Follow Save the 1

Translate the Blog

Search

Loading...
Monday, August 29, 2016

Gerard Nadal: Apologist for Pro-Life Exceptions Strikes Again, by Sarah St. Onge


A short time ago, Gerard Nadal, apologist extraordinaire for pro-life exceptions, posted a social media status update which essentially claimed those of us who fought against exceptions in pro-life legislation were making "idols of our consciences". The accolades for his outrageous statement were (sadly) generally supportive from his followers.



In the past, he has also positioned himself as morally superior by declaring us "petulant" for wanting to save the lives of babies who would be passed over by laws riddled with exceptions. He was supported by his followers in this characterization of us as well.

The problem with his position is his refusal to even entertain the possibility of passing no exceptions pro-life laws. For a man who claims to have such an immense faith in a God who can work any wonder, his lack of belief in this matter is troubling.

Politics has fooled people into believing that exceptions are necessary to pass pro-life laws.  

This is incorrect.

First, we need to acknowledge that when we speak of "exceptions," we are generally speaking of classes of persons targeted within legislation which prohibit abortions after 20-24 weeks, as most states allow unfettered abortion up until then.

As of late, exceptions apply to late-term abortion laws.

There have been a number of significant pieces of state-level legislation which contain no exceptions for abortions (please see footnote).

Alabama, Michigan, Indiana, and Wyoming are just a few states which do not have exceptions in their late-term abortion laws. (Note, link is a pro-choice resource because Americans United For Life which tracks pro-life legislation has made the decision not to track exceptions within abortion legislation -- a distinct indication of its relevance to them.)

It is simply not true that pro-life persons cannot pass abortion laws without exceptions: even New York, which has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the US, does not have exception clauses in its abortion cut-off.

Let me repeat that:

New York does not have exceptions in their late-term abortion legislation -- the state we all lament for its high abortion rates and its war against African-American babies. 


That state, has no exceptions.


This lie that exceptions are necessary has been perpetuated for too long.  We are blatantly attacked by the likes of Gerard Nadal for speaking this truth, and it's time we push back!

We don't need exceptions in abortion limitations to push them through the legislative process.

When we've come to a point where the most pro-choice state in the US recognizes the right-to-life of a late-term unborn child without discrimination, yet conservative pro-life legislators in conservative, pro-life states cannot persuade other politicians to support abortion prohibitions without exceptions, this is a problem..... We need to find new, more persuasive legislators, and better pro-life leaders worthy of following and supporting.

The answer to the "abortion dilemma" is not to continue compromising -- it's to make it clear we will not elect representatives who do not take a firm stand against abortion, no matter what the circumstances.

When politicians say, "we won't get support without compromise", who do you think they are compromising with? Pro-choice legislators?

Generally speaking, pro-choice legislators will vote against virtually any pro-life law. They don't care what the parameters of the proposed legislation are.

Our allegedly pro-life legislators and leaders aren't compromising with them. When politicians and activists talk about compromise, they are talking about compromise within the pro-life contingent. It's pro-life legislators they are having to make exceptions for, Right to Life PAC-endorsed pro-life representatives who are debating the merits of these laws and their proposed exceptions.

And they're arguing the content of pro-life laws based on your potential vote. They don't want to lose you -- their pro-life constituents --  as voters.

It's time to stop this nonsense once and for all.

The state has a compelling interest in protecting all of its citizens. Science has proven the humanity of the fetus at all stages of development, regardless of the condition of conception or future outlook in terms of disability. Unborn children are citizens, and deserving of the same protections as everyone else. There is no reason for pro-life legislators to hold out on fetal anomaly, rape or incest exceptions, especially when the pro-life grass roots voters have been in the dark that these discriminatory exceptions are even within these proposed laws!

The ball is in our court -- your court.

Don't blame officials you've elected for not being capable of compromise. They're only doing what we are asking them to do.

Don't let pro-life "hot shots" make claims which are proven false with a minimal amount of research and lack of care -- having made the determination in their own sense of wisdom that certain children are expendable.

Don't let people convince you to compromise on your principles by creating an atmosphere of fear.  Because this is what they do: they make you afraid of the collapse of any abortion legislation.

We have the power to end exceptions in laws limiting abortions, and save lives. Other states have done it. Liberal, pro-choice-controlled states have done it.

All it would take is a unified voice of pro-life people clarifying that pro-life means pro-life. Not pro-life except for those who were conceived in rape and/or incest or those with abnormalities.

How many of you privately don't support, and are uncomfortable with, legislation which doesn't protect all preborn human life?

How many of you go along with compromise due to expediency?

How many of you don't say anything because every time you do, someone calls you heartless or tells you you're being divisive?

How many of you are tired of being called "petulant" because you're disappointed by another year of abortion legislation which doesn't save the most vulnerable?

I know I am.





(footnote: Federal law requires that all states have exceptions for life of the mother in their abortion legislation)
 BIO:  Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1.  She's also the founder of limbbodywallcomplex.net, a pro-life, diagnosis specific website which supports parents who continue their pregnancy after receiving the same lethal diagnosis which took her daughter, Beatrix Elizabeth.  She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.

0 comments: