biased in the way they asked questions and in the issues they covered, or didn’t cover. Our analysis focuses on the issue of abortion. Bias was apparent in the way the question was posed:
NORA O’DONNELL: Now to the issue of reproductive rights.
The use of the term ‘reproductive rights’ was tested in focus groups by pro-abortion organizations. It has proven to be very effective, and corporate media quickly adopted it, because it seems so benign. It’s not, not when a unique human being is killed for simply being inconvenient. What about their rights?
NORA O’DONNELL: Governor Walz, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, you signed a bill into law that made Minnesota one of the least restrictive states in the nation when it comes to abortion. Former President Trump said in the last debate that you believe abortion, quote, in the 9th month is absolutely fine. Yes or no? Is that what you support? I’ll give you two minutes.
You see the bias …
In essence, she asks “are you fine with killing fully formed, viable babies in the womb?” No one but the most hard-hearted person (or perhaps Bill Maher) would respond, “Yes, I’m totally fine with that.”
How would an unbiased moderator ask the question? How about like this:
“Governor Walz, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, you signed a bill into law that made Minnesota one of the least restrictive states in the nation when it comes to abortion, a law that allows abortion even after the point of viability. A lot of people aren’t comfortable with that. What is your response to them?”
Our revised question changes the dynamic from a slam dunk ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response to one that gives Governor Walz an opportunity to flesh out the philosophical, as well as political, underpinnings of his position.
In light of the fact that some 800,000 babies will be aborted in the next twelve months under the current legal framework, and will increase under the plan advocated by the Harris/Walz campaign, they owe it to the nation to take the time to provide a comprehensive explanation for such a radical position, one their own party once rejected.
One-hundred and twenty seconds is simply not enough time to spend on an issue upon which so many lives hang.
Walz responded:
TIM WALZ: That’s not what the bill says.
So what DOES this bill say? We covered it in a blogpost last month. Take a look:
Sec 56. Minnesota Statutes 2022 section 145.423, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. Recognition; medical care.
A born aliveAn infantas a result of an abortionwho is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel topreserve the life and health of the born-alive infantcare for the infant who is born alive.EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.
You can see that their amended law strikes out wording that protects babies who survive their abortion. Eight Minnesota babies survived their abortions, only to be left to die under Governor Walz’s legal regimen.
Don’t you think Norah O’Donnell should have explored the subject?
Reasons why most women have abortions
In response to Ms. O’Donnell’s question, Walz focused in on three examples of women who were either raped or had pregnancy complications that led them to seek abortions, but were denied due to their state laws.
Our vice-presidential debate analysis must point out that rape and incest are the cause of but 1.5% of all abortions. These are significant and understandable reasons why someone might want an abortion. Most (but not all) pro-life laws allow for these types of exceptions. (Legitimate counter arguments can be made, which we’ve made in previous posts.)
But the reasons for the other 98.5% of abortions have to do with inconvenience. Here’s how the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute ranked the reasons women express for having abortions:
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life (inconvenient)
73% Can’t afford a baby right now (inconvenient)
48% Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems (inconvenient)
These reasons are certainly understandable, but totally inadequate for ending the life of the innocent party (the baby) who was brought into the world by choice of a man and woman to engage in sexual relations. Even more, couples desperate for a family wait in line to adopt these babies.
Mr. Walz ignores the reality that most abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest. He calls for top-down federal laws that eliminate all regulation on abortions at the state level, again a subject on which Norah O’Donnell had no interest in pursuing. Rather, she took Walz’s bait that Republicans want to create a federal pregnancy monitoring agency. (For the record, the Centers for Disease Control already reports on abortion data, regardless of the party in control of the Congress or White House.)
Vance’s response
So how did Senator Vance do in his response? Some was very good, some a little too defensive.
As this blog has observed, pro-life politicians who are defensive on the issue don’t tend to do well in their elections, while those who go on offense tend to win big (Kim Reynolds, Kay Ivey, Sara Huckabee Sanders, Brad Little, Kevin Stitt, Kristi Noem, Greg Abbot, Brian Kemp, Mike Dewine, Bill Lee, Henry McMaster, Ron DeSantis, etc.).
Senator Vance prosecuted Trump’s position on abortion well as a state’s rights issue:
“Donald Trump has been very clear that on the abortion policy specifically, that we have a big country and it’s diverse. And California has a different viewpoint on this than Georgia. Georgia has a different viewpoint from Arizona. And the proper way to handle this, as messy as democracy sometimes is, is to let voters make these decisions, let the individual states make their abortion policy. And I think that’s what makes the most sense in a very big, a very diverse, and let’s be honest, sometimes a very, very messy and divided country.”
Mr. Vance missed an opportunity when he said,
“You know, I grew up in a working class family in a neighborhood where I knew a lot of young women who had unplanned pregnancies and decided to terminate those pregnancies because they feel like they didn’t have any other options. And, you know, one of them is actually very dear to me. And I know she’s watching tonight, and I love you. And she told me something a couple years ago that she felt like if she hadn’t had that abortion, that it would have destroyed her life because she was in an abusive relationship.”
This is where Vance could have identified that more than half of the women that had abortions were pressured to do so by boyfriends.
This is where he could have informed the American people about the free, non-governmental resources available to women in crisis pregnancies, such as pregnancy resource centers, to help these women survive the crisis, and land on their feet.
Instead, he went on defense, pinning blame on Republicans:
“We’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American People’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us.”
Is this a good debating tactic? We don’t think so.
Republicans aren’t the radicals on abortion, it’s the side that wants to take the Minnesota model of no restraints on abortion and nationalize it. If Harris/Walz have it their way, Iowa’s hard-fought Heartbeat Law will be in grave jeopardy.
What if the filibuster goes?
Democratic leaders say they will abolish the filibuster if they retain control of the Senate, the only obstacle to imposing their national ban on pro-life regulations like Heartbeat and Fetal-Pain laws.
Our Vice Presidential debate analysis likes the way Vance used the term, ‘pro-family policies.’ (But IVF, in vitro fertilization, shouldn’t be included in the conversation, because it can lead to the destruction of fertilized eggs, which are complete human beings.)
Vance ended the exchange by going on offense, and he was very effective:
“As I read the Minnesota law that you signed into law, the statute that you signed into law, it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion, where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide lifesaving care to a baby who survives a botched late term abortion. That is, I think, whether it’s not pro-choice or pro-abortion, that is fundamentally barbaric. And that’s why I use that word, Norah, is because some of what we’ve seen, do you want to force catholic hospitals to perform abortions against their will? Because Kamala Harris has supported suing catholic nuns to violate their freedom of conscience? We can be a big and diverse country where we respect people’s freedom of conscience. And make the country more pro-baby and pro-family.”
All in all, good job by J.D. Vance, but a less than forthright presentation by Tim Walz on this critical issue.
Stand up for life. Put yourself on the line for our unborn brothers and sisters. Join us for Life Chain 2024 on Sunday, October 6th, from 2 to 3:30.
In Des Moines, we’ll pick up our signs at the Des Moines Fellowship Church at 950 35th Street and fan out on the south side of University Avenue (at 35th street) as well as the west side of 31st Street at Kingman Blvd.
Or, in Urbandale, go to St. Pius X Catholic Church at 3663 66th Street.
In Carroll, Iowa, we’ll meet from 2 to 3 at the Carroll county Courthouse parking to distribute signs and pray for the unborn.
The Life Chain is a nationwide prayerful demonstration to stand up for the lives of the unborn, 800,000 of whom are projected to be aborted this year.
Climate-change activists and anti-Israel protestors show up at their events by the thousands and tens of thousands. These protestors tend to be violent, profane and destructive, and many are paid by powerful progressive interest groups to come out of their basements and protest.
By contrast, pro-life activists are peaceful and prayerful, and no one pays us to show up. We do it because God calls on us to stand up for the most vulnerable members of our society: the unborn.
Will you join us for Life Chain 2024?
The unborn need our prayers more than ever. Powerful groups are shelling out millions and millions of dollars to pass pro-abortion initiatives that will change the constitutions of twelve states, including:
- New York
- Pennsylvania
- Maryland
- Florida
- Missouri
- Arkansas
- South Dakota
- Nebraska
- Montana
- Colorado
- Arizona
- Nevada
Notice that Florida is on the list, even though their legislature passed their own Heartbeat Bill two years ago, and even though the pro-life party controls the legislature and governorship. Iowa is not immune.
We need prayers more than ever on behalf of the unborn in Iowa and the rest of the world. Prayers are the antidote to a culture of death. Pro-life action begins with prayer.
We need you on October 6th. Join us.
RECAP:
In Des Moines/Urbandale
When: Sunday, October 6th
Time: 2 to 3:30PM
Where: Des Moines Fellowship Church at 950 35th Street … OR … St. Pius X Catholic Church, 3663 66th St, Urbandale, IA 50322.
In Carroll, Iowa
When: Sunday, October 6th
Time: 2 to 3 PM
Where: Carroll County Courthouse parking lot
[Got your seat for our November 23rd Christmas Gala yet? Don’t wait. Reserve your spot now.]
The pro-abortion side has more money, more media support, and more Hollywood celebrities on their side than the pro-life side. But we have more prayers by far! One reason is 40 Days For Life!
Here is Pulse Life Advocate’s prayer schedule for this Fall’s campaign. Join us:
September 30, 9:00AM-10:00AM Planned Parenthood Susan Knapp 2304 University Ave. Des Moines
October 1st, 4:00PM-5PM Planned Parenthood 2530 Chamberlain Street Ames
October 10, 9:00AM-10:00PM Planned Parenthood Des Moines
October 16, 10:30AM-11:30AM Planned Parenthood Ames
October 22, 11:00AM-12:00PM Planned Parenthood Ames
October 25, 10:00AM-11:00AM Planned Parenthood Des Moines
October 29, 4:00PM-5:00PM Planned Parenthood Ames
Please visit our website: https://pulseforlife.org/sidewalk-advocacy/ and sign up to pray with Pulse on the calendar! We will provide signs!
Pray for the unborn. Pray to change the world. Dare yourself to trust God.
Kamala Harris has radically changed her positions on a wide range of issues from what they were just five years ago. And yet she says her principles haven’t changed. So what is the Kamala principle when it comes to abortion? Pulse spells it out for you using a simple acronym: KAMALA.
The K.A.M.A.L.A. Principle
Kill unwanted late term, unborn babies. The subject of late term abortions was particularly contentious in the Trump/Harris debate. When Donald Trump accused Harris of being okay with abortions in the third trimester, she smirked and dismissed his assertions with two words: “Come on,” suggesting they never occur. They do, as Pulse has repeatedly pointed out over the years. Over 10,000 babies are killed a year in the third trimester thanks to liberal abortion laws in some states, laws Harris wants to impose on all fifty states. Did Harris not know this? Or was she simply being less than forthright?
Allow babies who survive their abortions to die. This subject also came up in the debate. ABC even fact-checked Mr. Trump, essentially calling him a liar for suggesting that babies who survive their abortions are never killed. Mr. Trump was correct, although his use of the word, ‘executed,’ was overheated in the eyes of some. Nonetheless, babies have been left to die after surviving their abortions. Again, Pulse has covered the story. Did Harris not know this? Or was she simply being less than forthright?
Make Catholic doctors and nurses perform abortions in violation of their religious-inspired principles. Harris has promoted a Medicare for All bill that would compel people of faith to perform abortions at the risk of losing their jobs. The Kamala principle has no tolerance for conscientious dissenters.
Allocate taxpayers’ money to pay for abortions. One area on which Republicans and Democrats used to agree was the Hyde Amendment, which prevented taxpayer monies from being used for abortions. Harris opposes the Amendment. She badgered Joe Biden in a 2019 debate to the point that he eventually backed down from his previous support of Hyde.
Let doctors off the hook who botch abortions and injure their patients. She has consistently opposed the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” which, among other things, “created criminal penalties for doctors who withhold medical care to babies who survive an abortion attempt.”
Assert a fundamental right to abortion at the expense of state-by-state abortion regulation. She has repeatedly said she wants to ‘codify’ Roe v Wade, which would strip away all of the hard-fought pro-life regulations imposed upon abortionists at the state level.
***
Less than forthright?
Many question whether Kamala Harris is being forthright in her new policy positions on other issues which are diametrically opposed to positions she boldly asserted just five years ago, and even more recent than that, including:
- Fracking
- Building a border wall
- Medicare for all
She HAS been consistent in one area: abortion. The Kamala principle is all about reproductive death. This is one issue on which she won’t compromise.
[Help Pulse promote a culture of life. Reserve your seat for our November 23rd Christmas Gala today.]
At last night’s presidential debate, Donald Trump explained why he opposed a pro-abortion ballot initiative in Florida:
“ … they have abortion in the ninth month … you can look at the governor of West Virginia [Virginia], the previous governor… not the current governor, whose doing an excellent job, but the governor before, he said, ‘The baby will be born, and we will decide what to do with the baby,’ in other words we’ll execute the baby.”
ABC debate moderator, Linsey Davis, quickly corrected Trump with a false debate fact check:
“There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.”
Set aside that neither debate moderator fact-checked any of the many false assertions made by Kamala Harris. Is Ms. Davis correct?
Left to die
Yes and no. In typical Trump fashion, the former president used hyperbole in the use of the verb ‘execute.’ What typically occurs in these tragic circumstances is a lack of care. The baby who survives an abortion is left to die.
If the definition of execute is ‘put to death,’ that is effectively what happens when the human being who survives an abortion is deprived of care. Five such babies were allowed to die under Tim Walz’s watch as Governor of Minnesota after they survived ‘botched’ abortions.
So what did Governor Walz do about it? He had the legislature, controlled by his pro-abortion party, change the law to cover his tracks. You can see the redactions below:
Sec 56. Minnesota Statutes 2022 section 145.423, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. Recognition; medical care.
A born aliveAn infantas a result of an abortionwho is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel topreserve the life and health of the born-alive infantcare for the infant who is born alive.EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.
Notice the intent:
- Eliminate the word ‘abortion’ as the cause of the human person’s medical distress.
- Weaken the type of medical attention the child receives.
Two of the babies allowed to die under Tim Walz’s watch received ‘comfort’ care instead of authentic medical care intended to preserve the life and health of the born-alive infant.
Was this an execution? You decide. The result was the same. These outcomes amplified former Virginia Governor Ralph Northum’s statement on the subject in 2019:
“The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”
Did you pick up on the word ‘comfortable’? If the family decided their baby wasn’t worth keeping, under Democrats’ abortion-without-limits regime, the baby would be allowed to die by withholding life-saving care.
The Merriam-Webster’s third definition of the verb, ‘execute,’ is to put someone to death. That is what Ralph Northum, Tim Walz, Kamala Harris, and their entire political party allows … and with which it is clearly ‘comfortable.’
We don’t understate the use of the word ‘comfortable.’
In response to Northum’s remarks, Republicans crafted legislation to address the plight of babies who survive their abortions.
“Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act”
It does 5 things:
1. Creates criminal penalties for doctors who withhold medical care to babies who survive an abortion attempt.
2. Mandates that these survivors be transported from the abortion clinic to a real hospital for medical treatment.
3. Mandates that these health-care practitioners report violations.
4. Grants women cause for action against her abortionist.
5. Protects mothers from prosecution.
Democrats with near unanimity opposed the bill each time Republicans introduced it (in the 114th, 115th, 116th, 117th, and 118th Congresses).
It seems the Abortion Party wants to let abortion ‘doctors’ off the hook.
In 2019 in New York, the legislature wiped way practically all abortion restrictions with the Reproductive Health Act. Significantly, the law moved abortion regulations from the state’s criminal code to the health code, thereby eliminating the threat of legal repercussions for abortion providers.
So when Linsey Davis said, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born,” that’s a false debate fact check.
So who fact-checks Linsey Davis? Pulse Life Advocates.
[Do you want us to continue blogging on pro-life issues? Blogging takes money. Support Pulse with your gift today.]
Social Security benefits will be slashed twenty-one percent beginning in 2033 because its reserve fund will be depleted by then. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB):
“The Social Security program is currently paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll tax and other revenue, and it is drawing down its reserves to cover the remaining cost of benefits. The program’s Trustees project that the OASI trust fund—which funds retirement benefits—will deplete its reserves in the fourth quarter of 2033.”
By law, benefits will automatically be cut to compensate, something about which most Social Security recipients are oblivious.
No political solution in sight
Neither presidential candidate offers practical fixes to this coming train wreck. Kamala Harris said she would “protect and expand” Social Security. It’s hard to imagine that expansion is practical when it is running out of money at its current size.
Donald Trump says he wants to cut taxes on Social Security for seniors, again something that doesn’t make sense when the fund needs more funds, not less, to continue at its current level.
Why are we in this fix? In 1960, 5.1 workers paid into Social Security for each recipient.
By 2022, the ration had plummeted to just 2.8 workers per Social Security recipient.
In between that time, since, 1973, we have aborted 65 million workers, which totally compromised the ratios required to make Social Security sustainable.
Sixty-seven million Americans per month receive Social Security (SS) benefits, which means that 187 million workers support them. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation suggests that the minimum number of workers needed per SS beneficiary is 3.3, or 214.5 million workers.
The current civilian labor force participation rate is 62.7%.
That means that if our aborted workforce had been allowed to live and participate in our economy, the U.S. would have had roughly 40 million additional workers right now. That would have expanded our workforce to 227 million workers, more than enough to support Social Security in its current form.
Sadly, we continue compromising our workforce by aborting roughly 800,000 workers annually. In other words, the coming crisis is self-inflicted. In the video above, presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, actually suggests population reduction is a good thing.
An international demographic crisis
We see the demographic crisis playing itself out throughout the world.
China faces demographic collapse, as detailed in a piece in Breitbart. Their one-child policy resulted in the killing of 400 million children. As Breitbart points out, China is converting kindergarten rooms into nursing homes.
Japan is, if anything, worse off. Their birth rate is a civilization-busting 1.3, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. Prime Minister Kishida Fumio warned that the birthrate had fallen:
“to the brink of not being able to maintain a functioning society.”
Yes, plummeting birthrates are a significant crisis to the U.S., China, Japan and practically every other country in the world. But no one in power acknowledges the role of abortion in this demographic collapse.
Let us set aside the sheer immorality of aborting innocent human beings for the sake of convenience and profits. Nations that don’t protect their posterity run out of workers to care for the elderly, maintain standards of living, and sustain social safety nets.
It’s not rocket science.
Social security collapse is nine years off. In that time, over 7 million potential American workers will be aborted. This is not only a colossal moral tragedy, it is an epic act of demographic stupidity.
[Fight back. Support Pulse with your gift. Or reserve your seat for our Christmas Gala today.]