A Campaign Based On Lies

One of the main issues in the Democrat party campaign for the presidency is abortion. Unfortunately, they have decided that rather than fight their fight on the merits, they are simply going to lie about the issue. First of all, Roe v. Wade was overturned because it violated the 10th Amendment. A federal ban on abortion would also violate the 10th Amendment and would also be overturned by the courts. President Trump has already said he would oppose a federal ban on abortion, but that is not what the Kamala Harris campaign is reporting. The campaign is also lying about what constitutes an abortion and what medical care should be available to women who miscarry.

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article explaining how a recent claim by the Harris campaign is a lie.

The article reports:

Democrats and their corporate media allies are so desperate to get rid of pro-life laws that they’ll fabricate stories to wrongly smear them as not only bad for women but deadly.

The latest is ProPublica’s story of a Georgia woman who died after a North Carolina abortionist gave her chemical abortion pills — which, contrary to Democrat narratives, are unsafe. The article, however, pretends the death was caused by Georgia’s pro-life laws. The author of the story repeatedly attempts to conflate a procedure used to treat miscarriages, dilation and curettage (D&C), with elective abortion.

In ProPublica’s telling, 28-year-old Amber Nicole Thurman had ingested the chemical abortion pill regimen, which consists of the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone ends the life of the developing human being; misoprostol helps achieve complete expulsion of the embryo.

It’s worth noting that the FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone acknowledged its risks and enacted safety requirements, including a seven-week gestational limit, requiring women to see a physician in person, and a mandatory one-time post-abortion appointment to confirm that the uterus was empty and that bleeding had subsided. The FDA also required manufacturers of the abortion pill to report all adverse health events that were reported to them, such as infection or excessive bleeding — not just patient deaths. 

But thanks to Democrat efforts to relax safety requirements for abortion pills, important safeguards no longer apply. When Thurman experienced “complications” from the abortion, which ProPublica wrongly asserts are “rare,” she went to the hospital for a D&C.

While ProPublica claims, “Thurman had told doctors her miscarriage was not spontaneous — it was the result of taking pills to terminate her pregnancy,” Thurman was not experiencing a miscarriage. She had undergone an abortion. Her unborn twins had already died, and she had retained parts of their bodies or the placenta — a known complication of abortion pill use and one of the very reasons for the FDA’s requirement for a post-abortion follow-up visit with a doctor. 

The article concludes:

Amber Thurman did not die because of Georgia’s abortion law, which was enacted to protect the lives of mothers and preborn children. She died from complications of medical abortion. Perhaps, had the FDA decided not to remove its mandatory requirement for a doctor’s follow-up visit from abortion pill labeling, and had she received more appropriate care, she might have survived.

ProPublica says, “Thurman’s case marks the first time an abortion-related death, officially deemed ‘preventable,’ is coming to public light.” But what about the death of Alexandra Nunez? Or Rebecca Charland, Tonya Reaves, Jennifer Morbelli, Maria Santiago, Lakisha Wilson, Jamie Lee Morales, Cree Erwin Sheppard, Keisha Atkins, Tia Archeiva Parks, or April Lowery — all of whom died during or shortly after their abortions?

Were their deaths preventable? Or is maternal death associated with elective abortion acceptable, even though such abortions are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies?

Abortion has risks. I have friends who as a result of legal abortions were not able to have children when they wanted to have them. There was also a study in Japan in the 1970’s linking abortion to an increased risk of breast cancer. This is not a safe procedure whether it is done with drugs or other methods.

Sometimes Threats Don’t Mean Much

On Monday, The Washington Examiner reported that some of the threats made against states who have passed pro-life legislation since Roe v. Wade was overturned are not going to be carried out.

The article reports:

Eli Lilly and Company has tacitly backed down on its threat to punish Indiana for its pro-life law, which the pharmaceutical corporation promised to do this summer.

Last week, Lilly announced a $92.5 million investment in Purdue University to create a talent pipeline of college students over the next 10 years. The company’s CEO, David Ricks, said the partnership will “help to keep our state’s best and brightest in Indiana, furthering Lilly’s ability to make life better for millions of people.”

That’s a far cry from Eli Lilly’s blustering talk in August after Gov. Eric Holcomb signed legislation that closed down all abortion facilities and banned 98% of abortions after 10 weeks of pregnancy.

The abortion law “will hinder Lilly’s — and Indiana’s — ability to attract diverse scientific, engineering and business talent from around the world,” the company claimed in August.

…The company’s website further shows it does not plan any time soon to open up other facilities in pro-abortion states. Only 12 of the company’s 277 U.S. jobs are outside of Indiana, which proves Lilly bluffed about expanding elsewhere.

While the Indiana law is pending legal challenges, the company did not wait until those were resolved to announce its new funding at Purdue.

The article concludes:

Companies start, grow, or relocate to conservative states because of low taxes, reasonable regulations, and an overall business-friendly environment.

While they may boast and bluster in the media when all the attention is on them, they are nothing more than paper tigers when it comes to putting their unrelated political stances ahead of their bottom line and duty to shareholders.

Pro-life states do not need to fear corporations taking jobs away over legislation to protect innocent human life, and Eli Lilly proves that.

At some point in the future, unlimited abortion will not be a winning issue. We know from scientific advances that the child killed in an abortion in a child. There may have been some doubt about that when Roe v. Wade was passed–there is no doubt now. We need to understand that a pregnancy is a blessing even in difficult circumstanced, and we need to help women through those difficult circumstances whenever possible.

In December 2021, the Census Bureau reported:

The U.S. population grew at a slower rate in 2021 than in any other year since the founding of the nation, based on historical decennial censuses and annual population estimates.

That  is not a sign of a growing nation.