How To Dispel The Lies Most Americans Believe About Abortion

Shawn Carney and Steve Karlen’s guide is a clear and concise roadmap for pro-lifers looking to defend their stance and win hearts for good.

If Harris Can ‘Eliminate The Filibuster For Roe,’ She Can Nuke It For Fracking Bans And Gun Control Too

Democrats will use abortion as a 'wedge' issue to nuke the filibuster, allowing them to enact many other bad policies.

Arizona permitted to call potential victims of abortion initiative 'unborn human babies' in voter pamphlet



An Arizona pro-abortion outfit was able to get its radical proposition onto the November ballot but failed in its recent legal battle to secure the final say on how to describe its potential victims in the informational pamphlets sent to voters.

The assertion that the unborn are "human babies" is a statement of fact and basic science, yet it has proven incredibly controversial among pro-abortion activists in Arizona. The humanization of past and potential abortion victims may, after all, prompt voters to think twice about supporting Proposition 139 — the November ballot initiative that, if passed, would enshrine the right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution.

Republican members of the Arizona Legislative Council presented a draft analysis of the initiative last month, which highlighted that existing law prohibits abortion if the "unborn human being" is younger than 15 weeks, reported the Arizona Capitol Times. The document elsewhere employed abortion activists' preferred term "fetus."

"The ballot analysis prepared by the Legislative Council is intended to help voters understand current law. Arizona's 15-week law protects unborn children, while the abortion initiative essentially allows unrestricted abortions up until birth," Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, chairman of the Legislative Council, told the Arizona Capitol Times. "It's really that simple."

Arizona for Abortion Access, the group championing the ballot initiative, sued to prevent the phrase "unborn human being" from appearing in the voter information pamphlet's description of Prop. 139. The group's contention was that the phrase is "tinged with partisan coloring" and that the language amounted to an "illegal effort to confuse voters."

While the abortion activists enjoyed initial success in the Maricopa County Superior Court, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against them this week, indicating the lesser court was in error.

According to the Arizona Supreme Court, "unborn human being," which is the specific phrase used in existing law, "'substantially complies' with the statute's impartiality requirement.'"

The superior court's ruling has been reversed, and the pamphlet can go out with the language initially drafted by the defendants in the case, the members of the state Arizona Legislative Council.

State Senate President Warren Petersen (R) noted, "Common sense and good judgment prevailed."

'It's reckless to lose those safety precautions just to expand abortion beyond what most voters support.'

In the wake of its failure, Arizona for Abortion Access issued a statement saying, "The Arizona Supreme Court today reversed the trial court's well-reasoned ruling and held that the phrase 'unborn human being' — a watchword for anti-abortion advocates with no basis in medicine or science — is somehow impartial and objective."

"This means that Arizona voters will not be able to know the questions on their ballot in a fair, neutral, and accurate manner, but will be subjected to biased, politically charged words, developed not by experts, but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation," added the activist group.

While Arizona for Abortion Access has expressed concern about lawmakers' word use, critics have alternatively suggested the abortion outfit's ballot initiative, supported by Gov. Katie Hobbs and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, was itself deceptively worded.

The initiative suggests, for instance, that the state cannot interfere with an individual seeking or getting an abortion up until viability. However, it appears that even viable babies can be killed at any stage if a so-called health care professional can think up a reason why that baby does not stand a chance of survival outside of the uterus or, alternatively, why the baby's continued existence threatens the health of the "pregnant individual."

It Goes Too Far, the opposition campaign fighting the initiative, notes on its site that the use of the term "health care professional" means that individuals besides doctors, including abortionists incentivized to kill, can make such decisions.

The opposition campaign further indicates that the initiative would have Arizona shut out "moms and dads when their minor daughter needs them most by removing the parental consent requirement."

Earlier this year, Cindy Dahlgren, spokeswoman for It Goes Too Far, told the Arizona Mirror in an emailed statement, "Most voters are not told that under this unregulated, unlimited abortion amendment they will lose the required medical doctor, critical and commonsense safety standards for girls and women seeking abortion, and moms and dads will be shut out of their minor daughter's abortion decision, leaving her to go through the painful and scary process alone."

"Abortion is legal in Arizona up to 15 weeks, and we have commonsense safety precautions to protect girls and women. It's reckless to lose those safety precautions just to expand abortion beyond what most voters support," added Dahlgren.

Ballotpedia indicated that the Prop. 139 is one of several statewide ballot measures pertaining to abortion that has been certified for the general election ballot this year. Colorado, Florida, Missouri, New York, and South Dakota will similarly test voters' willingness to protect unborn human babies.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

No, Abortion Is Never Medically Necessary

Despite talk of 'emergency abortions,' there is never a circumstance in which the mother's health would benefit from the death of her unborn child.

Blaze News original: What would represent complete and total victory for the pro-life movement?



In 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court issued the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, but two years later, pro-lifers are still far from accompolishing their ultimate objective of ending the nation's ongoing abortion holocaust.

"Abortion remains the number-one killer in the country," Republican Rep. Bob Good of Virginia told Blaze News.

'We know the science of life now. Life does begin at conception.'

The congressman, who currently serves as chair of the House Freedom Caucus, said "the hope" is that eventually abortion will be regarded in the same manner as slavery, with people unable to imagine how it was once tolerated in the U.S.

"We know the science of life now. Life does begin at conception," Good noted.

He told Blaze News that complete and total victory for the pro-life movement would mean abortion becoming "unthinkable" in the U.S., though he noted that this is a "multifaceted battle" that entails changing people's views and helping mothers in tough circumstances know about options and support. He also noted that there is a "legislative component."

Good indicated that he would support a federal law or constitutional amendment to abolish abortion.

'The aim is always and only abolition.'

Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon also told Blaze News that victory for the pro-life movement would involve abortion becoming "unthinkable."

"Complete and total victory is the end of abortion. It's when abortion has become not just unlawful, but unthinkable. The challenge is that it won't become unlawful until it's unthinkable. It really is true that politics is downstream from culture. Slavery was eventually abolished, but not before minds and hearts were changed on a grand scale. The culture — not our conviction that all human life is sacred — must change," Dillon said in a statement to Blaze News.

"While compromise may be necessary on the road to abolition, it should never be our aim. If life is ever sacred, it's always sacred. Any legislative progress we make that reduces the number of abortions is good, and we'll take it. But the goal is abolition. As my friend Jeremy Boreing put it, 'Every step in that direction is a good but insufficient one,' Dillon wrote. "Ultimately we need a constitutional amendment that protects the right to life. This is not a realistic outcome right now, so we'll have to settle, in the meantime, for victories on the state level. But the truly pro-life will never be content with compromise. The aim is always and only abolition."

'There is never a good reason to murder an innocent child.'

BlazeTV host Steve Deace also advocates for the abolition of abortion in the U.S.

"Complete and total victory is the abolition of baby murder, just as complete and total victory over slavery was its abolition. Anything less may be progress and may even be righteous, but it is not total victory. There is never a good reason to murder an innocent child," Deace declared in a statement to Blaze News.

"Ultimately we need to have enshrined in the Constitution or at least affirmed via statute that the fifth and 14th Amendments (i.e. 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law') applies to human life at all stages. In the meantime, the fight is at the state level. That is where the baby-murderers are making progress enshrining this evil into state constitutions, wickedness that would likely override any 'and then you can kill the baby' legislation in Congress – which frankly probably would not pass right now anyway. You have to fight the enemy where they are attacking you, and right now we are being attacked on the state level," Deace added.

But while pro-lifers like Good, Dillon, and Deace seek the end of the legalized slaughter of unborn children in the U.S., former President Donald Trump, who appointed three of the Supreme Court justices responsible for overturning Roe, has said that he would not support a national abortion ban.

Trump endorsed Good's Republican primary opponent and claimed that the incumbent congressman is "BAD" for the state and the nation — and Trump may have been successful in destroying the conservative lawmaker's re-election bid. McGuire received over 300 votes more than Good in the Republican primary in Virginia's 5th Congressional District, according to enr.elections.virginia.gov. The primary results have been certified by the Virginia State Board of Elections, according to the Associated Press. But Good wants a recount.

— (@)

Republicans 'should be proud of being the party of life.'

In a statement posted on his campaign website, Good declared, "Abortion is not healthcare. Abortion is not a human right. When it is treated as such, we deny that innocent baby their God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe all human life, born and unborn, should be protected and cherished. As a born-again Christian, I believe God calls us to defend the defenseless and be a voice for the voiceless. When deciding how to vote, I will always err on the side of unborn human life, each and every time."

Good told Blaze news that "Republicans cannot be afraid of" the abortion issue. He called the Democratic Party the "party of death, that celebrates abortion, that seems to want more abortion" and said that Republicans "should be proud of being the party of life."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

2 years after overturning Roe, SCOTUS preserves pill that helps kill unborn children



The U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled unanimously to keep a controversial abortion drug on the market even after the court ruled two years ago to overturn Roe v. Wade.

In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of pro-life medical practitioners and their organizations had sued the FDA for relaxing restrictions on mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in a medical abortion. The plaintiffs argued that these relaxed standards would "jeopardize women’s health across the nation."

SCOTUS justices apparently considered the case on technical grounds rather than on the ethical issues regarding killing unborn children and ruled 9-0 that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the FDA. Writing on behalf of the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee who voted to overturn Roe, claimed that "federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions."

Kavanaugh did acknowledge that the plaintiffs in this case have "sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone." However, such objections do not amount to legal standing, he explained.

"A plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue."

President Joe Biden — who has long supported unfettered access to abortion even though the Catholic Church, of which he is a member, considers abortion a "moral evil" — gave a tepid response to the ruling. "It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states," he said.

"But let’s be clear: attacks on medication abortion are part of Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide."

Several outlets believe that Democrats view abortion as a winning issue this November, and recent referenda in traditionally red states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio indicate that Americans as a whole still support allowing women to kill their unborn children.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Democrats Don’t Want You To Know How Moderate Trump’s Abortion Stance Is

Come to think of it, the GOP's federal bill is also pretty moderate.

Trump’s Mixed Messaging On Abortion And IVF Plays Right Into Democrats’ Electoral Strategy

Republicans must choose their words carefully and affirm the majority of Americans’ desire to limit abortion to at least the first trimester — not just on the state level but nationally.

Supreme Court Justices Purposely Ignore The Main Issue In Abortion Pill Arguments

It looks like the justices will rule in favor of the FDA, making Jackson’s scenario of a viral murderous trend a government-endorsed reality.

Get ready for another 50-year abortion fight



Following the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which happily overturned Roe v. Wade, the pro-life movement went on to suffer significant defeats in six different ballot initiatives to regulate abortion — even in deep red states like Kansas and Montana.

On Tuesday, Ohio became the seventh such loss. There, by a margin of 53% to 46%, voters approved an amendment to the state’s constitution establishing a right to abortion.

If the first six post-Dobbs losses weren’t clear enough, surely the seventh conveys the message clearly: The pro-life movement has an abortion problem.

And the first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one.

How we ended up here is fairly easily diagnosed. The pro-life movement understandably spent the past 50 years primarily making the case against Roe, which involved focusing most of its efforts on embracing tactics and messaging that would be most effective at overturning it, but not necessarily for life — at least, not enough.

We believed it was enough to “abort” Roe and that by doing so, the problem of abortion would essentially solve itself. But we didn’t build alternative structures to welcome those who had found refuge under Casey’s wings, nor did we think deeply enough about what lessons we would offer to replace the ones that Roe had hammered into our souls.

In short, we assumed the pre-Roe American people were still there, dormant, waiting to be freed from Roe’s oppressive yoke if we could just marshal the courage to jettison that awful Supreme Court ruling. What we learned instead was that, broadly speaking, Americans are quite fond of their chains, despite the fact that they’re forged from the blood of innocent children and a myopic desire for a higher GDP.

Like the ancient Israelites, we prefer the slavery under which we were raised to the hard freedom of the desert.

One of the most consistent refrains in Western political philosophy is that the law acts as a teacher, instructing us in what is good and bad, noble and ignoble, just and unjust. Since 1973, Roe’s lessons — lessons that Casey reinforced and entrenched a generation later — have sunk deep into the public’s soul and corrupted its moral sense about precisely what we owe the unborn.

For nearly half a century, the American people were taught that the baby in the womb is not human, a clump of cells, of no essential worth, and that the shallow, not to mention fleeting and ill-considered, desires of adults trump their sacred duties to their progeny.

Of course, throwing off Roe didn’t instantaneously reset the country’s moral compass to postwar America. The rot has done its work. We are a different country now.

Think of Roe like a termite infestation. Dobbs was like an exterminator, and the American soul is the building in which they wage war. Unfortunately, the exterminator arrived too late to remove the termites and leave a healthy, intact building. The damage has been done.

Because of the extent of the damage, the task now is to rebuild the entire house, from the foundations upward. That challenge will occupy the next two generations or more.

We’d better get started.