Is Rep. Renee Ellmers a pro-choice mole?
It’s never easy for pro-lifers, but it’s particularly frustrating when one of our own plays into the enemy’s hands.
Or maybe supposedly pro-life Republican Congresswoman Renee Ellmers has become a pro-choice mole.
Whatever, from Politico this afternoon comes this disheartening news:
A group of female GOP lawmakers is trying to pressure the Republican leadership team to make changes to a 20-week abortion ban the House is set to vote on next week.
Led by Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina, the lawmakers are protesting language that requires a rape victim to formally report her assault to police to qualify for an exemption from the legislation’s abortion restrictions….
The Justice Department estimates that only 32% of rape victims report their rapes to authorities.
A Republican staffer involved in the discussion said at least six lawmakers had raised the issue with Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) during a closed-door meeting Tuesday. The senior-level aide said the Republican lawmakers argue that enacting a ban with only a formal exemption could further dissuade rape victims from coming forward.
The lawmakers, the staffer said, are aggressively pressing Scalise to rewrite the bill to include a broader exemption for victims of sexual assault before the bill comes to the floor next week.
Lovely of Rep. Ellmers to hand the other side talking points on a silver platter. Politico again, quoting two key members of the House Pro-Choice Caucus:
Democrats quickly criticized the proposed legislation.
Reps. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) said it was “unconscionable” to force rape victims to formally report the rape before seeking an abortion.
“Forcing women to go on-the-record about such a traumatic experience as a prerequisite to getting help is unconscionable, and adds to the pain of women who are survivors of rape or incest,” the two Democrats said in a statement.
Right, we certainly wouldn’t want to encourage victims to report their rapes, so their perpetrators might be stopped from terrorizing them again, or other girls and women.
And women would never lie about being raped. Ask Rolling Stone about that. Or Duke.
According to National Journal, Ellmers added a second beef:
In a closed-door open-mic session of House Republicans, Rep. Renee Ellmers… [said] she believes the bill will cost the party support among millennials, according to several sources in the room.
“I have urged leadership to reconsider bringing it up next week.… We got into trouble last year, and I think we need to be careful again; we need to be smart about how we’re moving forward,” Ellmers said in an interview. “The first vote we take, or the second vote, or the fifth vote, shouldn’t be on an issue where we know that millennials—social issues just aren’t as important [to them].”
Erick Erickson is calling Ellmers “a lying waste of oxygen” over this among many other flip flops:
Just as the GOP has decided to stand firm on a piece of legislation supported by +60% of the nation, she’s scared people won’t like her.
That’s right. The “pro-life” congresswoman now claims that putting pro-life legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives would be a terrible, awful thing to do.
She lied about her immigration position. Now she’s lying about her pro-life position.
The other side loves this chink in the heretofore united Republican front on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act….
Rep. Ellmers’ number is 202-225-4531, if you’d like to call her and tell her thanks for nothing and back off.
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.
I think that, as pro-lifers, we should be clear in treating both the mother and the unborn child with great care. We need to use examples of mothers who have been raped but who have still carried their children to term in order to help demonstrate how the child is just as innocent as the mother. That is the key to winning (even more) support on this front.
I think the really question here is why would a late-term abortion ban have rape and incest exceptions at all? I don’t favour rape/incest exceptions for early abortions, but it seems that if a law allows abortion on demand for any non-trivial period of tie, rape victims would be abe to get an abortion in that time frame. Also, someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that none of the viability based abortion bans passed on the state level after Roe had rape exceptions, so this seems kind of like a regression.
This exposes another problem that arises with the rape exception. The rape exception should not have been part of this bill or any other pro-life legislation to begin with.
SaveThe1.com
#TheyFeelPainToo
I still don’t get how it’s pro-life legislation at all – the vote is for allowing all abortions up to 20 weeks. Just pass a ban – either way, it’s going through the courts. I wonder if the legal lobby is the biggest group pushing this – a lot of court fee money to be made!
Jill,
This is an example of our pro-life compromises coming home to roost. When we advocate for our base to support candidates who have a “rape & incest” exception how can we be incensed when they act on their values?
This candidate and many others like her were endorsed by Susan B Anthony List who said this about her, “A new women’s movement which affirms its original pro-life roots is making its way to the House of Representatives, and Ellmers is one of its brightest new stars.”
SBA List and NRLC do us no favors when they endorse the Renee Ellmers and Scott Browns (an avowed pro-choicer)of the political world because “they will be a sure vote for our issue”. They have single-handedly flooded Congress with moderates who do not hold our values.
Didn’t you once say that “pro-life” candidates with a rape exception “are just pro-choicers with exceptions for life?”
WHEN are we going to wake up and realize that when we do what we have always done then we get what we always got?
Dan Becker
Personhood Alliance
personhood.org
I would like to suggest you respond to this:
http://savethe1.blogspot.com/2015/01/you-want-us-to-compromise-our-pro-life.html
Dan, just trying to recall the numerous victories we have had with personhood amendments. I am for a personhood amendment victory. I would think you would remember we got here letting our guard down one brick at a time. I was once for such exceptions. Work work work. Start a campaign to defeat the rewrite. Save the heavy vollies for the enemy base and work on the cracks in the defense for life one piece at a time (with calk, not hammers).
David
David let me refresh your memory. We have had THREE personhood amendment votes in GA on the Republican ballot (non-binding) and each one WON . . . The most recent in 2012. It was passed in 158 of 159 counties with a Super Majority (66%)!! It didn’t have any binding legislative effect … but the political effect was HUGE! We currently are the ONLY state in the nation whose entire slate of 8 statewide constitutional offices are held by prolifers who eschew the rape & incest exceptions.
Our group differs from other personhood groups in that we believe you need a solid pro-personhood base before launching an initiative. We anticipate Roe being returned to the states. We have our base well educated and equipped for that victory. I look forward to the day.
Does the right to religious liberty belong at the state level. Does the right to assemble belong at the state level? What right in more inalienable than the right to life. This must not be returned to state levels. This must be corrected at the federal level. Is there a more “common defense”?
Were this to be returned to the states today, it would be readdressed with a more liberal court tomorrow.
Meh, just a few gadflies. It will still pass the house. And they tried the same thing with the partial-birth abortion ban and the health exception.
[…] advocates are not happy with Ellmers, as pro-life writer Jill Stanek responded “Lovely of Rep. Ellmers to hand the other side talking points on a silver […]
[…] like a betrayal. And while it may have seemed harsh before to question if Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC) is a “pro-choice mole” and wonder about what side she’s on, it all seems a lot more warranted […]
[…] Jill Stanek is more focused, and she’s livid at Ellmers. On her website this week, Stanek floated the idea that the congresswoman could be be a pro-choice mole. […]
[…] Jill Stanek is more focused, and she’s livid at Ellmers. On her website this week, Stanek floated the idea that the congresswoman could be be a pro-choice mole. […]
[…] knew Rep. Renee Ellmers had tried to slow progress of the Pain Capable Child Protection […]
Ellmers earned a 100 percent rating from the National Right To Life Committee. But Pro-Personhood candidates who vote “present” on these “exceptions” bills lose points on their NRTL rating. Do you see where the problem lies?
This is my reply to Congresswoman Elmers:
You think an unborn baby still should be executed for the crimes of rape and incest? How selfish are you to execute an INNOCENT pre-born baby human for the crimes of its’ father. Hasn’t the rape or incest victim had enough damage done to her already w/o subjecting her to further damage and another rape by mechanical instruments to dstroy the life of the INNOCENT unborn baby? And considering rape and incest accounts for a measly 3% of all abortions, you held up a bill to limit ALL abortions to 20 weeks!
You claim to be pro-life and believe life begins at conception but believe pre-born baby humans should still be executed for the crime of rape or incest makes you a pro-life flip flopper. Even Planned Parenthood agreed with you.
I don’t know if I would vote for you as a pro-lifer in the upcoming Republican primary but you have some damage control to manage if you want to win re-election. I’m not wishing you good luck till you re-cant and support the original Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act bill to limit abortion to 20 weeks. Even 20 weeks gestation is still killing a pre-born baby human!
God believes ALL humans are HIS creation – NOT choices. Who the heck are we sinful humans to decide otherwise?