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 incrementalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label incrementalism. Show all posts
Saturday, March 26, 2016
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.
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)
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Legislative Scorecard 2007-2008
Colorado Right to Life has examined the legislative voting records of all Colorado legislators over the past two years in light of our stand on Personhood – grading people up for positive votes, and voting them down for votes that undermine the Personhood of the unborn child (even if it’s a supposedly “pro-life” bill which proposes to regulate the abortion industry).
Before we go on, we just want to remind you that a post about the Presidential Election is up next…
What we’ve found is that those legislators who scored highest – because of several positive votes that did not undermine Personhood – are often the same legislators who at other times undermine Personhood with votes for regulation. Clearly they do not understand that a “right” (to life) is something that cannot be regulated, and the government has no right to decide when it is granted and when it can be taken away.
This poses CRTL with a dilemma, because if we “endorse” or give one of these candidates an “A”, it confuses the whole issue about whether or not they actually support a guarantee of the Right to Life in law. We’ve decided, instead, to simply release raw data on specific votes or positions rather than try to place a value on these hit-or-miss voting records.
One positive measure is who has endorsed the Amendment 48 Personhood Initiative. Some of these legislators still undermine Personhood with compromised votes, but at least they can be seen coming in the right direction.
(click the image to see a clearer copy)
Remember there may be good candidates running for office who are not on these lists, because they may not have been elected yet! A number of the unelected candidates indicated they would not support compromised legislation, and have also endorsed Personhood.
This assessment deals primarily with Republican legislators who voted right or wrong. As a general rule, Democrats can be assumed to have voted wrong – the highest scoring Democrat senator cannot be considered a pro-lifer by any stretch, and the highest scoring Democrat member of the House recently switched parties from the Republicans.
Sadly, the same assumption of stance cannot be made of Republicans, since the lowest scoring Republican (Rep. Ellen Roberts of Durango) is well below many of even the liberal Democrats – she might as well be one!
(click the image to see a clearer copy)
X = voted wrong on bill; XX = voted wrong more than once, or cosponsored bill; More X's = sponsored bill or voted wrong more than twice (i.e. in committees, plus floor vote -- usually a combination of votes or sponsorship)
Shockingly, the Republican House Minority Leader, Mike May of Parker, is the 5th lowest scoring Republican, barely even scoring in the positive numbers! He supported “emergency contraception” mandates, and was even the primary sponsor of the bill to require all pre-teen schoolchildren to be vaccinated against the HPV venereal disease (a move which CRTL testified would encourage underage pregnancy, and therefore underage abortions). This kind of voting behavior from the leading Republican only demonstrates how much they take Christian and pro-life voters for granted.
Details:
SB 07-060 Emergency Contraception – This bill requires medical professionals who treat rape victims to tell them there is emergency contraception available that will “prevent pregnancy” (which we all know terminates a pregnancy – a chemical abortion). Those 20 Republican legislators who voted for this will tell you they modified the language of the bill so it specified that it did not refer to abortifacients. But that’s a silly argument – there is no such thing as “emergency contraception” which is not an abortifacient, and several of their Republican colleagues realized this and still voted against the bill. Gov. Ritter signed this bill into law.
SB 07-080 Requiring HPV Vaccine in Middle School – Colorado Right to Life testified against this bill because we believed it would encourage kids to think they were “immune” to STDs, and therefore they could have free sex, and the resulting pregnancies would increase the number of abortions. The House sponsor of this bill was the Republican Minority Leader, Mike May (R-Parker). Rep. May was told we would oppose it, and was asked to drop the bill, and he refused. This bill did not make it out of committee in the House, partly because of CRTL lobbying.
SJR 07-031 Reproductive Health Programs – This NARAL-sponsored resolution (a non-binding statement urging compliance) encouraged state government to use its power to promote “family planning,” which naturally (to the sponsors) includes use of various abortifacients, as well as surgical abortion. Two GOP representatives and 4 GOP senators voted for it. The only one who is not typically identified as a pro-abortion Republican is Sen. Shawn Mitchell, who is a compromiser, but generally supports responsible pro-life positions. No idea why he voted the way he did.
SB 08-003 Gov’t Funding for Reproductive Health – This NARAL-sponsored legislation would allow low-income Coloradans to use taxpayer funds for “reproductive health” and “family planning” programs. Gov. Ritter signed this bill into law. Two GOP House members and 3 GOP senators voted for this bill.
SB 08-192 Residential Picketing – This bill was aimed directly at Colorado Right to Life and allied organizations (most particularly, the Collaborator’s Project). It was aimed to restrict the free speech rights of picketers who protest outside the homes of abortionists or executives whose companies are building abortion centers (like AuschWeitz, the nation’s largest killing center, which was built by Weitz Construction). Several “pro-life” legislators felt it was important to vote for this bill (it was written/sponsored by pro-abortion Sen. Steve Ward) because they don’t want to support “extremists” (those of us who want abortion to be in the public eye, and who want abortion promoters to understand exactly what they’re doing to little children). While most Republicans who voted for this legislation are known to be pro-abortion, the big surprises on the list of supporters were Sen. Andy McElhany (Sen. Minority Leader), Sen. Shawn Mitchell and Rep. Amy Stephens (formerly a public policy expert at Focus on the Family), who obviously felt their responsibility was to promote quiet neighborhoods, rather than to stop the killing of unborn children. Gov. Ritter signed this into law, which does not stop the picketing, but places significant restrictions upon it.
HJR 08-1009 UN Womens’ Rights Resolution – This resolution (non-binding support) recommended support for the United Nations’ definitions of “womens’ rights,” which specifically means the “right” to abortion, “controlling their own bodies (and those of their unborn children)” and “reproductive health care.” Three GOP representatives and one senator (Steve Ward again) voted for this.
There were other votes related to abortion during these two years, such as Sen. Schultheis’ SB 95, which was a compromised informed consent and ultrasound bill (watch an ultrasound, and then you can kill the baby). We know those legislators who voted for this bill were well-meaning, even though we attempted to educate them about what was wrong with the bill. This bill, in particular, is why we decided not to issue any endorsements of these legislators this year – because they still do not understand the Right to Life.
Sen. Renfroe, in 2007, also ran a bill that would have totally banned abortion. However, it never made it out of committee, and Sen. Renfroe and Sen. Mitchell were the only legislators who were able to vote for it.
We welcome any questions you might have with regard to legislators or the legislation!
Before we go on, we just want to remind you that a post about the Presidential Election is up next…
What we’ve found is that those legislators who scored highest – because of several positive votes that did not undermine Personhood – are often the same legislators who at other times undermine Personhood with votes for regulation. Clearly they do not understand that a “right” (to life) is something that cannot be regulated, and the government has no right to decide when it is granted and when it can be taken away.
This poses CRTL with a dilemma, because if we “endorse” or give one of these candidates an “A”, it confuses the whole issue about whether or not they actually support a guarantee of the Right to Life in law. We’ve decided, instead, to simply release raw data on specific votes or positions rather than try to place a value on these hit-or-miss voting records.
One positive measure is who has endorsed the Amendment 48 Personhood Initiative. Some of these legislators still undermine Personhood with compromised votes, but at least they can be seen coming in the right direction.
(click the image to see a clearer copy)
Remember there may be good candidates running for office who are not on these lists, because they may not have been elected yet! A number of the unelected candidates indicated they would not support compromised legislation, and have also endorsed Personhood.
This assessment deals primarily with Republican legislators who voted right or wrong. As a general rule, Democrats can be assumed to have voted wrong – the highest scoring Democrat senator cannot be considered a pro-lifer by any stretch, and the highest scoring Democrat member of the House recently switched parties from the Republicans.
Sadly, the same assumption of stance cannot be made of Republicans, since the lowest scoring Republican (Rep. Ellen Roberts of Durango) is well below many of even the liberal Democrats – she might as well be one!
(click the image to see a clearer copy)
X = voted wrong on bill; XX = voted wrong more than once, or cosponsored bill; More X's = sponsored bill or voted wrong more than twice (i.e. in committees, plus floor vote -- usually a combination of votes or sponsorship)
Shockingly, the Republican House Minority Leader, Mike May of Parker, is the 5th lowest scoring Republican, barely even scoring in the positive numbers! He supported “emergency contraception” mandates, and was even the primary sponsor of the bill to require all pre-teen schoolchildren to be vaccinated against the HPV venereal disease (a move which CRTL testified would encourage underage pregnancy, and therefore underage abortions). This kind of voting behavior from the leading Republican only demonstrates how much they take Christian and pro-life voters for granted.
Details:
SB 07-060 Emergency Contraception – This bill requires medical professionals who treat rape victims to tell them there is emergency contraception available that will “prevent pregnancy” (which we all know terminates a pregnancy – a chemical abortion). Those 20 Republican legislators who voted for this will tell you they modified the language of the bill so it specified that it did not refer to abortifacients. But that’s a silly argument – there is no such thing as “emergency contraception” which is not an abortifacient, and several of their Republican colleagues realized this and still voted against the bill. Gov. Ritter signed this bill into law.
SB 07-080 Requiring HPV Vaccine in Middle School – Colorado Right to Life testified against this bill because we believed it would encourage kids to think they were “immune” to STDs, and therefore they could have free sex, and the resulting pregnancies would increase the number of abortions. The House sponsor of this bill was the Republican Minority Leader, Mike May (R-Parker). Rep. May was told we would oppose it, and was asked to drop the bill, and he refused. This bill did not make it out of committee in the House, partly because of CRTL lobbying.
SJR 07-031 Reproductive Health Programs – This NARAL-sponsored resolution (a non-binding statement urging compliance) encouraged state government to use its power to promote “family planning,” which naturally (to the sponsors) includes use of various abortifacients, as well as surgical abortion. Two GOP representatives and 4 GOP senators voted for it. The only one who is not typically identified as a pro-abortion Republican is Sen. Shawn Mitchell, who is a compromiser, but generally supports responsible pro-life positions. No idea why he voted the way he did.
SB 08-003 Gov’t Funding for Reproductive Health – This NARAL-sponsored legislation would allow low-income Coloradans to use taxpayer funds for “reproductive health” and “family planning” programs. Gov. Ritter signed this bill into law. Two GOP House members and 3 GOP senators voted for this bill.
SB 08-192 Residential Picketing – This bill was aimed directly at Colorado Right to Life and allied organizations (most particularly, the Collaborator’s Project). It was aimed to restrict the free speech rights of picketers who protest outside the homes of abortionists or executives whose companies are building abortion centers (like AuschWeitz, the nation’s largest killing center, which was built by Weitz Construction). Several “pro-life” legislators felt it was important to vote for this bill (it was written/sponsored by pro-abortion Sen. Steve Ward) because they don’t want to support “extremists” (those of us who want abortion to be in the public eye, and who want abortion promoters to understand exactly what they’re doing to little children). While most Republicans who voted for this legislation are known to be pro-abortion, the big surprises on the list of supporters were Sen. Andy McElhany (Sen. Minority Leader), Sen. Shawn Mitchell and Rep. Amy Stephens (formerly a public policy expert at Focus on the Family), who obviously felt their responsibility was to promote quiet neighborhoods, rather than to stop the killing of unborn children. Gov. Ritter signed this into law, which does not stop the picketing, but places significant restrictions upon it.
HJR 08-1009 UN Womens’ Rights Resolution – This resolution (non-binding support) recommended support for the United Nations’ definitions of “womens’ rights,” which specifically means the “right” to abortion, “controlling their own bodies (and those of their unborn children)” and “reproductive health care.” Three GOP representatives and one senator (Steve Ward again) voted for this.
There were other votes related to abortion during these two years, such as Sen. Schultheis’ SB 95, which was a compromised informed consent and ultrasound bill (watch an ultrasound, and then you can kill the baby). We know those legislators who voted for this bill were well-meaning, even though we attempted to educate them about what was wrong with the bill. This bill, in particular, is why we decided not to issue any endorsements of these legislators this year – because they still do not understand the Right to Life.
Sen. Renfroe, in 2007, also ran a bill that would have totally banned abortion. However, it never made it out of committee, and Sen. Renfroe and Sen. Mitchell were the only legislators who were able to vote for it.
We welcome any questions you might have with regard to legislators or the legislation!
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Welcome to New BlogWatchers!
As you receive your newsletters (the second to mention this blog resource), please take a look at the range of information we present here.
We'll soon be posting the Wilberforce article from the last newsletter here, so you can send or link it to friends who may be surprised to hear it!
The first round of Candidate Responses to the CRTL Candidate Questionnaire are located here". There are also some additional responses from some more courageous candidates who are on our side, but who didn't make the first round.
Just as useful (perhaps more so!) will be the Legislative Scorecard -- Colorado Right to Life's grading of the important life-related bills of the 2007 and 2008 sessions of the General Assembly (Colorado Senate and Colorado House), and how our legislators voted. Some surprising information there, including some "pro-lifers" who aren't as pro-life as they say (and not just because we disagree on strategy -- some "pro-lifers" supported pro-abortion bills)! That should be arriving on this blog within a week or two, so watch for it!
There are many other important posts here -- the blog archive on the right lists posts month by month -- including the $10,000 Challenge to NRTL, how GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams is opposing Personhood and preferring pro-aborts to pro-lifers, and lots of information about Personhood, such as Amendment 48 makes the ballot!
We would welcome comments or questions on any of these posts! Comments are un-moderated right now, to encourage people to ask questions. Ask hard questions if you have them -- that's what this is all about. We're confident of our position, and we have lots of practice explaining where we stand. If there are doubts, we'd love to address them!
We're also in process of archiving our old newsletters, so you can read them in an online archive! Watch for this in the next several days.
And remember we would like to have your e-mail address -- we may try sending e-newsletters or e-notices about important events, and it's just cheaper and easier (better use of your resources!) to communicate that way. That's also why the blog is here.
Lastly, remember that CRTL is busy with a wide range of educational (C3) and political (C4) efforts, all of which are running at top speed right now. We're definitely in need of financial help from our supporters. If you are at all able to contribute to the many major lifesaving efforts we have underway (Personhood, protesting Planned Parenthood, mailings, radio and tv ads to Planned Parenthood neighbors, DNC Convention protests,
Remember the Banquet is coming up -- two dates Sept. 19 in Colorado Springs at the exclusive El Paso Club, and Sept. 20 in Denver at the Renaissance Hotel! Will be a great experience all around!
Thanks for all your support! Please let us know if you can contribute to any of these missions!
We'll soon be posting the Wilberforce article from the last newsletter here, so you can send or link it to friends who may be surprised to hear it!
The first round of Candidate Responses to the CRTL Candidate Questionnaire are located here". There are also some additional responses from some more courageous candidates who are on our side, but who didn't make the first round.
Just as useful (perhaps more so!) will be the Legislative Scorecard -- Colorado Right to Life's grading of the important life-related bills of the 2007 and 2008 sessions of the General Assembly (Colorado Senate and Colorado House), and how our legislators voted. Some surprising information there, including some "pro-lifers" who aren't as pro-life as they say (and not just because we disagree on strategy -- some "pro-lifers" supported pro-abortion bills)! That should be arriving on this blog within a week or two, so watch for it!
There are many other important posts here -- the blog archive on the right lists posts month by month -- including the $10,000 Challenge to NRTL, how GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams is opposing Personhood and preferring pro-aborts to pro-lifers, and lots of information about Personhood, such as Amendment 48 makes the ballot!
We would welcome comments or questions on any of these posts! Comments are un-moderated right now, to encourage people to ask questions. Ask hard questions if you have them -- that's what this is all about. We're confident of our position, and we have lots of practice explaining where we stand. If there are doubts, we'd love to address them!
We're also in process of archiving our old newsletters, so you can read them in an online archive! Watch for this in the next several days.
And remember we would like to have your e-mail address -- we may try sending e-newsletters or e-notices about important events, and it's just cheaper and easier (better use of your resources!) to communicate that way. That's also why the blog is here.
Lastly, remember that CRTL is busy with a wide range of educational (C3) and political (C4) efforts, all of which are running at top speed right now. We're definitely in need of financial help from our supporters. If you are at all able to contribute to the many major lifesaving efforts we have underway (Personhood, protesting Planned Parenthood, mailings, radio and tv ads to Planned Parenthood neighbors, DNC Convention protests,
Remember the Banquet is coming up -- two dates Sept. 19 in Colorado Springs at the exclusive El Paso Club, and Sept. 20 in Denver at the Renaissance Hotel! Will be a great experience all around!
Thanks for all your support! Please let us know if you can contribute to any of these missions!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
$10,000 Challenge to National Right to Life
.
Press Release
$10,000 Cash Offered to Nat'l RTL
from American RTL to name 'one' pro-life justice
See this also at Yahoo Denver Post CovenantNews USA Today etc.
"American Right To Life is offering attorney James Bopp $10,000 for National RTL," said the group's president Brian Rohrbough, "if he can name a single justice on the current U.S. Supreme Court who has ever written, or joined in an opinion, that the unborn child has a right to life, whether in a majority ruling or a dissent."
"In 1981, after president Ronald Reagan agreed he would sign federal personhood legislation for the unborn, National Right to Life and their longtime attorney James Bopp actually opposed that effort claiming they supported a states' rights approach," says the group's site AmericanRTL.org. "A quarter century later notice that NRTL and Bopp have long opposed all state personhood efforts."
On May 13, Colorado pro-lifers turned in 131,000 signatures exceeding by 55,000 the number needed to force a statewide vote to acknowledge in law the personhood of the unborn child.
"National Right to Life has misled the pro-life community to think that this is the wrong time to advocate personhood because we need one more Justice on the Supreme Court to have a pro-life majority," said Rohrbough. "But if we added a Justice who would uphold the right to life of the unborn, then we would have only one such Justice. The failed long-term strategy of regulating the killing of a fetus has left America without a single Justice who knows that it's wrong to kill an unborn baby; National RTL's compromise will never produce a pro-life Supreme Court."
Even Dr. James Dobson, a supporter of the failed regulation strategy admits that: "Ending partial-birth abortion... does not save a single human life." And in an article about NRTL's failed PBA ban, Notre Dame Law School's professor emeritus Charles Rice said, "Every justice now on the court accepts the Roe holding that the unborn child is a non-person... The situation remains as described by Justice John Paul Stevens in Planned Parenthood v. Casey." For Stevens had written that "the Court... rejected, the argument ‘that the fetus is a "person"'. ... there was no dissent..." And Clarence Thomas wrote in his Stenberg dissent that "a State may permit abortion," and Antonin Scalia wrote in Casey, "The states may, if they wish, permit abortion-on-demand..."
"American Right to Life will give a $10,000 cash prize to National if their general counsel James Bopp can name even a single U.S. Supreme Court Justice who has ever written or joined in any ruling or dissent advocating the personhood of the unborn," said Steve Curtis, ARTL's vice president and former chairman of the Colorado Republican Party. "To make their strategy appear successful, National Right To Life has misled the pro-life movement into believing that abortion accomplices like Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Thomas and Scalia are pro-life."
In 2002 Scalia said, "I will... strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade. ... One wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they're both wrong..." In 2004 Scalia claimed, "Take the abortion issue... there's something to be said for both sides." And on April 9, 2008 Scalia said, "You want the right to abortion? Create it the way most rights are created in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea - and pass a law."
"National RTL claims success in Antonin Scalia but he is not pro-life; like all the Republicans on the Court, he is a legal positivist, which is a courtroom moral relativist," Rohrbough said. "Like their Dred Scott counterpart that ruled a black man could be owned as property, the current Republican Supreme Court is wicked and will only learn about the right to life of the unborn from the advancing personhood wing of the pro-life movement."
Contact:
National RTL can contact Donna Ballentine
1-888-888-ARTL (2785)
office@AmericanRTL.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
