4. Matt Bevin (R) is Objectively Pro-Abortion and therefore extremely immoral.

Planned Parenthood is Objectively Pro-Life and therefore deserves our support.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court made the Roe v. Wade decision, which included some important and wise findings:

1) "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." [410 U.S. 113, 153]

2) "On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate." [Id. at 153-154]

3) "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

We note that those federal and state courts that have recently considered abortion law challenges have reached the same conclusion." [Id. at 154]

4) "Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach." [Id. at 155]

5) "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the 'compelling' point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health...

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State." [Id. at 163]

6) "With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the 'compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother." [Id. at 163-164]

7) "The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician." [Id. at 165-166]

Geoff considers the Roe v. Wade decision to be one of the best-reasoned and most important Supreme Court decisions of his lifetime. Immediately after it was published, the so-called "Right-To-Life" movement expanded and allied itself with the Republican Party. Some would say it came under the control of the Republican Party in 1980, at which time the abortion issue became a partisan political issue.

The Republican-sponsored Human Life Amendment is the name given to multiple proposals to amend the Constitution to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and make all abortions illegal after conception. If it were to pass, doctors and women could be indicted and prosecuted for murder if an abortion occurs in the United States and the police were to catch the people involved. The so-called "Right-To-Life" movement and the GOP apparently want to create a situation similar to the fictional Handmaid's Tale scenario.

However, would making all abortions illegal actually reduce the abortion rate in the US? Peer-reviewed social science studies have consistently shown that the abortion rate would NOT decline and would probably increase in the long run. The following chart from a 2012 study shows that regions of the world where laws are highly restrictive actually have higher abortion rates than regions such as North America and Western Europe where abortion laws are more liberal:

This information has profound effects on the abortion debate in Kentucky. It means that the "Right-To-Life" movement has always been totally wrong, counterproductive and immoral. By demanding that the US and the Commonwealth of Kentucky make our abortion laws more restrictive, they are proposing policies that would raise, not lower, the abortion rate. Even if their motives are good - to reduce the number of abortions (or as they would say, murders) that occur - they have latched onto exactly the wrong legal strategy to achieve that goal. The Catholic Church, the Republican Party, and the Southern Baptist Convention have embraced an evil and immoral doctrine that would raise, not lower, the abortion rate. Politicians such as Governor Bevin who call themselves pro-life and anti-abortion are hypocrites and liars.

Planned Parenthood and many Democrats have embraced a moral, effective, and objectively pro-life strategy that would reduce the number of abortions (or murders) that would occur in Kentucky and the United States. Planned Parenthood also provides critically important health services to millions of women every year. This annual report describes Planned Parenthood's remarkable achievements. Geoff Young and Josh French pledge to support Planned Parenthood and will work to reverse every misguided law the Kentucky "Right-To-Life" movement has ever gotten enacted. Why? Because all of these unnecessary laws tend to increase, not decrease, the abortion rate.

Matt Bevin and all other Christians who demand that all abortions must be made illegal are immoral, bad Christians.