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 6^th 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 7^th, 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.

I’ve met Sen. Rubio, and I know he doesn’t like the exceptions, but he’s willing to compromise, basically saying, “everybody’s doing it.”  However, everyone is not willing to sacrifice the lives of the rape-conceived – Broun and Woodall didn’t, but they were penalized by the pro-life power brokers in D.C., and that’s who Sen. Rubio and others improperly perceive as representative of the pro-life movement at large.  Even if it were true that all pro-life leaders support rape exceptions in the law, it doesn't change the fact that throwing the rape-conceived child under the bus is modern-day child sacrifice, and we shouldn't have to be the scapegoats for the pro-life movement.

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 9^th, 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 14^th 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.

Darlene Pawlik was conceived by rape and has also conceived a child as a result of sex trafficking. She has been a pro life advocate for over 23 years and currently serves as a speaker and VP of Savethe1 and NHRTL Educational Trust Chair, as well as, the NH delegate to Personhood Alliance. 

I really hate politics.  The whole idea of manipulating people to achieve a goal is nauseating to me.  Playing people like chess, politicians use misinformation and disinformation far too often.

Lest you think Pro-Life advocates are pure and undiluted, let’s look at HR36.

Congress put forth a bill in 2013 called the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (PCUCPA). The Act proposed to ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation because a substantial body of scientific evidence found children of this age have increased sensitivity to pain.  At the 11th hour, Eric Cantor put in an exception for rape and incest.  He spoke on center stage at the March For Life in Washington DC, shortly thereafter. Is this an example of the kind of politics of access we find among those calling themselves ProLife?

The bill had no chance of passing and even if by some circumstance it did, the President promised to veto it.  So, what was the message?  The message is that the major Pro-Life groups are in favor of abortion for rape or incest conceived babies. Is there a question here?

In 2015, the PCUCPA was reintroduced with the exceptions intact.  Instead of using it as a conversation starter, major Pro-Life groups immediately sent out emails to their constituents, with not a word of the flaws, that this is a chance to save babies from abortion.  The flaws: rape conceived babies feel pain too, it sets guidelines for approved killing of children in the womb prior to 20 weeks, it has provisions for the dismemberment and disposal of children, if carrying them to term might cause the mother harm.

Any real doctor could deliver a baby in the latter circumstance and if the baby were too young and died as a result, there has been no intentional murder.  This is not the language of the bill in question.  These major groups surely have lawyers. Even if we were to believe that no legal person read the bill for them, I cannot get past the clear ethical violations to our Pro-Life Principles.

I am of average intelligence.  The glaring flaws of this piece of eckhumm, legislation were immediately apparent to me.  And what of those emails sent by the major Pro-Life groups? What was their purpose?  In every case, there was an appeal to help fund the fight to get more legislation like this passed.  I really find it astonishing that this is the kind of legislation we would want passed, if we are working day after day to stop the horror of abortion in our country.

Disillusioned? Me too.  This bill will not save one baby.  However, when I sent a note to request that ProLife organizations demand the exceptions be removed, I got a mindless response stating and I quote, “This will save 18,000 babies.” Really?  That’s quite a claim. Was this misinformation or disinformation and if we believe that it could possibly be true, on what basis?

This is purely political manipulation.  The hundreds of thousands of people who will be in DC for the March for Life believe in their leaders.  They flock to initiatives and conferences and send their hard-earned money to work toward an America that doesn’t promote government-sanctioned and government-funded genocide.  The Pro-Life organizations do a lot of good work toward building a culture that respects life, unless like me, that little person was conceived by rape.

Let’s think about that for a moment.  Biologically speaking, if we simply ignore the mode of conception, prenatal development doesn’t differ depending on how that baby was initially formed.  My biological father is a monster, but should I deserve the death penalty for his crime?

We are talking about 20 weeks in this discussion.  There have been many stories of babies not much older, being born and going home to a happy life.  Are we really suggesting that at the point of development when science has determined a child can feel the most excruciating pain it should be ok to kill them at all?  This is the discussion we should be having.  This is what the major Pro-Life groups should keep in front of the American people.

What if the abortion vendors promised to anesthetize the babies before hacking their arms and legs off and crushing their sculls?  That would solve the dilemma of aborting pain capable children.  No. We are not Pro-Life because we don’t want people to experience pain.  We are Pro-Life because we believe people are of inestimable value; created in the image of God.

This discussion could be just as powerful to raise funds and way more powerful to influence the culture to respect life, if it were consistent.  How logical is it to say that some crisis pregnancies involve a baby worth saving and some do not?  It completely undermines the whole point.  If we believe that children are created in the image of God, then how can we postulate the concept that there would be exceptions?

Let’s continue the conversation.  Some may say I have no right to say a woman who has conceived a child by rape should carry to term.  I have been a nurse for more than 25 years.  So, I understand that the complications of abortion vs term pregnancy are grave.  I have five children.  I had no easy pregnancies.  My first child was conceived as a result of human sex trafficking in my teens.  I know how horrible rape is.  I know what it is like to be in a crisis pregnancy and I know that you can go through to the other side with honor and dignity.

Darlene Pawlik is a Savethe1 speaker and blogger, a woman conceived by a brutal rape and sold into sex trafficking.  She turned her life over to God. She is currently on the board of Savethe1, Chair of the NHRTL Educational Trust, a practicing nurse, a wife of almost 25 years and mother of five grown children and grandmother of two.