A court just dropped a ruling that sent Nancy Pelosi into a furious rage

82

Nancy Pelosi’s life is falling apart.

With President Trump in office, she is losing control over the Democrat Party.

And a court just dropped a ruling that sent Nancy Pelosi into a furious rage.

Nancy Pelosi is the only real leader in the Democrat Party.

As Speaker of the House, she is the highest ranking representative in Congress.

But despite her position, she really doesn’t have much power to do anything besides obstruct President Trump’s agenda.

And she isn’t even doing a good job on that front.

Trump continues to rack up wins on major issues like trade and illegal immigration.

And he just scored another win with a Florida appeals court reversing a ruling that declared a 24-hour waiting period for abortion to be unconstitutional.

LifeSiteNews reports:

A Florida appeals court reversed a ruling that declared a 24-hour waiting period for abortion unconstitutional, handing pro-life advocates a partial victory.

The First District Court of Appeal determined on August 1 that a lower court’s blocking of the Sunshine state’s abortion waiting period in State of Florida vs. Gainesville Woman Care should be reversed and sent back to the lower court.

According to the Miami Herald, the case could become a key test for the Florida Supreme Court. While the court has historically been dominated by pro-abortion jurists, there is now a “conservative” majoirty, which may rule more favorably on pro-life cases.

The appeals court “breathed new life into this important law,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, noting the ruling cited the group’s brief.

“The 24-hour waiting period is critical because abortion is a life and death decision,” Staver continued. “Abortion advocates oppose a waiting period because they fear the mother will choose life. How sad that a mother can kill her pre-born child without waiting even 24 hours, and yet, when someone other than the mother kills the same child, it is a criminal offense.”

This is yet another win in a string of victories for pro-life Americans.

Dozens of states are passing pro-life laws and are finally able to have them upheld due to the hundreds of court appointees Trump has been able to confirm.

Things are only going to get worse for Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Party as long as Trump is in power.

Do you consider yourself pro-life?

Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

82 COMMENTS

  1. The Botox Queen needs to retire after this term! Looks like her treatments have been absorbed into her brain cells, or else too many cocktails!

  2. The unborn, preform and newborn should never receive the death penalty for being conceived.

    Death penalty should be only reserved for crimes that have been deemed worthy of death.

    I believe that “choice” to abortion is an evil thing, to me it is criminal.

    Am I prolife?, absolutely!
    Is death penalty useful and valid, absolutely!

    • I AGREE WITH EVER THING YOU HAVE WROTE.AT THE SECOND OF CONCEPTION THERE IS LIFE.AND MURDER IS MURDER.I TOLD ONE OF THE HAS BEEN HOLLYWOOD IDIOTS TODAY ,IF HER MOM HAD MADE THE CHOICE OF ABORTING HER,WE WOULD HAVE MISSED SERVAL YEARS OF HER ENTERTAINING THE WORLD.AND NOT KNOWING HER./

    • To show what hypocrites the pro-abortion people are, think about this. If a woman is in an accident and her child is killed in the womb, the person causing that death is charged with a homicide. If the woman carrying that unborn is killed and the baby dies, there are two charges of homicide. But yet if a doctor kills hundreds of unborn, they are treated as heroes. End Roe V Wade which was an illegal act by the SCOTUS as she never had standing. She already had had an abortion.

    • Bill, It’s the same thing they did with Obamacare(remember her last words were you don’t need to read the bill just sign it and we’ll read it later. My medical premium jumped from 500.00 a month for family of 3 to 2000.00 a month in three years, that’s a 100% increase per year. And now the looney left want’s to murder babies at birth. GOD SAVE THIS COUNTRY

      • I agree with you, and the premiums has risen to far, they knew this but they did it any way, as they do not care about us, or our President Donald Trump, they only care about what they get!

        • Exactly Gentlemen! She was also a ‘Co-Conspirator” along with Schumer, McCain, & others of that ilk that “QUIETLY” Repealed the McCarrin Act (sp?) that Forbade Muslims to hold office & be in OUR Gov’t.!! How Despicable & Traitorous these DemonRats are. They don’t care a whit about OUR Country, just lining their & their friends(?!) pockets with our taxpayer monies! Look at THEIR Districts, They are helping demolish America from within. They do NOT deserve to be IN America, let alone hold office. Accountability & Responsibility MUST be adhered to. We The People MUST Stand Up & Fight for OUR Country!! Imperative We The People help President Trump in All his efforts. Bless You & Yours. America Rocks!

      • HE’S DOING IT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP………
        HE’S TIRED OF LL THIS BULLSHIDT THE COMMUNIST DEMON-RATS ARE DOING……..

        GOD AND RESIDENT TRUMP WILL PREVAIL…..
        GOD BLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP….

        GOD BLESS OUR BELOVED AMERICA AND HER TROOPS………

  3. All the Dems and some Repubs talk about “saving children”, but they allow unborn SLAUGHTER of babies in the woomb….62 MILLOION nad counting….When theses people have to stand in front of MY LORD and explain their actions, they will come up wanting and thrown in the lake of fire for all eternity!!!!!!!

  4. All the Dems and some Repubs talk about “saving children”, but they allow unborn SLAUGHTER of babies in the woomb….62 MILLOION nad counting….When theses people have to stand in front of MY LORD and explain their actions, they will come up wanting and thrown in the lake of fire for all eternity!!!!!!! This site says I have post an exact message as I have just composed….They have their HEAD UP THEIR BUTTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. How sad that a mother can kill her pre-born child without waiting even 24 hours, and yet, when someone other than the mother kills the same child, it is a criminal offense.”

    Um chances are she knows she has been pregnant and has been thinking about it.

  6. She needs to retire ASAP!! Actually she should have retired a long, long, long time ago…..ha! She is really off-the-wall and yes I think she had to many cocktails. She is really a spastic bitch!!!

  7. Thank God we have a real President in The White House who loves America . Who believes that babies should not be murdered .Who has made this country great again. It’s sad to see old worn out corrupt politicians who are power hungry who seek to destroy him and everything he has accomplished.The Democratic Party is nothing but (EVIL).I support President Trump 2020.

    • Yes, john. Support d. trump (mr. White House WORTHLESS WORM, Himself) As Another Of His ASSHOLE KISSING republican RETARDS & see How Much Of A Free Ride On One Of His Million Dollar Gravy Trains That Will Get You In Return?

        • Betty is a pathetic liberal who should be ashamed of herself for wanting babies murdered! How do you live with your evil, disgusting self! Another low life liberal thug!

      • Hey, Booty! You NEVER post proof, you just act like an immature, ignorant Liberal brat. I guess your mom’s basement gives you such courage to continually insult those who are great. Insults are your stock in trade, no facts, no proof. Your sad delusional rants also reveal the truth of your soul. Withered and rotting. Pathetic.

      • Of course we gonna support President Trump! I see you doing a wonderful job of describing Obummer. President Trump is the bestest president we’ve had in a long while! You are calling us asshole kissing Trump retards, then you are an Odumbo ass kisser with no brains.

    • Jo hn. The Only Thing “Real” About CRAZY donald & D for DUMB trump is Both His Extremely High Level Of SICK MINDED STUPIDITY & IDIOTIC INSANITY & His Extremely Low Level Of MORAL ETHICS, HUMAN DIGNITY, BASIC COMMON SENSE & BASIC HUMAN INTELLIGENCE!

  8. Children are a gift from God. He created them and each of us in HIS own image. He say, and I quote “Anyone who harms one of these children would be better that you had a millstone hung around your neck and thrown into the sea.” Also we are commanded; “Do not kill” and we think we are excused from either of these commands from God. I don’t think so.

  9. All of you who believe it’s murder…remember that point when you are in the voting booth and decide who you want as your next President. Frank J. Stangel, J.D.

  10. I do not believe that an ACCIDENTAL, UNWANTED PREGANANCY should result in an ACCIDENTAL, UNWANTED BIRTH. An unwanted child brought into the world can be a very unfortunate consequence to the child, the parent(s) and society at large. Throwing live babies into dumpsters, going from one foster home to another, or into orphanages, leaves us with mentally and physically challenged children without regard for the value of human life. Very few rise above their childhood of lack of love, educational attention, all the things children from normal homes enjoy. Are the pro-life people ADOPTING these children into their own homes? If so, no need for foster homes, orphanages. I’ll vote for that! Mother of 5 !!!!!!!

    • There should not be ANY “accidental pregnancy”! Be a responsible person and use birth control.There is birth control handed out free to those who can not buy it. Safe sex by both partners and even abstain during fertile period. There are apps to monitor when you might get pregnant. No need for abortion! Only rape and mother’s life. Then if a certified physician says abortion is the only way to save the mother.

    • If you have sex, you can NEVER claim any pregnancy to be an accident. That is the mentality of a Hilary. You know, the blame game. If you’re going to have sex, be responsible and accept all consequences. If you can’t handle the consequences, you were stupid to have sex.

  11. I have learned that there are more couples waiting to adopt a child than there are babies.
    For that reason alone, why should a baby given by God be murdered? Even in rape, the child does not have to be killed, because there are people waiting that want and need a child. There is no reason to take any baby’s life!

  12. Instead of demonizing Democrats, if pro-lifers *really* want to end abortion, it’s going to have to be bipartisan. I told Jim Frey of Berkeley Pro-Life that we (Democrats) never see pro-lifers venture beyond their own base. Rather than reach across the aisle to Democrats, feminists, liberals, etc., and try to bring them on board with protecting unborn children, they just play to the same old Ronald Reagan / Oliver North crowd.

    If pro-lifers *really* want to end abortion, opposition to abortion must come from across the political spectrum. Pro-lifers are going to have to venture beyond their own base and convince Democrats, feminists, liberals etc. to distinguish abortion from arguably victimless crimes like marijuana; to argue on secular grounds that the unborn are persons (secular arguments are religion-neutral, and thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics) and convince Democrats, feminists, liberals, etc. to see the killing of the unborn on par with domestic violence, hate crimes against LGBTs, etc.; and make the case to Americans that it’s possible to protect prenatal life without taking to draconian measures violating a new mother’s privacy and civil liberties in this regard.

    Robert Casey, the former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said he believed a pro-life liberal Democrat would easily be elected president: conservatives would vote for a pro-lifer, and liberals would vote for a Democrat articulating opposition to abortion as a secular and nonsectarian civil rights issue. In 1994, even archconservative Pat Buchanan had kind words for Robert Casey! If pro-life Democrats had greater visibility in past decades, perhaps Carol Crossed would have been the first female speaker of the House.

    After the 2016 election losses, Nancy Pelosi admits that the Democratic Party’s support of abortion has not been a winning issue. Pelosi spoke to the Washington Post about whether her party should support pro-life candidates or require that candidates support easy access to taxpayer-funded abortions through all nine months of pregnancy.

    Struggling after heavy election losses in 2016, many in the Democratic Party are debating whether to support pro-life candidates, especially in rural areas where voters tend to be pro-life. Some, like Pelosi, appear to be recognizing that the party’s support of abortion-on-demand-up-to-birth is losing them voters.

    Unfortunately, rather than seeing the abortion issue as a real loser for Democrats, especially in red states (crucial with winning the Electoral College!), Pelosi blamed Hillary Clinton’s loss on pro-life voters themselves! Clinton supported the unpopular platform of forcing taxpayers to directly fund abortions, and she promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand up until birth, if elected.

    Pelosi told the Washington Post : “You know what? That’s why Donald Trump is president of the United States—the evangelicals and the Catholics, anti-marriage equality, anti-choice. That’s how he got to be president. Everything was trumped, literally and figuratively by that.”

    Pelosi, who supports abortion but describes herself as a Catholic, said many in her Catholic family are pro-life. She also mentioned U.S. Sen. Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, a Democrat with a mixed record on abortion.

    “You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?” Pelosi said.

    Jay Ware, a black Democrat in Illinois, said on the Democrats For Life email list as early as 2004 that it should be automatic: just as the Republican Party supports pro-choice candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger in blue states like New York and California where pro-lifers can’t win and even has Republican president George W. Bush campaign for them, Jay Ware said the Democratic Party should similarly support pro-life Democrats in red states where pro-choicers can’t win, and have Democratic presidents campaign for pro-life Democrats, etc.

    “The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

    –Hubert H. Humphrey

    Fifty-nine percent of Democrats favored a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Gallup Poll, November 1, 2000)

    Eighty-nine percent of Americans favored informed consent for women seeking abortions. (Gallup Poll, 2002)

    Sixty-seven percent of Democrats would outlaw some or all abortions. (Gallup Poll, May 5-7, 2003)

    Forty-three percent of Democrats agreed with the statement that abortion”destroys a human life and is manslaughter.” (Zogby Poll, December 2004)

    Seventy percent of high school senior females say they would not consider abortion if they became pregnant while in high school. (Hamilton College/Zogby Poll, January 2008)

    Seventy-seven percent of Americans believe abortion should have stricter limitations. (CBS News Poll, January 2008)

    Twenty-nine percent of Democratic Convention delegates disagreed with the statement, “Abortion should be generally available to those who want it rather than under stricter limits or not permitted.” However, 52 percent of Democratic voters as a whole disagreed. This large discrepancy between party leadership and membership indicates a serious problem that Democrats For Life of America wants to rectify.

    During the 2008 campaign, Reverend Jim Wallis (of Sojourners) advised Barack Obama to support a plank in the Democratic Party Platform that would aim to reduce abortions by focusing on supporting low income women and making adoption easier. (This is the 95-10 Initiative, advanced by pro-life Democrats in Congress.) Reverend Tony Campolo served on the Platform Committee and has issued a strong statement in support of a pro-life position.

    A “conscience clause” which appeared in the 2000 Democratic Platform (but not in 2004) acknowledges that there are pro-life people in our Party and we respect their views. It reads as follows:

    “We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.”

    Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said in 2014: “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

    • Your entire, sad, epilogue is worthless! Why? Because your placing asterisks around the word really does not emphasize, it indicates you don’t actually mean the definition. Learn grammar. You ruined a what was a truly terrible treatise. Learn grammar. You tried so hard and failed. Stop with the Liberal song-and-dance card regarding Reagan / North. That’s the epitome of ignorance and all your dumb accusations only define why many don’t talk you baby-killers.

    • Again with you screed? Take your self to some place that wants it because it isn’t wanted here. $15 wage will cause out of control inflation for those on fixed incomes and cause job losses and businesses to go out of business.

  13. This is a reply to “Betty” up above, you just described your own DemocRat party!!! Murdering babies is a crime and should be punishable by death. See how you like it , death to you, not innocent babies!!!
    And I’m not ashamed or afraid to put my name out there.

    • Debra, ol’ Booty is just mentally unstable. She must not have a job in public service or her tendency to rant and rave filth would get her fired!

  14. Nancy’s not doing very well these days . . . goes to show what happens when you are NOT on the side of the God Almighty and doing the devil’s work instead. It makes you a Born Loser, and she’s proving it RIGHT NOW . . . Team Trump and his allies 2020.

  15. It’s time to stand for our beliefs and stand firm for our Republic, the DNC is attempting to overthrow the Supreme Court! It’s time to seriously prepare for CWII. Pray, speak to your children, your pastors, and congressional representatives, we will not allow Obama and Holder two hood rat Community Organizer Anarchists from Chicago change our fundamental Supreme Court Protocol!

  16. Time to buy all the ammo bulletproof vests, helmets, guns, knives, Gun powder, gun oil, night vision equipment, long range scopes, steel bear traps, guard dogs, poison, razor wire, C-4 and all the most viscous hardware imaginable to be as creative and badass as you can be!

  17. By electrical wire and generators blankets and ground rods and make booby traps that will electrocute the enemy! Hahahahahaha

  18. May be a bit off topic, but when the wife found out she was pregnant soon after we got together, she was nervous about telling me at first. When she finally did say she was pregnant, I was like, pregnant? With a baby? Wow! So, where do they come from?
    We both agree the in utero genocide has to stop.

  19. “Animals are God’s creatures, not human property, nor utilities, nor resources, nor commodities, but precious beings in God’s sight… Christians whose eyes are fixed on the awfulness of crucifixion are in a special position to understand the awfulness of innocent suffering. The Cross of Christ is God’s absolute identification with the weak, the powerless, and the vulnerable, but most of all with unprotected, undefended, innocent suffering.”

    –Oxford theologian and Anglican priest Reverend Andrew Linzey, from the PETA website, http://www.jesusveg.com

    Along the lines of Reverend Linzey’s words above, I would argue pro-life Christians are in a special position to understand animal rights: the animals’ right to life.

    “The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves—the animals.”

    –John Stuart Mill

    In his book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals, Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, notes that “In some ways, Christian thinking is already oriented in this direction. What is it that so appalls us about cruelty to children or oppression of the vulnerable, but that these things are betrayals of relationships of special care and special trust? Likewise in the case of animals who are mostly defenseless before us.”

    A rational case exists for the rights of preborn humans. The case for animal rights is equally compelling. Animals are highly complex creatures, possessing a brain, a central nervous system and a sophisticated mental life.

    Animals actually suffer at the hands of their human tormentors and exhibit such “human” behaviors and feelings as fear and physical pain, defense of their children, pair bonding, group/tribal loyalty, grief at the loss of loved ones, joy, jealousy, competition, territoriality, and cooperation.

    Dr. Tom Regan, the foremost intellectual leader of the animal rights movement and author of The Case for Animal Rights, notes that animals:

    “…have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; and emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference and welfare interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, logically independent of their utility for others and logically independent of their being the object of anyone else’s interests.”

    While it is known that the feminist movement originally opposed abortion as “child-murder” (Susan B. Anthony’s words) and as a form of violence that women are forced to turn to in a patriarchal society, a society that shows virtually no concern or respect for new mothers, it is generally not known that many of the early American feminists—including Lucy Stone, Amelia Bloomer, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton — were connected with the 19th century animal welfare movement. Together, they would meet with anti-slavery editor Horace Greeley to toast “Women’s Rights and Vegetarianism.”

    Many of the early American feminists thus saw animal rights as social progress, women’s rights and civil rights. Count Leo Tolstoy similarly described ethical vegetarianism as social progress:

    “And there are ideas of the future, of which some are already approaching realization and are obliging people to change their way of life and to struggle against the former ways: such ideas in our world as those of freeing the laborers, of giving equality to women, of ceasing to use flesh-food, and so on.”

    The case for animal rights and vegetarianism should be readily understandable to the millions of Americans opposed to abortion on demand.

    “Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles,” writes pro-life activist Karen Swallow Prior, “there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement. Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to ‘Get a Life!’

    “Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience, and in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and nonviolence.”

    Both the anti-abortion and animal rights movements consider their causes — extending rights to the unborn and/or extending rights to animals — social progress, like the abolition of human slavery or the emancipation of women. Leaders in both movements have even compared themselves to the abolitionists who sought to end human slavery.

    Dr. J.C. Willke, former head of National Right to Life, entitled a book Abortion and Slavery. Like abortion opponents drawing a parallel between the Dred Scott decision and Roe v. Wade, Dr. Tom Regan also draws a parallel between human and animal slavery in The Case for Animal Rights:

    “The very notion that farm animals should continue to be viewed as legal property must be challenged. To view them in this way implies that we cannot make sense of viewing them as legal persons. But the history of the law shows only too well, and too painfully, how arbitrary the law can be on this crucial matter. Those humans who were slaves were not recognized as legal persons in pre-Civil War America.

    “There is no reason to assume that because animals are not presently accorded this status that they cannot intelligibly be viewed in this way or that they should not be. If our predecessors had made this same assumption in the case of human slaves, the legal status of these human beings would have remained unchanged.”

    Both movements see themselves extending rights to an excluded class of beings. Both movements claim to be speaking on behalf of a group unable to defend themselves from oppression. Both movements compare the mass destruction of, in one case the unborn, and in the other case, the mass killing of animals, to the Nazi Holocaust.

    Both movements have components that engage in nonviolent civil disobedience and both have their militant factions: Operation Rescue and the Animal Liberation Front. Both have picketed the homes of physicians who either experiment upon animals or perform abortions. The controversial use of human fetal tissue and embryonic stem cells for medical research brings these two causes even closer together.

    Both movements are usually depicted in the popular news media as extremists, fanatics, terrorists, etc. who violate the law. But both movements also have their intelligentsia: moral philosophers, physicians, clergymen, legal counsel, etc.

    Feminist writer Carol J. Adams notes the parallels between the two movements: “A woman attempts to enter a building. Others, massed outside, try to thwart her attempt. They shout at her, physically block her way, frantically call her names, pleading with her to respect life. Is she buying a fur coat or getting an abortion?”

    The Fur Information Council of America asks: “If fashion isn’t about freedom of choice, what is? Personal choice is not just a fur industry issue. It’s everybody’s issue.” Like the abortion debate, lines are drawn. “Freedom of choice” vs. Taking an innocent life. “Personal lifestyle” vs. violating another’s rights.

    Animal rights activists have even proven themselves to be “anti-choice” depending upon the issue. A letter in The Animals’ Voice Magazine, for example, states:

    “Exit polls in Aspen, Colorado, after the failed 1989 fur ban was voted on, found that most people were against fur but wanted people to have a choice to wear it. Instead of giving in, we should take the offensive and state in no uncertain terms that to abuse and kill animals is wrong, period! There is no choice because another being had to suffer to produce that item… an eventual ban on fur would be impossible if we tell people that they have some sort of ‘choice’ to kill… remember, no one has the ‘right to choose’ death over life for another being.”

    Similarly, a letter in Veg-News reads:

    “I did have some concerns about (the) Veg Psych column which asserted that we must respect a non-vegan’s ‘right to choose’ her / his food. While I would never advocate intolerance (quite the opposite actually), arguing that we have a ‘right to choose’ when it comes to eating meat, eggs, and dairy is akin to saying we have a ‘right to choose’ to beat dogs, harass wildlife, and torture cats.

    “Each is a clear example of animal cruelty, whether we’re the perpetrators ourselves, or the ones who pay others to commit the violence on our behalf. Clearly, we have the ability to choose to cause animal abuse, but that doesn’t translate into a right to make that choice.”

    Recognizing the rights of another class of beings, of course, limits our freedoms and our choices, and requires a change in our personal lifestyle. The abolition of (human) slavery is good example of this. Both movements, however, appear to be imposing their own personal moral convictions upon the rest of our secular society.

    Animal rights activists point out the health hazards associated with meat and dairy products, while anti-abortion activists try to educate the public about the link between abortion and breast cancer.

    The threat of “overpopulation” is frequently used to justify abortion as birth control. On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world’s cattle alone consume enough to feed 8.7 billion humans.

    Both movements make use of similar political tactics, such as economic boycotting. Both movements make use of graphic photos or videos of abortion victims or tortured animals. Both movements speak of respecting life and of compassion.

    Both movements cite studies that unnecessary violence towards an oppressed class of beings leads to worse forms of violence in human society — this is known as the “slippery slope.” The term was coined by Malcolm Muggeridge, a pro-life vegetarian.

    Anti-abortion activists, for example, consider abortion the ultimate form of child abuse, and claim that since abortion was legalized, child abuse rates have risen dramatically. Acceptance of abortion, they argue, leads to a devaluation of life, and paves the way towards acceptance of infanticide and euthanasia. Animal rights activists, likewise, compare the lives of animals to those of young human children, and insist that a lack of respect for the rights of animals brutalizes humans into insensitivity towards one another.

    In his Pulitzer Prize nominated book, Diet for a New America, for example, author John Robbins writes of a Soviet study, published in Ogonyok, which found that over 87 percent of a group of violent criminals had, as children, burned, hanged or stabbed domestic animals. An American study by Dr. Stephen Kellert of Yale found that children who abuse animals have a much higher likelihood of becoming violent criminals. A 1997 study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) reported that children convicted of animal abuse are five times more likely to commit violence against other humans than are their peers, and four times more likely to be involved in acts against property.

    Pro-lifers have reason to be especially concerned about violence towards animals. Animals are sentient beings possessing many mental capacities comparable to those of young human children. If we fail to see them as part of our moral community, how will we ever embrace humans in their earliest stages of development? Anti-abortionists look in horror as an entire class of humans are systematically stripped of their rights, executed, and even used as tools for medical research. Yet this is what we humans have been doing to animals for millennia.

    Marjorie Spiegel, author of The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery, writes: “All oppression and violence is intimately and ultimately linked, and to think that we can end prejudice and violence to one group without ending prejudice and violence to another is utter folly.”

    Mostly religious in nature, the anti-abortion movement will need to become completely secular, as it attempts to convince the courts, the legislatures, philosophers, ethicists and universities that human zygotes and embryos should be regarded as legal persons.

    Conversely, the animal rights movement is secular and nonsectarian, but — like the civil rights movement before it — will need the inspiration, blessings and support of organized religion to help end injustices towards animals.

    Otherwise, Christians cry “MOVE” as if we were talking about some lifeless, soulless thing devoid of religious inspiration, like the past five hundred years of *secular* social progress —

    …democracy and representative government in place of monarchy and belief in the divine right of kings; the separation of church and state; the abolition of human slavery; the emancipation of women; birth control; the sexual revolution; LGBT rights, etc…

    — all of which were resisted by previous generations of Christians, but which conservative Christians today now take for granted!

    The Reverend Marc Wessels, Executive Director of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA), made this observation on Earth Day, 1990:

    “It is a fact that no significant social reform has yet taken place in this country without the voice of the religious community being heard. The endeavors of the abolition of slavery; the women’s suffrage movement; the emergence of the pacifist tradition during World War I; the struggle to support civil rights, labor unions and migrant farm workers; and the anti-nuclear and peace movements have all succeeded in part because of the power and support of organized religion. Such authority and energy is required by individual Christians and the institutional church today if the liberation of animals is to become a reality.”

    At a speech before the National Right to Life Convention in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, on July 15, 1982, Reverend Richard John Neuhaus of the Evangelical Lutheran Church said:

    “…The mark of a humane and progressive society is an ever more expansive definition of the community for which we accept responsibility… The pro-life movement is one with the movement for the emancipation of slaves. This is the continuation of the civil rights movement, for you are the champions of the most elementary civil, indeed human right — simply the right to be.”

    While there are indeed similarities between the present day anti-abortion movement and the anti-slavery movement of centuries past, the pro-life movement, actually, has a lot in common with the animal protection movement—a fact which pro-lifers should readily acknowledge. The animal rights movement should be supported by all caring Americans.

    Ingrid Newkirk, Executive Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, admitted in an interview with Dennis Prager, that the animal rights movement is divided on the issue of abortion.

    Where should an animal rights activist stand with regards to abortion?

    Mohandas Gandhi, India’s great apostle of nonviolence, once wrote, “It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.”

    C.S. Lewis and other Christians have acknowledged that denying rights to animals merely because they do not exhibit the same level of rational thought most humans exhibit upon reaching full development means denying rights to the mentally handicapped, the senile, and many other classes of humans as well. Herein lies the basis for better understanding and cooperation between two movements seeking liberty and justice for all.

  20. Vasu…GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You know NOTHING at all about Christians!!!!!!!!! Neither do you have any clue what the Bible teaches. It is just words to you. God is very clear that He gave us animals for food. But just go and ignore that part.

  21. In her 1982 article, “All Abortions are Selective”, pro-life feminist Jo McGowan asks about sex-selective abortions:

    “What are we to make of all this? Without denying in any sense the depravity of killing baby girls simply because they are girls, I submit that the position (pro-choice) feminists have taken on this issue is morally bankrupt, without substance of any kind.

    “Why? Because one cannot have it both ways. Once the abortion of any child, for any reason, is permitted, the abortion of all children becomes acceptable.

    “If it is all right to kill a child because it is handicapped, or because its mother is unmarried, or because it is the third child in a family that only wanted two, why isn’t it all right to kill it because it is a girl?

    “This process of aborting girls when boys are wanted has been termed ‘selective abortion’, but in fact every abortion is a selective one. What changes from case to case are only the values of the parents, determining what they select and what they reject…

    “(Pro-choice) feminists who have been so active in assuring women of the ‘right to choose’ can hardly complain when those same women exercise their freedom to choose something with which (pro-choice) feminists do not agree.

    “Choice being such a highly personal affair, one can hardly expect everyone to choose the same things. But it is tragically ironic that what has been hailed as the ‘great liberator’ of women may turn out instead to be the means of their destruction…

    “Perhaps, however, something good may yet emerge from this ‘female feticide’ outrage. Perhaps people, and (pro-choice) feminists in particular, will finally realize what is actually at stake in an abortion, any abortion.

    “Perhaps from this undeniable truth that it is wrong to kill girls will emerge the larger truth that it is wrong to kill anyone.”

    In the 1970s, pro-life feminist Juli Loesch wrote:

    “Each woman has the right (to contraception)… But once a woman has conceived, she can no longer choose whether or not to become a mother.

    Biologically, she is already a mother… the woman’s rights are then limited, as every right is limited, by the existence of another human being who also has rights.”

    Pro-life feminist Ruth Enero similarly refers to a “narrowing of choices.”

    This point was made in a September 2000 article, “Abortion and the Left” which appeared in the Stanislaus Connections, a monthly newspaper put out by the Modesto, CA Peace/Life Center:

    Recognizing the rights of another class of beings limits our freedoms and our choices and requires a change in our lifestyle — the abolition of (human) slavery is a good example of this.

    Are whites free to own slaves or lynch blacks?

    No! Because of the civil rights movement, we’ve corrected that injustice.

    Is domestic violence tolerated?

    No! Because of the women’s movement, domestic violence is unacceptable.

    Should hate crimes against LGBTs be permitted under the guise of “choice”?

    No! LGBTs have rights.

    This isn’t rocket science, but if animals have rights, then our freedoms and choices to commit crimes against animals are similarly limited.

    This point was made clear by pro-life feminist Ginny Desmond Billinger, in an article entitled “Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic,” which originally appeared in the September/October 1982 issue of Minnesota Feminists For Life, and which later appeared in the Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices anthology in 1985:

    “Let’s take a look at just a few of the other issues that I, as an avowed antichoicer, am ready to address:

    “Spouse and child beating — here, my position is unhesitatingly anti-choice. My perspective as a spouse, a parent, and a former child qualifies me to support all measures to remove from people the freedom to choose to abuse their family members–even in the privacy of their own homes.

    “Drunk driving — Again, anti-choice. I’m afraid I must impose my morality on those who would choose to operate life-threatening machines while influenced by alcohol, and ask them to temporarily abstain from one or the other.

    “Gun control — Despite the big-bucks, ‘constitutional rights’ lobbying by the NRA, I remain consistently anti-choice on this issue. The memory of a friend, forces me to reject any justification for handgun ownership without strict regulation.

    “Endangered species protection — Faced with a whale-hunter or seal-clubber, I’ll take a hard line anti-choice stand every time.

    “Hazardous waste disposal — We’re talking about the rights of corporate America vs. the average Joe here, but my anti-choice position still applies. The right to choose efficient business practices must always be weighed against the public’s right to a safe environment. Ditto for occupational safety and health issues.

    “I expect that these declarations will leave me open to censure; I will no doubt be labeled a heretic. The American principle of personal liberty would surely suffer with the propagation of my anti-choice philosophy…

    “So call me what you will: pro-life, anti-choice, fetus-worshiper, anti-abortion. A thousand labels will never alter the certainty that the road to freedom cannot be paved with the sacrificed rights of others.”

    Animal rights activists have even proven themselves to be “anti-choice” depending upon the issue. A 1994 letter to The Animals’ Voice Magazine, for example, states:

    “Exit polls in Aspen, Colorado, after the failed 1989 fur ban was voted on, found that most people were against fur but wanted people to have a choice to wear it. Instead of giving in, we should take the offensive and state in no uncertain terms that to abuse and kill animals is wrong, period! There is no choice because another being had to suffer to produce that item… an eventual ban on fur would be impossible if we tell people that they have some sort of ‘choice’ to kill… remember, no one has the ‘right to choose’ death over life for another being.”

    Similarly, a 2003 letter in Veg-News reads: “I did have some concerns about (the) Veg Psych column which asserted that we must respect a non-vegan’s ‘right to choose’ her/his food.

    “While I would never advocate intolerance (quite the opposite actually), arguing that we have a ‘right to choose’ when it comes to eating meat, eggs, and dairy is akin to saying we have a ‘right to choose’ to beat dogs, harass wildlife, and torture cats.

    “Each is a clear example of animal cruelty, whether we’re the perpetrators ourselves, or the ones who pay others to commit the violence on our behalf.

    “Clearly, we have the ability to choose to cause animal abuse, but that doesn’t translate into a right to make that choice.”

    “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment,” insists People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which was founded in 1980.

    As the animal rights movement continues to influence mainstream society, humankind is finally ending millennia of injustices against animals.

  22. The anthology Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices (1985) contains observations by numerous pro-life feminists on the subject of abortion. According to these pro-life feminists, abortion is not the answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancy, it is merely a band-aid which prevents real reforms from taking place regarding society’s treatment of women.

    Susan Maronek, for example, writes: “Abortion, in the final analysis, works to the advantage of the exploitative male, not for the female. It provides an end to any and all financial, legal or social obligation which comes with childbirth by eliminating the possibility of birth. Abortion provides the ultimate rationale when pressing for sexual favors. It makes the female a perpetual and re-usable sex object. When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the female is potentially left without any social support…

    “The male can remove himself from the situation, physically or mentally because abortion is ‘her’ right. The female is left with the sole and final legal responsibility for killing their offspring. It is her body and mind which bear the scars of this destructive operation and experience… Abortion is a male sexual fantasy come true.”

    Pregnancy and childbirth are *natural*. The ability to bear children is the one thing which truly distinguishes women from men. Demanding the right to abort in order to achieve equality implies women must become males in order to compete and survive in a man’s world. Rosemary Bottcher points out that abortion reduces women to the status of sex machines which can be “repaired,” if necessary. She refers to it as the “castration of women.”

    “What we need now,” writes Jo McGowan, “is a race of woman who will stand up and say NO! The violence ends here. The misogyny ends here. The destruction of our children ends here. No longer will our bodies be used to write messages of fear and hatred. We hold within our bodies the power of creation, the power to nourish and sustain life. We shall not pervert these to serve death.”

    “Abortion is the destruction of human life and energy that does nothing to eradicate the very real underlying problems of women,” writes Cecilia Voss Koch. “The pregnant welfare mother begs for decent housing, a decent job and childcare or respect for her child-nurturing work. Instead, she gets direction to the local abortion clinic and is told to take care of ‘her problem.’ How convenient. Much less time and trouble than teaching her about authentic reproductive freedom and reproductive responsibility. Much cheaper than attending to her real problems: her poverty, her lack of skills, her illiteracy, her loneliness, her bitterness about her entrapment, her self-contempt, her vulnerability. After the abortion, these problems will all be there…

    “By encouraging society to consider a woman’s child as a disposable piece of property, aborting reinforces the image of woman herself as disposable property and reusable sex object — a renewable resource. It is no coincidence that the biggest single financial contributor to the cause of ‘abortion rights’ is the Playboy Foundation. When abortion is available to all women, all male responsibility for fertility control has been removed. A man need only offer a woman money for the abortion and that’s it: no responsibility, no relationship, no commitment. And there we are — recycled and used again!”

    Feminist writer Mary Ann Schaefer refers to abortion-rights feminism as “terrorist feminism” because you have to be “willing to kill for the cause you believe in…”

    Abortion, of course, merely reflects a larger problem. Abortion is symptomatic of the rampant sexism within our society — it is not the cure. Television advertisements, sitcoms, women’s books, magazines, etc. are still sexist in nature.

    Most imply that women are nothing more than homemakers, or that their only goal in life is to catch a man. Women still earn only 60 cents for every dollar a man makes. The average pay of female college graduates is equivalent to that of males who graduated from high school. Only 0.8 percent of all working women earn over $25,000 per year.

    The majority of working women are unorganized and underpaid. Working mothers are also forced to pay for childcare and still tend to be segregated into women’s jobs. A 1981 survey, for example, found that 75 percent of all practicing physicians were male. Abortion itself is a huge practice run by entrepreneurs — mostly males — with $320 million in yearly profits.

    “If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic or social status,” writes Daphne de Jong, “they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience.”

    “Collectively, society is eroded by abortion,” writes Juli Loesch. “Society at large can say: ‘Lady, we feel no particular responsibility for your little problem because there is nothing to feel responsible for; so just terminate your problem and everybody will breathe easier.’ Lacking the secure base of a caring community, women whose pregnancies are an emotional, social or financial burden are thrown onto the demands of a rather heartless individualism.”

    In a 1989 opinion editorial on the subject of abortion entitled “The Bitter Price of Choice,” pro-life feminist Frederica Matthewes-Green, wrote: “It is a cruel joke to call this a woman’s ‘choice.’ We may choose to sacrifice our life and career plans, or choose to undergo humiliating invasive surgery and sacrifice our offspring. How fortunate we are—we have a choice! Perhaps it’s time to amend the slogan — ‘Abortion: a woman’s right to capitulate.’”

    In her article, “The Feminist Case Against Abortion,” which originally appeared in the September 13, 1999 issue of The Commonwealth, Serrin Foster, Executive Director of Feminists For Life, wrote:

    “The feminist movement was born more than two hundred years ago when Mary Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. After decrying the sexual exploitation of women, she condemned those who would ‘either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born.’ Shortly thereafter, abortion became illegal in Great Britain.

    “The now revered feminists of the 19th century were also strongly opposed to abortion because of their belief in the worth of all humans. Like many women in developing countries today, they opposed abortion even though they were acutely aware of the damage done to women through constant child-bearing. They opposed abortion despite knowing that half of all children born died before the age of five. They knew that women had virtually no rights within the family or the political sphere. But they did not believe abortion was the answer.

    “Ironically,” noted Foster, “the anti-abortion laws that early feminists worked so hard to enact to protect women and children were the very ones destroyed by the Roe v. Wade decision one hundred years later — a decision hailed by the National Organization for Women (NOW) as the ‘emancipation of women.’

    “The goals of the more recent NOW-led women’s movement with respect to abortion would have outraged the early feminists,” concluded Foster. “What Elizabeth Cady Stanton called a ‘disgusting and degrading crime’ has been heralded by Eleanor Smeal, former president of NOW and current president of the Fund for a Feminist Majority, as a ‘most fundamental right.’”

    Feminists For Life, PO Box 151567, Alexandria, VA 22315

  23. You’d think the unborn-right-to-lifers would immediately understand the animal-right-to-lifers! The case for animal rights should be readily understandable to the millions of Americans opposed to abortion on demand.

    “Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles,” writes pro-life Democrat Karen Swallow Prior, “there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement. Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to ‘Get a Life!’ Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience, and in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and nonviolence.”

    The animal rights movement, representing a cross-section of mainstream secular American society, is NOT “officially pro-choice,” but IS divided on abortion. In a 1992 interview on Dennis Prager’s conservative talk show, when specifically asked about the animal rights position on abortion, Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), admitted, “We’re divided.”

    Former television game show host Bob Barker is a conservative Republican and an animal activist. Tony LaRussa of the Animal Rescue Foundation is a political conservative. Vegan labor leader Cesar Chavez was pro-life. Vegan civil rights leader Dick Gregory was pro-life. Former Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy, a devout pacifist, has expressed opposition to abortion, and in the 1980s was critical of Reverend Jesse Jackson for having changed sides on the issue.

    Dixie Mahy, past president of the San Francisco Vegetarian Society, has been vegetarian for sixty years, vegan for forty of those sixty years, and identifies herself as pro-life-and-pro-animal Matthew Scully, a conservative Catholic and former speechwriter for George W. Bush identifies himself as “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life.” Catholic Concern for Animals is pro-life-and-pro-animal. Reverend Frank Hoffman’s http://www.all-creatures.org Christian vegan website is pro-life-and-pro-animal Compassion for animals is a fundamental tenet of the Baha’i faith, which endorses vegetarianism, says abortion is more a matter of individual conscience, but concludes, without taking a position on abortion, life should not be destroyed.

    John Stuart Mill wrote: “The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves — the animals.”

    Animals are like children. Henry Bergh, founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), successfully prosecuted a woman for child abuse in 1873, at a time when children had no legal protection, under the then currently existing animal protection statutes. This case started the child-saving crusade around the world.

    In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey writes: “In some ways, Christian thinking is already oriented in this direction. What is it that so appalls us about cruelty to children or oppression of the vulnerable, but that these things are betrayals of relationships of special care and special trust? Likewise, and even more so, in the case of animals who are mostly defenseless before us.”

    When told the animal rights movement is divided on abortion, Serrin Foster, Executive Director of Feminists For Life, said understandingly, “The Children’s Defense Fund is also divided on abortion.” Feminists For Life has many vegetarians and vegans. Serrin identifies herself as a vegetarian.

    From 1992 through 2003, James Dawson, raised Catholic and now a Buddhist, published Live and Let Live, a pro-life / animal rights / libertarian ‘zine. The ancient eastern reincarnationist religions Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism all predate Christianity, all oppose abortion, all teach ahimsa, or nonviolence towards humans and animals alike to the point of vegetarianism, all are vegan-friendly, and all teach that abortion and war are the karma for killing animals, and that therefore, we cannot end abortion nor bring about world peace until first we abolish the killing of animals.

    This knowledge, however, does not rest with everyone. Not all pro-life-and-pro-animal people advocate the reincarnationist strategy for ending abortion and bringing about world peace. Shay Van Vlieman, founder of Vegans For Life in the late ’90s, said she doesn’t expect to see a vegan president in her lifetime: she would just be glad to elect a president who will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. And she insists she is not a Republican, but a libertarian!

    During the late 1990s, Rachel MacNair, a Quaker pacifist, feminist, vegan, past president of Feminists For Life, moderated an email list for pro-life vegetarians and pro-life vegans. Rachel is now a psychology professor, and has written several books on nonviolence. In 1998, the Animals Agenda ran a cover story on the debate within the animal rights movement over abortion. Vegan congressman Dennis Kucinich (D – Ohio), one of the most liberal members of Congress, was pro-life throughout most of his political career.

    Pro-life vegetarians and pro-life vegans are found within the “consistent-ethic” movement: pro-lifers opposed to capital punishment. A significant number of “consistent-ethic” Christians were / are vegetarian or vegan: Rose Evans, Ruth Enero, Rachel MacNair, Albert Fecko, Carol Crossed, Bill Samuel, Mary Krane Derr, Mary Rider, Father John Dear, etc.

    Mary Rider, a practicing Catholic, wrote in Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a “consistent-ethic” periodical in 2002:

    “So we teach our children to walk softly on the earth and to embrace nonviolence as the only legitimate means of conflict resolution, on both a personal and a global level. We are aware of the excessive, privileged life we lead as educated, first world U.S. citizens and of the responsibilities to which our privilege calls us. We try to live simply. We eat low on the food chain. We try to buy nothing new… We try to respect all life and carry that message forward in all we do… Because we value people and relationships over things… First world consumption kills people around the world… Pollution, environmental devastation, corrupt governments, war, sweatshops… all are a are a result of our desire to buy more at a lower price… We believe each person has a right to live a valued and respected life free from hunger and discrimination…”

    The threat of overpopulation is frequently used to justify abortion as birth control. On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a human population several times its present size. The world’s cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans. Even if abortion advocates argue shifting to a plant-based diet, a vegan diet, isn’t enough to stave off overpopulation, in light of the data showing the depletion of energy, food, fresh water, land space, raw materials and resources as well as the heavy contribution to air and water pollution, deforestization, and global warming caused by a meat-centered diet, how do abortion advocates — warning about overpopulation consuming the world’s resources — justify consuming animal products?

    If vegetarianism were merely about “fit” or following a peculiar set of “dietary laws” why are pro-lifers offended by pro-choice vegetarians and pro-choice vegans? Clearly, they’re offended because they know vegetarianism involves the animals’ right to life, and thus these pro-choicers appear to value animal life over human life under some circumstances. And issues like animal experimentation, circuses, and fur have nothing to do with diet, eating, nor food, but do involve the animals’ right to life. Leonardo Da Vinci, Count Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, George Bernard Shaw, Susan B. Anthony, Percy Shelley, Rosa Parks, etc. were all vegetarian, and none of them were Jewish nor Muslim.

    For Love of Animals: Christian Ethics, Consistent Action offers an introduction to animal rights ethics within Christianity alongside directly related sanctity-of-life issues, like the possible rights of unborn children. The book’s foreword is written by Mary Eberstadt, senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC, a Catholic who identifies herself as “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life.”

    Author Charles Camosy responds to criticisms from academicians Peter Singer and Lynn White, Jr., that the misinterpretation of “human dominion” (versus compassionate stewardship) is responsible for the current ecological crisis. Camosy indicates that Christianity cannot be blamed if humans with their imperfections distort their own religious teachings, that Christianity did not give rise to the industrial revolution, and that real Christianity — as it was meant to be practiced — is at odds with market-driven ethics and mass consumerism (a point made decades ago by liberal Protestant theologian Dr. Harvey Cox). Camosy concludes: “I became convinced that, if I wanted to be authentically and consistently pro-life, I should give up eating meat.” Dozens of books have been written on Christianity and animal rights. Camosy merely provides an overview of animal ethics in Christianity.

    Steve Kaufman, head of the Christian Vegetarian Association, was raised Jewish, and is now serving in the United Church of Christ, America’s largest pro-choice Protestant denomination. Steve expressed interest in Democrats For Life, his only reservation was whether Democrats For Life favors criminalizing abortion. Some animal advocates and activists (like Catholic vegan columnist Colman McCarthy) oppose abortion, but don’t think criminalization is the answer.

    In 2004, on the Democrats For Life email list, Maria Krasinski mentioned a poll which found animal activists evenly divided on abortion. This either indicates animal rights really are a bipartisan cause which conservatives can support alongside liberals, or it indicates many liberals are uncomfortable with abortion!

    In 2014, Kristen Day of Democrats For Life said: “Roughly a third of the Democratic Party is pro-life. And while many do not call themselves liberal, they share the values which seem to identify with liberalism, particularly a commitment to helping the vulnerable and providing a social safety net.”

    The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights, Defending the Affordable Care Act, Ending Citizens United, Ending Marijuana Prohibition, Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats, Gun Control, Net Neutrality, Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour, Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, and a Sustainable Energy Policy.

    Democrats for Life of America, 10521 Judicial Drive, #200, Fairfax, VA 22030, (703) 424-6663

  24. ‪Expose, Boycott, Sue, prosecute and bring to justice all these lying Fake News deep state treasonous Godless NAZI commie liberal demoncrats and RINOs post-haste,Patriots! Drain the rat infested swamp President Trump!‬!

  25. Where in the Constitution does it make any mention of abortion or marriage. As it is not mentioned it is up to each state to decide, not a black robe judge..

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here