Sun. May 19th, 2024

Opinion Piece By Donna Westfall – March 19, 2018

OMG! The Iowa Senate passed an anti-abortion bill that would ban most abortions at the first detectable fetal heartbeat.
When Roe v Wade passed in ’73, we were told that NO TAXPAYER DOLLARS WOULD EVER BE USED FOR ABORTIONS. 45 years later and 60 million abortions later, we learned that not only were our tax dollars being spent on abortions through Medicaid/Medi-Cal, but that fetal/baby body parts were being sold for profit… another NO NO.
We were also sold a bill of goods that taxpayer dollars would only be spent on abortions due to rape, incest or to save the health of the mother. That was 1% – 45 years ag – and still about 1% today. So. about 99% of abortions were done out of convenience …. the chant…. “My Body, My Choice.”
In Mexico, the only time a woman can get an abortion is for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
Sorry, Charlie, the fetus has a RIGHT TO LIFE and the pendulum is swinging…. and if y’all hadn’t been so heartless, you would not be seeing this today. So, get used to it.  The bill now goes before the House of Representatives in Iowa. If passsed this is what happens: if they detect a heartbeat in Iowa, the physician can be convicted and go to prison.
With all the contraception offered in today’s market, my advice to women is to start using it.  There’s even a shot that prevents pregnancy that works for three years.
And, we need better option for those that still manage to get pregnant like more adoptions.  One of the biggest arguments I hear is that mother and child would be on welfare and a drain on society.  We need better options so that those women who don’t want to raise their child are not condemed to a life of welfare adding to the already burdensome multi-generational welfare already in existence.
Finally, why are undocumented (illegal aliens) allowed abortions on our tax dollars? Because the Democratic party, the Party of Death, believes that any woman is entitled to an abortion on our tax dollars?  This has to stop.
I’m pretty sure we’re going to see the Supreme Court get this argument before them very soon. I hope the Judges realize that 60 million abortions is tantamount to the American Holocaust.
The ACLJ is an organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional liberties secured by law.
American Center for Law and Justice is a d/b/a for Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism, Inc., a tax-exempt, not-for-profit, religious corporation as defined under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, specifically dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights. The Center’s purpose is to engage legal, legislative and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education and litigation to ensure that those rights are protected under the law. The organization has participated in numerous cases before the Supreme Court, Federal Court of Appeals, Federal District Courts, and various state courts regarding freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Your gift is very much appreciated and fully deductible as a charitable contribution.
NOTE:   The ACLJ is due to argue this in the next few days before the Supreme Court.
2 thoughts on “Is the pendulum swinging on abortion?”
    1. According to Lou Cannon’s article published in on 4/4/13, “California’s Abortion Law: A Road Not Taken,” These were “awful weeks,” “Reagan told me two years after the measure had become law. He had been governor for barely six months when the Beilenson bill reached his desk, and he acknowledged that he would not have signed it if he had been more experienced. It would be the only time in his two terms as governor and two as president of the United States in which Reagan second-guessed his actions on major legislation.

      Looking back at it, as a Reagan biographer, I’m more sympathetic than I was at the time about the governor’s predicament. Reagan knew that the California law was overly restrictive and was particularly bothered that it made no exception for rape or incest. But he was also receptive to the argument that abortion was the taking of a human life.

      In wrestling with his decision, Reagan was bombarded by conflicting recommendations. He was poorly served by his staff, which split along religious lines and clumsily interfered in the legislative debate without ever making a coherent recommendation to the governor. Reagan’s chief of staff, Phil Battaglia, a Catholic, wanted the governor to veto the bill. His legal affairs secretary, Ed Meese, a Lutheran, wanted Reagan to sign it. (Like Biddle, Meese had been a county prosecutor and was well informed on the horror stories that too often attended illegal abortions.)

      Nor did Reagan get respite at home. His wife, Nancy, who is believed to support liberalized abortion although she never said so in public, suggested to her husband that he talk to her father, Loyal David, former physician who was reactionary on many political issues but strongly supported permissive abortion laws, as most doctors did. Small wonder that Reagan veered from side to side, unable to make up his mind.

      Subsequently, troubled by the millions of legal abortions that were performed in California after the Therapeutic Abortion Act became law, Reagan became a staunch foe of permissive abortion. It’s easy to say, as some have, that the conversion came too late to make a difference, but Reagan was sincere, and his opposition helped rally anti-abortion forces when he was in the White House.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *