Iowa: The Home of the Brave

Earlier this month, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed into law a “heartbeat bill,” which would ban abortions after an ultrasound can detect a fetal heartbeat, typically at around six weeks gestation.  The bill passed the Iowa House 51-46 and the Iowa Senate 27-19. Previous governors have vetoed similar legislation, citing that they knew that the laws would not hold up against court challenges.  Reynolds, unlike her counterparts in other states, stood her ground and refused to back down in order to appease the rabid pro-abortion lobby: “This is bigger than just a law; this is about life. I am not going to back down from who I am or what I believe in.” While no other governor besides Reynolds has actually signed a “heartbeat bill” into law, a “heartbeat bill” did become law in Arkansas after the State Legislature voted to override the governor of Democratic Governor Mike Beebe.  Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright struck down the law as unconstitutional. 

For the past 45 years, the pro-choice movement has formed an alliance with the Courts, the media, and popular culture while the pro-life movement has its strongest ally in science, which the liberals like to claim a monopoly on.  Anyone who views an ultrasound will have a hard time honestly believing the left-wing talking point that the baby amounts to nothing more than a “clump of cells.”  Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who had previously described himself as pro-choice, became pro-life after witnessing his unborn daughter’s ultrasound. 

Not surprisingly, it did not take long for America’s largest taxpayer-subsidized abortion mill, Planned Parenthood, as well as the ACLU, to file a lawsuit against Iowa’s “heartbeat bill”, asking the Courts to block the implementation of the law, which does not go into effect until July 1.  Rita Bettis, the Legal Director of the ACLU of Iowa, referred to the “heartbeat bill” as a “cruel and reckless law.”  The phrase “cruel and reckless” more accurately describes the abortion status quo in the United States in the years following the unjust Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in all fifty states.   

The Thomas More Society has offered to defend the law for free as Iowa’s Democratic Attorney General Tom Miller has stated that he will not defend the law in court, citing the standard left-wing talking point that “it would undermine rights and protections for women.” Miller, who has served in his post since 1995, will run for re-election this fall unopposed.  Iowa obviously does not have term limits for its statewide elected officials. Iowans have missed a historic opportunity to elect someone who actually will defend the law in Court and retire Miller, a puppet of the far left who has joined 16 other Attorneys General in suing the Trump Administration over the “racist” citizenship question on the Census and 14 other attorneys general in a lawsuit complaining about the President’s decision to rollback DACA.  Altogether, Iowa, a state that voted for President Trump by nearly 10 points in 2016, has joined 36 multi-state lawsuits against the Trump Administration.  Why Republicans decided to take a pass on this race, especially considering the fact that they have already captured both Houses of the General Assembly, both Senate seats as well as the governor’s office, remains a mystery. It looks like the socialists, which comprise 41 percent of the Iowa Democratic Party, have quite a bit of clout at the Attorney General’s Office.        

Aside from a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, which would require support of two-thirds of the members of both Houses of Congress as well as three-fourths of the State legislatures, taking this fight all the way to Supreme Court presents the only option for pro-lifers.  According to Republican State Senator Rick Bertrand, “This bill will be the vehicle that will ultimately provide change and provide the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.”

It looks like the pro-life movement may find their biggest obstacle to achieving this goal in “the gang of five,” identified by Bernie Goldberg as one of the “110 People Who Are Screwing up America.”  “The Gang of Five” refers to the group of liberal justices on the Supreme Court of the United States; which at the time of the book’s publication consisted of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter, Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, and Anthony Kennedy, “who judicially speaking, goes both ways.” The makeup of the Gang of Five has changed a little bit since Goldberg first wrote the book more than a decade ago, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan replacing Justices Souter and Stevens, respectively. 

Four of the five justices on the “Gang of Five” will certainly agree that the “heartbeat bill” violates the Constitution.  The fate of the law will rest at the feet of Justice Anthony Kennedy. In 1992, Justice Kennedy joined Justices Blackmun, Souter, O’Connor, and Stevens in upholding the “essential holding” of Roe v. Wade.  On the other hand, Kennedy did not vote with a different “gang of five”, consisting of Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and Reagan appointee Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted to strike down a Nebraska state law banning partial birth abortion in 2000.  When a Federal version of the law came before the Supreme Court seven years later, the Court decided that it did not violate the Constitution.  The appointment of Justice Sam Alito to replace Justice O’Connor made all of the difference in that case.    

“The gang of five” may lose another member, as Justice Kennedy may retire at the conclusion of this term.  Liberals such as Ruth Marcus and The New York Times Editorial Board have written op-eds begging Kennedy not to retire.  Kennedy’s retirement would provide a grand opportunity to put a fifth justice on the Court 100 percent committed to overturning Roe v. Wade.  Democrats can whine all they want about a new pro-life, originalist justice on the Supreme Court but they can do very little to stop it thanks to a brave decision by the Senate Majority Leader to invoke the “nuclear option” for Supreme Court nominees, effectively abolishing the filibuster. Even a “no” vote by moderate, pro-choice Republicans such as Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski would probably be cancelled out by a more moderate Democrat such as Joe Manchin.  Republicans want Kennedy to retire as soon as possible, so they can confirm a replacement while they still have a Senate majority.  

Keep in mind the different discussion we would be having about the “heartbeat bill” if President Trump had not won the 2016 Presidential Election. If Iowa had passed the same law with a President Hillary Clinton in the White House, the law would certainly face defeat at the Supreme Court, as a Clinton-appointed replacement for Justice Scalia would surely vote with the liberal bloc of the Court.  In addition to appointing Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, President Trump has appointed 21 judges to the Circuit Courts of Appeals, a higher number than the number of judges appointed by Presidents Obama and George W. Bush combined at this point in their Presidency.  As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pointed out, “That means that one-eighth of the circuit judges in America have been appointed by Donald Trump and confirmed by this Republican Senate.”

Should a Federal judge strike down the new law, could appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which consists of ten Republican-appointed judges and one judge appointed by President Obama. President Trump appointed three of the eleven judges on the Eighth Circuit.    

Keeping this in mind, liberals may prefer to argue that the “heartbeat bill” violates the Iowa State Constitution rather than the Federal Constitution.  They feel that they might have better luck with the Iowa Supreme Court, which forced the state to issue same-sex marriage licenses all the way back in 2009, when only the Supreme Courts of the very liberal states of Massachusetts and Connecticut had argued that their two-century-old State Constitutions mandated same-sex marriage.  The makeup of the Court has changed slightly since they “discovered” the right to same-sex marriage; three of the Justices who voted to strike down Iowa’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage lost their retention elections and have since been replaced with new Justices appointed by recently departed Republican Governor Terry Branstad. For the record, the Iowa Constitution declares: “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights – among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.”         

The fight for life extends far beyond the borders of the United States.  Next week, Irish voters will vote on a referendum asking whether or not they want to repeal the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, basically their version of a Human Life Amendment.  While Ireland is a predominantly Catholic country, a 2015 referendum on same-sex marriage proved that the increasingly secular Irish perfectly willing to flush more than 2000 years of tradition down the toilet in order to genuflect to the dictates of political correctness.  The results of the 2015 same-sex marriage referendum should not have come as that much of a surprise as weekly church attendance has plunged in Ireland from more than 90 percent in 1973 to just 46 percent in 2009. When the Eighth Amendment first passed in 1983, around 87 percent of the Irish attended church weekly.  Ireland obviously faces a spiritual famine, which may have greater consequences for the long-term health of the country than the potato famine that caused many Irish to emigrate to the United States in the nineteenth century.

As St. John Paul II once said, “A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope.”  Iowa deserves a round of applause for taking the first step to restore hope for a culture of respect for the sanctity of life in the United States.