Unicorns, Leprechauns, and Post-Birth Abortions

How False Narratives Are Used to Justify Oppressive Policies

Above is a clip of my opponent, Julie Fedorchak, making a statement that left many scratching their heads and others downright appalled. She claimed that in America, “We are an outlier in this world, really supporting abortion on demand in many states all the way to birth or even, in some cases, post-birth abortion.” Yes, you read that right: “post-birth abortion.” 

Fedorchak’s claim is absurd in many ways, beginning with yet another meaningless Republican catchphrase. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Pregnancies end at birth. Throwing around these nonsense labels is easy, but putting detail to them amplifies the absurdity. How long after the baby is born does this “abortion” supposedly happen? Is it minutes? Hours? Days? Is it too late to call it post-birth abortion after potty training? Kindergarten? High school?

The correct term here would be infanticide, and it is a felony in every state.

Julie Fedorchak wants voters to believe pro-choice, pro-family folks are murderers. Conjuring up figments like “post-birth abortion”? It’s an effective diversion. After all, framing the other camp as killers certainly makes Julie’s draconian position seem more palatable. But let’s be clear: it’s campaigns like hers with their liberty-crushing agenda peddling extremism. She’s distorting the truth to hide how radical their stance is, twisting reality to push an agenda that strips away your freedoms. The real extremists are those who fabricate insane scenarios to justify their own oppressive policies.

I respect deeply held personal beliefs, including the conviction that life begins at conception. However, the beauty of America lies in protecting the freedom of all individuals to hold and practice their beliefs without imposing them on others. What we cannot allow is for such personal convictions to be weaponized into laws that infringe on our collective freedoms. 

Julie and her cohorts want to frame pro-choice, pro-family Democrats like myself as radical when, in truth, it’s their beliefs that are out of touch with the values of freedom and personal liberty. When Julie says, “I so strongly support developing a culture of life in this country that helps women choose life because I think it is the best choice for women and for our society,” what she really means is that she wants the government to make the choice for women. If she had her way, there would be no choice. It’s not about supporting women; it’s about denying them agency and autonomy over their own bodies. This isn’t about helping people; it’s about controlling them. 

Legislating a belief like “life begins at conception” not only undermines personal privacy but also threatens liberty and freedom more broadly. If this extreme position spreads further, who’s to say they wouldn’t also ban in vitro fertilization and contraception?  And it doesn’t stop there. In his concurring opinion in Dobbs, Clarence Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” 

If we allow them to legislate based on their narrow beliefs, what’s to stop them from encroaching further into our lives? When we let them choose for us, we lose our choices. Politicians like Julie Fedorchak would have the government dictate what is right for our bodies, our minds, and our hearts. 

North Dakotans have already demonstrated their wisdom on this matter. In 2014, they voted down a “Personhood Amendment” measure by a two-to-one margin. If the measure had passed, the state constitution would’ve been amended to include the language: “[the] inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.” 

The measure would have enshrined the belief that “life begins at conception” into law. Many who voted against it likely held that personal belief, but they understood the critical difference between private faith and public legislation. They recognized that the state has no business imposing specific religious beliefs on everyone.

The people of North Dakota are private, kind, and wise. They understand that spiritual doctrines belong in our hearts and places of worship, not in our civic codes and laws. They know that legislating based on a particular set of religious beliefs opens a Pandora’s box of government overreach into the most intimate aspects of our lives. And let’s be clear: freedom-loving North Dakotans are not clamoring for more government intrusion, and that’s true beyond our great state as well.

As we head towards November, it’s crucial to support candidates who champion personal freedom and reproductive rights. I’m running for Congress to ensure North Dakotans have a voice in protecting these essential liberties. If you believe in the right to make private decisions free from government interference, I urge you to support my campaign. If Julie Fedorchak had her way, there wouldn’t be a choice at all.

Your contribution, no matter how small, can make a big difference. Together, we can push back against the extremism that seeks to control our lives and stand up for the values of privacy, liberty, and personal choice.

---

With the U.S. House seat open, the race for North Dakota’s sole congressional district has never been more competitive.

Trygve Hammer is a Navy and Marine Corps veteran, a former public school teacher, and a freight rail conductor. He was appointed to the Naval Academy from the fleet and served as a Marine helicopter pilot, forward air controller, and infantry officer. 

From bunking down in oilfield camps to engaging uninterested teenagers in the classroom, Trygve’s career has been a tour of duty in the trenches of American life. Trygve’s commitment to public service is unwavering. He lives by the ethos “Officers Eat Last” and is ready to serve as North Dakota’s next Congressman, putting the people's needs first.

Watch Trygve’s campaign launch video here.