March 19, 2008
From: Gary Bauer
Campaign for Working Families
Date: Friday, February 22, 2000
One month ago, tens of thousands of young Americans came to Washington for the annual march in defense of the sanctity of human life. It was an impressive sight to see so many youth willing to brave the cold to keep fighting against Roe vs. Wade 35 years after the Supreme Court issued that terrible decision. In the years since, millions of innocent unborn children have been aborted and countless women exploited.
Senator Barack Obama took time out from the campaign trail to issue a statement while pro-life marchers were standing up for life. The candidate of “hope” and “change” apparently wants no change when it comes to Americaâ€™s current abortion-on-demand regime and, sadly, he offers no hope to the unborn. Here is what he said:
“Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, itâ€™s never been more important to protect a womanâ€™s right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect womenâ€™s health.
“With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a womenâ€™s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.
“Throughout my career, Iâ€™ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
“When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”
The idea of a “President Obama,” with a perfect 100% pro-abortion rating from Planned Parenthood and NARAL, choosing our next Supreme Court justice, or the next two or three Supreme Court justices, ought to be enough to send every conservative who cares about the sanctity of life running to the polls in November.
Pro-Lifers For Obama?
Yesterday, I noted that recent polling data shows John McCain beating Hillary Clinton but narrowly trailing Barack Obama. The Illinois senatorâ€™s charisma is no doubt largely responsible for his popularity, but other polling data points to a potentially serious problem. According to LifeNews.com, Obama is polling better with pro-life voters than Hillary Clinton is, even though Barack may well be further to the left than Hillary on many issues, including abortion.
For example, looking at polling data among pro-life voters in Wisconsin, John McCain gets 65% of the vote, compared to just 27% for Hillary â€“ a 38- point advantage for McCain. Against Obama, however, there is a ten-point swing, with McCain favored 60%-to-32% among pro-life voters. According to LifeNews.com, the same disparity has been recorded in polling in Virginia and Iowa.
One possible explanation is that Hillary is a “known quantity,” while Obama is a “blank slate” to many voters. If that is the case, the pro-life, pro- family movement needs to step-up its voter education efforts immediately!
Toward that goal, CWF has recently posted on our website a quick comparison sheet highlighting the stark contrasts between John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on some key pro-family, pro-life issues. You can check it out at http://www.cwfpac.com Click the homepage link under “Where Do They Stand?”
February 13, 2007
Transcription of Phyllis Schlafly’s Testimony
Before Arkansas State Agency & Governmental Affairs House Committee
on ERA Bill, (HJR1002)February 7, 2007
(In less than ten minutes)
Schlafly Bio: Phyllis Schlafly was recently named one of the one hundred most important women of the twentieth century by the Ladies’ Home Journal. She is a Constitutional lawyer and president of Eagle Forum which has chapters in every state. Her syndicated column appears in one hundred newspapers, her radio commentaries are heard daily on 460 stations, and her radio talk show, "Phyllis Schlafly Live" is heard weekly on forty stations. Schlafly is the author of twenty books and has testified before more than fifty Congresisonal and State Legislative committees. The mother of six children, Mrs.Schlafly was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year. Friends and foes of Schlafly give her credit for galvanizing the grassroots movement that defeated ERA in its ten-year battle from 1972to 1982 when Presidents of both parties and the media had all endorsed it. [And all these feats were accomplished without an Equal Rights Amendment]
Transcription of Testimony:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: Thank you for allowing us to hear a non constituent. I have a special place in my heart for Arkansas because my husband’s family owned the Mountain Valley Spring in Hot Springs from 1900 to 1987; and my husband brought me there on our honeymoon. I still drink Moutain Valley water, now owned by Arkansas people, and it is the finest water in the world. So thank you.
Now you have heard about an hour and half of advocacy for the Equal Rights Amendment; but I note that you didn’t hear about one single law, federal or state, that discriminates against women that this amendment will remedy. I note that you didn’t hear a single benefit that women will get out of the Equal Rights Amendment. This thing was debated for 10 years, from 1972 to 1982; and it was rejected by fifteen states outright and five more that rescinded and changed their mind.
I think the main reason it was rescinded and rejected was that it is a fraud. It pretends to help women, but it does nothing for women; and they are not able to show any benefit, any correction of law that the Equal Rights Amendment will do. You know that the amendment does not put women in the Constitution, and it does not put gender in the constitution. It puts sex in the Constitution. Now we are at the mercy of the judges. The Equal Rights Amendment does not say whether it is the sex you are or the sex you do. We leave all those decisions up to the judges.
Now in looking for what the Equal Rights Amendment will do, I look to the best top authority on that subject. And the leading lawyer in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment those years was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is now on the United States Supreme Court. She wrote a book, a 230 page book, to tell exactly how the Equal Rights Amendment will affect federal law; and she is very explicit in it. I think there probably is no higher authority about what it will actually do.
What it will do is make all our laws sex neutral. Now we have the matter of the draft. Now nobody denies that if you have strict scrutiny you are going to have women not only subject to the draft, when and if there is a draft, but also subject to combat. We know women are exempted from infantry combat and submarines today. Those differences are there. Now a very powerful Democrat today, Congressman Charlie Rangel has got his bill to reinstate the draft; and, of course, it is sex neutral. I am going to do everything I can to prevent his bill from passing. But if it passed, there is no question about the effect of ERA. It would treat women exactly the same as men, and women do not want to be treated the same as men in the military and in combat.
Now among other things that Ruth Bader Ginsburg says in this, and what she doesn’t say, is that it is going to have no effect on the Constitution itself because the Constitution is already sex neutral. The Constitution does not say men are created equal. That is in the Declaration of Independence. Fortunately you are not amending the Declaration of Independence. We are talking about the Constitution. And the Constitution uses exclusively sex neutral terms, we the people, citizens, residents, inhabitants, president, ambassador, representative. Women have every Constitutional right that men have.
Also this book makes clear that it has nothing to do with employment. It is not going to give women a raise or make them equal in the board rooms or in the legislatures because our employment laws are already sex neutral; and this book makes that clear.
However, there are some differences. One of the differences is the effect it would have on homemakers in this country. One of the most offensive things that Ruth Bader Ginsburg says in this book is that the concept of dependent wife must be eliminated from the code. What does that mean? The social security system rests on the concept of the dependent wife. I get my social security based on my husband’s income over the years, and I am sure that is true of many women here today. Social security is a very pro-women institution because it gives the benefit to the dependent wife, the dependent wife who is not, herself, in the workforce. According to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that is a concept that must be eliminated from the code under ERA. This book was written to describe how ERA will affect federal laws.
And then she [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] goes into how it will change the words when you say you can’t discriminate on account of sex. She gives a whole list of words that will have to be changed. And among the words that would have to be deleted from the federal code are husband and wife. Now that is a direct attack on the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which says that marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. Feminists don’t like that. They want to put us into a sex neutral world, and it certainly would have a direct effect on the Federal DOMA.
She [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] makes very clear that the ERA would require treating sex like we treat race. That is one of their arguments. And it would require everything that is separated according to sex to be sex integrated. Now, she specifically says that this would include the Scouts. It is discriminatory to have Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. They would have to be put together. She says fraternities and sororities would have to be combined. She says even prisons would have to be sex integrated.
There are all kinds of mischief she [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] has in this book under her name, in a book published and paid for by the US government. She makes arguments that I never dared to make, that it will wipe out the laws against prostitution and the laws against bigamy – that it would reduce the age of consent to 12; She even goes after Mother’s Day because that would be sex discriminatory.
Of course, in the matter of marriage, it would open up the courts to all kinds of litigation by the gay rights movement which is working very hard on every type of judge they can find to give them whatever they want to have. Again, the Equal Rights Amendment says you can’t discriminate on account of sex, and that is what you are talking about. If you deny a marriage license to a man and a man, you have discriminated on account of sex. All of the highest legal authorities from Harvard and Yale have all said that the equal rights amendment would okay same sex marriage.
I was on the platform with the great Senator Sam Irvin, considered then the leading legal authority in the Senate, the great Watergate Senator, who said the only people who would profit by the Equal Rights Amendment would be the homosexuals; and you could have all kinds of litigation on that.
On the matter of abortion, we know that the New Mexico case is very clear. The argument of the feminists is abortion is something that happens only to women; therefore, if you deny any rights or any funding on abortion, you have discriminated on account of sex within the meaning of the Equal Rights Amendment. Now we do not have nineteen states with state ERA’s. There are only six of the states that have ERA’s in the same language as the proposed federal ERA. One of those is New Mexico, and that is why New Mexico said that it is discrimination to deny funding for abortion in New Mexico.
Another one of those states is Hawaii, which is where they okayed same sex marriage based on the state’s ERA. Hawaii had to pass another Constitutional amendment saying in effect, "No, we didn’t mean that."
So there are all kinds of problems that come along, and I think it would move the whole area of family law to the federal government because of Section II. Section II says the Congress will have the power to enforce it by appropriate legislation and there are all kinds of family property laws, divorce, child custody, that would then become federal matters under the ERA.
This country wisely rejected it after long debate, and I think what it comes down to is how the judges interpret it. And we have no confidence – you asked for assurance of what the judges are going to do – we don’t know what they are going to do.
But in any event, I think the country made a very good decision in voting it down in a ten-year battle that went on all across the country; and I hope that we a leave it decently buried.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, for listening.
Chairman – Thank you very much and without pausing said, Seeing there are no questions (then goes to next witness)
The committee defeated the ERA bill by one vote, 10 to 10. They needed 11 votes to get it out of committee.
This article can be read online at this link: http://www.wpaag.org/ERA%20-%20Schlafly%20Testimony%20in%20AR%202-7-07.htm
November 28, 2006
Where in the world did Rick Warren get so far off track?
Rick Warren/Barack Obama AIDS Partnership Must End,
Say Pro-Life Groups
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, Nov. 27 /Christian Newswire/ — As those who have worked to defend preborn children from the horrors of abortion in America and who have stood uncompromisingly against the legalized slaughter of an estimated 50 million Americans in the womb since 1973, we join with one voice in expressing our indignation and opposition to Rick Warren’s welcoming of Senator Barack Obama to his church on December 1, 2006. Rick Warren is bringing Senator Obama to his church to speak for his Global Summit on AIDS and the church and to take an AIDS test in front of the cameras at a noon press conference.
Senator Obama comes to Rick Warren’s church believing that abortion should be kept, "safe and legal". When Barack Obama campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his wife wrote a fundraising letter for him that revealed his support of partial-birth abortion. She said Obama’s position is that the "partial-birth abortion ban . . . is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned." Support of partial-birth abortion goes a lot farther than the politicians who want abortion to be "safe and legal." Senator Obama actually supports the barbaric practice of allowing abortionists to kill babies by allowing them to be partially, born, their skulls punctured and their brains sucked out. Further, he repeatedly opposed an anti-infanticide bill in the state of Illinois that only passed after he left. Killing a child at any stage of life is a violation of God’s clear command, "Thou Shall Do No Murder". In addition,Obama’s solution to the growing AIDS crisis has been and continues to be the !
widespread distribution of condoms, not chaste behavior as directed by the Bible.
In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren’s decision to ignore Senator Obama’s clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway. If Senator Obama cannot defend the most helpless citizens in our country, he has nothing to say to the AIDS crisis. You cannot fight one evil while justifying another. The evangelical church can provide no genuine help for those who suffer from AIDS if those involved do not first have their ethic of life firmly rooted in the Word of God. Accordingly, we call on Pastor Rick Warren to rescind his invitation to Senator Obama immediately. The millions of silent victims who have died because of the policies of leaders like Senator Obama demand a response from those who believe that life is a gift from God. The name of the seminar at which Senator Obama will be appearing is entitled, " We Must Work Together." No, Mr. Warren, Mr. Obama, we will never work with those can support the murder of babies in the womb.
Phyllis Schlafly, President and Founder, Eagle Forum
Judie Brown, President, American Life League
Tim Wildmon, President American Family Association and American Family Radio
Joe Scheidler, President, Pro-Life Action League
Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue
Matt Trewhella, Missionaries to the Preborn
Brannon Howse, President, Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network
Janet Folger, President, Faith2Action
Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans for Truth
Greg Cunningham, President, Center for Bioethical Reform, Lake Forest, California
Peggy Hamill, Director, Pro-Life Wisconsin
Cal Zastrow, Christian Action for the Preborn
Dr. Vic Eliason, President, VCY America Radio Network
Ingrid Schlueter, Host, Crosstalk Radio Talk Show
Kevin McCullough, Host, Musclehead Revolution, WMCA Radio
Chris Rosebrough, Capo Valley Church, San Juan Capistrano, California
Rev. Ken Silva, Apprising Ministries
Linda Harvey, President, Mission America
February 6, 2006
Research Affirms that Abortion Harms Women
by Wendy Cloyd
Professor David Fergusson, a researcher at Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences in New Zealand, wanted to prove that abortion doesn’t have any psychological consequences. What he found surprised him:
Women who had abortions are one-and-a-half times more likely to suffer mental illness.
“When we did the research, I was very much convinced that abortion didn’t have any harmful effects,” Fergusson told Family News in Focus. “So, from a personal point of view, I would have rather seen the results come out the other way — but they didn’t. And as a scientist you have to report the facts, not what you’d like to report.”
Now he says women should be alerted to that risk.
Fergusson, a self-proclaimed pro-choice scientist, said he thought research concerning the effects of abortion on the mental health of women was lacking.
“The whole topic has been remarkably under-researched,” he told The New Zealand Herald. “There’s been a lot of debate about whether abortion does or does not have harmful effects, but the amount of research into the harms of abortion — or its benefits for that matter — has been very limited.”
So, Fergusson followed 500 women from birth to age 25.
“Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors and substance use disorders,” reads the research published in the Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology.
Forty-two percent of women who had abortions experienced major depression.
That’s twice as high as to women who had never been pregnant and 35 percent higher than for those who had gotten pregnant and kept the baby.
Fergusson lamented that many journals simply refused to publish the research.
“To provide a parallel to this situation, if we were to find evidence of an adverse reaction to medication, we would be obliged ethically to publish that fact,” he said.
“The fact is that abortions are the most common medical procedures that young women face. It verges on scandalous that a surgical procedure that is performed on over one in 10 women has been so poorly researched and evaluated, given the debate about the psychological consequences of abortion.”
While applauding Fergusson’s research and his candor, Carrie Gordon Earll, senior analyst for bioethics at Focus on the Family Action, disagreed with his claim that little has been done to document the consequences of abortion.
“The New Zealand study is just the latest in a series of studies that document that abortion hurts women emotionally and psychologically, as well as physically,” she said.
A 2003 study published in the Medical Science Monitor showed that women whose first pregnancies ended in abortion were 65 percent more likely to be at risk for clinical depression than women who chose to give birth.
A study in Norway, published in the journal BMC Medicine in 2005, concluded that abortion caused more lingering mental anguish than miscarriage.
A 1996 Finnish study, published in the British Medical Journal, found that “the suicide rate after an abortion was three times the general suicide rate and six times that associated with birth.”
The list goes on, Earll said.
Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, said the pro-abortion industry doesn’t want to acknowledge such research, because to do so would undermine its argument base.
“The abortion debate in America is maybe the most dishonest debate that there is,” he said. “Almost all of the arguments put forth by the other side — from the very beginning of the abortion debate to today — have turned out not to be true.
“They said that crime would go down if they had abortion; they said poverty would be reduced if there was such a thing as abortion,” Ruse said. “And they said abortion was not harmful to women — all not true.”
Ruse said the pro-life movement is winning all those arguments based on science, medicine and social science.
“Science is showing when life starts — what we’ve always known science is now confirming,” he said. “Medicine is showing that unborn children can actually be operated on, so very obviously it is a human being. And social science is showing that abortion is harmful to women, harmful to families and harmful to society.”
Ruse added that with research revealing the dire consequences facing women who choose abortion, the arguments used in the landmark cases Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are losing validity.
“The Roe decision did not consider the impact of abortion on women. In fact, they said that it would have only a positive impact,” he said. “And so those assertions are being overturned by the social science data which shows that abortion — as a matter of fact — is deeply harmful to women.”
FOR MORE INFORMATION: You can find Carrie Gordon Earll’s review of the many studies that show the trauma of abortion on the Focus on Social Issues Web site.
Who says it’s not a good time to end abortion?
March 29, 2004
There are a myriad of false perceptions on what constitutes being pro life among pro life groups. Some groups’ work is counter productive to authentic pro life work. They are part time or quasi pro lifers.
This fact, that some groups are not really pro life, is the reason why the U.S. is still counting over 45 millions babies surgically killed after almost 32 years of work? Some groups are so flawed they must be called fakes.
There is only one correct defense if we are to stop the killing of babies. We must be pro life with no exceptions.
A good example of a group actually being counter productive to life is what happened recently in the South Dakota Congress during March, 2004 legislation. It involves shocking action taken by the National Right to Life (NRL) and its South Dakota Right to Life (SDRL) chapter’s officer, State Sen. Jay Duenwald, an action that will affect thousands of children’s lives. Here’s what took place.
South Dakota’s House of Representatives had just passed the abortion ban bill 1191 by an overwhelming majority, 54 to 14 and was headed to the Senate. Instead of supporting this important piece of pro life legislation, NRL joined forces with pro abortion members of the legislature to defeat the initial bill, which had absolutely no exceptions in it. It was a perfect pro life bill.
NRL then attacked the forced compromised measure, which was still powerful legislation, banning virtually all abortions in South Dakota, making it a felony punishable to 15 years. Even pro abortion lobbyists called the revised bill “the most restrictive anti-abortion measure since Roe v Wade.” Countless children would be saved. It would have been challenged in the U.S.Supreme Court, and once there, a viable possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade.
Next, the Senate narrowly approved the compromise measure, 18 to 17. When the bill arrived on the Governor’s desk, he sent it back with a “style and form” veto suggesting some technical changes which had to be approved by both houses of the legislature for the bill to become law. Although the House again overwhelmingly passed the bill, NRL’s officer, Sen. Duenwald, hada second chance to defeat it. This time, with the help of NRL’s powerful lobbying efforts, they succeeded. The bill was defeated by an 18 to 17 vote.
National Right to Life, a mainstream ecumenical face of the pro life movement, teamed up with child killers ‘Planned Parenthood’ to defeat a bill by saying, “It’s not the right time for this bill,” a bill that would have met no resistance what so ever…the Governor was pro life, the District Attorney was pro life, both the house and the senate were pro life. Indeed, it would have been fait accompli for the life of the unborn.
The Church is very clear on the sinfulness of NRL’s action. Referring to such rationalization, Pope Paul VI said “One cannot do evil so that good may follow therefrom” (Humane vitae n.14; Rom.3:8). According to the principle of double effect, evenin a moral dilemma, the act in question must be good or at least neutral. One may not do evil in order to accomplish good. The end does not justify the means. Evil is evil.
It is no secret among many hard working pro lifers that NRL has caused much confusion during the past 30 years because theylack consistency and faithfulness in all life issues, including contracepting, IVF, cloning, abortion, euthanasia, etc. Onecannot call themselves pro life if they only are pro life on one or two issues, alleging that a little bit of murder (called ‘exceptions’) can be allowed.
Wielding enormous electoral clout, mostly within the Republican Party, NRL supports the murder of innocent unborn babies using the 30 year old “The Life of the Mother” ruse. Contrary to this barefaced lie, hundreds of doctors have given testimony there is never a reason to destroy the child to save the life of a mother. Another pro abortion myth that NRL has perpetuated.
NRL also states that a person can sape and incest and still call themselves pro life. Oh, really? This is a moral relativism at its worst.
Another dismal fact shows that NRL is not opposed to the evil “in-vitro fertilization” nor to “fertility clinics” that throw away thousands of living humans, or embryos, every year.
Remember President George W. Bush’s August 9, 2001 morally unacceptable decision for the U.S. to become complicit on the existing stem-cell research line, pursued with taxpayer’s money? NRL came out in full support the next morning, saying, “We are delighted that President Bush’s decision prevents the federal government from becoming a party to any further killing of human embryos for medical experimentation.” Such a view weakens a pro life position. Was the NRL living in a spider hole in Tikrit at the time?
Former Ambassador Alan Keyes, a Republican supporter, said Bush’s decision was more damaging than anything that Bill Clinton, often called the villain of the right, could have done. “The evil that you know, the evil that inspires you to fight again is not the worst evil,” Keyes said. “The worst evil creeps behind your lines and dominates your leadership.”
The Vatican and U.S. Catholic bishops swiftly denounced the President’s actions as murderous. The federal government, for the first time in history, supported research that relies on the destruction of some defenseless human beings for the possible benefit to others. Remember, the end can never justify an evil means?
Perhaps most importantly, NRL does not oppose the selfish, destructive practice of contraception and nor increased funding to ‘population control’ (pro abortion term meaning ‘contraception’) programs, except in rare cases. Is it never lawful or morally right to profit from the direct killing of innocent human beings.
Contraception is the root of the sin of abortion and the main key within the pro life movement. If your pro life group doesnot oppose all contraception, then your work will always fail.
When parents contracept, it is easily perceived by the children in the family, indoctrinating them into believing that controlled reproduction and abortion are a normal way of life (most contraceptives are murderous abortifacients, meaning they cause the death of a growing child).
Pope Paul VI prophesied that any concessions given to any contraceptives would lead to acceptance of abortion, euthanasia, pornography, promiscuity, divorce, homosexual activity, in vitro fertilization and cloning. The world now sees the Pope was right in each instance.
NRL’s well known indifference on the heavily toxic (to the baby as well as to the mother) ‘morning after pill’ and other abortifacients is a tragedy for all mankind. The number of surgical abortions can be approximated at 45 million in the U.S. alone, but the number of chemical abortions would be in the hundreds of millions, ever since ‘The Pill’ was introduced in the 1960′s.
We clearly can see that NRL and some (not all) of their 3,000 local affiliates are ‘Cafeteria Pro Lifers,’ picking and choosing which murders they want to accept, while the killing goes on, every day, tallying 1.3 surgical murders every year, 3,600 ‘recorded’ abortions per day (what makes anyone thing that a ‘doctor’ who murders babies would want to keep correct tax records?). That’s one child murdered every 17 seconds. NRL clearly lacks faithfulness and consistency in the face of this war.
Consistency is faithfulness. Pope John Paul II said, “But all faithfulness must pass the more exacting test of duration. Itis easy to be consistent for a day or two. It is difficult and important to be consistent one’s whole life. It is easy to be consistent in the hour of enthusiasm; it is difficult to be so in the hour of tribulation. And only a consistency that lasts throughout the whole life can be called faithfulness” (Mexico, 1979).
The killing will not end until the work is consistent and faithful to the most important of all life matters…the life of the unborn, the innocent, the infirmed. Until enough of us are consistently pro land no ‘buts,’ we’ll continue to wallow in the blood of the innocent.
So that we don’t lose hope, there are groups that are consistently pro life, with no exceptions. One such group is AmericanLife League. Judie Brown, ALL’s president, warns that the cultural crisis with its ambivalence about abortion only serves as a call for greater vigilance. “We are keeping watch,” she said. “We have a right to demand accountability from both our elected representatives and those who speak for the pro life movement. And we have an obligation to the babies to do exactly that.”
One recourse to end the killing is a constitutional “Human Life Amendment,’ but how can the pro life movement persuade enough Americans that abortion should be banned, that we need such an amendment, when pro life groups are unconvincing in their lack of consistency and faithfulness.
Roe v. Wade will not be overturned unless it has a case on which to base its reversal, such as the excellent South Dakota bill. Richard Thompson, President/Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center accused NRL of betrayal, “It is one thing for National Right to Life to disagree with the timing of a bill banning abortions, it is another thing for them to join forces with pro abortionists to kill the ban it is a betrayal of the unborn and pro-life movement. When is it the wrong time to do what is right? This organization has lost the moral authority to lead the pro- life cause.”
If this isn’t the right time to end abortion, tell that to the 4,000 babies that will be surgically murdered tomorrow.
Barbara Kralis, the article’s author, writes for various Christian and conservative publications. She is a regular columnist at RenewAmerica.us, Catholic Online.com, The Wanderer newspaper, New Oxford Review Magazine, Washington Dispatch, MichNews, Catholic Citizens of Illinois, Phil Brennan’s WOW, ChronWatch, etc. Her first journalism position was with Boston Herald Traveler, 1964. Barbara published/edited ‘Semper Fidelis’ Catholic print newsletter. She and her husband, Mitch, live in the great State of Texas, and co-direct the Jesus Through Mary Catholic Foundation.