The Abortion Tax: A Modest Pro-Life Proposal

I sometimes wonder at the wisdom of the "regulating abortion to death" strategy (often called the "chip away" strategy because it nips around the edges, instead of attacking the heart of the issue). Most pro-life groups still support these measures. But is it a wise choice to support them, and to commit so much time, effort and money to them?

Will their strategy not regularize and normalize abortion by creating a well-regulated industry?

Will parental consent laws (while "saving some babies") not simply bring millions of grandparents into culpability for the murder of their grandchildren?

Will 20-week bans, or "heartbeat bills", while "saving some babies" who look and function more like cute baby boys and girls, not ultimately teach society (and, frankly, pro-lifers) that any fetus without a heartbeat, brain function, or some other commonly suggested measure of humanity are therefore less human? Less deserving of rights? Less valuable?

Will a law requiring a 24-hour wait so a mother can get an ultrasound, receive information about the humanity of her child, and cause her to reflect upon all this... While "saving some babies", will it not also convince the vast majority of mothers that inside their womb is a living, developing human child with their own unique DNA, with feelings (including the ability to feel pain), with a heartbeat, with fingernails and fingerprints... And yet it's your RIGHT as a woman to kill that unique, living human being.

But a recent epiphany has caused a change of heart. (I mean this, of course, in the manner of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (1729) - one of history's first overtly pro-life publications).

I hereby submit a modest tax proposal.

A Modest Pro-Life Proposal

If the goal is to "save some babies" through whatever means, as it certainly seems to be, then why not tax abortions??!!

If abortion is made more expensive, obviously it will become more difficult to obtain one, and therefore become less common!

A modest tax would have the real effect of reducing the number of abortions. We will have successfully "saved some babies!!!"

For that matter, why be modest? An even higher tax would surely have a greater impact, and would save even more babies!

Only the rich would be able to afford them! Abortion might even become a symbol of status... But I'm wandering from my point, aren't I?

There's plenty of precedent for this kind of tax. It's called a "sin tax." You pick a social behavior you don't like and you impose a tax upon it.

A sin tax has the added side benefit of generating tax revenue. The higher the tax, the more the revenue!

In fact, in many cases that's become the point of the tax. Here in Colorado, for instance, there's a tax on smoking which is used to fund state parks and public schools. God knows what the parks and schools would do if people actually stopped smoking, but...

You may also be aware of Colorado's marijuana industry (fully legal now) and the taxes which have been levied upon that. Many people are lauding Colorado's legalization of marijuana as a smart move, because of all the tax revenue and "economic vitality" it's brought...

I'm wandering from my point again, aren't I?

I guess there's a danger that our state will become too dependent upon revenue from the abortion tax. There's got to be a way around that.

Maybe we could use the money for "abortion awareness" - show people how awful abortion is, using TV advertisements funded by the abortion tax!!

For that matter, if we really started pulling in revenue, we could have a full-fledged offensive against abortion in the media! It could start funding the whole pro-life movement!

At least, until the number of abortions really started to go down. Then maybe we could increase the tax. But that would just reduce the number of abortions again. Hmm... How can we keep this going?

Maybe, so that we don't completely lose out on all this funding, we could stick with just the modest abortion tax. That way we split the difference in a way that'll be more productive. A moderate number of anti-abortion ads, and a moderate number of "saved babies" could balance out so that we have a sustainable equilibrium.

We could keep this going decades into the future!

I guess this seems at cross-purposes with the idea of ending abortion. But the good thing is we'll be educating the public long-term about how awful abortion is.

Forget Personhood! Forget abolishing abortion!

Even if abortion never ends, at least we will have saved some babies, and at least we'll still have our funding, and a modest anti-abortion awareness campaign. In the end, maybe the government will even subsidize it.


"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

GOP Senate Victory 2014: Good & Bad News for the Unborn

Many conservatives, Tea Party folks and Christians have mixed feelings about the GOP takeover of the US Senate yesterday.

Not that it happened - it's progress in a certain way, and it's great that it's a repudiation of the Obama agenda. But how it happened - the candidates we won with and how they got there - has been a matter of concern.

I recently published a book about how conservatives can get our party back. The party of Ronald Reagan, a sincere and well-meaning conservative who I think did his best to govern according to his philosophy.

He was also the modern president who most tried to inform his governing with his faith and with moral ethics. He was the most pro-life president, supporting a Human Life Amendment, very similar to what we now know as Personhood.

In my book, How To Train Your Politician, I describe the tension and friction between two groups. The conservative wing of the GOP, somewhat equivalent to what we call the Tea Party, and the Establishment wing, better known for its moderate policies and concentration on helping their buddies in big business.

Most of the key victories in the Senate last night were Establishment candidates to a greater or lesser degree. Even Joni Ernst. Even Cory Gardner. Most had defeated more conservative candidates in the primary.

In my book I explain the concept of "Intentional Voting" - I like to call it also "Don't Vote for Squishy." Basically I explain how it hurts the conservative cause when we vote for the lesser of two evils rather than voting our values.

But I also describe the concept of "Gateway Issues." It's all well and fine to try to nominate the candidate closest to your views and philosophy in the primary (ideally someone electable too, though you shouldn't compromise deeply set values in favor of electability). But we're not always going to get our first choice.

Morality does not require us to find a perfect candidate. Simply one who is not fundamentally flawed in his or her agenda. That's where you must choose your gateway issues - a litmus test. What must (or must not) a candidate believe for you to vote for them in good conscience? If a candidate doesn't meet that minimum requirement, they're just not good enough to vote for.

For me, my top gateway issue is life. The candidate must be unwilling to endorse the murder of any unborn children for any reason (abortion is never necessary to save a mother's life - I explain that in my book).

These winning Senate candidates aren't perfect candidates. They're certainly not as conservative as I'd like. But there's good news on the life issue for many of them.

In the discussion below I use four categories to describe their relationship to the concept of human Personhood. Essentially it's a belief that every innocent human being has a natural right to life and freedom that it's the government's responsibility to protect. This protects humans of any age, born or unborn, from slavery, murder or abortion. It's what Reagan was talking about.

To fully understand Personhood, which was the relevant and ultimately successful strategy behind the abolition of slavery, you must understand that laws either treat human beings as people or as property. Slavery treated human beings as property. Roe v Wade treats unborn children as the mother's property. Sadly, most well-intentioned efforts to regulate both slavery and abortion have reinforced the concept of people as property.

The categories are "S" for Solid, "O" for Open to Personhood, "P" for Possibly Persuadable, and "R" for Rejects the concept of human Personhood.

Also keep in mind these evaluations are at odds with what you might hear from National Right to Life or LifeNews.com. They bandy the term "pro-life" about lightly, handing it out to gobs of candidates, including those like Sen. John McCain who was pro-choice all his life until he needed pro-lifers' votes in 2008, and who still didn't hold a legitimately pro-life view then.

"S" - Solid candidates understand the Personhood concept fully and have the courage to vote accordingly. None of the winning candidates or current Senators are in this category - they're all willing to compromise (often in all sincerity) by treating the unborn as property. The only member of Congress I'm aware of who fits in this category is Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) who ran for US Senate this year but lost in the primary to David Perdue.

"O" - Open candidates have expressed some level of commitment to Personhood, whether a verbal endorsement, a vote in favor, or a tacit recognition that abortion is always wrong, even if they haven't used the term Personhood to describe their own view (Personhood is a familiar term in Colorado, Mississippi, Georgia, the Dakotas and a few other places - less familiar in others).

There's good news here!

Keep in mind some of these candidates overcame more conservative candidates in the primary and have been seen as more Establishment candidates. In some cases maybe their opponents deserved the seat more and would have been better representatives. But let's look at what we got and understand what we got isn't as bad as we might think.

Note: Each of these "O" candidates are said to "oppose all abortions," meaning without exception. Technically most or all of these candidates do express an exception "to save the life of the mother," but as I explain in my book that's an unnecessary exception since abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother (it's safest to treat mother and child both as patients and deliver the child in an attempt to save the lives of both). I mention this technicality here and not in each specific case below.

Sen-Elect Joni Ernst (R-IA): In a primary against more conservative candidates she courted the Tea Party and tried to change her image. Is her change sincere or not? We won't know until she starts voting. But she took the step of expressly endorsing a Personhood amendment, which is a significant step. She opposes all abortions.

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC): The first Black Senator to be elected in the South since Reconstruction (having already served a partial term) is one of 21 cosponsors of the Life At Conception Act, which isn't perfect but is essentially an attempt at federal Personhood legislation. He opposes all abortions.

Sen-Elect Tom Cotton (R-AR): As a Representative he cosponsored the House version of the Life At Conception Act (federal Personhood). He opposes all abortions.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS): He has a long record as an Establishment candidate, and he defeated a more conservative candidate in the primary. But his pro-life record has stood strong. He opposes all abortions. He's also a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Bill Cassidy (R-LA): He hasn't been elected yet but he came away with one of two spots in the December runoff and it's relatively likely he'll beat Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) by picking up some of the votes that went to more conservative Rob Maness (R-LA) in the Nov. 4 primary (it's a Louisiana thing). Few pro-lifers would doubt Maness would have been more solid but according to the Louisiana Family Forum Cassidy opposes all abortions.

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS): He won a bitter primary against a more conservative opponent who supported Personhood. I cannot find anything specific to say Cochran also supports Personhood - he may, and probably has, and I just can't find it - but it appears that Cochran does oppose all abortions. He's also a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): He is also a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act. He opposes all abortions.

Sen-Elect Mike Rounds (R-SD): Rounds also defeated other candidates who were probably more solid on life issues. Nevertheless, it appears to me there are few politicians who have more to brag about in the life arena. As South Dakota's Governor, in 2006, Rounds signed into law a total ban on surgical abortions (which was then repealed by popular vote later that year). Critics will note that he vetoed a previous attempt to ban abortion, but I'm willing to give some grace as candidates gradually embrace total and unconditional respect for the unborn.

Sen-Elect James Lankford (R-OK): Lankford won a special election to take the seat previously held by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). He left a Baptist student ministry in 2010 to run for Congress. He opposes all abortions, and even produced an anti-abortion video that's too good not to share.


Sen-Elect Ben Sasse (R-NE): Sasse opposes all abortions. He has a good YouTube video too.

Sen-Elect Steve Daines (R-MT): Daines opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act in the House.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK): Inhofe has a long history of supporting the Life At Conception Act and previous versions of bills meant to accomplish the same things (some of these earlier versions were true federal Personhood without complicating language). He opposes all abortions.

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY): Enzi opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Sen. James Risch (R-ID): Risch opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): Sessions opposes all abortions and is a cosponsor of the Life At Conception Act.

That's 15 Senators elected or re-elected yesterday who oppose all abortions. I can't promise all of them will embrace Personhood, but there's a good chance of it, given the reaction I've seen to Personhood from other sincere pro-life politicians.

Of these 15, five of them replaced pro-abortion Democrats (Pryor, Harkin, Walsh, Johnson, and I'm presuming Landrieu), so we're at least 5 up from the last Senate.

In total, I have identified approximately 33 Senators who will be in office in January who are likely supporters of Personhood.

"P" candidates are Possibly Persuadable. These are candidates who have made outward expressions at being "pro-life" but they don't qualify under the Personhood litmus test. Many have stated they oppose abortion except in cases of rape or incest (which means they would impose the death penalty upon an innocent unborn child for the crime of the rapist). But my experience says if these candidates are pressured to change their position, or if they're approached in the right way to show them a different way to look at rape/incest exceptions, maybe half of them will change their mind. Which half? That remains to be seen. In the 2012 Presidential Primary, Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), for example, had always held rape/incest exceptions (as have most Republicans who were in office in previous decades). But when he was confronted with a good argument that compassion for the raped woman shouldn't mean death for her child, he changed his position and endorsed Personhood. Others will too.

Obviously, I'm not as excited about this set of GOP victors as I was about those listed above. They represent challenges, and potential obstacles to legislation that would treat unborn children as Persons under the law. But the news isn't all bad.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): The current Minority Leader won a hard-fought primary against a more conservative challenger who would have made alot of us more happy than having to deal with "rubber spine" McConnell. He supports rape/incest exceptions, but he does otherwise have a pro-life record. He's supported many anti-abortion regulations which treat the unborn as property, but have been recommended by many pro-life groups as "the right thing to do" to save lives (this belief is refuted in my book). McConnell is particularly keen on a Pain Capable Act which would ban abortions after 20 weeks, and which is discussed at the end of this article.

Sen-Elect Cory Gardner (R-CO): Cory Gardner was a rising star in the Personhood movement, and seemed like he had potential to bring a Personhood mindset to Washington. He even took the extraordinary step of attending a legislative briefing on Personhood while running for Congress (where it was explained that Personhood cannot affect "contraceptives" or any form of birth control that doesn't kill an already conceived child). Unfortunately, when he was hand-picked by McConnell and Karl Rove to be Colorado's candidate for the US Senate he renounced Personhood and said he had come to believe it was an "extreme" measure that would "ban contraceptives." He spent millions of dollars on television to advertise to Colorado voters (700,000 of whom supported Personhood this November - probably 3/4 of those who voted for him) that Personhood was extreme, but he wasn't like those extremists. It's not 100% clear, but it appeared that he told the Denver Post that he supported abortions for rape and incest.  Would he come back into the fold?  Who knows - he's gone back on his word before.

Sen-Elect Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Sullivan is another "pro-life with exceptions" candidate (we call them "pro-abortion with exceptions"). He supports abortions for rape or incest.

Sen-Elect David Perdue (R-GA): Perdue beat out other more pro-life candidates in the primary, at least some of whom were Personhood supporters. He is "pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest." He does support the aforementioned Pain Capable legislation which isn't as good as it sounds.

Sen-Elect Thom Tillis (R-NC): Tillis is "pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest." (Note: One Personhood article seemed to indicate Tillis supports Personhood. I cannot find any evidence for this. One article says he believes states have the right to ban forms of birth control, but the article indicated neither that he supported such a position nor that he had renounced his support for some abortions).

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN): Alexander has long been part of the anti-abortion regulatory culture in Washington, but he's long held to rape/incest exceptions.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): I couldn't establish for sure that he holds to rape/incest exceptions but I'm reasonably sure. If you have better information, please let me know in a comment. He supports the Pain Capable legislation.

It now appears that Ed Gillespie (R-VA) did not win his bid to unseat Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA). A recount will occur. Gillespie supports rape/incest exceptions.

The good news - besides that these new senators might become pro-life in time - is that three pro-abortion Democrats are no longer there (Sens. Mark Begich, Mark Udall, Kay Hagan).

"R" candidates Reject the humanity of the unborn. They do see the unborn as property and are officially pro-abortion (they say "pro-choice"), or some might claim to be pro-life but have nothing to show for it. The only good thing to say about this is there are few pro-abortion Republicans these days, compared to days past when it was relatively normal. Up to 2/3 of Republicans in many chambers across the country were pro-abortion - 1/3 in many places you'd think would be pro-life. The mood is changing, nationwide and in Washington.

Sen-Elect Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV): Capito has long been associated with and endorsed by Republicans for Choice, a pro-abortion PAC. She is pro-abortion.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): Collins has long been the Republican senator voted most wanted to go away. She's been worse than Sen. Arlen Specter (R/D-PA), before or after his defection to the Democrats. She is pro-abortion.

The Republican Establishment "rah-rah" crowd was keen to get Fmr. Sen. Scott Brown elected in New Hampshire. Some pro-life groups have bent into pretzels trying to portray him as pro-life, but it doesn't really make any sense. He's pretty much pro-abortion down the line, with a few outlying votes. We're better off without him.

There's also Dr. Monica Wehby (R-OR) - she never had a realistic chance to win, but she was outspokenly pro-abortion and she was a bad example for the GOP. It's fortunate she didn't do better than she did. She would have had FoxNews Republicans cheering for her, like they did for Brown, and it would have undermined the movement.

So there you have it. Even when you take into account the number of Establishment Republicans who defeated Tea Party (usually more pro-life) Republicans in the primaries, it appears that things are improving in Washington from a Personhood perspective. Is Personhood likely to come to a vote any time soon? No. There's alot of groundwork in the states and among the public to be done first. But we're making progress - don't doubt that!

On that note, consider that Amendment 67 in Colorado was the 3rd Personhood Amendment considered by Colorado voters. They mock us because we keep running this amendment, and it keeps getting defeated. But we're accomplishing what we want. It offers an opportunity to broadcast to the public through every media channel that unborn children are human beings deserving of rights. They wouldn't otherwise hear that - we are a cash-poor movement, and the free media is a Godsend.

Polls show only 12% of Americans in 2008 supported a total ban on abortion, but in that year Colorado's Personhood Amendment got 27% of the vote. Now, in 2014, polls show 17% of Americans support a total ban on abortion - a number which has benefited by many Personhood efforts around the country, as well as the public debate over Hobby Lobby's refusal to provide abortifacients in its healthcare plans - and in 2014 36% of Colorado voters supported a Personhood Amendment! We're making progress.

Before I sound like I'm being all rosy about the prospects of a pro-life future in a Republican controlled Senate, I offer this heartclenching prediction.

If Sen. Mitch McConnell remains head of the Republicans in the Senate, he has said that he will push for and pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Since no member of the Senate is listed as "Solid" above, none of these people fully understand why Personhood is the only strategy that will actually help unborn children, and why regulations reinforce the impression of the unborn as property. Therefore, any other Senate leader would probably do the same, and probably no senator is going to object.

This legislation is more "big talk, little effect" like the 2007 Partial Birth Abortion Ban which didn't ban a single abortion (and even allowed partial birth abortions to continue to this day, modified very slightly from how they were done in the past). The main reason it exists is to give pro-life voters something to salivate about while at the same time representing little risk to candidates and they can use it to call themselves "pro-life" even if the rest of their record is questionable.

And Pain Capable legislation sets up a false value differential, making it look like the older an unborn child is - or the more one looks like a baby - the more human they are. Educated pro-lifers realize this is a false (nay, dangerous!) contrast. It perpetuates the Roe v Wade style argument that age or viability or the acquisition of certain abilities is what determines whether someone is deserving of rights. Personhood recognizes that every innocent human being is deserving of rights by virtue of their being human.

Lastly, I simply want to say that this blog post is the result of 12-15 hours of hard research work, but is nevertheless cursory. It's entirely possible I've been unfair to some of the candidates above, or "too fair" to others. If you have additional information or corrections to offer me, please leave a comment.

Thank you! Please pray for the continued spreading of the Personhood concept, and that the US Senate will someday embrace the humanity and protect the rights of every unborn child.

Backing Conservatives in Primaries - Why It Matters

Two things happened at the Colorado Capitol Wednesday (Apr. 11) which illustrate how utterly important it is to support conservative candidates in primaries. Vocal personal support isn't enough - they need your financial support, within your means.

In a minute I'll explain an easy, affordable way to help.

Case 1: Some Republicans Oppose Republican Principles

Wednesday, House Republicans and Democrats debated Colorado's budget. There are 33 Republicans, and 32 Democrats - a 1-vote GOP majority.

Conventional wisdom says when it's that close, you support any Republican, no matter if they oppose conservative principles. Don't rock the boat.

Some Republicans, led by Rep. Chris Holbert and Rep. Marsha Looper, rocked the boat. They made a stand against taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood. Any taxpayer funding (direct or indirect) for an organization that provides abortions is illegal under Colorado law - it's in the Constitution. That doesn't stop Democrats from trying anyway. And they did Wednesday.

Holbert, Looper, and a number of other stalwart conservatives rallied the troops and got every Republican to vote NO on funding.

That's a success story. But how did we get there?

Wouldn't it have been easier to block funding back when the GOP had more than a one-vote majority? Seems like a point in favor of the "big tent" and "don't rock the boat" camps, but it's not.

The backstory is that just a few years ago, even when Republicans held a substantial majority in the Statehouse, a few Republican legislators - as many as one-third - would have voted with the Democrats to support Planned Parenthood.

Primaries matter. Supporting conservative candidates matters.

If conservative candidates hadn't stepped up and challenged the liberal, RINO Republicans (Republicans in Name Only), and if conservative citizens hadn't stepped up and donated to the conservative cause, a majority of the House would still support Planned Parenthood and all the killing they do. Excusing all the state laws they violate. Accepting all the young women they place in jeopardy.  

YOUR tax money supporting the deaths of thousands of unborn children in Colorado! 

Supporting conservative candidates matters!

In 2010, my political committee, Colorado Conservative Action, helped Rep. Chris Holbert win a 3-way primary election. He's now a rising star in the conservative movement, and is leading the fight on many conservative issues.

Case 2: Some Republicans Are Liberal Extremists

In 2003, Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife Laci and dumped her body, and the body of his unborn son Connor, into San Francisco Bay. California charged him with two murders.

In the years since then, public outcry caused 38 states to enact laws allowing the killing of an unborn child during the commission of a crime to be charged as a separate murder. Colorado, almost a decade later, remains one of a handful without such a law.

Why? Because so many Republican legislators did whatever Planned Parenthood wanted. Pro-abortion forces had a functional majority in a legislature controlled by Republicans! And Planned Parenthood didn't want any laws on the books that might suggest an unborn child has value to anyone - even his or her own pregnant mother.

Polls show anywhere from 70-90% of citizens believe the killing of pregnant moms' "wanted" children should be prosecuted as murder. A majority of Democrats hold such a position. Even a majority of pro-choicers. Opposing these laws is extreme!

But Wednesday, Republican Senator Ellen Roberts voted with the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee to kill even this most basic protection for unborn children - a measure supported by the vast majority of Coloradans. Roberts has been in the pocket of Planned Parenthood since she won her first election.

Supporting conservatives is important. Supporting them financially is especially important.

In 2010, Colorado Conservative Action (my political committee) gave money to conservative Republican Dean Boehler during the primary in an attempt to prevent Ellen Roberts from being elected to the Senate. She won the primary anyway, but it wasn't easy.

Colorado Conservative Action tried to stop Ellen Roberts, and her extremist agenda. Maybe with more donations we could have done it. 

She's the most pro-abortion Republican in the Senate. She's also the second worst tax-and-spend Republican in the Senate, according to the Colorado Union of Taxpayers.

Beware all the liberals dressed as conservatives this election season. There are many Republican candidates who don't match their rhetoric.

CCA only supports candidates who are pledged to be 1) pro-life, 2) pro-gun, 3) fiscally conservative, and 4) pro-liberty (and all the things that entails - 10th Amendment, property rights, etc.). You can feel confident that if you donate to Colorado Conservative Action these candidates will be vetted on these important principles, and the money will be wisely allocated only to candidates who really mean what they say.

This committee can only donate to candidates at the state level (i.e. not candidates for federal, county or city offices). By law, I cannot promise to support a particular candidate.

Its goal is to replace liberal Republicans and Democrats with principled conservatives in the State House and Senate by financially supporting them in primaries, and then also in the November election.

Will YOU Donate to Help Conservative Candidates?

Please contact me if you have any questions, or if you want to make sure I'm the real thing. I've worked on campaigns since 1984 and served as a political communicator at the State Capitol as press secretary and speechwriter. I know how to evaluate candidates and how to spot evasions when trying to pin them down.

Colorado Conservative Action can receive checks, or Paypal donations, from US citizens of up to $550 per election cycle. Less than that is fine.

If anything more than $50 is outside your budget, then you could donate to my small donor committee, the Conservative Renewal Fund (I sometimes call it the "Conservative Renewal Authority" for fun).

Anything you can contribute will help the cause. Contributing to Colorado Conservative Action magnifies your money, allowing you to donate more than just direct contributions. It also amplifies your political voice, because candidates who receive donations from CCA know they're getting it because they are steadfast in defending conservative principles and they'll be held accountable.  

Thanks to your generosity, conservative candidates will get a check with a "note" attached - one that says, "Thanks for standing up for conservative values!"

Every individual citizen can donate up to $550. Other members of your household may also donate $550. I'll need to know the name and occupation of each individual donor.

I will appreciate anything you can give, and so will principled candidates.

Ed Hanks
Colorado Conservative Action
1005 Northridge Rd.
Littleton, CO 80126 720-301-4270
coloconservative@aol.com

Find Colorado Conservative Action at www.coloradoconservative.org
($550 donation limit - US citizens only)

or

Find the Conservative Renewal Fund at www.renewalauthority.org
($50 donation limit - US citizens only)

Don't Be That Guy!

When pro-life candidates who support the Personhood of the unborn child are pressed by the media or their own constituents to defend their beliefs, there's a temptation to go deer-in-the-headlights and back away from solid, principled positions.

DON'T BE THAT GUY!

When you take a principled position on any controversial issue, your political opponents and media gossiphounds are going to make it sound like an extreme position. "Why would you hold such an extreme position?!" they ask. There are two reactions, of course.

You could back away and say I don't hold that position -- distance yourself from the issue. And this is typical candidate behavior, isn't it? But what it does is leave the media and the general public with the conclusion that it WAS an extreme position (or you wouldn't have backed away, right?) and YOU once held it!

DON'T BE THAT GUY (or GAL)!

What's worse, many of your supporters probably support you because you once held that position. What are they to think when you back away? You've not only compromised on the principle which was their reason for supporting you, but you've also, by implication, called THEM extreme for holding the position you've backed away from!

DON'T BE THAT GUY!

The best reaction is to calmly and reasonably explain to the voter, or the media, why it's NOT an extreme position.

Ronald Reagan didn't back away or "run to the center" when challenged with tough questions about dearly held principles. He stuck to his guns, explained why the position was mainstream common sense, rather than extreme. And more often than not the public came to view his position as mainstream!

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund has recently illustrated this, in a fundraising letter. Referring to Tea Party nominees for the U.S. Senate, they charge, "They want to outlaw all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Friend, their position was considered fringe and their candidates ludicrous just a few months ago. Now, they're mainstream." (ht Jill Stanek)

Planned Parenthood is simply recognizing the changing playing field. Five years ago, only a few pro-life activists knew what Personhood meant, and a majority of Americans supported a "right to choose." Two years ago, more than 50% of Americans (including women) identified themselves in polls as pro-life. Today, a broad range of voters and mainstream political candidates around the country are saying "I support the Personhood of the unborn child, and I believe abortion should be banned!" Pro-Life Personhood is now a mainstream political movement.

Because it's such a new concept, candidates who aren't carefully educated in how to respond to tough questions about rape/incest exceptions or birth control are tempted to run away from the issue, even if they once espoused it.

DON'T BE THAT GUY (or GAL)!

Colorado's U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck made this mistake recently. I'm still not 100% convinced he's changed his mind about anything (his campaign spokesman correctly explained his position to 9news.com recently, saying, "Buck believes life 'begins at conception,' so birth control methods that don't impact that (i.e. condoms, some forms of the pill) are fine with him. Others that would keep a fertilized egg from implanting like hormone-based birth control methods, some other forms of the pill, IUDs, RU-486 and what's known as the morning-after pill, are not supported by him." (Source: E-mail from Buck spokesman Owen Loftus to 9NEWS, Aug. 26)).

But the press said he'd changed his mind about supporting Colorado's Amendment 62 (the Personhood Amendment) and the best he could do was clarify that he supports Personhood in concept but hasn't taken a position on any state ballot initiatives. By not jumping on the accusation full-force, Buck allowed some voters to believe he's changed his mind, whether he really did or not. It's not helping with supporters, and it's not helping with moderates or independents, either, because whether or not he still holds that supposedly "extreme" position, everybody knows he once did.

Buck (or his campaign) blinked when he should have stood firm.

DON'T BE THAT GUY!

Simple talking points on Personhood:
1) Arguing for the Personhood of the unborn child is not extreme. Arguing for the continued deaths of 4,000 unborn children every day is extreme!

2) If abortion is murder (i.e. kills an unborn human individual with his/her own unique DNA), as I believe it is, then why would I support an exception just because that child was conceived as part of a rape? You can't punish an innocent Person for a crime committed against somebody else. The inalienable Right to Life for an innocent Person, as guaranteed in the Constitution (the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the Declaration of Independence too) applies, no matter the circumstances.

3) Only 1% of abortions are for rape or incest -- it's extremely rare. Almost every mom who has an abortion is traumatized or depressed by the experience. Adding an abortion to the crime of rape doesn't "comfort" the victim -- it only adds another trauma on top of the first. In cases of incest or date rape, the abortion often serves to shield the criminal from prosecution by covering up the crime. This allows the rapist (the child's father or relative) to continue an incestuous relationship instead of exposing the criminal.

4) No form of birth control would be affected unless it actually has the potential to kill a developing child after conception. If a candidate (or even a voter) believes that life begins at conception, and that all human life should be protected, then they should not have a problem with this. The amendment deals only with living human Persons, not with sperm or eggs before fertilization. Therefore, it cannot logically or legally affect anything other than an abortifacient form of birth control, whether that drug acts as an abortifacient as its primary purpose or has that effect as a secondary side effect. This would affect some forms of birth control, but if a form of birth control is properly called a "contraceptive" (i.e. meaning it acts by preventing conception) then it would not be affected.

5) In Vitro Fertilization would not be banned, but "surplus" embryos (developing human children) could not be "disposed of" -- they would have to be cared for and adopted out through programs such as the Snowflake Children.

I know this isn't something your typical candidate training prepared you for. I even know this may not be the "focus of your campaign." I know politicians have a gut instinct to run away when a voter or reporter accuses you of being extreme because you're 100% pro-life.

DON'T BE THAT GUY (or GAL)!

Being 100% pro-life, supporting Personhood, opposing abortion even in cases of rape or incest or for health** reasons is NOT extreme! It has become a mainstream position, and it is the position increasingly held by voters across the United States! Every month that passes and every year that passes, more Americans are coming to hold this very same principle as their own.

I work as a part-time political consultant and campaign consultant on a contract basis. I am happy to offer my time for 20 minutes free to any pro-Personhood candidate in any state who needs help on messaging for these issues. I'd also be glad to contract my time for $35/hr to anyone who needs more assistance in running or preparing a pro-life campaign (I'll work with anybody who pledges to support Personhood in their campaign). If you want to meet in person, or would like for me to speak at an event or engagement, let me know and we can make arrangements for time/travel, etc. Contact me via e-mail with your contact information: Coloconservative (at) aol.com (please put "Personhood Question" in the subject line).

Please also consider donating money to support candidates who hold a principled pro-life position (i.e. pro-Personhood), through my political website: ColoradoConservative.org.

Ed Hanks is a former speechwriter for the Governor of Colorado, a former Press Secretary in the Colorado House of Representatives, and has also served as a campaign consultant and constituent contact director.

**A note on "life of the mother exceptions": Many pro-lifers get stuck on the “life of the mother” exception, because it’s the most compelling of the “hard cases” exceptions some regulations are meant to address (how many times have we heard politicians recite the line, "I oppose abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother"?). But we need not fall victim even to the life of the mother objection. The Personhood movement cares deeply about the lives of both, mother and child, especially since if the mother dies before the baby comes to term, the child will obviously die too. However, that doesn’t mean we need a “life of the mother exception” in law. Instead, the anti-abortion statute should be absolute. The life of the mother is saved by a doctor trying to save both lives (and thereby “do no harm”), not by a doctor trying to kill one patient in order to save the other. It’s the same concept as separating cojoined twins. The goal should always be to preserve both lives. This is not always possible, because of relative viability, and so sometimes one of the patients dies. The measure of crime or not is intent. If ever the doctor attempts to kill one patient, rather than save him/her, that’s where it becomes homicide. -- Ed Hanks

The Folly of the "Big Tent"

Here's my response to a blogger who was pushing for the "Big Tent" for the Republican Party. It was the typical argument -- we can't win without the support of whole bunches of people who don't normally vote for the GOP, we can make more progress by building coalitions than by dividing into little groups, etc. It made alot of sense, of course, but also missed a critical dynamic in party and election politics.

I was discussing abortion politics, but the same argument could be made in favor of fiscally conservative politics, etc. But fiscally conservative politics cannot make up for offending and getting rid of moral conservatives. Bob Schaffer tried that in 2008 (stupidly, since he lost many Christian supporters while liberals remembered he had always been pro-life - he lost votes from his base without picking up any on the other side, which is the same problem the GOP in general faces), and Schaffer fell on his face.

My response:

I used to believe in a "big tent," but I've since learned its folly. Without principles, we get nowhere. Reagan didn't offer us a big tent -- he offered us principles, which were broadly appealing and which inspired those who might not otherwise agree with him to vote for him.

There was once a "big tent" party -- the Whigs -- which tried to appeal to northerners and southerners alike by not taking strong stands on controversial issues like slavery. Do you know what happened to them? Probably not, because unless you study the history of the period no one even remembers who they were. In actuality, they split into two parties.

Did both parties lose? Did both of these "third parties" devastate themselves by shedding the big tent, leaving their major party behind, and dividing over matters of misguided principles?

No. One of those parties -- the Republican Party -- came to dominate the politics of the next several decades. For 70 years, in fact, and for a great portion of the century afterward, too.

They stood on a major principle -- opposition to slavery -- which held such a broad appeal that they succeeded where the wishy-washy "big tent" party failed.

The Republican Party today has the opportunity to stand on another major, unifying principle which could inspire them to victory. They could pledge to ban abortion and recognize the Personhood of the unborn child so he or she is not considered property like the slaves.

The Republican Party will succeed or die on this principle. Any attempts to remove the pro-life principle from the platform (which is what "big tent" means, in almost all cases), will destroy the party so that a half-century from today the Republican Party will be as well known as the Whigs are today.

Those "divisive" Christian Conservatives are the base of the Republican Party (and, from what I've found, the base of the Tea Party conservatives too) -- they've handed victory to the GOP in 5 of the last 8 presidential elections, but they're feeling ignored and betrayed. The Republicans can take them or leave them. If they leave them, they will energize another party and make them victorious instead.

Personhood Works, Regulations Don't

This is a more coherent recap & expansion on my earlier blog post on regulations, and why they undermine the Personhood of the unborn child -- "How We Compromise Ourselves."

I do not question the well-meaning intentions of those legislators who support, or even write, compromise legislation which tries to put limits on abortion in circumstances where a total abortion ban is not realistically possible. We can argue later about which is more "politically realistic" (I think Personhood is, still). But the fact that I believe in the good intentions of the pro-life regulators does not mean that I don't care whether they stop pushing regulations -- I do! -- or that I approve of what they're doing -- I don't! -- or that I will always continue to support regulation-minded legislators if they continue to ignore warnings about the unintended consequences of what they do.

I think the main thing “pro-life regulators” need to understand is that, whether or not Personhood is "practical" in a legal sense (which is the main objection of those pro-lifers who oppose the Personhood strategy, including Archbishop Charles Chaput and Clarke Forsythe of AUL), our primary problem as pro-lifers is that we've been making the wrong argument -- one which won't "change peoples' hearts" (which everybody agrees is the goal).

The regulations may teach some people about the Right to Life, but more often (esp. for wishy-washy or "moderate" citizens, who are the ones we need to convince in order to succeed in passing legislation or electing legislators) regulations only suggest a "moderate" solution exists for what they are led to believe is a policy question -- where do you draw the line?

Let me restate that.

Regulations clearly “suggest” to a citizen observer that there’s a policy question, to which there are “extreme” solutions (to right or left) and “moderate” solutions. Typical American citizens being who they are, almost all of the people in this category (i.e. the moderate, middle-of-the-road people who don’t often think about policy issues, but when they do they try to find a middle ground, striving never to seem “extreme”) will seek the middle ground – the moderate way – and won’t see the larger implications of the issue at hand.

The argument pro-lifers need to make -- and Personhood makes this argument 100% of the time, while regulations may succeed in making it only 30% of the time -- is that there is an actual Right to Life which is inalienable as a principle, and may not be violated for any reason. That message comes through with Personhood, and it's making progress.

I’ll restate that too.

Personhood “suggests” to a citizen observer that abortion is most certainly NOT a policy question with a spectrum of possible solutions, but is rather a question of principles. Two principles, as it happens – either pro-life or pro-abortion. When the abortion “question” is posed as a principle, and not as a policy question, Americans are actually more likely to choose life instead of death.

Polls show something like 80-90% of Americans believe “there is a God,” even if most of them may not call themselves Christian or correctly follow the teachings of the true God. Believing in God suggests an absolute moral standard, and when the abortion question is measured against an absolute moral standard, very few Americans want to be caught on the wrong, or immoral, side. Since they’re forced to choose between a principle of “abortion is right and moral” versus “abortion is always wrong” one option stands out as more correct and more moral than the other.

That’s the “practical” reason why pro-lifers must reject regulations and embrace the Personhood strategy. The Personhood strategy accomplishes what we want to accomplish – a changing of hearts and minds in society – whereas regulations are far less effective in accomplishing the change we want.

Our message always gets muddled when we're talking about regulations, because every regulation inherently denies there is a Right to Life (if there were an inalienable, inviolable Right to Life, then there's nothing to regulate!).

Consider this line from the text of Roe v. Wade: "Endnote 54: When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?"

The US Supreme Court in 1972/73 didn't simply lay a roadmap for pro-lifers by noting that if you establish Personhood in law, you can protect the unborn as Persons. They also highlighted the logical error in the "pro-life with exceptions" mentality.

The key point is this: The Supreme Court logically concluded that because Texas had an exception to their anti-abortion statute*, Texas could not simultaneously argue that an unborn child was a Person under their law, because the two concepts – a regulation vs. a principle – are contradictory. The regulation always denies the principle, so if there exists a regulation, then the principle must not be the law of the land. It’s simple logic.

Ed Hanks

* A note on "life of the mother exceptions": Many pro-lifers get stuck on the “life of the mother” exception, because it’s the most compelling of the “hard cases” exceptions some regulations are meant to address (how many times have we heard politicians recite the line, "I oppose abortion except for rape, incest, and the life of the mother"?). But we need not fall victim even to the life of the mother objection. The Personhood movement cares deeply about the lives of both, mother and child, especially since if the mother dies before the baby comes to term, the child will obviously die too. However, that doesn’t mean we need a “life of the mother exception” in law. Instead, the anti-abortion statute should be absolute. The life of the mother is saved by a doctor trying to save both lives (and thereby “do no harm”), not by a doctor trying to kill one patient in order to save the other. It’s the same concept as separating cojoined twins. The goal should always be to preserve both lives. This is not always possible, because of relative viability, and so sometimes one of the patients dies. The measure of crime or not is intent. If ever the doctor attempts to kill one patient, rather than save him/her, that’s where it becomes homicide.

How We Compromise Ourselves: A Warning To Pro-Lifers

The author is a former political speechwriter and press secretary with much experience in politics and the reading and analysis of legislation, and also operated a political correspondence office at the Capitol where he read every letter addressed to the Governor for a number of years -- a very helpful education in learning how people think and why...


For many years now, I have warned against “compromised incrementalism” – the mistaken belief that we “move the ball forward” or “save some babies now so that others may be saved later” by pushing for compromise legislation.

This legislation may be framed as great legislation by well-meaning Christian legislators, but it may have unintended consequences of devastating proportions!

I first spoke out publicly about this in December of 2006, with a column published in WorldNetDaily.com – A Growing Split in the Pro-Life Community (which, coincidentally, was the starting point and first post of this blog). In short, I pointed out that the idea of a law requiring abortionists to administer anesthesia so an aborted baby would not feel pain is heinously perverted in its implications.

Since then, the anti-compromise faction of the pro-life movement (now recognized largely as the Personhood Movement, with proposals for Personhood Amendments now active in 40 states) has persevered, educated, and brought a growing number of pro-lifers to recognize a shift in our perceived mission – a return to emphasis on the Right to Life, rather than merely trying to place curbs and cautions on the institution of legalized abortion.

Are they a majority of pro-lifers now? It wouldn’t surprise me. I've met and spoken with dozens of recent converts -- people who once supported compromised regulations (as did I) but have forever changed their minds, and will refuse to ever support one again. I know of several legislators (from other states than my own, sadly) who have made this conversion themselves. Alabama's Judge Roy Moore has, also, and who better to understand the legal argument from a Christian perspective?!

But pro-life leadership and pro-life legislators are slow to recognize the sea change. Many of them either fully support, or give lip service to, the Personhood movement, and to Personhood Amendments, while their hearts and minds still believe Personhood is too forward-thinking, and they want to remain in their comfortable world of political compromise legislation.

They fail to realize that by supporting compromise legislation, they do two things:

1) They undermine the public perception of a Right to Life – they instead build a perception that there are “good” abortions and “bad” abortions and that proper regulation will end the abuses and socially-negative consequences of more gruesome abortion procedures while “compassionately” leaving those forms of abortion which our society finds necessary and useful.

Average Americans, being average Americans, are always seeking the middle ground, and this political debate allows them to participate in a process of finding it, while no one who’s not an activist on one side or the other of the issue realizes that this is fundamentally a question of principle – one side is right, the other is wrong, and it’s the public duty to find it!

Constantly pushing for compromise legislation prevents the general public from ever having to really deal with the principle in question, and keeps most from realizing the argument is about principle at all!

2) According to Dr. Charles Rice, a legal professor at Notre Dame University, laws such as parental notification laws, “abortion-ultrasound” laws, late-term abortion bans, etc. actually build a legal framework to protect the institution of abortion. They establish a legal status, by implication, for abortion – a judge looks at a law which puts legal limits on abortion, and the obvious legal/logical implication is that unless the specified limits apply in a situation, then abortion is clearly legal!

Dr. Rice believes that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, many of these “pro-life” laws on the books today would become the enabling language for pro-aborts and judges to prove that abortion is legal in those states.

Imagine that – pro-abortion liberals refusing to repeal a “pro-life” parental notification law because it establishes in law that abortion is legal so long as a parent agrees to the minor child’s abortion!

Any time you argue in law that “…abortion is illegal unless you do this…” you are simultaneously leaving the assumption that “…if you do this, then abortion IS legal…” These types of law are called “and then you can kill the baby” laws. “If the mother views an ultrasound of her unborn baby, and signs a release stating she’s seen it, then she can kill her baby.” “If a minor child has the approval or her parent, guardian, or a judge, then she can kill her baby.”

Laws such as abortion-ultrasound laws automatically imply that a woman has a right to decide to kill her own living, moving, growing unborn child if she so chooses!!!

The more of these laws that exist on the books – “pro-life” laws which end with “and then you can kill the baby” - the stronger the case for legal abortion is. You cannot regulate something that’s not legal – that’s a legal truism. If it’s not legal, there’s no reason to regulate it, therefore if it’s regulated under the law it is by definition legal.

Pro-life legislators are unwittingly writing the death sentences for millions of babies by writing legislation intended to "save some babies" because they don't think we can realistically save the rest!

Plus, all this time, while we argue about where to draw the line between legal abortions and illegal abortions, we’re failing to teach the general public that all abortions kill an innocent child, and therefore abortion is always wrong.

Recognition of the Personhood of the unborn child is not just our best option, and not just our final goal. It is the ONLY answer, and must be our ONLY goal. Supporting compromised legislation, at best, is one step forward, two steps back -- it undermines a public belief in the Right to Life. It makes our job so much harder when we try to convince society that our Right to Life is God-given and inalienable.



Why don't these laws automatically shock us? Why do we fail to recognize the unintended consequences?

Our problem is this. We have become so comfortable with abortion – just as one generation of Germans was comfortable with “solving” the Jewish “problem” and many generations of Americans were comfortable with the “peculiar institution” of slavery – we’ve ceased to think of abortion as comparable to the Holocaust or slavery.

Yes, our intellectual mind makes the comparison, but our emotional reactions are different, because we’re so “close” to the problem. We know it's legal, so we feel powerless to say it's murder (just as Christians in Germany failed to recognize that legalized extermination was murder).

We fail to be properly "shocked" at how bad legal language is. It seems to us that "of course we must acknowledge it's legal, because it IS!" By writing ANYTHING into law which states or leaves a legal implication that abortion is legal only builds the foundations of legalized abortion.

To show ourselves what's really going on -- in order to feel properly "shocked" -- it’s necessary to compare abortion to other evils of history, or else we won’t realize how wicked our “pro-life” laws may actually be. Replace unborn child, in the language, with Jew, or replace abortion with extermination by gassing. Replace the regulation of abortion with the regulation of anything else which we know in our hearts is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Then we will see...

Do we want pro-life legislators signing their names and reputations to bills which say you can only perform an abortion in the first trimester? This is the moral equivalent of passing a law saying slavery is prohibited in Maine, but slavery is a legally protected institution in Texas. Congressmen, in the 1850s, actually passed compromised laws like this – what do we think of those legislators today? Do we consider them anti-slavery, or does history judge them as having perpetuated the institution of slavery? In case you’re wondering, the judgment of history upon these men is not favorable.

So, as an exercise, I’ve substituted the language of an actual proposed Colorado law – one strongly backed by Colorado’s pro-life legislators – with language which purports to “protect” Jews in Nazi Germany. See what you think. Would you sign your name to this law? Would you vote for it? Would you really be willing to “save some Jews” by affirmatively underscoring a legal status for killing others???


A Modest Proposal…

Please note before reading: This “proposed law” is a work of political satire, and is meant to be read as a warning to Christian and pro-life legislators and their supporters that they may be playing into the hands of the enemy because of the wording they use in their proposed legislation.

No ill will toward Jews or "well-meaning but compromised" legislators is meant by this – certainly, just the opposite.

The majority of the text is unimportant, or has irrelevant scope, and so is not included here.



A Bill for an Act
Concerning the Protection of Jews from Unreasonable Death
Making an appropriation in connection therewith


Bill Summary

The bill creates a new statutory part that addresses the fatal consequences of persecution upon Jewish residents in the state and includes the following crimes:

- Murder of an adult Jew
- Voluntary manslaughter of an adult Jew

An adult Jew is defined as 16 years or older. The bill describes acts that do not constitute crimes under the new part.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Third Reich

….


Part 5 – Protection of Jews Act

Acts not an offense [this is where the law specifies its scope, and what it does NOT prohibit]: This part 5 shall not apply to:

a) Acts that cause the death of an adult Jew if those acts are committed during a legal extermination procedure to which a Nazi magistrate has signed a notice of intent, or a person authorized by law to exterminate Jews;
b) Acts committed by one Jew against another Jew;
c) Acts that are committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of extermination in an authorized, controlled facility designed for that purpose;

Definitions. As used in this Part 5, unless the context otherwise requires, “Adult Jew” means a Jew whose stage of development has reached or surpassed sixteen years since birth, such that he or she may contribute, voluntarily or involuntarily, to the State.

Murder of an Adult Jew. A person who causes the death of an adult Jew, without lawful justification, is guilty of Murder of an Adult Jew if he or she: …

…

Voluntary manslaughter of an Adult Jew. A person who causes the death of an adult Jew, without lawful justification, is guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter of an Adult Jew if he or she…


Etc. etc. etc.
…

THE END
(there! you've "saved some Jews!")


Note: This “proposed legislation” is very closely modeled on an actual “pro-life” bill proposed as law in Colorado – HB 10-1261 – by well-meaning (but misled) pro-life legislators.

I have highlighted passages that should shock any moral person – examples of how this law acknowledges and supports the legality of other forms of evil, even while stopping others. Every highlighted passage above – the ones meant to shock a reasonable, moral human being – has its equivalent in the proposed “pro-life” bill, which was meant to enact a “fetal homicide” provision into state law (note that not all fetal homicide or other incremental legislation is compromised - it depends how it's worded).

Please note, specifically, that the part under "definitions" in this law sets an age limit to the law, meaning that even though the law prohibits the murder of Jews above age 16, it specifically does not prohibit murder of Jews of less than 16 years. The actual proposed law in Colorado has equivalent language, basically saying the fetal homicide is not considered fetal homicide before 16 weeks of development, which inherently places less value (i.e. less humanity) upon an unborn child of 15 weeks than is acknowledged for older children. Placing relative value upon one life versus another is inherently wicked -- these lives are seen as equal in God's eyes, and government has no right to determine relative value in contradiction to God's law.

Interview With a Black Republican - Arniter Jamison (2005)

Today on Facebook, I posted a quote -- part of a pro-life campaign for the month of March. I just placed the quote for today in my "status" on Facebook. And people from both sides (I have alot of conservative and alot of liberal activists as "friends" on Facebook) started bickering about it. It caused a little bit of a firestorm.

The quote was this: Abortion has affected the Black community more than slavery itself. If the current trend continues, by 2038 the Black vote will be insignificant. -Abort73

Now, I thought that was a little strong when I first saw it. But I thought about it. The Right to Life is more important than the Right to Freedom -- without life, you have neither. Black slaves in America had a positive population growth even after the slave trade ended, which means that more Blacks were being born in America than were dying. Considering that 50 million Americans have died since 1967 from abortion, and most of those were Black, it becomes an easy realization -- American Blacks have been more deeply impacted by abortion than by slavery.

So, as part of my response to the firestorm (I'm exaggerating -- most of the feedback was in favor of the quote, from pro-lifers, but some people challenged my right to speak on the issue (that's what liberals do -- I respect your right to state your opinion, but I don't think you should say things like that!)) I'm going to reprint here an interview I published in my newspaper, The Front Range Rampart. By some coincidence, this issue of the newspaper was published exactly 4 years ago -- March 4, 2005.

Arniter Jamison is a longtime friend of mine and my wife's. My wife is Black, and we became members of the Colorado Black Republican Forum (CBRF). Arniter Jamison is a strong woman who once marched in civil rights events with CORE and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and who today pursues the same basic mission of freedom and liberty and equality as Communications Director for the Colorado Black Republican Forum.

Interview: Arniter Jamison

Communications Director, Colorado Black Republicans
(reprinted from the March 4, 2005 edition of the Front Range Rampart)

by Ed Hanks

As a child, Arniter Jamison grew up in the South – a girl with dark skin in a world controlled by whites. But you couldn’t keep her spirit down. She was there, standing up for herself and her people, at diner counters in segregated St. Louis. And today she’s still standing up for herself and her people… as a Republican activist and PR director for the Colorado Black Republicans.

“I believe in the foundational principles of the Republican Party,” she says, “which is a platform for righteousness. I believe that the public policy and platform of the Republican Party offers the best opportunity for my people to overcome the socioeconomic handicaps that have been perpetrated on them over the years. And I believe in the Republican foundational position of creating an environment that develops and allows people to become the best that they can be.”


“That environment, I believe, is best not only for my people but for all American people.”

Jamison’s parents were Republicans, like most blacks were back then. Her mother was a nurse. Her father fought with General Patton’s “Red Ball Express” in World War II, and later in Korea and Vietnam. “My Dad used to explain to his daughter that she was not a Democrat. That there was no way she could be black and be a Democrat!”

But that wasn’t the direction black youth were moving. The popular perception was that Democrats were for the poor people, and for minorities. Jamison says President Roosevelt’s New Deal had begun the change, from 80 or 90 percent black registration as Republicans, to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, which wedded black culture to the Democrats.

“As a child I was a civil rights activist. As a very young, young, young girl, I joined the Congress of Racial Equality which you all call CORE. And I sat in restaurant sit-ins and got thrown out. And I marched in the protest marches.”

“That’s when the blacks switched,” she said. “The younger ones. The older ones still maintained because they understood the history of the relationship between the Republicans and the black community.”

She went on to describe two histories of both political parties, one which is taught as Gospel truth today, and the other which was obscured in her day, and is almost buried today – contradicted by the media and in most history texts and classrooms.

In what Jamison says was not a racist move, but a purely political calculation, some Republicans in the 1960s reached out to southern Democrats – the “Dixiecrats.” It won the Presidency for Richard Nixon in 1968. But she says except for that, the Republican Party has always been the obvious place for African-Americans, though that wasn’t always clear back then. “Democrats did good job of painting all Republicans as racists.”

She added, with obvious bitterness, “The Democrats are very good at using emotional issues to get an emotional response from black people. They use intimidation and fear, which is what they’ve always done, even during the 19th century. They used intimidation and fear to control and intimidate black people.”

Historically, Jamison says Republicans – not Democrats – have been the friend of black Americans. The anti-slavery movement was almost exclusively Republican – was, in fact, a major reason the Party came to exist – and was deeply rooted in the principles of the Party. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, issued the Emancipation Proclamation. “When blacks were freed, they became Republicans.”

Jamison herself graduated from Lincoln University – named after the president – one of many land grant colleges founded by Republicans. “All those colleges and universities were started by white Republicans. Most of them are named after white Republicans, because of the financials and insistence on creating them.”

“Republicans were responsible for Affirmative Action. Republicans were responsible for implementing the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]. Kennedy never implemented it – Nixon did.”

And when, in 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, Jamison says it only happened because of the dogged efforts of Republicans. “It was the Republicans who pushed the law through, and insisted on it. And Democrats fought it.”

Jamison’s claim is contrary to everything students are taught in public school, but it is only necessary to go to the source – the 1964 Congressional Records – to look it up. Some very interesting findings from those records can be found on page 12 [of the Front Range Rampart - posted here - basically, it was Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act, and most of the votes against it were from Democrat congressmen].

And, while Jamison was emphatic about the helpful nature of the Republican Party in the fight for civil rights, she did not shy away from the dark, largely hidden history of the Democrats – the party that had usually opposed those Republican efforts.

“Most of the intimidation, and the Ku Klux Klan, which was an auxiliary of the Democratic Party – it was a terrorist arm of the Democratic Party – their job was to intimidate Republicans. Period. I know you don’t read about that!” she said. But it is a verifiable fact of history, proven by investigations and primary historical sources, such as the Ku Klux Klan membership oath.

“The blacks who were not Republicans did not receive the intimidation, and they were told, literally that if they’d change and vote Democrat, they’d let them live.”

Today’s Democrat Party is not the same one it was in the 1880s or 1930s, any more than today’s Republican Party is the same as it was in the 1960s. But Jamison says she can still identify vestiges of old Democrat Party thinking. “Now instead of using a rope, instead of physical control, they now use mental and emotional control. They use the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons and the Maxine Waters, and people of that ilk that keep that emotional fear permeating within the black community.”

And, instead of seeing a Democrat Party focused on improving public education, Jamison sees more than just benign neglect in the operation of the public schools liberals have created. She sees a dim reflection of southern Democrat policies prohibiting black children from reading. “Now what they do is they just don’t teach them to read, and it brings about the same result.”

But Jamison’s awareness of the true history of civil rights came only after she began to recognize problems with Democrat philosophy on her own. She remained a Democrat through the ‘60s and ‘70s. In 1976, she worked closely with Wellington Webb on Jimmy Carter’s presidential run. Soon after, she became disenchanted.

Jamison was impressed by Carter’s ideas to require able-bodied welfare recipients to find work or go to school. “I read his welfare program, and it was excellent. And I had sense enough to understand that as black people, we could never be independent as long as we were dependent. And I saw that proposal as an opportunity for uneducated blacks to get an education.”

“They crucified him,” she said. “The Democrats, not the Republicans. The Democrats crucified him because of his welfare reform. A lot of which you see being instituted today [2005] – he was way ahead of his time.”

“When I saw that, and then when the Democrats came up with this philosophy of the disadvantaged, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” she said. “You cannot teach people dependency, inadequacy and failure and expect for them to grow up successful, determined and self-sufficient. And that’s when I started seeing through the Democratic Party, and that’s when I became a Republican.”

She uses a well-known analogy. “You can either feed a man a fish, or you can teach him how to fish. And if you can teach him how to fish, then he becomes an independent, self-sufficient person. The Democrats’ policy is to feed you, so that you become dependent on them. And once you become dependent on a person, then that person becomes your father or your god, take your choice. And when you couple that with a lack of education, or inadequate, incomplete education, then you see how easy it is to control.”

Further, Jamison believes the public school system perpetuates dependency. “They teach children to rely on the government and tell children they have a right to feel good, and take away their bond with parents… de-educating, re-educating, and alienating the children from their parents’ values system.” She sees today’s public schools replacing the parents’ values with atheistic values, which only cements the childrens’ dependence on government and alienation from parents. “That’s why you see children in the streets killing each other, and having babies out of wedlock, and illicit sex.”

Jamison says she had been trusting the mainstream media and educational systems to guide her outlook on life, just as they do for most people. Gradually she came to recognize fundamental problems with liberal thought. “I got it.”

She found protection for all people from dependency and inadequate education in Republican philosophy. “Ronald Reagan was the first Republican candidate that I actually got out and worked for. And I had to fight with all my friends and relatives. Besides my Dad and Mom – they were so happy.”

And she says today’s Democrat Party isn’t recognizable as the party she and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. belonged to when she was young. There was no animosity against Christianity back then. There was a common morality for all Americans. “Even when people did wrong, they knew they were doing wrong. There was a choice… They understood there was a God. When our society lost that, and the Democratic Party embraced the immoral and amoral segment of our society, and began to promote the values of that segment of our society. That’s where it became impossible to be a Democrat anymore.”

Jamison sees a bright future ahead for black Americans, but there is a choice that must be made – a break with the past. “Until black people are allowed to be totally different, and unique and individualistic, we will never be free.”

And to acquire that freedom, Jamison says blacks must unbind themselves from the prejudice of mainstream media culture. She holds out a copy of Black Enterprise. “They don’t talk about the people that you read about in this magazine -- the black people who are extremely successful. We have black people who are heads of major corporations.” She names a few – AOL, Hewlett Packard, American Express, etc. “You don’t hear about the successful black people like Condoleeza Rice and Clarence Thomas. For some reason the culture, the media, have chosen to deify the lowest common denominator.”

And Jamison suggests that Affirmative Action has begun to work against the interests of black Americans. Its original, noble goal was to require that qualified candidates be evaluated on a level playing field. “The Democrats got in control, and they made it a quota system. And that’s where they destroyed it.”

“We have a much higher educated black population, so we have a much better chance of being able to compete for jobs on a fair and equitable basis. We don’t want people looking at us and saying, ‘Oh you just got that job because you were black.’ Who needs that? That’s the stigma.”

What would she most like to see change in the Republican Party? “White Republicans have adopted the definition of what a black person is – the definition that the Democrats have assigned to us… They do not see us [black Republicans] as being distinct and different from the average black Democrat.” Because of this, some Republicans assume black Republicans are more liberal in their outlook. “We’re the most conservative Republicans in the Republican Party!” Jamison says. “We’re pro-gun, we’re anti-abortion, we’re anti-gay marriage, we’re pro-school choice, we are voucher-pro. We also believe in faith-based initiatives. We don’t believe in quota systems for education systems, job systems or anything else. We believe in affirmative recruiting.”

About gun rights, she explains, “During the Reconstruction, and during ‘Jim Crow laws,’ we had the same gun control laws that they’re trying to put in place now, which meant blacks couldn’t own guns. And because blacks could not own guns, when the Ku Klux Klan came to intimidate them, they had no way of defending themselves. So the right to arms is a very strong plank for black Republicans.”

“One of my missions is to encourage, motivate, and revive white Republicans. Because I believe a lot of white Republicans have become ‘at ease in Zion.’ They have become comfortable because they are right. And they think that because they are right, they shouldn’t have to fight. And it’s not true. They’re playing tennis on the 40 yard line, and the Democrats are playing football.”

Summing up her political and philosophical journey, Jamison describes a journey of faith in God and one’s own abilities. “Democrats had a more aggressive plan for bringing equality to all people. I didn’t know that equality meant you’re as equal as I allow you to be. Whereas Republicans say, ‘Hey, Jack. God gave you the same brain he gave me, the same muscles, the same intuition. Just like I get out there and get it for myself, you get out there and get it for yourself. That’s equality.”

Hype - Starring Barack Obama

Citizens United strikes again - one of my favorite conservative watchdog groups has produced another expose on an enemy of freedom. This time, Barack Obama.

The movie "Hype" is an exhaustive and effective piece of anti-Obama documentary research which is ahead of its time (in that not much research has been done until now!).

I'm pleased and flattered to be able to say that I was able to be present for the "World Premiere" of Hype this Sunday afternoon (the producer admitted he'd never even seen it on the big screen before then)! I must wholeheartedly thank our friend Jill Stanek (pro-life nurse and blogger -- see her incredible story!) for gaining access for me and my wife to see this! Also, thank you to the people who hosted the Premiere, which included Citizens United, and elements of the Colorado Republican Party (officially or not).

Now, first let me say I'm not exactly John McCain's fanboy. In fact, I'm supporting Alan Keyes, rather than stoop so low as to vote for a man who 1) admits on live TV that he believes human life begins at conception, but 2) is still defiantly supporting taxpayer funding for embryonic stem cell research which will kill already-conceived human beings! Why should conservatives vote for him? Out of fear? Please.

I hesitate to criticize the candidate likely supported by Citizens United, except that I'm not so certain they support him... Check out "Surprisingly Liberal", by Citizens United!

For these reasons and others, I agree with WorldNetDaily.com editor Joseph Farah, who believes McCain may be a greater danger to the conservative movement than Barack Obama. Obama could be the Clinton or the Carter of the day, who is unable to accomplish the worst of his agenda, all the while energizing the conservative base to put up a Reaganesque figure to oppose him in four years.

But that's beside the point -- back to the review...

The movie made light of Obama's "rock star" qualities -- his embarrassing celebrity popularity, upon which he's ridden much of his way along the path to the Democrat nomination for president. One laugh line in the show was a clip of Stephen Colbert telling Larry King about the power of Obama's passing the "Hope Bong" around.

But Hype was more than mere hype, itself. It mixed studious and damning research with a parade of white and Black conservative leaders explaining who Obama is, and analyzing where he's "coming from," both as a Black man and a socialist-leaning hyper-liberal. Featured guests included Jill Stanek, who told about her experience with Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (he was the only Democrat in the whole Illinois State Senate to oppose it, and even Hillary Clinton, Ed Kennedy and Barbara Boxer voted for it in the US Senate!). Other figures we know and respect include Ken Blackwell, Shelby Steele, Dick Morris and Jerome Corsi among many others.

The movie hit many points. Obama is an elitist, who lives in a million-dollar mansion. He sounds like he's for the little guy, and for reform, but his record is just the opposite. He's in the pocket of liberal special interests. He's a lazy dilettante who would rather make political points than get the job done. In other words, he's a typical politician. Ho hum -- good information, but nothing new.

But then it gets into the more exciting points which might surprise many Democrats and Republicans alike!

Foreign policy, of course, is key in this day and age. Biden can't hide this man's deficiencies on this. The movie pointed out Obama's gaffes, such as Katie Couric making him look like a fool for refusing to support the "Surge" in Iraq even after it proved its worth (if Obama can make Couric look like a pro-war heckler...). Obama's statements that he would meet with all America's most hateful enemies were foolish, which seems even more clear after they deconstruct his excuse that Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did the same thing (the movie examines how each of the cited presidential summits were of entirely a different character than what Obama proposes, and reminds us that Kennedy admitted Khrushchev "manhandled" him because he wasn't prepared for their meeting!).

And we all know about Obama's connections with some of the wide-eyed radicals of the anti-American, anti-white, anti-Christian religious sectors: Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Fleger, Louis Farrakhan, etc. Not new news, but startling, nonetheless, for a "mainstream" presidential candidate! The movie details these connections, and Obama's hypocrisy.

But perhaps more shocking were some of the associations Obama has had over the years. He's hired a known corruption figure to do his fundraising, whose dirty career even landed him in jail. Bill Ayers is apparently a close associate of Obama's who once upon a time worked with the anarchist Weather Underground (the "Weathermen") terrorist group. There are other connections which a wise politician would have carefully avoided, but Obama's ties to them are clear, and he even seems to have a hard time admitting they're not ordinary.

But we've dealt with corrupt politicians before. What sets Obama apart from, say, Bill Clinton (yes, even Bill Clinton!) is the extremity of his politics and the passion with which he pursues! The movie explains one of his early jobs was as a radical grassroots organizer, and how he used radical, socialistic and even anarchist handbooks on which to model his early political efforts. He's unapologetically followed some of the most ridiculously anti-freedom trains of thought in American politics, and many of his Democrat colleagues rightly think him crazy, and left-of-left.

The worst of the examples given is the one we started with. Obama's unwillingness to compromise on his support for abortion even so far as to allow a living human baby to live! Obama's opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act represents a horrifying belief that the abortionist should be allowed to chase an innocent human baby around on the operating table with a knife!!!

Obama tries to cover for his sins, and even to use faux-Christian gestures to fool evangelicals and mainstreamers into supporting him. But he is no "mean" (average) politician. He is a dangerous anti-American socialist who would try to impose the most sweeping anti-Freedom measures we've ever seen proposed. A frightening man, to be sure. And that's even without delving into conspiracy theories.

This movie, Hype, is worth seeing, and worth showing your friends! It's long, but that's because there's lots to say. We do not want this man as our next president. It would be a disaster. But still....

Is that reason enough to "vote for the lesser of two evils" -- for the least worse of two possible disasters? My feeling -- No. For lots of reasons.

Cast a principled vote which will empower the conservative movement by sending a message to future parties and future leaders. Otherwise we are just asking to be ignored.

Watch the movie, though! Be not fearful, but be informed!

Incrementalism Incrementally Fails Unborn Children

Jill Stanek's article in WorldNetDaily made me mad, so I wrote a not-so-well written, rambling reply which I hope still makes sense:




Incrementalists try to maintain some moral ground even as they undermine it, and partly they do this by unfairly denegrating the intelligence or sensibilities of their opponents, who they mischaracterize as unrealistic purists.

You've mischaracterized the "purist" (we call it "uncompromised") position. We do not oppose all incrementalism -- if a law prevents some abortions without compromising with abortionists and lending some credence to their legal standing or public support, then we support those laws.

A law which says "abortion clinics must abide by these regulations before they're allowed to perform abortions" is evil because it says "abortion is okay if...". But a law which says "all clinics where medical procedures are performed must abide by these regulations" then that's okay!

If you have a law which accedes, in part, to the arguments of the abortionists, then we oppose it, and so should you. Parental notification is fine if carefully crafted -- basically, "you must inform the parent that an abortion is scheduled". But if you include the parent in the "approval" process (i.e. a parental CONSENT law), then you've just added one or two parents to the pro-abortion camp, because they feel guilty and will in the future defend their decision to support their daughter's abortion. That's a loss for pro-life causes.

Any law which makes some abortions illegal, but which say "it is okay to kill the baby if..." is evil. It's not pro-life at all. Not only do the people who vote for it support those abortions (rape, incest, etc.) in a legal sense, but by arguing in favor of these laws they lend credence to the arguments of the other side that SOME abortions are okay.

Yes, Michael New (I think it is, from Heritage) published a study "proving" (through the use of debatable evidence and predictive assumptions with that scattered data) a 10-15% decrease in abortions "as a result of" incremental legislation. This is the basis of incrementalists' claim that "incrementalism is working." But we cannot logically use his study to establish that incrementalism will eventually result in 40% or 80% reductions in abortion. There's no logical basis to make that assumption, though we may WANT to make that leap in logic.

In fact, I believe incremental legislation is guaranteed to have diminishing returns, because advocates of that legislation split the difference -- they compromise with abortionists to arrive at a poorly defined "point at which abortion is permissible." In fact, I believe it's natural to assume that incremental laws will have a 10% to 20% effect. Maybe as high as 30%.

But that lack of moral clarity is bound to have a push-back effect, where as we approach a 20% "success" rate with incremental legislation, a 40% or 80% reduction becomes all the more impossible. At that rate, with that strategy, a 100% end to abortion becomes totally impossible.

Arriving at "personhood" -- the Human Life Amendment -- becomes harder every time one of these compromised incremental laws is passed, because in the minds of the public you're splitting the difference. You're saying some abortions are worse than others, so most people subconsciously see a corrolary to that -- that some abortions are better than others! Some abortions are permissible -- so much so, that even the pro-lifers aren't arguing that they're as serious as the others.

Splitting differences on abortion denies the moral power of the personhood argument. If a baby at any stage of development is a person, then it's always wrong to kill them. Always!

But if we go out there and say "abortion is bad, but partial birth abortion is the worst!" then it's not very far, morally, from saying, "it's wrong to kill even a handicapped child, but these people even want to kill healthy children!" -- it's establishing a value difference between handicapped and "healthy" children. It's wrong -- it's arguing on the basis of secular, amoral logic, rather than on the basis of absolute, non-relative truth.

The public WILL accept non-relative truth if it's properly framed! People are hard-wired to acknowledge moral standards. Your average high school student will say abortion is okay most of the time, but not at full term -- they see a value difference between a 1st and 3rd trimester baby, because secular society tells them there is one (and many pro-lifers tell them so, too, by arguing that ending some abortions is more important than others!). But if you ask that same student when slavery is okay, they'll say "slavery is NEVER okay -- that's a human being, you can't enslave them!" That's the power of moral clarity which we must enlist for the abortion fight.

Only the establishment of the concept of universal freedom for all persons did slavery disappear in this country. Only with the establishment of personhood in the mind of the American public will abortion 100% disappear.

Incrementalists think they'll compromise and split the difference for now, and then later -- "when we're near our goal" -- they'll switch to a no-compromise personhood strategy that will achieve the full victory. But when (if!) that day comes, abortionists and even the general public will say "but wait, didn't you say 10 years ago that it was okay to abort rape babies, so long as we didn't abort other babies?"

Until we change strategies, pro-life resources are working at cross purposes, with some resources directed toward a policy -- incrementalism -- that does not have the power to totally end abortion at any time.

The time to make that change is now, not 10 or 20 years from now, because no matter when we make the choice to switch to a new strategy, we're going to have to start from the very beginning, convincing the American public we were wrong back when we said some abortions were worse than others.

Ed