Save the 1 Speaker Websites
Showing posts with label NRLC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NRLC. Show all posts
Thursday, May 12, 2016
The Pro-Life Debate -- Defending Innocent Children, or Congressmen? by Rebecca Kiessling
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
21st 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 4the 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 |
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 14th 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 14th 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.
Friday, August 14, 2015
Sen. Rubio -- No, Every Pro-Life Group Does Not Support Rape Exception Legislation by Rebecca Kiessling
Many pro-life activists have been writing and conversing this past week about Senator Marco Rubio's recent defense of his no exceptions position, while he justifies his sponsorship of rape-exception legislation. As someone conceived in rape and nearly aborted, I'm grateful for his verbal defense of every life, no matter how conceived, but I'm also deeply troubled by some of his comments which must be addressed.
On August 6th during the Republican debate, Fox’s Megyn Kelly challenged Marco Rubio: “Senator Rubio, you favor rape and incest exception. Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York just said yesterday those exceptions are ‘preposterous.’ He said they discriminate against an entire class of human beings. If you believe that life begins at conception, as you say you do, how do you justify ending a life because it begins violently through no fault of the baby?”
First of all, Cardinal Dolan first made these comments during his interview of me on the Catholic Channel on January 21, 2015, as we were discussing the congressional “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” with its rape exception. He wasn’t just saying that the exceptions are preposterous, but that it's preposterous for Catholic pro-life leaders to use Evangelium Vitae 73 (the section regarding legislation intended to reduce abortions) to justify supporting such rape exception legislation. Cardinal Dolan completely agreed with me that there’s no way that EV 73 means that a politician or pro-life group can support such legislation which discriminates against an entire class of persons.
Sen. Marco Rubio’s reply to Megyn Kelly during the debate was, “I’m not sure that’s a correct assessment of my record.” He went on to say “I believe every single human being is entitled to the protection of our laws,” yet he co-sponsored the 2013 Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act with a rape exception in his bill, SB 1670, which suggests that either children like me who were conceived in rape are not pain capable like everyone else, or it’s just that we can go ahead and suffer for all they care because somehow we aren't actually "entitled to the protection of our laws," as he had indicated. What does "entitled" mean to him? Is it just a suggestion? Another possibility is that it’s more important to protect mediocre politicians than innocent children. As I’ve written before, this was a “message bill” since Obama would veto it, so what message were Sen. Rubio and others sending about children conceived in rape?
On Friday morning, August 7th, just after the Republican debate, Chris Cuomo had Sen. Rubio on CNN, and asked him about his co-sponsorship of the rape exception bill. Sen. Rubio explained: “Everybody supported that bill. Every single pro-life Senator, every single pro-life group including the Catholic pro-life groups supported the bill you are talking about.”
I understand that Sen. Rubio may have that impression, but every pro-life group did NOT support the bill! And he failed to mention that two pro-life Congressman from Georgia, Paul Broun and Bob Woodall, voted against the bill because of the rape exceptions, and because they had signed an affidavit with Georgia Right to Life vowing not to compromise on this issue. As a consequence, National Right to Life Conference gave them a zero rating, while inexplicably rewarding Eric Cantor – the congressman who introduced the last-minute rape exception – with a 100% approval rating! Lifesitenews exposed this scandal, which included the content of a threatening letter from NRLC which had been sent to every Congressman warning that they must approve the newly-added rape exception or suffer their wrath. So this is why Sen. Rubio subsequently sponsored the rape exception legislation in the Senate.
And every pro-life Catholic group did not support the tainted legislation. Priests for Life has been using EV 73 to justify supporting rape exception legislation, but American Life League properly opposed the discriminating bill.
And every pro-life Catholic group did not support the tainted legislation. Priests for Life has been using EV 73 to justify supporting rape exception legislation, but American Life League properly opposed the discriminating bill.

In the Cuomo interview, Sen. Rubio explained that the bill “reduces abortions” – the point discussed between me and Cardinal Dolan, but the problem is that it also discriminates. While Sen. Rubio defended his actions by saying “I never advocated for that (for exceptions),” his name was on the bill as a sponsor and therefore, Chris Cuomo was correct when he pointed out that “it creates an inconsistency.”
Sen. Rubio went on to say, “You will not find a single pro-life group that refused to support that bill because it had an exception in it.” Again, this is simply not true. The organization I founded, Save The 1, opposed the legislation, as did Georgia Right to Life, Alaska Right to Life, Pro-Life Wisconsin, New Hampshire Right to Life, Cleveland Right to Life, NE Ohio Right to Life, American Life League, Abby Johnson, and many others. There is a schism within the pro-life movement in the United States over the exceptions (but not in the rest of the world) and sadly, the majority voice in the U.S. has been that of compromise. However, there is a solid contingency of pro-life leaders and organizations who actively oppose compromising on exceptions, and they have a far more successful legislative track record than any of the compromise organizations who can't seem to get anything substantive done in D.C. because they keep propping up mediocre rape-exception politicians, giving the grass-roots voters the false impression that the Congressmen and Senators are actually 100% pro-life.
Chris Cuomo went on to tell Sen. Rubio that it is “backward looking” not to have a “carve out” for a rape and incest exception. It’s interesting he used the term “carve out” because that’s precisely what abortionists do to the child in the womb. Rubio responded by saying, “fortunately, those instances are extremely rare.” I cringed when I heard him say that because the rape exception got added into the Pain Capable bill in 2013 because of that very phrase -- "extremely rare!" After two Democrats proposed a rape exception, the House bill's sponsor, Congressman Trent Franks, testified before the House Committee hearing that pregnancy by rape was “extremely rare.” That was on a Wednesday. By Friday, it was national news, with liberal media calling him “another Akin” for saying pregnancy by rape was rare. The very next day, there was talk of a rape exception being added, and on Monday morning, Eric Cantor introduced the rape exception to get away from the "extremely rare" media scandal. The compromise groups spontaneously jumped on board, including a concerted Twitter campaign to push it through. NRLC sent out it's email warning to any potential objectors Monday evening, and it was passed by the House Tuesday afternoon – lightning speed. The was all because Franks said pregnancy by rape was rare.
We have a five state study now showing that this is not at all effective in swaying public opinion and has been proven to be quite damaging. No politician should ever utter the words that pregnancy by rape is rare. It doesn't matter if we are 1% or 20%. We would never allow discrimination against Asians or Muslims just because they're only 1% of the population. However, diminishing has been the strategy of pro-life compromise groups for decades, because it makes it easier for them to achieve what they want, regardless of exceptions.
In the CNN interview, four times Sen. Rubio said either “I believe” or “it is my personal belief” . . . . This is another phrase I highly recommend avoiding because many pro-choice people say the same thing. He did a good job explaining his beliefs that “all life is worthy of protection irrespective of how that life was created” and “that you do not correct one tragedy with a second tragedy." According to the research on messaging, the most effective defense would be to invoke the story of a woman conceived in rape or who became pregnant by rape, and then to appeal to American's sense of justice -- that it is wrong to punish an innocent person for someone else's crime.
Both Cuomo and Rubio repeatedly utilized the term “it” when discussing the pre-born child. As I always instruct when coaching candidates on messaging, it’s far better to use terms of gender which serve to humanize the child more. These children all have a gender – they are not an “it,” but “he” or “she,” and ascertainably so within IVF clinics, right from creation.
Cuomo said, “It has a DNA map. So does a plant. The question is when does it become a human being?” Rubio was right in responding that science proves that human life begins at conception. It’s basic Embryology 101. In fact, IVF clinics depend upon this scientific fact because if they aren’t transferring a living human being into a woman’s uterus, then they aren’t going to make any money by doing IVF, and they’re going to be in a lot of trouble! They need to be sure every embryo transferred is living and is human -- that's not faith, but science.
Two days after the CNN interview, on August 9th, Sen. Rubio was asked similar questions by Chuck Todd on Meet the Press: “Will you support legislation that has exceptions?” Sen. Rubio replied, “I have. I’ll support any legislation that reduces the number of abortions, and there are those that have that exception.” However, I highly doubt that Sen. Rubio would co-sponsor or in any way support legislation with an exception which said, “except in case of Catholic babies,” or “except in cases of bi-racial rape,” even if it would reduce the number of abortions. Rubio would see how obvious the discrimination is, and there's no way he'd support it -- even if it would reduce the number of abortions. But he, along with so many others, have become used to the child conceived in rape being a bargaining chip for pro-life legislators and for the pro-life movement. Those of us who fit into those exceptions resent being treated as "the whipping boy" -- being punished not only for the sins of the rapist, but also for the sins of politicians. The 14th Amendment demands equal protection and the discrimination must end. Punish rapists, not babies, and protect babies, not politicians.
In the Meet The Press interview, Sen. Rubio went on to say that with the “morning after pill” being available over the counter (like that’s a good thing?), “we can bring that number down to zero.” Does he not realize that most rape victims never go to the police or to the hospital, but would prefer to deny the rape ever occurred? And does he not realize that Plan B can potentially create a hostile environment so if a child has been conceived, that child has no opportunity to implant in the uterine wall, thus killing that innocent human being?
Lastly, Sen. Rubio once again repeats a falsehood: “I recognize that in order to have consensus on laws that limit the number of abortions, a lot of people want to see those exceptions, and that’s why I’ve supported those laws in the past – as has every pro-life group in America.” This is a scathing statement against the pro-life movement. The truth is that the most effective pro-life groups in the United States unequivocally oppose rape exception legislation. Right to Life of Michigan has always opposed such legislation, which is why my home state has some of the best pro-life laws passed, yet has never had a rape exception in any law! However, I understand that Sen. Rubio made such a statement because he's trapped in the D.C. bubble, with apparently no knowledge of the tremendous success of Right to Life of Michigan and Georgia Right to Life, and this is the impression he has been given by being on Capitol Hill and working with compromise organizations. How could he know any differently? So let's all work to help educate our pro-life leaders, legislators and candidates so the ghastly practice of sacrificing the child conceived in rape can put be to an end.

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)