It has been two weeks since GOP House leaders torpedoed the 20-week abortion ban, and I’m madder than ever
Two weeks ago today Republican House leaders outdid themselves on the scale of betrayal by suddenly pulling a vote on the Pain Capable 20-week abortion ban the day before 500,000 pro-lifers to whom they’d promised that vote descended on Washington for the March for Life.
I was pretty angry that day, and, if anything, I’m angrier today. I’m not alone in wanting the political scalp of turncoat ringleader Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (pictured above with Speaker John Boehner) and whoever all her allies are found to be.
Some have been outed: Reps. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania and Jackie Walorski of Indiana. At least one other is now trying to disclaim responsibility.
They’re running scared from the avalanche of pro-life anger.
I’m all in on ousting every last culprit and have let my friends in D.C. know I’ll help however I can.
So I am surely one of those whose “abhorrent and childish behaviors” have “appalled” Ellmers, as she wrote in an ill-conceived response to the blowback on January 30.
In that statement, Ellmers, true to her newly revealed character, turned on GOP leadership:
I remain disappointed that the concern for the language of mandatory reporting of rape to law enforcement held by House Republican women and many men were not addressed before our leadership made the decision to pull the bill from the House floor in the eleventh hour.
While I have nothing good to say about the GOP House leadership, we now know Ellmers’ contention isn’t true. As detailed in NRO’s piece, “The quarrel that blew up the GOP abortion bill,” leaders did try to address those concerns – several times.
Ellmers’ legislative assistant Kristi Gribble Thompson (pictured right) promised to call me “within in a couple days” when we protested Ellmers’ office 13 days ago, implying there was more to the story. I’m still waiting to hear it.
But Ellmers has since reaffirmed the inexplicable story is the story: She pulled support from the identically worded bill she voted for in 2013 due to a requirement that a mother seeking an abortion past 20 weeks file a police report, as part of the (unnecessary and repugnant) rape/incest exception.
This was to protect that mother and other girls and women from sexual perpetrators by locking them up, and it was to preclude an obvious loophole which would otherwise enable abortionists to check the box every time that their patients were rape victims without having to provide any evidence.
Furthermore, there is something off in a scenario where a rape victim would seek an abortion only after 20 weeks. Rep. Ellmers should want to know what is wrong with that picture. Is this a child who didn’t realize she was pregnant? Is this the victim of sex trafficking?
In her January 30 statement, Ellmers waxed on about “empower[ing] women with courage to face this crisis.” How does not reporting the crime do that?
Speaking of courage, Ellmers had been hiding from everyone until yesterday, when she attempted to defend herself to a group of pro-life students who dropped by her office.
But even that was accidental. I’m told by a rep from Students for Life of America that Ellmers actually thought she was walking up on a photo op and then got stuck.
In her nonapology letter, Ellmers concluded, “It’s unimaginable to me why some outside parties would seek to target strong, pro-life conservative women and men who are serving in Congress.”
Who are they, Congresswoman Ellmers? It is unimaginable to me that you might consider yourself part of that crowd.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Renee Ellmers, Chris Christie and their ilk are fools if they think we will go back and quietly graze like meek little sheeple.
This is going to be her life, now and until she is voted out of office. Constantly having to answer for her betrayal.
We are not content to vote for someone who might represent us. We demand that our representatives BE pro-life. Just as the abolitionists of old did not vote for slave owners who promised to be sympathetic to the concerns of abolitionists.
It would be fine with me if this betrayal destroys the Republican Party, like slavery destroyed the Whigs and split the Democratic Party in 1860. I would rather be defeated by Hillary than represented by Ellmers… Or Christie, if he is truly so foolish as to say that pro-lifers do not care about children after they have been born.
We have shown that we can build a pro-life culture under the nose of the most ardently pro-abortion president in history. We do not need the squishy Republicans.
Those “outside parties” — taken in the context of “we held a discussion within the family of our Republican Conference,” it seems that anyone not a member of the Conference itself is an outside party who is not supposed to complain. Wouldn’t “club” be a better word than “family”?
“I would rather be defeated by Hillary than represented by Ellmers… Or Christie, if he is truly so foolish as to say that pro-lifers do not care about children after they have been born.” I understand that sentiment in the heat of the moment, but nobody ever won by losing. Building a culture is great, but that’s not the end goal.
I have to agree with Chris on this one. Building a culture is of limited use if the federal judiciary is stacked with nominees who will strike down all attempts to limit abortion. Presidential races matter because of this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkL8VLdfew
Oust ’em!
Anyone you might find who you consider to be any more anti-choice than the current lot you have available would prove to be unelectable.
I have an earnest question, Jill (and commenters):
What do you make of the last bit in the NRO article (below)? I, too, am frustrated with the GOP squabbling and lack of leadership and I could be wrong here, but it sure seems to me like a lot of solid pro-life members in Congress are getting tarnished unnecessarily (I’m specifically thinking of Marsha Blackburn) through all of this. This is an unfortunate part of this whole mess: good leaders with long track records of pro-life advocacy were doing their best to facilitate this process but they still get “perceived as destructive.” I really lament this.
“One worry: If pro-life activists conclude that their incremental approach encourages Republicans to shift the goal posts to the left, they might adopt more absolutist tactics in response.Over the years, traditional exceptions [for rape and incest] have helped shepherd pro-life legislation into law,” says one GOP aide. ‘It would be a strategic mistake to turn these successful tactics into liabilities.’”
If I’m not mistaken, you have been in favor of this incremental strategy because pro-life laws, when they are passed, do indeed save lives. I, too, would hate to see this approach vanish, because I want more laws passed.
Thanks for your tireless advocacy.
Best,
talltenor
I’m guessing everybody is so mad that they’ll barely vote for them again in the next election cycle – like they’ll vote, but they won’t color in the circle on the ballot quite as hard.
Yawn.
The individual state legal reporting requirements/limitations for rape are measured in years, not in months or trimesters. From a rape crisis/post rape support perspective, Renee Ellmers was correct in attempting to remove reporting requirements from this bill. Please see RAINN.org & AfterSilence.org, among others. You are mad at her for being an “exceptions” candidate and lawmaker who just wanted a different kind of exception, one that she, not others, could define. The problem here is the rape exception itself. The problem is the folly of combining the morass of rape laws with any abortion restricting law.
Thank you, Jill, for stating that the rape exception is “unnecessary and repugnant”. Please keep saying that, loudly and often, especially to the legislators. They work for us, not the other way around. It also helps to remind people, as you did, that the rape exception is fraught with implementation and enforcement problems. The next step is to stop living with the rationalizations that pro-life people are forced to live with when they accept the rape exception in law.
Every Life Matters
SaveThe1.com
Chris says:
February 4, 2015 at 4:39 pm
I understand that sentiment in the heat of the moment, but nobody ever won by losing. Building a culture is great, but that’s not the end goal.
No Chris…. the Culture of Life is our end goal. Getting favorable laws that protect the children is just a step in the process. It may be the last step.
But children will still die and women will still be exploited as objects until the very idea of abortion becomes unthinkable again.
When Roe v. Wade is overturned, our work will only just be getting started. We need to be building now, more pregnancy centers and charitable outreach — because the liberals and squishy Republicans will not lift a finger to help the inconvenient children whom they can no longer kill nor profit from killing. They already don’t.
Ex-GOP says:
February 4, 2015 at 7:03 pm
I’m guessing everybody is so mad that they’ll barely vote for them again in the next election cycle – like they’ll vote, but they won’t color in the circle on the ballot quite as hard.
And we won’t donate to their campaigns, or raise money for them, or volunteer our time and energy. We won’t publicly endorse them. We may skip voting entirely, or write in a protest vote. We might even show up to protest at their campaign stops, reminding everyone that this is the one who turned against us during their first weeks in office. A few of us will be looking for suitable candidates to run in primary elections against them.
That lightly colored circle is going to cost them.
So you won’t support the candidates you claim are faux anti-choicers Del? So that’d be a lost election.
Or you’d nominate a supposedly real anti-choice candidate who voters would find abhorrent. So that’d be a lost election.
[…] Moderator Del, commenting on Stanek post, “Two weeks ago today GOP House leaders pulled the 20-week abortion ban, and […]
But building a culture at some point means being more than a sub-culture. Laws, politics, culture, these go hand-in hand. Electing Hillary Clinton does not help build a culture or achieve our end goal, which is as you say.
We can lose elections and still win the heart of the nation. Obama couldn’t stop us — and neither will Hillary, if she wins the White House.
Our hope and salvation will not come from Washington.
It’s not easy being genuinely pro-life, betrayed by elected people, gloated over by pro-choicers, etc.
This is also one illustration why there should never be any rape exceptions. Either every human being has a right to live, or none of us do. The circumstances of one’s conception do not undercut one’s worthiness to live.
Have you received that promised phone call yet, Jill?
A legislative staff person telling someone that she will call them back and then not doing so is telling in itself.
I think they have forgotten who it is they work for.
They can run but they can’t hide.
I think it’s time for the PLM to flex it’s muscles, and the way to do this is with money and votes. Christians sent a message to hollywood when they boycotted “Noah” in the theaters… the studios took notice when they produced their next biblical epic on the exodus.
Christians did it with Duck Dynasty, again, the studios had to listen and put Duck Dynasty back on the air after saying they were going to pull it for it’s Christian content.
It’s time to tie in the fact that all life is sacred with being Christian. If we can’t see Christ on the Cross in the pre-born, then we have no right to claim Christ died for us, since we are still killing him, we have denied his usefulness to us, and renounced Him. If you love Jesus, you also love Jesus in the womb. Period.
Rand Paul was pro-life before he began hinting at the presidency. Then he came out and said Plan B was birth control, and as such, he is not against it.
Before he came out against women on this issue, who are deeply hrt by the effects of Plan B, he stood up for life. He took risks for life. His famous filibuster on the flood appropriations bill resulted in the slog: I STAND WITH RAND. And then he actually had the audacity to terminate that rational for the slogan by coming out in favor of Plan B as the new condom, which is how men are going to see this pill, and how young women, already so exploited and pressured to do sexual things that they are not sure about, are going to take as their responsibility.
Men like Rand have a duty to stand against men like Obama. If they don’t their voices, like these female backstabbing republican snakes, will also just blend into the white noise that so many exploited young millennials have to block out just to get through their day in sanity.
Not an easy one. On the one hand, I can see that often “it’s better to be feared than loved”. If we can’t hold the politicians accountable and don’t make an example of anyone that breaks their promises, we essentially have no political power. Why would the “country club” Republicans advocate for the unborn and risk losing pro-choice votes if they know that they’re getting the pro-life votes no matter what? We can’t make any progress unless the legislators actually have an incentive to advance the pro-life cause.
On the other hand however, there is a danger to the whole “raze the GOP to the ground if that’s what it takes” strategy. It might make us feel good to abandon the party and boycott the election if the candidates on the ballot are too “squishy” (it would work too – presidential elections are all about base turnout, and the Democrats are notoriously good at this). But a Democratic president (combined with huge majorities in the House and Senate) could pass the Freedom of Choice Act/Women’s Health Protection Act, which would undo almost all of the good work pro-lifers have done at the state level over the past 4 years (maybe even the last 40 years). While it’s true that FOCA never saw the light of day during the early Obama era (when he had majorities in the House and Senate), that could change after 2016. There are fewer pro-life Democrats than ever before, and the abortion lobby would push harder this time because it is much harder to get an abortion now than it was in 2009-2010 due to the new state laws.
If we don’t have a party to ally with, we don’t have any political power either. Look at Canada – none of the parties are pro-life, we have never had a pro-life prime minister, and there is only a few dedicated backbench members of parliament who are pro-life. The only significant legal restrictions on abortion are that RU-486 isn’t available (though that’s likely to change later this year), overseas abortions aren’t directly funded by the government, and abortions in one province aren’t taxpayer funded. Doctors may soon be forced to refer for abortion (and perform it in some cases), yet no level of government will do anything about it. Everyone considers abortion a settled issue because the politicians refuse to touch it. The politicians refuse to touch it because everyone considers it a settled issue. I doubt the cultural differences between the U.S. and Canada are significant enough to explain this stark contrast (they certainly weren’t back in 1988, when abortion on demand first came into effect). If we had a viable party to get behind, things might have gone differently and we would have actually gotten somewhere by now.
[…] I wrote in a previous blog post, Ellmers apparently thought she was walking into a student photo up and got […]