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 Grossi, 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. 

Communion while Kneeling - Cupich off the rails

Cardinal Cupich recently published an essay condemning reception of Communion while kneeling. He stated, "no one should engage in a gesture [kneeling] that calls attention to oneself or disrupts the flow of the procession. That would be contrary to the norms and tradition of the church."

Following is a brief analysis that will show that the Cardinal's claims are theologically empty and derogatory of faithful Catholics.

Tradition for Communion while Kneeling

Kneeling for Communion has been the norm for centuries. As then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

"the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species." (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2002)

One needn't even be a scholar to know Communion while kneeling is a centuries-old tradition. You can just look at the pictures. Here are paintings from the 20th, 19th, and 15th centuries all depicting Communion on the tongue while kneeling.

Holy Communion by Angelo comte de Courten, d. 1925

Woman Receiving the Eucharist by Felix-Joseph Barrias, 1850

The Institution of the Eucharist by Joos van Wassenhove, ca 1475

Cupich's own home Chicago church, Holy Name Cathedral can be seen here with its altar rail for Communion while kneeling in these photos taken prior to Vatican II:

Holy Name Cathedral (home of Cardinal Cupich) seen above in
the 1903 stereogram and in 1958 with altar rails still in place.

Magisterial Support for Communion while Kneeling

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops echoes Redemptionis Sacramentum regarding Communion while kneeling:

"The norm... is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling. ... It is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ's faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing."

Cardinal Sarah, writing in a book preface recently pointed out how antagonism for Communion while kneeling is from the devil:

And then we understand how the most insidious diabolical attack consists in trying to extinguish faith in the Eucharist, sowing errors and favoring an unsuitable way of receiving it; truly the war between Michael and his Angels on the one hand, and Lucifer on the other, continues in the hearts of the faithful: Satan's target is the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated Host. .... May this book encourage those priests and faithful who, also moved by the example of Benedict XVI – who in the last years of his pontificate wanted to distribute the Eucharist on the tongue and kneeling – wish to administer or receive the Eucharist in this latter way, much more suited to the Sacrament itself. I hope there may be a rediscovery and promotion of the beauty and pastoral value of this modality. In my opinion and judgment, this is an important question on which the Church today must reflect. This is a further act of adoration and love that each of us can offer to Jesus Christ. (Cardinal Robert Sarah, preface to the book The Distribution of Communion in the Hand: a Historical, Juridical, and Pastoral Overview (2018)

Bishop Thomas Olmsted similarly referenced the devil as an opponent of kneeling before God:

According to Abba Apollo, a desert father who lived about 1,700 years ago, the devil has no knees; he cannot kneel; he cannot adore; he cannot pray; he can only look down his nose in contempt. Being unwilling to bend the knee at the name of Jesus is the essence of evil (Cf. Is 45:23, Rom 14:11). (Bishop Thomas Olmstead, "Knees to Love Christ," 2005)

The angelic battle calls to mind Scripture, where we see angels prostrating themselves before God's throne (Revelation 7:11). Such gestures of reverence can hardly be considered "calling attention to oneself," as Cupich asserted baselessly.

Around 2014, Cardinal Francis Arinze perhaps summed up the theological basis for receiving Communion kneeling in the most efficient statement: "If you believe that Christ is our God, and He is present, why don't you kneel?"

History against Eucharistic piety

Cardinal Cupich's stance on kneeling for Communion is part of a broader pattern against proper reverence for the Holy Eucharist. He has previously expressed openness to giving Communion to the divorced and remarried and those in same-sex relationships, positions that contradict longstanding Church teaching and the moral law, including that described by St. Paul (1 Cor 11:28-29) in exhorting those in sinful condition to abstain from the Eucharist. Cupich's Eucharistic procession this past June was noted for its irreverently fast pace.

Conclusion

Ultimately, it is Cardinal Cupich who stands against the Tradition of the Church. He is in contradiction with the teaching of the USCCB and Redemptionis Sacramentum and relevant parts recognized by the Apostolic See. His essay avoids confronting the theological basis for Communion while kneeling - which is a form of censorship - concealing from readers what he was opposing. Instead he attacked a strawman about self-aggrandizement and disunity. His position may ultimately work against his intent. The faithful can see what a poor theological analysis he offers compared to the theological soundness and beauty offered by those who support Communion while kneeling.

While the faithful might find the Cardinal's essay akin to a mobster's letter of intimidation, they needn't lose confidence. The theological basis for kneeling to receive Communion has a solid foundation in truth. Those who desire to receive Communion kneeling should always remember we are called to please God, not men (cf. Gal. 1:10).

A priest posting on X made a relevant observation that would both account for the theological basis for kneeling prostrate like angels before God all while maintaining unity in posture that Cupich said is important: "[W]hat if instead of coming forward individually, we line up side by side—perhaps along some sort of railing."

Why free speech & censorship are the most important issue today

Recently, there has been a surge in calls for censorship by various politicians throughout the world, particularly the West. There are few to zero attempts by State's to refute much of this so-called misinformation, but instead calls for its removal. Effectively, this is an admission that they expect to lose if dialogue is permitted. Following are just a handful of many more examples of calls for censorship:

• August 24: Telegram head  Pavel Durov was arrested in France, who has not pursued other social sites who have same issues they claim Telegram has.
• August 31: Brazil orders X banned.
• September 6: NATO announces "Cognitive Warfare Concept" to fight "misinformation".
• September 12: Australia issues "misinformation" bill to give itself more censorship power.
• September 14: US, UK, and Canada demand worldwide censorship of RT news.
• September 15: European Commission tells WEF misinformation is "number one concern" and pushes "Digital Services Act".
• September 17: Meta bans RT and Sputnik news.
• September 17: California attempts to ban parody.
• September 20: Ukraine bans Telegram.
• September 21: TikTok bans RT and Sputnik.
• September 22: UN calls for digital censorship.
• September 23: Abortion lobby organization ACOG calls for censorship of the medically-accurate term "maternal-fetal separation".
• September 24: Democrat senators call on social media to censor on their behalf.
• September 27: John Kerry calls the first amendment a "major block" to the State's ambitions.
• October 2: Adam Schiff demands social media censor on the State's behalf.
• October 5: Hillary Clinton laments free speech on social media or "we lose total control". In September, she also called for arrest of citizens who contradict state narratives.
• October 9: Kamala Harris promises to sick law enforcement on social sites that do not censor as she demands.
• October 17: UK man convicted for thought crime for praying near an abortion business.
• October 22: UK Labour party plots to eliminate the social site X.
• EDIT to ADD November 8: EU ambassador and German vice chancellor calls for control of X and Tiktok.

This fever pitch for censorship comes after other relatively recent attacks on the First Amendment in the U.S. For example, 

• March 18: Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed dismay about "the First Amendment hamstringing the government.”
• April 17: NPR's CEO Katherine Maher said, "The number one challenge that we see is the First Amendment in the United States."
• July 2: The New York Times flatly said: "The First Amendment is Out of Control"

The reason free speech is such a foundational issue, is because it gives rise to the truth on every other issue. The behavior of the world's oligarchs confirms this. They know if conversation is permitted, that any dishonest ambition they pursue is finished. Their propaganda can only survive if unchallenged. That's why they censor. Leading up to World War II, the notorious 20th century propagandist Joseph Goebbels said, "National Socialist propaganda is the most important aspect of our political activity."

So, for example, to advance the pro-life cause, free speech is an essential vehicle to a pro-life culture. All the facts about biology or moral philosophy are on the pro-life side. Yet nearly all mass "media" obstruct that message at every turn. Even the AP has guidelines to censor accurate pro-life terminology. 

Whether pro-life, pro-self defense, anti-war, etc. no sound argument will hold sway if it is suffocated by censorship. When voting, citizens should give great weight to the candidate's expected regard for free speech.