Tag Archives: Pro-Life

Planned Parenthood declares Ted Cruz top threat to their abortion business

Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood
Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood

Here is a story that Jay Richards tweeted from Life News.

Excerpt:

The Planned Parenthood abortion business is emailing its members warning that Ted Cruz is the biggest pro-life threat the abortion business faces from the Republican presidential candidates.

In the email seeking funds for its political campaign supporting Hillary Clinton, Dawn Laguens, Executive Vice President of Planned Parenthood, says “every Republican candidate for president this year would be a complete disaster” but explains “Cruz could very well be the biggest threat we face.”

Laguesns says Cruz would be the biggest threat to the abortion corporation because “unlike Trump and Kasich, who are more or less in line with the Republican Party’s already terrible positions on reproductive rights, Cruz takes things much, much further.”

“And he has the fan base to prove it. About 50% of Trump’s and Kasich’s supporters think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, but a whopping 73% of Cruz’s supporters want to ban abortion in all or most cases,” the Planned Parenthood VP complains.

Laguesns gripes that Cruz “consistently says he will open an investigation into Planned Parenthood on his first day in office. But maybe that’s less surprising when you see some of the people who have endorsed him — people like Troy Newman, the notorious anti-abortion extremist.”

She says Cruz has “a real shot at the nomination and the presidency” and then makes up a false attack saying, “We can’t let anyone near the White House who would force a woman to carry a dangerous or unwanted pregnancy.”

Ted Cruz continues to stake out a pro-life position on the issue of abortion in cases of rape.In a new interview, the pro-life Texas senator said he doesn’t think it’s fair to “blame the child” who is conceived in rape.

Interesting. One thing you can say about Planned Parenthood – they are not swayed by charisma or rhetoric. They’ve taken a good hard look at Cruz’s record and the views of the people who support him, and they’ve decided that he is the most pro-life of all the candidates running. This is their business, and they are calling out the biggest threat to their business to their donors.

But’s not just the pro-abortion side that sees Cruz as the most solid on social issues – it’s the pro-life side, too.

Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz appear on Fox News with Sean Hannity
Rick Perry, Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz appear on Fox News with Sean Hannity

Consider this story from Life News about an upcoming primary state – Oregon:

The leading pro-life group in Oregon today issued its endorsement for pro-life Republican candidate Ted Cruz for President. Oregon Right to Life says Cruz has a sterling pro-life record that it described as “impeccable.”

“ORTL PAC is pleased to endorse Senator Cruz,” said Gayle Atteberry, executive director of ORTL. “His record on pro-life issues is impeccable. We can trust that as president, he will do all he can to protect unborn babies. That includes the all-important decisions he would make in nominating new Supreme Court justices.

“Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders,” said Atteberry, “support abortion on demand, from conception to birth, as well as continued taxpayer funding of abortion and Planned Parenthood.”

Atteberry told LifeNews that the stakes in Oregon’s primary election are higher than usual as every delegate counts in the battle for the Republican nomination. She said “Oregon Right to Life PAC encourages pro-life voters across Oregon to vote early for Ted Cruz to ensure that Oregon plays its part in electing a pro-life president.”

In fact, Cruz has a 100% pro-life voting record during his tenure in the Senate.

When it comes to the issue of abortion, Cruz has compiled a 100% pro-life voting record during his tenure in the Senate. On 16 total votes on pro-life issues taken while has has served in the Senate, Cruz voted pro-life every single time.

The votes tallied by the national Right to Life Committee include multiple votes supporting a bill to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business over the years, votes to repeal or de-fund Obamacare, which uses taxpayer funds to pay for abortions as well as votes to protect the conscience rights of pro-life Americans.

The tally of 8 votes below does not include two additional votes in August and September to end debate and stop the Democrats’ filibuster of  measure that would de-fund Planned Parenthood. The August and September votes Cruz cast to defund Planned Parenthood brings the total tally to 10 pro-life votes cast during his Senate tenure.

If protecting the unborn is an important issue to you, there is one candidate still running who will move the ball forward for you. That man is Ted Cruz.

Related posts

Scott Klusendorf defends the pro-life view on the Unbelievable radio show

I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve of incrementalism
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve of this debate

Here are the details:

The abortion debate reared its head again this summer after controversial tweets by Richard Dawkins made the news.

Justin hosts a discussion between Mara Clarke of the Abortion Support Network and Scott Klusendorf of the Life Training Instititute. Mara believes women need to be decide whether to terminate a pregnancy, but Scott says that all depends on whether we are dealing with a human life in the womb.

MP3 of this show:

http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/p/618072/sp/61807200/playManifest/entryId/1_ggc953xi/flavorId/1_vto2eisb/protocol/http/format/url/a.mp3?clientTag=feed:1_jlj47tkv

My snarky paraphrase of the debate (not exact):

  • Speaker introductions
  • Klusendorf: no justification for abortion is necessary if the unborn are not human
  • Klusendorf: we need to address the issue “what is the unborn?” Are the unborn human?
  • Klusendorf: SLED: size, level of development, environment, degree of dependency
  • Klusendorf: None of these things affect the value of a human being
  • Klusendorf: Even if we don’t KNOW whether the unborn is human
  • Mara: I’m not going to debate when life begins
  • Mara: Women know when life begins by feelings
  • Mara: The moral decision is “whether I can take care of this child?”
  • Brierley: When is an unborn being human?
  • Mara: I refuse to debate that – the real question is whether women want their babies or not
  • Mara: Forced pregnancy is not OK
  • Brierley: Could your justification for abortion (not wanting to care for a child) work through all 9 months?
  • Mara: Late term abortions are rare, so I don’t have to answer that question
  • Mara: Abortion should be OK through all 9 months of pregnancy because women cannot be restricted
  • Mara: Some women are poor, they need to be able to kill expensive babies at any time
  • Klusendorf: although she says she won’t debate the unborn, she does take a position
  • Klusendorf: she assumes the unborn is not human, because she says that insufficient funds is justification for abortion
  • Klusendorf: no one argues that you can kill a two year old because they cost money, because she thinks they are human
  • Klusendorf: she is begging the question by assuming the unborn are not human, but that is the issue we must resolve
  • Klusendorf: I am pro-choice on many other things, e.g. women choosing their own husbands, religion, etc.
  • Klusendorf: Some choices are wrong – Mara might be right, but she needs to make the case for the unborn not being human
  • Brierley: What is your reason for thinking that an unborn child is different from a 2-year old?
  • Mara: An unborn child is not the same as a 2-year old, in my personal opinion
  • Mara: I am not a debater, so I don’t have to provide reasoning for my assertion, I just feel it
  • Mara: Not everybody agrees with Scott, they don’t have to have a rational argument, they just need to feel differently
  • Mara: From my experience, when a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, then she should be able to not be pregnant
  • Mara: Women shouldn’t be punished with a baby that she doesn’t want, even if she chooses to have recreational sex
  • Brierley: What do you think of women who think the unborn is human and do it anyway?
  • Klusendorf: It’s interesting that they never kill their toddlers for those reasons
  • Klusendorf: I layed out scientific and philosophical reasons for the humanity of the unborn
  • Klusendorf: Her response was “but some people disagree with you”
  • Klusendorf: People disagreed about whether slavery was wrong, or whether women should be able to vote
  • Klusendorf: that doesn’t mean there is no right answer – the right answer depends on the arguments
  • Klusendorf: if absence of agreement makes a view false, then it makes HER pro-choice view false as well
  • Klusendorf: she did make an argument for the unborn child having no rights because of the location
  • Klusendorf: she needs to explain to us why location matters – what about location confers value
  • Mara: I’m not going to let Scott frame my debate for me!!!
  • Mara: women get pregnant and they don’t want their babies! should we put them in jail!!!!
  • Klusendorf: I didn’t just give my opinion, I had science and philosophy, the issue is “what is the unborn?”
  • Mara: philosophical and scientific debates are unimportant, I am an expert in real women’s lives
  • Klusendorf: Which women? Women in the womb or only those outside the womb?
  • Mara: Only those outside the womb
  • Klusendorf: Only those outside the womb?
  • Mara: Women living outside the womb have a right to kill women inside the womb – women have bodily autonomy
  • Klusendorf: then does a pregnant woman with nausea have a right to take a drug for it that will harm her unborn child?
  • Mara: Unborn children are only valuable if they are wanted, unborn children only deserve protection if they are wanted
  • Mara: There are restrictions on abortion – you can’t get an abortion through all nine months in the US
  • Mara: There is a 24-week limit in the UK as well
  • Klusendorf: There are no restrictions on abortion that conflict with “a woman’s health” because Supreme Court said
  • Mara: where are these late term abortion clinics?
  • Klusendorf: (he names two)
  • Mara: that’s not enough!!! we need more! where is there one in Pennsylvania?
  • Klusendorf: well, there used to be Gosnell’s clinic in Pennsylvania, and you could even get an infanticide there….
  • Brierley: What about Dawkins’ view that it is moral to abort Down’s Syndrome babies?
  • Klusendorf: he is ignoring the scientific case and philosophical case for the pro-life
  • Klusendorf: the pro-life view is a true basis for human equality

What I wanted Scott to ask was whether sex-selection abortions were OK with her. Since her reasoning is “if it’s unwanted, it has no rights”, then that would mean sex-selection abortions are just fine. That’s what a UK abortion expert recently argued. And I also posted recently about how sex-selection abortions are not prosecuted in the UK. If you’re looking for a war on women, there it is.

Ted Cruz rides pro-life endorsements to huge 48.4 to 35.0 victory in Wisconsin

I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this study
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I endorse Ted Cruz for President

Townhall reports that Ted Cruz got the endorsement from National Right to Life on Tuesday:

National Right to Life announced that they will be throwing their support behind Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for the upcoming primaries. NRL believes that Cruz has a stronger pro-life record and credentials than Donald Trump, and also that he has the best chance to defeat Hillary Clinton.

An average of seven recent national political polls shows that Mr. Trump trails Hillary Clinton by 11.2%.

In those same seven polls, Sen. Cruz trails Mrs. Clinton by an average of 3%.

National Right to Life believes Sen. Cruz is the only candidate for president who has always been pro-life, who has a 100% pro-life voting record with National Right to Life, who can win the Republican nomination, and who can defeat pro-abortion Hillary Clinton in November.

National Right to Life was one of the many pro-life organizations that slammed Trump for his (since-rescinded) comments that women who have abortions should be punished.

That NRLC endorsement undoubtedly helped him to a 13-point victory over Donald Trump in Wisconsin, on Tuesday night:

Ted Cruz wins Wisconsin convincingly, setting the stage for a contested convention
Ted Cruz wins Wisconsin, which will likely lead to a contested convention

So why did Ted Cruz get this NRLC endorsement on Tuesday? I think it might have something to do with an answer that he gave to a tough abortion question from Megyn Kelly on Monday night. Cruz was asked about his opposition to rape and incest exceptions to the pro-life view. His answer sounded like something Scott Klusendorf would say.

The Daily Wire reports:

Stating his belief that all unborn children’s lives should be protected, Senator Ted Cruz expressed his opposition to exceptional access to abortion for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Joining Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly for a town hall event in Madison on Monday, Cruz made a pitch to Wisconsin voters before the Badger’s State’s Republican primary on Tuesday.

“You don’t favor rape or an incest exception to abortion,” said Kelly, speculating that Cruz’s position on abortion might be “too far-right” for voters.

Recalling his former role as the Solicitor General for Texas, Cruz described his experience from the side of law enforcement in redressing rape.

“When it comes to rape, I’ve spent a lot of year in law enforcement. I was the Solicitor General for the state of Texas, and I have handled horrific cases of rape, people who had committed child rape. I went before the U.S. Supreme Court and argued in defense of state laws imposing capital punishment for the very worst of child rapists,” said Cruz.

Cruz then expressed the logically consistent position of opposition to abortion grounded in the belief that unborn children are persons entitled to the protections of life and security of person, opting not to carve out exceptions to this position for conceptions resulting from rape or incest.

“When it comes to rape, rape is a horrific crime against the humanity of a person, and needs to be punished, and punished severely. But at the same time, as horrible as that crime is, I don’t believe it’s the child’s fault, Said Cruz. “I don’t believe it makes sense to blame the child.”

Watch:

Are you ready to have that guy explain to the media and the public why the pro-life view makes sense? I am.

Ted Cruz is consistently pro-life. He’s not scared to defend the pro-life view that you or I would defend. He thinks his view is the right view, and he wants to defend the right view. He thinks that Roe v. Wade was a bad judicial decision, and he wants to go back to the way things were before that bad decision, such that each state would decide the life issue for themselves. That’s a moderate position, well suited to the general election. As for himself, he has supported pro-life laws and policies in his career, and achieved many pro-life victories.

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go after Obama administration for intimidating pro-lifers

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go to war against amnesty
Ted Cruz and Mike Lee

This is from Life News.

Excerpt:

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah are accusing the Justice Department of pursuing “frivolous prosecutions” against the pro-life movement and having, according to the senators’ offices, “what appears to be an exceptionally heavy bias” in favor of abortion clinics over houses of worship in a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch Tuesday.

The letter concerns the Justice Department’s enforcement of the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law that prohibits any use or threat of force and physical obstruction outside abortion clinics and places of religious worship. The law, however, does not criminalize peaceful protests or other First Amendment-protected activities outside abortion facilities or places of worship.

In the letter, obtained by The Daily Signal, the Republican senators write:

The [Justice Department’s] brazen pursuit (and subsequent online promotion) of—at best—frivolous prosecutions in the abortion context, combined with its failure to list any prosecutions or enforcement activities in the religious worship context, gives the distinct impression of a warped and biased enforcement of FACE by the [Justice Department].

Cruz and Lee reference the Civil Rights Division’s web page, which cites “more than 15 FACE actions in more than a dozen states” that the Justice Department has filed. The website also notes “ongoing investigations in other states,” along with “several FACE cases and settlement agreements concerning abortion clinic workers or abortion facilities.”

“Interestingly, it does not list a single case concerning the freedom of religious exercise at houses of worship,” Cruz and Lee write.

To further investigate the alleged double standard, Cruz and Lee are demanding that Lynch hand over a broad range of documents pertaining to the FACE Act dating back to January 2009.

Cruz has a good long record on pro-life issues – lots of pro-life actions in the past to show that the pro-life words of today can be believed.

Charisma News talked about Cruz’s pro-life achievements.

Excerpt:

On Saturday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz received a ringing endorsement from Georgia’s largest pro-life organization. “Senator Cruz has an unblemished record of standing up for innocent life,” said Ricardo Davis, the director of Georgia Right to Life’s Political Action Committee (GRTL PAC).

And here are the pro-life achievements:

Senator Cruz’s pro-life record includes the following:

  • Leading the charge on behalf of 13 states in successfully defending the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act before the U.S. Supreme Court;
  • Joining 18 states in successfully defending New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Act before the U.S. Supreme Court;
  • Successfully defending a Texas law that prevents state funds from being sent to organizations that perform abortions; and
  • Calling for the defunding of Planned Parenthood amid charges that the abortion giant sells aborted body parts.

That was Georgia Right to Life, but Wisconsin is the next GOP primary state. And in Wisconsin, Ted Cruz just picked up another pro-life endorsement.

Charisma News reports:

Wisconsin and its 42 delegates are up for grabs on Tuesday in a contest where the top vote getter wins all of the delegates in each congressional district, as well as statewide. Cruz already has the endorsement of Gov. Scott Walker, who dropped out of the GOP presidential race prior to the votes being cast in neighboring Iowa.

The Texas senator has picked up two more endorsements that could be critical to his winning the Badger State. The first was from Wisconsin Right to Life:

Wisconsin Right to Life’s Political Action Committee supports Ted Cruz as the only presidential candidate with a proven record on life who can win.

“There has never been an election more important than this election, and the stakes have never been higher when it comes to protecting the unborn,” stated Chelsea Shields, PAC Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. “There is only one candidate for president who has always been pro-life, who has a 100-percent pro-life voting record with National Right to Life and Wisconsin Right to Life, and who can win the Republican nomination and defeat pro-abortion Hillary Clinton in November. And that candidate is Ted Cruz.”

[…]Cruz also picked up the personal endorsement of a key evangelical pro-family leader in Wisconsin. Julaine Appling, president of Wisconsin Family Action, said Wednesday that Cruz is a man of integrity who has kept the promises he made when he ran for Senate.

[…]In addition to Appling’s personal support, Cruz also picked up Wisconsin Family Action PAC’s official endorsement. The organization has the ability to immediately reach out to hundreds of thousands of evangelicals in the Badger State.

He has a 100% pro-life voting record, and specific pro-life actions in his record. We don’t have to take his word for it, like we do with other candidates who say they are pro-life, but have a record of donations to pro-abortion Democrats, and a record of being “very pro-choice” and supporting partial birth abortion.

What about Donald Trump?

What about a person who has never thought about the pro-life view before, and who has no pro-life actions in his record? What happens when they are asked about abortion?

The Wall Street Journal reports on the latest Trump blunder:

The first-time candidate showed how little he understands about the politics of abortion by suggesting that “there has to be some kind of punishment” if abortion were made illegal.

“For the woman?” asked progressive partisan Chris Matthews of MSNBC. Mr. Trump: “Yeah, there has to be some form.” He added that men who impregnate women who have an abortion should not be punished.

[…]Not even the most fervent abortion opponent favors punishing a woman who has one. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, opponents would try to pass laws that punish abortion providers or the clinics where they take place. Mr. Trump’s remarks were thus a political gift to Democrats and the left, who would like nothing better than to stereotype abortion opponents as misogynists who want to put women in jail.

[…]Mr. Trump’s loyal GOP partisans have been willing to ignore his rhetorical mistakes and excesses, but Democrats will be merciless. So will the media if he secures the GOP nomination. His abortion blunder is doubly troubling because it will reinforce his growing unpopularity among women voters in both parties. Imagine his Wednesday remarks playing as part of a national advertising loop from June to November.

Anyone who has thought about the pro-life issue for more than 2 minutes knows the answer to the question: “who should be punished if abortion becomes illegal?” Answer: the person who provided the abortion, of course. That’s why pro-lifers want to regulate and defund abortion providers.

Republican governors signing pro-life legislation in several states

I'm Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve this study
I’m Scheming Unborn Baby, and I approve of red state legislatures and governors

For the rest of Easter weekend, I have scheduled 5 posts on the resurrection. But this post is all about the wonderful pro-life legislation that our Republican governors and legislatures are enacting into law in red states.

Let’s start with something from last month, with Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin.

Life Site News reports:

Kentucky governor Matt Bevin promised to make pro-life issues a top priority, and Tuesday he made good on his promise.

Matt Bevin signed an informed consent bill requiring that biological facts and medical information be given to mothers in person or by real-time video at least 24 hours before an abortion.

“The overwhelming support for Senate Bill 4 in the Kentucky legislature is a positive step toward protecting the emotional and physical health and safety of women,” Bevin said in a statement before signing the bill.

Bill supporters say the reason the bill was necessary is because many abortionists circumvent the law by having mothers listen to a prerecorded message over the phone.

[…]Gov. Bevin chose this as the very first bill he signed into law. He put his signature to it as soon as legislators delivered it to him. The bill informing mothers of the medical and biological facts related to gestation and abortion becomes the Bluegrass State’s first new pro-life law in twelve years.

Pro-life legislation was previously roadblocked by the Democrat-controlled state House.

Here’s one from earlier this month, from South Dakota Governor Dennis Gaugaard.

Life News reports:

South Dakota just became the next state to protect unborn babies from painful, late-term abortions.

On Thursday, Gov. Dennis Gaugaard signed into law a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks and penalize doctors who do late-term abortions in non-emergency situations, the Argus Leader reports. Penalties for violations of the law include up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine, according to the report. The only exceptions would be in certain medical emergency cases, the report states.

[…]The state House passed the pro-life measure last week, LifeNews reported.

South Dakota has one abortion clinic left, a Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls that does abortions up to 14 weeks; however, the new bill would ensure that later abortions will not be done in the future in the state. More than 18,000 very late-term abortions are performed every year on perfectly healthy unborn babies in America.

[…]The bill is modeled after the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which has become law in 12 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The next one is from Indiana, where pro-life Governor Mike Pence signed a pro-life bill into law this week. This bill will prevent abortions of babies who are the “wrong sex”, the “wrong race”, or who have disabilities such as Down syndrome.

Life News reports:

Indiana has become the second state in the nation, following North Dakota, to ban abortions on babies who are diagnosed in the womb as having Down syndrome. Gov. Mike Pence signed the bill today to protect unborn babies from being aborted simply because of a disability, race or sex.

Pence signed House Bill 1337, which would ban abortion doctors from knowingly aborting an unborn baby solely because of a genetic disability such as Down syndrome, the unborn baby’s race or sex. The bill also has several other abortion-related measures, including a requirement that aborted or miscarried babies’ bodies be cremated or buried and another requirement that abortionists who have hospital admitting privileges renew them annually. The burial/cremation requirement backs up a law passed in 2015 by Gov. Pence requiring that aborted babies’ bodies be disposed of in a humane way.

“Throughout my public career, I have stood for the sanctity of life. HEA 1337 is a comprehensive pro-life measure that affirms the value of all human life, which is why I signed it into law today,” Governor Pence said in a statement.

Pence continued: “I believe that a society can be judged by how it deals with its most vulnerable—the aged, the infirm, the disabled and the unborn. HEA 1337 will ensure the dignified final treatment of the unborn and prohibits abortions that are based only on the unborn child’s sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry, or disability, including Down syndrome.”

The next one concerns Arizona, where pro-life Governor Doug Ducey is set to sign three pro-life bills into law.

Life News reports:

Three pro-life bills are on their way through the Arizona legislature and soon could be on Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk.

On Wednesday, the Arizona House gave preliminary approval to the bills, and a final vote is expected on Thursday, according to the Arizona Daily Star. The bills, already passed in the state Senate, would regulate the use of dangerous chemical abortion drugs, ban the trafficking of aborted babies’ body parts and remove abortion groups from the state employee charitable giving program.

Specifically, state Senate Bill 1324 would ban dangerous chemical abortions after the seventh week of pregnancy, as the drug label recommends. Abortion clinics often use the chemical abortion drug regimen RU-486 later in pregnancy and give smaller doses than recommended, likely in an effort to save money.

[…]The second bill, state Senate Bill 1474, would end the inhumane treatment of aborted babies’ bodies by abortion clinics and research facilities. Arizona state Sen. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, introduced the bill earlier this year, saying she was “shocked” by the undercover videos by the Center for Medical Progress showing top Planned Parenthood officials selling aborted babies’ body parts.

[…]The final bill, Arizona Senate Bill 1485, would ban abortion groups from the state employee charitable giving program. The ban is a continuation of a move last year by Gov. Ducey to kick out Planned Parenthood from the program.

[…]State legislators in the Senate also are considering a separate bill that would make it easier to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business.

The fourth story is about South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, who recently endorsed Ted Cruz for President.

The Daily Wire reports:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who is openly pro-life, will sign a bill into law that would ban killing babies in the womb after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The bill, titled the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, was already passed by the South Dakota legislature on March 9; it has already been made law in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Nebraska was the first state to pass the law, in 2010.

Last September, Senate Democrats blocked the Senate’s version of the bill, as the vote was in favor, 54-42, but fell short of a 60-vote sum that would have prevented a filibuster. Ted Cruz voted for the bill while Bernie Sanders opposed the bill; Hillary Clinton has opposed the measure.

[…]In 2012, Haley signed the Opt Out of Abortion Act and the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act. The Born-Alive Infant Protection Act would protect unborn children who are born alive after a failed abortion but would be left to die afterward.

And finally, for those who like some religious liberty along with their defending the lives of unborn children, Campus Reform reports that Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed into law a bill to protect the religious liberty of student groups on public university campuses.

It was a great week!