By Douglas V. Gibbs
I have never understood why a woman would desire killing her own child. Pregnancy was once seen as a blessing by women, and now they campaign and angrily chant for government to pass laws to give them the power to sacrifice the innocent blood of their unborn children on the alter of Planned Parenthood gurneys. They call it a reproductive right, but those who view these children as being developing and living persons growing inside a woman’s womb during their first stage of human development consider the barbaric practice to be murder.
Natural Rights (God-given Rights) belong to each individual. Whether you believe they were divinely dispensated to each of us, or naturally bestowed through the natural order of things, among the characteristics of our rights are that they stop where the next person’s right begins. As I like to explain to my Constitution Class students, I have the right to swing my arms, but the people around me have the right not to be punched in the nose. Therefore, I need to be responsible with my right to swing my arms, especially in the sense that I need to make sure it does not interfere with the right of others not to be punched in the face.
In the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution language is present intended to protect people from having their right to life being interfered with. The government, according to these clauses, may make no law that would interfere with one’s right to live except in the case where the person sentenced to death received such a punishment after receiving full due process during a case that has gone through the courts.
Amendment V.: “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Amendment XIV: “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
To limbo under the bar set by the Constitution, the pro-abortionists have claimed that unborn children are not “persons.” They are, in the words of abortion supporters, “fetuses,” or “blobs of cells.”
When Roe v. Wade in 1973 ushered us into half of a century of the genocide of unborn children, the supporters of abortion promised at the time that they believed that abortions should be safe, rare, and only during the first trimester. Since then, the pro-abortion lobby champions using abortion as a form of birth control, and in many States have legalized abortion up to the full-term of pregnancy. Some Democrats, like Cass Sunstein, even supports “after-birth” abortions up to the age of two years.
To cover up how radical the Democrats have become regarding the issue, today’s abortionists have changed the language and have been launching erroneous accusations that Republicans wish to completely eliminate any form of birth control, and that even miscarriages may be subject to legal scrutiny.
On August 22, 2024, Kamala Harris gave her acceptance speech at the Democratic Party’s National Convention. She never received a single primary vote by Democratic Party voters, but she’s now the nomination of the party that claims it seeks to “preserve democracy.” Like all of her other anti-Trump monologues, Kamala’s speech was full of untruths and unconstitutional promises. When it came to the abortion issue, it was deceptive, radical, and full of straight out lies.
Friends, I believe America cannot truly be prosperous unless Americans are fully able to make their own decisions about their own lives.1 Especially on matters of heart and home. But tonight, too many women in America are not able to make those decisions. Let’s be clear about how we got here.
Donald Trump hand-picked members of the United States Supreme Court to take away reproductive freedom2. And now he brags about it. His words: Quote –’I did it, and I’m proud to have done it.’ End quote.
Over the past two years, I have traveled across our country, and women have told me their stories. Husbands and fathers have shared theirs; stories of women miscarrying in a parking lot…getting sepsis…losing the ability to ever have children again…3
All—because doctors are afraid of going to jail for caring for their patients4. Couples just trying to grow their family…cut off in the middle of IVF treatments5. Children who have survived sexual assault, potentially forced to carry the pregnancy to term6.
This is what is happening in our country. Because of Donald Trump. And understand, —he is not done.
As a part of his agenda, he and his allies would: Limit access to birth control7, Ban medication abortion, And enact a nation-wide abortion ban with or without Congress8.
And, get this, he plans to create a National Anti-Abortion Coordinator and force states to report on women’s miscarriages and abortions9. Simply put, they are out of their minds.
And one must ask: Why exactly is it that they don’t trust women?10
Well we trust women.
And when Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom11, as President of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law.
1. I believe in liberty. I believe people should be able to make their own decisions about their own lives without government interference. During the COVID thing I, for example, firmly believed that “my body my choice” included not wearing a face diaper everywhere I went. If you were one that believed the B.S. being put out there by the “experts,” it shouldn’t have bothered you; after all you had the opportunity to wear your own mask, and remain at least six feet away from me. Nonetheless, I got thrown out of a lot of places for my unwillingness to wear a mask. As for abortion, the issue goes a little deeper than a flu bug that might be floating around in the air. Abortion is not an issue that only affects the bodies of pregnant women. Abortion deprives the unborn of their right to life. It’s not as much about a woman’s body as much as it is about the body of the baby being killed. Her policies regarding abortion which condone the activity would be like campaigning on a governmentally perceived right for people to murder other people, claiming it’s about protecting the rights of the murderer. There is no difference.
2. The term “Reproductive Freedom” is deceptive. Abortion is not about reproduction; it is about stopping it. Calling abortion “Reproductive Freedom” would be like calling murder “Respiration Freedom.” As for the reactionary hysteria by the Democrats going after the United States Supreme Court for the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, it reveals how little Kamala and the Democrats understand the law, the Constitution, and what the ruling truly revealed. The Supreme Court invalidated Roe v. Wade with the ruling in 2022 by recognizing the federal courts have, and had in 1973, no constitutional authority to decide any case regarding abortion. Constitutionally, there is no authority expressly enumerated to the federal government providing the power to engage any legislation regarding abortion. While some might argue that if something is a “right” it gives the federal government the role of protecting and guaranteeing such right, that is a false narrative based on a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Due Process” clause, a broad interpretation that defies what was intended by the clause in question, and the original intent of the Bill of Rights. First, abortion is not a right because it interferes with the right to live of the unborn; and second, if one was to read the Preamble of the Bill of Rights, and the language used in each of the clauses, one would recognize that the job of the federal government regarding our natural rights is not to protect and guarantee those rights, but to secure them by restraining itself from having anything to do with our rights. The First Amendment begins with the words “Congress shall make no law.” The Second Amendment ends with the words “shall not be infringed.” The Third Amendment begins with the words “No soldier shall.” The Fourth Amendment includes the words, “shall not be violated.” That is negative language when it comes to the federal government’s role regarding our rights. Our rights are none of the business of the federal government.
3. The language about miscarriages in parking lots, sepsis, and infertility are primarily for the purpose of creating fear. Do those things happen? Perhaps in rare instances, and typically the circumstances are not as much about abortion as they are about unrelated health issues often brought on by other activities that carry their own consequences, like drug use. It’s like throwing around the “what about rape and incest” argument, cases that represent less than one percent of the cases regarding abortion. They want you to believe that the slaughter of unborn children, and the use of abortion for convenience, is worth it because of less than one percent of cases. As for the “never be able to have children again” statement, that would be a reference to procedures necessary that are not about the convenience of using abortion as birth control as much as saving the mother because something has gone medically wrong with the pregnancy and the child would not survive to full term, anyhow. Those procedures are not abortions as much as they are medical procedures that often are necessary to save the life of the mother, of which neither would likely survive if the procedure is not performed. No pro-lifer has ever endorsed outlawing those kinds of pregnancy terminations. Common sense dictates that if no procedure is performed both mother and child dies then the procedure is necessary to at least save the mother.
4. Doctors who perform abortions are not “caring for their patients,” they are accomplices to murder. Again, Kamala is using the same of language of fear that was used back in the sixties and early seventies which brought about the advent of Roe v. Wade. She wishes to create an image of government tyranny hunting down guilty doctors and women screaming in pain as a result; you know, like what the Democrats did when illegally searching and seizing and arresting innocent people using the excuse of “insurrection” after January 6, 2021.
5. Trump has not, nor the Republican Party, ever called for going after the IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) industry. Kamala’s claim that Trump wants to cut off IVF treatments is false.
6. The “forced to carry to full-term” argument, and throwing “children” in when referring to victims of rape, does two things. One, it once again puts into the argument a situation that represents less than one percent of abortions. Second, and this is key, children of rape should not be sentenced to death because of what happened no more than any other aborted child. I have met children of rape, many of them born to minors. They were very happy to be alive and that their mother carried them to full term, and unlike the pro-abortionists’ claims that the women were “punished” when they carried their child to full term, the women I talked to said the opposite. The child, born of rape, was a blessing that came from something horrible. The birth of the child saved them. The love of their child helped them come to terms with what happened. Having the child was not a curse, but a blessing that pushed many of these women away from suicide and depression. Rape is a horrible thing, but the response to a horrible thing should not be another horrible thing. Children are a blessing, even when conceived by the horrid occurrence of rape.
7. The argument that Trump and the Republicans wish to limit one’s access to birth control is not only untrue, but it reveals how hypocritical the Democrats are. Remember, when Roe v. Wade occurred, to reassure opponents, the Democrats claimed that they only supported abortion when it was necessary, not for the convenience of birth control. As with all of their issues, the envelope got pushed proving that ultimately they are liars and they will continue to seek more and more regarding the issue. Their argument changing from “we won’t use abortion as birth control” to “abortion is a method of birth control” reminds us that someday their argument will also change from “only during the first trimester” to “only up to full term” to “post-birth abortion up to two years of age.” That is why they are truly progressives; because the horrors and nightmares of their policies always progress from bad to worse.
8. Kamala’s greatest abortion lie during her DNC speech was that Trump sought to enact a federal ban on abortion, with or without Congress. While persons like me who see abortion for what it truly is, a satanic sacrifice of innocent blood, and would love nothing more than to see abortion disappear from our culture once and for all, as a constitutionalist I recognize that the federal government has no authority to do such. The rule of law dictates that if abortion was to be vanquished from our culture, it would either need to be because State-by-State it is outlawed at the State level, or there would need to be an amendment banning abortion countrywide proposed by either Congress or the States, and then ratified by three-quarters of the States. Donald Trump has voiced his understanding of those constitutional principles, and as a result he has voiced numerous times that while he is pro-life, the issue must be left up to the States. Therefore, Kamala claiming that Trump wants to federally ban abortion is a false claim. As for the “with or without Congress” part, it amazes me that she is trying to paint Trump as that kind of authoritarian when it was President Obama and Kamala’s buddy Joe Biden that used executive orders in that way; not Trump. As per Article I, Section 1, all legislative powers belong to Congress, so no executive order or action may legally create, modify or repeal any law; an action the Democrats have utilized a number of times, but Trump did not. The practice of the executive branch violating Article I, Section 1 through the broad interpretation of laws (a practice legally allowed, according to the Democrats, when the 1984 Chevron Deference Doctrine first breathed life) ended this year when through the consolidated cases Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and Secretary of Commerce and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron v. NRDC, the 1984 case that established the bedrock Chevron doctrine.
9. Kamala Harris claimed in her speech that Trump “plans to create a National Anti-Abortion Coordinator and force states to report on women’s miscarriages and abortions.” She’s referring to a policy the Democrats claim to be listed in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. The 922 page document does not make any reference to a National Anti-Abortion Coordinator, but it does state that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should collect better data about abortion outcomes, and make sure that miscarriages are not being conflated with abortion, for the purpose of maintaining more accurate records regarding the issue. The language partly comes from a proposed bill called the “Ensuring Accurate and Complete Abortion Data Reporting Act of 2023” sponsored by Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), which calls for the reporting of abortion data by states to be mandatory. Such reporting, at this time, is voluntarily. As a result, data regarding abortion in the United States is not fully accurate. The numbers we have are lower than the actual numbers due to Blue States withholding much of their abortion information. Kamala’s claim in her speech has three problems with it. A) While the Democrats have done all they can to malign the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” of which (having read the entire document) I find it to be actually largely pretty good, Donald Trump has stated that he has not read it, has had nothing to do with its creation, and therefore cannot endorse it; yet, the Democrats have connected him to it as much as possible (as they throw around various false claims about its conservative proposals). B) Donald Trump has repeatedly indicated that abortion is a State Issue (which is a constitutionally correct position), yet the Democrats keep trying to push the idea that he wishes to use the might of the federal government to take away their precious baby sacrifice practice. C) From a constitutional point of view, the federal government may collect data all they want, but using law to interfere with abortion is not a federal authority; which brings us back to Trump’s argument that it is a State Issue.
10. Kamala tried to play upon the “Trump is a misogynist” argument by claiming he, and Republicans, don’t trust women to make proper decisions when it comes to their bodies. It’s not just their bodies in play, here. Another person’s life is at stake. It’s not about “trust” as much as it is about saving precious innocent lives.
11. In her speech Kamala promised that if a “Restore Reproductive Freedom” law crossed her desk as President of the United States, she would sign it. She’s referring to a plan by Democrats to use federal law to force the legalization of abortion throughout the country. As stated a number of times during this article, the federal government has no authority to make law regarding abortion. The issue, as per the Enumeration Doctrine (limited government principle that dictates the federal government only possesses an authority if it is expressly listed in the Constitution, confirmed by Article I, Section 1 and the Tenth Amendment), belongs to the States. Countrywide legalization, or a countrywide ban, is only legally allowed if each and every State were to pass legislation supporting such individually, or if a constitutional amendment was proposed and ratified stating such. Otherwise, we will continue to have some States that legalize abortion, others that don’t, and a legal situation where the federal government has no authority regarding the issue in the first place.
In the end, Kamala’s speech revealed a number of things about the Democratic Party’s nominee for President (who achieved the position through a very non-democratic coup in the political party that claims it’s all about “preserving democracy”). They lie, they hate Trump, and they have very extreme, radical leftwing ideas that I believe are communist to their core. Granted, none of that is a surprise. But, they are louder about it. They are more adamant about it. As I stated earlier in this article, the word “progressive” is appropriate because their policies always progress from bad to worse. The question we haven’t been asking however, is this: How far are they willing to go to get what they want? Are they willing to kill to achieve their communist dreams? They have proven to be good at killing for they have been doing so for decades with abortion. How long before they progress from killing babies to the next level of insanity they have proven they are completely capable of?
Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood, but in the grand scheme of things I believe the killing has only just begun. The far-left communist progressive Democrats are capable of so much more – making this election (whether it sounds cliché or not) the most important one in American History. It is, literally, a matter of life and death.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
