Boiling over
I blogged May 25 and June 1 about the now public ideological dispute between pro-life purists and incrementalists thanks to a press release and newspaper ads placed by purists.
This is now making news, called the “most visible rift in the antiabortion movement in at least a decade,” by the Washington Post June 4, an “unexpected revolt” by the LA Times June 6, and an “erupted… internal debate” by the UPI today.
The surprising trigger was the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, which was expected to hurt the abortion movement but is now being framed by MSM to have damaged the pro-life movement. This is just silly. An internal spat outranks the first legal decision outlawing an abortion procedure ever? Please….
Purists do say the ban was really a “partial-birth abortion manual,” according to the Post, which merely detailed how to commit late term abortions legally. This is true, but to think the Supremes taught abortionists any dirty new tricks is naive.
Planned Parenthood’s spinning top, Cecile Richards, said the Supreme ruling caused a “serious bump” in giving, according to the Post, and noted, “Whenever your opponents squabble among themselves, it’s a good thing,” according to LAT.
Oh, I’m confident pro-aborts do their share of squabbling. They just know how to keep it quiet, honor among thieves and all.
As for the pro-life tiff, I’m ambivalent. I’ve written before on problems in both camps, although I’ve seen incrementalism work in the face of purist failures… which purists will say only happened due to incrementalism… sigh….
Perhaps a good mix-up will release tensions, clear the air.
Ultimately, the anger is due to the slow, uphill political and legal processes we have encountered to undo Roe v. Wade, compounded by church apathy, all of which has been indescribably frustrating.
Just gotta channel the anger properly.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“compounded by church apathy”
of course, it’s all over the place and Catholic leaders are the most guilty:
http://onelacatholic.blogspot.com/
U.S. Representative Loretta Sanchez, D-Garden Grove (100% rating-Naral), seems to have a comfortable working relationship with the Los Angeles archdiocese?s Office of Justice and Peace. For the past few weeks, the office?s e-mailed ‘Justice and Peace Newsblast’ has advertised an internship with Sanchez, well known for her pro-abortion politics.
“According to the ‘Newsblast,’ the ‘paid summer internship’ (at $9 an hour) would provide ‘great academic and professional opportunities for high school and college students.’?
Isn’t that cute? Hundreds of thousands of babies die in abortions in California every year, and this office of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles is cozy with one of abortion’s chief government backers. what a disgrace
“The signers of this open letter to Dr. James Dobson, including the largest international prolife ministry, Human Life International, and one of the most well-respected and largest national organizations, American Life League, grieve over this tragedy. Colorado Right To Life decries the many years of misleading fund-raising pleas, which falsely led pro-lifers to believe that the partial-birth abortion ban had the authority to stop the killing of at least some late-term babies. It has no such authority, and never did. Misled pro-lifers donated tens of millions of dollars to the pro-life industry under false pretenses. And now Gonzales v. Carhart instructs abortionists that they can legally continue to perform partial-birth abortions, simply by delivering a late-term baby halfway (to his bellybutton), and then killing him by various methods including by causing “the fetus to tear apart.” ” 5/30/07 CRTL press release
Leslie, to maintain the Supremes taught abortionists a new dirty trick is naive. To insinuate incremental pro-lifers mislead to garner money is offensive. (I still love you, though… :)
You said in another post you would support some forms of incrementalism and asked for an example. You agreed with this supposition: “No baby shall be killed / aborted after the second trimester by any means or it shall be considered 1st degree murder.”
But according to purist rules, this would not work either, because to exclude first trimester babies from this law would be to condone first trimester abortions, in your view.
What else can you say about a strategy that took sincere pro-lifers $$ by the millions knowing that the abortionists
would just find more diabolic ways to keep killing late term
babies?
Making abortionists who perform 3rd trimester abortions guilty of 1st degree murder may make 1st and 2nd trimester abortions seem more palitable.
So how about parental consent or notice for any medical procedure a minor child undergoes, not mentioning
abortion?
Jill, is it still legal in the United States to partially deliver a baby feet first and then kill it?
I depends how far out the abortionist pulls the legs before killing the baby.
How about all the way to the umbilical cord?
Unbelievably, Tom Minnery admitted to Bob Enyart and 3 Elders of Denver Bible Church in a meeting at Focus on the Family two years ago, that the PBA ban had no authority to save even one baby.
That is what is offensive!
Celebrating a ruling when in his heart of hearts, he knows
no baby is protected.
Leslie, 1:02p, said: “Making abortionists who perform 3rd trimester abortions guilty of 1st degree murder may make 1st and 2nd trimester abortions seem more palitable.”
Leslie, what do you mean? Are you now disagreeing with a statement you agreed with a few days ago?
As for your relaying of the Tom Minnery comment, that was relaying heresay, Leslie, third-party Chinese telephone. That is wrong. I read this Minnery column yesterday and thought it made much sense:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56048
Will, yes, an abortionist can still kill a baby legally if done before the baby is delivered to the umbilicus if breech.
Apologies for the duplicate post.
Then there is this telling comment from Chuck
Donovan, Executive VP of Family Research Council:
“But,” he added, “there are certainly a fair number of people, including in our own building, who think the [Supreme Court] decision’s practical importance has been overrated — that, practically, there may not be even one fewer abortion in the country as a result.”
Not hearsay. Yes, I’m conceding your point.
Charles Rice apparently has a book on incremental laws
which don’t violate, “thou shall not murder.”
If anyone is still reading this post, I just wanted to say that I think this argument that pro-lifers have been using the ban against PBA actually saving lives as a fund-raising source in the last 10+ years is not absolutely true.
I have been involved in creating fundraising letters for several years now and cannot remember a time when any of our letters were totally dedicated to the ban on PBA. We may have mentioned in from time to time but only in the context of restricting previously unrestricted abortion procedures, significant because this is the first one on the federal level.
Most local pro-life groups are dealing with Rachel and Gabriel programs or chastity talks in the schools or other programs.
What you may be referring to is Right to Life groups who focus on public policy and legislation, but most pro-life groups and pregnancy resource centers do not.
If this is the case then you need to clearly point out who you are talking about instead of sweeping the entire pro-life movement into one bag. It is insulting and demeaning to do so and what’s more, I find the ignorance of your arguments to be astounding.
The so-called “purist” position actually ensures that abortion continues because of the lack of effort to support legislation that is proven to lower abortion rates because it is not deemed “perfect”. I am thankful that only a small percentage of pro-lifers subscribe to this mentality.
Jill said, “Will, yes, an abortionist can still kill a baby legally if done before the baby is delivered to the umbilicus if breech.”
Thanks for admitting that. Not many pro-lifers do these days. So basically, it’s still legal to partially deliver a baby and kill it. That would be called a “partial-birth abortion.” Jill, I’m not sure why you think this is an incrementalist debate. It’s not. Overturning Roe, or even ending abortion completely in the US is incrementalism in itself. Abortion would still be legal in Canada and Mexico, and the rest of the world. If it’s still legal to partially deliver a baby and kill it, what incremental progress do you think we made?
Will, you act like you got me to admit something others will not, which is false. There has been a limit applied to abortion. If you want to get technical, you can call what passed a “half-born partial birth abortion ban” or a “head-delivered partial birth abortion ban” as opposed to a “40%-born partial birth abortion ban.”
Thanks for your response. I don’t think we need to come up with any fancy terms. A baby partially delivered to the umbilical cord and then killed, is a partial birth abortion. That’s clear. I’m still hoping for an answer to my question. If it’s still legal to partially deliver a baby and kill it, what incremental progress do you think we made?
Will, the law now says the abortion industry cannot kill babies 50%+ delivered, or 25%+ delivered, depending on the delivery position. You prefer this weren’t so?
Jill said, “Will, the law now says the abortion industry cannot kill babies 50%+ delivered, or 25%+ delivered, depending on the delivery position. You prefer this weren’t so?”
Jill, I’m hurt by you. Of course I would prefer this weren’t so! Have we all but forgotten about the babies?! What’s more painful to the babies, Jill? A D&E where the babies arms and legs are ripped off, or a D&X where a quick stab to the back of the head kills the baby? Obviously the former. I can’t believe you prefer the baby to feel more pain, so the pro-life movement can rejoice over something, that according to James Dobson, “does not save a single human life.” The pro-life movement has officially reached an all-time low.