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.

4th U.S. Court of Appeals Declares Virginia PBA Ban Unconstitutional

Yesterday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared Virginia's ban on partial-birth abortions to be unconstitutional.

Now, you may ask-- "how is that possible in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart?"

Well, the 4th Circuit decided that because the federal ban was more explicit in its definition of what was banned.

What happens now?

According to AP, the state has two weeks to ask a full appeals court to review the panel's ruling or the state has 90 days to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Of the three judge's on the panel, only one, Judge Paul V. Niemeyer argued that the statute was "virtually identical" to the federal ban that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld.

Another judge argued that the statute imposed an "undue burden" upon women seeking an abortion (and that judge was joined by the third for a majority).

I say horse puckey-- two of the three judges on this appeals court panel were determined to find some way of declaring the law unconstitutional and so they did.

McCain-Feingold and the U.S. Supreme Court

First, let me apologize for not posting. We were out of town for a few days and I'm playing catch-up.

Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was hurtful to citizen groups and was a violation of the first amendment.

This is a tremendous victory for the cause of free speech!

Wisconsin Right to Life challenged the law because of provisions stating that groups can't air the name of a candidate within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. Ads that included the name of a candidate didn't have to be election oriented-- they could have been concerning legislation and contacting members of Congress on pro-life issues but the campaign reform law did not discriminate between the types of communication.

Of course, presidential candidate and author of the bill, John McCain, was disappointed but presidential candidate Mitt Romney hailed the ruling saying that the free-speech rights of pro-life and other citizen groups should not be abridged.

In a statement, Romney said, "The law trampled the basic right of the American people to participate in their democracy. Today's decision restores, in part, to the American people a right critical to their freedom of political participation and expression."

Democratic Presidential Candidates Criticize Court Abortion Ruling

The Democratic presidential candidates vying for their party's nomination met last night in a debate at South Carolina State University. But there was little true debate, for the most part the candidates were complimentary, friendly and united in many of their opinions. This includes their joint opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (PBABA) was wrong.

To top this, several candidates said they would not impose a litmus test on Court nominees but then added that any appointees would reflect their views on abortion on demand.

Oh, wow-- that's not a litmus test?!

(If you want to read an informative--but very graphic--article in .pdf detailing the testimony of abortionists in the lower court rulings on PBABA, click here.)

McCain-Feingold

As I write this, attorneys are arguing their points on McCain-Feingold before the U.S. Supreme Court.

When McCain-Feingold was being argued in Congress, proponents poo-pooed assertions that the legislation would curb free-speech on issue ads that ran before an election or primary. Groups like National Right to Life and the James Madison Center for Free Speech argued that the language of the bill would hurt citizen groups interested in promoting or criticizing legislators by name when it came to pending legislative issues.

Of course after McCain-Feingold passed this is exactly what happened.

In the article I mentioned yesterday, James Bopp, Jr., who is lead counsel for Wisconsin Right to Life in today's appearance before the Court, wrote:

In 2002, Congress adopted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. As part of this new law, Congress prohibited corporations and labor unions from running 'electioneering communications' — i.e., advertisements naming a candidate, including incumbent officeholders seeking reelection, broadcast to the candidate’s constituents — within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Touted as necessary to eliminate 'sham' issue ads that were really intended to elect or defeat a candidate, it is now apparent that the story of McCain-Feingold is itself replete with shams. This so-called “electioneering communication” prohibition is simply the latest permutation of the ancient and persistent impulse of government officials to quash criticism of their actions.

This is what is before our highest Court: can we as citizens criticize our leaders? I think our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves that this is even in question.

McCain-Feingold Goes to Court

Tomorrow, oral arguments will be heard in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life. There is an excellent article detailing the problems with McCain-Feingold on the National Review website. The article is by James Bopp, Jr. who is lead counsel for Wisconsin Right to Life and is general counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech.

McCain-Feingold is a serious curb on the free-speech rights of us all. Please check out Mr. Bopp's article.

Partial-Birth Abortion

In many instances, the news media is using qualifiers to decribe yesterday's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the ban on the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Many news outlets have been using words and phrases such as the "a ban on so-called partial-birth abortions" or something along the lines of "a ban on what opponents refer to as partial-birth abortions."

Regardless of how it's whitewashed, I find it hard to believe that there are those who can still support partial-birth abortions. Over at Writes Like She Talks, Jill is appalled that Cathy Cleaver Ruse of Family Research Council objected to the use of the partial-birth abortion technique in cases where the woman's mental health was listed as the reason for the abortion. And Jill connects the dots and concludes that, in wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, how can we not be concerned about a woman's "mental" health?

Jill apparently is unaware of the fact that, regarding abortion, mental health is not the same as well, mental health. We are not necessarily talking about defined mental problems or someone who is need of a stay in a hospital in order to cope. We're likely not talking about someone who is on medication for depression. Instead, we are talking about "health" as defined by the law in Doe v. Bolton, the companion ruling to Roe v. Wade. In determining whether a woman "qualified" for an abortion, the Court in Doe wrote: "The medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors--physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age-- relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." The abortionist determines what is the qualifying factor. And if the qualifier isn't physical then it is mental.

And, remember, he gets paid for doing an abortion, he doesn't get paid for not doing one.

News articles and even statements by leaders of abortion groups have been very revealing over the years: the majority of partial-birth abortions are done on healthy mothers of healthy babies. In addition, if a woman were truly in dire circumstances, this would be the last abortion procedure she would want. It takes three days to do. The first two days, the abortionist inserts expanding laminaria into the opening of the cervix (the opening leading to the uterus) so he can perform the abortion on the third day. This is certainly not a time-sensitive, life-saving procedure.

Supreme Court Upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

Today, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortions. It has taken 13 years to get to this point.

In the early 1990s, a paper was presented at a conference of abortionists by Martin Haskell, an Ohio abortionist who was one of the developers of the partial-birth abortion. In this paper, Haskell described the technique in full detail.

In 1995, members of the new Republican Congress (most notably Congressman Charles Canady of Florida) began work on introducing legislation that would ban the procedure. The National Right to Life Committee, where I worked for 10 years (from 1994-2004), was the leading force in working to pass the ban.

A hearty thank you goes to Douglas Johnson, NRLC's federal legislative director. Mr. Johnson spent thousands of hours crafting op-eds, position papers and letters to members of Congress as well as sending countless corrections to the news media. He and his staff lobbied unceasingly for passage of the legislation and worked to help other states pass similar bans.

It has been a long time coming but this brutal procedure that bordered on infanticide is now banned.