It has almost been a week since the Iowa Caucus. As we head into Monday, I think it is important the pro-life movement in Iowa have an honest conversation about how it handled the Iowa Caucus.
Candidly, the pro-life movement in Iowa failed during the caucus cycle. And it didn’t just fail, it failed miserably. Considering this was the first caucus since the reversal of Roe v. Wade, I’m not sure we understand just how badly we screwed this up.
I cannot claim to have always been pro-life. But I like to think I’ve been involved in the pro-life movement for the better part of the last 16 years. And never, ever, even one time had I heard the goal of the pro-life movement was to have geography determine a person’s right to life.
At least not until this election cycle. And not only did this “goal” serve as the goal for presidential candidates in Iowa, we were told it had been the goal for the last 50 years.
Again, I guess I missed this strategy session among the pro-life movement because it has never been my goal to save babies in Iowa while allowing them to be killed in Illinois and Minnesota.
Here are some of the goals I thought the pro-life movement had:
*Protect all unborn life
*Grant personhood to innocent unborn persons
*Pursue a federal personhood amendment
But during this caucus cycle, I heard from every candidate it is a “states issue.” Which may or may not be true. Personally, I think the Declaration of Independence is pretty clear that every person is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life. Not every person in Iowa — but every person.
Even if we accept the idea that abortion is a state issue, it doesn’t have to be. Slavery used to be a “state issue” until we amended the Constitution. So where was the call from supposed pro-life Republicans running for President to advocate for a federal personhood amendment to the Constitution?
The most pro-life position we could get out of our presidential field was to let the states decide who lives and dies. Oh, and maybe federally protect babies beginning at 15 weeks.
That is crazy.
And it is proof that the pro-life movement was caught never really expecting the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Because it obviously had no plan — at all — to push the issue in the presidential caucus cycle.
I understand it may be easier to let states decide the issue, but I never thought the pro-life movement was involved to do what is easy — I always thought it was concerned about doing what was right.
Yet endorsements were given despite the lack of a pro-life presidential candidate. And eventually, the winner of the Iowa Caucus was someone who called the Heartbeat Bill a “terrible thing” and “too harsh.” Instead of protecting unborn babies, the candidate said it is more important to win elections.
I know, I know. But President Trump appointed three judges who helped overturn Roe v. Wade. Again, I never knew the point of overturning Roe v. Wade was to allow just some states to kill babies instead of all of them.
Republicans tell us we don’t have the votes and we likely never will to do something significant at the federal level to stop abortion, which again, I thought was the point of the pro-life movement.
The reality is when Democrats return to full power at the federal level, they will try to federalize the issue again. I guarantee it. Yet Republicans have no desire to do anything with it at the federal level.
America will either allow unborn babies to be legally killed or we will not. One side wins, one side loses. And despite what the Iowa Caucus winner thinks, no solution makes both sides happy. One side continues the slaughter, the other side ends it. Period.
Republicans tell us we’ll lose too many elections trying to save all the unborn babies in the country. Meanwhile, think of all the babies dying because we don’t even try.
At some point, we have to realize we continually undermine our own argument.
On one hand, the Democrats stand for abortion — some up until birth. They don’t claim it is a life. They are wrong, but they are consistent.
On the other hand, Republicans claim to believe life begins at conception, and then follow that up with a bunch of buts. Like this…
*Life begins at conception, but it doesn’t deserve protection until 20 weeks.
*Life begins at conception, but it doesn’t deserve protection until it has a detectable heartbeat.
*Life begins at conception, but not if the life was conceived in rape.
What they really mean is this…
Life begins at conception, but we’ll only protect it as much as we’re allowed while winning elections.
And yes, I understand the strategy of saving as many babies as possible along the way to personhood. But I also understand the importance of continually making the argument to save all the babies — not just some.
So, if you want to settle on Heartbeat, amend such a bill for personhood. When that amendment fails, then take what you can get. Don’t just accept the compromise without going for the whole win.
Meanwhile, we never really make the argument we need to make — the unborn child is a human being and none of those unborn human beings have done anything to warrant death. They aren’t criminals, they are people.
The 2024 Iowa Caucus was a blown opportunity for the pro-life movement in Iowa. They did not hold the candidates to a pro-life standard — at all. They were more than content to accept the premise that geography and boundaries dictate which babies live and which babies die.
That isn’t pro-life.
If we really believe life begins at conception, we need to be much more demanding of our supposed leaders. If we don’t believe life begins at conception, then we need to quit pretending we’re pro-life.
