American Right to Slash and Burn?

artl.jpg

American Right to Life issued a press release while I was on vacation, reprinted in full on page 2, upon the demise of Mitt Romney's presidential candidacy....

The 2nd paragraph of the release was interesting, chronicling what appears to be a closing chapter of religious conservatism in politics. (That said, I'd like to see corroboration - scan of book pages - of Graham's faulty view of abortion. And what did ARTL mean about the moral majority being deceased?) Here 'tis:

The American RTL website states: "The Rev. Jerry Falwell has gone to be with the Lord, and his Moral Majority is deceased. The beloved D. James Kennedy has passed away, as did his Center for Reclaiming America. The Christian Coalition is long dead, and its founder Pat Robertson, who defended China's forced abortion on CNN and endorsed pro-abortion Rudi Giuliani, is also dead though not physically but morally. Billy Graham at his last crusade and under no duress said positively that Hillary Clinton could run the country, and his own Christian Workers Handbook stated in 2001 that 'sincere Christians' may justify abortion when 'the unborn child has severe abnormalities' and in the 1997 edition: 'We should accept abortion in these cases: rape or incest…' This lie is the perverse foundation of the abortion industry and violates God's direct command to never punish a child for his father's crime (Ezekiel 18:20)."

A generation's passing naturally leads to a changing of the guard, but as for religious conservatives, the new guard hasn't jelled yet. There is a void, and I am concerned pastors like Rick Warren will fill it. He welcomes heretics like Hillary and Obama into his pulpit and naively thinks we can all work together. I've previously explained why this won't work.

ARTL thinks it represents the new pro-life guard, both religiously and politically. Its press release castigates National Right to Life and certain political conservatives.

slash%20and%20burn.jpgThe problem with ARTL is it doesn't inspire. Its press release is indicative of its personality. Its focus is on slashing and burning our side. It only states who it opposes, not supports. ARTL also has a history of attacking motivations, a task I believe left strictly to the Lord, the real meaning of "judge not lest ye be judged." We are called to discern actions as good or bad, but not hearts.

I expect ARTL thinks it must clean house, or even tear down the house and rebuild. I agree certain leaders in the movement need replacing. I agree organizational philosophies should be critically examined to ensure they have not been compromised over these 35 battle-filled years.

But I disagree that there is only one way to win the war against abortion - ARTL's way or the highway.

And I think there is something wrong with an organization that focuses its wrath on its own side, not the other.

Read ARTL's press release, below.

[HT: proofreader Angela]

For Immediate Release: February 7, 2008

Romney Exit to Transform Pro-life Endorsements
'Old Guard' Leaders' Candidates Fail

"National Right To Life had endorsed two candidates, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson," said Steve Curtis, president of the alternative American Right To Life Action. "Thompson, who opposes a human life amendment, withdrew on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and Romney withdrew on the opening day of CPAC" (Conservative Political Action Conference). "The partisan, old guard pro-life leaders like Paul Weyrich, Bob Jones, National RTL's political architect James Bopp, and Jay Sekulow, all of whom endorsed pro-abortion Romney," said Curtis, "are thankfully losing their influence among those committed to pro-family issues."

The American RTL website states: "The Rev. Jerry Falwell has gone to be with the Lord, and his Moral Majority is deceased. The beloved D. James Kennedy has passed away, as did his Center for Reclaiming America. The Christian Coalition is long dead, and its founder Pat Robertson, who defended China's forced abortion on CNN and endorsed pro-abortion Rudi Giuliani, is also dead though not physically but morally. Billy Graham at his last crusade and under no duress said positively that Hillary Clinton could run the country, and his own Christian Workers Handbook stated in 2001 that 'sincere Christians' may justify abortion when 'the unborn child has severe abnormalities' and in the 1997 edition: 'We should accept abortion in these cases: rape or incest…' This lie is the perverse foundation of the abortion industry and violates God's direct command to never punish a child for his father's crime (Ezekiel 18:20)."

ARTLaction.com continues: "Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson made a pledge to God which prohibits him from supporting the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, saying, 'for the rest of my life, however long God lets me live on this earth, I will never cast one vote for any man or woman who would kill one innocent baby.' Ann Coulter described the aggressively pro-abortion Romney as 'manifestly the best candidate' and instead of correcting the obvious campaign deceit, she mouthed the candidate's own sound bite, that 'Romney governed as a pro-lifer.' That is a provable lie. By Romney's own signature written in 2006, two years after his politically-calculated 'pro-life' conversion, he allocated tax dollars to murder unborn children in Massachusetts ."

"Our new political 527 group, American RTL Action targeted pro-abortion Romney in the early contest states of Iowa , South Carolina , and Florida ," said the group's vice president, Columbine dad Brian Rohrbough. "ABC News, Fox News, FNC's Hannity and Colmes, and a hundred other articles and blogs disseminated our proof of Romney's recent pro-abortion actions and the New York Times placed our American RTL logo atop their article about Romney's impending campaign demise. So we thank the pro-lifers who refused to vote for a known pro-abortion candidate even though they were being lied to by the 'old guard pro-lifers.'"

"No longer will National RTL be able to give fraudulent '100% pro-life' ratings to Republican pro-choice candidates without being exposed nationally," said Curtis, former chairman of the Colorado state Republican Party. "American Right To Life has Jesus Christ as our authority, not the situational ethicists, legal positivist lawyers and moral relativists of the pro-life industry at National Right To Life."

Media Contact:
Donna Ballentine
1-888-888-ARTL (2785)
office@ARTLAction.com


Comments:

I agree totally with your general comments on prolifers who attack other prolifers, Jill. I think it shows a greater value on personal ego than on any concern for unborn babies, and perhaps even a smidgen of the love for power and fame.

Anyone wishing to help unborn babies can find plenty of ways to do so without attacking others who are traveling a different path to the same goal.

Posted by: Doyle at February 27, 2008 8:52 AM


I'm a bit confused (I'm Canadian, so that's my problem!!).
There is American Right to Life
National Right to Life
American Right to Life Action??
What are these groups? Who represents what?
Please enlighten me?? BOOHOO

Posted by: Patricia at February 27, 2008 9:31 AM


"But I disagree that there is only one way to win the war against abortion - ARTL's way or the highway.

And I think there is something wrong with an organization that focuses its wrath on its own side, not the other."

This is how most pro-lifers are though, I see it all the time. They do think that their way is the only way that will work, and why wouldn't they?

Posted by: rosie at February 27, 2008 9:59 AM


BOO HOO Patricia writes: "Who represents what?"

Patrica, just google their names, and go to their websites. They will speak for themselves.

Posted by: Doyle at February 27, 2008 10:17 AM


Like I've said before, Jill, American Right to Life brings up some very good points and even, at times, some damning accusations against pro-life advocates all around the movement. I've spoken to them before and they seem like nice people. However, their press releases and website spew forth such anger, that I think it will stop a lot of people from even considering them.

Not to mention their slew of commenters on the blogs who don't leave their names, who leave angry, threatening and grammatically incorrect comments making them look like half-wit people who have just discovered the computer.

Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at February 27, 2008 10:36 AM


I can tell 'ya what happened...
Been there, done that, wore out the Tshirt.

There came a point about ten years ago when the militant arms of animal rights groups like PETA and Greenpeace (...and to a lesser extent The Humane Society of the US, Sierra Club, and World Wildlife Fund) had so self-righteously stuck their nose into people's private lives that they became the enemy - even worse, a joke.

If you stick the pictures of grisly animal carcasses in the face of people's children, people will shun you.
If you accuse law-abiding Americans of murder, they will shun you.
If you tell people that zoos and Sea World and pet ownerships are the same as slavery. they will shun you.
But most of all, when you stick your face into other people's private space - especially as events like weddings, holidays, or when they're seeking medical care - they will shun you.

A decade ago someone mentioned that you couldn't find a PETA sticker on a bumper in my 'ol stompin' grounds of Marin because people would target your car.
There was a point when politicians and celebrities who could have helped the animal rights cause couldn't afford to be seen with the fringe elements without being painted with the same brush.
You've hit that same point when the President won't be seen at your annual anti-abortion rally, and CPAC won't even invite to to their shindig because you've become really, realy embarrassing.

It took a decade of naked celebrities - not to mention keeping the freaks from throwing blood on McDonalds - to get animal rights back on the map.
Maybe you should re-evaluate your tactics.

Posted by: FetusFascist at February 27, 2008 10:49 AM


FF - The animal rights movement is wide and varied, and groups like PETA and Humane Society are not militant. HSUS is mostly non-confrontational in their work, and PETA's popularity is the result of strong marketing and activism skills, not militant action.

Greenpeace isn't an animal rights organization, Sierra Club isn't an animal rights organization, and the World Wildlife Fund isn't an animal rights organization. Greenpeace and Sierra Club have promoted openly anti-animal policies, encouraging the slaughter of certain species over others.

The "militant" animal rights organizations are Animal Liberation Front, Earth First!, and some of those associated with the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.

If there is a decent comparison to be made, American Right to Life would be more like the "Vegan Freak" radio show/book, which pushes for philosophical purity.

Posted by: Vegan Phil at February 27, 2008 12:23 PM


Perhaps abortion is the subject the Bible talks about that in the last days even the elect would be deceived.

There is more and more evidence that this is the case.

FF:

Again your logic is faulty. One thing you so conveniently forget, and I understand why, is that there is a God in Heaven and He will require, do you hear me, REQUIRE, a reckoning of all the innocent human blood that was spilled as a result of demonically inspired legalized abortion.

To compare what pro-lifers advocate to that of PETA is ludicrous and indicates your complete and absolute lack of understanding of this grave moral issue. This is not a political issue, do you hear me? This is a MORAL issue with real and eternal spiritual consequences for those that support, perform and defend the wholesale and unjustifiable murder of innocent children in the womb.

The world and everything in it will pass away. Human beings are forever. To destroy one without regard for that fact is the practice of the ultimate stupidity.

Posted by: HisMan at February 27, 2008 12:24 PM


" . . .and I understand why, is that there is a God in Heaven and He will require, do you hear me, REQUIRE, a reckoning of all the innocent human blood that was spilled as a result of demonically inspired legalized abortion.."

Your God doesn't have to "require" that recokoning if he doesn't want to. He can do what ever He wants.

Posted by: Hal at February 27, 2008 1:06 PM


He will require, do you hear me,
This is not a political issue, do you hear me?

Posted by: HisMan at February 27, 2008 12:24 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is it me, or does HisMan sound like that guy from the Sprint commercials?
(Notice you haven't seen them together?)

Posted by: FetusFascist at February 27, 2008 1:49 PM


Thanks Vegan Phil for calling it like it is.

I am amazed that people haven't commented on Mike Huckabee's success in getting the democrats in Arkansas to pass a human life amendment in that state.

I would like to see more of that kind of reaching across the aisle.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 27, 2008 2:16 PM


Democrats in Arkansas are different than Democrats in, say, Oregon.

Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at February 27, 2008 4:05 PM


Not to mention the fact that "American Right to Life" lied about NRLC. National Right to Life never endorsed Mitt Romney. It may be okay to have a disagreement on strategy but this bearing false witness simply can't be tolerated. If ARTL can't make its points without lying about the pro-life groups and people it opposes, they're not worth listening to in the first place.

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at February 27, 2008 4:17 PM


I've yet to read what you said here Jill, but even before reading and just judging by the title of this article, aren't you doing your own "slash and burn" by criticizing the most promising and effective pro-life group to emerge in the last decade or more?

And do you realize that ANYONE who claims it is OK to compromise on killing innocent children (through promoting parental notification laws, etc.) has no moral standing to criticize any decent group, especially one that does NOT compromise on the inalieanable right to life of all people?

Let me put it in more concrete, absolute terms:

American Right To Life is up at 10

Jill Stanek and all others that compromise on the right to life are down at the highest possible number 3

Does a 3 really have any business criticizing a 10?

NOPE!

Posted by: zeke13:19 at February 27, 2008 5:41 PM


Hey Jill, if you want to see for yourself what it says in those editions of the Billy Graham Christian Workers Handbook then go to a nearby library and look at them yourself. If Wheaton College is close enough then go there and read them because they are sure to have it.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at February 27, 2008 5:45 PM


Hey Steven Ertelt, have you retracted your completely false claim that Bush nominated 20 pro-life judges yet?

Or are you too proud to admit that you put out a complete lie online since it might ruin your credibility?

Its pretty obvious that Enyart is WAAAAY more honest and humble than Ertelt from having listened to Ertelt on Bob Enyart LIVE a number of times. Plus he doesn't put out lies like "Bush nominated 20 pro-life judges".

Posted by: zeke13:19 at February 27, 2008 5:52 PM


Steve,

You have become the mirror image of that which you oppose. Your hatred of ARTL clouds your judgment and makes your messages look like you're spitting everytime you start talking about them.

No, NRTL did not endorse Romney officially, but their Legal Counsel became Romney's right-hand-man on the abortion issue, which is why they associate NRTL with Romney. NRTL had to have agreed on some level, or they would have told him not to be so public with his support. Plus, Romney shopped Bopp around like he WAS the endorsement from NRTL, using it as an excuse to tell people they could still support him instead of Thompson.

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at February 27, 2008 5:56 PM


That's correct Bob. This was NRTL's way of hedging their bets - officially endorse Thompson and then have a bigshot in NRTL play a big part in another (dishonest pro-abort) Republican candidate's campaign which was Romney.

This is the lie I was talking about Steve Ertelt.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat1197.html

Do you retract your obviously false statement that Bush nominated 20 pro-life judges? Or can you show some evidence that justifies referring to those 20 judges as being accurately described as "pro-life"?

Posted by: zeke13:19 at February 27, 2008 6:02 PM


To add to the claims about Bush's judges, I've yet to see any source confirming the LifeNews article claiming that the flap over Barry Manilow and "The View" was about abortion. The only place stating that it was because of abortion was LifeNews (and those that sourced the LifeNews article). The statements from Manilow noted only his issue with Hasselback's conservative stance (and then mentioned the war).

Manilow gave $2,300 to Ron Paul in 2007. If he really was opposed to pro-life viewpoints, would he have done it?

Posted by: Colorado pro-lifer at February 27, 2008 6:10 PM


Maybe Jill should create a blog entry specificly for Steve Ertelt to respond to all of the falsehoods he has put out there over the years.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at February 27, 2008 6:20 PM


Jill,

I am involved enough that I feel I can speak for ARTL to some degree.

Yes, I agree that there is a too-large proportion of invective and cutting remarks in ARTL releases.

Partly that's to get people's attention -- to shock them enough to turn and read the rest of the piece, each of which is full of detailed and backed-up charges which most pro-lifers may never have heard. It's remarkable, I think, that there are so many truths out there that pro-lifers have no idea about. And I feel it's refreshing that someone is finally willing to say them.

As to why ARTL sound so angry -- they are! They, like myself, feel utterly betrayed by the forlorn mismanagement of the pro-life movement by its most prominent leaders -- National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, etc. These WERE the people we'd trusted, and now we find out that they've been lying to us for so many years -- that their efforts are a sham, designed more for the purpose of getting Republicans (any Republican) elected, than for the purpose of saving the lives of unborn babies.

Secondly, ARTL believes strongly (as do I) that Personhood is the ONLY means toward achieving our end. That means it's important to get people to consider Personhood, realize its importance, and to start pushing for recognition of Personhood in politics, in the courts, or even just in the minds of pro-lifers. These press releases you see are poor representations of what the organization itself believes, because just like any press release they're designed to achieve a certain effect, they're not meant to be expositions on the organization's beliefs.

If you want to hear inspiration (90% inspiration, 10% anger), I would invite you to listen to Bob Enyart's radio show for today (it's not up yet, so I'll post the homepage so you can watch for the Weds episode to be posted). He talked about how exciting the Personhood ballot initiative in Colorado is, inspiration after inspiration on that subject. But he also mentioned the "hospitality suite" Colorado Right to Life had at the NRTL convention last year, where CRTL explained the tragedy of the main focus of NRTL ($250,000 worth) for the last 15 years -- the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban (which didn't ban PBA).

That brings me to the 3rd reason why ARTL sounds like it does. We've come to believe that there aren't really "two ways" to achieve protection for the unborn. Every single one of the people involved in ARTL used to believe in regulations to cut down on abortions, but we've realized that the unintended consequence of saving "some babies" is that others are condemned to suffer for even longer, and abortion is entrenched for those babies for even longer.

Regulating child-killing only makes abortion more palatable. You'll go up to someone and say "abortion is wrong", and they'll agree with you some, and disagree some. "Well, I think abortion is wrong, but I think it's necessary sometimes. But I think late term abortion is absolutely wrong in all cases, so I'm glad they've banned that now."

So the PBA "ban" has made this person think "late term" abortion is banned (it's not -- and even many pro-lifers don't realize that). The "kind of abortion" he would oppose is banned, so he's now free to think anyone who thinks the rest of abortion should be banned is crazy. That's tragic -- the passing of the PBA "ban" has lessened the pressure and leverage we've had to make abortion seem evil to the general public. To our minds, it's made things worse, because it gave up that talking point without saving even a single baby's life (because abortionists will just use another method of late term abortion).

So that's partly why we're angry at NRTL -- they've lied to us and said they're the greatest organization on earth, because "we passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, the first federal legislation against abortion in 30 years!"

But we can't credit NRTL for anything for passing the "ban" because it didn't even ban partial birth abortion. An abortionist can walk into any abortion center in America after Gonzales vs. Carhart, and STILL perform a Partial Birth Abortion on an 8-month old baby! Did you know that?

The Gonzales vs. Carhart ruling spelled out specifically how a baby can be pulled out to the belly-button and killed with a sharp instrument (same as in the other type of PBA), and it recommends that as the safest method an abortionist can use to still kill a baby. Gonz. vs. Carhart also recommends using an injection to kill the baby.

If you don't believe me, go read the language of the ruling itself (it's 74 pages, but you'll find the reading gripping because it's full of surprises): http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf . I haven't read Justice Ginsberg's dissent, but I'm told it makes it even more clear that pro-lifers haven't accomplished anything.

And THIS is NRTL's crowning achievement after 15 years of work (and $250 million of our donations!) spent on virtually nothing else???!!! Ashes in our mouth! Something is tragically wrong with their strategy. It didn't accomplish anything except giving pro-choice Republicans cover at election time, because they could say "I support a woman's right to choose, but I do support the PBA ban".

Jill, you speak of wanting to be inspired.

To me, the pushing of Personhood is one of the most inspiring things in existance today. ARTL is at the forefront of that issue. Groups like Operation Rescue/Operation Save America, American Life League, etc. have been doing the work for years, and making progress. But now those groups and Colorado Right to Life, and others have come together behind a new front -- ARTL -- to inspire the whole movement toward the embrace of Personhood.

To me, that IS inspiring and exciting. Maybe more needs to be done in that direction, and I will lend them my counsel in tending that way.

At the same time, because of their sense of betrayal, I can completely understand why they say what they do and sound like they do. They're angry at the people who've been driving the bus in the wrong direction for 30 years. So am I.

Jill, it's also inspiring and exciting to me that you seem to have adopted the Personhood standard yourself -- I hope I've not mis-perceived that.

Posted by: Bob Kyffin at February 27, 2008 6:36 PM


Nice to see the ARTL people here pointing the finger at me yet refusing to back up their own false assertions.

1) NRLC didn't like that Jim Bopp and Dr. Jack Willke endorsed Romney because it created the public image of a split that really didn't exist. But of course, it's easier to assume and cast aspersions rather than get the facts. No state affiliate of NRLC and no other leaders or board members of NRLC endorsed Romney to my knowledge other than them. They all went with Thompson or Huckabee (or Brownback early on), both of whom are wholly pro-life on abortion and bioethics issues.

The fact is ARTL lied in saying that NRLC endorsed Romney. You may mention the Bopp caveat now, but ARTL purposefully mislead in that press release. End of story.

2) The allegation that Bush's judges aren't pro-life has been refuted so many times it's pointless to do it again here. Alito, Roberts, and so many of his appeals court and district court nominees had strong pro-life records and the support of pro-life groups across the board.

That includes my friend Richard Honaker who pushed for the kind of personhood legislation in Wyoming ***15 years ago*** that ARTL is only now supporting. Funny, I haven't seen one word from ARTL in support of Honaker's nomination while Right to Life of Wyoming has gone to bat for him time and time again.

ARTL is the lone group going against dozens of pro-life organizations in supporting these nominees. Alito and Roberts have already issued pro-life decisions from the bench despite ARTL's opposition to banning abortion procedures.

3. Bob Enyart? Yes, let's take his word on things as gospel. lol

4. Barry Manilow? Seriously? Wow.

Abortion was one of several political issues that caused Manilow to back out of his appearance on The View. He didn't want Elizabeth Hasselback, who is pro-life, to interview him.

Manilow has frequently been involved in backing pro-abortion candidates and FEC records show he contributed the maximum $2,300 to the Democratic presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, and John Edwards. They all support abortion. He has also been a longtime supporter of California Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of the leading abortion advocates in Congress.

If you want to defend those donations, you're not pro-life in the first place.

Thanks for the laugh guys and for proving Jill's point that you ARTL people can never defend your own position without attacking others. Sad indeed.

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at February 28, 2008 10:32 AM


P.S. Since ARTL is well-represented in Jill's readership, I figured I'd issue a challenge. You all proved Jill's point that ARTL representatives can never defend their own position without attacking NRLC or other pro-lifers.

Here's my challenge: I bet none of you can write 500 words on ARTL explaining why the group is needed and what the group will do to help stop abortions without ONE WORD attacking any pro-life group, person or strategy.

A further challenge: Can ARTL revise its website to tout its approach to ending abortion without ONE WORD attacking and pro-life group, person, or strategy.

I seriously doubt anyone will ever see these things occur, especially the latter. And this is what separates ARTL from groups like Vote Yes for Life, Georgia Right to Life and others who favor personhood bills and abortion bans prior to a pro-life Supreme Court.

They are willing to disagree with the rest of the pro-life movement on STRATEGY yet understanding that there is no disagreement on PRINCIPLE. They don't operate from the mindset that they must base everything they do on hating pro-life people who do things differently.

And therein lies ARTL's problem.

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at February 28, 2008 10:38 AM


As the v.p. of Colorado RTL, I'd like to give an example of bad motives that has stuck with me. Lynn Vincent wrote a May 12, 2007 World Magazine article (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12930) actually telling her readers that the infamous Gonzales v. Carhart PBA ruling uses the term "child" for fetus, because Anthony Kennedy is "Speaking our language" and showing respect for the unborn. In the ruling (p. 21) Kennedy points out that the court struck down a previous Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion that had used the term child, but was now upholding Congress' ban that instead uses the term fetus. "The Nebraska ban that was struck down described, 'a living unborn child'" and "Congress� responded to the court" in "material ways" including that it "adopts the phrase 'delivers a living fetus,' �instead of 'delivering� a living unborn child.'" Further, in the ruling, Kennedy relishes the 'right' to dismember even late-term unborn children, specifically if they are only delivered up to the "navel" first. Yet Vincent opened her article asking if this PBA ruling was, quote, "an early Mother's Day gift to� women (and their unborn children)." To read that ugly and cruel ruling as Vincent says she did, and then to suggest to thousands of readers who would never themselves read the ruling, that it is respectfull of the unborn child is horribly deceptive. And a number of honorable people, like Judge Roy Moore, were embarassed because they believed the hype, and came out and celebrated the ruling, only to later read the ruling for themselves and then publicly repent and issue condemnations of that bloodthirsty ruling.

Posted by: lesforlife at February 28, 2008 10:41 AM


Steven Ertelt,

http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release012808.html

The link above shows NRLC's support of Romney.

http://kgov.com/audio/download/1160/20080123-BEL017.mp3
http://kgov.com/audio/download/1168/20080130-BEL022.mp3

The two links above are radio shows explaining how
James Bopp, general counsel and 30-year political architect for NRTL, had NRTL's full support in not
only endorsing Romney, but working on his campaign.

I would love to hear a response from you about the 20 pro-life judges Bush nominated. That was a fabrication.

Posted by: Will D at February 28, 2008 12:09 PM


Bzzzt. Sorry Will, try again. A statement thanking Romney for campaigning on a pro-life position is not an endorsement. It's not even a comment on whether he is pro-life.

The pro-life views and rulings of Bush's juges have been explained and established in numerous other forums, articles and statements contained in LifeNews.com, and statements issued by numerous pro-life groups. I refer you to those documents.

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at February 28, 2008 1:49 PM


Steven Ertelt said, "The pro-life views and rulings of Bush's juges have been explained and established in numerous other forums, articles and statements contained in LifeNews.com, and statements issued by numerous pro-life groups. I refer you to those documents."

Must have missed them...

Links would be nice, but I know you're busy.

Posted by: Will D at February 28, 2008 3:25 PM


MY RESPONSE TO STEVE ERTELT's FIRST POST

1. When a big time leader of a group works extremely closely and directly for someone's PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN that is in fact an endorsement and even more severe than just an endorsement. Its like a super endorsement. Bopp working for Romney's campaign which had as part of its aim the defeat of Thompson's campaign is an active endorsement by NRLC through action and not just words.

2. Alito and Roberts are IN NO WAY pro-life in any respect and they have both explicitly said by signing onto pro-abortion opinions in the past year or so that they do not recognize the personhood of the preborn.

Also, they have not given an opinion or backed an opinion on that court that is pro-life in any respect. NOT EVEN ONE! If they had you would have been able to actually single out one such case, but you didn't because there isn't one.

Alito gave 6 PRO-ABORTION RULINGS during his time on the circuit court prior to being nominated to the Supreme Court. 4 of the 6 were EXTREMIST pro-abortion rulings! You can read all about it here http://shadowgov.com/Focus/focus.html#AlitoReportCard

3. Bob Enyart's word is not "gospel", but its darn near close to it from my having experienced his depth of wisdom and understanding through his TV show and radio show over the past 8 years.

PLUS, when he makes an error or is wrong about something he has said he points it out and corrects it usually within 24 hours and he even has an ERRATA page on the KGOV.COM website where he lists beliefs he held and promoted in the past which were later recognized to be in error in some respect.

Have you ever admitted to making an error in one of your news stories Steve? I can't recall at the moment your ever making a correction on an error of yours online or that you have pointed out publicly in some other manner.

4. Yes. Seriously. Barry Manilow. If you can't show some evidence to back up your claim that he didn't go on The View specificly because of his abortion stance compared to Hasselbeck's then you should put out a CORRECTION or admit that you made it up which you clearly did.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at February 28, 2008 3:28 PM


Steve Ertelt said:

"They are willing to disagree with the rest of the pro-life movement on STRATEGY yet understanding that there is no disagreement on PRINCIPLE. They don't operate from the mindset that they must base everything they do on hating pro-life people who do things differently."

Any group that takes in $250 million and then spends it on lawyers fees and salaries for those in the group along with their pensions and then works to pass a bill that does not have the ability to save even ONE innocent baby from being slaughtered is a group that should be hated by all decent, God-fearing people.

Knowing that they committed such a heinous fraud is why women were crying in the hotel suite in Kansas City almost a year ago during the NRTL convention. They thought their time, money and effort would result in saving at least some babies from being killed, but it didn't and NRTL knew this.

So yeah, I definitely hate NRTL and hope that their funding ends ASAP.

And in response to your challenge Steve I am going to increase my criticism and condemnation of NRTL 200% over the following year. Because the entire USA needs to know about NRTL's massive fraud and deception.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at February 28, 2008 3:34 PM


Steve, where is the proof that abortion was a reason for Manilow not going on The View? Not even Manilow's own statement included it. Just because Hasselback is pro-life doesn't make the case. Like one of the commenters said, if he gave thousands of dollars to a pro-life candidate, why would he balk at getting free publicity from one?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 28, 2008 7:53 PM


Let me add to my previous statement - if there is no statement from Manilow laying claim to abortion being a reason behind his hatred of Hasselback, then was it proper for a journalist like yourself to make that claim?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 28, 2008 7:55 PM


Manilow is on record as given to a host of radical pro-abortion candidates. If you're willing to defend that here on a pro-life forum then, Mr. Anonymous, I sincerely wonder if you're pro-life or just wanting to stir up a non-issue.

Posted by: Steven Ertelt at March 2, 2008 11:36 AM