How Republicans Can Immediately and Ethically Reverse the Infanticide Narrative

Topic: Perspective

Perfect is the enemy of good.

One of my favorite phrases, and one that is perfectly applicable in the modern world of politics.  General George S. Patton, Jr., clearly believed in the substance of that phrase as well, because he had this to say about arriving at a workable battle plan in a timely manner:

A good plan, violently executed now, is better than Rommel up your ass in the assembly area.

I was feeling particularly irritated with the Republican Party once again yesterday as I observed everything butfiguring out a way to turn the tide against the promotion of infanticide in our country.  Infanticide is a much more appropriate word to describe the killing of the unborn than abortion is.  After all, one can abort plans for dinner, a vacation in progress, or a download of software.  Infanticide is the narrative grenade that was lobbed over to our side by the Arizona Supreme Court this past week in an overtly political maneuver designed to cause the disarray you are seeing now, and it is the hill that angry, bitter, white feminist women will die on, politically speaking.

Before anyone reads any further and gets the wrong idea, here is where I stand personally on the issue of infanticide, or abortion:

I do not support abortion for any reason, including life of the mother, rape, or incest.  The reasons are simple.  I believe that God is the giver or life and I believe that he intricately created every human being and made him or her in His own image.  I believe a free society protects and celebrates life, and that the circumstances of one’s conception do not factor into one’s worth.

Those are my personal views on abortion, informed from my spiritual beliefs and from what I know about the development of a child in the womb and the infanticide process itself; however, ideology and action are separate.  I believe the goal of the law as it pertains to restraining darkness is to limit evil things as much as possible with the understanding that on this side of eternity, sin will ensure that those things never go fully extinct.  I do not consider that position a moral compromise or caving in any way.

Rigid ideology has crippled our ability to do the most good with time and resources available.  Right now, most Arizona Republicans are either in the process of being painted as radicals who are inflexible on the issue of infanticide (as they should be as a matter of personal ideology), or they are leaping to completely betray the pro-life voter base that loyally votes them into office by taking all cues from the media and regurgitating left-wing social talking points.  That means, as things stand right now, this issue is a lose-lose politically.  Those standing true for what they (and I) believe is right are the intended targets of this narrative, but those who are going to choke on the issue (or already are) are going to alienate their own voters, creating the same political effect for themselves.  That means the only way out of this shitshow is for both of these factions to reverse course and dust off their statesmanship hats.

Matt Gress, Arizona House Representative from LD-4, which includes much of North Phoenix and the well-to-do suburbs of Scottsdale and Paradise Valley, can hardly restrain himself from showing millions of Americans why the GOP has become a party of ritual constituent abuse in finding more ways to lose than the Chicago Cubs.  He has been on the warpath this week trying to modernize the Republican Party, thoroughly going against everything he claimed to be, and what his enemies thought he was, when he first ran in 2022.

Do Democrats still want infanticide to be safe, legal, and rare, as Bill Clinton said just three decades ago?  Based on some of the language on display outside the Arizona Capitol last week, something tells me the left-wing underbelly of America has different plans – see below:

Republicans nationally have been handed a golden opportunity to not only stand up for something with the risk of losing seats, and to completely flip the narrative within weeks by allowing the wicked, godless American left to truly show what it is they want, but it is going to take some finesse like King Solomon put on display in 1 Kings 3:16-28, when two mothers came to him laying claim to the same baby.  Solomon couldn’t figure out who the real mother was, and who was lying, so he offered to cut the baby in half and give each woman her share.  Inevitably, the true mother cried out to preserve the child’s life, so Solomon gave the baby to her.

Wisdom.  Gentle as a dove, shrewd as a snake.  Had Solomon stuck to his ideology, there is no way he would have even acted like he would cut a living baby in half.  Knowing how someone engaged in the act of trying to steal a baby would respond to his plea, he went ahead with it anyway.  That is where the art of statesmanship must factor in regarding this issue in Arizona.

First, the pre-statehood law from 1864 does allow for infanticide if the mother’s life is at risk.  Currently, the likelihood of dying during childbirth is about 1 in 5,000 births.  When Arizona’s law was written, it was far more common, with those odds being about 1 in 150.  So, here I am, wondering what exactly the left-wing zealots are screaming about when they say Republicans have the blood of women on their hands.  The law that is under the gun right now allows for infanticide if the mother’s life is at risk.  In 2023, Arizona had a very low year for births, with about 65,000 babies being born.  With current statistics regarding maternal mortality, we could have expected about 13 mothers to have died in Arizona from complications surrounding childbirth in 2023.

The 1864 law would have accommodated that.

Democrats are experts at taking incremental victories.  They’re not going to swoop in and ban guns.  There are too many guns, and too many Americans who own them and would rather die than turn them over.  What they do, instead, is make it much more expensive to buy ammunition, reduce the capacity of magazines, ban various accessories, and ensure grandpa can’t pass his arsenal over to you when he kicks the bucket.  It is the Republican Party that isn’t content to take incremental wins and winds up playing defense and getting blasted by the media until they vacate their positions entirely, surrendering all high ground in the process.

It will require incremental victories, both politically and in the cultural war that can only be obtained through substantial spiritual revival, to enshrine a law that tolerates absolutely zero infanticide.  I don’t recall any Republicans prior to this week fretting about Arizona’s 1864 law that allowed infanticide if the mother’s life was at risk, so it goes without saying that in a realistic world full of pragmatic, not ideological, solutions, any laws governing infanticide will contain exceptions for “life of mother” until further notice.

Step One in Reversing the Infanticide Narrative

The first point that should be carried forward by every Republican from here on out:

What in the hell is the problem here?  The 1864 Arizona law allows for abortion in the event the mother’s life being at risk.  We have people stomping around in the street about Republicans having women’s blood on their hands – please clarify this for me, because you can still have an abortion if your life is at risk.

This will immediately lead to bitter complaining that the law is too restrictive and doesn’t carve out exceptions for rape and incest.

Step Two in Reversing the Infanticide Narrative

Invite the debate to the legislative chambers about “rape and incest” clauses specifically.  Again, I don’t believe a child conceived under those terms is any less a child than one conceived within a healthy marriage, and I do not say any of this to minimize the traumatic impact of rape or incest to the victim.  Solomon also didn’t believe in cutting babies in half, but he realized he needed to arrive at the truth one way or another and chose the pragmatic route of extracting it.

I will guarantee you that if the Republicans proposed a bill affirming infanticide in the events of mother’s life at risk, rape, and incest, that Democrats would howl to the moon like demons, and their activists would continue to vilify Republicans.  Why?

Because the left is driven by evil impulse and their ultra-woke, feminized grassroots radicals demand full autonomy to terminate babies up to the point of delivery, with no exceptions and no excuse necessary, and with us responsible for the bill.  You know it, I know it, and everybody, including Republican legislators know it.

Step Three in Reversing the Infanticide Narrative

Let them talk.  Right now, the narratives are that Republicans are either inflexible and won’t discuss the issue, or that they are too flexible and willing to betray core party values.  There is no current winning position, so that must be created.  Politically speaking, and rather unfortunately, our society is permissive of limited infanticide, but few consider it to be a crowning achievement of the American experiment.  Across the board, apolitical types have come to accept “rape, incest, and life of mother” exceptions, but the tide turns when the left shows their hand and promotes Stone Age barbarism and is exposed in the role of the infanticide industry in trafficking body parts from aborted babies.

 Conclusion

Infanticide, even if limited to a “life of mother” exception, is here with us for the time being.  Politically, the wind is at the back of Democrats if and only if they can conceal their true nature, which is unlimited abortion on demand, paid for by taxpayers under the guise of basic human rights:

That is the position that is unacceptable to voters, especially in a conservative state like Arizona that is plagued with practically every political problem, from election stealing to an open border; therefore, some wisdom must be used in getting them to unveil their true desired end state, and simultaneously it will become impossible to pin Republican hardliners to the inflexible label, and it will also protect the weakling Republicans from committing a preemptive betrayal because their consultants think every left-wing inspired, media driven crisis requires an immediate response and memo on official campaign letterhead.

Once these issues are aired out, and Lucifer himself speaks through his Democrat emissaries in the Arizona House and Senate, the public will have an accurate view on where both parties stand regarding the life of the unborn.

A sample conversation:

Republican Representative: The pre-statehood bill allows for abortion if the mother’s life is at risk.  Based on the crowd outside accusing Republicans of putting the lives of Arizona’s women at risk, I’m not sure what the issue is here.  In fact, statistics suggest the mother of a newborn baby dies from childbirth complications in only 1 out of 5,000 births, meaning there were perhaps 10 to 15 such cases in Arizona last year. Even if we factor in rare pre-childbirth conditions, like ectopic pregnancies, life-threatening pregnancies are very rare and are covered by the 1864 law.  Please clarify your grievances.

Democrat Representative: Well, the law doesn’t have any language for rape or incest…

Republican Representative: It is well known that I don’t believe abortion is ever acceptable, and I won’t run from that; however, I sympathize with women struggling with carrying a baby conceived out of rape or incest and support organizations who have helped women who kept the child find a loving home through adoption.  I do not consider these cases the same as those who use abortion as a matter of convenience, or because they don’t want a child with birth defects.  I would recommend, since it is our business to address the political issues of our state as they concern the people, that we engage in debate over “rape and incest” clauses to augment the existing law, and consider the appropriate deadline in which we limit any such procedures, whether that is a “heartbeat bill” or…

Democrat Representative: Hey, you can’t tell Arizona women what to do with their bodies!  It’s their choice!  I’m so tired of hearing about what you think women should do when if it was your own daughter who got pregnant at 17 you would probably be thankful that women’s rights activists went before you and made it possible for her to make her own healthcare decisions!

Republican Representative: Actually, since the number of deaths during childbirth is so low it can barely be calculated, and just 1.5% of abortions are sought due to rape or incest, that means 98.5% of abortions, or 66 out of 67, are performed as a means of routine birth control, weeding out babies with birth defects, or because the mother doesn’t think she has the time or money to care for a baby.  These open-ended laws keeping the abortion mills in business, and they in turn make mega-bucks by selling and trafficking body parts and tissue from aborted babies.  You don’t want to provide healthcare to women, you want to exploit them and make it easy for them to choose abortion.  Republicans in this chamber want to encourage women to keep their babies, and are willing to explore programs to make that choice possible, especially since abortions are most common among minorities, whom your party purports to represent almost exclusively.  Here are the stats – 46% of abortions in Arizona are performed on Hispanic women, 13% on black women and 8% “other,” which is going to fall heavily on our large Native American population.  67% of abortions are done to just 47% of our population.

Democrat Representative: (rendered speechless, foams at mouth)

-

There will always be infanticide as long as there are people.  Hopefully, one day, it will be outlawed by all government; however, thanks to sin, there will be infanticide in back alleys, reservations, tent cities, and anywhere a black market exists.  Locking down abortion laws to “rape, incest, and life of mother” provides better pro-life outcomes than 15-week rules, within which 94 percent of abortions still occur.  The left succeeds by going on offense and putting timid conservatives on defense.  Simply calling their bluff on this issue, citing statistics, and forcing them to admit they consent to sucking the brains out a full-term unborn baby will infuriate even today’s culture, which rightly has major grievance with the scourge of human trafficking impacting our world today, in a way that will invert this current effort to divide the party ahead of a critical election.

And always remember, it was an unborn baby, John the Baptist, that first recognized the unborn Christ.  See Luke 1:41 for a reminder.

Author’s Note: This is an urgent matter that impacts not only our upcoming election but strikes at the heart of our cultural battles here in America.  I wish for it to be spread widely and to impact this discussion critically.  Therefore, it is open to all subscribers at the time of publication.  Your paid membership to this journal is greatly appreciated if you would be willing to make that commitment to support my work.  Thank you!