In a complete reversal from the pro-abortion policy pushed by the Obama administration, President Donald Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has launched its bold new strategic plan that declares the personhood of preborn children to begin at the moment of conception.
Many pro-life advocates see this latest move by the Trump administration as the first maneuver in a war plan to overturn 1973’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision that opened up the floodgates to a genocide that has killed more than 60 million since the fateful year more than four decades ago.
“The personhood of the unborn child is central to the abortion debate – as even the justice who wrote the landmark Roe v. Wade opinion has acknowledged – because, if established in law, it would nullify a ‘right’ to abortion,” WND reported.
The difference this addition could make
Charlie Butts (OneNewsNow.com)
Eric Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League says the HHS adding the phrase "beginning at conception" is refreshing news.
"They are acknowledging the scientific fact and the moral truth that life begins at conception and lasts through natural death. So this not only relates to abortion, but also to euthanasia," he explains. "So many of our disabled and our elderly are increasingly being threatened by extermination at the end of life through euthanasia and assisted suicide."
By comparison, Scheidler says the previous administration treated pregnancy as some sort of a disease.
"Here's the Obama administration denying that life in the womb has any value whatsoever," the pro-lifer recalls. "In fact, it's a negative value, something we need to prevent. We need to have mandated coverage without copays for these services that would prevent pregnancy, that would treat a child in the womb like a kind of tumor that needs to be prevented."
Scheidler recognizes that the new policy does not mean immediate change, but it does indicate there might be change in the near future.
Big plans for the sanctity of human life
Even though the HHS plan has flown under the radar of many, its scope for 2018–22 is far-reaching, and it is sure to stir up contention with more and more abortion advocates at time progresses.
Wesley J. Smith, a bioethics specialist who serves as a senior fellow with the Center on Human Exceptionalism at the Discovery Institute, explained what the new strategy sets out to do.
“Organizational Structure HHS accomplishes its mission through programs and initiatives that cover a wide spectrum of activities, serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception,” Smith announced in National Review’s ‘The Corner’ blog.
But once abortion activists catch a whiff of what is at the heart of this bold pro-life strategy, major opposition will surely be launched.
“Life ‘beginning at conception,’ or perhaps better stated, at the conclusion of fertilization, is a fact of basic biological science – as embryology textbooks attest,” the National Review post pointed out. “Still, despite the scientific accuracy, expect the usual suspects to be furious about the proposal.”
Protecting the innocent and vulnerable in socio-economically challenged areas – where they are particularly at risk of being terminated under the current culture of death galvanized by the Obama administration – is central to Trump’s strategy, which also takes aim at doing away with assisted suicide.
“A core component of the HHS mission is our dedication to serve all Americans from conception to natural death, but especially those individuals and populations facing or at high risk for economic and social well-being challenges, through effective human services,” Smith continued. “We can use all the help stopping the death agenda that we can get.”
As expected, pro-abortion advocates are faithfully seizing the opportunity to make the issue into one of civil rights for women, claiming that so-called “women’s reproductive rights” are being steamrolled by the Trump’s HHS plan to protect the lives of America’s preborn children.
“[The Trump administration] is following the standard, discriminatory conservative orthodoxy on women’s health,” a columnist for the Gawker Media website “Jezebel” wrote.
Another abortion activist, National Health Law Program Director of Reproductive Health Susan Berke Fogel, played the discrimination card in an attempt to shoot down the Trump administration’s pro-life plan, which she contended not only discriminates against women, but against minorities and the LGBT community, as well.
“This is a license to discriminate,” Fogel told Politico earlier this month. “All of that language brings back all of these things that we’ve seen in the past that are just incongruous with really protecting health care and really improving people’s lives.”
Opponents of life battling each other
Those in the pro-abortion camp have been at odds with each other on their messaging, as The Line of Fire President Michael Brown recalled in his recent WND column. He noted that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton ruffled the feathers of abortion and pro-life advocates alike when she asserted that “the unborn person does not have constitutional rights” – before agreeing about the personhood of preborn children.
Planned Parenthood of Illinois Community Engagement Manager Diana Arellano addressed Clinton’s inconsistent messaging and attempted to adjust or “correct” her lingo in order to align it with the abortion industry’s agenda.
“[Clinton] stigmatizes abortion,” Arellano argued, according to WND. “She calls a fetus an ‘unborn child’ and calls for later-term restrictions.”
In fact, Planned Parenthood has made manipulating the lexicon used by the mainstream media into an artform, as it has been in the habit of using journalists as pawns to forward its pro-abortion agenda with the American public.
“[D]iscourage the use of terms such as ‘baby,’ ‘dead fetus,’ ‘unborn baby’ and ‘unborn child’ when discussing abortion, instead recommending ’embryo,’ ‘fetus’ and ‘the pregnancy,'” the International Planned Parenthood Federation guidelines read, as quoted by Brown.
And while the former first lady upset those in her own camp, she also drew criticism from pro-life advocates, who pointed out a flaw in her assertion that a fetus – which she correctly identified as an unborn child – does not have any rights.
One steadfast pro-life supporter, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who also serves as the chair of the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives, exposed the cold-heartedness of Clinton’s inhumane philosophy on human life.
“The analytical coldness with which [Clinton] dismissed rights of unborn children reveals a type of hardened core that shocks the conscience,” Blackburn insisted, according to WND.
The outcome of the personhood debate will ultimately determine whether Roe v. Wade’s attack on the preborn will continue or cease.
“The nationwide effort to establish state constitutional rights for unborn babies targets the foundation of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision,” WND’s Art Moore noted. “It’s based on Associate Justice Harry Blackmun’s acknowledgment in his majority opinion that the landmark case would collapse if ‘the fetus is a person,’ because the unborn’s ‘right to life would then be guaranteed’ by the [U.S.] Constitution.”