Are some candidates “more pro-life” than others?  Yes!  Is it important to know which candidates and which organizations are willing to compromise their pro-life values? Yes, because we’re talking about lethal prejudice.

This is not a political game for me.  I literally owe my birth to the law being there to protect me.  My heroes are pro-life legislators in Michigan who recognized that mine was a life worth saving, even in cases of rape – 100% pro-life, with no exceptions and no compromise.  They are my heroes!  My birthmother did not choose life for me.  She chose abortion.  I was nearly aborted at two illegal abortionists  -- my life-changing near-death experience.   She only backed out because of the “back alley” conditions and because it was illegal.  If your mother chose life for you – how nice for you, but mine didn’t.   Some of us are in need of heroes – those who willing to protect us without exception, without compromise.

I’m from Michigan where we’ve never had a rape exception in a single law.  It’s not because Michigan is a red state. We’re a purple state in fact.  It’s because Right to Life of Michigan is a no exceptions, no compromise organization and they made the determination in the early 70’s that they would never forsake the child conceived in rape.  So what does that mean exactly?  It means that a candidate does not get their PAC (political action committee) endorsement if he or she makes a rape exception, and they don’t put their stamp of approval on rape exception legislation.  As a result, we’ve passed some of the best laws in the nation  – and they’re clean laws, with no exceptions.  We even overrode the Governor’s veto a couple of years ago with a state-wide petition drive, then a majority vote of the House and Senate.  Again, this is because of the stellar pro-life leadership here in Michigan.

For many years, Right to Life of Michigan (RLM) was the only affiliate of National Right to Life Conference (NRLC) who refused to compromise on the rape exception.  In the early 1970’s, there was a schism within the pro-life movement over whether to forsake the child conceived in rape.  Nellie Gray, founder of the March for Life (MFL), used to go and on about it.  She had their statement of principles read each year at the March, which outlined the MFL no compromise stance when she was in leadership.  Judie Brown, President of American Life League (ALL) can tell you all about this schism as well.  Sadly, the majority voice on the national level has been that of compromise.  The movement and innocent children conceived in rape have suffered as a result, because they’ve celebrated mediocrity instead of achieving success by electing the best possible pro-life legislators.

At the state level, on the other hand, Right to Life of Michigan was able to successfully persuade other state groups across the nation to go to the no exceptions, no compromise model – including Georgia Right to Life (GRTL).  Dan Becker details Georgia’s dramatic transformation within his book, Personhood:  A Pragmatic Guide to Pro-Life Victory in the 21^st Century and the Return to First Principles in Politics.  Georgia was the worst in the nation – worse than California or New York, with no pro-life laws on the books.  They only had 3% of the entire legislature who were 100% pro-life in the whole state.  When GRTL went to this model of no exceptions, no compromise, they lost half their board over it and both parties told them they were finished in Georgia and rendered irrelevant.  But what did they have to lose?  In about 10 years, when Dan Becker wrote his book, they went from worst to being ranked 4^the in the nation by Americans United for Life (AUL,) with a Gold Star rating.  And Georgia’s laws have NO rape exceptions!  Every state-wide elected official – Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General were all 100% pro-life, and in fact, signed an affidavit with GRTL vowing not to compromise on that stance.  This is ONLY the result of GRTL’s leadership and the decision not to compromise pro-life values.

Meanwhile, in Congress, they’re not getting anything done.  Yet somehow, NRLC and others still think their strategy of compromise is effective.  You hear them say things like – “It’s the burning building analogy.  You save the 99 in exchange for the 1, saving as many as you can, while working to save all.”  There are several problems with this strategy.  First of all, they are not working to save all.  The reality is that they shut the water off, send the fire trucks home, and stand there watching the building burn with the 1 left inside.  The compromisers never go back to save the 1.  The Hyde Amendment’s rape exception has been in place for more than two decades now, but instead of working to challenge it, the rape exception has become the standard and the Hyde Amendment is regularly used to justify it:  “It merely incorporates the terms of Hyde.”  They’ve already determined that the child conceived in rape is an expendable casualty and not worth the effort to defend.

Whenever I hear “Save the 99 in exchange for the 1,” I can’t help but think of the Parable of the Lost Sheep, because Jesus was all about saving the 1!   He starts out by saying, “See that you do not despise any of these little ones.”  Despise???  What a strange thing to say!  Why would anyone despise a little one?  Well, Sean Hannity called us an “evil seed” during his April 30, 2013 radio interview of Lila Rose.  Bishop Paul Morton , Jr. called us a “demon seed, not what God created” at a pastors conference of 2,000.  We’re called “horrible reminder of the rape,” “demon spawn,” “monster’s child,” “tainting the gene pool.”  Yeah, we’re despised – certainly more than any other people group today.

Jesus continues in Matthew 18: “For I tell you that their angels in Heaven always look upon the face of my Father in Heaven.”  Then He goes into the whole Parable of the Lost Sheep, where the Good Shepherd leaves the 99 to save the 1, and Jesus ends the lesson by saying, “In the same way, your Father in Heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.”  And neither should we!  Who are “the least of these” of whom Jesus spoke?  Are not children conceived in rape the least of the least in today’s society?  It's absolutely deplorable that any pro-life leader would suggest that they are in fact willing that any of these little ones should perish.  Because we're despised, it makes it easier for you?  Horrible!

So back to the burning building – what’s really happening is that you have people going in for job interviews (candidates) to become firefighters (legislators.)  These prospective firefighters sit down and tell the fire chiefs (leaders in the pro-life movement,) “Just so you know – I discriminate.  Yeah, if I go into a burning building and there are children in the midst of the fire in the back of the building, I’m not going to save them.  They’re going to be painfully disfigured and thus, will be a horrible reminder of the fire, and I’m just not going to do that to their parents, so I will discriminate and I’m going to let them die.  And if you try to force me to go in and save them, I just won’t go in and save any.”

Now tell me, what fire chief in his right mind would hire such a person as a firefighter?!  But that’s what far too many pro-life leaders have been doing.  And then, if somehow one inadvertently got hired, then refused to go in and save any if not allowed to discriminate, what fire chief would give his blessing on leaving an innocent child behind?!  And what fire chief wouldn’t immediately fire that firefighter?!  But instead, what’s been happening is that the corrupt fire chiefs not only support these deadly actions, but they reward them with a bonus in the form of a 100% approval rating and PAC endorsement!  The burning building predicament is not an emergency situation, but entirely foreseeable when they lower their standards and endorse these candidates.  And it’s preventable because there are good firefighters who don’t discriminate.

Do you see the problem now?  And if that’s not bad enough, then you have some good fire chiefs like GRTL  who are attacked by the bad fire chiefs, and they try to run them out of their jurisdiction by appointing another corrupt fire chief like Georgia Life Alliance who wants to unravel all of the good work GRTL’s done by undermining the standard of non-discrimination!  Let me be clear – Georgia Life Alliance would bring Georgia back to the days of utter failure.  They’ve already given Congressman Doug Collins a 100% approval rating when he allows for the rape exception!  How is that possible?  It’s just like how Eric Cantor was rewarded with a 100% approval rating by NRLC when he introduced the rape exception in the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is completely misleading to those who think a 100% approval rating from a pro-life organization means the candidate is actually 100% pro-life.  Go figure!

Rebecca Kiessling with Dr. Paul Broun at MiCPAC

And for the record, I AM pain-capable, despite the apparent rumors.  Former Congressman Dr. Paul Broun from Georgia was absolutely correct when he pointed out that the rape exception in the Pain Capable bill creates a subclass of humans.  Just imagine the screams of pain coming from the 350+ members of  Save The 1 who were conceived in rape or mothers from rape.  I assure you, the pain inflicted when we are targeted and devalued is life-long.

But too many are just accustomed to my people group being treated as the scapegoat, pawn, bargaining chip, cannon fodder, sin eater of the pro-life movement – being punished not only for the sins of our biological fathers, but for the sins of mediocre politicians as well.  Consider replacing the rape-conceived with any other people group – for example, “except in cases of Jewish babies.”  What message would that send to every Jew living in America today?  It tells them that their life is not as valuable  -- that they are “tainted” and not as worthy of life and protection as everyone else.  No other people group is as systematically targeted and discriminated against in today’s society as the child conceived in rape.  Rape survivor mothers, who are raising their children whom they love, grieve at how their children are devalued and how they are being exploited, and this lethal prejudice must end!

So now we must ask, who are these compromise organizations more interested in protecting?  The innocent child conceived in rape, or politicians who vow to discriminate?  The 14^th Amendment says that no state shall deprive a person of their right to life without due process of law, and that no state shall deny a person equal protection of the laws.  Rape exceptions violate equal protection.  You cannot legitimately support the 14^th Amendment right to life, while denying its equal protection requirements.

There is a superior strategy – not only morally superior, but practically superior as well because being 100% pro-life is really the litmus test for how passionate a candidate is about protecting life.  These are our champions who are able to bring us out of deadly stagnation.  Dan Becker was right – being principled IS the most the pragmatic approach.  Michigan and Georgia are proof of that.  So let’s punish rapists, not babies, and protect babies, not politicians.

BIO:  Rebecca Kiessling is a wife, mother of 5, attorney and international pro-life speaker.  She’s the founder and President of the global pro-life organization Save The 1 -- addressing all of the so-called "hard cases" in the abortion debate, co-founder of Hope After Rape Exception, and national spokeswoman for and Executive Committee Board Member of Personhood Alliance.

This overly-permissive language certainly opens the door for late-term abortions on demand, for any reason, which is why closet pro-choicers always want a rape exception – to open the door.  Women will be told to lie, just like Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) of Roe v Wade was told by her lawyers to lie in order to obtain an abortion.  In addition, there is absolutely no sense of due process involved in this death penalty decree for children conceived in rape.  Can you imagine if Congress introduced a bill stating that a rapist could be put to death -- just with the requirement that a rape be “reported”?!  But according to the U.S. Supreme Court, rapists don’t deserve the death penalty, and even for child molesters, it’s “cruel and unusual punishment.”  Yet, the Congressional GOP will summarily issue the death penalty to the innocent child.  Never mind that children conceived in rape feel pain too, we can just go ahead and suffer for all they care.  And such exceptions are also violative of the 14^th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.

But Ellmers and the other female lawmakers want the liberal reporting requirement to be completely removed.  She stated that “the bill will cost the party support among millennials” and she said in an interview, “I have urged leadership to reconsider bringing it up next week . . . .   We got into trouble last year, and I think we need to be careful again; we need to be smart about how we’re moving forward. . . .  The first vote we take, or the second vote, or the fifth vote, shouldn’t be on an issue where we know that millennials—social issues just aren’t as important [to them].”  The liberal press is all over this -- saying the bill is so extreme that even pro-life Republicans can't support it.

As a result, some pro-life bloggers have called her a “pro-choice mole,” or “a lying waste of oxygen,” and “sniveling liar,” but has she really broken any campaign promises, and how did she even get elected as a pro-life legislator?  Well, she was pro-life with exceptions when she ran, so this really shouldn’t be a big shocker, and it shouldn’t come as a surprise to the groups who endorsed Ellmers that she’s now advocating according to her prior values. 

On Susan B. Anthony List’s website, their endorsement of rape-exception Ellmers for Congress includes the following statement:  “A new women’s movement which affirms its original pro-life roots is making its way to the House of Representatives, and Ellmers is one of its brightest new stars.”  But original pro-life roots would not have included a rape exception.  I’m very pro-woman, but I’d much rather see a 100% pro-life male endorsed than a rape-exception female!  Other big names in pro-life circles helped get Ellmers elected as well:  Wikipedia gives credit to Erick Erickson’s RedState blog, as well as Sarah Palin’s endorsement for helping to get the “previously obscure” Ellmers elected to Congress in 2010.

In the article in which Erick Erickson calls Ellmers a liar, he says, “Just as the GOP has decided to stand firm on a piece of legislation supported by +60% of the nation, she’s scared people won’t like her.”  Stand firm?  The bill was introduced with a rape exception!  How is that standing firm?  And it was done because Congressional Republican leadership were scared people wouldn’t like them!  But Erickson is the same guy who endorsed rape-exception candidate Karen Handel in a bid for U.S. Senate in the 2014 primary when there were viable 100% pro-life candidates.  If Handel had won, she’d surely be standing with Ellmers, and I guess Erickson would now be calling her a liar too, just for standing by her declared values. 

Erickson is also the guy who accused Georgia Right to Life of “moral vacancy” for refusing to compromise on the rape exception in the last go-round with the 20-week ban, and in fact, Erickson went on to get GRTL kicked out of National Right to Life for refusing to compromise, replacing them with his own newly-formed Georgia Life Alliance.

Right now, the other five Republican women are not being named, but once those names are released, it’ll be very interesting to see which pro-life groups and leaders endorsed them, and what their prior positions were on the rape exception before gaining the honor of those endorsements.  If we want to have better legislators – ones who really are champions for defending human life, then pro-life leaders need to stop lavishing undeserving candidates with pro-life endorsements.  That means no rape exceptions!

One has to wonder -- how can pro-life leaders who endorsed them, and who’ve also compromised on the rape exception themselves, now be so upset?  After all, this bill was introduced with a rape exception already in it, set on a “fast track” with no hearing, no debate, and allegedly no amendments to be allowed, yet there was scarcely any public objection to this rape exception from pro-life leaders and organizations.  Instead of objecting to the exceptions, big pro-life organizations like National Right to Life Conference, Susan B. Anthony List and Priests for Life instantly began promoting the bill as is.  There was no campaign from the pro-life movement at-large to contact Congressmen to get the rape exception out, only no-compromise organizations like Save The 1, Personhood Alliance and its affiliates, and American Life League.  Children conceived in rape were summarily yanked off the 20-week rescue bus and thrown under it, while pro-life leaders tried to hide the bodies – not even informing their supporters that there’s a rape exception in the bill.  Are we that negligible?  And the grass-roots can’t be trusted with the truth?  How could they give in so quickly and how can they now be so upset that a group of rape-exception Republican women want the impotent reporting requirement removed?

 It reminds me of the old story where a guy asks a woman, “Will you get in bed with me for $1 million?” And she says “Yes!”  Then he asks, “Will you get in bed with me for $50?”  Now she’s indignant:  “No way!  What, do you think I’m some kind of whore?!”  The man replies, “We’ve already established that.  Now I’m just negotiating terms.”  When pro-life leaders get in bed with rape-exception candidates by endorsing them and colluding with them, and when they instantly accept, enthusiastically endorse and aggressively promote a fast-tracked rape exception bill, they’ve already compromised their values.  So why should they be upset when these legislators begin negotiating terms?