Beware of "pro-life" warmongers

Be wary of "pro-life" war-mongers. Consider a thought exercise. Are there politicians who give lip-service to the pro-life movement, but show elsewhere that their support for human dignity is grossly distorted or an outright fraud? With their lips do they say they support life while supporting senseless deaths in unjust and needless wars—including wars or bombings that victimize civilians, women, and children? Does their desire to serve some war-profiting or political ambition supersede their claimed pro-life stance? 

WHO ARE SOME OF THESE "PRO-LIFE" POLITICIANS WITH DANGEROUS AFFINITY FOR WAR?

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is well-known for his affinity for war.  Graham recently praised Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky for sending Ukrainian soldiers to die instead of American soldiers on behalf of Graham's ambitions.  (See the end of this article for context and source material on the Ukraine-Russian conflict to see how Western forces, including the US, EU, and NATO, provoked the war. (Jump to end))

In 2023, Graham joked with Zelensky about how "the Russians are dying" and said the U.S. funding the war was "the best money we've ever spent." Graham declared that they would fund Ukraine until their last person is killed. In 2016 he urged Ukraine to attack Russians in the Donbas where ethnic Russian civilians were killed. According to a Grok query, Graham has posted on X about Russia and/or Ukraine some 80 times already in 2025 through August 7. He has even called for sanctioning any nation that engages in commerce with Russia. It is effectively economic terrorism against countries that do not pursue Graham's war ambitions. Does he rally for the unborn remotely to this extent?

In 2023, Graham called on Israel to "level the place," in reference to Gaza, which is populated by millions of civilians.   

In November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for several individuals in Israel and Palestine, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Among the Israeli officials' listed crimes are:

• "crimes against humanity and war crimes" 
• "[caused] lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and specific medical supplies, [which] created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration."
• "intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza."

Lindsey Graham responded to the ICC's arrest warrants not with outrage of the accusations, not a refutation of the accusations, but by threatening the ICC court itself with sanctions and any "nation or organization that aids or abets" the arrest warrants. He made no mention of the starved and killed Palestinian civilians and children. Graham's calls for sanctions against the ICC were echoed by other "pro-life" politicians including Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Tom Cotton, none of whom addressed the arrest warrant details.  Cotton even called on the president to leverage the Hague Invasion Act against the ICC, which calls to "use all means necessary" to respond to such an arrest. 

In June 2025, Graham called for extermination of Iran and regime change and called for sending American troops to Iran.  

Ted Cruz has vocalized pro-life positions, yet recently attempted to use the Bible to justify Israel's June attack on Iran, saying "Biblically, we are commanded to support Israel." The comment is, of course, false.  It is grotesque to support a war by automatically siding with Israel instead of the context of the situation. 

Particularly in this case, it does not appear the attack against Iran satisfied "just war" criteria. On June 13, 2025 Israel conducted bombings and assassinations on the pretext that Iran was imminently threatening Israel with a nuclear weapon that all sides admit they did not have. The action defied the testimony of National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard who reported Iran was not building a nuclear weapon as of March 2025.  The action defied the testimony of the  International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Gsossi, who said on June 17, 2025 that his inspectors did not identify "any proof" that Iran had the nuclear plans that US-Israel claimed. Grossi said the claims about when Iran would use a nuke were "speculation." The IAEA reported this to the relevant parties. The attack on Iran failed "just war" criteria and was an act of aggression. The culprits offered no evidence that what was done was an act of self-defense. It is particularly vexing given that the President's diplomat in Iran, Steve Witkoff, said only a few weeks prior that negotiations were progressing. In April, Witkoff said the US was not seeking full denuclearization and were working with Iran on enrichment levels.  

Meanwhile, the world—at least the world who managed to avoid the corporate media's censorship of Gaza—has seen Israel committing numerous acts of violence against civilians

In July, Jerusalem Cardinal Pizzaballa responded to Israel striking the only Catholic church in Gaza: "the IDF says by mistake, but we are not sure about this, they hit the Church directly, the Church of the Holy Family, the Latin Church."  Israel's attack on the Church of the Holy Family killed 3 and wounded multiple others. Pope Leo also condemned the "attack by the Israeli army on the Catholic Parish of the holy Family in Gaza City..." The Pope also said, "[T]his act adds to the continuous military attacks against the civilian population and places of worship in Gaza."

Bishop Strickland issued a public letter condemning Israel's genocidal ambitions against the people of Gaza.  The situation in Gaza was described by first-hand witness Lt. Col. Tony Aguilar as "post-apocalyptic."  The Gazan terrain is a landscape of rubble. Cruz didn't even mention Gaza nor the Palestinians when he claimed the Bible condoned modern Israel's political ambitions. 

At least 5 more Palestinians, including two children, have starved to death in the past 24 hours, raising the total hunger-related deaths to 217, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

LIVE updates: https://t.co/pA4LOe8Llx pic.twitter.com/wjERNluDBT

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) August 10, 2025

House Speaker Mike Johnson condemned congressman Thomas Massie who said the US should stay out of other nations' war and that the president has to consult congress first anyway.

Regarding the Israel-Iran conflict, Johnson said Israel's June 13 attack that killed civilians and Iranian officials was "defensive." Johnson has repeated the common phrase among neocon politicians that we have to "stand by our ally Israel," even when they are starving children and killing civilians in Gaza. Recently, Johnson also echoed Ted Cruz's erroneous claim that the Bible says we have to agree with Israel in whatever conflict they're in. 

Former Vice President Mike Pence insisted that "Americans will have to die for Ukraine" if they start losing the war. He was booed in July 2023 for saying the US needed to fund the Ukraine war.  In July 2025, Pence called for sending even more weapons to Ukraine to keep the war going.  

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth authorized the bombing of a civilian building in Yemen to kill a single man. Leaked text messages revealed the aftermath of the bombing: "We had positive ID of him walking into his girlfriend’s building and it’s now collapsed." 

In 2022, Texas congressman Dan Crenshaw famously sparred with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on war. Crenshaw supported the war versus Russia in part because he thought US war ambitions could be achieved "without losing a single American troop." This sentiment is similar to what Graham said to Zelensky in celebrating Ukrainian deaths over American.  Greene, among others, challenged this logic that somehow spilling Ukrainian's blood is justification for a war. Crenshaw responded to Greene with a non sequitur, ad hominem attack. 

On another occasion, Crenshaw said he would "kill" Tucker Carlson (who is vocally pro-life and opposed to US war-meddling) if he met him and added that he wasn't joking. Crenshaw later denied ever having said it.  

And there are other politicians who profess to be "pro-life" but who have a propensity for war without cause. These are just a sample.

STATE OF THE PRO-LIFE LANDSCAPE

We know that politicians espousing pro-life sentiments find great favor with pro-life voters. After all, support for the unborn is a "pre-eminent priority" as the USCCB has affirmed. Consider, if a politician leverages this worthy desire for votes, but the pro-life landscape remains worse, unchanged, or marginally better, is it worth demanding more from these politicians in lieu of the wars and travesties they elsewhere promote? 

Many pro-lifers celebrated the recent closure of several Planned Parenthood abortion centers. However, from the perspective of the abortion industry, their primary form of abortion is mail-order abortion pills now. According to the abortion-promoting Guttmacher Institute, at-home chemical abortions went from 6% in 2001 to 31% in 2014 to 63% in 2023.  These are their latest figures.  The figure could easily be over 70% or more by now.  The abortion industry may have already planned to close brick and mortar abortion mills because they don't "need" as many of them anymore. More women and girls are serving as their own doctors in their own homes, aborting their children in private, facing the risks of self-administered abortion like hemorrhaging or potentially fatal infection. The abortion industry shows little to no concern for the women (nor obviously the babies). The Ethics and Public Policy Center revealed data showing over 10% of women taking the abortion pill experience a "serious adverse event."  Taxpayer dollars not paying for abortion is a good thing. But the abortion industry has many more tentacles at work.

Recently, the Supreme Court heard the case on the safety of mifepristone.  The plaintiffs included pro-life doctors who had to absorb the fallout in ER visits and other increased care due to the increase in side effects from more women self-administering abortions at home.  The court ruled 9-0 that the plaintiffs did not have "standing." But ultimately the court did not confront how mifepristone was incorrectly fast-tracked by the FDA in 2000 on the false grounds that it was a life-saving treatment. The abortion pill remains on the market. 

The abortion industry and their political allies have increased the number of Plan B pills in vending machines, including at colleges. The drug is an abortifacient. The FDA's drug label for Plan B admits it can work by preventing implantation after conception has already occurred.  

IVF use is on the rise, and lawmakers are pushing for government funding for that procedure, which typically results in the discarding of some 80% of embryos— human persons—each time.  The National Catholic Register reports more babies die annually from being discarded via IVF than abortion.  They don't need brick and mortar clinics for these types of abortions.  Meanwhile, "pro-life" politicians, like Ted Cruz, proposed a bill that would withhold Medicaid funding from any state that banned IVF.  

Are these "pro-life" politicians factoring in these variables about the abortion pill? Plan B? IVF?  Are they a step behind?  Are their pro-life efforts lacking?

CALLING "PRO-LIFE" WAR-MONGERS TO REDIRECT THEIR WAR ATTENTION

Crisis Magazine Editor Eric Sammons synthesized the context of the issues of abortion and war succinctly: "[I]n terms of death and evil, the consequences of our foreign policy are nearly as destructive as the abortion holocaust."  

Like Euthanasia, the issue of lives lost and destroyed in wars is in the scope of pro-life enterprises, particularly when those wars are unjust, senseless, and—like abortion—victimize the innocent.  

Do these "pro-life" politicians fight for the unborn to the extent they fight to protect evident genocides elsewhere? Congressmen celebrate people dying in wars that only benefit the interests of political elites—is that consistent with the belief in the dignity of human life?  Do they fight for the unborn as hard as they fight to perpetuate war?

----------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX: WHY IS THERE A WAR IN UKRAINE?

Western media has insulated the public on how NATO and the West provoked Russia. The following context for the Ukraine conflict is especially relevant in this analysis because the "pro-life" war-mongers flaming this war rarely address these variables:

• RFK Jr explains some of the profit motives for wars like Ukraine.
• Ukraine had and was actively killing ethnic Russians in regions like Donbas at the onset of the war, and the West boasted of arming those attacks.
• Putin cited the Donbas slaughter at the onset of the war.
• The 2015 film Ukraine on Fire by Oliver Stone is valuable in learning about the Maidan coup in Ukraine, orchestrated by Western politicians. The film is especially valuable in the sense that it is not tainted by post-2022 narratives.   A leaked phone call between US diplomats Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt revealed them planning the Maidan coup to install an official that would serve their ambitions against Russia. 
• Professor Jeffrey Sachs explains the Ukraine war in 10 minutes.
• Russia was prepared to stop the war in the earliest days if Ukraine accepted neutrality and avoid NATO membership.  In 2022, former British PM Boris Johnson intervened and stopped that peace deal.
• In January 2025, President Donald Trump—before his anti-Russian aggression of the summer— admitted NATO's encroachment on Russia's "doorstep" was understandably a problem for Russia.
• During 2014 conflicts, Russia had agreed to a ceasefire now known as the Minsk agreement. But former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President François Hollande admitted they arranged for Ukraine to use this ceasefire as a diversion to rearm and buy time instead of leading to peace. In 2025, Western officials have accused Russia of not wanting peace for not accepting new "ceasefires," but Russians do so in lieu of fake ceasefires in the past like Minsk. 
• RFK Jr. explains how Trump abandoned the nuclear range treaty in 2019 and that Biden and other war neocons have as their goal regime change in Russia.
• Tucker Carlson's interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
• Tucker Carlson's interview with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
• Russia's terms for peace have been consistent for some time. These are primarily: 1. demilitarizing Ukraine due to its proxy use by NATO and lack of neutrality; 2. return to 1991 borders due to the same violation of NATO agreements and to protect Moscow from ranged missiles; and 3. assurance that Ukraine can never join NATO because that status obligates all NATO members to join any war in which Ukraine engages. 
• A meeting between Trump and Putin is scheduled in Alaska for August 15, the Feast of the Assumption.