Donald Trump Sets New Pro-Life Standard

Donald Trump (photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

The only thing a candidate can ever offer is words. He can’t act on what he will do because he’s speaking about the future, not the present.

Yet Donald Trump has actually raised the bar for what pro-lifers can expect from Republican candidates, despite his troubling personal history on the issue.

This sounds counter-intuitive: even if pro-lifers support Trump, shouldn’t they feel they’re taking a step backwards? Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry urged this in The Week, saying “If pro-lifers vote for Trump, the Republican Party will never again give them what they want.”

But Gobry and others are ignoring Trump’s positions — and those positions actually improve the pro-life movement’s bargaining position in the Republican Party.

Take the ever-important Supreme Court. Past Republican nominees have actually refused to say they would appoint pro-life justices. Unlike Democrats, the GOP establishment has considered “litmus tests” taboo.

Trump has blasted through this judicial glass ceiling. He has not only specified his justices will be pro-life; he has named a list of them from whom he will pick. He even told Hugh Hewitt he would be fine with Republican senators holding up or filibustering his nominee if he veers from the list — because he won’t.

And Trump’s list is stellar. It includes people like Judge William Pryor who, during his Senate testimony to become an appeals court judge, explicitly and courageously said he opposes Roe v. Wade (instead of what most nominees say, which is usually something vague about following the law). Continue Reading

Is Believing There Are Only Two Genders “Antiquated”? This Columnist Thinks So…

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Apparently, if you’re from North Carolina and believe that there are only two genders — male and female, just to clarify — then you’re an “antiquated” bigot who is potentially costing your neighbors jobs and economic opportunity in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

At least, that’s according to Forbes.com columnist Corinne Jurney.

That’s right. If you reject the newest junk science which asserts there are 58 genders (why limit it to just 58?), then you’re the equivalent of racists and segregationists in the 50’s and 60’s.

Of course, this is absurd and untrue.

Beyond the obnoxious assertion that we should give up on reality, truth, and morality simply because corporate America has decided what values and beliefs are tolerable and intolerable (quite interesting especially coming from the left, which has consistently claimed that corporate America is evil in all aspects), it’s laughable that this passes as a compelling argument.

Just look at how confidently Jurney asserts the new gender theory as fact:

The law requires citizens to use the public facility that corresponds with their ‘biological’ gender. This edict aligns with the antiquated idea that gender is a binary construct, inherently marginalizing transgender people. The Justice Department has sued the state to overturn the law.

Jurney actually put the word “biological” in scare quotes, number one.

Number two, she asserts the idea that there are only two genders is “antiquated.”

So the approximately billion-year-old “idea” that men are men and women are women is antiquated because the LGBT lobby says so. Continue Reading

Did These Catholic Bishops Just Take a Swipe at Tim Kaine?

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) (photo credit: US Department of Education via Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has really been struggling lately when it comes to Catholics. It all started with the emails released by WikiLeaks that showed a number of Clinton staffers mocking Catholics and revealing their plans to undermine Catholic teaching. That may have been at least in part responsible for a poll out this week showing Clinton down 13 points to Donald Trump among Catholic voters.

Now, as Election Day nears, a number of Catholic bishops appear to be taking implicit — if not overt — swipes at Clinton’s running mate, Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

Just take, for example, a recent statement to Virginia Catholics from two of the state’s bishops, Paul Loverde and Francis DiLorenzo. Loverde and DiLorenzo mince no words when it comes to addressing two erroneous positions which have been advanced by Kaine during the campaign: the idea that one can be personally opposed to abortion while still supporting its legality and the idea that the Church can change its teaching on marriage. The bishops forcefully reject both these “areas of confusion,” and it is difficult not to read in this a rebuke of Kaine also:

The first area of confusion is that one can be “personally” opposed to abortion, yet continue to publicly support laws which allow it. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both natural law and Church teaching. The common good and Christian charity compel us to work toward overturning – not supporting or acquiescing to – all unjust laws.

Continue Reading

Voters Should Embrace Life and Reject Physician-Assisted Suicide

While Trump vs. Clinton is the contest on most Americans’ minds this election year, an even more important struggle has quietly emerged which could significantly impact our nation: that of life vs. death.

Earlier this week, the Washington, D.C., City Council voted to advance the “Death with Dignity” Act, legislation which would make D.C. one of six American jurisdictions allowing legalized physician-assisted suicide. The bill now moves on to Mayor Muriel Bowser, who a spokesman said “expects the bill to become law.”

And in Colorado, Proposition 106 is on the ballot this year, a “medical aid in dying” initiative that’s modeled after legislation that was debated and rebuffed in the state legislature. If the initiative succeeds, Colorado would become the third state to legalize assisted suicide by popular vote.

The assisted suicide movement caught fire after Brittany Maynard publicly declared her intention to end her life with help from her doctor, with the blessing of the Oregon state government. Proponents of this self-styled “death with dignity” argue that it is based out of compassion and respect for the individual seeking death, because they are preserved from further suffering in the face of a terminal illness.

However, unfortunately, recent news has shown the opposite. In California, where assisted suicide is legal, we learned last month that a patient’s chemotherapy treatment was no longer covered by her insurer — suicide pills were considered instead a more financially viable option for both the patient and her medical insurance provider.

This reeks of cold calculation rather than human compassion. Continue Reading

To Overcome Planned Parenthood Juggernaut, Pro-Lifers Must Support Our Cause!

Photo credit: American Life League via Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

Pro-life groups are in the final stages of reaching voters as early voting continues across the country. On Monday, the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) released new numbers for their grassroots campaign, announcing that more than 700 pro-life activists are working with them and their partner PAC, Women Speak Out, knocking on over 1 million doors over the 2016 election cycle.

Groups like SBA List are working overtime to reach voters — pro-life and pro-choice alike — while being out-spent by the abortion lobby.

This cycle, Planned Parenthood has spent over $30 million and in the final run of the cycle plans to have 1,500 paid staffers and 3,500 volunteers knocking on 500,000 doors in swing states such as New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Nevada and North Carolina. This is the same abortion giant that receives over $500 million from tax-payers every year that covers their “preventative” measures such as condoms, STD testing, contraceptives, etc. While Planned Parenthood cannot spend taxpayer dollars on politics, money is fungible and resources they receive from the federal government free up other resources for politics. This gives them the opportunity to use their abortion proceeds and donor dollars to work to elect and defend pro-abortion politicians who will protect their federal monies and their unregulated abortion practices.

Over the last 40 years, pro-lifers have countered this effort, forming organizations such as National Right to Life and the Susan B. Anthony List to go up against the pro-abortion political strategy by electing pro-life leaders and supporting them and holding them accountable while in Washington, D.C.

Continue Reading

Black Pastors Express Deep Concern over Clinton’s Stance on Abortion, Religious Freedom

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (photo credit: Lorie Shaull via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Earlier this week, a group of 26 African-American religious leaders signed an open letter to Hillary Clinton requesting that she meet with them to discuss issues of importance to the black community. They then went into details on a number concerns they hope to hear her address, including two issues which have become particularly problematic for Democrats: abortion and religious freedom.

On abortion, the letter slams Clinton for saying in a speech last year that people’s beliefs “have to be changed” on the issue, a comment which the church leaders write “is reminiscent of totalitarianism.” They then go on to chastise her for failing to protect “the lives of the innocent” unborn, especially unborn African Americans:

…[O]ur opposition to abortion is a logical outgrowth of our view that there must be justice for all. Particularly relevant is the innocence of the unborn child. The Bible places an extremely high value on human life and particularly on the lives of the innocent who are under the special protection of God. Those who take the life of the innocent violate a key biblical principle as well as a fundamental principle of natural justice.

Abortion in the black community has had a catastrophic impact. Nationally there are 365 black babies aborted for every 1,000 that are born. Blacks account for roughly 38% of all abortions in the country though we represent only 13% of the population. In New York City, the situation is absolutely dire.

Continue Reading

Poll: N.C. Voters Say They Oppose HB 2, But Support What It Actually Does

Photo credit: Mr. TinDC via Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)

Given the seemingly endless barrage of negative media coverage which has been aimed at North Carolina’s House Bill 2, including moves by corporations, sports entities, and celebrities to punish the state, it’s no surprise that the name “HB 2” has been tainted in the eyes of many voters. Just the latest evidence of this came in a recent Charlotte Observer poll, which showed 55 percent of North Carolinians want HB 2 to be repealed, versus 32 percent who support it.

However, when the Observer asked voters how they felt about the bill’s primary goal — namely, preventing any person from using any bathroom, locker room, or shower based on their claimed “gender identity” — the responses were much different:

Support remains for one of the bill’s key provisions – overturning a Charlotte ordinance that let transgender people use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify. Nearly half the voters agreed the policy could lead to sexual predators attacking victims in bathrooms, while 42 percent disagreed.

This is reminiscent of a similar North Carolina poll conducted by Civitas earlier last month. When voters in that poll were asked simply whether they supported or opposed House Bill 2, opposition prevailed 55 percent to 37 percent. But when those polled were given a full description of the legislation’s goals, as well as a description of the Charlotte Ordinance it overturned, their responses flipped, with 49 percent saying they thought HB 2 sounded more fair versus 35 percent who did not. Continue Reading

New Obama Admin Rule Could Bar Religious Charities from Federal Funding

President Barack Obama (photo credit: LBJ Foundation via Flickr, CC BY 2.0)

Religious freedom is under assault once again by the Obama administration, this time thanks to a new rule announced last week by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

According to the rule, recipients of federal grants from USAID are now prohibited from discriminating in the provision of services on the basis of, among other things, “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.” While innocent sounding on its face, as the Washington Times reports, the new rule could have an enormous impact on who the federal government contracts with, particularly when it comes to faith-based groups:

Roger Severino, director of the Heritage Foundation’s DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, said the rule will create more problems than it solves.

“Of course everyone that is eligible for aid should receive it, but the new rule is a solution in search of a problem and threatens religious aid organizations that provide vital services in reasonable and culturally sensitive ways,” Mr. Severino said. “For example, disaster relief agencies may now be required to open their women’s shower and sleeping facilities to biological males who self-identify as women or be stripped of all funding for alleged ‘gender identity discrimination.’”

Private contractors and nonprofits, many of them Catholic charities or religious humanitarian organizations, receive $16 billion in funding from USAID every year to fight poverty, start schools and eradicate disease, among other endeavors.

[…]

“Time and again, we see that when the LGBT agenda conflicts with religious liberty, according to President Obama, religious liberty must lose,” Mr.

Continue Reading

New Poll: Majority of Voters Oppose Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

Photo credit: Quinn Dombrowski via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Politico and the Harvard School of Public Health teamed up last month to conduct a poll of voters on issues related to healthcare. Among the topics included in the survey was the Hyde Amendment and whether the federal government should allow taxpayer money to go toward funding abortion.

Here was the full wording of the question:

Medicaid is the largest government program that pays for health care for low-income people. Currently the federal government prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions under Medicaid. Do you favor or oppose changing this policy in order to allow Medicaid funds to be used to pay for abortions?

Notice that the words “Hyde Amendment” and “taxpayer” were not used in the question. One might have expected, given the choice of wording, that the results would be less than favorable for upholding Hyde.

However, the opposite actually turned out to be the case. Among all respondents, 58 percent said they would oppose Medicaid funding being used to pay for abortions, while only 36 percent said they would support it. Predictably, responses lined up somewhat reliably along party lines — the split was 57 percent support versus 36 percent oppose for Hillary Clinton voters, and 19 percent support versus 77 percent oppose for Donald Trump voters.

Even more interesting, though, was this additional detail provided by the report:

On this question, women are slightly more supportive than men of abortion coverage under Medicaid, but the differences are statistically insignificant.

Continue Reading

WATCH: The Three Best Moments from Trump’s EWTN Interview

Last night, EWTN aired an extended interview with Donald Trump, his first with the Catholic television network. Trump and host Raymond Arroyo covered a number of important topics, including life, religious liberty, Obamacare, and the importance of the 2016 election.

You can watch the full interview below:

Here were Trump’s top three moments from the interview:

1.) “The person who was pro-choice is now pro-life…and that had a big effect on me.”

Trump discussed his change in view on the pro-life question, describing an event with a couple close to him, including the baby they eventually had, and the effect that experience had on him:

ARROYO: You’re very concerned about the late-term abortions. What was the moment that changed your thinking, your heart, on this?

TRUMP: Well, there are a number of moments, but one was a couple that I know very, very well — and you had a strong pro-life [person] and you had a strong pro-choice [person], and they argued over [the pregnancy]. … The mother was pregnant. They argued over the child. One, I won’t get into specifics.

But one wanted to abort. And the other said, “We can’t do that. We’re not going to do that.” Anyway, they had the baby. It was a long time ago. And the baby is such a magnificent person, who I know, a magnificent person. And the person that was actually pro-choice is now pro-life because of it, and it had a big effect on me. But I’ve seen other examples similar to that; but I’ve seen other examples, so …

ARROYO: So, it was a personal change for you?

Continue Reading