Friday, August 8, 2008

American Right To Life Action Statement on Bob Schaffer


Press Release

by ARTL president Brian Rohrbough

August 8, 2008

With his pronouncement that he opposes equal protection under the law for unborn babies, Republican Bob Schaffer confirmed what many in the pro-life community have long known: he believes that unborn babies are expendable, and he lacks the moral clarity and courage to defend their God-given right to life.

Ten years ago, Schaffer's indifference to the plight of Asian women forced to undergo abortions while working in American factories in the Marianas Islands proved him to be a politician without principle.

Schaffer has long given lip service to the truth that human life begins at fertilization, as stated in Personhood Amendment 48. Now that he has the chance to enact that truth in law, he opposes it. Actions speak louder than words.

Schaffer's refusal to stand for life at this historic opportunity leaves the Republican candidate at polar opposites with the 131,000 petition signers who put Amendment 48 on the ballot, and with the groups endorsing this personhood effort, including American Right to Life, Focus on the Family, Colorado Right to Life, American Life League and committed pro-life, pro-family Catholics and Protestants across Colorado.

Schaffer is unfit to represent Colorado in the U.S. Senate.


Editor's note:

Many of us have felt for a long time that Bob Schaffer was on our side on abortion issues. He's even stated belief that life begins at conception - the foundation of Amendment 48! But he's now said on KHOW radio (Caplis & Silverman) that "I just don't support that initiative."

By first understanding that human life begins at conception, but secondly being unwilling to solidify that belief in law, Schaffer is saying he won't stick his neck out to save babies who he knows are babies! He's said all these years he believes in life at conception, but the first opportunity he has to establish that principle in law, and he balks! What kind of pro-lifer is this?

Bob Schaffer, this year, has established over and over again that he is no longer the pro-lifer he used to be:

  1. He sneered at a petitioner at a GOP event this spring who asked if he would sign the Personhood petition.
  2. He immediately refused to meet with Colorado Right to Life when asked if he would like to discuss his experience in the Marianas Islands (CRTL had refused to talk to a reporter when asked until we had heard Schaffer's side!) - If he had a good answer, he had his chance to offer it, but he refused.
  3. Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager (and GOP Chairman), called Personhood supporters "the fringe of the pro-life movement," and both he and Schaffer emphasized he did not support Personhood.
  4. Wadhams then refused any pro-life tables at the State GOP Convention, but allowed not one but two pro-abortion tables! Both tables distributed literature reviewed and approved by Wadhams which repeated his claim that Personhood supporters were "the fringe".
  5. Wadhams then came out and called on all Republicans (having obviously already given this advice to Schaffer) to "avoid social issues" like abortion and marriage.
  6. Schaffer now explicitly said on the radio he does not support Personhood.

Bob Schaffer makes a big deal about his past pro-life record. But his claims fall flat, even from the past. His list of legislation on his website are all abortion regulations, none of which are fundamentally anti-abortion. He's supportive of attacking abortion around the edges, like National Right to Life, which is why he has a 100% rating from NRTL -- something which does not impress us. The key question, when he brings up his past record, is where does he stand now? Not with us! And we believe, based on his statements, that he would also oppose Personhood at the federal level. The legislation on his website doesn't include any past support of Human Life Amendments, and he's served at times when he could have supported those. He apparently did not!

The old Bob Schaffer -- the man we knew and loved as close to our hearts on issues like the Right to Life -- is no more! He has renounced his old "extremism" and now calls himself a "centrist" (his words!).

Who is this new Schaffer, who associates with pro-aborts and anti-Christian political hacks like Wadhams? We don't know. But whoever he is, he's NOT on our side, and he opposes the very values we hold dearest -- like saving the lives of unborn children.


Anonymous said...

I believe Dick Wadhams lost another race by using the "avoid social issues platform". That was the race in Virginia in which he told George Allen to avoid the state's marriage amendment which won easily while Allen lost.

cs said...

Just because someone does not take an extreme position, does not mean he is unworthy.

Surely one can understand why a person who is against abortion does not want to stop basic contraception.

Similarly, surely one can understand that a person who thinks life in a human-BEING sense starts at some point in the first trimester, but not necessarily at a protoplasmic stage is not "pro-abortion".

Even the mullahs in Iran allow abortion within the first few weeks in many cases, and allow all types of contraception.

The only thing an extreme stance does is alienate honest, serious people.

Bob Kyffin said...


Who says Amendment 48 is an extreme position? Pro-aborts like Planned Parenthood do, of course.

But why would Bob Schaffer?

"Basic contraception" -- define your terms. If you mean a contraceptive that does not kill a developing human child, then there is nothing in this measure that would impact use of that contraceptive. But if you mean a contraceptive that acts by killing a fertilized human embryo, then that's murder. Science says human life begins before that point, so science also affirms that a contraceptive that kills an embryo is killing an innocent human life.

If there exists such a thing as a right to life, then it must 1) exist for everyone, and 2) it cannot be taken away because someone fits into a certain category, such as "first trimester" or whatever.

Therefore, those who argue that the "Right to Life" exists only for some people, or for people after a certain point, are actually saying it's not a "right" -- it's a privilege to life, extended by the government. If you don't have the approval of the government, then you don't have that privilege, and the government (or whoever) can take your life without penalty.