Thoughts on National Right to Life severing ties with GA Right to Life
On March 29 the National Right to Life Committee announced it was disaffiliating Georgia Right to Life.
In the same statement NRLC announced it was credentialing a new state pro-life organization, Georgia Life Alliance.
Read NRLC’s press release here, but its rationale for severing ties with GRTL boiled down to insubordination: GRTL had publicly attempted to thwart two pieces of NRLC’s “top-priority federation legislation,” the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act last year, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act this year.
In its statement, NRLC subtly responded to GRTL’s reason for defying its parent organization, which was that GRTL opposed the rape/incest exceptions in the aforementioned bills:
NRLC and its affiliates seek to restore legal protection for all unborn children from the moment of their conception. Until the Supreme Court allows broad protections for unborn children, we work to protect as many children as possible by passing the strongest possible laws at the state and federal level. That legislative strategy has helped save millions of lives – and continues to save lives today.
Likewise, in its response, GRTL subtly explained its reason for defying NRLC:
In 2000, GRTL changed its candidate endorsement criteria and legislation policy to ensure that all pre-born children are protected, except in cases where the life of the mother is threatened.
As a result, Georgia is the only state where all its statewide constitutional officers do not support rape or incest exceptions. Georgia is one of only two states that have kept exceptions out of their legal codes….
GRTL PAC has an 89% success rate in helping to elect candidates who are truly pro-life and do not support rape and incest exceptions.
LifeSiteNews.com spelled out the disagreement:
The national pro-life group decided Saturday to affiliate instead with [GLA], a new group that says it aims to protect all unborn children, but will support legislation that includes the exceptions as an incremental strategy. GRTL has opposed exceptions – except for the “life of the mother,” provided that the health care provider tries to save both lives – since 2000.
The GRTL/NRLC split is symptomatic of an ongoing battle within the pro-life movement between those who think certain incremental legislation is immoral and those who think either the all-or-nothing personhood/immediatist approach, or more sweeping legislation (such as a 12-week abortion ban), is imprudent.
Some on Facebook have taken my use of the term of “insubordination” as a judgment call in favor of NRLC. It isn’t. I, myself, was fired for “insubordination,” as it was written on my termination letter, for publicly opposing my hospital’s pro-abortion policy. Firing is what organizations do when subordinates are… insubordinate.
I saw this picture and caption yesterday and thought it provided a good example of what I’m talking about. In this case General MacArthur publicly stated he wanted to expand the Korean War into China, which President Truman opposed….
I’ve heard versions of what went down between NRLC and GRTL from well-placed sources within both camps. And I think both sides are responsible for some rights and some wrongs, as is usually the case. If I thought one group was clearly in the wrong, I’d say so.
I’m generally for doing anything to move the ball forward, so I’m usually happy to see personhood/immediatist endeavors as well as incremental endeavors. Then again, I’m no strategist.
What I don’t like is when either camp undermines the other camps’s efforts, of which both camps are guilty.
And I don’t like when personhood/immediatist pro-lifers attack incrementalist attempts as immoral or not pro-life.
I agree with Ryan Bomberger (pictured right), the adopted biracial pro-lifer who is the product of rape. Ryan wrote in an email (which he gave me permission to post):
I was born as a result of rape and am often expected to solely advocate “no-exceptions” policies. I do believe in Personhood as a concept. But just as with slavery, the 13th Amendment didn’t materialize out of thin air. It was a long exhausting haul of political failure and seemingly impossible triumphs.
I long for the day when abortion is unthinkable. But we have to perform massive “heart” surgery for millions out there including many in our own camp along the way.
I’m a passionate abolitionist… an incrementalist… a realist. I cheer when 20 week abortion bans stand up to judicial scrutiny. I applaud when Pain-Capable bills pass. As a parent I rejoice when parental notification and consent laws ensure the State doesn’t meddle in our children’s personal lives. I tear up when I see mobile ultrasound units uninhibited by bogus zoning restrictions as they provide services where they’re needed most. Some victories are bigger than others, but none are too small in this monumental battle.
I admire different approaches. As a creative professional, I firmly believe that one-size-never-fits-all…. We can be unified yet still diversified.
I support GRTL/Personhood USA’s efforts to establish the legality of personhood at conception. But GRTL was just as wrong – according to its own “no exceptions” standard – to oppose a 20-week federal ban with a rape/incest exception as it was to support a state 20-week ban with no rape/incest exception – but which excepted all babies under 20 weeks.
Here is GRTL’s rationalization, which is instructive to read, taken from page 33 of Pillars of Personhood Educational Handbook. Click to enlarge:
IMO, the above is Pharisaic blather to rationalize GRTL’s support of a 20-wk ban with no exceptions, etc.
GRTL’s analogy…
Passing laws that discriminate against such classes with the intent to “come back and save them later” is essentially the same as running into a burning building and saving who you can but then shooting those you can’t on your way out.
… is false. All abortion-bound babies will “burn” if not saved by incremental laws. Pro-lifers don’t shoot the ones they are unable to save. These babies are going to die anyway.
Likewise, to support a 20-week ban that laudably excludes a rape/incest exception is still to “shoot” all babies under 20 weeks left in the burning building. And to support a ban on taxpayer funded abortion is still to “shoot” all babies aborted with personal funds. Even to ban any and all abortions in Georgia is still to “shoot” babies burning in 49 other states.
How can GRTL not see its own hypocrisy? It’s quite frustrating. Mirroring it own principles back at it shows it, too, is guilty of classism (prejudice against preborn babies whose mothers have money), geographical prejudice, and ageism.
That the very nature of abortion is ageism is something I’m reminded of every day, because I carry these drop cards by Created Equal in my wallet to leave in public places…
My final thought is that NRLC’s disaffiliation of GRTL has lit a long smoldering spark into a fire. It will be seen as a tipping point. I have no evidence, only a strong sense, that other NRLC disenfranchised affiliates like Cleveland Right to Life and Colorado Right to Life (which birthed American Right to Life), together with Personhood USA, whose National Field Director is Dan Becker (pictured right), the president of GRTL, and another group or two I can think of, will coalesce into a new national pro-life organization to rival NRLC.
I don’t fear or abhor this potentiality. Although unity is preferred, God uses adversity to advance the message as well. My only concern is whether this development will hinder or help everyone’s goal to stop abortion.
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.
“Insubordinate” sounds a lot nicer than “irrational”, the term I would use. Excellent post.
How sad that with a Republican controlled House of Representatives, that a bill protecting children from 20 weeks and on, could not be passed with a rap and incest exception. Now, all those moderate Republicans have NRLC 100 % voting record to go out and get reelected.
Why was this bill not used to expose the moderates and get them replaced? Everyone agreed it was a message bill (the President was not going to sign it, the Senate was not going to take it up), so why did NRLC want to send the wrong message?
Good post, Jill. Quite a bit more balanced than I could be, and I respect that. I think NRLC should also find a new affiliate in Ohio. http://www.lisagraas.com/2014/04/02/whats-going-on-with-ohio-right-to-life-and-libertarians-and-everyone-else-aligning-with-freedomworks/
While I appreciate Jill’s focus on the “all or nothing” strawman that is always raised at times like this . . . the controversy now that we are out of NRLC, was over how a national legislative action could undermine a successful state policy.
There has been a growing consensus among leaders in the movement that “states have done a better job at political and legislative advances than have their national counterparts.” In fact, the reason I was told NRLC added “rape and incest” was to “expand the [moderate] Republican base” so that they could go home with a “P” beside their name. The only problem with this approach from a political action stand point is that it “cements” moderate RINO’s and squishy Dems and gives them a weapon to use on more prolife conservative challengers. This was our main objection to the Pain Capable Ban. It was a message bill that would allow moderates to stay in power.
How can we ever hope to advance legislatively until we advance our political gains.
Jill can you honestly show your readrs a PATH that would lead to actual passage of this bill? There was NO path to passage because the President vowed to veto it and we haven’t got the votes in the Senate to override his veto.
IT WAS A MESSAGE BILL . . . and our national leadrship sent the wrtong message for the 2014 primary season.
Hi Dan,
That’s not what your press statement said: http://www.grtl.org/?q=fetal-pain-bill-hijacked
Your press statement indicated you opposed the federal ban specifically because a rape/incest exception was added.
I’ve also now been informed that an exception was added to the GA 20 wk ban:
(c) (1) No abortion is authorized or shall be performed if the probable gestational age of the unborn child has been determined in accordance with Code Section 31-9B-2 to be 20 weeks or more unless the pregnancy is diagnosed as medically futile . . “Medically futile” means that, in reasonable medical judgment, the unborn child has a profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth.
True?
Thanks.
If it has an exception for rape, then Democrats that vote against it won’t be able to cry “but it didn’t have a rape exception!” when they’re asked to explain to their constituents why they stood against protecting pain-capable unborn children.
Cry me a river for NRLC or any group that is ‘disassociating’ with another pro-life group. People should vote their conscience whether someone else likes it or not. The way to win is through dialogue about the positions you hold.
Here’s the problem with rape and incest exceptions: they make abortion continue to be legal on all children in practice. Consider: the woman wanting an abortion lies and says it is due to incest. Are there any consequences to her lying? None. Just check this box saying it was rape or incest, and you can proceed. How many babies are saved through rape and incest exceptions? Zero, because the woman, the clinic, and the abortionist can and will lie each and every time. If they are killing, why would they ever tell the truth?
Every lukewarm person wants the rape and incest exception because in truth, it makes all abortions legal, not just ones due to rape and incest. Furthermore, circumstances of conception do not define personhood.
National Right to Life was wrong on this, and the Georgia Life Alliance is not truly pro-life. Read more about GLA’s dubious positions on Lifesitenews.com .
I’ve been noticing recently that laws that are meant to limit and regulate abortion, laws that used to be called “incremental,” are now being called, by some people, “laws that create exceptions.” I’m not sure why. Maybe it has been done as a tactic to win debates. I think there is a big difference between an “incremental” law and a law with “exceptions,” but, for a minute, let’s agree that all laws short of a complete abortion ban create exceptions. Adding a rape/incest exception to such a law now creates another exception within the original exception. Without an exception, even though they are valuable as an incremental strategy, most of these laws have limited effectiveness and are difficult to enforce. When you add a rape exception, you suddenly have a self-negating law, a law with a loophole big enough to drive a medical waste truck through it. The most effective laws recently have been those that close the clinics or disqualify abortionists from practicing. Would you add a rape exception to those laws? Would it make sense to require that an abortionist must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, except for abortions she performs on rape conceived children?
This is what happens when you add the rape exception to a 20 week abortion ban law. Yes, Roe v. Wade devalued all preborn life and threw all unwanted children under the bus. The 20 week ban rescues those unwanted babies that have survived past 20 weeks. The rape exception now takes the rape conceived babies from that saved group and throws them back under the bus.
I stand with GRTL. Abortion will not end as long as the rape exception exists. We must stop giving these half-baked pro-life legislators that insist on exceptions a 100% pro-life rating. Compounding the problem is hearing media personalities, Beck and Hannity for instance, tell their huge audiences that having a rape exception is still a pro-life position. Remember when Hannity called the rape conceived, which includes me, “an evil seed?” NRTL also tells the world that you are still pro-life if you allow rape conceived children to be aborted.
What gives? When someone advocates for clean laws or Personhood, they are called purists. When someone who does not accept the rape exception supports incremental bills, they are called hypocrites.
FYI – please support this new Conceived In Rape documentary by sharing it far and wide. Here is the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzzazuO8my4
Please visit the Conceived In Rape channel on YouTube or ConceivedInRape.com for the full video and extended individual stories.
We in Personhood oppose COMPROMISED incrementalism. If a law would be unconstitutional under a Personhood amendment, we don’t support it. If a law would be constitutional under a Personhood amendment, we do support it.
It’s that simple.
Certain incremental laws — a parental consent law with no rape exception; a 20-week ban with no fetal anomaly exception; an ultrasound bill with no rape exception; etc. — would NOT need to be struck down under a constitutional Personhood Amendment. They would be REDUNDANT laws, but would not contradict the sanctity of life view of Personhood.
All pro-life law making efforts are incremental by their very nature. Even a law that would ban all abortion with no exceptions is incremental. Such a law might not speak to bioengineering, cloning, IVF, end-of-life issues, etc. Nearly all of us would support such a law. So we are all incrementalist in supporting individual laws. However, only a Personhood Amendment can deal with the dignity and sanctity of all human life in all cases.
The problem with a pro-life law that has exceptions is that it is in reality a law that is for SOME abortion rights. As soon as we pass Personhood amendments at the state and federal level, these compromised “pro-life” laws will be unconstitutional because they allow abortion. In the meantime, they undermine the end goal by teaching that there is a class of human life we may kill with impunity. We are not wrong in opposing those compromised laws because not only are they immoral, but they also create legal loopholes that can expand abortion rights to all 9 months of pregnancy — as long as the conditions of the “exceptions” are met.
I hope this helps. I see too many who do NOT understand the view of Personhood USA, Personhood Florida and the many state affiliates to come. We are a new movement and we have to do a better job of explaining that we are not against incrementalism. We are against COMPROMISE. It would be helpful to have you articulate our view. Dan Becker is available to explain it fully if that would help.
Now Jay, I’m not accusing you of this at all, but I’ve been told essentially I am going to hell because I would support some of the “redundant” laws you mentioned. I hope there has been a shift and I welcome it, but Personhood supporters in the past would say parental consent laws are laws that say as long you can get parental consent, it’s OK to kill the baby, and oppose them as such. Ditto late-term bans (as long as it’s before 20 weeks, it’s OK to kill the baby), ultrasound laws, partial-birth abortion bans, everything except a Personhood amendment. I couldn’t even convince a vocal Personhood supporter that our state’s ban on Medicaid abortions, which has saved tens and tens of thousands of actual lives, is legitimate legislation worth pushing (should have done Personhood instead of it I was told). I realize you are not American RTL, but in the past they have been very vocal about Personhood and their website still reflects past arguments I have heard: http://americanrtl.org/strategy.
“We in Personhood oppose COMPROMISED incrementalism. If a law would be unconstitutional under a Personhood amendment, we don’t support it. If a law would be constitutional under a Personhood amendment, we do support it. It’s that simple.”
Mr. Rogers I am struggling with how you ascertain whether a law may or may not be constitutional given your focus? Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse?
Jill,
Here’s the difference. A late term ban doesn’t say it’s okay to kill the baby before 20 weeks. It just states that abortion after 20 weeks is illegal. It is not even implicit in the law that child killing under any circumstance is allowed.
However, the Texas law banning abortion after 20 weeks was compromised because it EXPLICITY said it was okay to perform an abortion on a “baby” with a fetal anomaly. (Note that the language even says the abortion is performed on the “baby,” not the woman!) There was absolutely no reason to have a fetal anomaly exception in that law. It could have passed without that. Making an exception undermines the idea that babies are Persons in the eyes of God and under the law.
On the abortion issue, we have to take the time to get it right before rushing to support every measure just because we think it might save lives. Every pro-life political activist believes that what THEY are doing is the main cause of our very limited success. But I don’t believe it can be proven that a single pro-life law has saved a single life.
ate-term bans (as long as it’s before 20 weeks, it’s OK to kill the baby
I am led to believe you don’t understand the Personhood paradigm from what you wrote above. We are in favor of incremental laws, but we are opposed to encoding into the letter of the state laws when we may murder a human being.
Humanists make a similar error when they say that abortion is not mentioned in the Bible, therefore it must be allowed. True, abortion is never mentioned in the Bible. But neither is patricide, matricide, regicide, etc. “You shall not murder” and the various case laws dealing with murder create the principle by which we know that murder of the unborn is a crime in the eyes of God — indeed, a capital crime.
Another analogy might be making a Grand Theft Auto law. If the law does not deal with other types of theft, is it a compromised law? Is the silence of the Grand Theft Auto law on petty theft, such as the stealing of candy, bicycles and other misdemeanors, a de facto endorsement of those acts?
Of course not.
But let’s suppose we made it a felony to steal an automobile, but included exceptions for poor, minority youth on welfare and people who can show they cannot afford a car loan. Should I support such a law?
I could not support such a law even if it would curb auto theft. The immoral exceptions would have to be taken out first.
All law makes up a code of laws. Each section of the code does not have to deal with every crime all at once. In fact, the courts in the absence of any other law or valid court case allowing for abortion, could interpret a 20 week ban to apply to 19 weeks, 18 weeks, etc.
American Right to Life believes silence IMPLIES tacit endorsement. But Personhood USA says that the compromise comes when exceptions are EXPLICITLY stated. Therein lies the difference.
Since ALL pro-life strategies are incremental, I believe that Personhood USA has the most consistent biblical approach.
Further, American Right Life doesn’t represent the position of either Personhood USA or GRTL. Note that on their “pro-life profiles” they have Dan Becker (the founder of the Personhood movement) on “Tier Two.” Keith Mason (the founder of Personhood USA) is “Tier One.”
The irony is that Personhood USA’s policy of supporting “Personhood compliant” incremental laws in addition to state Personhood Amendments is identical in each case. Dan Becker is the national field director for Personhood USA, while Keith Mason is the president.
I could write a short book here correcting the misconceptions presented in your article. The best thing to do would be to read (if you have not) or review Dan’s book and then talk directly with Keith and/or Dan about your objections.
Thomas R,
No, we are operating under the assumption that the Right to Life is already a constitutional right at both the state and federal levels. The Personhood movement RECOGNIZES this God given right. We cannot create it. God Law established the Right to Life. It is always wrong to kill a child because God said it. The Right to Life does not come before the Truth of the Law of God. In fact, God’s Law is both the cart and the horse.
So we establish the Personhood of all human beings by recognizing the Right to Life. We also declare that the “exceptions” for child killing are unlawful.
Sadly, National Right to Life no longer holds to this, although they did in their beginning.
What is rarely discussed is that there are many states that had a complete ban on abortion on the books prior to Roe. Now let’s say “pro-lifers” start passing a lot of laws in those states giving a right to aboriton for the “exceptions” — which is ironically exactly what Jane Roe argued. Does that not create a precedent that there is an instance in which we have the right to kill an unborn child? Why do we think that would then be so easy to legally end all abortion at the state level simply because Roe might one day in the far off future be overturned?
Personhood does not seek to overturn Roe. We want the states to simply ignore it as illegitimate right now.
“Personhood does not seek to overturn Roe. We want the states to simply ignore it as illegitimate right now.”
As noble as this sounds you are ignoring the many realities of the realm you operate within. That is, in my opinion not allowing you to see the gains that can be made and keeps your focus static on many levels while legitimate opportunities pass you by.
Jay Rogers, you and Abolish Human Abortion should hook up. They don’t want compromise, either.
Jay,
I’m trying to understand your logic, please bear with me.
Are you saying that if the proposed law said ‘abortion after 20 weeks gestation is illegal for pregnancies conceived through consensual sexual intercourse’ that would be ok (since a particular group of babies is not being specifically excluded) but ‘abortion after 20 weeks gestation is illegal except in cases of rape or incest’ would not be ok?
Thanks.
Michele PRCED,
It’s simple and it’s not new. In fact, this was the standard of the entire pro-life movement from 1973 until NRTL opposed the “exceptions” language in the Hyde Amendment. Now NRTL’s policy is to oppose and weed out their pro-life state organizations that refuse to compromise. They have completely reversed their position since they fought against exceptions.
What we ought to oppose is not incrementalism, but the “exceptions” compromise.
Congressman Robert K Dornan put it this way: “I will never look at another piece of pro-life legislation without saying those words. It’s a bad law if it concludes, ‘and then you can kill the baby.'”
Of course, no law actually says “and then you can kill the baby.” However, if there are exceptions or if a law includes that there IS a class of human being we can murder, then it is an immoral, compromised law. In fact, there is no law that we should support if it calls for the murder of anyone.
Now some pro-lifers take this a step further and call for “immediacy” — (AHA has said it will disband if they can’t end abortion by such and such a date — which I find naive) — others think any “incrementalism” is compromise. But even a total ban on all abortions is incremental if it did not also deal with IVF, bio-engineering, cloning, artificial intelligence, end of life issues, etc. So we are all incrementalists. Some just don’t admit it.
Personhood USA and Personhood Florida supports incremental bills that don’t have the “exceptions” language. We don’t sign our endorsement to a bill or amendment that says you may murder some people thinking that is okay to murder because we MIGHT be saving some other people. It is both immoral and it undermines our argument that all human life is sacred from biological beginnings in the womb.
Michele PRCED,
Another way of understanding Personhood’s position and how it is opposed to NRTL is by looking at the pro-abortion side’s position. Note that what the National Abortion Federation has proposed is EXACTLY the same position as NRTL. I do agree that the two organizations have different end goals. But if their immediate goals are the same — to compromise — then what makes us believe that the practical end is anywhere in sight? What makes us think that NRTL many years of failed “exceptions” policy will end in a different result?
“oppos[ing] legislation that restricts abortion in any way… is making the legal right to abortion more vulnerable”
“We must end the fiction that an abortion at 26 weeks is no different from one at six weeks.”
“The fetus is more visible than ever before, and the abortion-rights movement needs to accept its existence and its value.”
“These are not compromises or mere strategic concessions, they are a necessary evolution.”
“We need to firmly and clearly reject post-viability abortions except in extreme cases.”
“Those kinds of regulations are not anti-woman or unduly invasive.”
We should “emulate the European system, which has some regulations”
“We should also work to sensibly regulate abortion facilities.”
“If we don’t suggest sensible… regulation of abortion, we will be left with… no choices at all.
What’s a “NRTL”? Whatever it is, I do hope it’s friendly.
I’m not aware of NAF ever meeting an abortion they didn’t like. I recall a couple former NAF members suggesting that the abortion lobby’s current strategy of attacking every proposed abortion law is self-destructive and unwise. But that in turn implies that the pro-life movement’s incremental strategy is the Best Response to what our opponents are doing (alienating themselves from anyone that’s on the fence on the issue).