American Thinker93%
Pro-Lifers Must Recognize That Abortion Stops Only If Women Face Consequences 78%
By Arthur Schaper0%
7/6/2026, 12:00:00 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 36 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 62.7% saturation with 756 hits. Analysis detected 4,398 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,206 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.2% and a BS Rank of 78% (4,530 of 20,516 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.90% of the article peer group.
Another Planned Parenthood has closed down.
Another state has banned mail-order abortion pills and/or requires mothers to get an ultrasound before seeking an abortion.
Another politician has issued a proclamation declaring June to be “Natural Family Month” or “Nuclear Family Month.”
Of course, you can’t have a family without children, and those children matter from conception.
All of this is well and good.
And yet...abortions are still rising across the country.
Earlier this year, State Rep.
Tony Randolph of South Dakota informed the state House Health and Human Services Committee about this disturbing trend.
The Guttmacher Institute has affirmed the truth of this sad reality.
What’s the problem with these efforts?
Oklahoma State Senator Dusty Deevers reluctantly yet necessarily pointed out that much of the piecemeal pro-life legislation passing around the country serves as “pressure relievers” and nothing more.
These lawmakers, with their proposed statutes tinkering around the edges of ending abortion, virtue-signal about stopping abortions.
Legislators can pass statutes to crack down on abortions, but they don’t stop all the abortionists.
They refuse to take the necessary steps to ensure that life in the womb enjoys protection equal to life outside of the womb.
Sounds like a no-brainer, doesn’t it?
Everyone deserves the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
No one should get in the way of or inhibit those natural rights.
All lives matter, do they not?
What do Equal Protection statutes do, specifically?
They require that every party seeking an abortion be held criminally liable, including the mother.
This proposal strikes many as harsh, but let’s put aside the emotions and consider the facts and the law.
If someone’s life is taken—aside from reasons of self-defense or retribution for crime—the murderer should go to jail.
And yet... ...numerous pro-life groups oppose equal protection laws.
They oppose any criminal liability for the mother who seeks the abortion.
They would rather make it more difficult to obtain an abortion (which is not working) or just target the doctors and bureaucrats who facilitate the abortion, which is neither just nor effective.
Yes, the language of “prosecute the mother, too” is harsh.
But abortion is far worse.
The murder of an innocent life, whether inside or outside the womb, should outrage all of us to demand the fullest protections possible for that life.
Thankfully, more groups are making the case for these necessary reforms.
Taking away the spin and the distractions, they emphasize the full barbarity of abortion plus the necessity for holding all parties accountable.
One group that I have written about previously, the Foundation to Abolish Abortion, just celebrated its latest victory in upholding and strengthening the Texas GOP platform, ensuring that the party demands that all GOP lawmakers pass equal protections for all lives.
My friend Tracy Shannon, who served as Texas Director for MassResistance, was also present and updated me on the fight to retain the best platform to protect life.
As expected, as was the case at previous Texas GOP conventions, pro-life establishment groups requested that the Texas GOP delegates soften the platform.
Their advocacy stems from long-standing (unfounded) fears of turning off prospective voters and making it harder to protect women and stop abortions.
How do the more establishment pro-life groups make their case for such a backward proposal?
One of their repeated talking points relies on arguing that such laws will criminalize mothers.
Those arguments are fatuous and silly.
Being a mother in and of itself is not a crime.
It’s a blessing.
Any law that ensures equal protections for all life ennobles the calling of motherhood (as well as fatherhood!)
When a pregnant mother seeks to kill her children through an abortion, she is committing a crime!
It’s the action, not the identity of the person, that’s at stake.
Why would any government not enact such necessary strictures to stop the slaughtering of innocents?
These weaker Pro-life and pregnancy groups suggest that mothers who have attempted an abortion, who then backed away from the procedure, would face severe criminal sanctions for what they tried to do.
Granted, it’s true that in many cases, women have been coerced into seeking an abortion.
(Sadly, there are growing examples of women proudly celebrating their abortions, too!)
The pro-life establishment groups fear that stricter measures to protect unborn children may induce the opposite effect, i.e., more mothers will just carry out the abortion that they have attempted because they will be charged anyway.
Let’s assess these fears.
First of all, regardless of one’s sentiments on the whole sordid subject, attempted murder in all cases is still a crime, as it should be.
We should all demand a society—and expect these values to be honored in community—that rigorously punishes any attempt to end an innocent person’s life.
A jurisdiction that doesn’t treat death threats seriously is a community that will witness death on a greater scale.
Second, in cases of coercion or duress, the penalties are reduced, but there are still penalties for taking a life.
No matter what the circumstances, every one of us should support protecting the innocent, born and unborn.
Most importantly, though, such harsh penalties ensure that more women will not abort their children.
During the same HHS hearing mentioned above, one of the lawmakers explained that she would support equal opportunity legislation because one of her constituents admitted that she would have sought an abortion when she was younger, but refused to do so because she would have been charged with murder!
Thankfully, the arguments to soften the pro-life plank fell on deaf ears at the Texas GOP convention this year, and the Texas GOP has retained its commitment to the full abolition of abortion.
Ben Zeisloft of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion celebrated not only the maintenance of the equal protections plank, but also the enhanced language:
The convention of the Republican Party of Texas in Houston last week resulted in the strongest anti-abortion platform and legislative priority language in party history.
The priority language contains an explicit call to pass equal protection of the law for preborn babies, thereby protecting them with the same laws against murder that already protect born people, and to close the specific loopholes in Texas law granting women immunity for abortions.
The legislative priority also condemns IVF and commercial surrogacy as destructive practices.
There is so much one could say about the surrogacy industry, which commodifies children and puts adult wants ahead of the needs of children.
That’s a different topic for another time.
In a similar vein, many pro-life groups are thinking about the feelings or the outcomes of the mother but not thinking about the well-being of the child.
Pro-life means pro-life for all, and none of us should be distracted by misplaced sympathy or compassion when a mother perpetrates an abortion against her child.
The whole mindset about protecting life must adapt.
Do we want to save lives or not?
Do we want to virtue-signal, or do we want to advance virtue in our country and our culture?
In the war against abortion, abolition is the only way, and equal protection laws ensure that abortion will be prosecuted as a crime for all parties involved.
Speakers
7speakers14%attributed speech1,032writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageFoundation to Abolish Abortion
41 attributed words24% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.