As Chair of House Judiciary, I am called upon to determine whether bills assigned to my committee receive a sub-committee or not. There have been various bills advanced this session with the great intention of protecting unborn children. Some have come to my committee. Unfortunately, while well-meaning, some of these initiatives were not well thought out strategically nor were they well thought out in terms of the implications in practice of what they would actually do if enacted.
I would offer the following perspective to those who actually care about winning the fight for our unborn children.
First of all, many of you who have followed me in my years in office fighting for conservative values know that one of the main reasons I ran for office was to fight for unborn children. I voted for the original Heartbeat bill and also worked and voted for it the second time in Special Session. I also fought for and ran the Life Amendment successfully, working for weeks to come up with language acceptable in both chambers, but ultimately the determination after court rulings was not to move forward with it. I have been involved in every pro-life initiative and battle since I was first elected. We have gotten to where we are today by thinking strategically and I believe we must continue to do that if we are to achieve ultimate victory.
When our original heartbeat bill and 72-hour waiting period were struck down by the Courts, creating a fundamental right to abortion in the Iowa Constitution that had never existed before, I advanced the idea of passing a 24-hour waiting period as a way to force the court to revisit the issue. By that time, as a result of the Judicial Nomination Reforms that I floor-managed into law, numerous justices had been replaced on the Iowa Supreme Court with justices that were much more constructionist and conservative. The reforms I floor-managed fundamentally changed the make-up of the court. Because of these changes, I believed it possible we could get a different ruling.
I believed with the passage of a 24-hour waiting period that Planned Parenthood would sue (they did) and it would end up once again in front of a now much more constructionist Iowa Supreme Court. This strategic decision resulted in the Iowa Supreme Court striking down the previous Supreme Court decision that had created a fundamental right to abortion in the Iowa Constitution, a monumental triumph in the fight for the unborn. Around that same time, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v Wade. Unfortunately, the Iowa Supreme Court was ambiguous in their ruling, and they failed to allow the heartbeat bill to go into effect. So, we passed the Heartbeat bill once again in Special Session. I was one of the loud voices calling for a Special Session to pass the heartbeat bill. The court challenge is currently moving through the system, ultimately to be decided by the Iowa Supreme Court in the next year or so.
Earlier I mentioned the importance of being strategic. Many pro-life legal experts believe it is important that we wait for the Heartbeat decision before determining our next course of action, believing acting before that decision could be detrimental to our pro-life efforts and result in a very negative outcome. As difficult as it is, many in the pro-life community believe that we should wait for this court decision before taking our next step in the fight for life and I agree with them. It is also true that anything we pass will immediately be blocked in the courts, even as we await the Heartbeat decision, further complicating the legal landscape and accomplishing absolutely nothing in the fight for life.
I would also add that we have other legislation moving that breaks out some of these issues separately, making them less susceptible to court challenge. We have a fetal homicide bill that will make Iowa the 38th state to have such a law. We also have a wrongful death cause of action bill for the unborn. In both cases, life is recognized as being protectable at conception.
We are working with Alliance Defending Freedom and prolife groups from Iowa as we work to protect life in a way that best affords us the opportunity for success. If we pass a bill with too many concepts in it, or concepts that are ill-conceived or that reaches too far before we get a ruling from the Iowa Supreme Court on our Heartbeat bill, it could in fact result in a monumental legal setback.
It is inexplicable to me to have some on social media say that planning a course of action is somehow going against God’s will. That makes no sense to me. As a warrior in the Marine Corps, and now as a warrior for conservative values in the Iowa House, I must seek divine guidance through prayer, while also preparing the battlefield for success, based upon those prayers. To do otherwise will ensure failure, which is not acceptable. God gave me a brain for a reason.
Some pro-life advocates demand loudly on social media that I advance HF2256. Let’s talk about this horribly written legislation. I wonder if those advocating for this are aware that this legislation would allow mothers who abort their children to be prosecuted and jailed. This is something that no credible person in the pro-life community I have spoken to believes is acceptable. In fact, I have been advised that numerous pro-life groups across the country believe this to be a dangerous and horrible approach. A similar bill is being resisted in Louisiana that would prosecute mothers. I will not advance such a proposal, and even if I did it would have zero chance to pass out of the Judiciary Committee or from either chamber in the Iowa Legislature, as it should be. Our effort has never been about going after mothers, but rather about protecting unborn children.
I have been told that there are individuals going into my legislative district to tell people that I do not support HF2256. I hope they do. I am not supporting this legislation, and will not, because it will set pro-life efforts back in Iowa in a profound way.
I have also been told in the last few days that incrementalism is evil and that we must simply go for Life at Conception. Nonsense. First of all, we do not have the votes at this time for Life at Conception due to the pending legal struggles over our Heartbeat legislation, and even if we did, such legislation would immediately be halted by lawsuits in the courts. As I said before, this leaves us in a worse position, not better. No more babies being saved, but a much more muddled legal landscape. As one pro-life constitutional attorney said in a discussion about our next steps forward, let us not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
If the Iowa Supreme Court allows our Heartbeat bill to go into effect, 90% of unborn children currently being aborted could be saved. If the court does not allow the Heartbeat bill to go into effect, they would of course also not allow more restrictive legislation to go into effect. Once the court has decided, we can determine where the next field of battle should be and execute accordingly.
HF2256 is deeply concerning in its implications. Mothers who abort their children need love and support, not jail time. They are victims of abortionists and the lies told to them. It has never been the goal of the pro-life community in the years I have fought for life to prosecute mothers, looking instead to provide counseling and love, considering these mothers to be as much a victim of the abortionists as the aborted child. I will not advance legislation that jails women who have an abortion, such as HF2256 would allow.
Consider this open letter to lawmakers from the Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America group, representing all of the major pro-life groups in America, dated May 22nd, 2022:
“Women are victims of abortion and require our compassion and support as well as ready access to counseling and social services in the days, weeks, months, and years following an abortion.
As national and state pro-life organizations, representing tens of millions of pro-life men, women, and children across the country, let us be clear: We state unequivocally that we do not support any measure seeking to criminalize or punish women and we stand firmly opposed to include such penalties in legislation.”
So yes, I oppose this HF2256 as does every major pro-life group in the country. We will not prosecute mothers in Iowa. As this newsletter is being written, Pulse Life Advocates has withdrawn their support from this legislation after realizing that it allows for the prosecution of mothers.
I will continue to use the brain that God gave me, and work with those in the pro-life community in advancing legislation that makes sense and will advance the fight for life. I will not advance horrific, poorly written legislation that goes after mothers, such as HF2256 does.
I am proud to serve as the State Representative of District 12. You can email me at [email protected].
Why Representative Holt’s Incrementalist Approach Will Always Fail
In Response to: “A Reality Check on House File 2256”
For the sake of brevity, I will focus my response to Rep. Holt’s article by addressing what he said, here:
“Some pro-life advocates demand loudly on social media that I advance HF2256. Let’s talk about this horribly written legislation. I wonder if those advocating for this are aware that this legislation would allow mothers who abort their children to be prosecuted and jailed. This is something that no credible person in the pro-life community I have spoken to believes is acceptable.”
Yes, as an advocate of HF2256, I am aware that unlike Rep. Holt’s toothless HSB621 (a law without real penalties for assassins and the women who hire them), HF2256 would actually prosecute those who break the law.
Rep. Holt cites his prior military experience in his effort to convince the people of Iowa that he is doing battle and going to war for unborn children. I think it is very difficult to successfully wage war when you intentionally identify enemy combatants as victims or collateral damage. And, as Rep. Holt is well-aware, engaging in warfare is often referred to as “prosecuting” war.
Having served as a deputy sheriff for 20-years (now retired), I can’t remember ever enforcing a law that did include penalties for violating the law. Robbery, burglary, assault, domestic violence, vandalism, drunk driving, drug possession, child abuse, etc.–all of these crimes include penalties for those who commit them. Of the untold number of people I arrested during my career, not once did I advise them, “Not to worry; nothing will happen to you. You bear no responsibility for your actions. In fact, you may just be a victim of the crime you committed.”
And there you have, in a nutshell, a five-decade-long incrementalist approach by the pro-life establishment–an approach that has not and will not ever end the scourge of abortion.
Rep. Holt’s and the pro-life establishment’s incrementalist approach is inconsistent. Case in point:
A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. Against the counsel she receives from friends and family, she decides to allow the baby to live. The baby is born, and the mother loves her child.
A few months later, the mother notices that her baby is taking on some of the physical features of her attacker. It bothers her. As days move into weeks, the woman begins to think that she cannot love and raise a child that looks like her attacker. So, she decides to fill her bathtub with warm water and drowns her baby.
I cannot think of a single person (at least none with whom I have spoken) in the pro-life and the pro-abortion camps that would not agree that the woman should be prosecuted for murdering her baby. And here’s where the inconsistency of both camps comes to light.
The only difference between every unborn child and the born child in my scenario is the age and location of the baby. Both children are alive. Both children die at the hand of their mother. And both women should be prosecuted for the crime. It is both ridiculous and illogical to refer and treat the mother who murdered her unborn child as a “victim” while referring and treating the mother of the born child as a “suspect.”
Both the pro-life incrementalist and pro-abortion advocate are inconsistent in their handling of the murder of unborn children. The abortion abolitionist is not.
The only way to end human abortion is to abolish it, outright, and then truly hold accountable those who choose to murder children in violation of the law. Iowa HF2256 would be such a law. But Rep. Holt refuses to allow it to move from his desk to the subcommittee and then onto the judiciary committee, which he presently chairs.
Here’s the most important reason why bills like Rep. Holt’s HSB621 and the pro-life establishment’s incrementalist approach to ending abortion will never work. They’re inconsistent with the proclamation of the law and the gospel.
God the Son took on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. He did not come to earth to save victims who have no need of forgiveness, for being a victim. He came to earth to save sinners, those who have broken God’s Law (e.g. “do not murder”), who are in desperate need of God’s forgiveness. Until the pro-life establishment has the Word of God and not their own manmade “strategies” as their authority–their marching orders, they will never truly “prosecute” and win the war against abortion.
Mr. Holt, allow HF2256 to move on to the subcommittee. Take a real and courageous step toward ending abortion in Iowa.
In Response to: ‘A Reality Check on House File 2256’
For the sake of brevity, I will focus my response to Rep. Holt’s article by addressing what he said, here:
“Some pro-life advocates demand loudly on social media that I advance HF2256. Let’s talk about this horribly written legislation. I wonder if those advocating for this are aware that this legislation would allow mothers who abort their children to be prosecuted and jailed. This is something that no credible person in the pro-life community I have spoken to believes is acceptable.”
Yes, as an advocate of HF2256, I am aware that unlike Rep. Holt’s toothless HSB621 (a law without real penalties for assassins and the women who hire them), HF2256 would actually prosecute those who break the law.
Rep. Holt cites his prior military experience in his effort to convince the people of Iowa that he is doing battle and going to war for unborn children. I think it is very difficult to successfully wage war when you intentionally identify enemy combatants as victims or collateral damage. And, as Rep. Holt is well-aware, engaging in warfare is often referred to as “prosecuting” war.
Having served as a deputy sheriff for 20-years (now retired), I can’t remember ever enforcing a law that did include penalties for violating the law. Robbery, burglary, assault, domestic violence, vandalism, drunk driving, drug possession, child abuse, etc.–all of these crimes include penalties for those who commit them. Of the untold number of people I arrested during my career, not once did I advise them, “Not to worry; nothing will happen to you. You bear no responsibility for your actions. In fact, you may just be a victim of the crime you committed.”
And there you have, in a nutshell, a five-decade-long incrementalist approach by the pro-life establishment–an approach that has not and will not ever end the scourge of abortion.
Rep. Holt’s and the pro-life establishment’s incrementalist approach is inconsistent. Case in point:
A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. Against the counsel she receives from friends and family, she decides to allow the baby to live. The baby is born, and the mother loves her child.
A few months later, the mother notices that her baby is taking on some of the physical features of her attacker. It bothers her. As days move into weeks, the woman begins to think that she cannot love and raise a child that looks like her attacker. So, she decides to fill her bathtub with warm water and drowns her baby.
I cannot think of a single person (at least none with whom I have spoken) in the pro-life and the pro-abortion camps that would not agree that the woman should be prosecuted for murdering her baby. And here’s where the inconsistency of both camps comes to light.
The only difference between every unborn child and the born child in my scenario is the age and location of the baby. Both children are alive. Both children die at the hand of their mother. And both women should be prosecuted for the crime. It is both ridiculous and illogical to refer and treat the mother who murdered her unborn child as a “victim” while referring and treating the mother of the born child as a “suspect.”
Both the pro-life incrementalist and pro-abortion advocate are inconsistent in their handling of the murder of unborn children. The abortion abolitionist is not.
The only way to end human abortion is to abolish it, outright, and then truly hold accountable those who choose to murder children in violation of the law. Iowa HF2256 would be such a law. But Rep. Holt refuses to allow it to move from his desk to the subcommittee and then onto the judiciary committee, which he presently chairs.
Here’s the most important reason why bills like Rep. Holt’s HSB621 and the pro-life establishment’s incrementalist approach to ending abortion will never work. They’re void of the gospel.
God the Son took on human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. He did not come to earth to save victims who have no need of forgiveness, for being a victim. He came to earth to save sinners, those who have broken God’s Law (e.g. “do not murder”), who are in desperate need of God’s forgiveness. Until the pro-life establishment has the Word of God and not their own manmade “strategies” as their authority–their marching orders, they will never truly “prosecute” and win the war against abortion.
Mr. Holt, allow HF2256 to move on to the subcommittee. Take a real and courageous step toward ending abortion in Iowa.