The Iowa State Fair 2024 provides us great opportunities to talk with Iowans on the abortion issue. We hear from both side: pro and con.
Last night, we were at the Catholic Pastoral center in downtown Des Moines. A diocesan staff member commented on how impressed he was with our new booth design.
He spotted it from a distance, which never happened with our old booth. As he approached, he overheard a conversation taking place among a family standing outside the booth, but nonetheless reading our graphics intently. He observed that they were engaged in a serious discussion on the nature of the term ‘reproductive freedom’ and its implications. Upon reading the text on our backdrop, one woman said “maybe the term reproductive freedom isn’t what they say it is.” He didn’t know how it ended, but our presence and our booth sparked a thoughtful exchange on this life and death subject.
In a different exchange, a woman took us to task for supporting the Heartbeat Bill. She said the law, which restricts abortion once the fetal heartbeat is detected, would drive people from Iowa. In fact, she sniffed, her own daughter was talking about leaving Iowa if she didn’t have access to unfettered abortion. (She missed the irony that a potential future granddaughter could be the victim of the ‘reproductive freedom’ she espoused.)
But is she correct? Do life-affirming laws that protect unborn babies really drive people from a state? Actually, just the opposite.
The states with the most inbound migration are:
1. Texas, where abortion is banned, except in cases involving the Mother’s health.
2. Florida, which passed a Heartbeat Law.
3. Georgia, which passed a Heartbeat Law.
4. South Carolina, where abortion is banned at 6 weeks.
5. Tennessee, where abortion is banned, with limited exceptions.
The states with the most outbound migration are:
1. New York, which has an unqualified right to abortion up to 24 weeks.
2. California, with abortion at viability, with broad exceptions.
3. Illinois, with abortion at viability, with broad exceptions.
4. New Jersey, with no limits on abortion.
5. Massachusetts with abortion available up to 23 weeks and 6 days.
6. Maryland, no limits on abortion.
In other words, progressive states with the most repugnant pro-abortion laws are losing people in droves.
By contrast, states with life-affirming, pro-life laws on the books are attracting migrants by the droves.
What about Iowa? We’ve begun gaining migrants since the passage of the Heartbeat Bill in 2018 (even though it just went into effect this year.)
North American Van Lines is one of the top-rated moving companies in North America. They track migration rates between states based on who’s moving where.
In 2018, when the Heartbeat Bill passed in Iowa, more people were moving out of Iowa (55%) than moving in (45%).
But by 2023, the trend had reversed. More people moved into Iowa (52%) than moved out (48%).
Clearly, pro-life laws have no deleterious effect on migration rates.
You can see why Pulse needs to be at the Iowa State Fair every year.
[Our new display booth is a game-changer. Help Pulse defray the cost of this investment. Donate today.]
Listen
Dear Fellow Pro-Lifer: I’m proud to proclaim this year’s 2024 Iowa State Fair an unqualified success!
Did you stop by our booth?
People noticed our colorful new display from far away. It stood higher and prouder than the old, worn out set-up we’ve been using the past decade. It was a big investment for Pulse, but worth it.
Help fund our new display booth: donate now
It made a difference! Crowds were huge at our booth. We handed out 7500 twelve-week babies before running out! These models reveal the humanity of the unborn to youngsters and help form a pro-life perspective. You can see how kids react to them in the pic above.
We totally lost count on how many kid tattoos we applied. We were simply swamped, which is the way we like it.
Regarding our pro-life petition calling for life-at-conception legislation: 1577 people signed it!
And here’s what you’re really waiting to hear about: What are the results of our poll asking, “When Does Life Begin?”
Results:
- 3,964 Conception (85%)
- 246 At Birth (5%)
- 240 Heartbeat (5%)
- 111 Viability (3%)
- 77 Brain Waves (2%)
Support our pro-life outreach: donate now
The overwhelming majority of Iowa voters agreed with Pulse’s position, that human life begins at conception, that is, when the sperm kisses an egg.
But we still have work to do, as fifteen percent remain clueless as to the scientific and religious underpinnings of our position.
The Iowa State Fair remains one of our most important pro-life educational outreach events.
We made great progress this year! And our bright, new booth was a tremendous asset. We anticipate years of service out of this investment. Could you help us defray the cost with your gift today? It would really help!
People were blown away by our new look. Here are few comments:
“Loved the new booth! Very Nice!” Michelle
“Loved the new set-up!” Becky
Check out more 2024 Iowa State Fair pics here. Thanks for all your support!
Maggie DeWitte, Executive Director
P.S. If you’re able, can you donate a few dollars to help us fund our new display? We’ll be using it again next month at the Christ Our Life Conference.
Pro-life groups don’t typically talk about inflation or the economy. But Pulse Life Advocates isn’t your typical pro-life group. Inflation and the economy factor into why women have abortions. The Kamala Harris anti-inflation plan won’t work, because it’s been tried before, and the damage it does to pocket books will increase abortion. How do we know? Because it happened before.
What is the Harris anti-inflation plan? Price controls.
As Vice President, Ms. Harris was charged by President Biden to explore “root causes” of why people are fleeing their home countries for the U.S.
Ms. Harris might have missed it, but Venezuelan dictator, Nicolás Maduro, is a big proponent of government-mandated price controls. As a result of these policies, Venezuelan’s are fleeing the country in droves, many crossing into the U.S. illegally to escape the economic ruin wrought by price controls that produced hyper inflation.
According to left-leaning National Public Radio, Venezuela has lost a quarter of their population, roughly 7 million people, since 2015. Why would Kamala Harris propose a plan that has been consistently discredited?
She claims that corporations caused inflation by price-gouging and sheer greed. This makes no sense, since inflation remained low under the previous administration, who left behind an inflation rate of 1.4% when they left office in January, 2021. Today, it is double that, having peaked at 9% in 2022.
Inflation was caused by profligate Congressional spending, signed with great fanfare by President Biden.
Today, working class families spend 20 to 30 percent more for food and energy than under the previous administration. Price controls are the worst way to tackle inflation, and in fact, only makes things worse in the long run.
Richard Nixon tried them in the early 70s and they failed then. He enacted them in 1971 when inflation was 5.3%. By 1980, the rate peaked at 13.9 percent and remained high until 1983 when rates finally began to come back down to earth, reaching a low of 1.5% in 1987.
This issue matters to pro-lifers …
… because 74% of women surveyed by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute said a main reason for procuring an abortion was because “I can’t afford a baby right now.”
Inflation taxes people with every single purchase. Essentially, it is a government-induced pay cut, because paychecks don’t go as far.
Sadly, many people choose to abort their babies out of financial concerns.
That’s why Pulse tracks economic and fiscal policies.
Abortion exploded in the price-controlled, inflationary 1970s. Granted, Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. But from 1973 on, abortion rates increased from 16.3 (per one-thousand women aged 15 to 44) to a peak of 29.3 in 1981, about the same time inflation peaked. A steady abortion rate decline began as prosperity returned in the low-tax, low-regulation era that followed.
If you couple the Harris abortion plan with her economic plan, her administration will usher in an era of abortion spikes that rivals the 1970s.
Pulse Life Advocates keeps you abreast of the abortion positions of political candidates. We’ve looked at Trump and Harris’ positions in recent weeks. Let’s look at where Kamala Harris’ VP pick, Tim Walz, stands on abortion.
The Minnesota Governor has a track record on abortion, that if possible, may be more extreme than Kamala Harris’ abortion platform. Here are the high (?) points:
- Eliminated Minnesota’s “Positive Alternatives” program which supported pro-life pregnancy centers in the state.
- Stopped requirement that medical care be provided for babies that survive their abortions.
- Mandated that data no longer be collected on these babies. For the record, eight occurred during his term until he stopped the reporting requirements.
- Signed a bill which repealed the state’s prohibition on coercing a women to have an abortion. As Pete Buttigieg said a few weeks ago, pro-abortion laws give men more freedom. In Minnesota, thanks to Tim Walz, men can pressure women into aborting their babies with impunity.
- Signed another bill which ended a requirement that women give informed consent before getting an abortion, again emboldening men to exert as much pressure as they want on their girl friends to avoid the financial, social, and moral responsibility they owe the child. Even more, the bill guarantees an unqualified right to abortion right to the instant of birth, regardless of the age of the mother.
- Signed a bill increasing Medicaid-funded abortions in Minnesota.
If the Harris/Walz ticket wins, these are the measures they’ll want to impose on all fifty states.
And they call Trump radical?
The Dobbs decision removed abortion as a federal issue, leaving it up to individual states to determine the extent to regulate, or even ban abortion. The new playing field creates opportunity and peril for efforts to protect the rights of unborn babies. A two-pronged strategy to gut the pro-life movement has emerged, and it is a formidable strategy.
The first prong
The first prong is to amend state constitutions to allow and protect abortion rights.
The second prong weaponizes the legal system to make life miserable for pregnancy resource centers (PRCs), who provide invaluable, free assistance for women in crisis pregnancies. Pro-life PRCs are big competitors to the abortion-driven Planned Parenthood.
Regarding the first prong, six states put forth amendments to their constitutions since the Dobbs decision. The pro-abortion side won each time. In California, Michigan, Ohio, and Vermont, voters approved measures protecting the right to abortion. Kentucky and Kansas lost measures seeking to curtail abortion.
On the ballot in 12 states this year
Twelve more states have a variety of anti-life amendments on their ballots this year. They include:
- New York
- Pennsylvania
- Maryland
- Florida
- Missouri
- Arkansas
- South Dakota
- Nebraska
- Montana
- Colorado
- Arizona
- Nevada
Florida is a poster child in the strategy to gut the pro-life movement. The state has grown increasingly pro-life during the governorship of Ron DeSantis, culminating in the passage of a Heartbeat Bill. Heartbeat legislations typically restrict abortion at the point that heartbeats are detectable, typical six to ten weeks following gestation.
But the proposed ballot measure, if successful, would lock in abortion up to the point of viability, which is around 24 to 25 weeks, essentially gutting the Heartbeat legislation. Ninety-nine percent of all abortions occur prior to viability. You can see how serious the stakes are in Florida and other states considering these type of ballot measures.
Even more, state ballot measures garner huge out-of-state financial support from abortion advocacy groups. Planned Parenthood alone plans to spend $40 million this election cycle promoting pro-abortion candidates and ballot measures. They’re able to outspend their pro-life adversaries by significant amounts.
In Ohio the pro-abortion side outspent the pro-life side $58 million to $36 million thanks to support from the ACLU and the Open Society Policy Center (George Soros).
The second prong
The second prong in Big Abortion’s strategy to gut the pro-life movement utilizes lawfare against PRCs. Pregnancy resource centers support women facing unplanned pregnancies with free counseling, medical referrals, material good, and parenting education.
In Saturday’s Wall Street Journal’s Cross Country Commentary, Sierra Dawn McClain reports on how tangible and magnanimous this support really is. Across the U.S., PRCs provided 500,000 free ultrasounds, 43,000 car seats, and 3.5 million packs of diapers. The WSJ valued these services at $367 million.
Who could possibly oppose such support for women and their unborn and born babies? Pro-abortion AGs. As Ms. McClain puts it:
“Politicians and attorneys general in states run by Democrats have been on a crusade to make life miserable for pregnancy resource centers, and the campaign has picked up since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in 2022. This has included harassing them with legal action and trying to discredit their work.”
Vendetta?
She reports on New Jersey’s Democratic Attorney General, Matt Platkin, and his apparent vendetta against a PRC, First Choice. He’s issued subpoena’s, demanded documents, which includes personal info on employees and donors.
Attorneys for First Choice are mystified, as Platkin “has never cited any complaint or other substantive evidence of wrongdoing to justify his demands.” He said to comply with the subpoena would take a ridiculous amount of time for a small non-profit at the expense of their clients who are in the midst crisis pregnancies.
According to Ms. McLain’s reporting, fourteen attorneys general, in mostly blue states, are pursuing a similar legal theory against PRCs claiming they mislead the public and violate consumer-fraud laws.
That’s pretty rich considering Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics present their services as ‘healthcare.’ Even more, these attorneys general have enlisted Planned Parenthood’s support, asking them to preview and edit their drafts.
We need to respond
The strategy to gut the pro-life movement progresses using these two approaches. The pro-life movement needs to respond in two ways. First to promote the most pro-life candidates as possible. Iowa is in a good place right now with a vocally pro-life governor, attorney general, and legislature. That can change, though. We can’t ever rest on our laurels.
Secondly, we need to continue educating the public on pro-life issues. That’s what we do, and more. Pulse works on both fronts to promote a culture of life in Iowa.
[Help Pulse counter Big Abortion’s strategy to gut the pro-life movement. Donate today.]
In today’s Wall Street Journal, ace Journal columnist, Daniel Henninger, predicts Pete Buttigieg will be Kamala Harris’ pick for VP. He says two prominent governors, Roy Cooper and Gretchen Whitmer, have removed their names from consideration boosting Mayor Pete’s odds. Pulse’s question is: will his position on abortion help or hinder Pete Buttigieg odds for Vice President?
Buttigieg is clearly campaigning for the job. He’s all over the media, with recent interviews on The Daily Show and Fox News.
“White Dudes for Harris”
The Transportation Secretary spoke on a Zoom event called “White Dudes For Harris.” Two-hundred thousand ‘white dudes’ participated. The subject turned to abortion, on which Buttigieg weighed in with this remark:
“Yes, women’s freedom is Exhibit A after Donald Trump demolished the right to choose.”
This statement is inaccurate for two reasons. First, women sadly still have the right to choose to kill their unborn child in most states, since the issue was simply returned to the states with the Dobbs decision.
Second, it wasn’t actually Trump who decided it, it was the Supreme Court. And let’s be honest: freedom is a dishonest term when it takes way another person’s freedom to be born. Abortion has nothing to do with freedom.
Buttigieg continued:
“Men are also more free in a country where we have a president who stands up for things like access to abortion. Men are more free when the leader of the free world and the leader of this country supports access to birth control.”
Buttigieg is correct that men are more free to be promiscuous, thanks to abortion and a contraception culture. But is that really good for men?
Buttigieg is correct that men are more free to shirk the moral and fiscal responsibilities of fatherhood, thanks to abortion. But is that really good for men or the children they sire (and abort)?
Buttigieg is correct that men are more free to pursue relationships lacking in commitment, thanks to abortion and contraception. But is that really good for men and their bedmates? And is it really good for our country?
The answer …
The answer to these 3 questions are easy to find, thanks to research conducted by the Harvard Medical School. They reported on a survey of 127,545 of American adults. If Buttigieg’s thesis is correct, all those ‘free’ men enjoying unbridled sex should be just as happy and fit as their committed, married male counterparts.
But they’re not.
Married men are happier, healthier, and live longer than single men, according to Harvard Health Publishing. Men who forgo commitment for the sake of sexual license pay a steep price. For one, abortion rates are ten times higher outside of marriage than within, according to Statista.
Survey shows that married men get less cancer and heart disease. Their mental health is better, with less risk of depression or Alzheimer’s disease. They live longer.
Every possible metric favors commitment (marriage) over the Buttigieg model which touts freedom, a code word for irresponsibility and promiscuity in this context.
There’s more to the story …
So why do men (and women) fare better in marriage? Sure, lifestyle plays a role. But it’s more than just that. There’s a spiritual dimension that negates Buttigieg’s entire thesis.
Committed (married) men are far freer than uncommitted men, because the sexual act within marriage is liberating, beautiful, and creative. This sexual intimacy unleashes the potential to create another immortal human being. Abortion destroys this unique creation to what end? It negates the essence of love, which is to will the good of the other for the sake of the other.
Abortion wills the good of the self at the expense of the other. It makes us slaves to desire at the expense of love while betraying God’s gift of a child.
So as we consider Pete Buttigieg for Vice President, it probably doesn’t matter who Ms. Harris selects as a running mate. She won’t select anyone who doesn’t agree with her core conviction that abortion should be unregulated and taxpayer-funded.
Pulse Life Advocates goes on record refuting Mayor Pete’s assertion that abortion is essential to men’s freedom.
It’s not. And it’s not only bad for men and women, it’s bad for America.
The Democratic Party is making abortion the focus of the presidential race. It’s understandable, as issues such as border security, inflation, and foreign policy have yielded less than stellar results under their governance. So let’s take a look at Kamala Harris’ abortion views.
In a May 1st speech in Florida this year, she spelled it out:
“And as we know, almost two years ago, the highest court in our land — the court of Thurgood and RBG — took a constitutional right that had been recognized from the people of America, from the women of America.”
Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The Court returned the issue to the states, leaving the issue to their voters, including women voters. And since women vote in higher numbers than men, they can pass any abortion laws that they want. But the reality is that many, maybe even most, women voters recognize how damaging abortion is to their fellow women.
Harris continued:
“And now, in states across our nation, extremists have proposed and passed laws that criminalize doctors, punish women; laws that threaten doctors and nurses with prison time, even for life, simply for providing reproductive care; laws that make no exception for rape or incest, even reviving laws from the 1800s.”
Again, Ms. Harris isn’t accurate. Pro-life laws don’t punish women, they punish the doctors and clinics who harm a third party, the unborn human child via abortion. As of June 18th, of the 20 states with abortion bans or early gestational limits in effect, ten allow exceptions for rape and incest, and ten don’t.
The word ‘extreme’ and ‘radical’ are deployed against pro-lifers ad nauseam by the political Left, and Harris is no exception. But seriously, which side is most extreme on this issue?
Harris calls for a ‘pre-clearance’ standard be applied against states that pass pro-life legislation. Said Harris during the 2020 campaign: “As president, I will stop dangerous state laws restricting reproductive rights before they go into effect.”
So much for respecting “our democracy.”
She has supported Medicare for All which would end all abortion regulation at the state level; compel pro-life doctors and nurses to perform human abortion in violation of their consciences; as well as using taxpayer dollars to pay for them.
She opposes the Hyde Amendment which blocks the use of public monies for abortion.
Perhaps Harris’ most radical vote on the abortion issue was her ‘no’ vote on the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.” This bill would’ve required the abortion doctor to “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child” as he/she would do to “any other child born alive at the same gestational age.” It requires a heart of stone to deny healthcare to a little human being struggling to live.
Pro-life leaders around the country have blasted Kamala Harris’ abortion views.
Pulse executive director, Maggie DeWitte, put it this way:
“Kamala Harris is the epitome of the extreme, radical abortion position. She believes in abortion on demand with no limits and that taxpayers should fund it. She actively campaigns against states and organizations that promote and pass pro-life legislation that will help women and families. The bottom line is that a vote for Kamala Harris is a vote for death.”
Live Action’s Lila Rose said:
“As California AG, Kamala Harris persecuted pregnancy resource centers and pro-life journalists David Daleiden and Sandra Merrit. As VP, she’s continued her crusade against pro-life Americans & the preborn. A Harris presidency would be disastrous for human rights.”
So what are Kamala Harris’ abortion views? Essentially, no limits on abortion at the state or national level.
[Help Pulse remain on offense promoting our pro-life educational outreach. Donate now.]
The injunction on the Heartbeat Bill has been rescinded, allowing it to, at long last, go into effect Monday, July 29th, at 8AM! As you can see from the graphic above, that’s just about a month since the Supreme Court affirmed the law.
District Court Judge, Jeffrey Farrell, so ordered enforcement of the Heartbeat Law. Here is what he said:
On July 17, 2023, the district court granted plaintiffs’ application for a temporary injunction staying enforcement of 2023 HF 732 (codified as Iowa Code chapter 146E (2023). On June 28, 2024, the Iowa Supreme Court entered a ruling reversing the district court and remanding the case to dissolve the temporary injunction and continue with further proceedings.
As per a status conference last Friday, July 19, 2024, I discussed the timing of the dissolution once procedendo was issued by the supreme court. Plaintiffs’ counsel suggested the following Monday after the district court has the opportunity to issue an order to allow some time for medical providers to receive notice of the dissolution. Defense counsel offered no definitive answer on the timing question. Plaintiffs’ proposal is reasonable to ensure that everyone is on fair notice as to when
enforcement of the statute may begin.
The supreme court issued procedendo today. Accordingly, the temporary injunction shall be deemed dissolved effective 8:00 a.m. on Monday, July 29, 2024, and the law may be fully enforced.
Lila Rose (above) gave a riveting speech at last week’s National Eucharistic Congress in Indianapolis. She talked at length about her faith journey:
“I saw the darkness and the evil in our world. We struggle with our own personal sins as human beings and we struggle against the consequences of sin in our families, in our cities, in our nation, and it was dark. And yet, during that time I saw God use even the difficulties —even my own weaknesses — for good. That is the power of our God.”
She said she did a lot of church shopping in high school and college, sampling a variety of Protestant services. When in college, a friend invited her to attend a Catholic Mass, and her life changed:
“When the priest held up the Holy Eucharist, there was an explosion in my heart, and I was hungry, I was hungry for Jesus.”
She joined the Catholic Church eighteen months later.
Threatened by Big Abortion
She related that she was threatened with a lawsuit by a large abortion group after filing her first pro-life investigative report while she was in college:
“I remember getting to my knees in my dorm room and saying, ‘Lord, I don’t know what I’m in for here, but I trust in you. Help me trust in you. Every step of the way God … used that challenge to help the work multiply and reach now many more millions of people with the truth about not just the evil of abortion but the truth about the beauty and the goodness of human life, of marriage, and a family.”
Rose beseeched the mammoth crowd in Indianapolis to leverage all the gifts God has bestowed upon them to help promote a culture of life:
“There are 50,000 people here in the stadium tonight. Imagine if each one of us asked our Lord, ‘Use me.’ If we said, ‘Do whatever you want with me Lord.’ Imagine what God can do. I believe that we can end abortion in this country, that we can build a culture of life, that we can transform the nation into one of life.”
Martyrdom
She concluded by talking about two types of martyrdom: white and red. She invoked the great saint, Joan of Arc who experienced red martyrdom by bearing witness to Christ at the cost of life. Then she talked about another Joan, Joan Andrew Bell, who is experiencing white martyrdom, a persecution for living life boldly for Christ without being asked to die for it.
Rose explained Ms. Bell’s situation:
“Joan Andrew Bell, as we sit here tonight, is in a federal prison. She is a 74-year old grandmother and mother of seven children, six of whom were adopted with special needs. She founded Good Counsel Homes, maternity homes that have served 8000 women and their children who are in need to give them love and care.
When Joan Andrew Bell was 24 years old, she was shocked that the state Supreme Court legalized abortion-on-demand. That act changed the course of her life, because she knew she could not remain silent, that she must do something.
As a young woman in her twenties, Joan helped pioneer what is called Rescue at abortion facilities. St. Joan of Arc physically went into war for her people in France … Joan Andrews Bell physically goes into abortion facilities peacefully and prayerfully using her frail body to obstruct the killing until she is forcibly removed by police.
When Joan was brought to trial for her work, she refused to take a plea bargain for a reduced sentence, because it would mean she would have to recant her position and say she would never do it again.
This is what Joan said: ‘to accept probation would be to accept the lie that I have harmed society by trying peacefully, prayerfully and non-violently to save children from the brutal death of abortion.’
Joan Bell’s peaceful resistance echoes the spirit of the martyrs. I believe truly that this sister of ours is living a white martyrdom. St. Joan was also offered this plea bargain when she was captured by her enemies. They said if she rejected her claims, and said it wasn’t God actually calling her, she might be saved from burning at the stake. St. Joan of Arc said, ‘if I saw the fire, I would say all that I am saying to you now, and I would not act differently.’
Joan Andrew Bell said ‘it is my humble privilege to my conscience and Catholic faith in the defense of the innocent and the just.’
My brothers and sisters, may we humbly ask our Lord to use us, to stand up in truth, to speak the truth, and walk with love, and to have the gift of the spirit of the martyrs. May we ask our beloved Jesus in the Eucharist to give us the strength to follow his call.”
In other words, pray for an explosion in your heart.
[Support our pro-life outreach with your gift today.]
LISTEN
Donald Trump selected Ohio Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate at last night’s Republican convention. The 2nd year Senator is known for his best-selling memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy.” But his rapid political ascent puts a spotlight on J.D. Vance’s position on abortion.
Here’s what Senator Vance said on Face the Nation on May 19th, 2024:
“… what I’ve said consistently is the gross majority of policy here is gonna be set by the states. I am pro-life. I wanna save as many babies as possible. And sure, I think it’s totally reasonable to say that late term abortions should not happen with reasonable exceptions. But I think Trump’s approach here is trying to settle a very tough issue and actually empower the American people to decide it for themselves.”
In a Senate race debate in October of 2022, Vance said he was “totally fine … with some minimum national standard” of abortion regulation, although he hedged on whether he agreed with Lindsay Graham’s proposed abortion ban at 15 weeks. Said Vance:
“My view on this is, generally speaking, Ohio’s gonna wanna have different abortion laws than California, than Texas, and I think Ohio should have that right.”
J.D. Vance’s position on abortion was most impassioned in opposing a pro-abortion Ohio ballot initiative which cancelled all abortion restrictions:
“They will say this is all about freedom: ‘It’s all about freedom. We just want people to have the freedom.’
It was never about freedom. They were pressured into it, sometimes from a boyfriend or, God forbid, a parent. They felt like they didn’t have any options. They were worried that if they brought a baby into the world, they wouldn’t be able to take care of it. Well, we are here to say that there is a choice: We need to choose life, and we need to fight for life.
What does it say about a society, what does it say about our country when we tell young moms and young dads that everything comes before their own children? If there’s somebody out there telling you that what’s in your best interest is to get rid of your own baby, they do not have your best interests at heart. They are not on your team.
For 50 years in this country, unborn babies were cast aside. We told our society that everything — that education, that jobs and everything was more important than the most vulnerable people in our society. It was a mistake, and we did it for 50 years.
Why is it that every single time you have one of these radical abortion amendments, it’s always funded by the most powerful out-of-state interests in our country?
At last night’s Republican convention, he said:
“My view is that Donald Trump is the leader of the Republican Party, and his views on abortion are going to be the views that dominate this party and drive this party forward.
Alabama’s going to make a different decision from California. That is a reasonable thing. And that’s how I think we build some bridges and have some respect for one another.”
[Support our pro-life educational outreach. Your gift will help us spread a culture of life.]