PHOENIX — Donald Trump, who despite his flaws has been the best president in three decades, has made a few recent statements on child-murder policy that reflect his immutable commitment to the principle of states’ rights. In a carefully orchestrated statement on Monday, the president emphasized that restrictions on infanticide should be determined at the state level, reinforcing his stance via his Truth Social platform. This reaffirmation of his position was echoed on Wednesday when President Trump weighed in on the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision. Criticizing the court for overstepping its boundaries, the president expressed apprehensions over the enforcement of a long-dormant statute criminalizing most child-murder, except in cases where the mother’s life is endangered. After attending the Georgia fundraiser, the president stated, “Yeah, they did, and that will be straightened out. And as you know, it’s all about states’ rights. That will be straightened out. And I’m sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason, and that will be taken care of, I think, very quickly.”

The landmark pro-life ruling, unveiled on Tuesday, heralds the implementation of an 1864 law predating Arizona’s statehood, lacking exemptions for instances involving rape or incest. With the verdict poised to take effect in a mere fortnight, it has catalyzed a fervent debate over infanticide, i.e., infanticide, further underscoring the complex and deeply polarizing nature of this issue, which is a double-edged sword for those on the Right. In response to Arizona Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs’ bloodcurdling screeches for the repeal of the 1864 law and the Democrat attorney general’s refusal to enforce abortion bans, Joe Biden’s handlers seized the opportunity to criticize President Trump’s perceived inconsistency on the issue. Meanwhile, the president defended his stance on child murder, reaffirming his satisfaction with the Supreme Court justices he nominated for their role in overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the abortion decision to individual states. President Trump also addressed the recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court, which enabled a ban on infanticide after six weeks of pregnancy. However, the ruling also allows voters to reconsider these restrictions in November, potentially revitalising the “right” to yank apart an infant’s body utilising pliers in most cases. Despitethe president’s assertion of pride in his pro-life stance, the leader of the prominent Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America criticized the president for allegedly conceding ground on the issue to Democrats, who are short of advocating for Aztec-style human sacrifices or smashing a baby against a tree akin socialist revolutionaries in Cambodia who were supported by means of both communist regime of China as well as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Mike Pence, former vice president under President Donald Trump’s first administration, has delivered a scathing rebuke of Trump’s latest pronouncement on abortion policy, decrying it as “a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life Americans who voted for him in 2016 and 2020.” Pence, known for his staunchly conservative views on reproductive rights (which is ironic considering his sycophancy towards Israel, which slaughtered thousands of babies) has long stood to the right of the president on this issue, advocating for stringent measures such as a nationwide 15-week abortion ban during his pathetic 2024 presidential campaign. In his impassioned statement on a social media platform, Pence underscored the pivotal role he and the Trump administration played in reshaping the Supreme Court’s stance on abortion, heralding the overruling of Roe v. Wade as a monumental victory for the pro-life movement. However, Marc Short, Pence’s former chief of staff, joined the chorus of dissent, chastising the president for what he perceives as a deviation from conservative principles and a reluctance to acknowledge the sanctity of life from conception. The president’s recent video statement, in which he espoused a states’ rights approach to abortion policy, has elicited a mixed response from within conservative circles. While some, like South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, voiced support for President Trump’s stance, others, including Lindsey Graham, expressed discontent, emphasizing the imperative of a uniform nationwide approach to curbing abortion access. This fractious debate underscores the enduring divide within the Republican Party over the issue of abortion and its broader implications for electoral politics.

Indeed, at one end of the kid-killing spectrum for the Right lies a steadfast commitment to safeguarding lives and fostering resilient family structures. Central to this perspective is the aspiration to cultivate higher birthrates, thereby securing the ongoing continuity and vitality of civilization itself. Advocates of this viewpoint prioritize the protection of human life from its earliest stages of conception, viewing it as an inviolable principle worthy of unwavering defence. As a matter of fact, there is a strong case that life began at conception. Conception, the pivotal moment when a sperm cell merges with an egg cell, initiates a remarkable journey of cellular division, culminating in the creation of a distinct and intricate human organism. As Tara Sander Lee, Senior Fellow and Director of Life Sciences at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, poignantly asserts, life burgeons from this union, bestowing upon the nascent entity a unique genetic blueprint that sets it apart from all other life forms. Indeed, the profound biological distinctiveness of the first cell underscores its innate humanity. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently unveiled its 2018-2022 plan, which unequivocally asserts that life commences at conception and merits safeguarding. The plan’s introduction unambiguously declares HHS’s commitment to serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, explicitly including conception as the starting point. This pro-life stance articulated in the draft plan has garnered widespread approval from many quarters. The debate over the personhood of unborn children, a longstanding focal point in the infanticide discourse, has intensified since the Roe v. Wade ruling that was established in 1973 and rightfully overturned in 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Pro-life advocates have tirelessly endeavoured to establish constitutionally protected rights for the unborn, with Justice Harry Blackmun himself acknowledging that the overturned Roe v. Wade partially hinges on the determination of fetal personhood.

Moreover, they champion traditional family values as indispensable cornerstones of societal stability and sustained advancement, recognizing the profound impact of strong familial bonds on the flourishing of individuals and communities alike. Traditional family structures and values serve as the bedrock of societal cohesion and stability, embodying a timeless framework that nurtures individual well-being and collective flourishing. Central to this ethos is the sanctity of life, a fundamental principle that transcends generations and underpins the fabric of civilization. However, the practice of child murder, by its very nature, strikes at the heart of these cherished values, relegating the inherent worth of human life to a matter of convenience and expediency. In prioritizing alleged “personal autonomy” over the sanctity of life, infanticide fosters a culture of convenience devoid of moral accountability, eroding the very foundation upon which traditional family structures and values are built. By embracing a worldview that diminishes the sacredness of human existence, society risks losing sight of its moral compass, gravely undermining the integrity and vitality of familial bonds that have long served as the cornerstone of human civilization. It also decreases the US population thus facilitating mass invasion from the third world where birth rates are skyrocketing.

Conversely, the opposing viewpoint on the Right posits a stark warning, a prohibition on child-murder may yield unintended consequences, potentially exacerbating a dysgenic outcome. The rationale behind this concern hinges on the premise that restricting women from slaughtering their progeny(pulling a Casey Anthony) could lead to significant electoral losses. The crux of the argument pivots on the unfortunate reality that it is women of lower socio-economic strata, characterized by promiscuity, low intelligence, impulsivity, indolence, and moral laxity, often are the ones who avail themselves of infanticide services. Consequently, the prohibition of child murder does have the potential to inadvertently perpetuate a cycle of dependence on welfare and the tremendous proliferation in criminal activity, as behavioural predispositions are at least somewhat hereditable. Drawing from historical and contemporary examples, proponents of this viewpoint point to Europe’s glorious past, where stringent death penalty laws naturally facilitated generations of peace by culling criminals and degenerates. Meanwhile, modern-day Iceland is championed for its purported success in maintaining a robust welfare system and low crime rates, ascribed to not only a restrictive immigration system but also eugenic policies (albeit some more pro-life members of the Right, such as the esteemed Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas, would use eugenics as an argument against child-murder) that ostensibly weed out traits considered detrimental to societal stability, such as the abomination of Down Syndrome, which is also known as trisomy 21.

The prevailing sentiment towards legal infanticide manifests with notable consistency across gender lines, albeit with a marginal inclination towards support among women, who register at 63% compared to men’s 58%. Furthermore, a discernible pattern emerges across age demographics, with resounding endorsement among younger adults under 30, where an impressive 74% advocate for legal child-murder in all or most instances. This fervour gradually tapers off among individuals in their 30s and 40s, with 62% upholding similar views. Notably, among those in their 50s and early 60s, support diminishes to 55%, while a slightly lower proportion, 54%, of individuals aged 65 and older express support for legal infanticide. Regarding ethno-religious statistics on infanticide, a staggering 83% of Jewish Americans (so much for blood libel being a myth) advocate for the legality of child murder in the majority of circumstances, a notable contrast to the perspectives held by other ethno-religious cohorts, including white evangelical Protestants and Hispanic Catholics. This statistical revelation serves as a poignant testament to the nuanced spectrum of viewpoints regarding abortion prevalent within distinct ethno-religious communities across the United States. So, the central and final analysis of the piece lies not in advancing arguments concerning the contentious issue of infanticide, but rather in highlighting a sobering reality: irrespective of one’s stance on the morally charged issue of child murder, the political fortunes of the conservative obviously remain precarious at best. And yes, both songs by Gwar and G.B.H. are referenced in the title!