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.

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)

Strict Constructionist Judges: A Good Thing for Christians?

I know it's been a Republican Party mantra for years, and I also know that Christians have adopted most Republican mantras as their own. But should Christians really be pushing for "strict constructionist" judges?

Consider this: If the law is corrupt, and a judge follows that law, then that judge is also corrupt.

Then consider this: The Nazi judges tried at Nuremburg in 1945 were strict constructionist judges. They said, in their defense, "I was just following the law" when I ordered that Jew put to death for hoarding eggs. Or, "I was just following the law" when I ordered that Nazi released for killing his neighbor.

In a moral court system -- in God's system of justice -- following the law, absent of moral considerations, is NO defense!

Strict constructionism, the way it's interpreted today, and the way it's applied today, is amoral. If the law says to kill Jews, then that's what these judges would do!

Besides, strict constructionism hasn't gotten Christians anything. Roe v. Wade, to be certain, was created by "activist judges" who should never have interpreted the law the way they did. A strict constructionist wouldn't have made that mistake. But a strict constructionist wouldn't have refused to sign Roe v. Wade on moral grounds. He would have refused to sign it because there IS no "right to privacy", nor any "right to abortion."

On the other hand, a moral justice would have refused to sign Dred Scott, returning a slave to his master. A strict constructionist, depending on how he read the Constitution, might very well have used the "strict construction" of the US Constitution to find a defense of slavery (which did exist, in the letter of the law). Never mind that a moral justice would have pointed out protections for life and liberty also.

Remember American Right to Life's (unclaimed) $10,000 Challenge to National Right to Life! There ARE no pro-life justices on today's US Supreme Court. None of them believes in a right to life. The most "conservative" justice, Antonin Scalia, has said on the record that the right to life is just for "'walking around' people."

Strict constructionist judges are amoral. We might as well have a computer in that office. In fact, a computer would probably decide morally more often than our justices on the US Supreme Court do -- just by random chance!

There was a time, in American jurisprudence, when a judge felt a higher calling to God's moral authority than he did to the actual letter of the law. If a law violated the "natural law" of God, it was appropriate for a justice to abrogate that law, and rule it invalid, because it violated God's natural law.

The Ten Commandments was once part of the law, which justices would use to decide cases. Yes, the Founders intended for judges to follow the letter and spirit of the law as written, but God's moral law, through the Ten Commandments, and the Bible, was PART of that written law!

What Christians should really want to see on the Court is Christian judges -- judges who believe in the Right to Life. Judges who believe in moral absolutes, and in the Ten Commandments.

We need judges who fear God, and who fear His wrath if they disobey God's laws.

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

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"?

Mike Coffman (candidate for congress) Clarification

Last week, while appearing on the Caplis & Silverman radio show (630 KHOW, Denver), Congressional candidate Mike Coffman was heard to say that he did not oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest. This sent CRTL and many other pro-lifers into a tizzy, because it went against what Mike had pledged in his Candidate Survey, as well as what we all thought we knew about Mike's beliefs.

When contacted about this, Mike immediately expressed surprise that he'd said any such thing. He thinks he may have gotten confused and said the opposite of what he meant. While with many candidates, we might suspect evasion, this didn't seem to be the case with Mike. He has written to attempt to clarify with Dan Caplis, so no one will misunderstand. Here is his note (copied to CRTL):

Dan,

First of all, thanks so much for your help with my campaign and for inviting me on your show. During the debate, Craig Silverman was questioning me on the issue of abortion. My response was focused on arguing that Roe v Wade was bad law. During that exchange, Craig asked me about the issue of rape and incest. Apparently, my answer came across as supporting abortions under a rape and incest exception. I absolutely do not believe in that.

Dan, I would deeply appreciate it if, during your show, you could state that I wanted to make sure that my position was clear, unequivocally, that I oppose abortion in all cases of rape and incest. I believe that all life is equally sacred irregardless of how it came into being.

Thanks again,

Mike Coffman

It takes a big man to admit such a mistake. And Mike Coffman's strong relationship with the pro-life community over many years is obviously important enough to him that he wanted to make this correction/clarification despite the fact that he surely has Colorado's 6th District race locked up and will almost certainly be one of Colorado's newly elected Congressmen in 2009.

This is great news for unborn children!

Presidential Scorecard & Schaffer vs. Udall

CRTL has examined the records and public platforms of all the candidates for US President on the ballot in Colorado (many of whom are on the ballot elsewhere also).

What we found should not shock most followers of CRTL or this blog, but it might shock alot of Republicans and the general pro-life community. Most candidates, of course, are NOT pro-life.

What's most shocking, is that even most of the candidates who CLAIM to be pro-life actually reject the God-given Right to Life.

We found 3 candidates on the ballot in Colorado who are truly pro-life (who believe we have a right to life, not just a privilege to be granted or revoked by the government): Ambassador Alan Keyes (who has been central to the Personhood movement, and who is a good friend of Colorado Right to Life -- his running mate nationally is Brian Rohrbough, former CRTL president), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), and Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party).

(click on image to get a clearer, close-up image)


John McCain is not pro-life (see ARTL Action for evidence). What's more, many of the candidates who claim to be pro-life are not pro-life. Libertarian Bob Barr was long respected as a pro-life congressman, but he believes some states should kill kids, just not others. Like the Libertarians, the Tea Party candidate supports abortion, and the Objectivist Party relishes in abortion -- all three "fiscally conservative" parties who reject a Right to Life. The Heartquake candidate runs as a pro-lifer, but believes abortion is appropriate if the mother is not "emotionally mature." Mr. McEnulty is associated with the Knights of Columbus, yet believes abortion is appropriate for victims of rape or incest (NOT the Catholic or KoC position).

Sen. John McCain is a liar when he says he's been "consistently pro-life" -- he has a long record of support for exceptions for rape and incest, a long record of middle-road avoidance of strong pro-life positions, a long record of contempt for Christians, and a long record of support for Mengele-style experiments on the smallest human beings (embryonic stem cell research), not to mention forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and embryo destruction. John McCain was considered the moderate, "pro-choice" alternative to George W. Bush in the 2000 GOP primary -- a label he embraced!

Sen. McCain regularly earned only 50% or 66% or 75% scores, even on the National Right to Life scorecards, which would always attempt to give every Republican 100% ratings so they would be easier to get elected.

The fact that McCain said at the Saddleback (Rick Warren) debate that he believes "life begins at conception" only makes things worse for him. First, it's probably a lie. Worse, if he's not lying, then it means that McCain believes that innocent human beings should be cultivated for harvest, and slaughtered for the benefit of the elites of the world!

You will be told that you should vote for McCain because "he will appoint pro-life judges" to the Supreme Court. But that's a lie, too. McCain has said he will appoint justices like Bush appointees Alito and Roberts, both of whom chose to support Roe v. Wade in the Gonzales vs. Carhart decision, by refusing to sign the Scalia/Thomas concurring opinion which said Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. With McCain's maverick reputation, he can be counted on to appoint justices who are LESS pro-life than those Bush appointed (who were bad enough as it is).

If you believe CRTL is going too far with this charge of pro-abortion appointees by McCain, Bush or any Republicans, remember the $10,000 Challenge to National Right to Life, which has gone unclaimed so far (and will go unclaimed forever, unless good pro-life conservatives refuse to vote for people who don't believe in the Right to Life!). There are currently zero judges on the Supreme Court who believe an unborn child has a Right to Life.



What this means is that we must start from scratch, and quit relying upon the Republican Party to carry water for the pro-life movement -- they've been carrying empty buckets for years!

As an illustration...

Colorado's Senate Race -- Schaffer vs. Udall vs. Campbell


Former Congressman Bob Schaffer was once considered one of the most conservative, most pro-life representatives in Washington. He was one of the few legislators who would dare claim, in the '90s, that human life began at conception, and should be protected from that point on.

A perfect candidate for supporting Personhood (Amendment 48) wouldn't you think? Think again...

(click on image to get a clearer, close-up image)


Bob Schaffer is running as a "centrist" this year (his words), and has hired a campaign manager (Dick Wadhams) who hates Christians and any Christian moral positions (yet still considers himself a Catholic). Wadhams has said that GOP candidates should "avoid social issues" in the 2008 race, and has called supporters of Personhood "the fringe of the pro-life movement". He prohibited pro-life groups from having any tables at the 2008 GOP State Convention, and yet welcomed not one but two tables from pro-abortion groups opposed to Personhood.

Schaffer has refused to endorse Amendment 48 (Personhood), and has also refused to support Sen. Wicker's S.3111 Personhood bill, which Schaffer would be asked to support if he were elected.

Bob Schaffer will not be elected. He's lied his way into oblivion by alienating the conservative base which once thought he walked on water. Partly, that's Wadhams' fault, but the responsibility ultimately lay with Bob Schaffer, who hired Wadhams and who has himself turned his back on Christians, Catholics and everybody who once held out hope for him to be a conservative voice in Washington.

Pro-lifers who care about supporting the God-given Right to Life, rather than lip service or government regulation of the privilege to life should vote not for McCain, but for Alan Keyes. If you don't like Alan Keyes, then Chuck Baldwin is another good alternative.

Pro-lifers who care about the God-given Right to Life should support Doug "Dayhorse" Campbell, the Constitution Party candidate, rather than turncoat Bob Schaffer.

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!