Kamala Harris Condemns Texas Abortion Ban, Celebrates Killing Babies in Abortions

National   |   Micaiah Bilger   |   Sep 2, 2021   |   10:48AM   |   Washington, DC

Kamala Harris issued a harsh statement Wednesday about the new Texas heartbeat law, blasting the life-saving measure as “all-out assault” on women.

The pro-life law, which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block late last night, prohibits abortions once an unborn baby’s heartbeat is detectable, about six weeks of pregnancy. The legislation has the potential to save tens of thousands of babies’ lives in Texas, including about 100 every day.

Harris is a radical pro-abortion Democrat who used her power as California Attorney General to go after a pro-life journalist who exposed Planned Parenthood’s aborted baby body parts harvesting practices. She believes the killing of unborn babies in abortions is “health care.”

Blasting the Texas law as a direct violation of Roe v. Wade, Harris promised that she and President Joe Biden will keep fighting for the so-called “right” to abortion.

Follow LifeNews on the Parler social media network for the latest pro-life news!

“The Biden-Harris Administration will always fight to protect access to healthcare and defend a woman’s right to make decisions about her body and determine her future,” she said.

“This all-out assault on reproductive health effectively bans abortion for the nearly 7 million Texans of reproductive age,” Harris continued. “Patients in Texas will now be forced to travel out-of-state or carry their pregnancy to term against their will.”

This is a round-about admission that the law will stop abortions and save babies’ lives.

In 2020, about 54,000 unborn babies were aborted in Texas, and about 85 percent happened after six weeks of pregnancy, according to state health statistics.

A vast amount of evidence confirms that most women do not get abortions when they are banned; instead, they have their babies. This dispels the back-alley abortion myth that women will resort to dangerous methods if they cannot get legal abortions.

What’s more, a well-known pro-abortion study called the Turnaway Study found that 96 percent of mothers who were denied abortions later no longer wished that they had had one. In other words, they were glad that they had their babies.

The heartbeat law especially could help save the unborn babies of poor women and African American women, who have a disproportionately high abortion rate compared to other demographic groups. To Harris, this is a bad thing.

“This law will dramatically reduce access to reproductive care for women in Texas, particularly for women with low incomes and women of color,” she said. “It also includes a disturbing provision that incentivizes private citizens to sue anyone who assists another person in receiving an abortion.”

Biden also condemned the Texas law in a statement Wednesday, denouncing it as “outrageous” and he pledging to try to overturn it.

Meanwhile, pro-life advocates are reaching out to pregnant women across Texas with compassion and understanding, offering resources and emotional support to help them and their babies. Earlier this year, state lawmakers also increased support for pregnant and parenting mothers and babiesensuring that they have resources to choose life for their babies.

Planned Parenthood has already stopped killing babies at its abortion centers while one abortion business killed as many babies as possible before the pro-life law went into effect.

Up until now, state heartbeat laws have been blocked in court. The precedent established in Roe v. Wade prohibits states from banning abortions before an unborn baby is viable. But the Texas law is unique from other heartbeat laws because it includes a private enforcement mechanism that allows people to file lawsuits against abortionists who violate the law.

Whether the law will remain in effect or ultimately be upheld as constitutional in court remains uncertain, but pro-life leaders are hopeful now that the Supreme Court has a conservative majority.

In a ruling late Wednesday, the majority justices allowed the law to stay in effect, but they did not rule on the constitutionality of the law. Instead, they decided that the case should return to the lower courts for consideration.