Showing posts with label Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Rape Exceptions in Congress -- A Broken Record, by Jim Sable

In this new and fully Republican-controlled legislative session, the 115th Congress, there are currently seven pro-life related bills which have been introduced.  There are an infamous five of them which Save The 1 would like to call to your attention and voice a strenuous objection to, as currently written.  Why object to a pro-life bill?  All 5 contain a rape exception.  

HR7, just passed in the House on January 25,2017, is attempting to defund abortions, including via the ACA (Affordable Care Act) / Obamacare.  The 20-week ban, a/k/a The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act -- HR36, is back with the rape exception included . . . again.  HR217 is intended to eliminate abortion funding through Title X, except in cases of rape.  HR354 is a standalone “Planned Parenthood defunding bill” unless the abortion provider says the woman was raped.  HR490 is an attempt at an abortion ban after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, . . . except in cases of rape.  (We do not yet have the official wording of this bill to verify on congress.gov, but an unofficial draft circulated by the American Life League includes a rape/incest exception.)

The other two exception-free bills are: HR37, The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act; and HR586, Human Life Begins At Fertilization. We commend the bill sponsors for providing equal protection.

So, once again, lawmakers, those organizations which endorse them, and pro-life leaders and organizations which approve of and recommend public support of these laws, feel as though they have the right to negotiate away the right to life of the rape and incest conceived.  Repeatedly, the pro-life leadership in Washington allows the politicians to define what it means to be pro-life.  

However, we at Save The 1 object to these bills as is. 1) We are persons too, so it is
personal. It is our lives placed within the crosshairs -- these laws with exceptions are dehumanizing, demoralizing, and would have put our preborn lives at risk years ago, but most importantly, put others similarly-conceived at risk today. 2) We also object for long-term pro-life strategic reasons and present day, real world enforcement reasons.

There have been promises for decades, claiming that the exceptions strategy will change, and that compromised, exceptions-laden laws will be “fixed”.  As we see in these bills, we are nowhere near the fulfillment of those promises.  When will these master strategists finally know that it is time to end the rape exception era in Washington?  What, specifically, has to happen?  Strange, because contained within that oft-repeated promise is a realization -- an actual admission -- that something is wrong.  You don’t have to fix something which is not broken. So, they are actually confessing that the “exceptions” strategy is a broken strategy.

And it is indeed a broken strategy because of the huge, unenforceable loophole which is created by adding exceptions to pro-life laws.  What is created is a self-negating law.  We are handing enforcement of these laws to Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics.  These entities are already not following the laws which are in place.  Consider Lila Rose’s Live Action Planned Parenthood stings exposing Planned Parenthood covering up underage rape cases. It's counter-intuitive to now trust them with victims of sexual assault!  Is there anyone policing all of these clinics in a substantial way?

It is a broken strategy because any exception we hand the abortion industry will lead to more.  Additional exceptions would no doubt be sought by the pro-abortion side, should, by some future effort, an abortion ban with a rape exception pass into law. These added exceptions would be only a court decision away from being implemented, as the rape exception is given force of law by OUR side, keeping abortion legal forever.

It is a broken strategy because, in an effort to placate those of us objecting to the addition of a rape exception to a pro-life law, certain oversight or safeguard provisions are added, attempting to ensure the exception loophole would not be abused or negated.  The pro-abortion forces in Congress object almost as strongly to a law with (attempted) restrictions attached to the rape exception as they would to a principled law with no exceptions at all, as we saw with Renee Elmers and her five Republican women.

What happens when these bills get debated in Congress?  The pro-abort congressmen, one after another, try to present a sympathetic case that abortion is compassionate and protective of women after a rape conception.  We are armed with the truth of what it takes to support a woman through her trauma after rape while also protecting her baby.  When there is a rape exception in a law, pro-life legislators are prevented from telling life-affirming stories, full of hope and redemption, of mothers from rape/incest, or rape/incest-conceived individuals.  These stories would overwhelm the darkness of the pro-abortion side.  Without a positive pro-life counter argument, the other side actually (albeit, erroneously) appears more compassionate towards the pregnant rape victim and we lose in the court of public opinion -- even if the bill ultimately passes.   

It would be extremely effective to add the testimony of the mothers from rape and their rape-conceived children. Save The 1 has a database of over 450 with these stories who want to make a difference. Although we've stood ready and waiting, offering our life stories to the process, we have inexplicably never been asked or invited by the pro-life leaders in Washington.

It is a broken strategy because it throws rape-conceived babies under the bus and tells those of us similarly conceived who have been born, “Your lives are less valuable.”  Laws with exceptions allow the death penalty for the rape/incest conceived babies, while the rapist receives a lesser sentence or none at all. Approximately only 1% of rapists are ever convicted of their crime, as charged.  Furthermore, rape-conceived babies feel pain like everyone else.  Our hearts beat like everyone else's.  Yet, these laws forsake us and even put a price on our heads.  Our executions are paid for with tax dollars.

It is a strategy filled with the hypocrisy of those who are “personally against the rape exception,” but willingly support the exceptions in law. Sacrificing the lives of children conceived in rape is still child-sacrifice -- a deplorable practice through the ages. Who is it protecting? Not rape victims when they're four times more likely to die within the next year after an abortion. Our lives are sacrificed to protect certain politicians and to protect the favor of pro-life leaders among those politicians.

Pro-life leaders in Washington treat our lives as so negligible that in social media and press releases, there is not even a footnote mentioning that a rape exception is included in the legislation.  We’ve been told by pro-life leaders that the grassroots doesn’t need to know about the exceptions -- that you are better off not knowing.  Why don’t they have the courage to publicly admit their support of rape exception bills and there embracing of an exceptions strategy?  Why is this the dirty little secret in the pro-life movement?  It is amazing how many people tell us that they never knew there were exceptions in various laws and policies, including the Mexico City policy just celebrated. And why are there so few pro-life leaders sounding the alarms?

We hasten to ask: Who wouldn’t vote for a clean, no-exceptions bill at this moment in political time?  Are those supporting these laws with exceptions saying that a clean law is “too pro-life” and would not pass?  At the state level, things are much different.  Michigan and Georgia, for example, have kept the rape exception out of their pro-life laws -- completely.  It just takes the will -- the strategy -- to do it.  

We encourage you to visit the Congressional website and check out this group of bills and read the discriminatory and impotent exceptions language.  Some of the bills make an attempt at (unenforceable) exceptions regulation, auditing standards and reporting requirements; some have no regulation at all.  It is a complete, convoluted mess.

Please join us in our objection to the exceptions included in this pro-life legislation in Congress.  Here is a list of the proposed laws, the main sponsor’s name and contact information.  Please contact the offices of the following members of Congress, and also your own U.S. Reps., to demand a higher standard: 100% pro-life, no exceptions.  Let’s not allow the politicians to define what it means to be pro-life.  Please show the congressmen that there are still people who care about our lives.
HR 7 – To Prohibit Taxpayer Funded Abortions (including in the ACA/Obamacare)
Sponsor:  Chris Smith,  R.,  New Jersey,  4th District
Website:  chrissmith.house.gov
Phone:  DC  (202) 225-3765
              NJ  (732) 780-3035,  (609) 286-2571,  (609)585-7878
HR 36 – Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
Sponsor:  Trent Franks,  R.,  Arizona,  8th District
Website:  franks.house.gov
Phone:  DC  (202) 225-4576
              AZ  (623) 776-7911
HR 217 – Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act
Sponsor:  Diane Black,  R.,  Tennessee,  6th District
Website:  black.house.gov
Phone:  DC  (202) 225-4231
              TN  (931) 854-0069,  (615) 206-8204
HR 354 – To Provide For A Moratorium On Federal Funding To Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
Sponsor:  Diane Black,  R.,  Tennessee,  6th District
Contact:  Please see above
HR 490 – To Amend Title 18, United States Code, to prohibit abortion in cases where a fetal heartbeat is detectable.
Sponsor:  Steve King,  R.,  IA,  4th District
Website:  steveking.house.gov
Phone:  DC  (202) 225-4426

              IA  (515) 232-2885,  (515) 573-2738,  (641) 201-1624,  (712) 224-4692,  (712) 580-7754

BIO: Jim Sable is a husband and father of 4 -- 3 biological sons and one recently-adopted
daughter from China. He and his wife Wendy are both adopted. Conceived in rape, Jim is also a Board Member, national pro-life speaker and pro-life blogger for Save The 1.
Labels: , , , , , | 1 comments
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.
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 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.
BIO:  Rebecca Kiessling is an international pro-life speaker, writer, and attorney, as well as wife and mother of 5.  She's the President and founder of Save The 1, co-founder of Hope After Rape Conception, co-founder of Embryo Defense, and Board Member of Personhood Alliance.  She appears in numerous documentaries, including The Gift of Life with Governor Mike Huckabee and The 40 film.  Rebecca changed the hearts of Gov. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich during the last presidential campaign, sharing her personal story of having been conceived in rape.
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , | 0 comments
Friday, May 15, 2015

Congress' Rape Exception Gave Pro-Abort Dems the Floor on the Rape Debate by Jim Sable

Since HR36, Congress’ Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, did not follow solid pro-life principles, (a discriminatory rape/incest exception was included), debate on the floor of the House of Representatives resulted in some unintended consequences.  Did anyone else notice this?  The Democratic Party representatives -- the radically pro-abortion House members who testified in opposition to HR36, went on and on, speaker after speaker, presenting their sympathetic case that abortion is compassionate and protective of women after rape conception.  We are armed with the truth of what it takes to support a woman through her trauma after rape while also protecting her baby, so wasn't their rant on rape painful to listen to? The pro-abort Democrats' opinion is that the rape exception, as revised for the current bill, is still too restrictive.  They would make the same objections to a bill without a rape and incest exception, but this time, there was no counter-argument. 

Our pro-life legislators had no rebuttal to this.  Why?  Because the bill has a rape exception, so how could they argue about wanting to protect children like me who were conceived in rape?  How could they argue for our humanity?  How could they argue the truth that rape victims are worse off after an abortion and survivors like my birthmother are better off after giving birth?
All that the pro-life side was left with was an abstract, logic-defying counter-argument suggesting that it is the rape exception in the bill which protects women’s health -- a similar argument to one which was used to promote the bill in the weeks preceding the vote.  Most of the pro-life legislators avoided discussing the exception entirely.  Understand that because of the added rape exception, it was impossible to discuss any cases of mothers from rape/incest or rape/incest-conceived individuals which tell positive, life-affirming stories of hope and redemption which would overwhelm the darkness contained in the testimony of the Democrats!
It certainly is not logical to attempt to defend the lives of the rape-conceived or to encourage mothers to choose life after conceiving through rape, while at the same time promoting a rape exception and guaranteeing the right to abortion after rape conception in our own “pro-life” sponsored law!  As you can see, when the bill is allowing abortion after a rape conception -- when our side is actually setting up the process by which an abortion after rape conception can be acquired -- the option of bringing life-affirming stories to legislative debate is eliminated and the opposition gets to dominate the debate on this topic. 
Were there no rape exception, truly pro-life Congressmen would be free and able to completely defeat the false claims that an abortion is the compassionate response to rape conception.  However “instructive” some on our side think the HR36 bill is, whatever opportunity we have to make a sympathetic case for the humanity of the unborn late-term baby, is wholly negated by the pro-abortion Democrats’ continuous talk of the tragedy of the raped and pregnant woman.  From their perspective, they had their own sympathy element to highlight.  With the rape exception in the bill, pro-life Congressmen could do nothing to counteract that. 
I hope this really is instructional – for the pro-life side.  Pro-Life Congressmen need to stick to principle and focus on punishing rapists, not babies.

BIO:  Jim Sable, conceived in rape, is a husband, father of 3, and  pro-life speaker and blogger for Save The 1.  He’s a Board Member of Save The 1 and Board Member of Hope After Rape Conception.  His story is featured in the DVDs “Except in Cases of Rape?  12 Stories of Survival,” and “Conceived in Rape and Other Exceptions.”
Labels: , , , , , , , , , | 0 comments
Sunday, May 10, 2015

Murder: Legal With Counseling!!! by Rowena Slusser

Murder: Legal with Counseling!!!
by Rowena Slusser 

BREAKING NEWS: The United Nations Bans The Killing of People By ISIS Members Except If Those People Are Christians. In Those Cases, The ISIS Member Must First Get Counseling From A Non-ISIS Organization To Give Them All Possible Options For Dealing With The Christians! If The Christian Is A Minor, The Parent Must First Be Notified Of The Minor Christian’s Demise.

That is a bit extreme, right?  No, not really. Today I woke up and checked my Facebook. To my horror, I found that Congress is pushing forward the HR36 Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act with a rape exception in it. The wording removes the reporting requirement, and adds that the woman needs to receive counseling, notifying her of all her options. It also says that if a minor is involved, that the appropriate legal agencies are to be notified. What this bill is saying is that aborting a child conceived in rape, a child that can feel pain, will remain legal under the ban as long as the woman gets counseling.

This rhetoric is no different than the fake headline I have above. Yet many Pro-Life groups are celebrating that this bill will go to a vote. As I engaged on social media, I actually had a person post the following in favor of exceptions,
“...Including the exceptions is a smart move, it gives the bill a more feasible chance of  either becoming law or hurting pro-abortion politicians who vote against it.”
To explain away the use of exceptions by calling it a smart move, is inexcusable.  The lives of children conceived in rape or incest/rape should not be used as a pawn to give a law more of a chance to pass or to hurt pro-abortion politicians. This way of thinking is backwards and exploits lives of pre-born babies.

As I watch my Twitter account explode with excitement over this bill going to the floor for a vote, my heart aches. Hearts are calloused to the truth that children conceived in rape and/or incest/rape have value, are just as human, and wanted. We want to be loved. We want to be cherished and protected.

Instead of being loved and protected, we are at the mercy of the people in our mom’s life. Will they support her and help her choose life, or will they pressure and coerce her into having an abortion? And that is where the stigma begins. The stigma that a child conceived in rape receives starts long before that baby is ever born. It is labeled with shame, disgrace and dishonor. Before the child starts his/her life outside the womb, he/she has been given a bad reputation.

This child will be forced to carry the title of the “rapist’s child” or be labeled an abomination. When the child finds out how his or her conception happened, it will most likely feel immense shame. The child will likely hear people say that because of the horrible way the child was conceived, the mom’s life would have been easier if she would have opted for abortion. The child will see news articles quoting Pro-Lifers saying abortion is murder except for the case of rape or incest. Is this truly the message that we want to send?


Have we as Christian Pro-Lifers, lost sight of the fact that EVERY LIFE MATTERS? Please search your heart and open your eyes to see that children conceived in rape or incest/rape have value, deserve to be protected and fought for under this ban. Join others and me from organizations like Save The 1, in calling for an amendment to completely remove the rape exception from the 20-week Abortion Limit bill that is headed to theU.S. House floor on May 13, 2015.

BIO:  Rowena Slusser was conceived by incest/rape. She is a wife and homeschool mother of 2.  She’s available for speaking, and is a pro-life blogger for Save The 1.  She can be contacted at treasureofvirtue@icloud.com, and  also has a personal blog at slussers41999.wordpress.com.
Labels: , , , , , , , , , | 0 comments
Friday, May 8, 2015

HR36 is Back Worse Than Before

Will the 20 Week Ban Save Babies?   ~by Darlene Pawlik

HR 36 Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is Back

The Republican leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives has announced that it will bring the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to the House floor for a vote on Wednesday, May 13, or Thursday, May 14.

You might recall that the bill had been scheduled for a vote on January 22 during the annual March for Life when hundreds of thousands of pro-life advocates would be in Washington DC to commemorate Roe v Wade, but it was pulled at the last minute.  The media's account was that the bill had a reporting requirement for rape that didn't meet with the approval of a couple of legislators. 



At first glance, there was huge support for this bill because most pro-life advocates did not know that the bill had exceptions for rape and incest, meaning that abortions would be banned after 20 weeks except if the child was conceived in rape or incest.  When a core group of pro-life advocates found out about the exceptions and that there would be no hearing to try and remove that language, a huge opposition to the bill began and the bill was pulled off the docket.

Those against the bill, including Savethe1 and Personhood Alliance objected to the huge push by National Right to Life, Susan B Anthony List and Priests for Life asking pro-life advocates to contact their congressman to support the bill, without mentioning that the bill had exceptions for rape and incest.


The basis of the bill is that preborn babies at 20 weeks gestation feel pain as they are being killed by abortion. Is there any reason to believe that the manner in which a child is conceived impacts their ability to feel pain? Rape conceived babies feel pain too. We are developmentally the same as babies conceive in love.

The US has long been respected as a just nation. Is it just to kill a child because his or her father is a criminal? According to our laws, in no other circumstance is a child held accountable for the crimes of their father. We have courts and trial lawyers to hold people accountable by due process of the law. What due process is afforded these babies?

Emails from major pro-life organizations have already been out today to raise money based on the premiss that HR36 will save babies from abortion. A few have mentioned, while they don't condone the rape and incest exceptions, they support the bill because it will save babies. But will it?

My understanding is that the the reporting requirement has been removed. So, there may be no fear of reprisal for women claiming to have conceived by rape and less likelihood of women reporting abusers or traffickers when they conceive by rape or incest. Abortion is a trafficker's best weapon. Abortion keeps women subservient and breaks their spirits, so that abusers can continue their abuse. Coerced abortion is very prevalent. My trafficker forced me to make an appointment for an abortion and threatened my life if I didn’t abort.

How can we think that if a woman is desperate enough to submit to abortion and have her baby killed at five months pregnant, that she wouldn't be desperate enough to lie?

And what about the logic, or shall I say illogic, of this kind of a stipulation in law. How illogical is it to say that a baby who can feel pain should be protected in some cases, but not others? We have a concept here in the United States called equal protection under the law. This concept usually governs the enactment of legislation by giving a hearing to bills to be discussed. This bill was scheduled to be brought to the floor for a vote without a hearing last time and it has been scheduled without a hearing again.

The announcement that it will be voted on next week doesn't even allow for much media or lobbying for the exceptions to be removed. Savethe1 President, Rebecca Kiessling, will be there in DC along with Personhood Alliance President, Dan Becker, to reach out to as many legislators as possible next week. Please help us get the word out about the flaws in this bill and help others understand that there is either a baby worth saving or there isn't.



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. 
Labels: , , , , , , , , | 3 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)