Activists Claim Thousands of Women Died From Illegal Abortions Before Roe. It’s False, Here’s the Truth

My mother taught me that when you say something you know is untrue, you’re lying.

By Brad Mattes
Life News

In the wake of Brett Kavanuagh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, pro-abortion activists and politicians are doubling down on their radical support for abortion on demand until the moment of birth.

They’re in the minority. Most Americans support compassionate protections for unborn children and their mothers – especially a limit on abortion after five months, more than halfway through pregnancy. Pro-abortion activists respond to this with their tired, old militant lie: The only way to keep abortion safe is to keep abortion legal throughout pregnancy.

My mother taught me that when you say something you know is untrue, you’re lying.

Abortion advocates – both before and after its legalization – have claimed the annual death toll of women who had illegal back-alley abortions before Roe v. Wade was between 5,000 and 10,000.

This is simply a lie. In fact, the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics and Centers for Disease Control found that 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe. Every death was a tragic loss, but that number is far from the wild claims of extreme abortion advocates.

Bernard Nathanson, the former abortionist who ran the largest abortion center in the Western Hemisphere and co-founded NARAL, later came clean in his book, Aborting America.

He “knew the figures were totally false” and said that many leading pro-abortion activists were well aware of the untruth of those numbers. “But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution,” he wrote, “it was a useful figure, widely accepted so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?”

The claim that legal abortion is safe for women is also lie. The truth is that women were far safer prior to legal abortion, which has been a death sentence not only for babies but for some of their mothers too. Hundreds of women who died from complications due to legal abortion and thousands more who have been maimed and suffered serious internal injuries from botched abortions have been documented.

And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization headquartered in Kansas, reports on the devastation caused by legal abortion and specializes in uncovering numerous unreported medical emergencies at abortion facilities nationwide.

Just last week, they discovered that an ambulance transported a woman to a local hospital who was experiencing hemorrhaging due to a botched abortion from a West Palm Beach mill. This same facility was referred to the U.S. House Select Panel on Infant Lives two years ago for illegally selling aborted baby body parts for monetary gain.

Operation Rescue also recently received incident reports on an abortion facility in Charlotte, North Carolina showing that ambulances were called 15 separate times due to onsite medical emergencies. Even worse, in 2016, Diamond Williams lost her life due to a botched abortion at the same facility.

Operation Rescue also recently received incident reports on an abortion facility in Charlotte, North Carolina showing that ambulances were called 15 separate times due to onsite medical emergencies. Even worse, in 2016, Diamond Williams lost her life due to a botched abortion at the same facility.

Life News continues here

'Trigger Laws' in Place for Possible Reversal of Roe v. Wade

By Chris Woodward
One News Now

There's been a lot of talk as to whether the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade – but some argue it's already been reversed in many ways.

"Roe v. Wade is an almost 50-year-old decision," notes Dr. Jameson Taylor of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.

"It's based on old science, and the Court has almost entirely abandoned that framework that's been set up by Roe and signaled to states that they can regulate abortion in a limited way to protect the life of the unborn child and to protect maternal health."

However, overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal, Taylor adds. "What it would do is allow the states to have their own choices about abortion policy," he explains.

Dr. Taylor

At least four states – Mississippi, Louisiana, North Dakota, and South Dakota – have what are known as "trigger laws" that would go into effect automatically in the event SCOTUS overturned its landmark 1973 decision. 

In that case, says Taylor, "these laws mean that abortion would become illegal in these states."Regardless, Taylor thinks intellectual and scientific honesty demands a reconsideration of Roe.

"3D and 4D ultrasounds are showing women that their unborn child is not just a blob of tissue, but a living thing with a beating heart, and that the child can sense light, move, hear, and taste," he continues.

 "Whatever you want to call it, this entity has the form of a human person – and that is something that the Supreme Court has already observed [by] inviting states to regulate abortion in ways to protect maternal health."

Of course, all this hinges on who replaces the late Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. President Trump recently nominated Brett Kavanaugh of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to fill that slot – but liberal senators have vowed to block that nomination out of concern that Kavanaugh might rule against abortion in a future case.

Meanwhile, conservatives and special-interest groups have raised concerns about where exactly Kavanaugh stands on abortion, based on past opinions and answers he's provided when asked.

Website: One News Now

Theory Behind Roe “Does Not Make Any Sense”

“Now, regardless of what my views as a Catholic are, the Constitution says nothing about it.”

The Late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

By Dave Andrusko
National Right to Life

Editor’s note. Everyone is figuratively on pins and needles in anticipation of Monday’s expected announcement by pro-life President Donald Trump who he will nominate to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is retiring.

As we all know this will be President’s second opportunity to fill a vacancy. In 2017, he selected Neil Gorsuch, proving by that decision that he was serious about choosing justices in the mold of the late great Antonin Scalia whom Gorsuch replaced.

Elsewhere this week, and again today, we’ve posted about the abomination that was and is Roe v. Wade. Justice Scalia was not on the Roe court, but he came to be Roe’s most articulate and forceful critic.

By way of memorializing his great contributions to exposing Roe’s absurd underpinnings, I’d like to repost a story I wrote a few years ago about an interview Justice Scalia gave CNN. He was, as always, brilliant. The link to You Tube that shows the exchange still works but not the link to the Kathleen Jean Lopez’s transcript.

There I was, peacefully switching back and forth between three sporting events when I happened upon Piers Morgan’s show on CNN. He was interviewing Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

While I thoroughly enjoyed the portion that remained, I knew Morgan must have asked Justice Scalia about Roe v. Wade.

Kudos to Kathleen Jean Lopez, editor-at-large of National Review Online, who put the entire Roe/abortion exchange up online.

Let’s talk about just three of many fascinating points. First, in only a few sentences, Justice Scalia exposes the soft jurisprudential underbelly of Roe. As he put it, “[T]he theory that was expounded to impose that decision [Roe] was a theory that does not make any sense.” Ah, yes!

Second, Morgan asks Scalia if thinks abortion should be illegal. Justice Scalia responds with the first of several important distinctions: “I don’t have public views on what should be illegal and what shouldn’t. I have public views on what the Constitution prohibits and what it doesn’t prohibit.”

It would be amusing (if the subject weren’t so important) to watch Morgan try to “shame” Scalia into agreeing that abortion ought to be legal. After an incoherent foray into what the rights of women were when the Constitution was written, Morgan takes a second swing:

“But when women began to take charge in the last century, of their lives and their rights and so on, and began to fight for these, everybody believed that was the right thing to do, didn’t they? I mean, why would you be instinctively against that?”

Get it? “Everybody” agrees abortion should be legal—at least everybody who is anybody—so why would Justice Scalia “instinctively” go the wrong way? There follows a second keen distinction, one that people like Morgan either cannot understand or refuse to understand. Scalia says

“My view is regardless of whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you think prohibiting abortion is bad, regardless of how you come out on that, my only point is the Constitution does not say anything about it. It leaves it up to democratic choice.

“Some states prohibited it, some states didn’t. What Roe v. Wade said was that no state can prohibit it. That is simply not in the Constitution. It was one of those many things — most things in the world — left to democratic choice. And — and the court does — does not do democracy a favor when it takes an issue out of democratic choice [Morgan interrupts, but the rest of Scalia’s answer is] simply because it thinks it should not be there.”

Third, Morgan, as is his custom, frontloads his question about the impact of Scalia’s Catholic faith on his jurisprudence by attempting to presuppose/preempt Scalia’s answer.

National Right to Life article continues here

Reflections on the Anniversary of Dred Scott and its Uncanny Parallels to Roe v. Wade

"Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide." President Ronald Reagan 

Dred Scott - circa 1857

By Dave Andrusko
National Right to Life

Tip of the hat to POLITICO for an excellent piece by Andrew Glass reminding us that it was this day, 161 years ago, that the Supreme Court handed down its awful Dred Scott v. Sanford decision. 

As Glass observes: On this day in 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 that all African Americans living in the United States — slaves as well as free persons — could never become citizens. It also invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820, thereby permitting slavery in every federal territory.

Likewise Roe v. Wade to which pro-lifers routinely compare Dred Scott, permitted unlimited abortion in all 50 states. And just as Dred Scott “inflamed passions,” so did Roe v. Wade

Note to newcomers: the High Court’s vote in Dred Scott was 7-2 as was Roe v. Wade. And just as Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist eloquently dissented in Roe, so, too, did two Justices– John McLean and Benjamin R. Curtis –passionately dissented in Dred Scott.

Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion was historically harebrained, as critic after critic (including numerous pro-choice academicians) demonstrated. Interestingly, as Glass writes, Justice Curtis “undercut most of Taney’s historical arguments, showing that African-Americans had voted in several states when the nation was founded.”

Each time the anniversary of Dred Scott comes around, I think of President Ronald Reagan’s analogy in his book, Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation:

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. 


The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God.


National Right to Life article continues here

Harry Blackmun’s Daughter Speaks About Her Father’s Roe v. Wade Decision

By Sarah Terzo
National Right to Life

(The following is taken from Anne Hendershott’s, The Politics of Abortion, where Hendershott analyzes what Justice Blackmun’s daughter, Sally Blackmun, wrote in her introduction to Gloria Feldt’s book, The War on Choice.)

Sally Blackmun, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun’s daughter, talks about why he found in favor of Roe v. Wade:

“Sally Blackmun, an abortion-rights activist and daughter of Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the Roe v. Wade opinion, recounts how personal considerations entered into her father’s thinking on the matter. She recalls that he often discussed the broad issues involved in his cases with his family “around the dinner table,” and says that “he really struggled with Roe V Wade.”

At one point, when the family was in the middle of a meal together, justice Blackmun asked Sally and her two sisters how they thought the case should be decided. They said that they favored the plaintiff.

Appearing to take partial credit for the historic Supreme Court decision, Sally suggests that her father was certainly influenced by “his 3 daughters and an outspoken, independent wife.” And although Justice Blackmun’s written decision cites a right of privacy that he found in the 14th amendment to the Constitution, his daughter maintains that he also viewed Roe as “an opportunity to give women rights that will emancipate them.”

Noting that her father had spent 9 years working as a general counsel for the Mayo Clinic, Sally Blackmun concludes that this period of his life “gave him the opportunity to see firsthand the aftereffects of botched illegal abortions.”

What would’ve happened if one of his daughters or his wife had been pro-life?

Editor’s note. Sarah Terzo is a pro-life author and creator of the Clinic Quotes website where this appeared.

Website: National Right to Life

Roe v. Wade Will Eventually Fall and Unborn Babies Will be Protected From Abortion

By Maria Gallagher, PA Pro-Life Federation
Life News

“Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!”—The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., April 3, 1968, Memphis, Tennessee

In working to celebrate and honor the dignity of innocent human life, I have found this quotation from civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. coming to my mind again and again. I hope with all my heart that I will see the day when the tragic U.S. Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade is overturned. To me, metaphorically speaking, enabling states to protect preborn children from the moment of conception is the “Promised Land” that I am longing to see. I pray that this happens during my lifetime.

It saddens me that my daughter has had to grow up in a world in which the taking of unborn children’s lives is so prevalent. In the U.S. alone, the unborn death toll from abortion stands at close to 60 million since the 1973 Supreme Court decision. That figure does not include mothers who have died directly as a result of abortion, mothers who have died from drug or alcohol overdoses following abortion, or of post-abortion suicides.

That death toll also does not take into account the collateral damage caused by abortion—the severed relationships, the emotional and psychological trauma, the physical complications, the subsequent premature births.

What could be called the culture of abortion is prevalent in our political system, entertainment, and the media. Thus, the effort to restore a culture of life is played out on multiple fronts—not only in courtrooms and Capitol buildings, but also on television and movie screens and over Internet connections.

To counter the abortion lobby is a vast undertaking. But there is certainly hope born in every chapter and affiliate of National Right to Life. Research shows that the Millennial generation of young adults is more pro-life than young people of generations past.

When I learn that a baby’s life is saved and a mother is spared the harm of abortion, I am transported to the mountaintop. I still hope I will survive to see the promised land of an abortion-free America. But if I do not, I am confident that my daughter or another descendent will.

Life News article continues

Human Life is No Less Sacred Before Birth Than After

By Maria Gallagher, PA Pro-Life Federation
Life News

Not so long ago, a friend of mine, ever-sunny Robin, was all set to serve as a volunteer on a women’s retreat weekend. Then she learned that her beloved grandchild in utero, Quinn, had to be delivered by C-section the next morning.

She left the retreat, bound for her daughter-in-law’s side. And she left behind a group of faithful women who were praying fervently that Quinn would journey safely into the world.

The retreat was jam-packed with talks and activities, but when we had a few moments to pause, we, the team members, prayed again for the young lady’s blessed arrival. A few hours later, a team member glanced at her phone and quietly informed those around her “We have a baby.”

We logged onto Facebook and there, in all her five-pound glory, was the girl we had been praying for—stunningly beautiful, preciously pink, uniquely lovely, and unashamedly and completely loved by the grandmother who held Quinn in her arms.

While I was filled with joy and wonder at seeing Quinn’s breathtaking face, I couldn’t help but think of some politicians support abortion even at the latest stages of pregnancy.

It’s entirely possible that these same politicians would ooh and ahh if they saw Quinn’s photo on Facebook. And yet, they remain committed to a political agenda which allows abortion up to the moment of birth.

Quinn’s life is no accident—and neither is the life of any unborn child. There is purpose and reason for her life. And perhaps her worth is all the more apparent, given the struggle her mother faced in giving birth to her.

She comes at a time when political candidates can blindly and blandly dismiss children in the womb, assigning them no rights—as if these public officials had the power to determine a child’s worth. No matter how powerful they believe they are, no matter the height of the office they hope to hold, assigning value to human beings is beyond their rightful authority.

Quinn was no less sacred before birth as after birth. Sure, we can see her sunlit face now, when before, with the ultrasound, she would demurely turn her face away.

But she is no more human now than she was when snugly living inside her mother’s body. She is the same person—only older and more exposed to the world—a world that she will forever change, just through her very being.

Last presidential cycle, when Hillary Clinton and Sen. Sanders talked about “women’s rights,” they forgot about the rights of those little women in the womb, who are every bit as deserving of respect as a President, a premier, or a king.

I am convinced that someday women will be able to look at a baby picture and not have to think about the babies who never got a chance to see their grandmother’s faces—the babies that Roe v. Wade cast away.  Roe v. Wade will be no more. The next generation will guarantee it.

Website: Life News 

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link.  Follow us on Facebook, Google, and Pinterest.  Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does?  

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.
In Southeast Penna:  Call or text 610-626-4006  

If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org.  

Roe’s Death-Dealing Days are Numbered

A Court Ruling which Extinguishes that 

Divine Spark Cannot Last Forever

By Maria Gallagher
Life News

I watched the movie “Jackie” the other week because I was interested in finding out how the film would portray the life of First Lady Jackie Kennedy following the immense tragedy of her husband’s assassination.

I have no first-hand memories of the time in American history that Jackie would describe as “Camelot.” Therefore, films and books and television programs are my only connection with that era. I would say that I have seen snippets of the Zapruder film depicting the shooting of President John Kennedy far more times than I have seen his Inauguration speech or any footage of his life in the White House.

As a result, in my mind, the assassination overshadowed his actual Presidency; his death was more studiously examined than his life.

I have a similar point of view about growing up in the shadow of Roe v. Wade. From the time as a child when I first learned what abortion was, the taking of an innocent child’s life, it has been legal.

Many Americans are in the same position. They have no recollection, or first-hand knowledge, of what life in America was like before the tragic U.S. Supreme Court decision which legalized abortion nationwide.

The irony in this is that the nation’s youngest adults, the Millennials, are more pro-life than previous generations of young people, according to national public opinion polls. Some even refer to themselves as being part of the “Pro-Life Generation.” They are determined to end abortion, peacefully and prayerfully, and by empowering women to make life-affirming decisions for themselves and their families.

With the idealism of youth on their side, they can envision an abortion-free nation, a nation more accepting of life, of babies, and of pregnant women. Rather than turning the clock back, they want to move America forward to a brighter, life-giving and life-sustaining future. 

They have seen the injustice of Roe first-hand. They know there are sisters, brothers, and cousins who are not here today because of the tragic Supreme Court decision made by a group of misguided men a lifetime ago.

Website: National Right to Life

Clement: Roe v. Wade Attorney Called Norma McCorvey a ‘Stupid Piece of White Trash’

'I began a journey from pro-choice to pro-life.' 

By Melissa Clement
Live Action News

One of my all-time favorite lecturers was Sarah Weddington, the attorney who successfully argued the Roe v. Wade decision. She was articulate, gracious, funny, smart and THE FEMINIST ICON….

… [A] group of students and I took her to dinner…. Over dessert, I asked, “whatever happened to Roe [Norma McCorvey]?”

Sarah’s gracious demeanor and beautiful smile changed instantaneously.

“She’s a stupid piece of white trash. She’s pro-life and a Christian,” she snarled[,] throwing in a few decidedly ungracious and unrepeatable curse words. “She’s a piece of trash. She was stupid when we found her and she’s worse now.”

I quickly paid the check and the evening ended. Her words and her demeanor hung in the air that night and honestly, I have never been able to forget them.

And that, right there, was the end of a chapter. I would no longer blindly follow a feminist agenda that defined progress on the backs of dead babies. 

I began a journey from pro-choice to pro-life. Why? Because Roe v. Wade, the decision that supposedly was the rallying cry for all feminists, was achieved by taking advantage of a “stupid piece of trash[,]” not fighting for the rights of all women.

Website: lifeactionnews.org

Voices for Life is an e-publication dedicated to informing and educating the public on pro-life and pro-family issues. To read our Mission Statement, use this link. Follow us on Facebook, Google, and Pinterest. Help us spread the pro-life message by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Pregnant, need help or know someone who does?  

National Hotline: Call 1-800-712-HELP or Text 'HELPLINE' to 313131.
In Southeast Penna:  Call or text 610-626-4006  

If you or someone you know is suffering after abortion, confidential non-judgmental help is available.  Call Project Rachel's national toll-free number 888-456-HOPE (4673) or visit hopeafterabortion.org.  

Seven Powerful Quotes From ‘Jane Roe’ of Roe v. Wade

By Sarah Terzo
Live Action News

“You read about me in history books, but now I am dedicated to spreading the truth about preserving the dignity of all human life from natural conception to natural death.”

Norma McCorvey, also known as “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, was the plaintiff that attorneys, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, used in the Texas court case that struck down all laws against abortion throughout the United States. Today, McCorvey is pro-life.

1) “The entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions.”

In an affidavit McCorvey submitted to the District Court of New Jersey in 2000, she says:

Virtually the entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions. No meaningful trial to determine the real facts was ever held.

The misrepresentations and deceptions that plagued Roe v. Wade are presented to this Court …. These facts, which were neither disclosed to me in 1970 nor to the plaintiffs of this case before they had an abortion, are critical for understanding the issues involved. …we obtained a decision in Roe v. Wade based upon what abortion advocates wanted women to be able to do, not what women were truly capable of.

2) “I didn’t know during the Roe v. Wade case that the life of a human being was terminated.”



McCorvey became pregnant during a low point in her life. She was homeless and living in a public park, and her other two children were being raised by others. A lawyer she was speaking to about adoption referred her to Weddington and Coffee.

The lawyers allegedly fawned over McCorvey, taking her out to eat and giving her lots of attention. They complained about being unable to find the perfect plaintiff for their case to make abortion legal. They told McCorvey that she was the ideal case. According to McCorvey:

They said yes, “You’re white. You’re young, pregnant, and you want an abortion.” At that time, I didn’t know their full intent. Only that they wanted to make abortion legal and they thought I’d be a good plaintiff. I came for the food, and they led me to believe that they could help me get an abortion.

During our meeting, they questioned me, “Norma don’t you think that abortion should be legal?” Unsure, I responded that I did not know. In fact, I did not know what the term “abortion” really meant. Back in 1970, no one discussed abortion. It was taboo, and so too was the subject of abortion. The only thing I knew about the word was in the context of war movies. I had heard the word “abort” when John Wayne was flying his plane and ordered the others to “Abort the mission.” I knew “abort” meant that they were “going back”. “Abortion”, to me, meant “going back” to the condition of not being pregnant.

I never looked the word up in the dictionary until after I had already signed the affidavit. I was very naive. For their part, my lawyers lied to me about the nature of abortion. Weddington convinced me that “It’s just a piece of tissue. You just missed your period.” I didn’t know during the Roe v. Wade case that the life of a human being was terminated.

3) “The courts…I feel used me to justify legalization of terminating of the lives of over 35 million babies.”

McCorvey trusted her lawyers, and signed the affidavit of Roe v. Wade without reading it. Knowing little about abortion procedures, McCorvey believed Weddington when she told her that abortion was removing “a bit of tissue.” McCorvey explains why she later felt exploited:

Norma McCorvey's story continues

If Hillary Clinton is Elected, It May be 43 More Years Before Roe is Overturned. Here’s Why

By Micaiah Bilger
Life News

The future makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court is a key concern for both sides of the abortion debate this election. The next president could have the opportunity to nominate up to four justices to the high court and influence the court’s decisions for years.

But a new article in The Daily Signal points out how the next president’s nominations could affect much more than just the Supreme Court. The president has the power to nominate judges to other federal courts, too, and that power in the hands of pro-abortion Hillary Clinton could keep a challenge to Roe v. Wade and other pro-life cases against abortion from even reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pro-abortion President Barack Obama already has made a huge impact on the courts. The Daily Signal’s Philip Wegmann writes:

When Obama entered the Oval Office, liberal judges controlled just one of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Fifty-five successful presidential nominations later, liberal majorities now control nine of those appeals benches, or 70 percent.

Outside of legal circles the transformation of the influential federal appeals courts has gone largely unnoticed, though.

“The Supreme Court grabs the spotlight, but it hears fewer than 100 cases a year,” Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett said, “while the 13 federal courts of appeals handle about 35,000.”

More than one-third of the 179 judges on federal appeals courts owe their seat to Obama, Willett told The Daily Signal. “That’s a legacy with a capital L.”

If Clinton becomes president, she could have an even more negative impact on the lower courts, appointing judges who could overturn even moderate, common-sense abortion regulations. Her continuation of Obama’s pro-abortion nominations could sway a huge percentage of lower court decisions for decades, and lead to the loss of millions more unborn babies to abortion.

Clinton promised months ago that she only would nominate judges who support Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand. In February, she revealed that she has a litmus test for judges, and high on her priority list is pro-abortion judges.

“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests, because the next president could get as many as three appointments,” Clinton said. “It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.

“We have to preserve marriage equality. We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community, we’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe V. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she continued.

Clinton’s abortion stance is radical and out of touch with most Americans. In February, she defended the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. Then, during an interview on The View recently, Clinton said an unborn child just hours before delivery should have no Constitutional rights. At a presidential forum at Drake University, Clinton called ending the life of another human being a “fundamental human right.”

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has promised to appoint pro-life judges who will protect the right to life for unborn babies.

“We are going to appoint great Supreme Court justices… These will be justices of great intellect… And they will be pro-life,” Trump told pro-life leaders in June.

Trump also released a well-received list of 11 potential Supreme Court nominees — a list pro-life groups hailed for having strong supporters of the Constitution.


Website: lifenews.com

The Man In The Mirror

The Man In The Mirror

Roe v Wade