By Carol Tobias, President
Editor’s note. This speech was part of a Friday general session entitled, “Saving Lives Means Saving the House and Senate in 2018.”
I’ve been thinking back to campaigns of many years ago — back to the day when political leaders who supported abortion would say “I’m personally opposed to abortion” which was code for “but I’m not going to do anything to stop it.” Then there was President Bill Clinton who said abortion should be safe, legal, and rare; although he did everything he could to expand abortion, both in this country and overseas.
But that position raised the question — if there is nothing wrong with abortion and it should be safe and legal for anyone who wants one, why should it be rare?
That reluctance to fully embrace abortion, even among abortion supporters, was hurting the cause. Groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL decided they need to challenge the idea that abortion is bad and so began the farcical “war on women.”
If you think women should get information about abortion, possible complications, and alternatives that are available, you’re anti-woman.
If you think parents should know their minor daughter is seeking an abortion, you’re anti-woman.
If you think women should be told there’s an increased risk of breast cancer if you get an abortion, you’re anti-woman.
If you think unborn babies should not be killed when they have developed to the point that they can feel pain, or that they shouldn’t die by having arms and legs torn off in a gruesome dismemberment abortion, you’re anti-woman.
No. Wanting to protect unborn children doesn’t make us anti-woman. That makes us pro-human being.
Being anti-woman is opposing requirements that women be fully informed about the abortion procedure, its potential risks, and available alternatives. Being anti-woman is trying to rush her through the abortion procedure and not giving her a chance to see an ultrasound of her baby.
Being anti-woman is refusing to even acknowledge the possibility of a link between having an abortion and increasing the risk of breast cancer.
Being anti-woman is trying to get abortion pills to a woman to kill her unborn child with no one around to help her if there are complications—other than a dead baby.
Being anti-woman is fighting requirements for abortion facilities to meet the most basic health and safety standards of medical clinics.
Being anti-woman is reducing the required standard of medical expertise for abortion providers, insisting that non-physicians be allowed to kill her baby.
There is a war on women, but it is being waged by abortion advocates who think the only way a woman can succeed is by killing her own child.
So, why does the abortion industry fight any and all efforts to limit or restrict abortion, even those that might seem reasonable, or those that have support among a large majority of the country? Because if there is one crack in their position, if the unborn child is given any humanity, any protection at all, their position falls apart. That would mean some abortions shouldn’t happen, which reflects on all abortions.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, the last debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump finally had a discussion about the candidates’ positions on abortion.
The moderator pointed out that Clinton had voted to keep partial-birth abortion legal. She defended her position, saying the decision belongs to the woman. In response, Donald Trump stated, “Well, I think it’s terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.
“Now, you can say that that’s OK and Hillary can say that that’s OK. But it’s not OK with me, because based on what she’s saying, and based on where she’s going, and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that’s not acceptable.”
Hillary supporters, as well as many in the mainstream media, went berserk. They kept saying that doesn’t happen! Abortions don’t happen that late in pregnancy. They didn’t deny that was her position because if they allow any limits at any time during pregnancy, their argument fails. If it’s okay and necessary to protect an unborn child at any time, then there’s still a problem with abortion.
It’s 2018, another election is looming and there is now a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Emotions are running high and civility is almost non-existent. And in all this craziness, we need to win elections.
Every seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and thirty-five seats in the US Senate are on the ballot this year. Some of the candidates have voting records that clearly reflect their position on abortion. Some do not but voters need to know where the candidates stand on life or death for unborn children.
All candidates should clearly state whether think tax dollars should be used to pay for abortion.
All candidates should tell the voters if they support the killing of unborn babies who have developed to the point of being able to feel pain during an abortion.
All candidates should tell the voters whether they think it’s okay to kill unborn babies by tearing off arms and legs in a dismemberment abortion.
All candidates should explain whether they support the radical position of the abortion industry that there be no limits whatsoever on abortion at any time during pregnancy.
You can help to make sure that information becomes public knowledge. Ask the candidates where they stand on the issue, and do it in a public setting, like a forum where the candidate takes questions from the audience. If candidates are being interviewed on a radio show and listeners are able to call the show to ask questions, get out your phone, dial the station, and ask that question.
I am not suggesting you follow the Maxine Waters strategy of gathering a crowd and chasing people out of restaurants or stores or gas stations. But find a way to get that information and share it with the voters.
We cannot let candidates slip by with some mumbo-jumbo about “reproductive rights” or being “pro-choice.” Voters need to know exactly where the candidates stand and how they will vote on specific legislation if elected.
Actions taken by Congress and presidential administrations can change. For example, President Obama gave hundreds of millions of our tax dollars to groups like International Planned Parenthood so they could perform abortions or lobby governments in other countries to change that country’s pro-life law. President Trump said, “We’re not going to do that anymore.”
President Obama gave our tax dollars to the United Nations Population Fund, an agency that supports China’s forced abortion program. President Trump said, “We’re not going to do that anymore.”
When some states tried to prevent Title X family planning funds from going to organizations that perform abortions, President Obama told the states, “You can’t withhold money from those groups.” President Trump and pro-life majorities in Congress, using the Congressional Review Act, said, “Oh, yes, you can withhold those funds!”
A deadly provision in Obamacare was the Independent Payment Advisory Board whose mission was to control medical costs, even if that meant preventing you from using your own money to get the life-saving medical treatment you or a loved one needed. A change in Congress and a change in the White House and—success!– that provision is gone.
Administrations can and often do reverse actions taken by their predecessors. Making changes to laws enacted by any one Congress can be difficult but it can be done. The longest-lasting impact on our laws are decisions made by the courts. For example, one bad decision by the Supreme Court 45 years ago has resulted in the death of 60 million human beings.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell knows this. He recently stated, “What I want to do is make a lasting contribution to the country, and by appointing and confirming these strict constructionists to the courts who are in their late 40s or early 50s, I believe, working in conjunction with the administration, we’re making a generational change in our country that will be repeated over and over and over down the years.”
In order to continue confirming those strict constructionist judges, we need to win senate elections in November.
Let’s look back to the 2016 election. Democrats had 10 senate seats on the ballot; Republicans had 24. Political pundits were sure that, along with Hillary Clinton’s win, Democrats would be able to pick up many of those 24 seats. But that night, as results came in from east to west, pro-life wins kept rolling in — Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin. Democrats did pick up two seats, but the Senate remained in Mitch McConnell’s guiding hands.
This year, the numbers are reversed. Nine Republican seats and 26 Democratic seats on the ballot. That same political wisdom would tell us that this should be a good year for pro-life Republicans because Democrats have so many seats to defend.
Take nothing for granted!! Every one of those seats is important. Work as if lives depend on it, because they do.
Political pundits are predicting a blue wave and say Nancy Pelosi could be speaker of the US House next year. If that happens, you know Maxine Waters will be pushing, not every day, but every hour, to impeach President Trump. Are you going to let that happen?
Our opponents seem to think that this country made a mistake in 2016 and that we regret not electing a pro-abortion woman, namely Hillary, president. Was that a mistake? Do you have any regrets?
For you married women out there, you know that Hillary blames you; that her loss was your fault, right? Hillary said married women voted for Donald Trump because you were pressured into voting the way your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believed you should. Not just husband, but your boss, your son, or whoever. I wasn’t pressured by anyone or anything but common sense and a desire to protect babies. Were any of you women pressured on how to vote?
Hillary should hang around with pro-life women sometime. She would find out that the women who oppose what she stands for are intelligent, passionate, compassionate, and a true force to be reckoned with. And so are the men involved in this battle. We all have a mission to protect the most defenseless of human beings and to speak up for the voiceless. And we take that mission seriously.
We have a great country that allows citizen to participate in the functioning of our government. For the next four months, keep your focus on electing those candidates who will preserve and protect the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.