Save the 1 Speaker Websites
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
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Use Your Power to Stop Abortion ~by Darlene Pawlik
Restored Colonial One-Room Schoolhouse |
One of the ways anyone can educate the public and those in positions of power is to write a letter exposing the facts, mingling them with real people’s stories and putting out very specific actions that you want the educated to take. This can take many forms.
A letter to the editor may be to get regular people to think a certain way. The same is true of a blog post or other social media. If you have a school board member who wants to bring abortion vendors into your school, you would write to the Board member, but then try to get it published as an open letter.
This is also effective for putting pressure on legislators and other officials, such as the zoning commission of your city or town. If a letter is strong, many outlets will publish it just to incite discussion and call attention to their publication. They are not necessarily going to be on your side, but that doesn’t matter if you get the word out. Write it in such a way that the public will help to give voice to the conversation.
Below is a letter to a legislator concerning a recent public policy discussion. Notice the pattern: first, she thanks them for service, then points out positive(s), then intersperses personal information, it need not be yours, then addresses the problem head on, offers a different point of view and a potential solution.
Hooray! You have educated the person who can make a difference. If you get it published, you may educate many people, well beyond the scope of your imagination.
Dear Congresswoman Ellmers,
Thank you for your service to our great country. Thank you for your concern for trafficking victims, in particular. In your statements, you and Ms Wasserman-Schultz both identified yourselves as women, implying that you were looking out for your demographic by introducing H.R. 398, a bill to Educate and Equip Healthcare Professionals to Recognize Signs of Human Trafficking So They Can Intercede on Patients’ Behalf. This is admirable.
Sex trafficking is a very prevalent problem and teaching people in health care how to identify it,
is definitely one of the ways to combat it and rescue victims.
I can more fully identify with the demographic of trafficked women. I was conceived by rape and that knowledge made me vulnerable to traffickers. I felt worth less than others because of the continued sexual abuse and neglect. I was first sold on my 14th birthday. Standing in three inches of slush that topped my sneakers, I met with the man who groomed me all summer long.
H.R. 36, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act specifically singled out trafficking victims, making them vulnerable to the abortion industry. This further violation is abhorrent. It would serve traffickers well, keeping their victims subdued and further subjecting them to constant degradation and often brutal rapes. Covering the crime of child sexual abuse is in direct opposition to your H.R. 398.
H.R. 36 would ban the brutal practice of killing babies after 20 weeks gestation. Even if one were to suggest that a rape victim is detrimentally impacted by the pregnancy, which is dubious at best, can you justify the affirmation that a rape victim’s baby is somehow less of a human being than a child conceived with wine and roses?
Does the child’s existence warrant being hacked limb from limb and having her little head crushed or her heart being pierced and injected with potassium chloride to cause an excruciating heart attack or being burned, inside and out, with saline solution?
When the women realize what they have participated in, what will you do? As she is reaching adulthood and learns of the level of prenatal development; that her baby was fully formed and needed only weeks to grow before he or she could be delivered and given a chance for a fruitful life, are you willing to have her further torment on your conscience? Or when she delivers that dead baby and the compounded trauma relegates her to a lifetime of PTSD, will you be able to ignore the effects on society?
The text of H.R. 36 reads, in part, (ii) the pregnancy is the result of rape, or the result of incest against a minor, if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency, or if the incest against a minor has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency or to a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse or neglect.
As a runaway, I was arrested numerous times, Child In Need of Service requests were made to the local authorities. This is very common among trafficked children. There is a report of abuse or neglect by definition. I did get pregnant by a man who bought me as a house pet. He demanded I have an abortion and threatened my life, if I didn’t kill my baby. This is also common among trafficking victims.
I implore you to work to remove the rape and incest exceptions from H.R. 36. If you believe, as I believe, that women and children who have been victims of rape should not be further victimized, then you will work against the exceptions in the bill. You have already demonstrated the desire to protect your demographic. Show your courage to be their advocate in this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
Darlene Pawlik
Follow this kind of format for all of your educational letters.
Darlene Pawlik is a Savethe1 speaker, Chair of the Educational Trust for NH Right to Life and long time homeschool mom. She resides in New England and travels to speak about trafficking, coerced abortion, and discrimination of rape-conceived victims.
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Carry to Birth Group Celebrates Defeat of Ireland Abortion Law by Sarah St. Onge
In 2010 my unborn daughter was diagnosed with a lethal birth anomaly. We continued our pregnancy, much to the consternation of our physicians, and she lived for almost two hours after birth.
As the mother of a child who was diagnosed in the womb with a life
limiting condition, I take a keen interest in abortion legislation which
seeks to destroy protections for the most vulnerable members of our society like my daughter Beatrix.
This includes
international legislation like that which was roundly defeated in
The Republic of Ireland earlier this week. Socialist politician Clare Daly proposed a
bill that would legalize terminating pregnancies in which a lethal birth
defect had been detected. These laws have often been used to weaken
limitations on abortion overall -- removing the focus from the child
involved, who has a right to life no matter how short that life will be,
and instead wrongfully focusing solely on the woman carrying the child.
During
the proceedings we heard the stories of women "compelled" to leave the Republic of
Ireland to end their children's lives. "Forced" to have their very
personal medical procedures preformed in a foreign land, these women were
not surrounded by their friends and family as they allegedly "deserved" to be.
Not
once did we hear about the value of the child whose life hung in the
balance as an individual, except in terms of how the parent quantified
that value. Not once did we hear about the humanity of the child
involved, except in terms of how the expectant mother viewed the
situation. This is disturbing to me, as the mother of one of these fragile children.
Unfortunately, the
attitude that a child's worth before birth is dependent upon a mother's
judgement is one shared by many Americans today. When you add a lethal
birth defect (or a sexual assault) to the mix, then even many pro-life
persons have trouble properly focusing on the issue of the child's humanity.
This
was abundantly evident last month when our own House of Representatives
scuttled a pain-capable abortion prohibition because of the lack of
"protections" for women who have become pregnant as a result of sexual
assault.
This bill was widely
viewed as one of the most significant pieces of pro-life legislation since the Roe v. Wade decision, was supported by the majority of Americans, and was considered to be an
easy win for House Republicans, most of whom ran on a pro-life ticket.
The votes were there. It was set to be passed on the 42nd anniversary
of Roe v. Wade.
But it failed.
It fell fast and hard over one small item. A rape exception.
Like
lethal fetal anomalies, sexual assault is a bullet point that
pro-choice activists like to use when trying to defeat pro-life
legislation. It's their trump card, and it's the last life breath of a
movement that has been slowly dying for decades.
Either
one of these exceptions can be called up at will when any pro-life
legislation is winning support, and portrayed in such a way that
progress in terms of pro-life legislation seems "anti-woman." They sway
public opinion with one sided emotional stories -- never sharing the side of parents who love their children conceived in rape or carried to birth, and because pro-life legislators fail to articulate a strong defense of all life. They throw out images of women suffering under the undue
tension of these negatively affected pregnancies, and like the arguments
by Clare Daly, they never address the humanity or worth of the baby
involved.
Because of the overwhelmingly negative association with carrying to birth, based on the inappropriately focused pro-choice narrative, parents are very rarely told of the benefits of continuing their pregnancies. This creates a dynamic where women are pressured into ending pregnancies with affected babies, thus denying families the opportunity to parent their child for the short life that they will have. During my own pregnancy with Beatrix, we faced doctors who unapologetically pushed termination even after we had clearly stated that we were not interested in ending her life.
Unlike our own
lawmakers, the Dáil seems to understand what is at stake, that the deceptively-named "Protection of Life" abortion
bill has everything to do with destroying life. The Irish legislators understand that a woman facing a
pregnancy in which a lethal diagnosis has been made is not the only
patient involved in the situation, that the child involved has the right
to protection. No person should have the right to decide when
another person should die, based on the circumstances of their
conception.
As pro-life
Americans, it would behoove us to remember that the reason we are
called "pro-life" is our unshakeable belief that all life is sacred --
even for those whose lives may not last long. In order to continue the steady
progress which has been made, we must remember that the baby in the photo below is equally as important as the women whom Clare Daly was purportedly trying to "save".

Saturday, January 17, 2015
You Want Us To Compromise Our Pro-Life Values MORE?!!! By Rebecca Kiessling
Pro-life leaders, pundits and bloggers are up in arms now
because Republican Congresswoman Renee Ellmers -- NC, (along with at least five
other female Republicans,) is protesting the terms of the rape exception within
the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act – H.R.
36, also known as the 20-week abortion ban.
As written, the late-term abortion in the case of rape or incest is
permitted “if the rape is reported any
time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency.” To be clear, given the plain language of the
legislation, there’s no time frame as to
when the rape must be reported, the
bill doesn’t require that the rape victim actually report the rape herself, and
there’s no requirement that the reporting must be done in person. Accordingly, an abortion clinic employee
could “report the rape” (wink-wink) by telephone, just seconds before the
late-term abortion takes place.
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 14th Amendment’s Equal
Protection clause.
BIO:
Rebecca Kiessling is an international
pro-life speaker, writer and lawyer, having been conceived in rape and
nearly aborted at two back-alley abortions, but legally protected by
no-exceptions Michigan law. She’s the
founder and president of Save The 1 and
co-founder of Hope After Rape
Conception

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?

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)