Olympic Gold Medalist Brianna McNeal Says Abortion Trauma Caused her to Miss Drug Test

2016 100-meter hurdles Olympic champion Brianna McNeal (right)

Brianna McNeal, who won the Olympic gold medal for the 100-meter hurdles in 2016, has been suspended from competing for five years by World Athletics. According to a New York Times report, McNeal is being penalized for missing a mandatory drug test two days after having an abortion in January 2020.

The report says that McNeal had an abortion because she thought her pregnancy might prevent her from competing in the 2020 Olympic games. After her baby was aborted, however, she mourned the child's death. This was especially true after the 2020 games were canceled since that meant her child was aborted for no reason.

McNeal says that when the drug tester came to her house on January 12, 2020, she was in bed recovering from the abortion. She originally did not tell officials that she had an abortion. Instead, she said that she had a "surprise medical procedure" and got a note from the abortion facility to excuse the missed test.

World Athletics banned McNeal because she edited the date on the note given to her by the abortion clinic. Her abortion occurred on Jan. 10, but she changed the date on the note to read Jan. 11. McNeal says that she changed the date because she believed the clinic got it wrong. She says that the trauma of her abortion caused her to misremember the date.

"I tried to keep the abortion private, but they just kept tugging and tugging at me, wanting more information," McNeal said. "I couldn’t believe that I was charged with a violation because I had the dates mixed up by just 24 hours. It’s not like the procedure didn’t happen."

McNeal also said that World Athletics did not believe her when she told them she was traumatized by her abortion; claiming that her continued posts on social media, the fact that she continued competing after the procedure, and the fact that she did not contact a psychiatrist prove otherwise. McNeal says that she sought help from a spiritual advisor instead. “For me, growing up in the Black community, that’s how we cope with everything,” she said. “We go to church, and we talk to our pastor or spiritual advisor.”

Click here to read more.

United Nations Accused of Lying to Advance Abortion in El Salvador

Pro-life leader Sara Larín, the founder of the VIDA SV Foundation of El Salvador, is accusing the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights of lying about a case of infanticide to advance its pro-abortion goals for the country.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet. Bachelet was known for introducing bills to legalize abortion during her time in office.

Sara Larín told the Catholic News Agency's Spanish language news partner that “it is completely unusual and despicable that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is using Marina de los Ángeles Portillo’s release from prison on parole to pressure El Salvador on abortion.”

Portillo was recently given parole after serving 14 years in prison for murdering her newborn daughter in 2007. Police found the baby girl with a sock stuffed in her mouth and over her nostrils. A second sock was tied around the newborn's neck with a double-knot. She was sentenced to 35 years in prison for her crime.

On June 25, the OHCHR twisted the facts by calling Portillo's parole an "early release" and calling on El Salvador "to continue the review of cases where women have been detained for crimes related to obstetric emergencies and to harmonize the abortion legislation according to human rights standards in order to avoid new incarcerations."

Portillo did not have an "obstetric emergency" and she was not acquitted of her crime, yet the UN body manipulates the facts to continue pushing its pro-abortion agenda on nations that currently ban abortion, like El Salvador.

International organizations often lie about cases of infanticide in their messaging by referring to them as miscarriages, while using the situation to push for the legalization of abortion in countries that currently protect all life from the moment of conception. This is just a recent example.

Click here to read more.

"People's Tribunal" Exposes More Details of China's Forced Abortions and Feticide

A "people's tribunal" in London last month involved testimony from Uighur refugees from China. The goal of the tribunal was to bring to light how China is violating the human rights of Uighur Muslims, including through forced abortion and infanticide.

A nine-member panel headed by human rights lawyer Geoffrey Nice met from June 5-7 to hear testimony regarding China's human rights violations. The International Criminal Court said that it would not investigate the situation, so this panel event was created to spread awareness.

Shemsinur Abdighafur gave some of the most memorable testimony at the event. She left China in 2010 in fear for her life, and she told the panel stories about witnessing forced abortion and the murder of newborns on a regular basis.

“In my time working in hospitals, we could sometimes hear that some babies were born, and they started crying and from this we knew they were alive,” she said. “But we knew all babies would be given the injection so we knew they would die before they got home.”

She also witnessed Chinese doctors administer injections directly into the wombs of pregnant women, so that their babies would be killed.

“If any women got injected with this (drug) the baby died,” she said. “The syringe and the needle are very long, and it is directly injected into the womb. When they put the needle in, they see if a liquid comes out, if it does it confirms it is in the right place. I witnessed the injection being done. It was done daily.”

Other refugees told stories about other human rights violations including concentration camps, rape, forced sterilization, and organ harvesting. China continues to deny all accusations.

Click here to read more.

New Ohio Law Protects Doctors' Conscience Rights

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R)

Last Thursday, Ohio enacted a budget bill including a provision to protect the conscience rights of doctors who oppose abortion and other practices.

A section of the budget bill says that doctors and healthcare institutions can refuse to provide services that conflict with their “moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or principles.” The bill states:

"Notwithstanding any conflicting provision of the Revised Code, a medical practitioner, health care institution, or health care payer has the freedom to decline to perform, participate in, or pay for any health care service which violates the practitioner’s, institution’s, or payer’s conscience as informed by the moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or principles held by the practitioner, institution, or payer."

While some were unsure whether Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) would use his line-item veto powers to block these protections, pro-lifers were relieved when he said the conscience rights clause was "not a problem."

“In the real world, most of those rights are not only recognized and exercised by medical professionals, but they’re being accepted by other medical professionals,” the governor said. “That is the way the world generally works. This is basically put in statute and codified.”

“Let’s say the doctor is against abortion,” he continued. “If the doctor is not doing abortions, if there’s other things that maybe a doctor has a conscience problem with, it’s worked out. Somebody else does those things. This is not a problem, has not been a problem in the state of Ohio and I do not expect it to be a problem.”

Click here to read more.

Missouri Attorney General Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Pro-Life Law

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R)

On July 1, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R) requested that the Supreme Court hear a case to reinstate the "Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act."

The 2019 law bans abortions committed purely due to an unborn child's race, sex, or prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome. The law also contains tiered abortion bans after eight, 14, 18, and 20 weeks of gestation. Hearing the challenge to this law would require the court to analyze each stage independently and state exactly if/when abortion bans are allowed.

According to the AG Schmitt's office, the Petition “presents three questions for the Supreme Court’s review”:

• Whether Missouri’s restriction on abortions performed solely because the unborn child may have Down syndrome is categorically invalid under Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), or whether it is a valid, reasonable regulation of abortion that seeks to prevent the elimination of children with Down syndrome through eugenic abortion?

• Whether Missouri’s restrictions on abortions performed after eight, fourteen, eighteen, and twenty weeks’ gestational age are categorically invalid, or whether they are valid, reasonable regulations of abortion that advance important state interests?

• Whether the “penumbral” right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and partially reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), should be overruled?

Click here to read more.

Louisiana Gov. Signs Abortion Pill Reversal Disclosure Act

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D)

Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) last Friday signed into law legislation requiring abortionists to inform women that they might be able to save their children if they regret taking the abortion pill mifepristone.

HB 578 requires that when a physician or or medical service provider administers mifepristone (the first part of the abortion pill regimen) to a pregnant woman, she is given a disclosure informing her that she should contact a physician immediately if she regrets her abortion to learn what options she has to potentially save her child.

This disclosure can be given to the woman along with the packaging for misoprostol (the second part of the abortion pill regimen) or attached to the patient's discharge instructions if she is collecting her prescription from a pharmacy.

Concern for unborn life does not have to be a partisan issue, and Gov. Edwards demonstrated this by signing this pro-life bill into law.

Click here to read more.

Proposed HHS Rule Allows Affordable Care Act to Pay for Abortions

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT)

On Tuesday, the chair of the Senate pro-life caucus criticized a proposed rule published by the Department of Health and Human Services that would allow taxpayer funds to pay for elective abortions through the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

“Abortion is not healthcare and taxpayers should not be subsidizing it,” said Senate Pro-Life Caucus chair Steve Daines (R-MT) on Tuesday. “This is another move by President Biden and Secretary Becerra to promote their abortion agenda above following the law, and is even more alarming as Democrats look to increase taxpayer subsidies for Obamacare,” he continued.

The ACA originally contained Hyde Amendment language when it was passed by the Obama administration, making it illegal for federal funds to subsidize abortion through the program. A 2014 Government Accountability Office report found that many insurers ignored these requirements, however, and abortion coverage was not being separated from other kinds of health insurance coverage.

Federal courts blocked President Trump's 2019 attempt to prohibit abortion funding through the Affordable Care Act by requiring separate bills for abortion coverage.

The new rule would only require a single bill and payment of federally-covered services, including abortion coverage.

Click here to read more.

Biden Nominee Believes Children are an "Environmental Hazard"

Tracy Stone-Manning, President Biden's nominee to lead the Bureau of Land Management, has been revealed to be a population control advocate.

Reporting by the Daily Caller revealed that Stone-Manning's 1992 graduate thesis focused on the idea of overpopulation. For her thesis, she created eight advertisements aiming to persuade Americans that they should have fewer children.

If there were fewer of us, we would have less impact,” Stone-Manning wrote in her thesis. “We must consume less, and more importantly, we must breed fewer consuming humans.”

One of the advertisements she created for her thesis included a picture of a baby with the caption: "Can you find the environmental hazard in this photo?

Stone-Manning said that the advertisements were aimed at couples planning families to convince them that “the earth can’t afford Americans.” She said she wanted the ads to be “ironic and shocking, because irony and shock have value. They stop readers and viewers, making them pay attention.”

Population control policies (if China is any example) lead to other human rights violations such as forced abortions, sterilizations, pregnancy discrimination.

Stone-Manning also faces heavy criticism for her involvement in acts of eco-terrorism. She avoided criminal penalties for her actions by testifying against her friend and former roommate.

Click here to read more.

Judge Issues Temporary Injunction Against Indiana Abortion Pill Reversal Law

On June 22, U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon issued a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of Indiana's HB 1577, which would require abortion businesses to inform women seeking chemical abortions about Abortion Pill Reversal (APR).

HB 1577 was passed by both houses of the Indiana legislature and signed into law in April by Gov. Eric Holcomb. If Judge Hanlon had not issued a temporary injunction, the law would have gone into effect on July 1.

APR works by counteracting the effects of mifepristone, the first drug in the two-pill chemical abortion regimen. Mifepristone starves an unborn baby by blocking the pregnancy hormone progesterone, which facilitates the flow of oxygen and nutrients from a mother to her child. APR is a process by which the mother is given additional progesterone, thereby restoring the flow of oxygen and nutrients. APR has saved over 2,000 babies to date.

Judge Hanlon agreed with the pro-abortion plaintiffs that HB 1577 could violate the First Amendment rights of abortion businesses by requiring compelled content-based speech. He also implied that APR is unproven and unsafe, which discounts the success of APR.

Click here to read more.

Win! Federal Appeals Court Unanimously Rules ERA is Dead

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel from the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was not legally ratified.

In a bizarre move, pro-abortion legislators in Illinois (2018), Virginia (2020), and Nevada (2017) voted to ratify the amendment 42 years after it expired. After doing so, pro-abortion legislators claimed that the ERA had been ratified by two-thirds of the states (the minimum amount required to amend the Constitution). Not only had the amendment expired, however, but legislatures in several states now have different opinions than the ones that initially voted on the amendment nearly half a century ago.

In particular, the ERA as interpreted by many could codify abortion rights into the Constitution. A ratified ERA might prove to be much harder to overturn than Roe v. Wade, which based its decision on the idea that abortion is legal under the Constitution's implied right to privacy.

In a win for the pro-life movement, the courts continue to agree that the ERA ratification process legally ended decades ago, and the amendment is not a part of the constitution.

“Today’s ruling continues an unbroken, 40-year losing streak by advocates of the ERA-is-alive cult in the federal courts, before federal judges of every stripe of judicial philosophy and political background,” said Douglas Johnson, director of the National Right to Life Committee’s ERA Project.

This particular lawsuit was brought by an organization named Equal Means Equal (EME). In a separate lawsuit, the attorneys general of Illinois, Virginia, and Nevada have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A district judge ruled that the states' votes for ratification "came too late to count" but their appeal is likely to be heard later this year.

Click here to read more.

HHS Secretary Becerra Shuts Down Fetal Research Ethics Advisory Board

HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra
photo credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra shut down an ethics board set up by President Donald Trump to oversee research using tissue from aborted babies. This board could block any research proposals that deemed to be ethically questionable, but now all of those proposals could easily be implemented and paid for using taxpayer dollars.

137 congressional Republicans responded by sending Becerra a letter asking him to reverse his decision. The letter cites documents obtained by Judicial Watch revealing the FDA's routine “orders for eyeballs, livers, skin, brains, skulls, and sometimes fully intact bodies of infants aborted in the second trimester” from Advanced Bioscience Resources. In these exchanges, Advanced Bioscience Resources serves as a middle man between the federal government and Planned Parenthood.

The letter also cites a report by the Center for Medical Progress revealing horrifying experiments done by the University of Pittsburgh using tissue harvested from aborted children. The University grafted tissue from baby scalps onto lab rats and observed how the rats grew human hair.

Click here to read more.

AP Poll Shows Strong Opposition to Second and Third Trimester Abortions

A poll released by the Associated Press last week shows that most Americans believe abortion should be restricted or banned after the first trimester.

Unfortunately, 61% of Americans said that abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances during the first trimester. Encouragingly however, 65% said most or all second trimester abortions should be illegal. This increased to 80% in the third trimester.

For second trimester abortions, the poll found that, "34% say they should usually [19%] or always [15%] be legal, and another 30% say they should be illegal in most but not all cases."

Regarding third trimester abortions, 26% said that they should be illegal in most cases, 54% said that they should be illegal in all circumstances.

Statistics from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute indicate that over 100,000 abortions killed unborn babies in the second trimester or later during the year 2017 alone. Clearly government policy on abortion does not reflect public opinion.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Life House Members Sign Discharge Petition to Vote on Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX)

After returning from extended medical leave, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) became the 212th House Member to sign a discharge petition to bring the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to a vote before the full House of Representatives. As they have in previous sessions of Congress, however, pro-abortion legislators refuse to let the bill even receive a vote.

The petition must receive 218 signatures to bring the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act out of committee and put it before the full House of Representatives for debate and a vote.

Pro-abortion legislators continue to argue that this legislation is redundant and unnecessary, but this is not true. The 2002 Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (which is often referenced by opponents of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act) does not include an enforcement provision, and therefore has no consequences for abortionists who refuse to provide care for babies who survive attempted abortions. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act requires these babies to be transported to hospitals where they must receive the same degree of care as any other baby.

In the last Congress, pro-abortion representatives blocked the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act for months.

Click here to read more.

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds to Appeal Decision Overturning 24-Hour Waiting Period

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds (R)

Last Monday, District Court Judge Mitchell Turner ruled that an Iowa law requiring a 24 hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion was unconstitutional. As many pro-life advocates expected, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds quickly announced that she plans on appealing Judge Turner's decision.

At a news conference last Wednesday at the Iowa Capitol, Gov. Reynolds said, “I absolutely don’t agree with the decision, and that’s what the process is for. Certainly, we’ll be appealing that decision, and we’re pretty confident that we can get the outcome that we’re looking for.”

Judge Truner's decision relied on precedent from the Iowa Supreme Court's 2018 decision regarding a 72 hour waiting period law. That waiting period was decided to be unconstitutional, but the court went even further than that; declaring that women have a fundamental right to have an abortion under the Iowa Constitution.

Five of the seven justices on the Supreme Court have been replaced by pro-life Gov. Reynolds since the 2018 decision. This includes four out of the five justices who were in the majority on that decision.

Legislators have also started the long process of amending the Constitution to guarantee that it cannot be interpreted to secure a right to abortion. If the process continues to be successful, Iowans will have the opportunity to vote on that amendment in 2024.

Click here to read more.

North Carolina Gov. Vetoes Bill Banning Discriminatory Abortions

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D)

Last Friday, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) vetoed legislation that would have banned abortionists from aborting babies if they know that the woman is seeking it due to the unborn child's race, sex, or prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.

To overcome the governor's veto, “about two Democrats in the Senate and three in the House would need to vote with Republicans in favor of the abortion restrictions,” the Herald Sun reported.

HB 453, known as the Human Life Nondiscrimination Act/No Eugenics, would require abortionists to confirm before the abortion that the woman is not seeking an abortion because of any of the following: the actual or presumed race or racial makeup of the unborn child; the sex of the unborn child; the presence or presumed presence of Down syndrome.” This makes it different than legislation in other states, which don't require abortionists to proactively ask questions of pregnant mothers. They just prohibit the abortionist from carrying out an abortion if they happen to learn that the reason is discriminatory.

“This bill simply puts an end to eugenics,” Sen. Amy Galey said in a statement responding to Gov. Cooper's veto. “It shouldn’t be controversial to protect an unborn child with Down syndrome, but Gov. Cooper proves once again that he’s unwilling to stand up for North Carolinians when his left-wing donors demand his loyalty.”

Click here to read more.

Pro-life Representatives Advocate for "No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act" on House Floor

HR 18 Sponsor Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)

Pro-life legislators from the House of Representatives delivered speeches this week in defense of H.R. 18, the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Act. The legislation is a response to President Biden's 2022 budget proposal, which is the first in decades to not include Hyde Amendment protections. Without those protections, federal tax dollars will be used to fund elective abortions on demand under Medicaid.

On Tuesday, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) asked that the House consider H.R. 18, and described the importance of Hyde Amendment language:

"Let’s be clear: The Hyde Amendment is not discriminatory. Instead, it’s an essential safeguard that not only protects Americans’ right of conscience, but also has saved more than two million lives from abortion since it was first enacted in 1976.

Until recently, it was also overwhelmingly bipartisan. In fact, one of its most vocal supporters in Congress was then-Senator Joe Biden. He told one of his constituents in 1994, ‘the government should not tell those with strong convictions against abortion, such as you and I, that we must pay for them.’ Well said, Mr. President.

Since then, the purpose of Hyde hasn’t changed.  

The strong convictions of the American people against abortion haven’t changed. In poll after poll, they tell us they strongly support a wall of separation between abortions and taxpayers.

And the science hasn’t changed. If anything, it has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that human life begins at conception."

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) the sponsor of H.R. 18, addressed the House on June 23, asking that Representatives call his bill to a vote. He decried the harm caused by abortion throughout the US:

Over 2.4 million people who would have been aborted instead survived because taxpayer funds were unavailable to effectuate their violent demise.

Growing numbers of Americans continue to be shocked to learn that the methods of abortion include dismemberment of a child’s fragile body including decapitation, and that drugs like RU 486 starve the baby to death before he or she is forcibly expelled from the womb.

The multibillion-dollar abortion industry cleverly markets the sophistry of choice while going to extraordinary lengths to ignore, trivialize and cover-up the battered baby-victim.

By reason of their age, dependency, immaturity, inconvenience, fragility and/or unwantedness, unborn children have been denied justice—and the most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life.

Click here to read more.

22 State Attorneys General Petition Congress to Restore Hyde Amendment

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R)

On June 21, a coalition of 22 state attorneys general led by Alabama AG Steve Marshall (R) sent a letter to congressional leaders asking them to restore the Hyde Amendment after it was left out from President Biden's 2022 budget request.

The Hyde Amendment prohibits federal tax dollars from funding elective abortions through Medicaid. Originally introduced by the late Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde, this protection was a bipartisan part of every spending bill since 1976.

Marshall told the Catholic News Agency during a phone interview that “Taxpayers who fundamentally oppose abortion shouldn’t have their tax dollars pay for abortion on demand.”

“We were disappointed to find the conspicuous omission of the Hyde Amendment in the budget proposal that President Biden delivered to Congress earlier this month,” the 22 attorneys general wrote in their letter, arguing that they “have a unique interest in the Hyde Amendment as an important protection for the consciences of the millions of Americans who oppose public funding of abortion.”

Click here to read more.

"For the People Act" Fails to Overcome G.O.P. Filibuster

On Wednesday, a filibuster by Senate Republicans blocked H.R. 1, known as the "For the People Act." This bill was written by the Democratic party in response to election reform legislation which was passed in several Republican states, but it also included language that would have impacted the first amendment rights of organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and its affiliates (such as the IFRL).

National Right to Life wrote in a letter to Senators,

"Enactment of [H.R. 1] would not be a curb on corruption, but is itself a type of corruption – an abuse of the lawmaking power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions, among other deterrents, to reduce the amount of private speech regarding the actions of the lawmakers themselves. Further, this legislation would add a commissioner to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), causing a partisan takeover by significantly increasing the likelihood that the agency could make decisions benefiting the political party in power."

The bill would have created an expansive definition for "the functional equivalent of express advocacy" which would apply to "communications that “when taken as a whole, it can be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for election for Federal office." Any organization that gives commentary on the votes or positions of incumbent Congress members could be interpreted to fall within this definition. Thus, these organizations could be forced to keep and report additional records. H.R. 1 would even require these organizations to post identifying information about their financial supporters online, thereby opening them up to harassment and intimidation by those who disagree with them.

By failing to surpass the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, H.R. 1 cannot pass and limit our freedom of speech.

Click here to read more.

Press Secretary Refuses to Answer Whether Biden Believes Preborn Children are Human

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to answer a reporter's question on Monday when she was asked, "Does the President believe that a 15-week-old unborn baby is a human being?"

Psaki replied to the question, “Are you asking me if the President supports a woman’s right to choose? He does.”

Several pro-abortion politicians have been asked this question recently, since the Supreme Court is preparing to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization this fall. The case is a challenge to a Mississippi law banning abortion at 15 weeks gestation. The Supreme Court's decision has the potential to significantly change how abortion is treated under federal law- perhaps even overturning Roe v. Wade entirely.

A simple "no" would have sufficed. https://t.co/PtohtYL2D5

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 21, 2021

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told CNS news that he would “wait for the Supreme Court decision” rather than tell reporters whether he believed an unborn child should be considered human at 15 weeks. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) similarly refused to answer questions about the humanity of an unborn child at that stage of development.

If pro-abortion politicians concede that unborn children are human, which is supported by the fact that unique human genetic code is created during conception, they would also acknowledge that abortion kills human beings. Thus, these politicians would either be denying science or condoning the killing of certain humans. Pro-abortion politicians know how precarious their position is, so they refuse to answer questions like this one.

Click here to read more.

Pro-Abortion Advocates Claim Abortion is Good for the Economy

Pro-abortion advocates are citing a new report from the Institute of Women's Policy Research (IWPR) to argue that abortion restrictions hurt the economy. The report estimates that state abortion restrictions cost the economy $105 billion per year, and that allowing unborn babies to be killed at any gestational age for any reason would be worthwhile for its economic benefits.

The study further argues that getting rid of abortion restrictions would cause over 500,000 women to enter the workforce, thereby increasing annual earnings for women by over $1,600 per year.

The IWPR study implies that caring for children is something that women should reject, and it reinforces the idea of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. Businesses often pressure women to choose abortion if they want to keep their jobs, and the widespread availability of abortion only helps businesses discriminate in this way.

Ending abortion restrictions is not the answer to this problem. It will only amplify it. Childcare resources and support from fathers can empower working women without the sacrifice of unborn children.

Click here to read more.