Yes, the Modern Democrat Party Believes in Abortion on Demand Through All Nine Months of Pregnancy

During former President Trump’s recent interview on Meet the Press, NBC News Anchor Kristen Welker repeatedly interrupted the former president attempting to “fact check” his statement that Democrats support late-term abortion.

Because the radical people on this, the Democrats, that say that after five months, six months, seven months, eight months, nine months, and even after birth you are allowed to terminate the baby …

Former President Trump

Mr. President, Democrats aren’t saying that, I just have to … Democrats aren’t saying that.”

Kristen Welker

A minute later, Trump again reiterated the fact that Democrats are in favor of late-term abortions, and again the anchor attempted to “fact check” the former President.

With Hillary Clinton when we had the debate, I said, I made the statement “rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month.” You’re allowed to do that, and you shouldn’t be allowed to do that.

Former President Trump

Again, no one is arguing for that, that’s not a part of anyone’s platform Mr. President.

NBC News Anchor Kristen Welker

Gavin Newsom Appoints the President of Emily’s List to the US Senate

Emily’s list is a radical feminist Political Action Committee focused on election pro-abortion women to congress. They have openly campaigned and spent hundreds of millions of dollars in favor politicians who support late term abortion.

In 1997, Emily’s List, a removed their endorsement of Louisiana’s Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu because she voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Act. In 2002, with the control of the Senate hanging in the balance, the nation’s largest pro-abortion PAC raised eyebrows by actively campaigning against Senator Landrieu and Michigan Democrat Senator John Dingell. The reason given, again, was that they dared to vote to ban the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion, accurately described by former President Trump as “ripping the baby out of the womb in the ninth month.”

In 2002, The Washington Post described Emily’s List position in the following way:

A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY's List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or "partial birth") abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.

Today, California’s far-left governor, Gavin Newsom selected none other than Emily’s List President, Laphonza Butler to fill the US Senate seat left by the recently deceased Dianne Feinstein.

The appointment of a woman who led an organization that made the promotion of late-term partial birth abortion a condition for their financial support proves that Kristen Welker was clearly lying when she attempted to “fact check” the former president.

Not only do many Democrats fully support legalizing late term abortion, but it is clear that the party puts a premium on this extreme ideological position, rewarding the most extreme members such as the president of Emily’s List with appointment to a senate seat in the most populous and most liberal state in the nation.

Contrary to what Ms. Welker attempted to convey, the modern Democrat party is a radically pro-abortion party that believes in absolutely no limits on abortion.

Ms. Butler actually fits perfectly into the ideological mold of the modern Democrat party as she is also a lesbian woman of “color” with a background in organized labor who has railed against the patriarchy.

Biden Nominates Senior Litigation Director From the Center for Reproductive Rights to Federal Court of Appeals

The appointment of people with radical pro-abortion views like those of Laphonza Butler is not an outlier, no matter how much NBC News tries to “fact check” and spin their way out of it.

Just a few months ago, President Biden nominated and the Senate confirmed Julie Rikelman, the top litigator at the extreme pro-abortion group, Center for Reproductive Rights.

Rikelman unsuccessfully argued the Dobbs case before the US Supreme Court, and had a 12 year career as the legal head of a group that made its start in the 1990’s arguing in favor of partial birth abortion, at a time when even some Democrat politicians and other left-leaning groups shied away from supporting the barbaric practice.

When the Nebraska Partial Birth Abortion Act was being litigated before the US Supreme Court (Stenberg v. Carhart), Ms. Rikelman was a law clerk fresh out of Harvard Law interning at the Center for Reproductive Rights. On their website, the Center for Reproductive Rights proudly boasts of their role in defending the late term abortionist Dr. Leroy Carhart.

Ten years ago Live Action News produced an undercover documentary detailing the inhumane practice that Ms. Rikelman and the Center for Reproductive Rights defended, and which the modern Democrat party considers to be experience worthy of a federal appeals judge.

In her confirmation hearings held over the summer, Senator Ted Cruz attempted to get her to clarify whether she supports abortion in the ninth month. Of course, she would not answer, being as Sen Cruz described “a partisan zealot” who has fought for late term abortions opposed by 91% of Americans, but supported by the Democrat party.

FACT: Radical Pro-Abortion Views Are the Norm for Today’s Democrats

Here is a non-exhaustive list of recent high profile Democrats who support late term abortion.

New York, California, Colorado and other Democrat Dominated States Eliminate All Abortion Restrictions

Over the last years states controlled by Democrats have successfully eliminated all criminal penalties related to abortion. The way they achieve this is by having the legislature or the courts declare the killing of preborn children to be a “fundamental right.”

While Democrats will attempt to spin their way out of the clear implications of abortion being treated as a fundamental right, the reality is that under that framework, there is literally no abortion that the Democrat party establishment would ever ban, much less criminalize.

Gone are the days of “safe, legal and rare”, now the Democrat party believes abortions are so good as to be fundamental.

While some of these states will have clauses appearing to limit abortion after viability, the only requirement for a post-viability nine month partial birth abortion is a “good faith” belief by the abortionist being paid to kill the child, that the killing was necessary to preserve the health of the mother.

Of course “health” is defined broadly (just as it was in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade) to include financial concerns and mental health.

In other words, in states where Democrats have gained control, abortion on demand through all nine-months of pregnancy is not only a fact but a guaranteed fundamental right.

The Center for Reproductive Rights calls it states with “Expanded Access.”

Governor Northam of Virginia

In 2019 then Governor Northam, a physician, described how he wold resucitate a child and then have a discussion with the parents about whether to let the child die, i.e. commit infanticide.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra

During a congressional hearing, the head of the Department of Health and Human Services pretended to not know what partial birth abortion is, and therefore dodge the question about the horrific practice, despite the fact that the Partial Birth Abortion Act is an existing federal law that was litigated and upheld by the US Supreme Court nearly fifteen years ago.

Virginia State Legislator Kathy Tran

Kathy Tran, a Virginia state legislator who introduced a bill that would have, by her own admission, allowed for an abortion during the latest point possible, in fact during the middle of the process of giving birth. Unlike other better coached legislators, she did not obfuscate but instead gave a direct answer which made headlines.

Montana Born Alive Infant Protection Act

Democrats and pro-abortion forces spent over a million dollars to defeat a legislatively referred law that did not even attempt to outlaw a single abortion.

The Montana law did require children born alive after a failed abortion to receive the same level of care given to any infant born prematurely.

Pro-abortion Democrat aligned groups spent over a million dollars, while pro-lifers did not even organize a committee to support the law. The airwaves were flooded with negative and deceptive ads agains the common sense law, and the law was rejected.

At the heart of the matter was the law’s requirement that children born alive are considered persons. The extreme pro-abortion position has been that personhood is a subjective status, much like gender, to be determined only by the mother. The Democrat’s position has become so extreme in this aspect that they have fought bills like the one in Montana that would not have impacted abortion, but would have granted some children personhood after being born after a failed abortion.

Democrat-aligned Legal and Medical Experts Testifying Before the US Senate

Repeatedly, when Democrat pro-abortion witnesses appear before congress and are pressed on what limitations on abortion, if any, they would be willing to support, they invariably attempt to change the subject and refuse to answer the question.

That is because the truth is that the mainstream position in the Democrat party of 2023 is to support abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy and even after birth if that means securing the right to sex without consequences.

18 U.S.C. § 241 “Conspiracy Against Rights”

The same law used against Trump on bogus charges of sedition is being weaponized against pro-life activists.

The AG of Mississippi Launches Pregnancy Center Donation Drive on the Anniversary of Dobbs Case that Overturned Roe v. Wade

The AG of Mississippi Launches Pregnancy Center Donation Drive on the Anniversary of Dobbs Case that Overturned Roe v. Wade

What is a person? History, law, and modern science

By David Bjornstrom, Esq. — What is a person? We need an answer to the question of personhood for any intelligent discussion of abortion, because all human persons have a fundamental right to life.

Continue Reading

Why Kansas’ Value Them Both Amendment failed and what to do about it

By Gualberto Garcia Jones, Esq. — Even before the Dobbs decision, state-wide referendums on abortion have always attracted massive amounts of political donations from abortionists, as well as a barrage of pro-abortion unpaid propaganda from the mainstream media. As a result, things almost always turn out badly for the pro-life side. Case in point: The recent defeat of the Value Them Both Amendment in Kansas… It’s time to shift the tide.

Continue Reading

Dobbs: Should the right to life be a political question?

By Gualberto Garcia Jones, Esq. — Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe and Casey and sent abortion back to the states, but should the right to life be a political question?

Continue Reading

Draft Roe v Wade decision falls short

By David Bjornstrom, Esq. — It is encouraging to hear that the Supreme Court, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization, may finally overturn Roe v Wade. However, that will not be enough to protect the pre-born, because the Court’s decision just transfers the abortion issue to the states where, in many cases, abortion will be expanded.

Continue Reading

Dobbs case exposes moral bankruptcy of abortion industry

By David Bjornstrom, Esq. — Aside from the legal arguments made in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court, three themes emerged that reveal the deep moral corruption of the pro-abortion movement.

Continue Reading

Life or death: Pro-life and pro-abortion arguments in the Dobbs case

By David Bjornstrom — On December 1, the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health, which will necessitate a revisiting of some of the Court’s most notorious abortion decisions. The stakes are high, with more than 170 legal briefs already filed by both pro-life and pro-abortion groups. So what exactly is each side arguing in the Dobbs case?

Continue Reading

Is Roe v Wade on a Collision Course?

By David Bjornstrom — The U.S. Supreme Court’s viability standard in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey will be tested this fall in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. The Dobbs case involves a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks. While the case does not go far enough, in that it still allows abortions at all, it highlights the absurdity of the Court’s viability standard.

Continue Reading

Scroll to top