If You Think Trump Is The Abortion Extremist, You’ve Bought Democrat Propaganda

The Harris-Walz campaign and abortion apologists continue to deceive Americans, both about Trump’s pro-life positions and the consequence of abortion initiatives.

Pro-Lifers Shouldn’t Trust Trump

As Donald Trump seeks the Republican nomination for a third time, he is making clear that the alliance with pro-lifers is over.

Biden’s Position On Abortion Is So Extreme, The White House Won’t Even Say It Out Loud

The vast majority of Americans support restricting abortion but Democrats, including those running the Biden administration, are unwilling to support any protections for unborn life. That became especially apparent on Friday when the White House, after being repeatedly pressed by Fox News, refused to answer whether President Joe Biden supported limits on abortion. The White […]

State 'trigger' laws already having an effect: One abortion clinic moves across state border following ban



So-called abortion "trigger" laws are already having a significant effect on the availability of the procedure throughout the country. For example, one abortion clinic has already opted to move up the street, just across the state border, to avoid an abortion ban.

In late July, Bristol Women’s Health — an abortion clinic which had been operating in Bristol, Tennessee, for an unknown length of time — moved just north up State Street to Bristol, Virginia, to avoid the abortion ban which went into effect in Tennessee last month after the Supreme Court Dobbs ruling on June 24 returned the issue to individual states.

Diane Derzis, who owns BWH, as well as the clinic in Mississippi at the center of the Dobbs case, said she was determined to reopen BWH just across the state line in Virginia to ensure that women in the region could still procure abortions. The next closest clinic is at least 80 miles away, according to reports.

"It’s like a game of dominoes," Derzis said. "It’s just a huge swath of states not offering the service any longer, so those women have to go north or west."

Virginia permits abortion through the second trimester and even into the third trimester under certain conditions. Tennessee, by contrast, now prohibits abortion except in cases in which the life or health of the mother is endangered or the unborn child is not expected to survive the duration of the pregnancy.

Though many outlets have seemingly lamented that differences in state abortion laws have caused new issues of "logistics, legal worries, and local resistance" for new or newly-relocated clinics such as BWH, they have likewise admitted that the differences in state laws are a reflection of differences of opinion regarding abortion.

And many of these differences often coincide with geographical location. According to NBC, there are 12 states with abortion bans already in effect, and the majority of them are clustered in the southern, middle section of the country: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas.

That seven of those nine states also have Republican governors and Republican-controlled state legislatures indicates that these abortion ban laws resulted because of the will of the voters, not in spite of it.

Virginia also has a Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, who supports restricting abortion after 15 weeks. The commonwealth House of Delegates has a small Republican majority, 52-48, but the state senate has a slim Democrat majority, 21-19. Should the Republicans take control of the Virginia state senate in 2022, then abortion laws there could change as soon as next year.

Voters in four other states will have the opportunity to voice their opinions regarding abortion rights/restrictions at the ballot box this November: California, Michigan, Montana, and Vermont. Kansans already voted to keep abortion legal in their state last month.

It’s Democrat Senate Candidate Cheri Beasley, Not Ted Budd, Who Is ‘Out Of Step’ With North Carolina Voters On Abortion

It's Democrat Senate candidate Cheri Beasley, not Ted Budd, who is 'out of step' with North Carolina voters on abortion.

Pro-lifers call Kansas abortion defeat a 'temporary setback'



Democrats and pro-choice activists are celebrating after Kansas voters on Tuesday rejected a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would have allowed state lawmakers to regulate abortion.

With 95% of precincts reporting, a ballot referendum that would have removed abortion rights protections from the Kansas constitution was defeated 59% to 41%, a nearly 20-point spread that was a definitive win for pro-choice groups. The amendment, called the Value Them Both Amendment, would have affirmed that "the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion."

The amendment would have overruled a 2019 decision by the Kansas Supreme Court that found the state's constitution guarantees a right to abortion, which has limited the ability of lawmakers to restrict abortion access.

Tuesday's referendum was the first major test of voter sentiment about abortion rights after the U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned Roe v. Wade and sent the abortion issue back to the states.

President Joe Biden led Democrats in welcoming the referendum results. "Voters in Kansas turned out in record numbers to reject extreme efforts to amend the state constitution to take away a woman's right to choose and open the door for a state-wide ban," the president said in a statement.

"This vote makes clear what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own health care decisions," Biden said.

He also called on Congress to "restore the protections of Roe as federal law" and promised that his administration would "continue to take meaningful action to protect women's access to reproductive health care."

\u201cBiden statement on Kansas vote: "This vote makes clear what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own health care decisions."\u201d
— Chris \u201cSubscribe to Law Dork!\u201d Geidner (@Chris \u201cSubscribe to Law Dork!\u201d Geidner) 1659498840

The amendment's defeat is a major setback for the pro-life movement in Kansas and a surprising result for what is generally considered a red state. Pro-life lawmakers planned to have the ballot referendum coincide with the state's primary elections to increase the chances it would pass. In the past decade, twice as many Republicans have voted in Kansas primary elections than Democrats, according to the Associated Press.

Emily Massey, a spokeswoman for the Value Them Both Coalition, which supported the amendment, called the defeat a "temporary setback" in a statement.

Pro-choice activists celebrated the decision and predicted that the abortion issue will motivate women to defeat anti-abortion lawmakers in November's midterm elections.

"As the first state to vote on abortion rights following the fall of Roe v. Wade, Kansas is a model for a path to restoring reproductive rights across the country through direct democracy. From Michigan to Nevada, we have the opportunity to protect abortion access at the ballot box in November. We know that Kansas will not be our last fight, or our last victory,” Planned Parenthood president Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement.

Kansas law restricts abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy to medical emergency cases where the mother's life is in danger. The state also requires pregnant women to be given an ultrasound before they obtain an abortion. These restrictions will remain in effect after Tuesday's vote, but it is unclear what other restrictions will be permissible under the state constitution.

But pro-life groups say they will continue the fight for a right to life.

"While the outcome is not what we hoped, our movement and campaign have proven our resolve and commitment," Kansans for Life said in a statement. "We will not abandon women and babies."

Republican lawmakers say they will continue to look for legally permissible ways to reduce the number of abortions in the state.

"The defeat this evening is disappointing," state Sen. Molly Baumgardner (R) said, according to NPR. "That struggle for truth, and the struggle for life, is going to continue in the state of Kansas."

Biden DOJ sues Idaho to block state abortion restrictions



The Biden administration is suing Idaho to block the state's abortion "trigger law," arguing it has violated federal law requiring hospitals to provide medically necessary treatment to patients before discharging them.

Attorney General Merrick Garland detailed the lawsuit at a press conference Tuesday afternoon, arguing that federal law preempts state laws imposing near total bans on abortion.

“On the day Roe and Casey were overturned, we promised that the Justice Department would work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom,” Garland said, according to KXAS-TV. “That is what we are doing, and that is what we will continue to do.”

“We will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that pregnant women get the emergency medical treatment to which they are entitled under federal law,” he added.

The U.S. Department of Justice says that hospitals that receive Medicare funds are required to provide "necessary stabilizing treatment" to patients who are experiencing a "medical emergency," under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The government interprets "emergency medical conditions" to mean risks to life as well as "those that place a patient's 'health' in 'serious jeopardy' or risk 'serious impairment to bodily functions' or 'serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part,'" the lawsuit states.

DOJ claims that Idaho's abortion law, set to take effect in August, would "make it a criminal offense to comply with EMTALA's requirement to provide stabilizing treatment, even where a doctor determines that abortion is the medical treatment necessary to prevent a patient from suffering severe health risks or even death."

Examples of such circumstances may include ectopic pregnancy, severe preeclampsia, or a pregnancy complication threatening septic infection or hemorrhage, DOJ said.

"The suit seeks to hold invalid the state's criminal prohibition on providing abortions as applied to women who are suffering medical emergencies," Garland said.

The attorney general characterized the Idaho law's medical exemptions as "extremely narrow" and said claimed the law "would subject doctors to arrest and criminal prosecution even if they performed an abortion to save a woman's life."

Garland is seeking a court order to "preliminarily and permanently" block Idaho's law from taking effect.

The Idaho law, passed in 2020, criminalizes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is endangered, and makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison for anyone to perform or attempt to perform the procedure. The law provides that a health care provider who performs an abortion may submit proof the procedure was medically necessary to prevent the mother's death or a police report showing rape or incest to avoid criminal charges. It was activated after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

Facing questions from reporters, Garland denied the federal government was trying to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision, arguing nothing in the court's decision prevents Congress from legislating abortion rights and that federal statutes preempt state abortion restrictions regarding medical emergencies.

\u201cREPORTER: "What's the point of the Supreme Court if DOJ is going to go around and do these kinds of things? Will there be other states like this?"\n\nAG GARLAND: "This is not in any way going around the Supreme Court."\u201d
— Townhall.com (@Townhall.com) 1659463455

"This is not in any way going around the Supreme Court," Garland said.

The lawsuit against Idaho follows the creation of a Reproductive Rights Task Force at the Justice Department, which Garland has tasked with monitoring and pushing back against state and local efforts to restrict abortion.

'Pro-life' Democrat Bob Casey flips and endorses radical abortion bill



Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, who for a long time has described himself as "pro-life," said Wednesday that he will vote with other Democrats to codify abortion rights.

In a statement, Casey announced that he will vote in favor of the Women's Health Protection Act, a bill that would enshrine the right to an abortion into federal law and make state laws banning or restricting abortion access illegal.

"This week, I will again vote yes to advance debate on the Women's Health Protection Act and I will support the bill if there is a vote on final passage in the future," Casey said.

The WHPA was brought up for a vote in the Senate in March but failed because Republicans filibustered. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced plans to bring it up for another vote last week after a draft Supreme Court majority opinion that upheld Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban and overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision was leaked.

Democrats believe that overturning Roe is unpopular and that the abortion issue could galvanize support for the party in the upcoming midterm elections this November. Some polling indicates that Americans generally oppose overturning Roe by as much as a two-to-one margin, but polls that ask about specific abortion restrictions show majority support for 15-week or 6-week abortion bans, both of which would be unconstitutional under Roe's precedent.

But among the party's radical left-wing base, the pro-life position is increasingly intolerable, and self-described pro-life Democrats have been targeted for primary challenges by the extreme left.

Casey, who is up for re-election in 2024, is now taking a position that clearly contradicts his previous assertions that Roe should be overturned. In his statement, he seized on a suggestion from Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that national abortion restrictions would be "possible" in a post-Roe world to justify his flip-flop.

A major shift for Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania), who has long described himself as pro-life: "This week, I will again vote yes to advance debate on the Women\u2019s Health Protection Act and I will support the bill if there is a vote on final passage in the future," he says.pic.twitter.com/EpSPAgY8Om
— Sahil Kapur (@Sahil Kapur) 1652197468

"In the nearly three months since the Senate last voted on the Women's Health Protection Act, the circumstances around the entire debate on abortion have changed. In light of the leaked Supreme Court decision draft overturning Roe v. Wade, and subsequent reports that Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate will introduce legislation to enact a nationwide six-week ban, the real question of the moment is: do you support a categorical ban on abortion?" Casey said.

"During my time in public office, I have never voted for — nor do I support — such a ban," he added.

It is also true that during his time in office, Casey has scored as high as 100 percent on NARAL Pro-Choice America's scorecard in 2016 and 2017 and has voted with Planned Parenthood's position 75 percent of the time since 2011, raising questions on whether his supposed pro-life convictions were ever sincere.

Casey defended his voting record in a 2018 interview with Politico the last time he was up for re-election.

“I think it’s clear to most people that the description of pro-life Democrat is accurate. I’ve been very consistent,” he said. "What it means is I try to support policies that help women and children both before and after birth. Part of that is making sure you are honest about differences but also at the same time trying to focus on ways to reduce both the number of abortions and the number of unwanted pregnancies, and I think my record reflects that.”

However, were the WHPA to become law and state abortion restrictions come down, the number of abortions would surely increase, and Casey said today he will vote for it.

damircudic/Getty Images

Democrats don’t just want to keep Roe, they want the unlimited ability to kill preborn babies

While voters are hesitant to endorse unlimited abortion, many Democrats have made it a key part of their platform going into the midterms.

Poll of registered voters finds slightly more support than opposition for banning abortions after 15 weeks



A Wall Street Journal poll of registered voters found that while 48% would favor a law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy with exceptions allowed for the pregnant woman's health, 43% would be against such a restriction.

While 31% strongly backed such a restriction, 17% somewhat supported the idea, 10% somewhat opposed the concept, and 34% were strongly against it, according to the outlet.

Unsurprisingly, few Democrats (21%) were in favor of blocking abortions past the 15-week mark, while most Republicans (75%) were in favor.

Just 42% of registered voters favored the idea of a law that bars abortions after six weeks of pregnancy with exceptions allowed for the mother's health, while 50% were against the idea.

Only 11% thought that abortions should be unlawful in all cases; 30% felt that it should be unlawful except for when the mother's life is in peril or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest; 55% thought abortion should be lawful in all or most instances.

"Most people want abortion to be legal, but where you draw the line varies," Molly Murphy, a Democratic pollster who worked on the survey, said, according to the outlet.

"There are going to be hardened people on both ends" of the abortion argument, Tony Fabrizio said, according to the outlet, which noted that Fabrizio is a Republican pollster whose firm carried out the survey along with the firm of Democratic pollster John Anzalone. "But most people are somewhere in between and a lot of people pick and choose."

The poll occurred March 2 through March 7.