When it Comes to Abortion, There's Only One Choice

By Rich Kozlovich 

The Democrats have only one issue in this upcoming election they believe is a winning issue for them, and that's abortion.  The right to murder the innocent unborn is being used against the Republicans, and especially Trump. 

Yesterday Dean Davis posted this article, Is the New Pro-Choice GOP Committing Political Suicide?, dealing with the fact Trump and JD Vance are both opposed to a national ban on abortion, that Trump would veto any such legislation, and SCOTUS was right that the states should decide that issue.  He states:

Imagine, then, our shock and dismay now that President Trump and much of the GOP leadership have rejected the historic GOP position on abortion and the sanctity of human life.

The litany of President Trump’s recent statements is all too familiar.  He has told us that the SCOTUS got it right, that abortion law is best left to the states and the (diverse and ever-shifting) will of the voters.  Though he personally opposes late-term abortions, he is fine with letting blue states permit them, even up to birth.  He thinks current abortion law in Florida, Arizona, and some 14 other states (law that has saved thousands of lives) is too restrictive.

I find this position by Trump and Vance to be vile. Abortion is the murder of the innocent unborn, and violates all the principles outlined in the Constitution, and the human conscience!  Once the human conscience has been scarred, there's no end to the horrors humanity can perpetrate.

Those shifting values are the result of the corruption of truth by the Pravda media, and the leftist controlled system of education in America destroying foundational Judaic/Christian values of the nation, and many heretical "Christian" and "Jewish" religious "leaders" have become vile in their support of this corruption.  

Then there's the "Trump made a smart, pragmatic decision" argument saying "any rational individual would rather see Trump reelected by playing a little chess than lose by being a martyr."  

Then there are those who point out unlike other Republican Presidents Trump has appointed judges to SCOTUS who would vote against Roe v. Wade, and did.  

The problem with these arguments are three fold.  

First, I really get tired of the "pragmatic" argument.  Who wants a leader that stands on the hill waving a flag that says, "I stand for consensus", instead of a leader with the courage to say, "I stand for truth, justice, and the protection of human life."   True leaders are willing to draw lines in the sand and tell the world, "you're wrong, you're going the wrong way, and I'm going to tell you why!"  And then fight with truthful and solidly rational arguments, unflinchingly!  

Those who say, "I oppose abortion personally, but I don’t want to impose my view of
abortion on others” is a hypocritical corruption in truth, morality, and logic.   How about this!  Would the argument, "While I oppose slavery personally, it's okay if my neighbors have slaves", resonate with you?

Secondly, there's no way a President can know what happens to these jurists once they're seated.  Trump just got lucky.   And based on some of the decisions by these so-called "traditionalist" judges, we can see how lucky.

Entirely too many of these judicial nominees are closet liberals when it comes to the Constitution, because culture is king.  The entire structure of America's legal system, from academia to sitting jurists, is made up of entirely too many leftists who take on an air of self-righteous arrogance, and I believe traditionalists fear being ostracized from their culture.  Heterodoxy isn't for the faint of heart.  It takes guts, it takes determination, and the willingness to be attacked unendingly, just as we've seen Justice Thomas being attacked.

Finally there's the argument for justifying this is that it "should be up to the states" is because "people in Alabama would think differently on the issue than people in California."   That's a false narrative.  First, can anyone name one issue where that hasn't been the case?  The federal government doesn't operate on a "they think differently" philosophy when it comes to rule making.  The federal government has ignored those value differences time after time, after time, on every major issue the nation has faced, and imposed a one size fits all solution, and no objections are allowed, and the courts have consistently supported that.  I'll tell you what, we'll come back to that.

 

The Chevron ruling is just one example, and those rules weren't even imposed by Congress, they were imposed on the nation by unelected bureaucrats.  So, why is abortion different? Why is murdering the innocent unborn less important than issues involving race, the environment, education, and more, where the federal government demands obsolete obedience.... or else!  

 

But somehow it's up to the states, with their shifting and often unstable values, to decide if murdering the innocent unborn is constitutional.   It's an issue of guts, and the willingness to stand against the current of immoral, murderous, misanthropic, and irrational social paradigms.

 

In this election anti-abortion forces have two choices.  Which means they only have one choice, and it's not Kamala, who would unleash the federal government deep state operatives against any state that chose life versus murder.  And then the argument that states think differently won't matter any longer.  With the left that was nothing more than a smoke screen argument using our own values against us.  That's what communists do.

 

One last point.  I'm a firm believer someone is watching the slaughter of all this innocent blood, and there will be an accounting for this vileness.

• Trump, Harris, and Communism 
• Like any good tyrant, Kamala wants the government to ban speech she dislikes