Follow Save the 1
Showing posts with label Pro-life Exceptions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pro-life Exceptions. Show all posts
Monday, August 29, 2016
Gerard Nadal: Apologist for Pro-Life Exceptions Strikes Again, by SarahSt. Onge
A short time ago, Gerard Nadal, apologist extraordinaire for pro-life exceptions, posted a social media status update which essentially claimed those of us who fought against exceptions in pro-life legislation were making "idols of our consciences". The accolades for his outrageous statement were (sadly) generally supportive from his followers.
In the past, he has also positioned himself as morally superior by declaring us "petulant" for wanting to save the lives of babies who would be passed over by laws riddled with exceptions. He was supported by his followers in this characterization of us as well.
The problem with his position is his refusal to even entertain the possibility of passing no exceptions pro-life laws. For a man who claims to have such an immense faith in a God who can work any wonder, his lack of belief in this matter is troubling.
Politics has fooled people into believing that exceptions are necessary to pass pro-life laws.
This is incorrect.
First, we need to acknowledge that when we speak of "exceptions," we are generally speaking of classes of persons targeted within legislation which prohibit abortions after 20-24 weeks, as most states allow unfettered abortion up until then.
As of late, exceptions apply to late-term abortion laws.
There have been a number of significant pieces of state-level legislation which contain no exceptions for abortions (please see footnote).
Alabama, Michigan, Indiana, and Wyoming are just a few states which do not have exceptions in their late-term abortion laws. (Note, link is a pro-choice resource because Americans United For Life which tracks pro-life legislation has made the decision not to track exceptions within abortion legislation -- a distinct indication of its relevance to them.)
It is simply not true that pro-life persons cannot pass abortion laws without exceptions: even New York, which has some of the most permissive abortion laws in the US, does not have exception clauses in its abortion cut-off.Let me repeat that:
New York does not have exceptions in their late-term abortion legislation -- the state we all lament for its high abortion rates and its war against African-American babies.
That state, has no exceptions.
This lie that exceptions are necessary has been perpetuated for too long. We are blatantly attacked by the likes of Gerard Nadal for speaking this truth, and it's time we push back!
We don't need exceptions in abortion limitations to push them through the legislative process.
When we've come to a point where the most pro-choice state in the US recognizes the right-to-life of a late-term unborn child without discrimination, yet conservative pro-life legislators in conservative, pro-life states cannot persuade other politicians to support abortion prohibitions without exceptions, this is a problem..... We need to find new, more persuasive legislators, and better pro-life leaders worthy of following and supporting.
The answer to the "abortion dilemma" is not to continue compromising -- it's to make it clear we will not elect representatives who do not take a firm stand against abortion, no matter what the circumstances.
When politicians say, "we won't get support without compromise", who do you think they are compromising with? Pro-choice legislators?
Generally speaking, pro-choice legislators will vote against virtually any pro-life law. They don't care what the parameters of the proposed legislation are.
Our allegedly pro-life legislators and leaders aren't compromising with them. When politicians and activists talk about compromise, they are talking about compromise within the pro-life contingent. It's pro-life legislators they are having to make exceptions for, Right to Life PAC-endorsed pro-life representatives who are debating the merits of these laws and their proposed exceptions.
And they're arguing the content of pro-life laws based on your potential vote. They don't want to lose you -- their pro-life constituents -- as voters.
It's time to stop this nonsense once and for all.
The state has a compelling interest in protecting all of its citizens. Science has proven the humanity of the fetus at all stages of development, regardless of the condition of conception or future outlook in terms of disability. Unborn children are citizens, and deserving of the same protections as everyone else. There is no reason for pro-life legislators to hold out on fetal anomaly, rape or incest exceptions, especially when the pro-life grass roots voters have been in the dark that these discriminatory exceptions are even within these proposed laws!
The state has a compelling interest in protecting all of its citizens. Science has proven the humanity of the fetus at all stages of development, regardless of the condition of conception or future outlook in terms of disability. Unborn children are citizens, and deserving of the same protections as everyone else. There is no reason for pro-life legislators to hold out on fetal anomaly, rape or incest exceptions, especially when the pro-life grass roots voters have been in the dark that these discriminatory exceptions are even within these proposed laws!
The ball is in our court -- your court.
Don't blame officials you've elected for not being capable of compromise. They're only doing what we are asking them to do.
Don't let pro-life "hot shots" make claims which are proven false with a minimal amount of research and lack of care -- having made the determination in their own sense of wisdom that certain children are expendable.
Don't let people convince you to compromise on your principles by creating an atmosphere of fear. Because this is what they do: they make you afraid of the collapse of any abortion legislation.
Don't let pro-life "hot shots" make claims which are proven false with a minimal amount of research and lack of care -- having made the determination in their own sense of wisdom that certain children are expendable.
Don't let people convince you to compromise on your principles by creating an atmosphere of fear. Because this is what they do: they make you afraid of the collapse of any abortion legislation.
We have the power to end exceptions in laws limiting abortions, and save lives. Other states have done it. Liberal, pro-choice-controlled states have done it.
All it would take is a unified voice of pro-life people clarifying that pro-life means pro-life. Not pro-life except for those who were conceived in rape and/or incest or those with abnormalities.
How many of you privately don't support, and are uncomfortable with, legislation which doesn't protect all preborn human life?
How many of you go along with compromise due to expediency?
How many of you don't say anything because every time you do, someone calls you heartless or tells you you're being divisive?
How many of you are tired of being called "petulant" because you're disappointed by another year of abortion legislation which doesn't save the most vulnerable?
I know I am.
(footnote: Federal law requires that all states have exceptions for life of the mother in their abortion legislation)
BIO: Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1. She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.
How many of you privately don't support, and are uncomfortable with, legislation which doesn't protect all preborn human life?
How many of you go along with compromise due to expediency?
How many of you don't say anything because every time you do, someone calls you heartless or tells you you're being divisive?
How many of you are tired of being called "petulant" because you're disappointed by another year of abortion legislation which doesn't save the most vulnerable?
I know I am.
(footnote: Federal law requires that all states have exceptions for life of the mother in their abortion legislation)
BIO: Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1. She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Exceptions for Fetal Anomalies Encourages Doctors' Coercion to Abort, by Sarah St. Onge
In 2010, I continued a pregnancy after my unborn child was diagnosed with a "lethal birth defect." During my pregnancy with Beatrix, {full story told here} I was repeatedly pressured by medical professionals to "terminate."
Because of the lack of support during my pregnancy, I have dedicated the last five years to supporting families faced with the same diagnosis we were given for our daughter. In addition, I joined support groups for women who choose to continue a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, hoping to encourage women on their journey. During this time, I have heard the stories of dozens of families who were pressured to "terminate" pregnancies after being given a poor pregnancy diagnosis. Whether the issue was with the child or with the woman carrying the child, these parents' refusal to consider late-term abortion was often met with derision on the part of health care providers.
Those of us who try to encourage women to continue their pregnancies hear these types of stories often. It is tragically common for doctors to present "therapeutic abortion" as the normal course of "care" for a pregnancy in which an adverse diagnosis has been made. Many doctors do not even broach the subject of continuing the pregnancy, simply asking pregnant mothers, “when should we schedule your termination?” after a diagnosis. Most medical professionals assume that every woman wants to -- or should want to -- end a pregnancy where a child has been diagnosed with a lethal birth defect. In fact, when researching different lethal congenital disorders, you will often find "termination" listed as the “treatment” for the disorder! This is not a woman-centered or parent-driven attitude, but a physician-driven attitude.
In terms of parents' decision-making, the carry to term path has flourished with organizations which support the parent(s) continuing their pregnancy. The good news is that many hospitals have now created perinatal hospice programs for those using their facilities to deliver their babies. In terms of women's health -- carry to birth has consistently and unequivocally proven to be a healthier medical treatment for women.
Yet individual physicians seem unable to shake the opinion that prematurely ending the baby's life is best. They often deny patients access to pre-natal treatment due to the concept of "medical futility." These narrow-minded physicians decline to answer questions in layman's terms so that parents understand they have a right to continue the pregnancy. They manipulate parents by telling them that birth will be incredibly traumatic for their child, often giving them horror stories about babies being ripped to pieces in the labor process. This particular tactic has been shared in many parents' recollections of speaking to doctors after deciding to continue a pregnancy. Angie Smith's groundbreaking book about continuing a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, "I Will Carry You" mentions this phenomenon.
Because of the lack of support during my pregnancy, I have dedicated the last five years to supporting families faced with the same diagnosis we were given for our daughter. In addition, I joined support groups for women who choose to continue a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, hoping to encourage women on their journey. During this time, I have heard the stories of dozens of families who were pressured to "terminate" pregnancies after being given a poor pregnancy diagnosis. Whether the issue was with the child or with the woman carrying the child, these parents' refusal to consider late-term abortion was often met with derision on the part of health care providers.
A few months ago, I was introduced to a family who was expecting a sweet baby with Limb Body Wall Complex -- the same diagnosis of my daughter Beatrix. Their story of how they were treated by medical professionals is perhaps the worst I have ever heard.
Not only were they pressured to abort their baby, but when they refused, their doctor began a course of minimal care in an obvious effort to punish them for wasting his time.
He refused to spend more than five minutes with them at visits; he explained the medical challenges in a way that was incomprehensible for a layperson, thereby not providing them the information they needed to make a true medically informed decision; and, he was condescending toward them as if they were only making the decision to continue the pregnancy because they weren't smart enough to understand the gravity of the situation. They understood the gravity. They knew this was a lethal diagnosis, but just didn't want to be responsible for ending their baby's life.
As if that treatment wasn't bad enough, he even refused to allow them to look at their baby on the ultrasound screen. They requested to see their baby, and the physician outright refused. The parents went to a mall which offered ultrasound services, paying out of pocket, just so they could have a glimpse of the baby they loved. This may have been the only living picture they would have of their child, and they needed this memory of their child alive -- something others take for granted.
While this physicians was looking at their precious baby's face, he horrified them when he used the offensive term “not like a baby.”
Imagine this for a moment -- you’ve learned your baby will not live for long, if at all, outside of the womb. Your only opportunity to see your child moving and alive may be in your doctor’s office on an ultrasound screen, yet your doctor turns the screen away telling you your child “isn’t like a baby”, -- refusing to allow you a glimpse of that tiny person in your body.Not only were they pressured to abort their baby, but when they refused, their doctor began a course of minimal care in an obvious effort to punish them for wasting his time.
He refused to spend more than five minutes with them at visits; he explained the medical challenges in a way that was incomprehensible for a layperson, thereby not providing them the information they needed to make a true medically informed decision; and, he was condescending toward them as if they were only making the decision to continue the pregnancy because they weren't smart enough to understand the gravity of the situation. They understood the gravity. They knew this was a lethal diagnosis, but just didn't want to be responsible for ending their baby's life.
As if that treatment wasn't bad enough, he even refused to allow them to look at their baby on the ultrasound screen. They requested to see their baby, and the physician outright refused. The parents went to a mall which offered ultrasound services, paying out of pocket, just so they could have a glimpse of the baby they loved. This may have been the only living picture they would have of their child, and they needed this memory of their child alive -- something others take for granted.
While this physicians was looking at their precious baby's face, he horrified them when he used the offensive term “not like a baby.”
This was all after they had confirmed their decision to continue the pregnancy, and after they had already named their baby.
This physician’s personal bias didn’t stop at trying to manipulate a family into ending their baby's life, but included attempts to persuade them to travel out of state to procure the abortion, because they had already passed the legal gestational age of 24 weeks for late-term abortion in their own state. Those of us who try to encourage women to continue their pregnancies hear these types of stories often. It is tragically common for doctors to present "therapeutic abortion" as the normal course of "care" for a pregnancy in which an adverse diagnosis has been made. Many doctors do not even broach the subject of continuing the pregnancy, simply asking pregnant mothers, “when should we schedule your termination?” after a diagnosis. Most medical professionals assume that every woman wants to -- or should want to -- end a pregnancy where a child has been diagnosed with a lethal birth defect. In fact, when researching different lethal congenital disorders, you will often find "termination" listed as the “treatment” for the disorder! This is not a woman-centered or parent-driven attitude, but a physician-driven attitude.
In terms of parents' decision-making, the carry to term path has flourished with organizations which support the parent(s) continuing their pregnancy. The good news is that many hospitals have now created perinatal hospice programs for those using their facilities to deliver their babies. In terms of women's health -- carry to birth has consistently and unequivocally proven to be a healthier medical treatment for women.
Yet individual physicians seem unable to shake the opinion that prematurely ending the baby's life is best. They often deny patients access to pre-natal treatment due to the concept of "medical futility." These narrow-minded physicians decline to answer questions in layman's terms so that parents understand they have a right to continue the pregnancy. They manipulate parents by telling them that birth will be incredibly traumatic for their child, often giving them horror stories about babies being ripped to pieces in the labor process. This particular tactic has been shared in many parents' recollections of speaking to doctors after deciding to continue a pregnancy. Angie Smith's groundbreaking book about continuing a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis, "I Will Carry You" mentions this phenomenon.
As a side note -- many parents who "terminated" a pregnancy after a poor diagnosis are often offended by carry to birth families, feeling that our stories somehow imply that they made their decision due to ignorance or medical pressure. But they generally aren't witnesses to the after-affects of those manipulated into "terminations" -- stories which are often shared in post-loss, pro-life leaning on-line groups. These parents also discount the experiences of those of us who did choose to carry to term and who were relentlessly pushed to terminate over our strident refusals.
Studies have shown that when facing a poor pregnancy diagnosis, parents report being unsupported and rushed by their physicians. Studies have further shown the decision to terminate will often culminate in an abortion within three days of a diagnosis -- clearly not sufficient time to research all of the options. Lastly, studies show parents who continue their pregnancy after a poor diagnosis have better mental health outcomes than those who terminate, and some may be surprised to learn that the earlier gestation of the baby, the greater the negative feelings. So those early detection tests are actually harming women's mental health.
Studies have shown that when facing a poor pregnancy diagnosis, parents report being unsupported and rushed by their physicians. Studies have further shown the decision to terminate will often culminate in an abortion within three days of a diagnosis -- clearly not sufficient time to research all of the options. Lastly, studies show parents who continue their pregnancy after a poor diagnosis have better mental health outcomes than those who terminate, and some may be surprised to learn that the earlier gestation of the baby, the greater the negative feelings. So those early detection tests are actually harming women's mental health.
When you allow exceptions for fetal abnormalities, or even for a fatal fetal diagnosis, you are giving your "blessing" to these women to end the lives of their children, and your position directly affects every single child diagnosed in the womb -- including the one whose parents choose not to have an abortion. You give doctors permission to badger patients into abortion. You are telling the medical community that these babies are acceptable targets for killing.
“I think that the greatest sin of all is bringing children into the world – that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be human beings practically.”
This hits at the root of the abortion exceptions argument. Is a baby diagnosed with a lethal birth anomaly somehow less than human? We shout back and forth about a mother's grief, the horror of being forced to carry a baby who will inevitably die, all the while ignoring the fact that neither of these things have any relevance on the rights of the child who is a human being.
When we legislate to allow medical professionals to respond to unborn children as less than human based on disability (or mode of conception), we cannot expect them to suddenly respond as if some unborn babies are human, just because parents choose to continue a pregnancy.
This hits at the root of the abortion exceptions argument. Is a baby diagnosed with a lethal birth anomaly somehow less than human? We shout back and forth about a mother's grief, the horror of being forced to carry a baby who will inevitably die, all the while ignoring the fact that neither of these things have any relevance on the rights of the child who is a human being.
When we legislate to allow medical professionals to respond to unborn children as less than human based on disability (or mode of conception), we cannot expect them to suddenly respond as if some unborn babies are human, just because parents choose to continue a pregnancy.
Let me explain:
While I don't view all medical professionals as cold-hearted, I do believe that for many, a poor pregnancy diagnosis is just another day at work. Termination of pregnancy may be preferable for him/her in terms of liability, time management, and even paperwork. In essence, it's often to the physician's benefit when a parent ends a preborn baby's life prematurely due to fetal anomaly.
When a parent chooses to continue their pregnancy after a diagnosis, it can become an inconvenience to the physicians who have no emotional attachment to the unborn child they have diagnosed, and who often don't even view the child as human. Even worse, for some physicians, continuing care is viewed as a waste of their time and skills. The more patients a physician has who decide to end their pregnancies, the more accustomed the physician becomes to: a) believing his/her recommendation to be the correct recommendation (vs. a personal opinion on care); and b) believing that the patient who continued their pregnancy is the anomaly.
When a parent chooses to continue their pregnancy after a diagnosis, it can become an inconvenience to the physicians who have no emotional attachment to the unborn child they have diagnosed, and who often don't even view the child as human. Even worse, for some physicians, continuing care is viewed as a waste of their time and skills. The more patients a physician has who decide to end their pregnancies, the more accustomed the physician becomes to: a) believing his/her recommendation to be the correct recommendation (vs. a personal opinion on care); and b) believing that the patient who continued their pregnancy is the anomaly.
When even otherwise pro-life individuals state that one person has the right to end the life of another on grounds of disability or imminent death, the door is cracked open to coerced abortion, and dehumanization. Medical professionals efforts to manipulate women into unasked for abortions is affirmed by the willingness to look the other way for the sake of expediency.
When pro-life individuals promote legislation which includes abortion exceptions, we are directly responsible for the pain of this little family whose story I just shared -- the family who delivered their sweet baby alive just a few weeks ago.
As pro-life persons, we are supposed to be champions for families like this. Please don't be a part of the reason they are struggling.
BIO: Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1. She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.
BIO: Sarah St. Onge is a wife, mother of 4, step-mother of 2, and pro-life blogger for Save The 1. She blogs on grief, loss, and pro-life issues pertaining to continuing a pregnancy after a lethal anomaly has been diagnosed, at www.shebringsjoy.com.Sunday, January 10, 2016
Petulant or Vigilant? The Battle For No Exceptions – By Jim Sable
 |
| Petulant or Vigilant? The Battle For No Exceptions – By Jim Sable |
A new year of battling abortion begins, which means another year of fearless pro-life people fervently working to stop abortion has ended. You could call any year that passes without stopping abortion an unsuccessful year, but there were many successes in 2015, particularly: The Center for Medical Progress investigative videos and related rallies exposing the profiting from the sale of aborted fetal body parts by Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry; pro-life efforts by our friend Abby Johnson and her ministry team at And Then There Were None assisting abortion workers in leaving the industry continued, with many abortionists and workers quitting; certain pro-life laws and related efforts were successful in causing either the outright closure or cessation of abortion services at 53 clinics throughout the USA; and, the continuing work of Pregnancy Resource Centers combined with sidewalk counselors, bolstered by the compassionate and visible international efforts of 40 Days For Life, tirelessly working at abortion’s “ground zero”, quietly saved countless lives.
At Save The 1, we experienced other successes, as our network of individuals representing one of the so-called “hard cases” expanded into the hundreds. We helped start our affiliate group Save The 1 - Carry To Birth. We launched our international outreach with the Save The 1 Spanish and Portuguese divisions: Salvar El 1 and Salva O 1. We witnessed our message spreading and the topic of the rape exception discussed more frequently. We also observed, and in some cases directly influenced, the introduction and passage of many State abortion regulating laws that did not contain the usual “exceptions”. We assisted worldwide to keep the rape exception out of important pro-life laws.
But, along with those positive 2015 results, as we at Save The 1 represent and defend the lives of the so-called “hard cases” of the abortion debate, we continue to witness and experience many verbal and written challenges to the right to life of the “exceptions”, from individuals and groups on both sides of the debate. Each challenge is a slap in the face, and we turn the other cheek while we continue to defend our lives and the lives of those similarly situated. We have turned the other cheek so often that our heads are spinning. It is not difficult to understand the disrespect from the abortion supporters, but when we battle with the pro-life community, it is particularly perplexing and exasperating.
A recent example of this occurred as 2015 was winding down and the 2016 Presidential campaign was gaining momentum. The pro-life community reacted in unison to denounce a statement made by self-proclaimed pro-life Presidential candidate Jeb Bush. Mr. Bush answered a question about whether he would have ended the life of the infant Hitler. Jeb Bush answered, “Hell yeah I would!”. One well known and influential pro-life blogger railed against Bush in a Facebook post in November, chiding Bush by unequivocally stating that the pro-life community cannot abandon “Principles” and make “Pragmatic Compromises”. Bush’s pragmatic compromise about Hitler is not pro-life. “Once we compromise the principle, we can’t with a straight face appeal to it anymore,” the blogger wrote. (This is a blogger who had previously advocated for laws containing exceptions, defending compromise.)
Save The 1 was encouraged by the post that cited “principles” written by someone who has shown a willingness to compromise on pro-life laws. We reached out to see if the blogger’s idea of principles still included an acceptance of the exceptions. Surely, one who would not condone killing the infant/preborn Hitler would also now be standing by principle and rejecting exceptions, or so we hoped, and communicated that hope in our response to the post. Unfortunately, our hopes were unfounded. Instead of a reassuring affirmation of our right to life, we were told that this blogger was “. . . weary of the fallacy of the 1% argument”, (whatever that means). We were also called “petulant” (3 times) for our no exceptions position and for expressing a challenge to the compromising ideology. So, Save The 1 is apparently petulant for defending all life, but a blogger who responds to a challenge, not by engaging in respectful debate and Q & A on the points, but instead by name calling and misstating another’s views, is somehow virtuous. We, evidently, are not allowed to defend our position, are not allowed to show any passion about our cause lest we be labeled as petulant. Are we to understand this to mean: “Spare the baby Hitler – sacrifice the baby from rape”?
The blogger’s single defense is to claim that the blog has never stated that the rape exception is an acceptable compromise. But, how do you separate an approval of exceptions in law from an approval of exceptions in general? Is it logical to state that you are against the rape exception or that you don’t consider the rape exception an acceptable compromise and then promote and condone the exceptions in law? Can you hold yourself out as “principled” when you accept any compromise?
The promotion of exceptions is troubling enough. But there is also a concurrent promotion of and symbiotic relationship with compromising politicians. The pro-life community has allowed politicians to define what it means to be pro-life. Don’t the elected officials work for us? This has been much more of a problem at the Federal level than the State level. Save The 1 has observed much more success among the states in passing principled laws without exceptions.
This blogger gave us the erroneous example of rejecting hostage releases one at a time until hostage holders agree to release 100% as being analogous to a “no exceptions” requirement for a pro-life law. This hostage scenario is not analogous to a no exceptions legal philosophy because a no exceptions philosophy would accept ALL hostages, one at a time or all at once, depending on the requirements of the hostage takers (abortion regulations). A law with exceptions actually refuses some hostages (babies’ lives). Here’s how: The hostage negotiating team (pro-life community) takes (protects) every life the hostage holders (abortion regulations) are willing to spare, (every life a law is designed to protect), and then, the negotiating team sends those now saved hostages who are rape conceived BACK to the hostage holders, (removes the legal protection for some by adding a rape exception to the law). To put it simply, (and, seemingly, obviously), a law with exceptions excludes some lives, a no exceptions law does not.
We were accused of being responsible, at least partly, for the continued slaughter of 99% of babies because we defend the last 1%. We were told, (and we have heard this many times), we are standing in the way of laws that would save 99% of babies tomorrow because we will not agree to the exceptions. What we do object to is any group or individual who touts a hypothetical law, with imaginary results, who then claims a superior moral authority over others. Our proposal could be considered hypothetical, but we have the historical record of Roe v. Wade to show that the rape exception is unworkable in practice. It is impossible to know how many lives would be saved by an abortion ban with a rape exception, but it is certainly not the outrageous 99% claimed by this blogger. A rape exception creates a huge, unenforceable loophole, and also exposes the real possibility of additional exceptions, which will be advanced and defended as just as valid, merely a court decision away from implementation, as the rape exception is given the force of law by OUR side. The perpetually-promoted rape exception keeps abortion legal forever.
This leads to a broader issue and other questions. We at Save The 1 are told that laws with exceptions need to be passed because they contribute to the “greater good” of ending abortion. Who is the caretaker of the “greater good”? Who gets to decide how we get there, when we will know we are there, and how long it should take to get there? As compromising organizations and individuals advance an exceptions strategy that has almost no chance of ever ending legalized abortion, how is that promoting the greater good? If the rape exception keeps abortion legal forever, allowing for a renewed expansion of abortion rights after a ban with exceptions somehow is passed, how is the long term greater good achieved?
There have been promises for decades that the exceptions strategy will change and the laws passed with exceptions will be fixed. Neither has happened. Case in point: the current Planned Parenthood defunding bill passed by the House and Senate has a rape exception. So, we are handing the enforcement procedure of the rape exception to an organization that has already demonstrated that they do not comply with rape reporting requirements. Is this an effective strategy? Let’s make a commitment to change this strategy. Now. If not now, when?
From our standpoint, the blogger broke at least 2 tenets of debate, (1) - attacking us personally and, (2) - begging the question by assuming something as fact without any defending evidence. These are rules that this blogger claims to uphold (but doesn’t) and demands that others do as well. Here is another example of inconsistency we see often from some compromising pro-life individuals, from those in leadership positions on down. They use a recommended line of reasoning when discussing abortion with those who are “personally pro-life” but supportive of laws allowing the “choice” of abortion by pointing out that the other person, despite his or her personal disapproval of abortion, is actually supporting abortion, the horrible act of killing babies that they claim to abhor, by supporting the legality of killing babies. The “personal pro-lifers” are being inconsistent. In other words, if you support the law, you support the act, despite what you claim are your own personal views. How is accepting the exceptions in law any different? It is puzzling that someone who is pro-life and compromises on the exceptions cannot seem to grasp that they are also displaying the same inconsistency. Again, if you accept the law, you accept the act.
So what is it, actually, that is so distressing about our message to the people who accept exceptions in law? Are they sincere and accurate when they say we are an impediment to pro-life success? In their eyes we are a problem to deal with, a nuisance, a thorn in their side. Or are they concealing something they do not want to admit? Are we actually a challenge to their conscience? Has the business of being pro-life clouded the purity of the message and distracted some away from fighting for the principle of “Every Life Matters”? What percentage would we have to be for the lives of the “hard cases” to matter enough to be defended by everyone at every opportunity and to make legal exceptions to pro-life laws a thing of the past? Apparently 1% is not enough.
 |
BIO: Jim Sable is a husband, father of three, and a national pro-life speaker, conceived in rape, and blogger for Save The 1, from the Chicago area. He serves on the Board of Save The 1, as well as Hope After Rape Conception.
|
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
There's a Person in There by Darlene Pawlik
In my experience as a nurse, there have been so many times that others in the medical field ignore the dignity of the person to whom care is delivered. For a supervisor, walking in on a bed bath or other personal procedure is no deterrent to getting their job done. “It’s just a body, I’ve seen plenty of them.” they reason. In truth, it is not just a body. There is a person in that body; a person deserving of recognition and respect.
In the ProLife arena, the same holds true. Too many see only a body count. They see mere bodies being brutally murdered. They are people, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these the Right to Life. If we are to be truly ProLife, we need to recognize and respect the fact that these are people we are trying to protect. There’s a person in that body.
To suggest that some of those people are worthy of protection and some are not, is completely illogical, unless you are forgetting that they are people and not just bodies. It is astonishing to me that so many in the House of Representatives are so disconnected to their own innate knowledge, so as to determine that only some babies are eligible for the right to life. They undermine their own credibility, becoming elitist for the sake of expediency.
If babies have been determined to feel pain at a particular stage of development and the goal is to protect them from being horrifically brutalized to their dismemberment and death, then how could it be that not all of the babies at that stage of development deserve protection? How could the mode of their conception be relevant? Why not their ethnicity or their economic status? The arbitrary conditions in the new Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are illogical, immoral and should be rejected.
There is either a baby worth protecting, or there is not.
Why is it that legislators believe they can maintain credibility as a Pro-Life person when they are clearly elitists, deciding who deserves to be protected and who does not? How do they rationalize the fact that a similarly developed baby should be torn limb from limb? Is it that it is just a vote to them?
And what of the fact that a desperate woman, seeking abortion at 5 months is probably aware that she will kill her child. If she is so desperate, will she not lie and say she was raped? Lila Rose and Live Action have produced numerous undercover videos exposing the lies of the abortion vendors. Will they not encourage more lies to keep their business of killing babies profitable? Can you really believe that?
The PCUCPA is terrible as it is written. Shameful.
I oppose the Government-sanctioned, government funded killing of our neighbors and I hope others who do will see the folly of this kind of legislation.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene Pawlik, Savethe1 Speaker and blogger, www.theDarlingPrincess.com, and Chair of NH Right to Life Educational Trust and NHRTL PAC a woman conceived by rape, abused, trafficked and restored by God to a life of purpose and grace. She has been married for almost 25 years, has five grown children and two grandchildren.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Rebecca Kiessling’s Reply to Ann Coulter
This article is written in response to Ann Coulter’s Column which can be read here.
I knew this would happen! I predicted that Republican party apologists would blame Richard Mourdoch and Todd Akin’s losses on the fact that they are 100% pro-life, instead of acknowledging that the losses were due to how poorly they expressed their positions. And sure enough, the day after the election, Ann Coulter did just that. In her article entitled, “Don’t Blame Romney,” she spent half of the article blaming these two Senate candidates for daring to defend the life of every preborn child. Her exact words were, “because these two idiots decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest,” calling them “pro-life badasses,” “purist grandstanders,” with “insane positions,” who were “showing off.” Unfortunately, Coulter has a huge following and will surely influence many uninformed readers with her misstatement of the facts and her flawed reasoning. I have great concern that these Senate losses will have a chilling effect on pro-life legislators and voters. Hence, a swift and thorough response is in order.
Ann Coulter, referenced “all the hard work intelligent pro-lifers . . . in the trenches” and what they have accomplished, as if she was one of them. Well, I’ve been in the trenches since 1995, and I must point out that Ann Coulter has been missing in action. I’ve never once seen her in here, so I can’t comprehend how she could possibly include herself in this group. I’m a hard-working intelligent pro-life activist, and I’m 100% pro-life – for good reason. I was not only conceived in rape, but nearly aborted at two back-alley abortionists. The only reason I wasn’t killed through a brutal abortion is because I was legally protected. My heroes are those pro-life legislators and activists who were hard-working and intelligent enough to understand that mine was a life worth saving.
Coulter went on to erroneously write that Mourdoch and Akin lost because they had “abortion positions that less than 1 percent of the nation agrees with.” Her figure is way off, and she has totally ignored the fact that their abortion position adheres to the Republican party platform! All she’s doing is further alienating the base. Mitt Romney alienated the base – not only by making the rape exception, but also by his own gaffes, such as when he said, “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” Pro-life leaders were left to mop up that mess, from which he never recovered. Many pro-lifers who were already skeptical either voted third-party or stayed home. Three million Republicans stayed home, compared to 2008. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/republican-turnout-in-2012-election-less-than-2008-and-2004/ Making matters worse, Romney ran ads in battleground states suggesting that it’s extreme to be 100% pro-life. How could anyone deny that such ads hurt Senate candidates like Akin inMissouri, Mourdoch inIndiana, and Smith inPennsylvania, as well as congressional candidates like Koster inWashington and Bachmann inMinnesota? And let’s not forget how the party leadership threw these candidates under the bus – something Democrats do not do to their own.
Additionally, the 1% figure Coulter threw out there is just not even close to being true. Polls in the last few years have consistently shown that the number is between 20 to 24% of Americans who believe abortion should be illegal in cases of rape. The other 31%+ of Americans who are pro-life with exceptions are 99% of the way there, and only need to be nudged another 1%. My experience shows that this is easy to achieve – if you try, just as how my story changed the heart of Gov. Rick Perry during his presidential campaign. And that’s the key. Who has really tried? I know that the number of 100% pro-life Americans would be much higher if the pro-life movement as a whole actually went after this ground. Instead, Coulter is right in pointing out where the effort has been focused – on things like parental notification laws and efforts to ban partial birth abortion. The lives of children conceived in rape are often minimized with the standard dismissive language of: “Well, it’s only 1%.” Why continue to minimize? Why not stand up and really defend our lives? We need to try to gain ground on this issue, by educating the public, by equipping candidates and legislators on how to most effectively respond to the rape question, by making ads with children conceived in rape available for anyone who wishes to utilize them, and by removing rape exceptions from the law, beginning with the Hyde Amendment.
My response to people like Ann Coulter is – WE ARE NOT CANNON FODDER! You do not get to put us out on the front lines and then take a giant step back. The “burning building” analogy fails because you have no interest in working to save all. You do not get to call yourself pro-life by shutting off the water, sending the fire trucks home, while you stand there watching the building burn down with the 1 inside of it. If you want to see who the real extremist is, Ann Coulter, come on Fox News with me, look me in the eyes and tell me how you think my birthmother should have been able to abort me. Tell me that my life was not worthy of protection and that I don’t deserve to be living, and I’ll show you who is the one who is extreme.
Some strategists will suggest that you have to accept rape exceptions in order to get candidates elected and legislation passed. This is untrue – just look at Right to Life of Michigan as the model. They have been a standard-bearer in this cause and have never accepted the rape exception. You can’t get their PAC endorsement if you make the rape exception, and they will not put their stamp of approval on legislation if it has an exception. When they didn’t have the votes to pass the ban on Medicaid funding of abortion without a rape exception, they worked on the exception-legislators to convince them to change their positions. When they still didn’t have the votes, RLM targeted them in their primaries, got them voted out, then passed the ban without exceptions. That’s how you get it done!
Now Right to Life of Michigan has mentored many other state NRLC affiliates to go to this model of being a standard-bearer, maintaining the principle that all are worthy of protection. Since the change on their Board of Directors nearly 12 years ago, Georgia Right to Life has passed more pro-life legislation then they’d ever passed before. They were told at the time by the Republican party leaders that they were dead, irrelevant, and called extremists. Now, every constitutionally-elected official – Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, are all 100% pro-life with no exceptions. The lobbyist for Georgia Right to Life, Dan Becker, wrote a book about it, “Personhood: A Pragmatic Guide to Prolife Victory in the 21st Century and the Return to First Principles in Politics.” www.tkspublications.com Tennessee Right to Life and Alaska Right to Life are other examples of state affiliates who successfully transitioned from the compromising model of accepting the rape exception to being a standard-bearer with no exceptions.
We must not discriminate! Children conceived in rape are surely the most outcast members of our society, being unfairly demonized and portrayed as a “horrible reminder of the rape,” “the rapist’s baby,” “tainting the gene pool,” and even “demon spawn.” This not only affects the pre-born, but also those born under such circumstances. Can you imagine if a law was introduced with an exception in cases of bi-racial rape? I could hear the rationale, “Well, it’s only 1% of 1%,” and “the child would look more like the rapist and would surely be more of a reminder of the rape” – an argument which I’ve actually heard before. There would be a national outcry for such discrimination! Civil rights leaders would be outraged and demand that the exception not only be removed, but that the legislator who introduced it must immediately step down. And yet, half of pro-lifers think nothing of discriminating against children conceived in rape, and it’s wrong!
If we are going to gain ground in this effort to protect unborn children, we must maintain a standard, and we must make more of an effort to educate. I believe that the best people to do so are those of us who have been on the front-lines as pro-life speakers who were conceived in rape, who have been spending our entire adult lives defending our right to life. We’ve heard every question, every challenge, every argument. Why not utilize us? Just to name a few, there is Ryan Bomberger, Susan Jaramillo, and Pam Stenzel. On my website, there are dozens of stories of others conceived in rape and who became pregnant by rape. We’ve publicly shared our stories for a reason – please use them! www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html I’m partnering with Personhood Education to form Save The 1 – an organization which will implement the strategies necessary to defend the 1%, as well as the 99%. Here are three of our new ads which will be launched soon. www.youtube.com/savethe1child
Back to Ann Coulter’s article – she wrote that “No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist.” I don’t believe that. Laws DID protect children like me and these protections can and should be restored. She went on to add: “Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape.” Ann, your words speak volumes as to what you really believe. A preborn child is not an “it.” He or she is a life, a human being, a person, a son or a daughter. They have a gender. This is not a mere philosophical or political exercise, but real people’s lives are at stake. When I represented the mother inMichigan’s “frozen embryo” case, the fertility doctors testified at deposition that from one cell, they are literally male and female, and ascertainably so! Just as it says in Genesis, “male and female, He created them.” Using words of gender serve to demonstrate the humanity of these children.
Lastly, Ann Coulter goes on to suggest being 100% pro-life is not wise because too much of a good thing can harm you – like too much iron, or too much sugar in your coffee. I couldn’t help but think of the words of Mother Teresa: “How can you say there are too many children? That’s like saying there are too many flowers.” No offense Ann, but I’d rather heed the words of a godly woman like Mother Teresa than you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)