If the abortion industry’s reaction to the nomination of Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court is any indication of where he stands on life issues – in spite of his thin paper trail on abortion - the pro-life movement has little to fear in this selection.

NARAL Pro-Choice America was the first abortion advocacy group to fire off the tweets last night after President Donald J. Trump announced the nomination of Neil Gorsuch on national television. Even after the president outlined the judge’s stellar background as a jurist and how he graduated with honors from Columbia, Harvard and Oxford, NARAL had nothing nice to say about him.

“Trump #SCOTUS pick Neil Gorsuch poses an existential threat to legal abortion. The stakes couldn’t be higher when it comes to our rights."

This was followed by “Neil Gorsuch has contributed to #antichoice politicians for decades, & has a long career linked to #antichoice politicians and judges.”

Planned Parenthood was also quick to call for “action” against Gorsuch. The nation’s largest abortion provider, which is already in jeopardy of losing more than a half billion dollars in federal funding, created a new slogan “No Roe, No Go” and urged its devotees to write to their senators urging them to vote against the nominee.

“Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, has a history of interfering with reproductive rights and health, including access to birth control,” says a pre-written letter to senators provided on the site. “The Senate must address his record, and demand that he clearly and directly affirm his support for Roe v. Wade.”

The letter goes on to urge senators “to confront him on his record, and demand a straightforward commitment to upholding Roe v. Wade and the right to safe and legal abortion. If Judge Gorsuch -- or any Supreme Court nominee -- won't make that commitment, you must vote to reject them.”

The far-left website, Think Progress, also launched a tirade against Gorsuch for the dissent he wrote in a 2016 case involving Utah Governor Gary Herbert’s attempt to strip Planned Parenthood of more than a quarter million dollars of funding. The governor’s move to strip the funds came in the wake of a scandal involving videos depicting Planned Parenthood officials bartering over the body parts of aborted babies.

As the article explains, Gorsuch is believed to have tried to convince the entire Tenth Circuit to hear the case – which is known as an “en banc proceeding” rather than just the customary three-judge panel.

“So why does it matter that Gorsuch tried to invoke such an unusual process in a legally very minor (if politically fraught) case? It matters because it’s hard to imagine a good legal reason why he would do so. En banc hearings simply aren’t used for these kinds of cases,” Think Progress reports.

“But Gorsuch’s actions make perfect sense if he is an anti-abortion hardliner who wanted to cut off funds to a leading abortion provider and was willing to bend the rules to do so.”

The panel ultimately ruled against the Governor but Gorsuch dissented from that decision on procedural grounds.

Even though Gorsuch has written no rulings on abortion-related cases, abortion advocates are pointing to other writings on life issues that give them cause to worry.

For instance, in 2006, he wrote a book entitled, “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia” in which he makes a case for “the intrinsic value of human life and its correlation to equal treatment under the law,” according to Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey who reviewed the book.

In the same book, he also makes the case that “no constitutional basis exists for preferring the mother’s liberty interests over the child’s life.”

As LiveAction points out, this is important because Roe v. Wade opted to dodge the whole question of personhood, which means Gorsuch could be giving us “a strong hint as to what he thinks of Roe, but not an outright condemnation.”

Gorsuch wrote: “To act intentionally against life is to suggest that its value rests solely on its transient instrumental usefulness for other ends.”

He also wrote that the “intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

Morrissey concludes that “Catholics would be very, very comfortable (and familiar) with Gorsuch’s reasoning on sanctity-of-life basis for equal treatment.”

Abortion advocates are also upset with Gorsuch’s rulings on religious liberty, in particular, the Hobby Lobby case, as well as his support for the Little Sisters of the Poor. Gorsuch concurred in a decision to free Hobby Lobby from the contraceptive mandate and joined in a dissent arguing that the Obama administration’s fines for noncompliance of the mandate imposed upon the Little Sisters of the Poor amounted to a “substantial burden on the exercise of their faith.”

Planned Parenthood and its ilk are using these decisions in the usual disingenuous ways in order to manipulate women into thinking Gorsuch has worked to “undermine access to essential health care” and that he believes employers "should be able to deny women birth control coverage.”

While it is true that we have no solid evidence of how Gorsuch would rule on life issues, abortion advocates say he has made his position quite clear in his support of “anti-choice” candidates for years, such as George W. Bush, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and former Senator Bill Frist (R-TN).

On the other side of the issue, however, Gorsuch is receiving accolades from pro-life leaders such as Marjorie Dannenfelser, Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List who calls him “an exceptional choice” with “a strong record of protecting life and religious liberty.” Her organization is promising to mobilize the pro-life grassroots nationwide to urge the Senate to quickly confirm Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins said that Gorsuch’s record over the last 14 years "gives Americans every reason to believe he will make a fine Supreme Court justice. His reputation as a judge with integrity and dedication to the Constitution should be an encouragement to all Americans.”

Life Legal Defense, pro-life legal organization that defended videographer David Daleiden who uncovered evidence of human body parts trafficking in the abortion industry, also expressed optimism.

“We are optimistic that our new President has appointed an originalist to the highest court," said Life Legal Executive Director Alexandra Snyder. "There remains, however, some concern that Judge Gorsuch has never written or ruled on any important life issue cases. What we do know is that Judge Gorsuch has clearly stated that he does not believe the Court is to be used as a replacement for debate in the public square in formulating social policy," Snyder added.

As of today, it remains to be seen exactly how Judge Gorsuch will rule on life issues but one thing is sure – by the end of his confirmation process, his stance on the most polarizing issue of our time will be perfectly clear.

© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace®  http://www.womenofgrace.com