***The Iowa Standard is an independent media voice. We rely on the financial support of our readers to exist. Please consider a one-time sign of support or becoming a monthly supporter at $5, $10/month - whatever you think we're worth! If you’ve ever used the phrase “Fake News” — now YOU can actually DO something about it! You can also support us on PayPal at [email protected] or Venmo at Iowa-Standard-2018 or through the mail at: PO Box 112 Sioux Center, IA 51250

I have considered myself pro-life for 20 years now — give or take. I think as I’ve gotten older I have only gotten more pro-life. Going through the process of having kids will do that to a person I’d imagine.

Lately (since Dobbs) I have heard more and more pro-life people say that abortion is a state issue. So, as I’ve tried to do lately when writing about abortion, let’s say what we actually mean.

Abortion is the intentional ending of an unborn human being’s life. So, what these pro-life individuals are actually saying is:

“The intentional ending of an unborn human being’s life should be decided at the state level.”

Another way to say that is the legality of killing unborn babies should be decided at the state level.

I remember learning about a time in American history when a group of people was considered less than human. And we allowed states and borders to determine an individual’s personhood.


And that didn’t end well.

When did the pro-life movement suddenly adopt a mindset that life and death should be determined by borders?

I understand how the government was set up. I understand the idea of states’ rights. I get it.

But I also think there are some things that are fundamental and should be so across the board. One of those things is the right to life.

After all, our nation’s founding document clearly states we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these is the right to life.

Abortion doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution, but again, the right to life is pretty explicit in the Declaration of Independence.

As brilliant as the authors of the Constitution were, I have to wonder if they really thought they needed to spell out the fact that unborn babies shouldn’t be allowed to be legally killed in the womb.

Some things should be common sense. That would seemingly be one of them.

In January 2019, Sen. Chuck Grassley introduced the 20-week abortion ban. So just a few years ago Grassley viewed abortion as a national issue.

He previously said, “the fundamental right to life is afforded to all people, both born and unborn.”

“In fact, the right to life is so significant that our Founding Fathers wrote it in the Declaration of Independence — all human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life. I”ll continue fighting to uphold the sanctity of all human life.”

Notice he never said, “the fundamental right to life is afforded to all people, both born and unborn, depending on their geography.”

He never said, “all human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including the right to life — unless you’re within the borders of a state like California or Illinois.”

On Thursday night, here is what Grassley said when asked if he would vote yes or no on Sen. Lindsey Graham’s national 15-week abortion ban:

“I would vote no, but usually that question comes another way because I did support a bill before. And I supported a bill before because then, before the Supreme Court decision, it was a federal issue. Now it’s a state issue.”

So it seems that Sen. Grassley believes nine unelected judges have the power to determine whether the “right to life” as espoused in the Declaration of Independence is any right to life at all.

And those nine unelected justices decide whether it is a state issue or a federal issue.

Again, we’re talking about whether unborn human beings are legally killed or they are granted their right to life.

That is what we’re talking about.

I know Mike Franken is extreme on abortion. I know that. I know that Sen. Grassley is “more pro-life” than Mike Franken. I know that.

But what about consistency? Does that count for anything?

Mike Franken, at least, is consistent. He sees no life when he sees an unborn baby it seems. He sees no such “right to life” as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. He refuses to even define the stage of viability.

But again, at least he is consistent.

Think about what Grassley is doing. Grassley is saying he believes an unborn baby is a human life, but that individual’s life and whether it can legally be intentionally ended is dependent upon geography.

Think about that.

I would argue that is more extreme than Franken’s position. Because to hold Franken’s position, one doesn’t have to acknowledge any life exists.

But to hold Grassley’s view, one has to acknowledge life does exist, there is a right to life, but that right and that life only matter in certain boundaries.

That friends, is an extreme position in my book.

Neither candidate handled the abortion question well, at all, from a pro-life perspective. There is certainly nothing to celebrate about either candidate’s view on unborn life.

Again, there are some things — as limited as they may be — that should be universal. Life and the value of life should be a couple of them.

Imagine someone saying that (insert your first name here) has a right to life, but only in certain states. Killing someone named Jacob in Iowa would be murder, but killing someone named Jacob in Minnesota would be just fine.

Would anyone anywhere go for that?

Yet it appears some in the “pro-life” movement are OK with doing that with unborn babies lives.

We’re debating a person’s worth. A person’s value. A person’s dignity. A person’s very existence.

We shouldn’t be so numb to the killing of unborn babies that we convince ourselves geography should be used to determine which babies can be murdered and which can enjoy their right to life.

All men were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. All men. Not some. Not men created here or there — all.

When he ran for President, Sen. Rick Santorum was asked about abortion once or twice — or a million times. Here was a snippet from one of his answers:

“This is a matter of pure human decency.”

Human decency should not know any borders.

Abortion is the intentional ending of a human being’s life. It’s murder. Killing an unborn baby shouldn’t be allowed anywhere in America.

And those who believe an unborn baby is indeed a human being, a human life, should not pretend it’s OK to kill these unborn babies depending on what soil we’re standing upon.

The pro-life position is simple — protect unborn babies everywhere. Give them all their unalienable right to life, because that right doesn’t come from a state, it doesn’t come from a Governor, it doesn’t come from a President, it doesn’t come from a King. It comes from our Creator.

It supersedes anything the civil government can justly do. It needs to be honored and defended in every nook and cranny of the country.

Author: Jacob Hall


  1. Excellent article reducing the abortion discussion down to it’s basics. There are only two questions: 1) Is human life sacred in all its forms? 2) At what moment does life begin?
    We nearly universally agree on the sacredness of human life. We all know that life begins at conception/fertilization. In 24 years of public debate, I have never found an abortion proponent who could effectively rebut the two question position.

    In Senator Grassley’s defense, he would not codify a universal and national right to abortion. That doesn’t get us much but it, at least, doesn’t give up much either.

    We need a national HeartBeat Act that protects every baby with a beating heart or a Personhood Act that defines the right to life of every person from the point of conception.

    Steve King


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here