Pro-life candidates promise greater protections for the unborn

Pro-life candidates promise greater protections for the unborn

While left-leaning media outlets warn of dire consequences for the pro-abortion cause should Brett Kavanaugh become the Supreme Court’s newest member, gubernatorial and Congressional candidates across the country promise to implement new protections for unborn children.

Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson hopes to enact a “heartbeat bill” if he’s elected. The measure would follow Iowa’s blueprint by prohibiting doctors from aborting a fetus which has a measurable heartbeat. “[Iowa’s law] said if you can hear and feel a heartbeat, then that is a living child, and you shouldn’t be able to abort it,” Johnson told Minnesota Public Radio.

Meanwhile, Illinois Congressman Peter Roskam seeks to base his re-election bid on a strongly pro-life platform. In a televised debate with his Democratic opponent Sean Casten, Roksam stated that he is “not going to be defensive about being pro-life” and denounced Casten’s support for taxpayer-funded abortions.

When Casten attempted to characterize abortion as simply “a medical procedure like a gall bladder surgery,” Roskam pointed out the obvious: “Abortion is not gall bladder surgery.”

Finally, both Republican incumbent Mia Love and Democratic candidate Ben McAdams have touted their pro-life values in Utah’s most hotly contested congressional race. Love deemed herself “one of the main spokespersons here in Congress on the pro-life issue,” and highlighted her consistent pro-life track record. “[My] stance has always been the same. No abortions; to protect life at all stages of development, except in cases of rape, incest or life of a mother.”

For his part, McAdams stated he has “deeply held beliefs about the sanctity of life and what we can do to promote the sanctity of life. . . . I think abortion is far too common in America, and we should be taking steps to reduce abortion.”

Thus, fears regarding abortion access may dominate headlines–but pro-life voters should consider the positive implications of widespread state and federal support for abortion restrictions. Should pro-life campaign promises come to fruition, more unborn children will have a chance at life.



Voter stupidity remarks cause firestorm

Voter stupidity remarks cause firestorm


Obamacare passed due to the “stupidity of the American voter,” said a leading Obama Administration consultant on in a video released this week.

Professor Jonathan Gruber of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said that “lack of transparency” helped the Affordable Care Act to pass, and expressly insulted the intelligence of the American voter.

As a consultant, Gruber helped to craft both the Massachusetts healthcare law and Obamacare. The videos in which he made these and other remarks remained secret until this week.

In separate videos, Gruber said the law’s passage relied on “basic exploitation of [voters’] lack of economic understanding,” and that Americans are “too stupid to understand” certain parts of the law’s tax scheme.

The release of these controversial videos quickly became a rallying point for Republicans. The Republican Party’s recent victories in the House and Senate left the Party in search of direction for the next two years.

Public shock at Gruber’s comments gave some conservatives in media the ammunition they need to blame the Obama Administration. Some predict that these comments will play a role in the eventual Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act after taking control of Congress.

What’s next after the GMO labeling measure?

What’s next after the GMO labeling measure?

SALEM, Ore.–

Tuesday’s narrow defeat of Measure 92, the costliest ballot initiative in Oregon’s history, leaves both sides wondering what is to come.

Measure 92 would have required sellers of food to label products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMO). The measure came down to the wire, failing by 1.2 percent, with less than 51 percent of votes cast in opposition.

The initiative broke all records for cost in a ballot measure. The Yes on 92 campaign raised and spent over eight million dollars, surpassing any expenditures on any Yes campaign in Oregon’s history. The No on 92 campaign raised and spent over twenty million dollars to defeat the labeling requirement.

“At the end of the day, this is a social movement . . . It’s about peoples’ right to know and we know we’re going to eventually prevail, regardless of the outcome in Oregon,” said George Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety.

He assured voters that supporters of GMO labeling will continue advocating for reforms at the state and federal levels. This measure would have been the first to require genetically modified products to be labelled before going to the consumer. Supporters argue that the requirement would help consumers make informed choices in their food purchases.

The No on 92 campaign raised two and a half times as much money as the Yes campaign. Opponents of the measure argue that it would raise food costs while not informing consumers of any meaningful information.

Regardless of the outcome of Tuesday’s election, the GMO labeling debate is far from over.