The U.S. Supreme Court just handed Nancy Pelosi and the pro-abortion industry their worst defeat of 2019

51

President Trump dealt the pro-abortion industry serious defeats in his first term.

But the Abortion Lobby just received news that will ruin their day.

That’s because the U.S. Supreme Court just handed Nancy Pelosi and the pro-abortion industry their greatest defeat of 2019.

Pro-lifers made historic gains in the fight for the right to life since President Trump took office.

States such as Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana have all passed strong pro-life legislation into law sending the radical Left into complete meltdown mode.

And the U.S. Supreme Court just rejected a challenge to Kentucky’s pro-life law requiring doctors to describe ultrasound images and play the fetal heartbeat those requesting an abortion.

CNN reports:

By rejecting this challenge to Kentucky’s pro-life law, the court is signaling a pro-life position.

There are several cases in lower courts that are attempting to challenge the tragic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

If one of these cases were to reach the Supreme Court, the most pro-life court in American history could review the 1973 decision.

Naturally, the Left is going nuts.

Politicians like Nancy Pelosi, a champion for the Abortion Lobby, is fighting tooth and nail to keep abortion legal, widely available, and subsidized by taxpayers.

The Abortion Lobby won’t publicly admit, but they are on the losing side of history.

Under President Trump, the pro-life movement can expect to continue making historic gains for the unborn.

What do you think? Will the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade someday?

Sound off in the comments below.

51 COMMENTS

  1. Loading...
  2. YEs the Supreme Courts decision was a heavy blow to pro-abortionist, I also believe the pro-life movement will be victorious over this insane ideology of death.

    I thank God for Trump on this fight. And if this were the only reason to vote for Trump I would gladly vote for him.
    I am a Christian Consetvative who is registered as an Independent. I proudly declare I voted for Trump & that I will do so again – As will all my family members.

  3. The federal government should not be involved with abortion at all. It should be left up to the states individually to decide. Southern states have the right to be pro choice, and states like NY and CA can vote to be baby murderers if that’s what they want. The founders never intended for the federal government to be so large with it’s hands in everything. There is nothing in the constitution stating women have a right to murder babies. The life of a baby Trumps a woman’s right to her body. No pun intended.

  4. I disagree – if the decision is left to the States, some will remain pro-abortion and the
    whole thrust of the pro-lifers will be nullified by States with legislatures like California
    and New York (just to mention two).
    In the case of My benighted State, California, I know our “leaders” would welcome the
    abortion crowd. The money they bring would offset a little of the lost taxes due to the
    moving out of hundreds of people and businesses.
    The Supreme Court must reverse Roe V Wade or abortions will continue.
    Robert Bork was right – it was a lousy, flimsy, excuse for a decision!

  5. 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 over a decade ago 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

  6. When science discovers the gene that causes sexual orientation and right-wingers begin aborting LGBT fetuses, what will the LGBT community do? Align themselves with the homophobic right merely paying lip service in their opposition to abortion? Side with pro-choice Democrats allowing prenatal hate crimes against LGBTs to take place under the guise of “choice”? Or join Democrats For Life?

    “I don’t believe in abortion on demand. The day we can solve the world’s population problem, the problem of browns in Central America, the problems of blacks in the ghetto, by aborting them, that’s unacceptable to me.

    “How about the kids in mental hospitals? They’re parasites on the environment. How about the old people in the institutions? They’re cluttering up the landscape. Do you want to exterminate them, too?”

    —Senator Ted Kennedy, 1970 Campaign for Senate

    (taken from Kristen Day’s 2006 book, Pro-Life Democrats.)

    Kennedy’s position wasn’t always in line with abortion advocacy groups, one of many formerly pro-life Democrats who changed with the political winds as the party moved from one influenced by pro-life southern Democrats and pro-life Catholics to one dominated by the abortion-rights feminist groups like NARAL and Emily’s List.

    Kennedy displayed an eloquent pro-life position in 1971, prior to Roe v. Wade, when he wrote a letter to Catholic League member Tom Dennelly.

    “While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life.

    “Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized—the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old,” he wrote.

    “On the question of the individual’s freedom of choice there are easily available birth control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire,” he added.

    “When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception,” he concluded.

    Other prominent pro-life Democrats who eventually abandoned the courage of their convictions include former president Bill Clinton, Dick Durbin, civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, and “common ground” congressman Tim Ryan.

    In an article appearing in the September 1980 issue of The Progressive entitled, “Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life,” Mary Meehan wrote:

    “If much of the leadership of the pro-life movement is right-wing, that is due largely to the default of the left.

    “We people who marched against the war and now march against abortion would like to see leaders of the left speaking out on behalf of the unborn.

    “But we see only a few, such as Dick Gregory, Mark Hatfield, Richard Neuhaus, Mary Rose Oakar. Most of the others either avoid the issue or support abortion.

    “We are dismayed by their inconsistency. And we are not impressed by arguments that we should work and vote for them because they are good on such issues as food stamps and medical care…

    “It is out of character for the left to neglect the weak and the helpless. The traditional mark of the left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor.

    “The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas.

    “The basic instinct of the left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves—and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going.”

    Meehan stated elsewhere:

    “Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who led Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 antiwar campaign in Wisconsin and later served as head of the state’s American Civil Liberties Union, wrote a ‘Farewell to Liberalism’ several years ago.

    “Sykes cited several areas of disagreement and disillusionment, then added, ‘It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed.’ He said that liberals’ arguments in support of abortion ‘could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide.’”

  7. 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.

    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

  8. 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

  9. Nancy said that she is a catholic and doesn’t HATE.Thats strange because she is all for KILLING babies through ABORTION. What a HYPOCRITE .I am a catholic and against this insidious ABORTION.She is as catholic as LENIN.

  10. Ah yes, the great Vasu enlightens us with his great wisdom! Translation, Vasu is putting out his hate, lies, and cut-and-paste Satanic diatribes again!

    Vasu, you have failed, get over it! Maybe you should try convincing CNN to hire you so you can write your garbage there because nobody here cares about you or your “postings”!

  11. Sadly regardless of whether R v W is overturned or not Abortion will continue just as it did Before RvW. The best defense we could hope for in reality is the seeker getting better information about not only the current pregnancy but future pregnancies can be in jeopardy with repeated abortion on request. Kentucky’s approach is in the right direction but legislation limiting the number of abortions allowed with the requirement by law of tubal ligation after say 2-3 might help folks to be cognizant that THEY are responsible for their sexual behavior, they are options out there that don’t require killing! Easment of adoption laws might also help so those who would adopt could more easily. But there should be better protections for adopters where you sign you live with the decision permanently! Abortion decision is permanent, why shouldn’t release for adoption carry the same permanence?

  12. The Wicked Witch of the West and her vodka soaked liver and mind is demented by leftism and her hate for Trump. Her own priest and bishop will not administer the Eucharist to her because of her radical activist views on murdering babies.

  13. Democrats say they want to make abortion safe and legal. I say abortion is not safe for the baby and murder is not legal.

  14. Pro lifeers have been yearning since January 22, 1973 for a return to civility and common sense. It has been a long hard battle often with one step forward two steps back. The culture of death promoted by the pro choice aka pro abortion is very difficult to overcome. I have never seen such positive movement, two seps forward, one step back as has been occurring since January 2017. President Trump has given us so much hope. Please, God let him continue until we can rid our country of this scourge

  15. And Planned Parenthood should not be funded by the federal government as well. Their name alone shows the hypocrisy of the left.

  16. Vasu, one day you WILL stand before Jesus to be judged and He will know that you know nothing at all about Christianity and it will really suck to be you

  17. Zzzz-zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Cut and paste, copy and paste, it’s all the same with Vasu’s long winded idiotic voluminous statements that no one reads!!!

  18. Great idea Diana….I have known people that had to go to other countries to adopt babies….And…one thing that is hardly mentioned is PROTECTION! AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I for one, hate that OUR TAX DOLLARS fund this crap.

  19. Great idea Diana….I have known people that had to go to other countries to adopt babies….And…one thing that is hardly mentioned is PROTECTION! AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I for one, hate that OUR TAX DOLLARS fund this crap.

  20. Actually, the closer that ANTI-choice comes, to revoking womens choices, in life, the closer that the United States comes to repealing the 19th amendment.

    All of life is about CHOICES. Good ones, and BAD ones. Under the U.S. Constitution, every adult has the right to make their own choices.

    The more rights that ANTI-choice takes away, the closer that the United States comes, to a return to the days of SLAVERY, and female subservience.

    And, take HEAD! My fellow males.

    IF ANTI-choice has it their way, how LONG will we, as MEN, retain our constitutional rights?

    How long, after women are returned to slavery, will it be that MEN, like us, are returned to slavery, as well?

    THINK about it!

  21. Don’t you just love Pelosi declaring she is a Catholic in one breath then in the next says we have to keep murdering babies legal?

  22. Totally agree with your comment Sandra. We also thank God for President Trump’s fight and if you don’t want to get PREGNANT, do something about it. If you think you are old enough to have SEX, accept the fact that you could get pregnant w/o using any contraception. My God! BE A RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING. If you think you can live with that decision to DESTROY a life for the rest of your life, more power to you and I hope that I don’t know you. We are a married couple that was unable to have children that survived and wanted to adopt in our area, but because of so many abortions, not enough children to adopt. That is pretty sad because they would of had a chance of a loving, warm, responsible & supporting parents that came from good homes. We have been married 47-yrs now and would of made good parents to some woman’s unwanted pregnancy.

  23. REPLY YO UNCLE HOPPY. Excellent REPLY. I also want to add, I don’t think it is right that they think us taxpayers should help foot the bill for their abortions. BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN BODY. It shouldn’t be put on the taxpayers. Grow-up & BE RESPONSIBLE for your own body and you won’t have to make this HORRIBLE decision to abort this unborn baby that I hope you can live with for the rest of your life. MY GOD!!!!! I just can’t believe that a human being can except this decision to DESTROY A HUMAN LIFE that is growing inside of them. In the case of rape, I might be able to accept abortion, but would have to give it a lot of thought first. I know it is something I would never be able to live with that would also be part of me. I just wonder if these woman have any religion or a good family in the life???

  24. jreb57, I totally agree with your comment. I am unable to absorb or digest any ABORTION. I firmly believe that humans need to be responsible for their actions. If you have unsafe sex, you will probably get pregnant and that poor unwanted fetus will have to suffer the results of your IMMATURITY, IGNORANCE, AND LACK OF LOVING A HUMAN LIFE. TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. MAY YOU PAY FOR YOUR OWN DECISIONS IN YOUR OWN LIFE.

  25. MARTIN K. GREAT COMMENT. YOU ARE SO RIGHT THAT THERE IS NO GREATER DISASTER THAN A CHILD THAT IS ABUSED, IGNORED AND MOST OF ALL, NOT LOVED. HOW SAD.

  26. Don’t be so sure. Most aborted babies have parents who are Democrat and thus pro-abortion. If they were not aborted they would most likely would have been adopted (many of whom would have ended up in conservative homes) ro be raised in totally dysfunctional liberal homes that would lead them to get away when they can or leave them mentally challenged or in prison.

  27. The only way to make a Democrat oppose abortion is to give the unborn child the right to vote by allowing the mother to vote for each child she gives birth.

  28. Wait. So, if a State violates the civil rights of United States citizens, the federal government should not question it at all? Or would you supposed that the unborn are citizens of no nation? Even so, does that mean that non-citizens or the unborn have no rights at all?

  29. Allen, I am not disagreeing with your description of Nancy Pelosi; however, I have never seen a source which stated: “her own priest and bishop will not administer the Eucharist to her” simply because she is most probably the churches’ greatest financial support in $$$$$$$$.

  30. Great point! The world needs to know all about Nancy’s lies, wicked ploys and hippocrasies, IMHO. I frequently post such facts and revelations on my humble Blog: TOM’S JOURNAL, where honest-hearted people can also comment and share their own point of view.

  31. When explaining the original Roe v Wade ruling, the court stated its legal opinion was based largely on what was then current knowledge about prenatal development. The court also stated that if that knowledge changed then the court may have to reconsider the decision sometime in the future.
    Its been almost 50 years since Roe v Wade. Knowledge of prenatal development has definitely increased. The time for reconsideration is approaching.

  32. Life liberty Trumps Civil liberty.
    What does the Declaration of Independence say… “Life, Liberty & the persute of Happiness” Notice what came first!!!

  33. Third trimester and post birth abortion properly called Infanticide is where the line should be drawn that the Dem-Rat Party wants to encourage! It is scientifically proven beyond doubt that the embryo is an independent being at 6 months, etc! All major spiritual belief systems agree at 6 months gestation too!
    I don’t even think there needs to be federal laws against abortion although no abortion pills should be dispensed after 6 months gestation for the health of the mother but seriously what kind of woman would wait 6 months to have an abortion? What needs to happen is that abortions that are performed after 6 months should be open to lawsuit for mental and physical issues they cause the women with an automatic gult verdict for the Dr who performs such an abortion with no Malpractice insurance just Drs’ personal networth and businesses held financially liable with a minimum of $150 K pay-out on up depending on jury verdict! Guarantee no Dr will go there and it will increase a pro-life culture of awareness!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here