Recently, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, the Fifth Circuit upheld facial challenges by the abortion industry to Texas laws that bring abortion clinics in line with the state’s health safety standards for medical facilities performing outpatient surgeries. Both in the lawsuit and following the decision, big abortion took the extreme position that its abortion clinics should be exempt from common-sense health and safety standards, subjecting women to substandard facilities and practices, and threatened to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It didn’t seem to matter to the abortion lobby what happened to women in an abortion clinic as long as they didn’t drive.
Last week, when Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced a five-month, late-term-abortion restriction in the form of the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” which had passed the House in May, Minority Leader Harry Reid warned “we’re ready for them,” promising opposition to a bill that has the support of two-thirds of Americans.
It didn’t matter if the unborn child suffered a torturous death or that women would be harmed, only that abortionists be able to sell abortions through all nine months of pregnancy up to the moment of birth.
Big Abortion’s Stances Are Barbaric
These positions and reactions, which are out of step with a vast majority of Americans, come as no surprise given the extreme and radical view of the Left on abortion. Consider Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s recent statement that the decision to abort a seven-pound baby—the weight of an average baby at birth—“should be left to a woman and her doctor,” exposing the true extremism of present-day abortion advocates in America. Wasserman Schultz’s position not only reveals her shocking personal support of elective abortion through all nine-months of pregnancy, it also exposes the lengths to which the organization she leads will go to promote and defend elective abortion even moments before birth.
Most Americans are unaware that, as a result of Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the United States is one of four nations in the world (standing with North Korea, China and Canada) legalizing abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, for any reason including sex selection, and sometimes with taxpayer funding.
Despite this barbaric reality, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently sided with Wasserman Schultz by arguing that people need to alter “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases” to accommodate elective abortion, ignoring the lives lost and the rising toll of women who are harmed in abortion clinics.
Most Americans Support Restricting Abortion
Pro-abortion extremism masquerading under the “war on women” label has fueled a quiet but steady pro-life revolt at the state level seen in new pro-life legislation. As a recent Associated Press study revealed, one of the results has been a decrease in the number of abortions.
In 2015, at least 42 states considered nearly 300 measures related to abortion. This represents an increase from 2014, when 41 states considered approximately 270 measures. The most popular abortion-related measures are those also garnering the most media attention, and have sparked recent legal challenges by the abortion industry: five-month (i.e., 20-week) abortion limitations, abortion-clinic regulations, and admitting-privileges requirements.
Recognizing that chemical abortions currently account for nearly one-quarter of all abortions performed, states have also focused significant attention in 2015 on the regulation of dangerous abortion-inducing drugs in addition to health and safety standards. Of particular note, Arizona and Arkansas have enacted innovative laws, based on Americans United for Life model legislation, requiring that women be informed that chemical abortions may be reversed.
These common-sense limits on surgical and chemical abortion have broad support among Americans. Consider that 66 percent of Americans polled support late-term abortion limitations at five months of pregnancy. In addition, 70 percent of Americans support no taxpayer funding of abortion and a significant majority of Americans support conscience rights for providers and employers.
Yet, despite wide public support, Americans are constantly surprised to discover how vigorously the abortion industry fights these common-sense measures through lawsuits and competing legislative measures. For example, abortion advocates have spearheaded at least 25 measures to roll back pro-life protections, elevating the profits and the inconvenience of abortionists over the safety of women and the pain experienced by their unborn children.
Pro-life legislative gains at the state level reflect the growing success of pro-life candidates who support these common-sense regulations of abortion in response to abortion extremism. Consider that, following the 2014 election cycle, there are now 29 pro-life governors, 34 pro-life-led legislatures in both houses, and over 36 states in which one body in the legislature is majority pro-life. Given the significant majority of state political leaders who are pro-life (not to mention the leadership in both houses of Congress), there is no denying that the nation is gradually moving towards life electorally, and contradicts the theory that pro-life candidates cannot win in modern America.
It is encouraging to see that where government is closest to the people—at the state level—the greatest pro-life gains are being made.
Wasserman Schultz and her ilk have provided renewed energy to pro-life advocates by exposing the extremism of the Democrat Party’s abortion position. They shouldn’t be surprised to see the legislative response to these radical views. Health and safety standards that protect women and their unborn children can no longer be ignored as a passing fad. They represent a well-established trend in reaction to the callous and extreme disregard of the women who are too often victimized by a billion-dollar industry.