American Right to Life-- Not Sure It's Worth the Time
I'm not sure whether I should even give the following the time of day, let alone a posting...
American Right to Life is a start up pro-life group that is highly critical of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act because, they argue, "It doesn't save a single life."
They just released a press release offering $10,000 to National Right to Life (my former employer, of which they are also highly critical), if NRLC's General Counsel, James Bopp, Jr., can name a U.S. Supreme Court justice who has written in either a ruling or dissent that an unborn child has a right to life.
I have several points to make and, as per my usual standard in writing, my criticism will be leveled at the facts. I try not to engage in personal attacks-- I feel that it's a useless waste of energy. We should be fighting the pro-abortion groups--not each other.
1. NRLC has been the backbone and national "face" of the pro-life movement since 1973 when Roe was decided. It's oldest affiliate is Virginia Society for Human Life which was founded in 1968.
2. NRLC has taken a pragmatic approach to overturning Roe. It was not until the 1980s that any movement could take place in promoting protective legislation. While Roe still exists, nearly all protective legislation promoted by National Right to Life has passed the ultimate test-- the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. Regarding Supreme Court appointments: anyone recall the Reagan nomination of Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court? 'Nuff said.
4. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was an overwhelming success.
And contrary to ARTL's assertions, the legislation did save lives and changed opinion. For the first time ever, Americans read about an actual abortion procedure in the newspaper. Major national newspapers ran the medically accurate line-drawings. I personally spoke with one woman who claimed to be "pro-choice" but when she saw the line drawings she could not believe that such a thing could happen in America. It made her rethink her position on abortion. She also sent NRLC a donation so the group could keep running the line drawings in newspapers.
5. The debate, passage and Supreme Court approval of the PBA legislation took over ten years(!)-- NRLC led the fight to see this pragmatic and should-be-obvious-to-anyone-with-a-conscience legislation passed.
6. Working at NRLC was not a cushy job. I loved it-- don't get me wrong --I truly loved it and the people-- but it was not cushy. During major events in the timeline of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, staff would literally sleep in the office and stay up at all hours copying factsheets and position papers. Our salaries were comparable to those on the Hill with the average entry level position beginning at $21,000 when I was hired. Long nights, lack of sleep, sleeping in the office, staying late and eating cold pizza were done as acts of love for those unable to speak for themselves. To imply otherwise insults all of those in the pro-life movement. BTW, the president of National Right to Life, Wanda Franz, Ph.D., is uncompensated for her position. The Board of Directors is also comprised of volunteers.
7. Until 2001, when NRLC moved into it's "new" Art Deco Era building with it's modest exterior and interior, the organization was housed in a rather run down building on 7th Street. The carpet outside my office had duct tape covering holes and rips and there was duct tape in the other halls as well. We shared internet access between offices and had to check with an ajoining staffer's office to make sure we wouldn't kick somebody else off the internet when we logged on (yup, we had dial-up until 2001).
In the winter, the heater system would overwork itself so that the heat in the building was stifling and we were all running fans to cool down. In the summer, the air conditioner sought to turn our offices into freezers and many of us used space heaters to keep warm. The owners said the system was set automatically-- they couldn't do anything about it.
It was only after significant negotiations with the building owners that we were allowed to install a satellite system in the late 1990s so we could watch the news or C-SPAN coverage of floor debate in the House or Senate.
8. NRLC is not in this for the money or prestige. NRLC is in this debate to save lives and believes this is best done with an incremental approach. If anyone has a better idea-- great, make it work. When you truly outlaw abortion by withstanding all of the Supreme Court challenges, I'll be there cheering you on. Otherwise, don't criticize the good people in the movement who have effectively held back the pro-abortion tide and advanced the right to life for the last 35 years.
6 comments:
Laura, I'm ideologically as far from ARTL as it's possible to get and still be pro-life. That said -- I have a real problem with the approach of trying to overturn Roe v. Wade on any grounds *other* than ruling that unborn human beings are legal persons who deserve Constitutional protection. The only reason that it's legitimate to tell a woman that she may not kill the child living inside of her is that the child is a human person. If it were a non-human parasite or a part of her body, as many abortion advocates claim, there'd be no problem. If laws are passed forbidding abortion *without establishing fetal personhood*, then legally the abortion is a victimless crime. It wouldn't be any different than a law against contraception. It wouldn't establish the unborn's right to life; it would only establish that women can be controlled by the state.
I do not side with ARTL. I think they're dangerous theocratic extremists, frankly. But I can't see how NRLC's strategy gets us to a real right to life. For crying out loud, they endorsed a candidate in the GOP primary who was opposed to a Constitutional amendment declaring that all human beings were persons. He didn't just think it was aiming too high for right now, which would be understandable; he thought it was the wrong thing to do. If NRLC doesn't think laws against abortion should be based on the principle that the unborn child is a human person, what do they think they should be based on?
jen r
Thanks for leaving a comment.
As for NRLC, even though I don't work for NRLC anymore, I'm still obligated through a "gentlemen's agreement" not to reveal any strategy the group may have so I have to be cautious how I answer.
That said, I can say that NRLC firmly and unequivocally believes in the right to life of an unborn child because that child is a human being and member of the human family. The group is non-sectarian so they approach the issue as a moral/human rights issue not just a religious issue.
The biggest problem facing us today in this fight is the issue of personhood. Legally, an unborn child can inherit property but can also be aborted. The law is very two-faced when it comes to dealing with an unborn child.
The answer to this would be a human life amendment which was pushed heavily by NRLC and other groups in the 1980s. But as Congress changed hands, Clinton was elected, and the U.S. Supreme Court elected to let Roe through rulings such as Casey v. Planned Parenthood and Webster, a HLA became less and less feasible under these conditions.
We also have the problem of vehement and nasty opposition to any Supreme Court nominee who smacks of the strict constructionist when is comes to the Constitution.
NRLC hasn't given up and won't give up on advancing the right to life but they also recognize that they're in it for the long haul. Along they way, they are trying to save as many unique, individual children they can by working with state and federal legislators to pass laws such as women's right to know laws, ultrasound requirements and partial-birth abortion bans. As they do so, these are opportunities to change public opinion and challenge the "truthfulness" of the pro-abortion movement. Each success leads us closer.
It is frustrating but the pro-life movement is made up of many groups doing really important things. NRLC works through legislation and education. Susan B. Anthony List works to elect pro-life candidates as a PAC. Feminists for Life works through education and college campuses to give women the resources they need to give life to their unborn children. Most important of all are of course crisis pregnancy centers who are on the frontlines of this debate.
We are a wonderfully diverse movement and NRLC is one of the cogs-- a big cog-- but one of the cogs.
I just think that it's unhelpful for one group to so publicly criticize another group. Some time, energy and money should be spent criticizing Planned Parenthood or NARAL. It is for this reason, NRLC will rarely respond to criticism or criticize another group openly. It's pointless, ax-grinding that doesn't help the babies. And that's the key in all of this-- if one child is saved from right to know legislation or partial-birth abortion or ultrasound requirements-- then that one life is worth it. NRLC rejects the all or nothing approach because, in the interim, children-- irreplaceable, unique children will die because the law that could have been there, wasn't.
I hope this answer your concerns--thanks for responding!
Laura,
Thanks for responding. I still can't really agree with your points, because I think we're arguing about things that are kind of orthogonal to each other. But I appreciate the reply!
We also have the problem of vehement and nasty opposition to any Supreme Court nominee who smacks of the strict constructionist when is comes to the Constitution.
What does the "strict constructionist" approach have to do with the personhood of the unborn child? Unless I'm missing something, "strict constructionists" don't intend to rule that the unborn are legal persons, just that abortion and/or privacy aren't spelled out in the Constitution and therefore aren't rights. Justice Scalia, the most often-cited favorite justice of the "strict constructionist" contingent, has stated that he doesn't believe there's anything in the Constitution that would prohibit abortion. He doesn't believe the unborn child is a person under the Constitution -- he thinks the issue should be left to the states.
I do agree with you that the "all or nothing" approach, which wouldn't even allow things like informed-consent requirements, is unhelpful. But I think taking our eye off the ball of personhood and trying to get privacy struck down instead is not just a mistaken strategy, but simply wrong. I don't think it's good for the unborn or the born.
The point behind the Human Life Amendment in the 1980s was to make clear that the Constitution did protect unborn children. I agree that a strict constructionist would only overturn Roe and return judgment on abortion to the states. An HLA would override all of that. Unfortunately, we're not likely to get a pro-life justice who believes the Constitution applies to the unborn if we can't get strict constructionists approved without a major fight. In the Congressional makeup, we're not likely to get an HLA.
It's definitely an uphill battle we are not likely to win soon. And while I cannot reveal NRLCs strategy, please be assured that they have some of the most brilliant minds on the Hill working on this. Douglas Johnson, NRLC's legislative director,is the group's chief federal lobbyist. He's been doing this job for years. I honestly thought the man didn't sleep during the debate over PBA. He churned out talking points, faxes and press releases at all hours-- waking many of us up in the morning wanting to discuss press or news reports. He is probably, without a doubt, one of the best lobbyists on the Hill--on any issue, in any field. And he's ours. The people at NRLC are dedicated to seeing that all human life is protected from conception to natural death and there is a strategy based on the reality. That strategy is constantly being reassessed.
I hope that helps-- to say more would likely reveal too much. NRLC holds its cards very close to its chest and with good reason.
I respect that you are sticking to your agreement not to reveal everything you know. It does bother me, though -- NRLC is the biggest and most influential pro-life group, and even other pro-lifers don't get to know what it's planning in the name of their cause.
Anyway, I hope you're right, because from out here, it doesn't look promising. The problem with Roe v. Wade is *not* that it recognized a right to privacy (previously recognized in Griswold) -- the problem is that it declared unborn children beyond the concern of the law. Privacy wouldn't enter into it if the unborn were considered legal persons -- the decision itself said that.
Jen R
You're right, privacy wouldn't enter into it but unfortunately by the time anyone saw this happening, there wasn't enough organization in place to prevent Roe or the pass any kind of Human Life Amendment.
In fact, NRLC came about because there were several state pro-life groups like Virginia Society for Human Life (founded in '68) but nothing on the national level. Those groups got together to create something on a federal level in reaction to Roe. NRLC was founded in the summer of 1973.
It is also run as a federation. NRLC has 50 state affiliates and each picks a representative for the Board of Directors. There are also four at-large directors. The board meets several times a year to discuss policy, strategy and to receive reports from department heads. Let me tell you as one who has been on the receiving end of board members' questions that if they don't understand why something was done the way it was done or why something wasn't done they have no qualms about questioning things.
I apologize for not being able to say more-- NRLC's executive director David N. O'Steen used to say that "NARAL reads the New York Times too."
For that reason, NRLC loses out on a lot of donations because the group doesn't trump it's own horn either. So you may or may not hear that they were behind a particular piece of legislation. I do understand that it is frustrating that they tend to be very closed mouthed.
Post a Comment