In the divisive primary between former Rep. Bob Gardner and Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt, both candidates claim to be "pro-life." Gardner even claims to be "unflinchingly pro-life."
Colorado Right to Life wishes to set the record straight as to who's pro-life. We have never had reason to consider Bob Gardner pro-life. To the best of our knowledge, he has never supported Colorado's Personhood amendments, or a Personhood standard in legislation. We have no evidence he ever signed a petition for Personhood. We have said previously he is a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and we'll say it again.
We have confidence in Gordon Klingenschmitt to defend the sanctity of life at all stages and at all times. We have no such confidence in Bob Gardner.
In fact, Colorado Right to Life has identified several areas where the candidates differ on respect for life.
In 2013, according to Project Vote Smart, Bob Gardner was rated 50% by NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado. (https://votesmart.org/candidate/65710/bob-gardner?categoryId=2&type=V,S,R,E,F,P#.VvRsvf32aUl)
In 2007 Bob Gardner voted with several mostly moderate, pro-choice Republicans in favor of legislation requiring hospitals or medical clinics to provide "emergency contraception" for rape victims. In reality, these are abortifacients -- poison pills designed to kill an already-conceived unborn child (http://coloradorighttolife.blogspot.com/2008/10/legislative-scorecard-2007-2008.html). This legislation had no exception for pro-life doctors who hold a personal belief that abortifacients murder an unborn child (in fact, that's the primary reason this bill was crafted - to force such pro-life medical professionals to act against their conscience!).
The 2011 "fetal homicide" bill Bob Gardner claims as proof he's pro-life was written to please NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and specified that a "human embryo, fetus, or unborn child" was NOT to be considered a person "at any stage of development prior to live birth." Why would a pro-life legislator have that language -- anti-Personhood language, denigrating to the status of unborn life -- in any bill they co-sponsor??? By contrast, Rep. Janak Joshi's fetal homicide language is 100% abortion neutral (it doesn't prohibit abortion, but also doesn't specifically defend or protect it).
Bob Gardner has never before responded to a survey from Colorado Right to Life. We take that as a strong indication that the candidate is not pro-life. By contrast, Gordon Klingenschmitt responded in 2014 and his responses confirm he is 100% pro-life.
Lastly, there is debate between sincere pro-lifers as to whether it's appropriate for the government to oversee or administrate abortion clinics in order to make sure they "abort children properly," even if there may be a positive impact upon the number of abortions performed. Rep. Klingenschmitt opposed HB15-1128 at our request because it would have effectively made the government a partner to Planned Parenthood and the abortionists in licensing abortion clinics and assuring children are killed properly. That reprehensible partnership, in our strongly held opinion, outweighed the slight benefits from further burdening the abortion clinics. CRTL has alternative legislative language which would make abortion clinics abide by medical standards and achieve the same positive effects without making abortion seem like a "well-regulated industry."
Please take these things into account when making your choice between these candidates.
Colorado Right to Life
Sponsor of Colorado's Personhood Amendments
Protecting Colorado's unborn children since 1967
Showing posts with label compromise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label compromise. Show all posts
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Friday, April 9, 2010
Response to Eagle Forum on Personhood
(feel free to print this and bring it with you to your assembly as a handout or reference)
Dear Pro-Life Voter:
Please support the Personhood Amendment #62! The most fundamental right recognized by our Constitution is the God-given right to life. It is government’s foremost duty to uphold the right to life of all innocent human beings, without exception. The Personhood Amendment – Amendment 62 on Colorado's November ballot –recognizes the right to life of unborn children from the beginning of their biological development as a human being.
Forty states currently are following Colorado's leadership and trying, through legislation or ballot initiatives, to get Personhood recognized for the unborn child. This has transformed the pro-life movement and given it new energy! For the first time in recent history, there is light at the end of the tunnel, and we may see abortion prohibited in the relatively near future.
Unfortunately, many politicians, including Republicans, and even some pro-life groups fear losing control of the agenda. They are trying to smother the Personhood movement in its crib! You may see an Eagle Forum flyer here (at political gatherings) today, spreading misleading statements.
They mean to discourage pro-lifers by pointing out that our 2008 measure only received 27% support – the first time any state has ever voted on Personhood. They say we should not try again. What successful social movement has ever given up after its first try? What if the anti-slavery movement had quit at their first setback? What if Britain had surrendered to Hitler because victory seemed impossible? It's not leadership to say, “We tried once and failed, so we should stop.”
In 2008 conventional wisdom held that only one out of eight people would vote for a total abortion ban. Yet in our first time on the ballot we received over 600,000 votes, more than doubling what was expected, in a state that had just elected a pro-abortion governor and president. With a well-run campaign, in this non-presidential election year, where just some Personhood voters bring another voter to the polls, we could win. Of slavery, the Holocaust, and abortion, we're now at two down and one to go!
The anti-personhood flyer claims pro-abortion groups are “enriched” by getting to fight the Personhood amendments in several states. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood don't see it that way. They're suing to keep Personhood amendments off the ballot in Missouri, Alaska, and Nevada, and they've announced that they might sue here in Colorado. (We're ready for them if they do.) And Mississippi has already certified their state's Personhood Amendment to be on the ballot, and signatures are being collected by the hundreds of thousands in Florida and California and elsewhere. Further, the pro-abortion group NARAL put Personhood USA, parent group of one of our sponsors, on their national Hall of Shame! What an honor! They fear what we can see: that Personhood has ignited a broad base of grassroots activity with more being done to stop abortion than any time in the last twenty years!
The “pro-life” opponents of Personhood claim “it’s not the right time,” but it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. They say they want to back Personhood “eventually,” but the US Supreme Court is not yet “ready” to support a pro-life measure. This admission comes after decades of their efforts to change the court, which admission is proof from their own mouths that their strategy is utterly failing. Republicans have nominated the majority of the federal judiciary, and the federal courts are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, so we need a new, direct strategy of teaching the public and our politicians the difference between right and wrong.
After decades of electing pro-life presidents, there is not a single Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court who has ever once advocated the right to life of the unborn child. So National Right To Life has never been able to claim the $10,000 offered them for simply naming a single pro-life Supreme Court Justice. That check is already written and remains un-cashed in the office of the Colorado-based American Right To Life.
Eagle Forum points to a memo by National Right To Life attorney James Bopp, which claims they fear a challenge to Roe v. Wade now might “make things worse.” Fear never won a fight. Over a million children will die from abortion this year! Fifty million dead children and they are afraid to pursue victory because things might get worse? That's like giving in to terrorists because we don't want to make them mad. Tragically, National Right To Life's general counsel tried to compromise the Republican Party platform by modifying it to support embryonic stem cell research, which is lethal experiments, on the tiniest children, little boys and girls just like the snowflake children, the adopted frozen embryos who themselves are the proof that these are precious little children. Thank God that National Right To Life's attorney failed.
That failed strategy, the old pro-life approach, of electing politicians who are pro-life, who will appoint judges who are pro-life, has failed because we didn’t have “quality control” and all our candidates, without opposition from NRTL, openly admitted that they would ignore abortion when nominating judges. And the proof is in the pudding, along with the poison, of scores of pro-abortion judges that we have unwittingly put on the bench. We need to teach our politicians that there is an actual right to life (i.e. Personhood)! We need to insist that they appoint judges who acknowledge the God-given right to life of each child. Where we stand right now, we don’t need “one more pro-life justice” – we need five! That old strategy has proved an utter failure.
What’s more, we’ve been teaching the American public the wrong lessons. When we say “the unborn child has a right to life!” and then turn around and promote laws to protect some babies, but not others, the American people rightly detect hypocrisy!
Footnote 54 of Roe v. Wade ruling (which tragically was written by a Republican Justice, Harry Blackman, and passed by a Republican majority) points out this very thing – that you cannot say the unborn child is a Person, and then say there are some circumstances when that innocent Person can be killed. That hypocrisy was cited as the reason why abortion was decriminalized– because existing "pro-life" laws actually didn’t recognize unborn children as Persons. But the Roe v. Wade decision itself also said that if a law were passed to recognize the Personhood of the unborn child, then the Supreme Court would have to protect unborn children under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment!
Personhood is a legal strategy, aimed at that "loophole" in Roe. But more than that, Personhood is a social movement, trying for the first time in 30 years to convince the American public that there exists an actual, God-given right to life for innocent children – no exceptions! Imagine the outcry if a massive body of citizens cried out to stop the slaughter, and the courts or politicians stood by and did nothing! They cannot. Personhood will force the politicians and the courts to change – if we insist our politicians support Personhood, then eventually the courts will follow.
Some defeated folks claim we have no power to change things, and we must accept the world as it is. They have no hope for victory, and they want you to abandon hope also. Their reasoning is all based on political calculation and conventional wisdom. But they forget that Christian social movements changed the world by relying on God’s wisdom! Remember the anti-slavery movement! Remember the civil rights movement! These were not secular in nature – these movements were Christian at their core! They dared to believe God would help them, and they changed the world!
That’s the promise of Personhood. In 2008 Colorado launched this strategy, and in 2010 there are 40 states following the example of our first “failure!” We’ve just now set out! We must press forward and not look back!
Press forward with us! Personhood for the unborn child – NOW!!!
Amendment 62 Co-Sponsors
Leslie Hanks
Colorado Right To Life
Gualberto Garcia Jones
303-456-2800
Personhood Colorado
Dear Pro-Life Voter:
Please support the Personhood Amendment #62! The most fundamental right recognized by our Constitution is the God-given right to life. It is government’s foremost duty to uphold the right to life of all innocent human beings, without exception. The Personhood Amendment – Amendment 62 on Colorado's November ballot –recognizes the right to life of unborn children from the beginning of their biological development as a human being.
Forty states currently are following Colorado's leadership and trying, through legislation or ballot initiatives, to get Personhood recognized for the unborn child. This has transformed the pro-life movement and given it new energy! For the first time in recent history, there is light at the end of the tunnel, and we may see abortion prohibited in the relatively near future.
Unfortunately, many politicians, including Republicans, and even some pro-life groups fear losing control of the agenda. They are trying to smother the Personhood movement in its crib! You may see an Eagle Forum flyer here (at political gatherings) today, spreading misleading statements.
They mean to discourage pro-lifers by pointing out that our 2008 measure only received 27% support – the first time any state has ever voted on Personhood. They say we should not try again. What successful social movement has ever given up after its first try? What if the anti-slavery movement had quit at their first setback? What if Britain had surrendered to Hitler because victory seemed impossible? It's not leadership to say, “We tried once and failed, so we should stop.”
In 2008 conventional wisdom held that only one out of eight people would vote for a total abortion ban. Yet in our first time on the ballot we received over 600,000 votes, more than doubling what was expected, in a state that had just elected a pro-abortion governor and president. With a well-run campaign, in this non-presidential election year, where just some Personhood voters bring another voter to the polls, we could win. Of slavery, the Holocaust, and abortion, we're now at two down and one to go!
The anti-personhood flyer claims pro-abortion groups are “enriched” by getting to fight the Personhood amendments in several states. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood don't see it that way. They're suing to keep Personhood amendments off the ballot in Missouri, Alaska, and Nevada, and they've announced that they might sue here in Colorado. (We're ready for them if they do.) And Mississippi has already certified their state's Personhood Amendment to be on the ballot, and signatures are being collected by the hundreds of thousands in Florida and California and elsewhere. Further, the pro-abortion group NARAL put Personhood USA, parent group of one of our sponsors, on their national Hall of Shame! What an honor! They fear what we can see: that Personhood has ignited a broad base of grassroots activity with more being done to stop abortion than any time in the last twenty years!
The “pro-life” opponents of Personhood claim “it’s not the right time,” but it’s never the wrong time to do the right thing. They say they want to back Personhood “eventually,” but the US Supreme Court is not yet “ready” to support a pro-life measure. This admission comes after decades of their efforts to change the court, which admission is proof from their own mouths that their strategy is utterly failing. Republicans have nominated the majority of the federal judiciary, and the federal courts are overwhelmingly pro-abortion, so we need a new, direct strategy of teaching the public and our politicians the difference between right and wrong.
After decades of electing pro-life presidents, there is not a single Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court who has ever once advocated the right to life of the unborn child. So National Right To Life has never been able to claim the $10,000 offered them for simply naming a single pro-life Supreme Court Justice. That check is already written and remains un-cashed in the office of the Colorado-based American Right To Life.
Eagle Forum points to a memo by National Right To Life attorney James Bopp, which claims they fear a challenge to Roe v. Wade now might “make things worse.” Fear never won a fight. Over a million children will die from abortion this year! Fifty million dead children and they are afraid to pursue victory because things might get worse? That's like giving in to terrorists because we don't want to make them mad. Tragically, National Right To Life's general counsel tried to compromise the Republican Party platform by modifying it to support embryonic stem cell research, which is lethal experiments, on the tiniest children, little boys and girls just like the snowflake children, the adopted frozen embryos who themselves are the proof that these are precious little children. Thank God that National Right To Life's attorney failed.
That failed strategy, the old pro-life approach, of electing politicians who are pro-life, who will appoint judges who are pro-life, has failed because we didn’t have “quality control” and all our candidates, without opposition from NRTL, openly admitted that they would ignore abortion when nominating judges. And the proof is in the pudding, along with the poison, of scores of pro-abortion judges that we have unwittingly put on the bench. We need to teach our politicians that there is an actual right to life (i.e. Personhood)! We need to insist that they appoint judges who acknowledge the God-given right to life of each child. Where we stand right now, we don’t need “one more pro-life justice” – we need five! That old strategy has proved an utter failure.
What’s more, we’ve been teaching the American public the wrong lessons. When we say “the unborn child has a right to life!” and then turn around and promote laws to protect some babies, but not others, the American people rightly detect hypocrisy!
Footnote 54 of Roe v. Wade ruling (which tragically was written by a Republican Justice, Harry Blackman, and passed by a Republican majority) points out this very thing – that you cannot say the unborn child is a Person, and then say there are some circumstances when that innocent Person can be killed. That hypocrisy was cited as the reason why abortion was decriminalized– because existing "pro-life" laws actually didn’t recognize unborn children as Persons. But the Roe v. Wade decision itself also said that if a law were passed to recognize the Personhood of the unborn child, then the Supreme Court would have to protect unborn children under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment!
Personhood is a legal strategy, aimed at that "loophole" in Roe. But more than that, Personhood is a social movement, trying for the first time in 30 years to convince the American public that there exists an actual, God-given right to life for innocent children – no exceptions! Imagine the outcry if a massive body of citizens cried out to stop the slaughter, and the courts or politicians stood by and did nothing! They cannot. Personhood will force the politicians and the courts to change – if we insist our politicians support Personhood, then eventually the courts will follow.
Some defeated folks claim we have no power to change things, and we must accept the world as it is. They have no hope for victory, and they want you to abandon hope also. Their reasoning is all based on political calculation and conventional wisdom. But they forget that Christian social movements changed the world by relying on God’s wisdom! Remember the anti-slavery movement! Remember the civil rights movement! These were not secular in nature – these movements were Christian at their core! They dared to believe God would help them, and they changed the world!
That’s the promise of Personhood. In 2008 Colorado launched this strategy, and in 2010 there are 40 states following the example of our first “failure!” We’ve just now set out! We must press forward and not look back!
Press forward with us! Personhood for the unborn child – NOW!!!
Amendment 62 Co-Sponsors
Leslie Hanks
Colorado Right To Life
Gualberto Garcia Jones
303-456-2800
Personhood Colorado
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Personhood Works, Regulations Don't
(reposted from Look on the Right Side - the author has said that anyone may re-post this with attribution, so please do in order to spread this important truth)
This is a more coherent recap & expansion on my earlier blog post on regulations, and why they undermine the Personhood of the unborn child -- "How We Compromise Ourselves."
I do not question the well-meaning intentions of those legislators who support, or even write, compromise legislation which tries to put limits on abortion in circumstances where a total abortion ban is not realistically possible. We can argue later about which is more "politically realistic" (I think Personhood is, still). But the fact that I believe in the good intentions of the pro-life regulators does not mean that I don't care whether they stop pushing regulations -- I do! -- or that I approve of what they're doing -- I don't! -- or that I will always continue to support regulation-minded legislators if they continue to ignore warnings about the unintended consequences of what they do.
I think the main thing “pro-life regulators” need to understand is that, whether or not Personhood is "practical" in a legal sense (which is the main objection of those pro-lifers who oppose the Personhood strategy, including Archbishop Charles Chaput and Clarke Forsythe of AUL), our primary problem as pro-lifers is that we've been making the wrong argument -- one which won't "change peoples' hearts" (which everybody agrees is the goal, and yet incrementalists are convinced they DO have the right argument).
The regulations may teach some people about the Right to Life, but more often (esp. for wishy-washy or "moderate" citizens, who are the ones we need to convince in order to succeed in passing legislation or electing legislators) regulations only suggest a "moderate" solution exists for what they are led to believe is a policy question -- where do you draw the line?
Let me restate that.
Regulations clearly “suggest” to a citizen observer that there’s a policy question, to which there are “extreme” solutions (to right or left) and “moderate” solutions. Typical American citizens being who they are, almost all of the people in this category (i.e. the moderate, middle-of-the-road people who don’t often think about policy issues, but when they do they try to find a middle ground, striving never to seem “extreme”) will seek the middle ground – the moderate way – and won’t see the larger implications of the issue at hand.
The argument pro-lifers need to make -- and Personhood makes this argument 100% of the time, while regulations may succeed in making it only 30% of the time -- is that there is an actual Right to Life which is inalienable as a principle, and may not be violated for any reason. That message comes through with Personhood, and it's making progress.
I’ll restate that too.
Personhood “suggests” to a citizen observer that abortion is most certainly NOT a policy question with a spectrum of possible solutions, but is rather a question of principles. Two principles, as it happens – either pro-life or pro-abortion. When the abortion “question” is posed as a principle, and not as a policy question, Americans are actually more likely to choose life instead of death.
Polls show something like 80-90% of Americans believe “there is a God,” even if most of them may not call themselves Christian or correctly follow the teachings of the true God. Believing in God suggests an absolute moral standard, and when the abortion question is measured against an absolute moral standard, very few Americans want to be caught on the wrong, or immoral, side. Since they’re forced to choose between a principle of “abortion is right and moral” versus “abortion is always wrong” one option stands out as more correct and more moral than the other.
That’s the “practical” reason why pro-lifers must reject regulations and embrace the Personhood strategy. The Personhood strategy accomplishes what we want to accomplish – a changing of hearts and minds in society – whereas regulations are far less effective in accomplishing the change we want.
Our message always gets muddled when we're talking about regulations, because every regulation inherently denies there is a Right to Life (if there were an inalienable, inviolable Right to Life, then there's nothing to regulate!).
Consider this line from the text of Roe v. Wade: "Endnote 54: When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?"
The US Supreme Court in 1972/73 didn't simply lay a roadmap for pro-lifers by noting that if you establish Personhood in law, you can protect the unborn as Persons. They also highlighted the logical error in the "pro-life with exceptions" mentality.
The key point is this: The Supreme Court logically concluded that because Texas had an exception to their anti-abortion statute*, Texas could not simultaneously argue that an unborn child was a Person under their law, because the two concepts – a regulation vs. a principle – are contradictory. The regulation always denies the principle, so if there exists a regulation, then the principle must not be the law of the land. It’s simple logic.
Ed Hanks
* A note on "life of the mother exceptions": Many pro-lifers get stuck on the “life of the mother” exception, because it’s the most compelling of the “hard cases” exceptions some regulations are meant to address (how many times have we heard politicians recite the line, "I oppose abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother"?). But we need not fall victim even to the life of the mother objection. The Personhood movement cares deeply about the lives of both, mother and child, especially since if the mother dies before the baby comes to term, the child will obviously die too. However, that doesn’t mean we need a “life of the mother exception” in law. Instead, the anti-abortion statute should be absolute. The life of the mother is saved by a doctor trying to save both lives (and thereby “do no harm”), not by a doctor trying to kill one patient in order to save the other. It’s the same concept as separating cojoined twins. The goal should always be to preserve both lives. This is not always possible, because of relative viability, and so sometimes one of the patients dies. The measure of crime or not is intent. If ever the doctor attempts to kill one patient, rather than save him/her, that’s where it becomes homicide.
This is a more coherent recap & expansion on my earlier blog post on regulations, and why they undermine the Personhood of the unborn child -- "How We Compromise Ourselves."
I do not question the well-meaning intentions of those legislators who support, or even write, compromise legislation which tries to put limits on abortion in circumstances where a total abortion ban is not realistically possible. We can argue later about which is more "politically realistic" (I think Personhood is, still). But the fact that I believe in the good intentions of the pro-life regulators does not mean that I don't care whether they stop pushing regulations -- I do! -- or that I approve of what they're doing -- I don't! -- or that I will always continue to support regulation-minded legislators if they continue to ignore warnings about the unintended consequences of what they do.
I think the main thing “pro-life regulators” need to understand is that, whether or not Personhood is "practical" in a legal sense (which is the main objection of those pro-lifers who oppose the Personhood strategy, including Archbishop Charles Chaput and Clarke Forsythe of AUL), our primary problem as pro-lifers is that we've been making the wrong argument -- one which won't "change peoples' hearts" (which everybody agrees is the goal, and yet incrementalists are convinced they DO have the right argument).
The regulations may teach some people about the Right to Life, but more often (esp. for wishy-washy or "moderate" citizens, who are the ones we need to convince in order to succeed in passing legislation or electing legislators) regulations only suggest a "moderate" solution exists for what they are led to believe is a policy question -- where do you draw the line?
Let me restate that.
Regulations clearly “suggest” to a citizen observer that there’s a policy question, to which there are “extreme” solutions (to right or left) and “moderate” solutions. Typical American citizens being who they are, almost all of the people in this category (i.e. the moderate, middle-of-the-road people who don’t often think about policy issues, but when they do they try to find a middle ground, striving never to seem “extreme”) will seek the middle ground – the moderate way – and won’t see the larger implications of the issue at hand.
The argument pro-lifers need to make -- and Personhood makes this argument 100% of the time, while regulations may succeed in making it only 30% of the time -- is that there is an actual Right to Life which is inalienable as a principle, and may not be violated for any reason. That message comes through with Personhood, and it's making progress.
I’ll restate that too.
Personhood “suggests” to a citizen observer that abortion is most certainly NOT a policy question with a spectrum of possible solutions, but is rather a question of principles. Two principles, as it happens – either pro-life or pro-abortion. When the abortion “question” is posed as a principle, and not as a policy question, Americans are actually more likely to choose life instead of death.
Polls show something like 80-90% of Americans believe “there is a God,” even if most of them may not call themselves Christian or correctly follow the teachings of the true God. Believing in God suggests an absolute moral standard, and when the abortion question is measured against an absolute moral standard, very few Americans want to be caught on the wrong, or immoral, side. Since they’re forced to choose between a principle of “abortion is right and moral” versus “abortion is always wrong” one option stands out as more correct and more moral than the other.
That’s the “practical” reason why pro-lifers must reject regulations and embrace the Personhood strategy. The Personhood strategy accomplishes what we want to accomplish – a changing of hearts and minds in society – whereas regulations are far less effective in accomplishing the change we want.
Our message always gets muddled when we're talking about regulations, because every regulation inherently denies there is a Right to Life (if there were an inalienable, inviolable Right to Life, then there's nothing to regulate!).
Consider this line from the text of Roe v. Wade: "Endnote 54: When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?"
The US Supreme Court in 1972/73 didn't simply lay a roadmap for pro-lifers by noting that if you establish Personhood in law, you can protect the unborn as Persons. They also highlighted the logical error in the "pro-life with exceptions" mentality.
The key point is this: The Supreme Court logically concluded that because Texas had an exception to their anti-abortion statute*, Texas could not simultaneously argue that an unborn child was a Person under their law, because the two concepts – a regulation vs. a principle – are contradictory. The regulation always denies the principle, so if there exists a regulation, then the principle must not be the law of the land. It’s simple logic.
Ed Hanks
* A note on "life of the mother exceptions": Many pro-lifers get stuck on the “life of the mother” exception, because it’s the most compelling of the “hard cases” exceptions some regulations are meant to address (how many times have we heard politicians recite the line, "I oppose abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother"?). But we need not fall victim even to the life of the mother objection. The Personhood movement cares deeply about the lives of both, mother and child, especially since if the mother dies before the baby comes to term, the child will obviously die too. However, that doesn’t mean we need a “life of the mother exception” in law. Instead, the anti-abortion statute should be absolute. The life of the mother is saved by a doctor trying to save both lives (and thereby “do no harm”), not by a doctor trying to kill one patient in order to save the other. It’s the same concept as separating cojoined twins. The goal should always be to preserve both lives. This is not always possible, because of relative viability, and so sometimes one of the patients dies. The measure of crime or not is intent. If ever the doctor attempts to kill one patient, rather than save him/her, that’s where it becomes homicide.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
4 Talk Show Hosts - $1,000,000 Challenge to Ann Coulter
Four conservative talk show hosts from across the country dared to pose tough pro-life questions about Mitt Romney to Ann Coulter, and all she could do was splutter!
Basically, she said, "Of course he's pro-life, though I can't prove it, but even if he isn't he's still the best candidate!"
We expected better of Ann.
ARTL and CRTL feel that it's necessary to challenge "fake pro-lifers" so that real pro-lifers aren't tricked into voting for them. If someone doesn't support a Right to Life from conception to natural death, they're not pro-life! Especially if they also support Roe v. Wade or a "right to choose," as Romney has, as often as not.
Here are all the reference citations to back up these claims:
http://artlaction.com/release/20080125/artla-rebukes-ann-coulter
As has been previously established by American Right to Life Action, Mitt Romney is only pretending to be pro-life -- it's not just a "flip-flop" if you switch back and forth several times. That's a "zig-zag", and it's a clear sign of dishonesty.
ARTLA's Romney Fairy Tale ad aired in 3 primary states where Romney lost (private donors paid for the ads specifically out of their pocket -- no ARTL donations were used if not earmarked for these ads). The ad won the Redstate.com award "Best Low-Budget Video" for the primary campaign, and ABC News indicated these ads had an impact with voters.
Basically, she said, "Of course he's pro-life, though I can't prove it, but even if he isn't he's still the best candidate!"
We expected better of Ann.
ARTL and CRTL feel that it's necessary to challenge "fake pro-lifers" so that real pro-lifers aren't tricked into voting for them. If someone doesn't support a Right to Life from conception to natural death, they're not pro-life! Especially if they also support Roe v. Wade or a "right to choose," as Romney has, as often as not.
Here are all the reference citations to back up these claims:
http://artlaction.com/release/20080125/artla-rebukes-ann-coulter
As has been previously established by American Right to Life Action, Mitt Romney is only pretending to be pro-life -- it's not just a "flip-flop" if you switch back and forth several times. That's a "zig-zag", and it's a clear sign of dishonesty.
ARTLA's Romney Fairy Tale ad aired in 3 primary states where Romney lost (private donors paid for the ads specifically out of their pocket -- no ARTL donations were used if not earmarked for these ads). The ad won the Redstate.com award "Best Low-Budget Video" for the primary campaign, and ABC News indicated these ads had an impact with voters.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Rev. Euteneuer Speaks Out On Sebelius and Brownback
We would like to highlight a column by Human Life International's (HLI) Father Tom Euteneuer. It's harsh -- brace yourself! And, obviously, it's written from the perspective of a Catholic priest. But this is the kind of honesty Colorado Right to Life respects and demands.
Colorado Right to Life has the good fortune to have been blessed by what may be a unique alliance between steadfast Catholics and steadfast Protestants for a common goal -- two groups that all two often follow common goals by different means or different paths.
Along with American Life League, another of the major Catholic pro-life groups which has cooperated and collaborated with Colorado Right to Life is Rev. Euteneuer's Human Life International, the largest international pro-life group in existence.
Father Euteneuer is one of the stalwarts of the pro-life movement -- one of the most admirable, stellar spokesmen on behalf of the unborn child, who has the courage and fortitude to take on others who are considered pro-life heroes but who have sullied themselves by hypocrisy.
The pro-life movement is harmed and weakened when we cover up the weakness and compromise of those who are pro-life one day, and who turn their backs on the unborn (and us!) on other days. What priorities a leader holds matters -- if the unborn are not their priority, how pro-life are they?
Calling a spade a spade is even more important considering that Sen. Brownback ran for President last year, drawing from a constituency which was undoubtedly comprised almost entirely of committed pro-lifers who were led to believe the senator was one of the most dedicated pro-lifers running.
-- Bob Kyffin
Brownback - Turncoat
A column by Rev. Thomas Euteneuer
President, Human Life International
I am not a politician, I am a priest. So I would like to give my priestly perspective about the recent endorsement of Senator Sam Brownback for the candidacy of Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services: Senator Brownback's cowardly betrayal of his Catholic faith is even more damaging than his political permission for this renegade to take office.
The situation is atrocious. An extremist abortion hack (called the most pro-abortion governor in the nation by many), who falsely calls herself "Catholic," is given the opportunity to preside over the nation's healthcare system and normalize abortion even further; this radical is then endorsed by a US senator who also calls himself "Catholic" and who, many believe, wants her job back home when she becomes the abortion queen in DC.
With pro-lifers like Senator Sam Brownback, who needs pro-aborts?
Moral theologians can work out what level of cooperation in evil the Senator's endorsement represents - he is, after all, an influential senator whose opposition, if he had given it, may very well have stopped her nomination. Yet, those of us who do not breathe the rarified air of Washington DC and who have dedicated our lives to defending the sanctity of human life understand one thing: any covenant with the abortion industry or its promoters is consent to the killing. As a convert to the Catholic Faith, Senator Brownback seems not to understand the Church's profoundly wounded heart with regard the slaughter of the innocents. The Church tells us never to participate in that slaughter, no matter what the cost; we do not give aid and comfort to the enemies of human life, we do not stand by while the innocent are being dragged off to a violent murder, and under no circumstances do we endorse the political aspirations of their executioners. Politicians who sell the lives of babies for political gains are the worst kind of turncoats.
Yet, this Catholic Senator's decision constitutes, I think, a watershed moment for all of us who want to see an end to the immoral industry of baby-killing in our country. We will never be served by the compromise of our principles in any form. Catholicism is the solution to this culture of death. If only Catholics ourselves would fully live up to our doctrine and put it into practice, there would be no "Tiller the Killer"s in Kansas, no partial birth abortions, no immoral sex education in the schools or Planned Parenthoods dominating our public life. Self-described "Catholics" like Brownback (in politics), Doug Kmiec (in academia), Hannity, Matthews and O'Reilly (in media) and others are not the solution to the problem - they are enablers of the problem. Despite their high-sounding lip service to the culture of life, they are compromisers. They will never end abortion because they don't want to end abortion.
I have often said that false Catholics, whether they be Cardinals, politicians or janitors, are the ones who have the most to account for on the Day of Judgment when they will have to account for ignoring Christ in His "least brethren," the unborn. Whether through advocacy of the evil (like Sebelius) or negligence in stopping it (like Brownback), they have blood on their hands. They've been given everything the Church has to offer: the teaching, the sacraments, the example of the saints and the grace to stand against Satan and all his works and all his empty promises. In other words, they know better, and the Biblical warning applies to them: "To whom much has been given, much will be required." Cowards and turncoats beware.
Sincerely,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International
_______________
On a side note, here is an article which details an earlier disagreement with Sen. Brownback's questionable methods: A Growing Split In the Pro-Life Community
Colorado Right to Life has the good fortune to have been blessed by what may be a unique alliance between steadfast Catholics and steadfast Protestants for a common goal -- two groups that all two often follow common goals by different means or different paths.
Along with American Life League, another of the major Catholic pro-life groups which has cooperated and collaborated with Colorado Right to Life is Rev. Euteneuer's Human Life International, the largest international pro-life group in existence.
Father Euteneuer is one of the stalwarts of the pro-life movement -- one of the most admirable, stellar spokesmen on behalf of the unborn child, who has the courage and fortitude to take on others who are considered pro-life heroes but who have sullied themselves by hypocrisy.
The pro-life movement is harmed and weakened when we cover up the weakness and compromise of those who are pro-life one day, and who turn their backs on the unborn (and us!) on other days. What priorities a leader holds matters -- if the unborn are not their priority, how pro-life are they?
Calling a spade a spade is even more important considering that Sen. Brownback ran for President last year, drawing from a constituency which was undoubtedly comprised almost entirely of committed pro-lifers who were led to believe the senator was one of the most dedicated pro-lifers running.
-- Bob Kyffin
Brownback - Turncoat
A column by Rev. Thomas Euteneuer
President, Human Life International
I am not a politician, I am a priest. So I would like to give my priestly perspective about the recent endorsement of Senator Sam Brownback for the candidacy of Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services: Senator Brownback's cowardly betrayal of his Catholic faith is even more damaging than his political permission for this renegade to take office.
The situation is atrocious. An extremist abortion hack (called the most pro-abortion governor in the nation by many), who falsely calls herself "Catholic," is given the opportunity to preside over the nation's healthcare system and normalize abortion even further; this radical is then endorsed by a US senator who also calls himself "Catholic" and who, many believe, wants her job back home when she becomes the abortion queen in DC.
With pro-lifers like Senator Sam Brownback, who needs pro-aborts?
Moral theologians can work out what level of cooperation in evil the Senator's endorsement represents - he is, after all, an influential senator whose opposition, if he had given it, may very well have stopped her nomination. Yet, those of us who do not breathe the rarified air of Washington DC and who have dedicated our lives to defending the sanctity of human life understand one thing: any covenant with the abortion industry or its promoters is consent to the killing. As a convert to the Catholic Faith, Senator Brownback seems not to understand the Church's profoundly wounded heart with regard the slaughter of the innocents. The Church tells us never to participate in that slaughter, no matter what the cost; we do not give aid and comfort to the enemies of human life, we do not stand by while the innocent are being dragged off to a violent murder, and under no circumstances do we endorse the political aspirations of their executioners. Politicians who sell the lives of babies for political gains are the worst kind of turncoats.
Yet, this Catholic Senator's decision constitutes, I think, a watershed moment for all of us who want to see an end to the immoral industry of baby-killing in our country. We will never be served by the compromise of our principles in any form. Catholicism is the solution to this culture of death. If only Catholics ourselves would fully live up to our doctrine and put it into practice, there would be no "Tiller the Killer"s in Kansas, no partial birth abortions, no immoral sex education in the schools or Planned Parenthoods dominating our public life. Self-described "Catholics" like Brownback (in politics), Doug Kmiec (in academia), Hannity, Matthews and O'Reilly (in media) and others are not the solution to the problem - they are enablers of the problem. Despite their high-sounding lip service to the culture of life, they are compromisers. They will never end abortion because they don't want to end abortion.
I have often said that false Catholics, whether they be Cardinals, politicians or janitors, are the ones who have the most to account for on the Day of Judgment when they will have to account for ignoring Christ in His "least brethren," the unborn. Whether through advocacy of the evil (like Sebelius) or negligence in stopping it (like Brownback), they have blood on their hands. They've been given everything the Church has to offer: the teaching, the sacraments, the example of the saints and the grace to stand against Satan and all his works and all his empty promises. In other words, they know better, and the Biblical warning applies to them: "To whom much has been given, much will be required." Cowards and turncoats beware.
Sincerely,
Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International
_______________
On a side note, here is an article which details an earlier disagreement with Sen. Brownback's questionable methods: A Growing Split In the Pro-Life Community
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Defining Incrementalism
As we go through the CRTL Newsletter archives, plenty of important articles show up. One of them is Brian Rohrbough's (former CRTL president) refutation of a common charge leveled against us by other pro-lifers who want to continue regulating abortion. Here's his response:
"Clarification of the term 'incrementalism'
Pro-lifers today need to re-define 'incrementalism.' There’s nothing wrong with stopping only one murder out of a thousand if that’s all you can stop. But there is such a thing as bad incrementalism -- where you sacrifice some babies to save others. We call it 'compromised incrementalism' -- incrementalism that employs moral relativism, undermines personhood, further entrenches abortion in law, or makes any abortion appear more humane are misguided means to an end. Laws that allow or affirm killing any baby should never be justified or rationalized by the pro-life community, or in the langauge of any of the laws we give our support."
-- Brian Rohrbough, CRTL President (printed Feb 2007)
"Clarification of the term 'incrementalism'
Pro-lifers today need to re-define 'incrementalism.' There’s nothing wrong with stopping only one murder out of a thousand if that’s all you can stop. But there is such a thing as bad incrementalism -- where you sacrifice some babies to save others. We call it 'compromised incrementalism' -- incrementalism that employs moral relativism, undermines personhood, further entrenches abortion in law, or makes any abortion appear more humane are misguided means to an end. Laws that allow or affirm killing any baby should never be justified or rationalized by the pro-life community, or in the langauge of any of the laws we give our support."
-- Brian Rohrbough, CRTL President (printed Feb 2007)
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The Difference Between Wisdom & Folly
Praise God! A piece of criticism offers opportunity to make our argument more strongly, and move the ball forward toward the Personhood Strategy...
Kevin, a conservative Catholic blogger (I'll not identify him further, so that I don't discourage others from posting criticism -- the point is to dialogue, not to jump on everybody who criticizes, but rather to answer their points), posted this in response to our "Don't Let the Elections Get You Down" message:
Kevin,
Thank you for your strongly felt opinion. I'm disappointed that you didn't have better reasons for voting for Am. 48, but I trust you mean that you disagreed with the strategy, not with the goal.
Our society will never start to respect such laws until they are passed. Period. We must try, or we will never achieve anything.
We admire Kristi because she had the courage to propose a principled law when so many, even on our side, reject principle in favor of compromise. But Kristi was hardly alone in leading the Personhood effort. Besides CRTL's full-scale efforts, there were many organizers, and 1,000 petition gatherers who moved the fight forward.
You're seeming to think the pro-life fight will be won by a margin of support in the legislature, or in the courts. That's not so.
Truly, it doesn't matter what the courts do yet, because abortion is already 100% enshrined, and today's court won't change that. We either try other means, or we give up.
Look at our $10,000 Challenge -- even if we'd waited for 2 or 3 more conservative Supreme Court appointments before trying this, it wouldn't have given us victory, because none of the Supreme Court justices there already would have supported this.
That doesn't mean victory is impossible. It means we must use other means to achieve victory, or else accept that victory may be 100 years away.
The courts, and the politicians will acknowledge Personhood if the people urgently shout for it! The judges and the politicians will NEVER take up the call for Personhood unless the people do it first.
That's what we've done!
And that's why moving forward from this point is so important. If they aren't paying attention this year, they will when we increase the margin by 10% or 20%. It's a matter of educating the public. That's how we'll achieve victory.
And, frankly, that's wisdom -- finding the way toward victory when other means have failed, and victory seems impossible.
Kevin, a conservative Catholic blogger (I'll not identify him further, so that I don't discourage others from posting criticism -- the point is to dialogue, not to jump on everybody who criticizes, but rather to answer their points), posted this in response to our "Don't Let the Elections Get You Down" message:
"a full 27% of voters in Colorado (where even many Republicans are pro-choice) voted not just to prohibit all abortions, but also to end embryonic stem cell research, some forms of in vitro fertilization, and those forms of birth control that cause abortions,"We replied thus:
One of the few reasons I could bring myself to vote for it was because I didn't want it to fail by too much. What makes you think our society would respect such a law if passed? Amendment 48 backers overreached and wasted resources that would have been better directed elsewhere, such as swinging a few state senate or house races. Why was the effort led by a 21-year-old woman? However articulate she is, that's folly. Pro-lifers can't just pretend that these largely futile efforts are good for the cause. We need to ask ourselves if we are tempting God by our efforts. We sometimes ask too much from a deeply mistaken society. Had the Supreme Court even ruled on Amendment 48, it could have only further enshrined our wicked laws, and probably created a few new ones. What good is it if you have justice on your side, if you don't have wisdom?
Kevin,
Thank you for your strongly felt opinion. I'm disappointed that you didn't have better reasons for voting for Am. 48, but I trust you mean that you disagreed with the strategy, not with the goal.
Our society will never start to respect such laws until they are passed. Period. We must try, or we will never achieve anything.
We admire Kristi because she had the courage to propose a principled law when so many, even on our side, reject principle in favor of compromise. But Kristi was hardly alone in leading the Personhood effort. Besides CRTL's full-scale efforts, there were many organizers, and 1,000 petition gatherers who moved the fight forward.
You're seeming to think the pro-life fight will be won by a margin of support in the legislature, or in the courts. That's not so.
Truly, it doesn't matter what the courts do yet, because abortion is already 100% enshrined, and today's court won't change that. We either try other means, or we give up.
Look at our $10,000 Challenge -- even if we'd waited for 2 or 3 more conservative Supreme Court appointments before trying this, it wouldn't have given us victory, because none of the Supreme Court justices there already would have supported this.
That doesn't mean victory is impossible. It means we must use other means to achieve victory, or else accept that victory may be 100 years away.
The courts, and the politicians will acknowledge Personhood if the people urgently shout for it! The judges and the politicians will NEVER take up the call for Personhood unless the people do it first.
That's what we've done!
And that's why moving forward from this point is so important. If they aren't paying attention this year, they will when we increase the margin by 10% or 20%. It's a matter of educating the public. That's how we'll achieve victory.
And, frankly, that's wisdom -- finding the way toward victory when other means have failed, and victory seems impossible.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Reaching Out to Millions
Editor's Note: This started as a response to a reader's question, but it really deserves to be a post of its own.
Reader's Question: "No doubt it is exciting to have Pro-Life legislation bode so well. But what is CRTL doing to tell the millions. What are they doing to educate people about abortion itself."
CRTLBlog's Response:
Thanks again for your question - it's an important one, and fortunately I have a good answer!
First, it's important to note that CRTL and its partner organization American Right to Life (ARTL) are both working actively to change the direction and focus of other pro-life groups and voices so that THEIR outreach harmonizes with our message. That helps us reach millions as effectively as using our own voice.
That message, first and foremost, differs from most prominent pro-life groups in two primary ways: 1) rejection of the "regulation" mentality, and promotion of "personhood" or "life at conception" as the gold standard we should be pushing for, and 2) that if we're not using every opportunity we're in the news, or in the public eye, to promote the concept of a God-given Right to Life from fertilization (conception) to natural death, then we're really not leaving the right impression on the public, and therefore we're not being effective in our messaging. We say what we mean, say what we want, and we're frank and sincere about it -- I believe most open minded people respect that.
This difference of opinion between us and those other organizations is NOT because we are petty, or have a "my way or the highway" attitude -- it's because of a strong personal conviction within each of us that 1) the regulation strategy almost all of us pushed at one time has failed, and 2) THIS is the new direction which holds the MOST promise for ending abortion sooner, rather than later.
Now, having said all that first, let me tell you how CRTL and ARTL are reaching millions with this very message about the God-given Right to Life:
1) Our past president (ARTL's current president) Brian Rohrbough had a 90 second pro-life monologue broadcast by CBS during prime-time thanks to the (unwitting) cooperation of Katie Couric (clip located here). That broadcast reached hundreds of thousands, or perhaps a million people just by itself.
2) The world-record-breaking sign "Destroys uNborn Children" (DNC) which was erected on a mountain within sight of Denver during the Democratic National Convention received press nationwide (including a press release which explained "Personhood" and the God-given Right), in a thousand locations, before millions, and even reached the British media.
3) CRTL has had at dozens of opportunities to reach the public nationwide through various press releases or events we've presented. Our spokespeople have been on radio and TV on a regular basis (several times a year), often for long radio interviews, and even some long TV interviews. We take these opportunities to speak the the nation very seriously, because that's how we can change peoples' hearts and minds.
4) The Amendment 48 Personhood campaign here in Colorado not only received nationwide press in Newsweek (long article), and all major networks, but also presented the concept of Life at Conception to the full Colorado electorate of millions of people.
5) As CRTL gains prominence, we will have more funding (donations encouraged!) to spread the word to all of Colorado through news events and paid media like mailings and radio and TV ads (all of which we've already tried in Colorado, and some other locations).
The more CRTL speaks to Colorado, the world, and even to pro-lifers, the closer we get to transforming the whole pro-life vs. abortion debate nationwide. We've seen some amazing progress already, and I'm sure there will be more as we go on.
Thanks!
Reader's Question: "No doubt it is exciting to have Pro-Life legislation bode so well. But what is CRTL doing to tell the millions. What are they doing to educate people about abortion itself."
CRTLBlog's Response:
Thanks again for your question - it's an important one, and fortunately I have a good answer!
First, it's important to note that CRTL and its partner organization American Right to Life (ARTL) are both working actively to change the direction and focus of other pro-life groups and voices so that THEIR outreach harmonizes with our message. That helps us reach millions as effectively as using our own voice.
That message, first and foremost, differs from most prominent pro-life groups in two primary ways: 1) rejection of the "regulation" mentality, and promotion of "personhood" or "life at conception" as the gold standard we should be pushing for, and 2) that if we're not using every opportunity we're in the news, or in the public eye, to promote the concept of a God-given Right to Life from fertilization (conception) to natural death, then we're really not leaving the right impression on the public, and therefore we're not being effective in our messaging. We say what we mean, say what we want, and we're frank and sincere about it -- I believe most open minded people respect that.
This difference of opinion between us and those other organizations is NOT because we are petty, or have a "my way or the highway" attitude -- it's because of a strong personal conviction within each of us that 1) the regulation strategy almost all of us pushed at one time has failed, and 2) THIS is the new direction which holds the MOST promise for ending abortion sooner, rather than later.
Now, having said all that first, let me tell you how CRTL and ARTL are reaching millions with this very message about the God-given Right to Life:
1) Our past president (ARTL's current president) Brian Rohrbough had a 90 second pro-life monologue broadcast by CBS during prime-time thanks to the (unwitting) cooperation of Katie Couric (clip located here). That broadcast reached hundreds of thousands, or perhaps a million people just by itself.
2) The world-record-breaking sign "Destroys uNborn Children" (DNC) which was erected on a mountain within sight of Denver during the Democratic National Convention received press nationwide (including a press release which explained "Personhood" and the God-given Right), in a thousand locations, before millions, and even reached the British media.
3) CRTL has had at dozens of opportunities to reach the public nationwide through various press releases or events we've presented. Our spokespeople have been on radio and TV on a regular basis (several times a year), often for long radio interviews, and even some long TV interviews. We take these opportunities to speak the the nation very seriously, because that's how we can change peoples' hearts and minds.
4) The Amendment 48 Personhood campaign here in Colorado not only received nationwide press in Newsweek (long article), and all major networks, but also presented the concept of Life at Conception to the full Colorado electorate of millions of people.
5) As CRTL gains prominence, we will have more funding (donations encouraged!) to spread the word to all of Colorado through news events and paid media like mailings and radio and TV ads (all of which we've already tried in Colorado, and some other locations).
The more CRTL speaks to Colorado, the world, and even to pro-lifers, the closer we get to transforming the whole pro-life vs. abortion debate nationwide. We've seen some amazing progress already, and I'm sure there will be more as we go on.
Thanks!
Saturday, November 29, 2008
William Wilberforce: Proof That Incrementalism Works?
THE ASTONISHING LEGACY OF WILLIAM WILBERFORCE
Proof That Incrementalism Works?
by Bob Kyffin
(reprinted from the CRTL Newsletter Summer 2008)
William Wilberforce is a hero in the eyes of most of us in the pro-life movement. He’s an inspiration to all of us.
However, his work against slavery in Britain is often cited (by incrementalists) as proof that "incrementalism works." This claim not only mistakes the lesson we should take from his astonishing life, but also denigrates the true values that he held dear – those based upon a conviction in the God-given Rights to Life and Freedom.
The growing Personhood Wing of the pro-life movement holds that "any law which says ‘do this, and then you can kill the baby (or own the slave)’" is an evil regulation Christians should never support. Did Wilberforce support such laws during his nearly half-century of crusading? Yes. Have many sincere pro-lifers done so, even those who now support Personhood? Yes. The problem is not the person – it’s the naïve, emotional position they hold for a time.
Most supporters of Personhood once supported laws such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, or waiting periods. Some didn’t, but they are few. The intellectual path from incrementalism to abolitionism is a long, hard one. We can’t condemn someone for not "getting the concept" right away. All we can do is ask them to consider, and to learn.
A study of William Wilberforce shows he always held that slavery was absolutely wrong. He first stated his anti-slavery goal in 1789. "I from this time determined that I would never rest till I had effected its abolition." Every year, thereafter, for several years, he ran the same bill – an absolute end to the slave trade.
Discouraged (like many pro-lifers), he began trying incremental compromises such as registering slaves, regulating the number of slaves who could be on a slave ship, or prohibiting British slavers from trading with French colonies – laws which implicitly legitimized slaveowning, even while trying to reduce its misery, or prevalence. Was this an improvement? Debatable. Did the reduced misery of slaves, lessen public interest in ending the practice entirely, among some at least? Very likely. The abolitionists had a strong argument – that the slaves were being inhumanely mistreated – yet they reduced its potency through regulation.
In fact, it was often the slaveholders who advocated laws to improve the conditions of slaves! A document on slavery at http://www.guyana.org/ reports, "Sugar planters in Guyana and the Caribbean and their political and financial backers in Britain were not yet ready for the final abolition of slavery. They decided that it would be better to support legislation to improve the physical, moral and religious conditions of the slaves." These bills were called "Amelioration Laws," yet in reality, they only continued the suffering. Likewise, Wilberforce’s nemesis Henry Dundas stymied the anti-slavery movement by stipulating "gradual abolition," only prolonging it.
Do we want to "ameliorate" abortion? Or do we want to end it? As the craven interests of the slaveholders proves, these are not one and the same path toward abolition!
We must be discriminating when evaluating whether a measure is "compromised incrementalism" (one step forward, two steps back), or positive incrementalism. If Wilberforce’s limit on the number of slaves per ship had instead simply regulated the number of people on board, then it would have accomplished its goal without tacitly approving of slavery. Similarly, if his registration bill had specified that every laborer, paid or unpaid, must be reported.
An uncompromised law today might make it criminal to perform any surgical treatment on a minor without parental notification, accomplishing one positive goal of pro-lifers without the tragedy of authorizing murder of the innocent in law.
Was Wilberforce an incrementalist because he wanted to end the slave trade first, and slavery itself later? No. In a letter from 1797, Wilberforce urged Prime Minister William Pitt to revoke a contract requiring Britain to provide Spain with African slaves. This highlights the point that the slave trade and slave ownership were different parts of the same problem. Even had Wilberforce successfully banned slave ownership in British territories, he would have had to ban the slave trade too, to prevent massive British involvement in promoting slavery elsewhere. Therefore, he cannot be blamed for not trying to simultaneously ban both. Taking on one or the other was commendable. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently wrong with banning the slave trade as an isolated goal because, like banning taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, a law which would end such trade or funding would not necessarily affirm any rights to do evil, and therefore would not either promote the murder or ownership of people, nor undermine the argument that all men deserve life and freedom.
Did slavery, which persisted for 26 years after the end of the British slave trade, linger because abolitionists had fought the brutality of the trade, rather than focusing on teaching people that slavery is inherently wrong? Wilberforce became convinced it was so. In Eric Metaxas’ Wilberforce biography, Amazing Grace, he notes that Wilberforce became disenchanted with the incremental method, feeling it was counterproductive. He had hoped incremental improvements would lead inherently to emancipation. "But now, in 1818, it could be seen that this hope had been naïve. So once again, the course was clear: immediate emancipation by political means."
Today, we have the benefit of this lesson, and similar lessons from the United States’ abolition movement, to show us the superiority of principle over compromise. We must not reject these lessons of history!
The ultimate proof of Wilberforce’s commitment is his stand on abolition in the United States. Near the end of his life, an incremental anti-slavery society (a "colonization" faction) was able to secure Wilberforce’s endorsement by leading him to believe they were for an absolute end to slavery in America. However, the American absolutist William Lloyd Garrison arrived in England soon after, and explained the relative positions of anti-slavery societies to Wilberforce. He was greatly angered, revoked his earlier statement, and publicized an endorsement of Garrison instead.
Lest someone argue that Wilberforce’s chosen strategy for America was due to greater prospects of success, it is a fact that slavery remained strong in the United States, and was nowhere near abolition at that time (1833). There were many U.S. anti-slavery groups whose positions were less absolute than Garrison’s. But, no matter the difficulty of the road, at the end of his life Wilberforce preferred principle over compromise.
Surely, it can be argued that Wilberforce was an incrementalist at times. Wilberforce was led by his heart, and supported measures that would regulate slavery. We all face this temptation with regard to abortion.
By the end of his life, Wilberforce had become a staunch absolute abolitionist. Arguments that he is the poster boy of the "compromised incrementalist" movement are specious and unfair. When, with all his experience, Wilberforce had a chance to do it over again, he counseled against compromise. He preferred absolute abolition in the United States, not an incremental strategy.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
A Well-Meaning Pro-Lifer
"What law do you propose?"
"I want a law which says a woman must see an ultrasound before she has an abortion."
"And what would that accomplish?"
"Many women would choose not to abort, because they see their baby is a little, living human being!"
"But do you believe it's a little, living human being?"
"Of course I do!"
"Then why, in your law, is it then allowable to kill that baby, if the woman chooses?"
"Well... Because it's already legal to kill that baby."
"Do you believe it shouldn't be legal to kill any of these babies?"
"Of course not. They're human beings."
"What about a woman's right to choose? Do you propose to prohibit all abortions?"
"Well... Yes, eventually. A woman shouldn't have a right to choose to kill an innocent child."
"But in your own law, you allow for that choice. Why is that?"
"Because society's not ready to outlaw all abortion. I could never pass a law to outlaw all abortion."
"Of course, that's true. Most people do believe in a right to choose, even if they're not really for abortion. Take me, for instance."
"So we have to stop as many abortions as we can, until the point when people understand there is no right to choose."
"But that's silly. In your own law, you respect a woman's right to choose, within certain limitations. Even you concede that right."
"I do not!"
"Your law does."
"No, it's just... It's a way of getting part of what I want until I have the opportunity to get all of what I want."
"So you're trying to trick us?!"
"No... I'm giving you what you'll accept."
"And then what?"
"And then, once I've taught you there's a Right to Life, you'll support an end to all abortion."
"No. That will never happen. Because you're not doing anything to convince me there's a Right to Life that supersedes a right to choose. Because your own law doesn't defend the Right to Life -- your law only defends the right to choose."
(originally posted on www.jillstanek.com)
"I want a law which says a woman must see an ultrasound before she has an abortion."
"And what would that accomplish?"
"Many women would choose not to abort, because they see their baby is a little, living human being!"
"But do you believe it's a little, living human being?"
"Of course I do!"
"Then why, in your law, is it then allowable to kill that baby, if the woman chooses?"
"Well... Because it's already legal to kill that baby."
"Do you believe it shouldn't be legal to kill any of these babies?"
"Of course not. They're human beings."
"What about a woman's right to choose? Do you propose to prohibit all abortions?"
"Well... Yes, eventually. A woman shouldn't have a right to choose to kill an innocent child."
"But in your own law, you allow for that choice. Why is that?"
"Because society's not ready to outlaw all abortion. I could never pass a law to outlaw all abortion."
"Of course, that's true. Most people do believe in a right to choose, even if they're not really for abortion. Take me, for instance."
"So we have to stop as many abortions as we can, until the point when people understand there is no right to choose."
"But that's silly. In your own law, you respect a woman's right to choose, within certain limitations. Even you concede that right."
"I do not!"
"Your law does."
"No, it's just... It's a way of getting part of what I want until I have the opportunity to get all of what I want."
"So you're trying to trick us?!"
"No... I'm giving you what you'll accept."
"And then what?"
"And then, once I've taught you there's a Right to Life, you'll support an end to all abortion."
"No. That will never happen. Because you're not doing anything to convince me there's a Right to Life that supersedes a right to choose. Because your own law doesn't defend the Right to Life -- your law only defends the right to choose."
(originally posted on www.jillstanek.com)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Answer to Criticism re: McCain's "Pro-Life" Record
Since the last CRTL newsletter dealt directly and decisively with the myth that Sen. John McCain is pro-life, CRTL received quite a bit of criticism from certain "my party, right or wrong" Republicans who either have been fooled into thinking John McCain has "always been pro-life" (the campaign's mantra) or who think even if he's not strongly pro-life, he was better than Obama, and therefore principled Christians should still vote for him. We simply disagreed, on principle.
We spoke truth -- if you doubt our word on it, then look at the detailed white paper produced by Vision Forum (a major homeschool publisher, and publisher of books highlighting the Christian character of the American Founders).
Other things to consider: In 2002, Sen. McCain tied with Sen. Harry Reid (now the Democrats' Senate Majority Leader) on the National Right to Life scorecard, at 33%, and unlike virtually every other Republican Senator, McCain hasn't scored 100% on a NRTL survey in recent memory (averaging 66% over the past decade -- and consider that NRTL intentionally tries to give every Democrat a 0%, and every Republican a 100% rating). National Right to Life referred to McCain as "dangerous" and "not pro-life". James Dobson's statements against McCain, before his change of mind, were damning. Many other conservative sources confirmed that McCain was not very conservative on many issues at all, and certainly not on abortion.
Moreover, Sen. John McCain openly sought the support of the moderate wing of the Republican party as the "pro-choice alternative" to Gov. George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican Primary.
To help illustrate our opinion of what Christians should say, when faced with the "lesser of two evils" argument, here is a reprint of an article by Bob Kyffin:
The Lesser of Two Evils
by Bob Kyffin
Why are we being urged by our Christian friends (and maybe we’re doing the urging ourselves) to “vote for the lesser of two evils?” Doesn’t that mean support for evil, no matter whether it’s the lesser or not?
And why is it our Christian friends doing the urging, and not our Republican friends?
The answer is that “Republicans” are used to making these choices. There’s no such thing as “Republican morality.” Morality comes from somewhere else, and there’s nothing inherently moral about being or voting Republican. It’s a value judgment over who’s better, who’s more like us, who’s less likely to do harm.
As Christians, don’t we have a higher standard? Or shouldn’t we? There’s morality, and then there’s immorality. Amorality – to choose neither – is not a definition God accepts. He draws “bright lines” between one and the other, and you’re either with Him, or against Him.
But doesn’t God encourage us to be “salt and light?” To participate in society and be a positive Christian example? And doesn’t He also encourage us to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s?”
In Romans 3:8, Paul teaches, “Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—‘Let us do evil that good may result?’ Their condemnation is deserved.”
So not just are we never to do evil that good may come of it, but those who do are to be condemned.
Don’t we face this choice every election? Choosing between imperfect candidates is the American way of life! Besides, “the lesser of two evils” is just a saying, right?
Often, it is just a saying. Often, we’re choosing between two Christians (nominal or otherwise) who simply have different political opinions. So when does a candidate go from a bad political choice to being an evil choice?
That really depends on where God draws His line, as to what is truly evil. Even Christian denominations differ on what they consider evil. Envy? Possibly. Adultery or contempt for God? Sure – and worth considering in your voting. But what stands at the top of everybody’s list for evil? Murder of the innocent.
So where does that leave a Christian, who might be wondering when the “lesser of two evils” really becomes evil? Where do you think?
Now, some parties, and some members of those parties, hold a definite position on evils like abortion. Other parties, remarkably, hold a variety of opinions on abortion, some candidates clearly opposing, others clearly supporting, and still more trying to split the difference.
So where should a Christian come down on a candidate whose position “splits the difference” on abortion? What if that candidate, say, supports federal funding for the destruction of embryos? Or thinks the abortion of innocent children is okay in some circumstances?
Germans once faced a choice between Hitler and socialism. Sadly, most Christians chose Hitler. Americans often faced a choice between pro-slavery candidates. What should a Christian do, if forced to choose between Hitler and Stalin? If there were only two candidates on every ballot, Christian moral reasoning might force you to not vote.
Thankfully, we live in a country where there are more than two candidates on most ballots. But isn’t that “throwing away your vote?”
It’s strange how, in congressional districts where one party normally gets 70 percent of the vote, voting for the major-party candidate who’s guaranteed to lose isn’t considered “throwing away your vote.” Those 30 percent, or 10 percent, of the votes become protest votes, and they are valuable for that purpose.
When faced with two major-party candidates who reject God’s teaching on morality, and who try to split the difference, we are blessed with alternate choices. We can still cast a vote for a person who takes their Christianity, and its moral imperatives, seriously.
And Christians cannot let fear of “the boogyman” lead us into voting for those who oppose much of what we believe. Hitler stood against most of what Christians believe, and yet it was fear of the socialists and communists that misled Christians into voting for Hitler. Fear is not an excuse in God’s eyes, who assures us that we are His, and His hand is on our shoulder, no matter what dangers or turmoil we face.
The world wants you to ignore some of the most important moral and ethical questions we face. The parties – most of them – surely want you to as well.
As Christians, we cannot ignore them. You must decide whether to do good in the polling booth, or whether to vote for the lesser of two evils “that good may [supposedly] come.”
What will you choose?
Next week: Is William Wilberforce really a standard-bearer for the success of "incrementalism"?
We spoke truth -- if you doubt our word on it, then look at the detailed white paper produced by Vision Forum (a major homeschool publisher, and publisher of books highlighting the Christian character of the American Founders).
Other things to consider: In 2002, Sen. McCain tied with Sen. Harry Reid (now the Democrats' Senate Majority Leader) on the National Right to Life scorecard, at 33%, and unlike virtually every other Republican Senator, McCain hasn't scored 100% on a NRTL survey in recent memory (averaging 66% over the past decade -- and consider that NRTL intentionally tries to give every Democrat a 0%, and every Republican a 100% rating). National Right to Life referred to McCain as "dangerous" and "not pro-life". James Dobson's statements against McCain, before his change of mind, were damning. Many other conservative sources confirmed that McCain was not very conservative on many issues at all, and certainly not on abortion.
Moreover, Sen. John McCain openly sought the support of the moderate wing of the Republican party as the "pro-choice alternative" to Gov. George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican Primary.
To help illustrate our opinion of what Christians should say, when faced with the "lesser of two evils" argument, here is a reprint of an article by Bob Kyffin:
The Lesser of Two Evils
Is Still Evil
by Bob Kyffin
Why are we being urged by our Christian friends (and maybe we’re doing the urging ourselves) to “vote for the lesser of two evils?” Doesn’t that mean support for evil, no matter whether it’s the lesser or not?
And why is it our Christian friends doing the urging, and not our Republican friends?
The answer is that “Republicans” are used to making these choices. There’s no such thing as “Republican morality.” Morality comes from somewhere else, and there’s nothing inherently moral about being or voting Republican. It’s a value judgment over who’s better, who’s more like us, who’s less likely to do harm.
As Christians, don’t we have a higher standard? Or shouldn’t we? There’s morality, and then there’s immorality. Amorality – to choose neither – is not a definition God accepts. He draws “bright lines” between one and the other, and you’re either with Him, or against Him.
But doesn’t God encourage us to be “salt and light?” To participate in society and be a positive Christian example? And doesn’t He also encourage us to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s?”
In Romans 3:8, Paul teaches, “Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—‘Let us do evil that good may result?’ Their condemnation is deserved.”
So not just are we never to do evil that good may come of it, but those who do are to be condemned.
Don’t we face this choice every election? Choosing between imperfect candidates is the American way of life! Besides, “the lesser of two evils” is just a saying, right?
Often, it is just a saying. Often, we’re choosing between two Christians (nominal or otherwise) who simply have different political opinions. So when does a candidate go from a bad political choice to being an evil choice?
That really depends on where God draws His line, as to what is truly evil. Even Christian denominations differ on what they consider evil. Envy? Possibly. Adultery or contempt for God? Sure – and worth considering in your voting. But what stands at the top of everybody’s list for evil? Murder of the innocent.
So where does that leave a Christian, who might be wondering when the “lesser of two evils” really becomes evil? Where do you think?
Now, some parties, and some members of those parties, hold a definite position on evils like abortion. Other parties, remarkably, hold a variety of opinions on abortion, some candidates clearly opposing, others clearly supporting, and still more trying to split the difference.
So where should a Christian come down on a candidate whose position “splits the difference” on abortion? What if that candidate, say, supports federal funding for the destruction of embryos? Or thinks the abortion of innocent children is okay in some circumstances?
Germans once faced a choice between Hitler and socialism. Sadly, most Christians chose Hitler. Americans often faced a choice between pro-slavery candidates. What should a Christian do, if forced to choose between Hitler and Stalin? If there were only two candidates on every ballot, Christian moral reasoning might force you to not vote.
Thankfully, we live in a country where there are more than two candidates on most ballots. But isn’t that “throwing away your vote?”
It’s strange how, in congressional districts where one party normally gets 70 percent of the vote, voting for the major-party candidate who’s guaranteed to lose isn’t considered “throwing away your vote.” Those 30 percent, or 10 percent, of the votes become protest votes, and they are valuable for that purpose.
When faced with two major-party candidates who reject God’s teaching on morality, and who try to split the difference, we are blessed with alternate choices. We can still cast a vote for a person who takes their Christianity, and its moral imperatives, seriously.
And Christians cannot let fear of “the boogyman” lead us into voting for those who oppose much of what we believe. Hitler stood against most of what Christians believe, and yet it was fear of the socialists and communists that misled Christians into voting for Hitler. Fear is not an excuse in God’s eyes, who assures us that we are His, and His hand is on our shoulder, no matter what dangers or turmoil we face.
The world wants you to ignore some of the most important moral and ethical questions we face. The parties – most of them – surely want you to as well.
As Christians, we cannot ignore them. You must decide whether to do good in the polling booth, or whether to vote for the lesser of two evils “that good may [supposedly] come.”
What will you choose?
Next week: Is William Wilberforce really a standard-bearer for the success of "incrementalism"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
