I mentioned yesterday I had been inundated with responses to my column Thursday, most in agreement or close to it but some hostile. I wrote I would try to address the haters today.
abortion ban no.jpgI still may do that, although I know they just want to spew, not dialogue. Or I may just post some of their emails to give glimpses into their souls.
But my mind since Thursday has been on one particular email from a “no exceptions” pro-lifer that has made me very sad, broke my heart actually, particularly since I count this person as a friend….


Purists believe any pro-life law with exceptions such as for rape and incest means, “and then you can kill certain babies.” They believe any regulation giving aborting mothers pause before aborting to change their minds, like parental notification or women’s right-to-know, is a form of permission.
Arguments against saving babies when we can are not theory to me. I’d like my friend to hold his new baby and tell me her particular life wouldn’t have been worth saving in lieu of advancing pro-life perfectionism.
Nevertheless, that is the backdrop for a public email my purist friend wrote Thursday. I’ll leave off his name and names he pointed fingers at, and I’ll only post excerpts on the first page with comment. You can read the entire email below. The email began:

The truth of the Republican Party and all its ‘pro-life with exceptions’ members is finally exposed. President George W. Bush is not pro-life. He felt the need to publicly come out against the South Dakota abortion ban in 2006, because it did not contain his “exceptions.” (Interpretation: Bush – “If I cannot kill these few babies, I’d rather keep it legal to kill them all.”)

My friend, his friends, and a couple pro-life organizations joined with pro-abortion organizations to oppose the 2008 SD abortion ban. Pro-life purists opposed it because it contained exceptions for rape and incest that were omitted from the 2006 ban that failed. (Repeat: Pro-lifers tried to pass a perfect ban and it failed.) The exceptions were very tightly worded, forcing abortionists to retrieve the dna of the aborted baby’s father, for instance.
SD has perhaps the strictest abortion laws in the country. In 1974 there were 1601 abortions among a population of 665,507. In 2006 the number had dropped by more than half to 748 abortions among a population of 754,844. Some of those abortions were from out-of-staters, so this isn’t an exact comparison, but it provides reference points. In a country where abortion is completely legal throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, abortion restrictions decrease the number of babies who are aborted.
If a high of 1% of all 2006 SD abortions were for rape and incest – 75 – the ban in place that year would have rescued 673 babies from abortion, real babies who would be 2 years old this year.
I would apply my friend’s interpretation of President Bush to him: “Interpretation: Purist – ‘If I cannot save these few babies, I’d rather keep it legal to kill them all.'”
Moving on…

South Dakota’s ‘pro-life with exceptions’ Republican voters said in 2006 that they voted “No” because the ban did not contain their “exceptions.” These Republicans are not pro-life. South Dakota gave their Republican voters exactly what they wanted. They did not care. They didn’t even vote for it. The measure failed by more votes than the first ban without exceptions. (Interpretation: “Pro-life with exceptions” is just a Republican Party line.) When push comes to shove, these supposed ‘pro-lifers’ are not pro-life at all. They say they have exceptions to wiggle out of supporting a statewide Personhood amendment (Colorado 2008) or a statewide abortion ban (South Dakota 2006). When given what they want, like their exceptions, they are nowhere to be found. THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE BABIES.

My friend wants it both ways. As I said, some pro-lifers and organizations actively opposed the SD ban, sadly even providing quotes in the same newspaper articles as pro-aborts taking the same position. So the ban lost in part thanks to their efforts dissuading pro-lifers from voting for it. Thus, to argue the ban’s failure shows “THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE BABIES” is an indictment against oneself if one opposed the ban.
Finally, the paragraph that broke my heart:

The bad news is Obama won. The good news is McCain lost. The bad news is that the Personhood amendment failed. The good news is that the South Dakota abortion “ban” failed. The bad news is that Michigan voted to allow stem cell research. The good news is that California’s parental notification law failed. The bad news is that Washington voted to allow doctor-assisted suicide. The good news is that more and more pro-lifers are unwilling to waiver on their pro-life stance. Amen!

I’ve deleted my thoughts on that last paragraph 3x. Nevermind.
Moderators, please delete comments disparaging any organization or person by name.
[Photo of pro-abortion opponents claiming victory in the defeat of Initiative 11, SD’s abortion ban, courtesy of AmericanProgress.org]
Unexcerpted email from pro-lifer without exceptions:
The truth of the Republican Party and all its ‘pro-life with exceptions’ members is finally exposed. President George W. Bush is not pro-life. He felt the need to publicly come out against the South Dakota abortion ban in 2006, because it did not contain his “exceptions.” (Interpretation: Bush – “If I cannot kill these few babies, I’d rather keep it legal to kill them all.”) South Dakota gave President Bush what he said he wanted. He did not care. He did not support it, he did not endorse it. He doesn’t care because he is not pro-life. South Dakota’s ‘pro-life with exceptions’ Republican voters said in 2006 that they voted “No” because the ban did not contain their “exceptions.” These Republicans are not pro-life. South Dakota gave their Republican voters exactly what they wanted. They did not care. They didn’t even vote for it. The measure failed by more votes than the first ban without exceptions. (Interpretation: “Pro-life with exceptions” is just a Republican Party line.) When push comes to shove, these supposed ‘pro-lifers’ are not pro-life at all. They say they have exceptions to wiggle out of supporting a statewide Personhood amendment (Colorado 2008) or a statewide abortion ban (South Dakota 2006). When given what they want, like their exceptions, they are nowhere to be found. THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE BABIES.
[Name deleted], [name deleted], and the rest of the Republican Party ‘pro-life with exceptions’ cheerleaders are hindering our progress in this country. We need to stop referring to them as ‘pro-life with exceptions’ because they’re not pro-life at all. They’re ‘pro-choice with exceptions.’ The proof is right before your eyes. Just look at President Bush and look at the results of the South Dakota initiative on Tuesday. They are pro-choice, they do not care about one innocent child and are not worthy of our support. If pro-lifers continue to support these pro-choice Republicans, we will continue to fail. MoveOn.org’s strategy is to never compromise and they succeeded. They got the most radical left pro-abortion candidate ever in Barack Obama. Only when the pro-life movement and Christians across this country take the same stand, will we make progress to end this holocaust. Only then.
To be pro-life means only thing: That you believe an unborn child is a person. That’s it. If you don’t believe a black man is a person, you are evil. If you don’t believe a Jew is a person,you are evil. If you do not believe that an unborn child is a person, you are not pro-life. [Name deleted] and [name deleted] will not convince me otherwise. If you do not believe an unborn child is a person, you are not pro-life.
The bad news is Obama won. The good news is McCain lost. The bad news is that the Personhood amendment failed. The good news is that the South Dakota abortion “ban” failed. The bad news is that Michigan voted to allow stem cell research. The good news is that California’s parental notification law failed. The bad news is that Washington voted to allow doctor-assisted suicide. The good news is that more and more pro-lifers are unwilling to waiver on their pro-life stance. Amen!