Pages

Monday, July 6, 2015

Abortion as Problem-Solving through Might Makes Right

The one person who can't fight back.
[Today's guest post by Acyutananda is part of our paid blogging program.]

Let’s look at abortion in terms of problem-solving. What is the problem? Unwanted pregnancies. (Unwanted by someone – the pregnant woman often, but not always, being one of those persons.)

Next we have to ask, what makes an unwanted pregnancy a problem? Naturally the reasons vary, but let us look at the most common themes identified by researchers: most often the child is seen as unaffordable, an impediment to educational goals, or an impediment to career goals.

Abortion is not the sole solution to these problems, or necessarily to other problems. Thousands of pregnancy centers around the country work with women to brainstorm alternatives tailored to her situation, from training for a better job, to exploring online education, to placing the child for adoption, to legal action for child support, and a million other options. In fact, in the United States, there are more pro-life pregnancy help centers working to fashion these solutions than there are abortion businesses!

Why is abortion so often the chosen solution? What stands out is this: of all the range of solutions to all the problems, abortion has one completely irresistible appeal – it solves all the problems at the expense of the only person involved who has no friends and is guaranteed not to fight back, scream, or complain to Amnesty International (which would sell them out if they did).

Essentially, abortion on demand is the most perfect example that has ever been seen of might makes right. It socially institutionalizes a philosophy of take-advantage-of-the-smallest, when perhaps the first justification for society’s having institutions at all is to protect against violence those who need protecting.

I don’t mean to say that aborting parents are sadistic bullies. There is perhaps no class of people in the world as desperate and scared as many pregnant women, and no class as resourceless except their unborn babies themselves. All involved may be victims of the situation. But no matter how justified the parents are, they and the abortionist always take advantage of the baby’s helplessness. It is only the weakness and voicelessness and vulnerability of those little children that allows abortion to be business as usual in our society.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Argumentum ad delectio: "But you CHOSE not to have an abortion."


Have you ever encountered a conversation that goes, roughly, like this?
Pro-lifer: When I was pregnant, everyone told me I should have an abortion. But today, my child is the light of my life.
Pro-choicer: You made a CHOICE about your pregnancy. You're a hypocrite for trying to take CHOICE away from other women.
Of course you have.

We've written before about logical fallacies in general, and how they play out in the abortion debate. But this particular fallacy doesn't seem to arise in any other context. I don't think it even has a name. So I'm naming it now: the argumentum ad delectio fallacy, from the Latin for "appeal to choice" or "appeal to choosing."*

I've chosen not to kill any endangered species today. Am I a hypocrite for insisting that others make the same choice?

To give another example, I happen to believe that marijuana should be legal. I have never smoked marijuana and never plan to. It would never occur to me to point to my own experience and say "Look, I exercised a CHOICE not to smoke marijuana and it's worked out well, so therefore it's wrong to deprive others of that CHOICE." I would be embarrassed to make such a completely substance-less statement.

Every decision anyone ever makes—legal or illegal, harmful or beneficial—is an exercise of choice. That's just how the world works. It tells us absolutely nothing about what our national abortion policy should be.

Let me make this abundantly clear for any abortion advocates who are reading: If a person who opposes abortion refuses to have an abortion, that is not a point in your column. 

That should be self-explanatory. Evidently, it isn't. So from here on out, when you encounter the argumentum ad delectio fallacy, identify it as such and direct people to this post.


*Special thanks to Clinton Wilcox for brainstorming the name.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Supreme Court delays implementation of abortion regulations in Texas


For the immediate future, Texas abortion businesses will not have to meet the same safety standards as other outpatient surgical centers.

The regulation has been tied up in court since its passage almost two years ago. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the abortion industry plaintiffs on June 9, holding that the safety requirements did not pose an "undue burden" as set forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Five Justices—Kennedy and the four reliably pro-abortion Justices—granted the stay, which essentially maintains the status quo while the abortion industry plaintiffs prepare an appeal to the Supreme Court. The stay does not guarantee that the Supreme Court will hear the case, but it's likely.

The abortion industry plaintiffs argue that they cannot meet the ambulatory surgical center standards and will be forced to close their abortion businesses. It's a quantity-over-quality argument: abortion access matters more than whether or not the facility is any good.

This argument carried the day in Mississippi, sadly; Mississippi has only one abortion facility, and it has all kinds of problems, but it's been kept alive by the courts on the ground that it would be an "undue burden" not to have an abortionist in Mississippi.

I have a question for abortion advocates. This is a sincere question.

The number of abortion facilities is plummeting. Pro-life laws are part of it, but not the whole picture. A big reason for the drop is that abortion rates have plummeted, and abortion businesses are, well, businesses; as they compete for a shrinking pool of patients, it's Econ 101 that some of them are going to close. Then there's the matter of getting new medical students excited about doing abortions when young adults are increasingly pro-life; abortionists are retiring and not being replaced. These trends show no sign of stopping.

If a law that closes abortion centers is an "undue burden," why don't broader social trends that close abortion centers also constitute an undue burden? What if the state encourages the social trends (by, for instance, offering Choose Life license plates)? Is that a constitutional violation?

If you have to have an abortion center in every state, what happens when the last one closes on its own? Is the state required to open its own abortion facility or run afoul of the Supreme Court? Conscript doctors? Open abortion practice to non-doctors?

As I wrote last year:
So what happens when the end of abortion "access" is caused not by legislation, but by the natural ebb and flow of culture? How, in that circumstance, can you defend abortion as a constitutional right?
The "right" to abortion is somewhat unique in that it requires another participant to "exercise" it. The only possible analogy I can think of, if I were to assume for the sake of argument that abortion were a constitutional right, is a hypothetical (and, admittedly, extremely unlikely) world in which guns have become so unpopular that it's difficult for Second Amendment enthusiasts to find sellers of firearms.
How important is it to abortion supporters that a woman in a pro-life region has "access" to abortion? Would they be willing to conscript doctors? Willing to encourage unplanned pregnancies to drum up sufficient business? These questions may seem ridiculous now, and I'll admit I've allowed my imagination to run a bit free in this article. But if current trends continue, these are the questions that the abortion movement will have to confront in the next ten or fifteen years. There is a kernel of fundamental tension between the movement for "choice" and the movement for "access." They can coexist while there are a million abortions a year. But in the long run, in order to have access, a critical mass of women have to make the "right" choice.
Treat abortion "access" like a constitutional right, and the tension grows even greater.

That is what is at stake in this case. The undue burden argument being used to challenge the Texas law is fundamentally different from the argument that it's burdensome to receive informed consent or wait 24 hours.

A ruling that a state must have a certain number of abortion centers per capita, or at least one abortion center per X square miles, would be devastating. It would give sleazy, inept abortionists a free pass to exploit women. It's already happened in Mississippi. Thanks to the Supreme Court, it's happening in Texas.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

A pro-life analysis of Obergefell v. Hodges

Above: Demonstrators await the Supreme Court's decision on same-sex marriage
On June 4, Ryan Bomberger of the Radiance Foundation called out LGBT rights leaders for their hypocritical support of abortion. In particular, he cited Lambda Legal's statement that "reproductive freedom and LGBT rights have been inextricably linked both legally and politically. The ties between these rights are so strong that we really believe that a threat to one directly and profoundly impacts the other."

On June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, declaring state laws against same-sex marriage void. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, who is widely recognized to be the Court's swing vote on abortion. Notably, he did not cite any abortion cases. However, he did cite contraception cases, which were expanded upon to invent a "right" to abortion in Roe v. Wade. This has some pro-life leaders worried that Obergefell could be a bad decision for the preborn.

Since I am a lawyer, I share this summary for the benefit of pro-life legal advocates as well as the pro-life community at large. In my view, Obergefell is a mixed bag. It provides language the abortion industry can use. It also provides language the pro-life movement can use, and Justice Kennedy's refusal to cite an abortion case is very encouraging. At the end of the day, though, Obergefell is unlikely to have a significant impact on abortion jurisprudence.

Justice Kennedy's opinion opens with a discussion of the history of marriage:
From the beginning to their most recent age, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes more than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.
He then turns to the personal stories of some of the plaintiffs: James Obergefell, whose partner died of ALS shortly after they traveled outside of their home state to marry; April De Boer and Jayne Rowse, who are jointly raising three children but cannot jointly adopt them; Ijpe DeKoe, who served in Afghanistan with the support of his stateside partner Thomas Kostura. "Their stories reveal that they seek not to denigrate marriage but rather to live their lives, or honor their spouses' memory, joined by its bond."

The opinion next discusses how opposite-sex marriage has changed over time, particularly with respect to the abandonment of "coverture," a doctrine that effectively subsumed a wife's legal identity under her husband's. "These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution of marriage. Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process."

This segues into a discussion of the LGBT rights movement, beginning with homosexual activity criminalized and homosexuality viewed as mental disorder, through the Supreme Court decisions in Bowers v. Hardwick, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and finally the various same-sex marriage decisions in the lower courts.

Finally, the introductions are over and Justice Kennedy begins his discussion of the Due Process Clause. He cites the contraception cases, writing: "[T]hese liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484-486 (1965)."

In a passage that certainly rings true to me as a fighter against the injustice of abortion, Justice Kennedy declares:
The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals a discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal structure, a claim to liberty must be addressed.
"Applying these established legal tenets," the Court decided Loving v. Virginia (allowing interracial couples to marry), Zablocki v. Redhail (allowing men behind on child support to marry), and Turner v. Safley (allowing prison inmates to marry).

Justice Kennedy states four reasons why same-sex marriage must receive the same type of Constitutional protection under the Due Process Clause:

(1) "[T]he right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." 

The opinion points to Loving first, but adds: "Like cases concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and childbearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make." 

As far as the right to life is concerned, that is the most troubling line in the opinion. "Intimate decisions about childbearing" can be read as polite legalese for killing preborn children. 

The remainder of this section, however, focuses on the unique nature of marriage.

(2) "[T]he right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." 

Justice Kennedy quotes a passage from Griswold about the "association" of marriage, as well as passages from Windsor and Lawrence. The Court adds: "Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other."

(3) "A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childbearing, procreation, and education." 

Here the Court cites precedents protecting a parent's right to place children in private education. The Court emphasizes that children of same-sex couples will benefit from the increased stability offered by marriage. (At the same time, it recognizes that marriages without children are valid too.)

This is a decent section for pro-life advocates. Abortion obviously does not safeguard children. Quite the opposite.

(4) "Fourth and finally, this Court's cases and the Nation's traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order." 

Here Justice Kennedy outlines some of the many legal benefits connected to marriage. The consequence of this legal framework is that, without same-sex marriage, LGBT couples "are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives."

Justice Kennedy then moves to a fifth basis for the opinion: the Equal Protection Clause. "[I]n interpreting the Equal Protection Clause, the Court has recognized that new insights can reveal unjustified inequality within our most fundamental institutions that once passed unnoticed and unchallenged." This is exactly the argument that pro-life advocates make with respect to the preborn, whose legal personhood has been stripped from them despite the scientific advancements that make it clear that preborn human beings are as human and alive as the rest of us.

* * * 

So where does all of that leave us?

Justice Kennedy was smart. By writing an opinion that does not cite any abortion cases, he has assured that Obergefell will withstand the reversal of Roe and Casey. Lambda Legal has been proven very wrong.

That took restraint on Justice Kennedy's part, because Casey contains a lengthy discussion of the Due Process Clause—which he authored. He could have had a grand time quoting himself. Instead, crickets. That leaves the door open for him to step back from Casey in the future and be a fifth pro-life vote. It's no guarantee, of course. But if he had cited Casey, I would be writing a very pessimistic article. The fact that he didn't gives me hope.

That doesn't mean abortion advocates won't try to add Obergefell to their arsenal, of course. They'll naturally try any legal argument they can. But Obergefell doesn't say much that's helpful to the abortion industry beyond what was already out there in the contraception cases. And Obergefell  contains arguments that are helpful to the pro-life cause, too, chief among them the recognition that legal injustices that were once commonly accepted may come to light with time and be undone by the Court.

Ultimately, Obergefell is an opinion about the centrality of marriage in people's lives. It is an opinion about "the hope of companionship," commitment, family, and love.

Abortion is many things, but abortion will never be about love. 

Friday, June 26, 2015

The New Leviathan: Must-Read Report Explains Planned Parenthood's Strategy

Over the last few years, pro-lifers have celebrated dramatic declines in the U.S. abortion rate. Ever wonder how Planned Parenthood manages to stay afloat in such an environment?

Wonder no more. Americans United for Life has put together an incredibly thorough and well-documented report they're calling "The New Leviathan." It covers a huge amount of ground: how Planned Parenthood is running away from its less profitable contraception and cancer screening services; how it is siphoning abortion business from its competitors, allowing it to take a greater share of the market even as nationwide abortions plummet; how it is putting its proverbial eggs in the basket of "mega-centers" that commit abortions six or seven days our of the week instead of just one or two; how it is developing those mega-centers by deceiving local authorities; and how our tax dollars are the scaffolding for the whole twisted enterprise.

I hesitate to offer the highlights because you really should read the report itself. I can't do it justice. But these social-media-friendly infographics tell a lot of the story (click to enlarge):











Pro-life organizations, including us, have made similar points before. But Americans United for Life is to be commended for its comprehensive presentation. They hit this out of the park.


Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Buddhist and Christian post-abortion healing rituals have much in common

Post-abortive parents demonstrate at the March for Life
The Bangkok Post recently ran a fascinating piece on Buddhist post-abortion healing ceremonies. In Thailand, as in the United States, many pregnant teens feel forced by circumstance to have an abortion, but later come to regret taking the child's life. Like Americans, many seek solace in religious rituals.

The parallels don't end there. The Buddhist temple's program shares some striking elements with Christian programs like Rachel's Vineyard and Silent No More. Both encourage parents to name the aborted child. Both seek to relieve the parents' feelings of guilt. In Thaliand, parents write the baby's name on a paper and the papers are cremated; in the United States, parents sometimes "let go" of an aborted child by releasing a helium balloon. And on both sides of the globe, aid to living children seems to help; the Thai temple requires offerings of children's supplies, which go to charity, while in the United States, many post-abortive mothers volunteer at pro-life pregnancy help centers.

Of course, there are differences as well. I don't know of any American post-abortive programs run by witch doctors who will create an amulet for the child's spirit to inhabit.

But overall, post-abortive mothers around the world seem to have more in common than not.

Given how different the doctrines of Buddhism and Christianity are, the fact that the same and similar post-abortion healing rituals have developed in both faiths is remarkable. These rituals are not particularly dogmatic and could even, with some tweaking, serve as the basis for a secular program.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Creating an LGBT-Inclusive Pro-Life Community

Students discuss abortion within a human rights framework at a Justice for All outreach.

[Today's guest post by Rebecca Stapleford is part of our paid blogging program. Rebecca attends the University of Georgia and majors in Greek, Latin, and Classical Culture. She is vice president of UGA Students for Life. A proud physically disabled autistic woman, her passion is pro-life and disability rights activism.]

It was my first day of Justice for All outreach this past spring at the University of Georgia, and I noticed two counter-protesters holding up signs that said, respectively “If the fetus that you save is gay, would you still fight for its rights?” and “I was not aborted, but turned out to be gay, trans, and pro-choice.” My first reaction was frustration. As a queer pro-lifer, I have faced more discrimination from the LGBT community than from the pro-life community, even though the vast majority of pro-lifers in Georgia are religious conservatives. UGA’s Women’s Studies Student Org passes out stickers that equate abortion rights with LGBT equality; UGA’s taxpayer-funded LGBT Resource Center endorses politicians based not only on their stances on LGBT rights, but also specifically on their support for abortion rights without any restrictions; and the majority of pro-choice individuals that I meet in the course of my pro-life outreach make the assumption that I am straight, opposed to LGBT rights, and that I view LGBT people as inferior, despite the fact that all of these things are false.

I marched over there and informed those two individuals that I felt that they were marginalizing and excluding LGBT pro-life people such as myself; that I had worked hard to make Students for Life @ UGA an inclusive place for all pro-lifers regardless of religious belief, gender identity, or sexual orientation; and that no one associated with Justice for All hated LGBT people. They both assured me that it wasn’t their intent to marginalize me and told me that they appreciated my inclusive stance. We then got into further conversation, and the girl revealed to me that she was adopted by Christian parents who rejected her once she came out as a lesbian. At once, the reasons for her sign became clear. Her only experiences with pro-life people had been with those who devalued her very existence and personhood based on her sexual orientation. I recalled to her my own painful years of struggle with my sexual orientation, which manifested itself in severe depression and suicide attempts, and the fact that I will probably never be able to tell my own father the truth about myself, and we found common ground. We understood each other, despite our ideological differences. I was reminded again that people are never arguments to be won, but individuals to be loved. The JFA staff also showed her love and care, despite the fact that same-sex relationships were against most of their religious beliefs, because one does not have to agree in order to understand and empathize. 

At the same time, an unaffiliated street preacher who frequents our campus came by to let the queer individuals know that they were going to hell and abominations in the sight of God while at the same time declaiming against abortion, and I realized that the pro-life movement as a whole has a lot of work to do, not even to be welcoming, but not to be actively hostile towards LGBT people. I remembered the angry man at a state right to life meeting that I had attended, proclaiming that “the gays” were destroying America, and the comments made at a Students for Life meeting that made a lesbian friend of mine in attendance feel excluded. I looked back on the support that I had received in coming out of the closet and recognized that had I not announced that I would not be dating other women due to my own personal religious beliefs, not only would I have probably not received that support, certain individuals might have even questioned my fitness for presidency of the pro-life club. When the mainstream pro-life movement so frequently combines opposition to LGBT equality with opposition to abortion, is it any wonder that so many LGBT individuals won’t even consider the pro-life point of view?

The counter-protesters returned each day of the JFA outreach, but there was now genuine respect for us now that they realized that we respected them and their humanity. They listened to what we had to say, and we were able to have civil conversations on abortion where we found genuine common ground with each other. Why? Because we all viewed them not as arguments to be won, but people to be loved. That empathy and understanding can make even the most difficult conversations between the most ideologically opposed people not just possible, but highly productive and meaningful for both parties.

That particular outreach taught me that a way forward is possible for the pro-life movement, where all people can be included. It does not require individuals to change their personal religious beliefs, but it does require them to gain respect, understanding, and empathy. It requires our movement to lay aside the demonization of LGBT individuals and to stop pairing opposition to abortion with opposition to LGBT equality. It requires us to speak up when we encounter discrimination and prejudice within our ranks. It requires us to refrain from stereotyping and assumptions. Change is hard, but I believe that it is possible. In the past few years I have seen the pro-life movement grow more queer-inclusive, and I am confident that this trend will only continue, however, we still have a long ways to go. My hope is that the mainstream pro-life movement will realize the ways that they have excluded and harmed queer folks in the past, and work to prevent this from happening in the future.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Prevent Preterm campaign update

About three weeks ago, we launched Prevent Preterm, an innovative online campaign educating the public about three known and preventable risk factors for premature birth: smoking, lack of prenatal care, and abortion. By connecting women with smoking cessation resources, affordable prenatal care, and abortion alternatives, we are saving the lives of babies both in and out of the womb.

Prevent Preterm is off to a fantastic start. Numerous pro-life organizations have promoted the project. More importantly, over 125,000 young women have seen our ads on facebook!

That is only possible because of the generosity of our donors. If you have already given to Secular Pro-Life, we cannot thank you enough!

Secular Pro-Life doesn't ask for money very often. That's because we don't have paid staff, or an office, or the other big overhead costs that most organizations do. We only ask for money when there's a big project that merits the request.

Prevent Preterm definitely merits the request.

It's a simple equation: the more money we have, the more ads we can buy. The link between abortion and premature birth does not get much press, because abortion politics get in the way. That means the only way people are going to learn about it is if we tell them.

So please, if you have the financial means to donate, please give to this life-saving cause. We greatly appreciate your support. Thank you!

Friday, June 19, 2015

Supreme Court: No Free Speech for License Plates


In March, Secular Pro-Life reported that the Supreme Court had held oral argument in Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, concerning the state of Texas' decision to prohibit a license plate with the Confederate flag on it. Presumably the prohibition was based on the racist history and symbolism of the Confederate flag... except that, in a classic case of right-hand-doesn't-know-what-the-left-hand-is-doing syndrome, Confederate flags are sold in the Texas Capitol gift shop.

The more important point, though, is that freedom of speech requires us to tolerate noxious messages. Even Westboro Baptist Church has First Amendment protection. It's the price we pay for the right to speak truth to power and speak freely about the things that matter, including the life-or-death issue of abortion.

Walker was an important case to watch, then, because of the potential impact on pro-life speech. As we noted back in March:
The Supreme Court is finally weighing in because license plate cases come up fairly often. Many of those cases concern "Choose Life" plates.
If the voice of the license plate is that of the government, only motorists in pro-life states will be able to obtain Choose Life plates. States hostile to the preborn will continue not to offer the plate, or will stop offering it.
But if the voice of the license plate is that of the motorist, Choose Life plates should become available in all 50 states. According to Choose-Life.org, pro-life plates are currently available in 27 states and the District of Columbia; approval is being sought in another 15 states; and the plates are tied up in court in New York and North Carolina.
This isn't just a matter of protecting pro-life speech from censorship, as serious an issue as that is. To date, Choose Life plate sales have raised more than $21 million for pregnancy resource centers. If the Court rules in favor of the SCV, that number could grow tremendously.
Just a few weeks ago, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a terrible decision against Choose Life license plates, declaring that the pro-life message could be censored because it is "patently offensive"—a legal term usually reserved for hard-core pornography. We expressed hope that the Court's decision in Walker would lead to a quick reversal of the Second Circuit.

We now have our answer. The Court has, in a 5-4 decision, rejected the free speech argument. States have the authority to ban license plates based on disagreement with the content. Legally it will be treated as though the state government, not the vehicle owner, is conveying a message.

The liberal online magazine Slate realizes exactly what this case was really about:
[T]he decision will likely have serious ramifications for the abortion debate. One federal court has already allowed a liberal state to ban "Choose Life" license plates while permitting pro-choice license plates. Conservative states will likely begin to do the opposite—banning pro-choice plates while permitting anti-abortion ones. That doesn't look like government speech in action. It just looks like censorship.
I doubt that many states will start banning pro-abortion plates. The pro-life movement historically has been on the receiving end of censorship, not dishing it out. (In compiling those links, I've limited myself to the past year.)

The better approach is the one Virginia took in 2010: if a plate is going to say "Trust Women," then the proceeds must go to an organization that actually trusts women, and not an organization like Planned Parenthood that opposes informed consent.

But even if pro-life states were inclined to take the low road and censor opponents of the right to life, there would be no point; pro-abortion plates have only been attempted in a few states, and they've proven to be a huge dud. The bigger concern is what the Supreme Court's decision means for Choose Life plates and the families who rely on their revenue.

You can read the full text of the Supreme Court's opinion here.

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

New issue of the Life Matters Journal available now


Our friends at the Life Matters Journal, a wonderful consistent life ethic magazine, have just released their latest issue. You can read it for free on Issuu. Topics include:
  • Physician-assisted suicide
  • Students for Life of America's Pregnant on Campus initiative
  • A mother's essay about refusing to abort her severely disabled sons
  • A student's decision to reject the University of Virginia upon learning that its affiliated hospital commits abortions
  • "Moral Intuition, Logic, and the Abortion Debate" by SPL supporter Acyutananda
  • A review of the human trafficking documentary Tricked
and a whole lot more. (Be sure to check out the very special advertisement on page 16!)