Pro-aborts gloat as pro-life groups oppose Nevada personhood initiative

Well this is just lovely. It's always telling to me when pro-lifers and pro-aborts are on the same page, whether it's as in this case, incrementalists opposing a purist bill, or when purists (or incrementalists - it gets so confusing) oppose incrementalist bills like the SD abortion ban.

At any rate, read the headlines and weep. We're our own worst enemy, so upsetting...

headlines nevada personhood amendment.png

I'll let RH Reality Check revel in naming the culprits...

Four conservative organizations blasted the latest effort to promote zygote civil rights through a 2010 NV state ballot measure setting up yet another schism between the local and national anti-choice movements.

In a statement that could only charitably be summed up as "We've got things under control here. Butt out." Nevada Life, the Nevada Eagle Forum and Nevada Families issued a statement that the personhood petition language is "so vague and general that it may not even apply to abortion at all."

The trio was joined by the Nevada Independent American Party....

Look, it's clear we're all never going to agree on strategy. But if we could just agree to leave each other alone, we'd stop hurting the overall effort as well as wasting precious time and energy that could be expended against the real enemy. Everyone thinks they're so smart. Humbleness is in such sad supply.


Comments:

A few points to ponder:

Where was your condemnation when the personhood people aggresively and falsely attacked Sarah Palin recently?

Where is your condemnation when the personhood people do the same to other pro-life ministries?

Why don't you note the difference in how these Nevada groups talk only about tactics and how they don't resort to the personhood tactic of claiming so-and-so isn't pro-life.

How come there is no condemnation for those who say the pro-Stupak people are compromisers?

"Look, it's clear we're all never going to agree on strategy. But if we could just agree to leave each other alone, we'd stop hurting the overall effort as well as wasting precious time and energy that could be expended against the real enemy."

If only the personhood people abided by this. They are without a doubt the number one offenders. It should go BOTH ways.

Posted by: Friendly Fire at November 24, 2009 4:46 PM


OK---this is what's happening. Too many "pro-lifers" are still defending the birth-control pill & invitro-fertilization. Too many so-called Christian churches SAY that life begins at conception, but LIVE as if it only really begins at implantation in the wall of the uterus. Zygotes scare them. Eggs & sperm on ice gross them out, but not in a petri dish. Personhood laws confuse artificial-birth-controllers. That's what's happening here.

Posted by: MEL at November 24, 2009 4:56 PM


Friendly Fire, click on the top link I provided.

MEL, I agree that's part of it, maybe a large part of it.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at November 24, 2009 5:25 PM


"Where was your condemnation when the personhood people aggresively and falsely attacked Sarah Palin recently?"

What was false, FF? ProlifeProfiles will send you a 100 dollar check if you can document any info that they have up which is false. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at November 24, 2009 5:27 PM


That's a good one Bobby. The web site is an opinion site whose only purpose is to out Pharisee the Pharisees. To award anyone $100 would be an admission the entire site is a lie and the prouction of the people who made it who think they will be the only ones in Heaven. We're working to make sure no more people drink your cult's kool-aid. You can only go on bearing false witness for so long.

Posted by: ARTL Lies at November 24, 2009 5:40 PM


I've tip-toed around this subject for two or three years. There's a lot of finger-pointing and for those of us who haven't been around for twenty years (or however long this debate has been going on), what's the deal? I'd like to understand so I can take a stand. Or maybe I'd be better off staying out of it. I don't know. Help?

Posted by: Janet at November 24, 2009 6:06 PM


To see pro-life groups like Phyllis Shlafly's Eagle Forum and other pro-life groups standing with Planned Parenthood and the ACLU in opposing the personhood of the unborn is tragic and heartbreaking! These groups are showing themselves to be the hypocrites they are, on the one hand saying that it is wrong for personhood advocates to love them by encouring them to not support laws that kill babies, saying that our agape love is "divisive" and "unedifying" and "we should be unified and not fight against each other, but focus on the enemy..."

And then they turn around and take Planned Parenthood's and the ACLU's position to oppose recognizing the personhood of the unborn and start lashing out against fellow pro-lifers on the personhood side. It is unconscionable. Do they offer a strategy? No, they simply attack. At least we have a plan; at least we language to submit for initiatives and amendments, etc. If you do, too, then bring it! Show it! Share it!

I hear people calling us "purists." If you want to declare yourself "impure" and to be holding "impure" motives and goals, be my guest. But Jesus Christ purifies us, and calls us to act pure in our motives. I will never comprehend now being called "pure" is a bad thing, or is somehow a nasty and undesireable epithet. By all means, call us pure, and thereby admit that you are impure.

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at November 24, 2009 6:07 PM


ARTL-Lies, if you can prove any information there at PProfiles is false, then POST IT HERE.

Out them. Decimate them. Prove them wrong. What are you waiting for? You lash out against fellow pro-lifers with not so much as a shred of evidence. PProfiles documents their evidence with direct sources of the info.

They even linked directly to Palin's PAC website itself, where she was happily praising that Planned Parenthood executive as being an "outstanding" lawyer who has "wisdom and character" and saying she would make a terrific supreme court judge! Palin's own PAC website said that! Of course, when PProfiles came out, Palin deleted that incriminating information, but not before we archived it. Rather than admit she said those things about an extremist baby-killer, she tried to cover it up and pretend it never happened. She took it down. PProfiles put it right back up again.

That is not character. That is not principled leadership. That is cowardice and deceit.

POST YOUR EVIDENCE HERE. Convict them in the court of public viewing. Please.

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at November 24, 2009 6:12 PM


Yeah, I'm not in any way associated with the website or anyone who runs it. I just assume that people tend to keep their promises and thought that FF might like to know. But thanks for accusing me of bearing false witness.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at November 24, 2009 6:13 PM


I don't look at it as Purists and Incrementalists. I see it as Principled and Compromisers.

I'm with the principle that you NEVER compromise on babies' lives. The compromisers (i.e. politicians) tolerate the destruction of the preborn who are handicapped, conceived out of rape, and the children conceived out of incest just so they can save the lives of the rest. The compromisers support a law that says abortion is fine once the mother has been asked if she wants to see an ultrasound.

The principled can support an incremental law, for example, that bans all third-trimester abortions only so far as the law doesn't explicitly say that you can continue killing the first and second trimester babies.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at November 24, 2009 6:25 PM


The personhood people knew very well that these groups - like all the other mainstream pro-life organizations - would not support this proposal. If they cared about not creating a public fight between pro-life groups, they would not have proposed the ballot measure. The sad truth is that these advocates care more about destroying the pro-life movement than getting protections for the unborn passed.

And no, don't accuse RTL or the Eagle Forum of causing the problem by not staying silent. The personhood proponents are relentless in their efforts to force other pro-life organizations to take a position. They don't allow you to stay silent.

Posted by: charles at November 24, 2009 6:31 PM


"The personhood proponents are relentless in their efforts to force other pro-life organizations to take a position. They don't allow you to stay silent."

WOW.

So, you're saying that major pro-life groups should be able to avoid taking positions on imminently important and timely issues of life and death? Are you serious? You're upset because ARTL and ProlifeProfiles, etc., actually expect other pro-life groups to come out and state where they stand on matters of right and wrong? Really?

Wow, that says so much. You're mad that your favorite leaders have been "forced" to admit where they stand, because where they stand is embarassing. Where they stand is impure. Where they stand is moral compromise. Where they stand is apart from principle, apart from faith in God's commandment to never murder the innocent or condone those who do. I agree, it *is* embarassing when they have to admit where they stand, which is in opposition to acknowledging that the unborn baby is a person.

By their fruits, you shall know them. And the fruit of their spirit is that they are now on the same side as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. I pray to God they realize their catastrophic decision before it's too late.

Don't ever be afraid to "admit" your stance on right and wrong. Why would you ever keep that a secret? I thank God that ARTL and PProfiles are forcing many pro-lifers to admit their "impure" and self-confessedly "compromised" positions.

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at November 24, 2009 6:43 PM


What a joke! It reminds me of the movie Braveheart, with all of the nobles representing the different clans all bickering and squabbling for the throne.

Satan's number one strategy is to cause division. There is a scriptural principle that unity increases strength exponentially:

"...one man (shall) chase a thousand,
or two put ten thousand to flight...Dt 32:30

The "leaders" of these different factions are weak, insecure and they're focusing on their differences instead of focusing on what they have in common which is saving babies and defeating satan.

They are like little spoiled brats, or a bunch of identity-challenged adolescents gathered in their cliques, gossiping and hurling insults at one another.

I have a message for them:

Babies are dying by the thousands every day.

GROW UP! UNITE! AND FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT!

Posted by: Ed at November 24, 2009 7:08 PM


Let's not forget who we are trying to save here, i.e., unborn children.

If anyone makes the pro-life battle about themselves, they should immediately withdraw.

Guess what folks, it's not about me, it's not about you, it's about doing God's will, saving the most vulnerable in this world.

Forget that and risk God's judgment for He is no respecter of persons.

Bobby, I am sorry someone accused you of bearing false witness. I for one stand for your integrity and character and have never once read anything of yours that wasn't of utmost excellence.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at November 24, 2009 7:26 PM


Allow me to humbly submit this for consideration by any of the commenters above that mentioned anything negative about another Pro-life Warrior,

Relax for a minute, take a deep breath. Think about all of the problems with all of the people that you disagree with in the Pro-life movement.

Got it? Ok, take that image, and put it on the Cross of Calvary. He took all of our sins. None of us is perfect. So you take everyone's sins and you see them laid upon Jesus, on the Cross.

Ok, now see a tidal wave of the Blood of Jesus, washing away all of the sin, all of the "wrong doctrine", all of the error.

It's gone.

Now, instead of looking at your brothers and sisters in the Battle for Life as either believing or not believing like you, just look at them as your fellow soldier battling against abortion.

That's it.

To the degree they agree with you, rejoice! If they differ in some way, forget about it.

If you think abortion is genocide and you want to do something about it, GREAT! You Qualify to Fight in the Army for Life!

If any of you want to think of yourself as in the "Green Berets" or "Army Rangers" or "Navy Seals" of the Pro-life Army, fine. If you want to joke and kid about your camp being better than another, fine.

But in the name of Jesus, stop fault-finding and pointing the finger, and let's go save some babies!

You've got a strategy, a plan, great! Run with it! Go on with your bad self. Run the race that is set before you. Just don't stick out your leg and trip your brother or sister because they're called to run a different course.

Godspeed!

Posted by: Ed at November 24, 2009 7:50 PM


I agree that we do need to be united in our cause and that that includes respecting each others differences in strategy. The problem is that too many people in the personhood movement are obsessed with causing the rifts rather than actually saving babies. I have had people say to me that they did not care whether the personhood amendments actually worked because all they really wanted was to expose the bishops are "weak liberals" and to put National Right to Life out of business. That type of stuff does not help. Purposely exposing rifts in the pro-life cause does not help.

Schofield's comment demonstrates the problem. Jill laments that we can't just leave each other alone when we disagree, but Schofield makes clear that revealing the rifts is exactly what one side wants.

For their part, I have never seen the Catholic bishops or leaders of Right to Life attack others in the pro-life movement like they have been viciously attacked by some in the personhood movement.

It is a shame. No one in the pro-life cause opposes personhood. They just disagree about how to get there.

Posted by: charles at November 24, 2009 8:12 PM


"Bobby, I am sorry someone accused you of bearing false witness. I for one stand for your integrity and character and have never once read anything of yours that wasn't of utmost excellence."

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at November 24, 2009 7:26 PM

I second that.

Posted by: Janet at November 24, 2009 8:42 PM


Jamie,

Let's say I am a Christian and I believe Jesus loves everyone so much that He died and shed His Blood for their sins. And that all anyone had to do to escape the deception and death in this world is turn to Him, repent of their sins, accept His sacrifice and believe that He rose from the dead. And if a person just believed the Gospel, bam, they could be saved, born again, given a New Life, adopted into God's family, bound for Heaven.

Let's say it's a Friday or Saturday night, and I decide I want to tell people about Jesus. And I know a brother that believes most of the same things I do and wants to go with me.

The only problem is that I believe in praying for and healing the sick, and he doesn't. I believe in praying in tongues and he doesn't.

What am I going to do? Call him up and tell him all the things that I believe is wrong with him? Or am I going to call him up and say, "Hey, let's go save some souls!"

Jamie I don't know what you're referring to when you say, "imminently important and timely issues of life and death". Perhaps you are squabbling over abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Ok, so of the 1.1 million babies or so that will be aborted in the US this year, how many will fall into this category? About 1% right?

So you're going to waste time debating with another soldier for life the relevance of 11,000 abortions when you could be working together to save 1,089,000 babies?

Are you kidding me? Work together to save the 1,089,000 and the momentum that you build will help you clean up the rest.

If I'm missing something really critical let me know, otherwise let's roll up our sleeves, get to work and encourage each other in our individual races.

Posted by: Ed at November 24, 2009 9:02 PM


Great posts, Ed! I think, if you are on the same page with Planned Parenthood, then as a pro-lifer you gotta admit its the wrong page. period.

Posted by: Sydney M. at November 24, 2009 9:37 PM


very well summed up Jill, this is awful.

Posted by: Andy Moore at November 24, 2009 9:55 PM


Sounds logical to me Sydney.

Posted by: Ed at November 24, 2009 10:11 PM


When a pro-lifer is hurting the pro-life mission, do we leave him alone?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at November 24, 2009 10:12 PM


MEL, I think you're right. Gradations of the pro-life position play out in sad and strange ways.

I agree with Jill also, that we need to just leave eachother alone.

Posted by: Mary Ann, Singing Mum at November 24, 2009 10:21 PM


Hey Cranky,

I think it would depend on how you perceived him to be hurting the cause.

And the approach is huge, most people don't take criticism well.

I certainly don't have all the answers but if you give us a for instance, I'm sure we could come up with a suggestion or two.

Posted by: Ed at November 24, 2009 10:56 PM


From how I see the argument from both sides... the side who is opposing personhood now are mostly opposing a tactic, not because it not morally right, but they believe that it's not politically sound strategy for right now based on political calculations.

On the other hand, those who are advocating personhood right now believe not only that the other side's strategy is not just unwise... it is immoral.

These positions are not reconcilable.

Posted by: ddevonb at November 25, 2009 12:15 AM


I wouldn't mind a personhood bill passing. But on the other side, the personhood crowd are willing to rally against legislation that could prevent babies dying and mothers being mutilated. I know I could NEVER be comfortable with that.

Like Cranky said, "The principled can support an incremental law, for example, that bans all third-trimester abortions only so far as the law doesn't explicitly say that you can continue killing the first and second trimester babies."

Posted by: truthseeker at November 25, 2009 12:15 AM


Friendly Fire... you lose credibility when you simply call others liars and claim the they lied against Palin. You call them liars with no evidence. They made their statements against Palin backed up by heavily researched facts. Rather than just calling out liar, you should look at the specific claims and the evidence that is used to back up the claims.
Don't be afraid to seek the truth.

Posted by: ddevonb at November 25, 2009 12:22 AM


Cranky,

I read your earlier post and I think I understand where you're coming from.

A scripture many in the Pro-life movement refer to is:

Rescue those being led away to death;
hold back those staggering toward slaughter. Pr 24:11

We know that many babies are saved when an "incremental" law forces Moms to stop and consider their options when facing a crisis pregnancy. It's as if we are able to take their hand for a moment and say, "Wait, think about what you are about to do. Are you sure this is what you want?" Many babies are saved.

Personhood seems to take the position, "If we can't save all the babies now, we're not going to save any." In other words, "If we can't firmly grasp and hold back all of those heading to the slaughter, we're not going to take their hand."

This is foolish.

Consider this analogy of human nature and addiction. No one wakes up one day a 3 pack per day smoker. They start with a couple, then its 5-7, then 10-12, then it's a pack, and so forth until they're hooked. It's like being tied up with a thin string. With one wrap, one can still easily break free. With 100 wraps, even if the string is thin, you're bound.

There is a device that my friend used to quit smoking. For 2-3 days, every time he smoked, he recorded it in his little device. He was smoking around 35 cigarettes per day. So after 3 days, he set his device to wean mode and then only smoked when the controller allowed him to. Every time that little alarm went off, no matter what he was doing, he went out and smoked. 34 cigarettes one day, 33 the next, and so on.

He used to always have a cigarette when he woke up with his coffee, now he had to wait. He used to always have one after he ate, now he had to wait. Slowly, surely after about a month and a half, he quit. The 100 wraps of string that bound him were undone, one at a time.

Just because the controller "compromised" and told him to go have a cigarette doesn't mean it wasn't an effective tool to help him quit. Personhood says, "You gotta quit cold turkey, it's the only way."

Wrong.

Am I for personhood ammendments? Absolutely.

Anything that gets the issue of abortion out there debated in the court of public opinion and gives us the opportunity to show graphic images of the reality of abortion, I support.

If a law prohibits abortion in the 3rd trimester but allows it in the 1st and 2nd, I want that law, because of the babies it saves. Child-killing is allowed in the 1st & 2nd trimesters anyway. What difference does it make?

Then the very next day after that law is passed, I'm going to work to get abortion outlawed in the 2nd trimester, then the first.

Those are my thoughts anyways.

Let's go save some babies!

Posted by: Ed at November 25, 2009 5:20 AM


"If a law prohibits abortion in the 3rd trimester but allows it in the 1st and 2nd, I want that law, because of the babies it saves."

Just to clarify, not only do I want the law because of the babies it saves, I want it because I believe it strengthens the Pro-life position. I'm not a lawyer, but the only way I see this thing turned around long term is to get a Pro-life majority on the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. The only way that's going to happen I believe is for the Church to obey 2 Chr 7.14:

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 Ch 7:14

What are we to pray for? Well among other things, that He would give us godly leaders in goverment.

The Lord controls the mind of a king as easily as he directs the course of a stream. Pr 21:1

And what are we to repent from? Among other things, stabbing our brothers and sisters in the back for the mistakes they have made.

Have a great day y'all!

Posted by: Ed at November 25, 2009 7:25 AM


ddevonb: that is a good description of the differences.

As you can see, anyone who does not completely prescribe to their strategy is charged with being no different than Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: charles at November 25, 2009 7:31 AM


I would like to make one point for purists and incrementalists leaving each other alone that no one has yet pointed out. Because ultimately both sides want the same thing, but the kerfluffle is over what strategy is the best one for getting that done.

Leave the other side alone because their strategy might end up working! Seriously peoples, we have no way of knowing what's going to happen tomorrow/next week/next month/next year. Anything may happen. One of these strategies may end up working where we never thought it would. If it's a strategy of the purists, then that's a huge step forward that we didn't think we'd get. If it's an incrementalist one, then that's a little groundway paved so that the purists will have an easier time of it. Either way, it's forward motion, and that is a good thing.

Posted by: Keli Hu at November 25, 2009 7:51 AM


@Ed,

Randall Terry.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at November 25, 2009 9:47 AM


Perhaps less work at the State legislative level and more concentration on converting the hearts and minds of the masses is the way to go. Is pride getting in the way? Americans (for starters) need to be educated about basic human biology, the abortion industry, the gift of sexuality (the Catholic Church is way ahead on this). Maybe God trying to tell us something by allowing this infighting. Let's pray, listen, and act accordingly. God bless.

Posted by: Janet at November 25, 2009 10:46 AM


It would surely be interesting to know the "experts" cited in the various condemnations of personhood objectives. In that they all sound similar, perhaps they are the same "experts"?

We all have been around long enough to know that if you sit in a room of lawyers discussing a particular case, half can present convincing arguments one way, and the other half be just as convincing the other way. And when they are done with that little exercise, they can switch sides and do it all over again. Let's hear from the "experts" from the pro-personhood side that see possibilities in our favor.

It seems that some of the anti-personhood "experts" forget the science that Roe v. Wade is based upon is by today's standards ancient history. Arguing personhood before the court could take full advantage of the advancements made in our understanding of fetal development and our ability to nurture prematurely born infants at much earlier stages of development than thought possible in 1973. Perhaps, if nothing else, the result of a personhood initiative would result in a ruling that would further restrict abortion rights. This last thought terrifies pro-aborts.

The half full vs. half empty glass analogy applies here as well. The "experts" make strong arguments that the courts will almost certainly rule in a particular way, and that even something worse than Roe V. Wade could result. But no credible attorney will ever guarantee an outcome, and a lot of us wonder how things could be worse than what we already have.

One final thought: if PP and the ACLU are against it, then can it really be a bad thing?

Posted by: Jerry at November 25, 2009 1:18 PM


Jerry:

The mere fact that lawyers can disagree does not mean that the arguments have equal weight. Some arguments are better than others. Also you confuse the ability of lawyers to make the best case for their sides and the objective analysis of a particular proposal. They are two different processes. Those experts that question the personhood approach are not representing a side and trying to punch holes in the proposal in order to make a point for their side. Rather, they start from an objective analysis of the proposal and have concluded that it would not work and is risky.

You argue that those experts opposed to the personhood approach forget that the science is better than it was at the time of Roe. It is true that the science is better, but one fact these experts note is that the court, in fact, had good briefing on the scientific humanity of the unborn child at the time. It is a myth that the court did not have the information, which brings us to the next problem with that argument - the Roe decision, and none of the subsequent decisions, turn on establishing the personhood of the unborn child. If you read the second PBA case, it is clear that the court knows very well that abortion kills what is biologically a human being.

Regarding the risk, you are incorrect that a decision could not be worse than Roe. In one sense, that is true. However, in another sense, it misses the point. In actuality, Roe is not the standard anymore. The "right" to abortion has been whittled down to something less than it was in Roe. The risk is that the court could turn the clock back and strengthen back to what it was in Roe, or worse.

Finally, to say that if Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are against it, can it still be a bad thing is not logical. The mere fact that they oppose it does not tell us anything about the proposal's merits. It only tells us that they oppose it.

It is, of course, in their interest to oppose it. The personhood proposals, more than anything else, rallies their troops and brings in the pro-abort money.

Posted by: charles at November 25, 2009 2:07 PM


"Regarding the risk, you are incorrect that a decision could not be worse than Roe. In one sense, that is true. However, in another sense, it misses the point. In actuality, Roe is not the standard anymore. The "right" to abortion has been whittled down to something less than it was in Roe. The risk is that the court could turn the clock back and strengthen back to what it was in Roe, or worse."
Posted by: charles 2:07 PM

Please forgive me for interrupting. Can you explain what you mean when you say "Roe is not the standard anymore"? Thank you.

Posted by: Janet at November 25, 2009 2:36 PM


Under Roe/Doe any abortion law was subject to strict scrutiny, meaning that that they were almost always struck down. Parental consent, clinic regulations, funding restrictions, etc.

The Webster case and then the Casey case lessened the nature of the right so that the state can restrict so long as it does not create an "undue burden" on the "right to abortion."

The second Carhart decision moved the standard a little more to the pro-life side, but neither the court nor legal scholars are decided as to how to describe that newer threshold. Under these decisions more restrictions can be put on abortion.

We talk about overturning Roe, but it really is not that simple. As one pro-life legal scholar put it after the Casey decision "Roe is Dead, Long Live Roe." Roe, in concept, still exists, but the actual law is not Roe, but Casey/Carhart II.

Along with those developments, the nature of the right has changed. Roe was based on "privacy." Casey reformulated the "right" as a "liberty" right. What the court today bases it on is something different.

We know that some justices, like Ginsburg, would like to reframe it as an equal protection right.

Posted by: Charles at November 25, 2009 3:00 PM


"Please forgive me for interrupting. Can you explain what you mean when you say "Roe is not the standard anymore"? Thank you."
Posted by: Janet at November 25, 2009 2:36 PM

Posted by: Charles at November 25, 2009 3:00 PM

That clarifies things. Thanks very much, Charles.

Posted by: Janet at November 25, 2009 4:26 PM


Here's why I believe the impure incrementalists are incorrect and the purist personhood people are correct:

When asked about a law that effectively ends with, "...and then you can kill the baby," the incrementalist says, "Sure, I'm OK with that." So what they are actually saying is, "It's OK if you kill the baby," after certain conditions are met. Hardly a pro-life position.

When asked about a law that effectively ends with, "...and then you can kill the baby," the personhood advocate says, "No, you can't kill the baby. In fact, you can't kill any baby at any time for any reason, period." No wiggle room.

Because of that, and other reasons, I'm in the purist personhood camp.

Put another way, when self-described pro-lifers lobby for incrementalist laws and those laws are passed, the self-described pro-lifers are saying in effect, "Certain babies can be killed under certain circumstances." Again, hardly a pro-life position.

Then, if the abortion issue were ever turned over to the states, and the self-described pro-life lobbyists lobby to end abortion all together, I can just hear the states saying back to them, "Hey, these are YOUR laws that YOU lobbied for. They were good enough for you then, so why aren't they good enough for you now?"

This is what happens when self-described pro-lifers compromise on God's enduring command, "Thou shalt not murder." Notice the period at the end? It doesn't say, "Thou shalt not murder unless thou views an ultrasound first."

God hates laws that end with, "...and then you can kill the baby."

Posted by: Scott Evans at November 25, 2009 9:45 PM


Scott, you are absolutely correct.

Compromised "incremental" laws directly contradict and deny personhood. This is exactly why the two views are wholly incompatible. You can't say the baby is a person with a God-given right to life protected under the 5th and 14th amendments but if you get a note from your mom, you can kill your baby. That just doesn't make any logical sense at all. It is obviously hypocritical and self-contradictory, on its face. By allowing for "exceptions," you are admitting that you don't really believe this baby is a person, at all. Because we all know you would never, ever agree to such a law for 10-year-old children.... "If you wait 24 hours, you may then have your 10-year-old child's arms and legs ripped off, and a blade shoved through his skull." Who here would advocate for such a law?

I keep hearing people say that those with pure motives and goals don't care about saving babies and that we would rather all babies die than to save even one. HOGWASH. What do I see among the two sides of the pro-life community? Lemme tell you.

I see lawyers in big offices at NRTL with fat paychecks and pensions who have been "working" for decades now to persuade people be with concerned with how to kill babies legally... and I see that any pregnant woman in America can get an abortion at any stage of pregnancy and probably have taxpayer dollars fund at least part of it...

And I see ordinary, down-to-earth Christians on the personhood side who work themselves to exhaustion, commonly working 60 to 80 hours a week WITHOUT A PAYCHECK. I see American Right to Life being founded with a charter that bans paychecks for their leadership and if abortion isn't outlawed in America within 10 years, the whole leadership will be fired. And I see those SAME personhood leaders (and the majority of other personhood-side volunteers) actually hitting the streets and showing up at clinics and the homes of abortionists, SAVING REAL LIVES day after day. God bless Jo Scott here in Denver - she has been at that clinic virtually every day for the last (as I recall) 17 years! She has over a thousand CONFIRMED saves not to mention probably 2 or 3 times that many we'll never know about till we get to heaven.

Personhood pro-lifers show up. They save real lives. They convince abortion clinic employees to quit their jobs. And they do ALL of this while speaking the name of Jesus, proclaiming scripture and sharing the gospel of salvation to the lost -- something that is prohibited by NRTL. They honor God, do right and risk the consequences. They sacrifice massive amounts of time and money and they go to jail to save lives. They love God, and love their neighbor with real, genuine, tangible agape love.

1. I see the incrementalism of 40 years, and I see any pregnant woman in America can get an abortion at any stage, and probably have it funded by taxpayer money. I see their fat salaries and pensions, and I see lawyers leading the way, refusing to speak the name of Jesus or quote a Bible verse.

2. I see the leaders and volunteers of the personhood movement saving REAL lives on the streets and at the clinics, and I see God using them to save souls. I see them living lives of tremendous sacrifice for their principles.

And now I'm starting to hear the absolutely outlandish claim among some incrementalists that American Right to Life and ProlifeProfiles.com are a left-wing conspiracy! Than which nothing could be more ridiculous.

Compromised incrementalism and personhood are explicitly contradictory and mutually exclusive. Choose your side. Either "then you can kill the baby" or "the baby has a God-given right to live, and no one has the authority to say or do otherwise.)

Honor God, do right and risk the consequences. It's never the wrong time to do the right thing. The right time is always now.

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at November 25, 2009 10:08 PM


Charles: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I did not say that all legal arguments are of equal weight. I am suggesting, and I do not think it unreasonable, that we have yet to hear all that either side has to say about the matter. The case for or against is not clear (to many of us) at this point.

Where did I say that nothing could be worse than Roe? In a sort of hypothetical risk/benefit analysis one can conjecture that it would be improbable, though not impossible to have a ruling worse than Roe. Here the point is that even if it were to turn against us, that the potential benefits of personhood rulings outweigh the downside risks.

The truth is that any of the high profile cases could have gone against us. But they were worth pursuing. We were within a hair of overturning Roe in Casey but for some last minute mischief when Kennedy caved. Who would have predicted that outcome? The same can be said for any initiative.

While it would be foolish to pursue ridiculous strategies, I do not hear any of the anti-personhood "experts" saying personhood is ridiculous. They think it unlikely to succeed at best, and possibly harmful to the pro-life cause at worse. They have heartfelt, and carefully thought out reasons for their position. But it is almost as though they are waiting for the perfect, surefire argument before they want to proceed. But that leads to two questions: does a "surefire" argument, even if it ever were to come about, guarantee a majority ruling, and conversely do we know with certainty that personhood, should a version of it be heard at the high court, would definitely be rejected?

Posted by: Jerry at November 25, 2009 10:50 PM


Jamie asked, "Who here would advocate for such a law?"

I would. If the existing law stated that,

A mother may her 10-year-old child's arms and legs ripped off, and a blade shoved through his skull at any time she wishes.

And the proposed ammendment would read,

A mother may her 10-year-old child's arms and legs ripped off, and a blade shoved through his skull following a 24-hour waiting period after receiving approval from her doctor.

In supporting this ammendment I am not advocating for, or defending the right for a mother to do this awful thing to her child. Instead I am supporting an ammendment which will slow down the process. This will likely lead to a drop in the number of such attrocities as mothers will be forced to wait the 24-hour period, during which time they may be convicted and change their mind.

----------------------------

Jamie, there are not two sides in the pro-life movement. There are those who are pro-abortion and those who are anti-abortion. Some on our side (anti-abortion) may be misguided, however to label them the enemy - which is what you're essentially doing is harmful to the cause; it is propaganda.

Posted by: Andy Moore at November 25, 2009 11:03 PM


*A mother may have her...

Posted by: Andy Moore at November 25, 2009 11:04 PM


Andy, you're right, there aren't two sides to the pro-life movement but I suspect not in the way you meant. I would argue that advocating for any law that says   "... and then you can kill the baby" is not a pro-life position.

Posted by: Scott Evans at November 25, 2009 11:29 PM


Andy, what you just said is wicked and reprehensible, that you should advocate for such a law. That is disgusting in the extreme.

Not to mention that such laws do not save lives. More babies are murdered a year now by abortion than almost any time in the last 40 years, thanks to pro-choice "pro-life" laws like that. Factoring in chemical abortifacients and using figures even from Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute (who are certainly not biased to inflate these numbers) we now have nearly 2 million abortions a year, in America... And you think it's getting better? It's almost 50% more than it was before RU-486 and Plan B came along, but we are teaching America's youth that it is not a person by making up rules for how they can kill the baby legally. They're just popping a pill the day after their indiscretions, and the baby is killed by chemical weapon, quietly and out of sight. So much easier, that way.

What you said is wicked. I pray to God you someday see that and repent of your ungodly statement.

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at November 25, 2009 11:34 PM


Jamie, it's truly incredibly tragic what some people will say in an attempt to prop up their wicked position.

Posted by: Scott Evans at November 25, 2009 11:41 PM


Sorry for the double post.

Posted by: Scott Evans at November 25, 2009 11:44 PM


I know it sounds disgusting, however I do not agree that my position is wicked. Scott and Jamie, I literally could not agree with you more that unborn life is valuable - and every abortion is the premeditated and cruel murder of one of the most innocent members of our society. The only thing we're disagreeing on is the method we will employ to effect positive change at a legislative level. While some of use (incrementilists) will accept a 5% positive change in a 100% bad law, others of us (purists) will only ever accept a 100% positive change in a 100% bad law.

Posted by: Andy Moore at November 26, 2009 2:52 AM


No, Andy, that's not the only thing we're disagreeing on.

I also disagree that incrementalists are pro-life. They are actually pro-choice because they agree the woman still has a choice to kill her baby after certain conditions are met. A truly pro-life person could never agree with that strategy. That's literally making a deal with the devil. It's called compromise and God's enduring command, "Thou shalt not murder," has absolutely nothing to do with compromise.

To be true to their position, an incrementalist should describe himself to others as, "I'm pro-life, but..." Obviously, the "but" would then tell the listener that the person is not pro-life "but" something other.

If you really take the time to think about it, so-called pro-life laws, truly pro-choice laws, do not have the authority to save even one unborn child. Every one of those laws, I'll repeat, every one of them, leaves the decision, the choice, up to the mother whether to kill her child or not.

I love the pro-life signs I've seen that say, "It's a child, not a choice."

I'll repeat: God hates laws that end with, "... and then you can kill the baby."

Posted by: Scott Evans at November 26, 2009 9:18 AM


Scott and Andy,

I appreciate all you guys do for Life.

I've got a hypothetical for you.

Let's say it's 4 years from now. Obama's fiscal policies, for a short season propped up our struggling economy but did nothing to deal with the root causes (including the impact of 50+ million abortions). The economy crashes in late 2010, Obama's popularity takes a major hit, the political pendulum swings back and we have sweeping change in Congress and the White House which become fiscally conservative and Pro-life. We even have a Pro-life majority in the Supreme Court.

Congressmen have worked long and hard on Pro-life legislation and they have the votes to pass a law criminalizing abortion except in the cases of rape or incest. Without this specific language, the a few liberal hold-outs will not vote for it, the bill will not pass and abortion on demand will remain the law of the land.

Let's say three Christian Pro-life Congressmen gather and pray the night before the vote, wrestling with their conscience about the exceptions for rape and incest. After much soul-seeking, they feel God is directing them to vote for the bill, thinking that it would be a great victory in the Battle for Life.

They vote, the bill passes, and they stand before their constituents and say that they regret they were unable to pass a bill that will protect all unborn babies and that the War is not over. However reducing abortion in the US by 99% is a major victory and a great accomplishment for Pro-life warriors across the country.

Would you call these 3 Pro-life Congressmen wicked?

More importantly, do you think Jesus would call them wicked?

Again, I respectfully and sincerely appreciate your passion for Life.

Posted by: Ed at November 26, 2009 1:20 PM


Jill,

I think you need to call a Beer Summit for the Personhood and Incremental camps.

Wait a minute, I doubt either one of them believes in drinking alcohol. You'd probably have to call another Summit to determine whether it's Ok for Christians to drink :)

Posted by: Ed at November 26, 2009 1:58 PM


God always cares about the exceptions. In fact, He focuses on those, the most, because they are a window to the soul.

Did God care about all of the fruit Eve did not eat?

Did He care about all the women King David did not sleep with?

Was He overjoyed with all of the babies that Herod did not kill?

These three people had exceptions. In the first two cases, exceedingly small exceptions. In fact, just one minor exception. But it is the exception that matters. God says over and over that He hates when we make up laws that are not His laws. He hates when He gives us His commandments and we change the law, thinking we can come up with something better, something wiser, something craftier or wittier than God. That is the pride that goes before a fall, and with nearly 2 million babies now being murdered a year (more so than a decade ago), what progress have we made with compromising incrementalism? It's getting worse, not better.

Any law that says that you can enslave blacks if their father is a criminal, or you can gas a Jew on any day but the Sabbath, is a wicked law, and it will not save lives, but rather it will just strengthen the affirmation that these crimes are morally and legally legitimate. It will ensure that these atrocities continue, while making these atrocities look nicer and more acceptable to people.

The exceptions are the most important part of the issue, from God's perspective. He makes that clear to us.

But, thank goodness the pro-life lawyers are getting their 6-figure salaries. I'm glad at least someone is making out on this deal.

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at November 26, 2009 1:59 PM


I'll have a good microbrew, preferably a wheat beer or something dark and malty. LOL

Posted by: Jamie Schofield at November 26, 2009 2:22 PM


Hey Jamie,

I do admire the passion you, Scott and Andy demonstrate for Life. I guess if I was to summarize your comments about my hypothetical scenario you said that passing a law that saved 99% of the babies killed by abortion while we worked to change the hearts of legislators clinging to the aforementioned exceptions would be wicked.

Listen to what you just said. Hypothetically, out of the say 1.1 million babies going to be killed "next year", if you had a chance to save 1,089,000 babies, you wouldn't do it? After all of the children killed since Roe v. Wade, we have a chance to turn the tide and you say no?

With all due respect I'd say you are, "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel". You've allowed a religious spirit to corrupt your common sense. You'd rather be right than save babies. I didn't see Scott or Andy weigh in but I pray they are not as deceived as you are.

That's Ok though, we've all been deceived. If there is anything I'm an expert at it's sinning and repentance. I've had a lot of practice.

I would humbly suggest that you think about what you just said and consider whether or not you've gotten off track. Then repent and come on back. We'd love to have you join the ranks of the Pro-life army without that religious divisive spirit.

Remember, Love is the key.

Posted by: Ed at November 27, 2009 8:24 AM


By the way, dark and malty sounds great! (don't tell my Pastor.)

Posted by: Ed at November 27, 2009 8:29 AM


It has taken a few days to find enough time to jump in here. I hope this thread is still active. Hypotheticals are interesting, but seem intended to divide people further. We could all think of hundreds of different hypotheticals. One of the problems is that we are all discussing unprovable theories, and usually the proof only comes in retrospect. However, the compromising, incremental approach has not achieved much over the years. We may only get one shot at changing the laws when the stars and Supreme Court justices are all properly aligned. I think the change we should seek should go all the way. No added exceptions, no compromises. When exceptions are considered, where is that line drawn exactly? The pro abortion side, were they backed into a corner, would offer many exceptions: rape, incest, poverty, pregnant minor or teen, mental state of the mother (post abortive, post partum depressed, too many kids already, etc), life and health, single mom . . . and on and on. Accepting any one of these exceptions is hypocritical to being Pro Life.

It is clear that this purist/incremental topic is somewhat controversial. I have read opinions stating that the rape conceived are selfish if they choose life for themselves rather than sacrifice their lives to save the other 99%, as though that choice actually exists. During the last election cycle, a couple of states had close calls, just missing passing laws restricting or outlawing abortion and the analysis focused on the “error” of placing an all or nothing law destined to fail on the ballot instead of a law with exceptions which had a reasonable chance at receiving a majority vote. I admit to doing a little soul searching and questioned whether I would give up my own life in order to guarantee life for those other 99%. It sure sounds like a noble sacrifice. That hypothetical falls apart however because there will never be such a guarantee. The most likely outcome of such a law with rape/incest exceptions is the sudden increase in reported rape and incest cases which would result from its implementation. Then where do you draw the lines of proof of such rape/incest? What medical exam, DNA match, police report, court conviction or other burden of proof is possible during the subsequent 9 months of pregnancy? If there is no rape or incest proven, oh-oh, the abortion is already done, now what?

I think we should stay true to our principle objective, ending all abortions, and not give in to the compromises. Please do not use the lives of the “exceptions” as bargaining chips, (please try and imagine yourself as an exception). To that end, here is a series of videos which offers encouragement to stay focused, strong, consistent and uncompromised. I do not know if they have been referenced on this site before. The source is a lecture by Judie Brown in 2007 and is in 4 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-RzIvOenxw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs0PRumNMSA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ9A2bEKRU0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG0piN1ZEuc&feature=related

Changing the laws is vital but is just one aspect in the quest of stopping abortion and is probably not the first step in the process. What is the best way to minimize untimely pregnancies and encourage personal responsibility and morality? When there is a crisis pregnancy, we must admit that we are asking a lot of the mothers we are trying to convince to stay pregnant. Even under the best of circumstances, pregnancy is hard. Support for these troubled mothers must be plentiful and easily accessible. Adoption needs to be affordable and 100% flexible to the needs of all in the adoption triad and adaptable to all situations. We must give the abortion bound woman a reason to change her mind and a solution to her difficulties. In order to build a consensus in society and a groundswell of rejection of abortion, much work still remains to encourage the acceptance of the sanctity of all life. We should understand that religious affiliations call some to engage as active Pro Lifers but that it is not because of this affiliation alone that we think abortion is wrong. I think it is important for people of faith to heed the call of God and get involved, but abortion is wrong, with or without a religious connection. When either side focuses too much on the religious component it makes the Pro Life side seem one dimensional and the pro abort side seem vindictive. I am not sure how to accomplish these things, but it will be difficult to change the laws without some of this foundational work. Thanks for reading this.

Posted by: jsable at November 27, 2009 4:10 PM


Dudes Scott and Jamie, the laws don't end with "and then you can kill the baby". These laws specify restrictions, they do not authorize killing. Just because a law says you must get parental consent, does not mean you can get an abortion with parental consent. Your logic is flawed. None of these laws in and of itself grants permission to kill the baby. It is just specifying one reason that you can't.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 27, 2009 11:47 PM



Just thinking (as a non-lawyer type)..... What if a personhood amendments passes in a state and then is challenged in the courts (therefore not recognized in the state) and the challenge goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Then could the Supreme Court rule that the unborn are not persons? If so, couldn't that give us no hope of overturning Roe V. Wade?

Posted by: Janet at November 28, 2009 12:46 PM


Janet,

You've done your homework. I researched both positions too (probably should have done so before I made my earlier posts).

Jsable, insightful comments. The reason I tossed that hypothetical out there was to show that there was value to the incremental approach and to prove how nonsensical Jamie's position is. While we haven't been able to overturn Roe yet, many lives have been saved and I believe the scenario I described could very well happen over the next 4-5 years where we could save over 1 million babies per year.

Having said that, I really like most of what the Personhood camp stands for with a few exceptions. Most of us here would probably agree that all abortion is wrong even in cases of rape, incest, abortifacient contraceptives, whatever. Of course you've got ectopics and other medical scenarios where the fetus is simply not viable, but you get the point. I like ARTL’s passion, commitment and the fact that they're desperate to get something done - all good.

My problem with the Personhood camp is their erroneous assumption that the reason the mainstream Pro-life movement hasn't made more progress is because of their incremental approach. This is a lie.

Would you like to know the truth? The truth is, until recently (Obama's election), most Americans didn't care about abortion. That's why they elected as President the most pro-abortion politician in the history of the US. He voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act! You are talking about one cold-hearted evil man. Catholics and Christians didn't care. They voted him in anyway because he was charismatic, they believed his flowery campaign rhetoric, and they believed he would improve the economy.

THEY VOTED WITH THEIR WALLETS, NOT THEIR CONSCIENCE.

I tried to watch some of that lady on the video but when she said anyone supporting a law with exceptions supported abortion in those cases, I started to lose interest.

We are in rescue mode here. Thousands of babies are dying every day. Do I decide not to go the local abortion clinic and try to save babies because I don't believe I will save every one that day? Of course not. I go to the abortion clinic to try to save the ones I can. Will I take a law that will save 1 million babies a year? YOU BET! Does that mean I support abortion in cases of rape or incest? Absolutely not! But if we can reduce the mighty river of innocent bloodshed to a trickle, let's get it done and then focus all of our energies on stopping the trickle.

The fight for freedom and personhood for African Americans was realized incrementally. Do you recall that they were at one point recognized as 3/5 of a person? Was that right? Of course not. But did it lead to full personhood recognition? Definitely.

Having said all that, I hope that I'm wrong and that we pass a Personhood Amendment within the next year or two.

And that is the point: THESE TWO STRATEGIES ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! THE PERSONHOOD CAMP SHOULD BE CHEERING ON THE INCREMENTALISTS! THE INCREMENTALISTS SHOULD BE CHEERING ON THE PERSONHOOD CAMP! LET'S RACE AND SEE WHO CAN GET THIS THING DONE FIRST!

The Incrementalists have no business undermining the Personhood efforts, and vice versa.

It reminds me of when in Jesus time the Zealots wanted use Jesus popularity to overthrow the local Roman government. Jesus made it clear that His Kingdom was about changing men's hearts.

Ultimately, the specific political strategy we employ is not what's most important. What's most important is changing the heart of America with respect to abortion.

How was America’s heart turned with respect to the Viet Nam war? It turned when newspapers across the country showed a little girl running down the middle of a war torn street without any clothes, crying, her precious little back burning with Napalm.

To quote Father Pavone, “America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion.”

The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Genocide Awareness Projects (and presentations like them) are having a great impact. The sight of seeing a half dozen or so in the pro-death camp holding hands, chanting cold-hearted phrases, acting giddy and stupid, proclaiming their “right” to inflict the horrible injustice and atrocities shown in the pictures of aborted fetuses erected behind them speaks volumes.

The 40 Days for Life Campaigns are growing tremendously, saving babies, changing hearts and closing killing centers.

As long as the Incrementalist and Personhood camps continue this immature squabbling, I’m going to send any contributions I can afford to the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and 40 Days for Life.

Posted by: Ed at November 28, 2009 10:24 PM


jsable: Very thoughtful post!

Ed: You voice a very important point, namely that we prolifers are all on the same side, irregardless of labels and strategies and that we should be cheering each other on. Also, your point about the urgency of the situation almost always gets lost in these discussions. Folks, more than 12,000 babies have been aborted since this story was posted! We do not have the luxury of waiting for the perfect argument.

Posted by: Jerry at November 29, 2009 10:50 AM


Hey Janet,

Like you, I'm not an attorney. I also read that we shouldn't bring another case before the Supreme Court until we get a Pro-life majority, that another pro-abortion ruling could be damaging.

That doesn't seem right to me. We have the truth on our side. We have to have faith that God can change hearts. We have to keep pounding the truth and what is right. We can't wait. Babies are dying.

Like David vs. Goliath, we are called to fight and trust God for the victory, no matter how bad it looks in the natural.

That's what I think (as a non-lawyer type).

Posted by: Ed at November 29, 2009 11:43 AM


Ed,

Good points. I don't know if I can express myself clearly but I'll try.

In support of personhood -
I suppose it might be possible that even if a State's personhood amendment were rejected at the Supreme Court level, there's a chance that a SC ruling against a personhood amendment could be overturned by a future group of Justices and that's good for the babies. I don't know.

Problem with personhood -
In general, a personhood amendment seems like a good idea as long as it will actually be enforced. Looking at what has happened in the State of Illinois regarding parental notification (it passed as law MANY years ago but the State has been dithering on it's enforcement) when it would be enforced.

So, at this point, I'm not decided which way is better for the babies from a legal/enforceability standpoint. I do agree with you that changing hearts and minds is necessary and introducing the Personhood Amendments at the States level will bring the abortion issue to the fore.

A question I have:
Are pro-life doctors in favor of personhood amendments? This must certainly be a sticky area for all doctors because I think they would want to be protected so they can treat their patients properly without fear of recourse.

Sorry, I don't remember who said it earlier on this thread, but I agree that maybe the different camps should try to do what they do best without stepping on each others' toes.

Posted by: Janet at November 29, 2009 2:20 PM


Ed,

I meant to add:

"Trust in God" - That's a definite "yes".
But he tells us we must pray and also act, as I'm sure you know.

Posted by: Janet at November 29, 2009 2:23 PM


Excellent point about the doctors Janet. Not sure if they'd be for it or not.

Everyone has to be so careful nowadays lest they wind up in court.

Not all lawsuits are bad though. Our resident bungling abortionist up here in MI, Abraham "I don't wash my hands between patients" Hodari is being sued again as featured in one of Jill's articles earlier this week.

He was quoted in the local paper as saying he wanted to become a doctor so that he could heal children's hearts but abandoned that pursuit because he found some cases too depressing.

So now he kills children instead.

What a sick world we live in.

I'm thankful we have a Father Who loves us and watches over us.

Posted by: Ed at November 29, 2009 2:39 PM


Hi Ed. Thank you and others for your posts on this thread. I like to think this argument between prolifers is similar to what the old people used to say "Throwing the baby out with the bath water" (pun intended). I had to read your quote by baby-killer Hodari twice Ed. You have got to be kidding "he wanted to become a doctor to heal children's hearts but abandoned that pursuit because he found some cases too depressing". So now he mutilates, dismembers, tortures and kills children (even late term babies) instead. WOW! That is really sick and unbelievable.

Posted by: Prolifer L at November 30, 2009 4:12 PM


Yup Prolifer L, perhaps with a successful lawsuit we can get this quack's medical license revoked.

At the very least, it would be strong ammunition for sidewalk counselors outside his "clinics".

Posted by: Ed at December 1, 2009 12:22 AM


Hi Ed

Thanks for kicking some ideas back and forth.

It seems like a bit of an apples and oranges comparison trying to link the individual, incremental counseling of abortion clinic bound women and the incremental changing of laws. The reason the incremental counseling approach is required is because of the current unrestricted laws. Counselors have no other choice but to deal with each case one at a time. When it comes to which law we should support, we do theoretically have a choice. A law with exceptions will still require sidewalk counselors in force to deal with the sudden spike in "rape" cases. Abortion clinics will still be open. How would such a law be implemented do you think? So many here have expressed approval of the incremental approach that I must be missing something. What will be necessary to actually prove a rape pregnancy in order to keep the number of rape abortion cases at that 1% level? Will law enforcement have to fully investigate all the new rape cases and have a court conviction before the abortion is allowed?

If a partial ban law passes, we can all hope the legislative energy required to pass further corrective laws can be mustered once again. The point Judie Brown makes is that those corrections are never revisited. Not sure if you made it that far into her video. I wish she would have cited some specific examples to back up her statement. It just seems to me that it would be more efficient to try and make one big effort rather than drag out the effort with no guarantees. I do understand your point about the urgency of doing something ASAP. I am not sure if it would be easier to convince the people favoring the incremental approach to muscle up and fully support a non-compromised effort or to convince the purists to support an incremental law, but we need the numbers a united front would provide.

In November 2008, Jill figured that Obama's election could set the Pro Life movement back 20 years. Since his election has been such a jarring wake up call to the Pro Life movement, mobilizing the no longer silent majority to activism and moving many others off the fence, it is possible that much of his pro abortion agenda can be blocked and Jill's worst case scenario will not happen. On your point about apathy, I agree. For years, there has been a complacency by many or a head in the sand attitude by others all along the Pro Life spectrum. Many were satisfied to wait and let vaguely Pro Life administrations slowly change the abortion climate or appoint ideologically correct Supreme Court justices with the expectation of overturning Roe. Obama was elected by a range of constituencies, in a combination that probably does not occur very often. Some have called his rise to power and election “a perfect storm”, and he still only got 52%. Unfortunately, the Catholic/Christian support probably pushed him over the top. The Catholics who voted for him that I know, in our parish and family, supported him for various reasons. Social justice was a big one at our church, along with the Iraq war, the economy, first black President, anti Bush, etc. There is even one person at church, on the Respect Life committee no less, who has worked on Obama's campaigns for years, supported his election for anti war and social justice reasons, who then turned around and went to Notre Dame to protest Obama's graduation speech. Others stated they were just not single issue voters. There were some who just wanted to be a part of history and went running down to the election night rally. So yes, Obama's abortion agenda was overlooked, ignored, overshadowed, under reported and was not taken seriously enough to make a difference in his election.

Posted by: jsable at December 2, 2009 4:02 PM


Thank you for your thoughts jsable.

You bring up very good points. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers.

The point that some make that the PBA ban didn't save one baby is unfortunatly has some merit. The abortionist just uses a different technique to kill the baby.

However, the article Jill posted from the New York magazine lamenting the progress our side has made, specifically highlighted the great damage the PBA debate inflicted to the pro-abortion position.

So indirectly, as a result of a shift in public opinion toward abortion, some babies probably have been saved.

Oh well, gotta get back to work.

Have a great night!

Posted by: Ed at December 2, 2009 4:58 PM