As the election draws near, the mainstream media continues to proclaim that abortion is the one issue that is going to bring about a Democratic victory. The media asserts that this issue is so strong in the Democrat favor it will sweep Harris and her pro-abortion cronies into the White House and into control of both houses of Congress.
Well, not so fast.
The American public is very divided on the issue of abortion but clearly does not support abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy, as Kamala Harris does. Further, her radical support for abortion and her hatred for the work of pro-life pregnancy centers show that she is not “pro-choice.” Instead, she is “pro-abortion.”
In 2015, as the Attorney General for the state of California, Harris sponsored the California Reproductive Fact Act. She aggressively lobbied for its passage, and it was signed into law. It mandated that pro-life centers promote abortion by advertising with a sign in their waiting room the availability of a state-funded abortion and further, provide an 800-number for their clients to call to get the abortion procedure started.
The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a legal network of nearly 1,800 member pregnancy centers nationwide, filed suit against Harris asserting that the law violates the free speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers by forcing them to promote a message with which they fundamentally disagree. Such agencies are thoroughly pro-life and do not refer for abortion. Such a mandate is abhorrent to them.
Recommended
The federal lawsuit was initially titled NIFLA v. Harris but later became NIFLA V. Becerra when Harris moved up the political ladder and was elected to the Senate. However, Harris was, from the beginning, a strong supporter and advocate for the law and remained so throughout the life of the case.
If the validity of the law were to be upheld then could an organization such as Alcohol Anonymous be also compelled to place a sign in its waiting area advising its clients where the local liquor store is located? Or, could the government force Hindu temples to promote hamburgers? If the law had been allowed to stand the answer to both of these inquiries would be a resounding “yes.” Whether such a law would be adopted would only depend upon who holds the strongest influence with lawmakers.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States found the law unconstitutional that discriminates against the rights of pro-life pregnancy centers. In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court labeled the law “content discrimination” and invalidated it. Harris and her successor Xavier Becerra (now secretary of Health and Human Services) were thwarted temporarily in their war to stop mothers considering abortion from receiving the supportive services that will empower them to choose life.
Pregnancy centers number nearly 3,000 agencies nationwide and provide to mothers in crisis major support resources such as ultrasound confirmation of pregnancy, pregnancy testing, STI testing and treatment, referrals for medical services, legal services, mental health counseling, adoption services, baby accessories and clothes, housing, and more. All services are free of charge.
A recent study and report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute in Washington D.C. entitled “Hope for a New Generation” found that in 2022, pregnancy centers nationwide provided material assistance and aid to more than 16 million women valued at more than $367,000,000 – a nice savings to taxpayers.
So why would Kamala Harris oppose these centers and attempt to legally close them down? Perhaps the answer is that she and her fellow progressives are so wedded to abortion as a value that, in fact, abortion is what they care about most. If they were truly pro-choice then they would obviously support the work of pregnancy centers who offer support so that a mother may choose life.
There is no greater example of the love Kamala Harris has for abortion than in her recent visit to an abortion clinic and her public display of support. NIFLA countered her visit with an invitation for her to visit a pro-life pregnancy center and observe the other side of choice. It was no surprise that no response was received from Harris.
Kamala Harris has shown herself to be a “Collaborator in Chief” with the abortion industry. If she is elected President this will undoubtedly continue. Scuttlebutt around the nation’s Capitol suggests that as President she might select as her Attorney General the current Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra. There is no doubt that if this comes to pass together they will continue to wage war against pro-life pregnancy centers as they did in California.
Thomas Glessner is founder and president of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA).
Join the conversation as a VIP Member