Opinion
Featured Image
Pro-abortion protestors in July 2022Mario Tama / Getty Images

Protect Pro-Life Doctors and Support the First Amendment! 

(LifeSiteNews) – After more than a month’s worth of celebrations since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the question of abortion back to individual states, the pro-life movement was dealt its first major blow in the nationwide effort to phase abortion out of American culture.

When voters in Kansas – a reliably red state – shot down a ballot measure that would have amended the state constitution to resolve that it does not, in fact, guarantee a “right” to abortion, a sobering reminder was issued to the recently ebullient members of the pro-life community that those on the left, who for the first time in more than half a century find themselves on the defensive, are not about to go down without a fight.

The defeated proposal came just over three years after the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in Hodes & Nauser v. Derek Schmidt (in a manner largely consistent with how the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe back in 1973) that, per the state constitution’s protection of “equal and inalienable natural rights,” a woman has the “right to make decisions about her body, including the decision whether to continue her pregnancy.”

In the aftermath, pro-life state legislators began work on the new amendment, which was written to offset the court’s decision in Hodes & Nauser and permit Kansas’s state legislature to pass laws that, among other things, regulate and restrict abortion. But with Roe now defunct, both sides saw an opening to capitalize on the politics of the moment, and deliver a result that would forever represent the first verdict issued at the ballot box post-Roe.

But despite Kansas’s status as a conservative stronghold and polling to the contrary, the final vote on Tuesday was not close: With 99% of precincts reporting, No – which keeps the “right” to an abortion enshrined in Kansas law – easily triumphed over Yes – which would have approved the constitutional amendment – by a decisive 58.9% to 41.1% margin, defying expectations and shattering conventional wisdom about the Sunflower State’s political proclivities.

That said, there are special circumstances to consider: More than $12 million dollars was poured into advertising in the state during the lead-up to the vote, with nearly half coming from a single organization – ironically named Kansans for Constitutional Freedom – dedicated to seeing the proposed amendment defeated.

Likewise, as was also the case when Roe was overturned, the prevailing narrative among the pro-abortion crowd in Kansas was that the a Yes victory would’ve somehow banned abortion outright, even though it would have merely reaffirmed the textual reality that there exists no constitutional right to abortion under state law – messaging that likely alienated a bloc of the electorate that may prefer to see elective abortion restricted, but also favors exceptions in exceedingly rare instances of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

But this kind of deception is commonplace among the anti-life (pro-death?) left, which we, as conservatives, would be wise to acknowledge is just as energized and motivated to see virtually unfettered abortion access protected in a world without Roe as we are to see it eradicated.

And Kansas was just the beginning.

Biden admin proposes forcing doctors to commit abortions, sex changes

Big Abortion is hard at work, mobilizing its supporters and spending millions to keep on-demand abortion the norm in every corner of our country. As things currently stand, they enjoy the unflappable support of our federal government, which is also doing more than its fair share to force their shared agenda down the throats of the American people.

Look no further than the U.S. Department of Health and Human  Services (HHS)’s recent announcement regarding Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), known colloquially as Obamacare.

On Monday, July 25 – one month and one day after Roe’s reversal – HHS unveiled, via press release, its plan to implement a new rule that would amend the aforementioned provision of the ACA, which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability in certain health programs and activities.”

The new proposal, however, would return Section 1557 to Obama-era specifications, and expand upon them by adding “pregnancy termination” to its “reproductive health care services” applications. Additionally, it also seeks to include “sexual orientation and gender identity” under its definition of medical discrimination on the basis of “sex.”

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Stand WITH Justice Clarence Thomas, AGAINST Abortion Fanatics Like Hillary Clinton
  Show Petition Text
2528 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 4000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Ever since the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the ongoing debate over the barbaric practice of abortion back to the states, left-wing zealots, politicians, and rioters have taken to the streets and the airwaves to fan the flames of division.

And perhaps no one has epitomized this unhinged rage more than twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Taking her anger out on Justice Clarence Thomas, Clinton has once again shown her propensity for bitterness, hostility towards our Constitution and rule of law, and hatred towards those with differing philosophies from her own.

Please SIGN and SHARE this petition in support of Justice Clarence Thomas against hateful attacks by radical liberals like Hillary Clinton.

The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which saw a 6-3 majority rule in favor of overturning both Roe v. Wade and 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, was a long time coming: In 1973, seven Justices of the Supreme Court (all males) created a phony constitutional "right" to abortion out of thin air, opening the floodgates to practically unfettered access to abortion across the nation and resulting in the killing of more than 60 million innocent, unborn babies in the nearly 50 years that followed.

But with Roe now out of the picture, this decision will officially fall back to the states, who, by way of their elected lawmakers, may now opt to permit, restrict, or even outright ban the practice of abortion altogether. 

And while the majority opinion in Dobbs was penned by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, most of the left's ire in the aftermath of its publication has been directed at a different Justice: Conservative constitutionalist Clarence Thomas, currently the bench's only African-American member, who wrote his own separate concurrence acknowledging other past cases which were decided on similar, constitutionally-lacking bases that could potentially be revisited in the future.

Perhaps no disgruntled abortion supporter has gone out of their way more to deride this ruling and Justice Thomas than former First Lady and Obama Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who let her utter contmept for the unborn, the Constitution, and Justice Thomas show in a CBS interview with Gayle King earlier this week.



In her deeply personal attack, Clinton claimed that Justice Thomas, a Yale Law School classmate of hers in the early 1970s (when Roe was first decided), was a "person of grievance for as long as I've known him. Resentment, grievance, anger."

She then went on to criticize the court's ruling in Dobbs, repeating without evidence that "women are going to die" as a result, all while (predictably) ignoring the potentially millions of unborn babies who will now live because of Justices' timely decision.

So while pro-abortion liberals like Hillary Clinton continue to lament the outcome of Dobbs and smear conservative Justices like Clarence Thomas with personal attacks simply for abiding by the text of the Constitution, the pro-life movement and millions of Americans who believe in the constitutional right to life can take pride in nearly half a century's work to achieve the end of Roe, and begin the real work of ending the barbaric practice of abortion in the United States.

Now is the time to put out-of-touch elitists like Hillary Clinton on notice that momentum is on the side of life once again and that America is rejecting the culture of death that has penetrated our way of life for far too long.

Now is the time to stand with pro-life, conservative constitutionalists like Justice Clarence Thomas!

SIGN and SHARE this petition in support of Justice Clarence Thomas against attacks from leftists like Hillary Clinton, and thank him for courageously standing up for life and the Constitution!

Thank you!


FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Hillary Clinton attacks Clarence Thomas as a ‘person of grievance’ following Roe reversal' (LifeSiteNews)
 

  Hide Petition Text

In doing so, HHS would gut conscience protections enacted under this same section by the Trump Administration back in 2020, which exempt doctors and other health care professionals with religious, moral, and ethical objections from performing procedures that go against their personal beliefs and ultimately harm rather than heal – be it an abortion, which always ends a life, or a gender “transition,” which irreversibly changes a life by mutilating what is often a person’s perfectly healthy physical body.

Even so, the administration is pushing an entirely different narrative, predictably masking its latest effort to inject identity politics and increased abortion propaganda into America’s healthcare system as an anti-discrimination crusade when it is anything but.

“Standing with communities in need is critical, particularly given increased attacks on women, trans youth, and health care providers,” claimed Secretary Xavier Becerra in HHS’s announcement, flagrantly disregarding the attack his agency is waging on those in the medical field who diverge with the Administration’s warped political and social ideology.

Of course, it would be reprehensible to support any form of discrimination against a person or group of people, especially when doing so would deprive them of the medical care they need to sustain their health. That is, after all, what being pro-life is all about.

But to be clear: What Biden’s HHS is trying to do in this instance has nothing to do with preserving life, health, or protections against discrimination, and everything to do with further politicizing and manipulating the United States’ medical institutions to reflect an agenda that has little use for the First Amendment when it impinges upon the political advancement of those already in power.

Curiously enough, mainstream press coverage of HHS’s rollout of its newly proposed rule has been virtually nonexistent: most news outlets and publications failed to even acknowledge the announcement, let alone provide any coverage pertaining to what it could mean for America’s health care system and the constitutional rights of those working within it.

But that still doesn’t change the fact that, even if it has been on the downlow, the Biden Administration is, yet again, prioritizing hollow virtue-signaling to its enraged, pro-abortion base rather than taking any meaningful action to address the most pressing issues facing our nation.

That strategy, however, may serve a short-term purpose, and that would be to galvanize those on the left – many of whom, like those on the right, are less than thrilled with Biden’s grossly inept performance in office – in time for November’s midterm elections, where Democrats are expected to succumb to the president’s historically low levels of popularity in their quest to retain their congressional majorities.

But considering they have nothing whatsoever in the vein of accomplishments to run on, drumming up voter enthusiasm among an uninspired electorate on a single issue – that being abortion, which ties into the left’s distorted vision of “social justice” – may just be their only shot at a saving grace going into November.

After all, it already worked once in Kansas, where ballots cast on the abortion measure alone exceeded 900,000 in a turnout rate more consistent with recent presidential races than primaries. And, as is always the case in midterms, turnout will prove key to victory in 2022.

Legal experts agree that Biden and Becerra’s expansion of Section 1557 is more than likely to force doctors and religious hospitals and medical facilities to carry out actions that violate their sincerely-held beliefs, denying them the choice that those on the left laughably claim to they’re out to defend.

And while those in the administration will try to paint this plan as necessary to combat discrimination in health care, it is little more than a politically-minded scheme to (1) continue its rollback of commonsense Trump initiatives, which, in this case, sought to secure the constitutional freedoms of health care workers, and (2) rob medical professionals of their basic First Amendment rights in order to serve the social agenda of the most extreme echelons of the radical left, which fails to acknowledge both the sanctity of life and the inherent biological differences between men and women when crafting policy.

Conservatives won an important battle with the reversal of Roe, there’s no denying that, but they now face the reality that a far larger war remains ongoing and unwon, and that this is only the beginning of a much longer, multifaceted slog towards attaining universal legal protections for the unborn.

And as is evidenced by the Biden HHS in its proposed changes to Section 1557, which seeks to safeguard the left’s anti-life, biologically illogical agenda instead, there will – unapologetically – be other casualties of a constitutional nature in the process.

Protect Pro-Life Doctors and Support the First Amendment! 

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

6 Comments

    Loading...