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

Regulation Affirms Abortion By Implication

There are two parts - maybe two sections or clauses - to the Personhood anti-abortion strategy.

The first is simple, easily grasped, and is understood and supported by the vast majority of pro-life activists. I daresay it's grasped and will be supported by a majority of the general population, easily enough, if we're able to carry the message to them.

That part is a direct assertion that:

• an unborn human child at any gestation is by definition an innocent human being


• that killing that innocent human being must therefore be murder, especially in the absence of any "due process of law"


• and that abortion must, by definition, be premeditated murder, and therefore must be illegal (or should be made so)

The second is a corrollary, and is therefore somewhat indirect, and is because of that somewhat more difficult to explain without a discussion. There are no soundbites to this corrollary.

And that corrollary is:

• if abortion is murder - an abhorrent crime - then it cannot and must not be regulated, because you cannot regulate something that isn't legal.

Regulations Send the Wrong Message to the People and the Courts

In fact, we in the Personhood movement, have often argued, it is counterproductive for pro-life legislators to insert "anti-abortion regulations" into the law in an attempt to "regulate abortion to death." This is a difficult task, since these legislators are, almost without exception, well-meaning men and women who are trying to achieve a positive partial result in the absence of an immediate fully positive solution.

We are fighting 30 years of a driven habit, urged on by most other pro-life groups which have encouraged legislators to submit, push and pass dozens of anti-abortion regulations, thinking that it would at least mitigate the evil until that day when we can finally end abortion forever.

For my part, I've often argued that these anti-abortion regulations may become the reason why we'll never be able to abolish abortion forever, because:

• they normalize and regularize abortion in the public mind,


• they convince the public that abortion can become a well-regulated (and therefore more acceptable) industry,


• they bring government and the public into partnership with the abortion industry,


• they imply that abortion must be legal, because you cannot regulate something that is not legal.

In an attempt to make that point, I've sometimes mentioned that municipalities do not have a law that says "you may drive a car up to X speed." Instead they have a law that says "you may not exceed X speed." The fact that you can drive under that speed is implied by the regulations.

But I've recently realized the most obvious example of my assertion is an obvious point of law, illustrated by a well-known court case.

The Dred Scott Decision

The US Constitution never said slavery should be legally allowed.

The US Constitution mentions slavery, obliquely, in only two places:

1. It says unfree persons should be counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation and taxes (i.e. the "Three Fifths Compromise").


2. It says Congress may regulate the slave trade, but may not prohibit it before 1808.

Let me reiterate that: The US Constitution at no time says slavery is legal!

Nevertheless, in 1857, the US Supreme Court examined the relevant laws, the Constitution and the institution of slavery in the infamous Dred Scott case.

They concluded, on the basis of two mere references to slavery in the Constitution, that the institution of slavery was a Constitutionally-protected right!

As I have often said, we believe merely mentioning abortion in law, except to explicitly and completely prohibity it, will backfire and give reason to courts and judges to rule that abortion must be legal by the very fact that the law sets limits upon it and regulations as to how it must be performed.

Dr. Charles Rice, late Professor Emeritus at the Notre Dame Law School, has argued this more ably and effectively, in a series of articles over the course of his life (he passed away in 2015). He believed such "anti-abortion regulations" would create a foundation in law for the legality of abortion.

And here, in the Dred Scott decision, we have proof that courts will take the flimsiest of implications to rule in favor of what they believe should be the law.

But, in reality, it's not that flimsy of an argument. It's completely logical, as we've said, that you cannot regulate something that is not legal, and therefore something that is regulated must be legal.

Please Do Not Regulate the Evil of Abortion

We, in the pro-life movement, must be careful not to overstep that line. We should not be inserting "anti-abortion regulations" into the law for a great many reasons. They, in fact, will perpetuate the existence of abortion, just as anti-slavery regulations in the 1800s perpetuated slavery.

We, in the Personhood movement, ask all pro-lifers to recognize the futility of anti-abortion regulations and support Personhood. Support ONLY Personhood.

Thank you!

Ed Hanks



Note: I'm using the term "anti-abortion regulations" too broadly, merely for effect. We in the Personhood movement believe there are such things as "principled regulations" that cause a positive, pro-life effect upon the law, but do not at the same time impugn the humanity of the unborn child. These laws do not mention abortion and are fully compatible with the interpretation of an unborn child as a human being. An example of a principled fetal homicide measure (here) has been submitted several times in Colorado, and once got far enough in the process to receive the vote of every Republican legislator in the Colorado House. Planned Parenthood regularly opposes this language, and browbeats every Democrat into voting against it, because they believe the unborn child must be considered as worthless under the law through 9 months of pregnancy, up until (and sometimes after) birth.

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.

The Lesser of Two Evils

If someone, say, in Denver (Democrat territory) votes for a Republican, have they "wasted their vote"? That can't be our definition -- voting for someone who has no chance of winning -- or a republic instead becomes a tyranny of the majority. We waste our vote anytime we vote for someone who believes things that we know to be unconscionable, simply because "the other guy" is more unconscionable. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

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

Pragmatism is Bankrupt

A post I made on the Life Training Institute blog (www.lti-blog.blogspot.com), where I am trying to convince a set of pro-lifers who are dedicated to "compromised incrementalism" that we need to change our pro-life strategy -- aiming for success, rather than compromise:



If there existed a law (or proposed legislation) that made 95% of abortions illegal without affirming a "right" to abortion 5% of the time, I would be for it -- that is an uncompromising win for us.

But those examples are hard to find.

What we do see -- compromised incrementalism -- is a bill that makes 95% of abortions illegal while also explicitly defending 5% of abortions. In these cases, I think pro-lifers do ourselves no favors by supporting it. Why?

Because any bill that favors or otherwise upholds a "right" to 5% of abortions is arguing against the principle of a right to life.

Principle doesn't use percentages. Any departure from 0% or 100% is compromise, and it reduces our arguments to 100% pragmatism, 0% principle.

Arguing on the terms of our opponents -- as if there is some line to be drawn, some abstract judgment of when it's okay to kill a baby and when it's not -- is detrimental to our overall cause of getting rid of all abortions, because we're admitting there ARE lines to be drawn. Pragmatism wholly rejects the principle -- they are fundamentally inconsistent strategies. In order to regain the principle, we actually have to convince the voters and citizens we've been talking to that we were wrong when we supported a bill that favored 5% of abortions. We would be rightly accused of hypocrisy.

Would you support a law which said slavery should be legal in New Jersey, but in no other state of the union? If you're a pragmatist, you'll ask "that depends -- is this 1800 or 2000? -- does this increase or reduce slavery?" The response would dictate your answer.

But if you are relying upon moral authority -- principle -- then you would consider the law absurd. Slavery should be legal nowhere under any circumstances, no matter where it is or is not already legal.

I strongly believe that the more we rely on pragmatism to "curtail" abortions when and where we can, we postpone the day when we can achieve our goal and implement the principle of no abortions anytime anywhere, because we then have to undo the damage we did when we talked someone into voting for the 95% solution by saying "it's okay, because it allows for an exception in 5% of the cases."

Ed

Sacrificing Babies to Save Babies!

Background:

South Dakota failed to pass a virtual total ban on abortion in 2006 by just a few percentage points. Rather than gather encouragement from their near-success, pro-life legislators have now given up and are supporting language that would allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, etc. It remains "close" to what they tried to pass in 2006, but this version is fatally flawed because it will sacrifice some babies to save others.

Operation Rescue, led by Troy Newman, issued a press release not only supporting the South Dakota language, but also saying that anybody who doesn't support it is "pro-abortion". That was a pre-emptive swipe at Brian Rohrbough of Colorado Right to Life, who he knew would not support the SD language because of its exceptions. See (and sign!) the Colorado Right to Life no-compromise pledge at www.coloradorighttolife.org/take_action.htm.

Several people (probably a flood, but the no-compromise folks aren't YET all networked -- joining Colorado Right to Life, no matter where you live, would be a start!) sent complaint e-mails to Operation Rescue, and one of them was my wife.

We got a response back from a lady at Operation Rescue who seemed to be the official responder to the complaints. I don't have permission to use her name, so I'll just say this is what appears to be an official response from Operation Rescue. Following their response is my reaction to the response:

Dear _________,

We so appreciated you coming to Wichita for the Cry
for Justice event. That meant a lot to us.
Hopefully, in that time, you got to know us and know
we have dedicated our lives to obedience to God in
working to protect the innocent and stop abortion. We
came out hard on this issue of the South Dakota bill
because we knew there would be a knee-jerk reaction to
it that would cost lives. I hope after reading this
letter, you better understand our thinking and why we
did what we did.

Here is the bottom line: Without intervention, about
870 babies will die in South Dakota next year. We
have the ability to save ALL of them. In fact, in the
next four years, ONE baby might succumb to abortion,
if this law is passed. That is a tragedy, but we
cannot save that baby now. We tried to pass a law
that would protect that baby, too, but it failed. So
should we give up on trying to save the others?

According to your thinking, you would rather that the
870 per year continue to die than pass a law that may
not meet your standard of perfection. Remember, we
still oppose the one death and will continue to work
until that one baby is protected as well, but we are
not willing to sacrifice the 870, year after year on
the distant hope that someday we might get a perfect
bill.

This should not be about some lofty ideology of
perfection as much as it is about saving lives. Those
babies are ALL doomed to die. We have not condemned
them to death. They are already condemned. We oppose
every single death from abortion, but if we can do
something to save even some of them, we will do it,
while continuing to save the rest.

Have you not considered the tremendous loss of life
your principle would cost? Do you seriously have the
ability to justify not intervening to save the 870,
when it is within our power to save them? Can you
really rationalize away standing idly by while those
babies die simply because we cannot save them all?
Doesn't that diminish life?

Take for example that you are aboard the Titanic and
it is sinking. You have within your ability to get
870 onto lifeboats, but one person is trapped in a
cabin and you cannot save him. Would you sacrifice
the lives of the 870 in a vain effort to save one?
Most people would do everything to save the 870 while
continuing to work to save the one until there was no
other hope. That does not mean they approve of the
death of the one or that somehow that life had less
value. It is just that under the circumstances,
saving that one was beyond their ability.

We tried to save them all in South Dakota, and that
bill was rejected. Now we are trying to save the 870.
Would you rather they die? How can a position that
would sacrifice so many – needlessly – be classified
as anything other than irresponsible?

I will stand on the principle of saving as many lives
as we possibly can, and reject the notion of allowing
needless death and human suffering because the legal
method does not meet up to my standard of perfection.

Sidewalk counselors have to face this conundrum day
after day as women reject their help and go into the
mills to kill their babies. There is nothing the
sidewalk counselor can to but watch, and rejoice when
a rare woman does in fact change her mind. Should
sidewalk counselors stop trying to save any lives
simply because conditions exist that make is
impossible for them to save them all? Would we say
that the sidewalk counselor is "unprincipled" or that
she "approved" of the deaths she could not prevent?

Try to think rationally about this situation. I think
pro-lifers have a knee-jerk reaction to “exceptions”
and often do not consider the reality of the
situation. I would say those attempting to save lives
NOW are probably more in line with Biblical teachings
than those who are willing to allow the bloodletting
to continue until such time, if ever, they get the
perfect bill.

You may want to consider whose side you are on here.
Planned Parenthood is fighting this bill tooth and
nail because it will close them down in South Dakota
and virtually stop abortion in its tracks. (Would you
rather the legislature withdraw the bill and allow
them to say open?) When we look around and find the
abortionists are our allies, then maybe we should stop
and think about where ideology is taking us.

Signed (name of official removed)

My response to Operation Rescue:

(name of official removed}

I hope you will excuse me for stepping into a conversation based on your reply to my wife.

I find your argument unconvincing. And I shall tell you why, but first I want to point something out:

Quoting (name removed): "Try to think rationally about this situation. I think pro-lifers have a knee-jerk reaction to “exceptions” and often do not consider the reality of the situation."

I find that to be one of the most thoroughly condescending things I've seen in any argument in some time. You presume we are responding emotionally, rather than "thinking rationally". We're the "knee-jerkers".

I consider it more emotional to knuckle under for believers in false compassion for raped mothers (which "compassion" is manifested by killing their children and saddling them with the guilt of having killed them). But you speak more, perhaps, than you meant to -- you refer not to "some pro-lifers" but to "pro-lifers" in general as if you are separating yourself from that group of people. Now, I believe that you are sincere, and that your heart is in the right place. But, rhetorically and subconsciously, in your language you are stepping AWAY from "pro-lifers" and calling them crazy, even as you move closer to the world's ideal adherence to "reason and rationality" over what's truly and absolutely right and wrong.

Your Titanic analogy is a false one. A true analogy using the Titanic metaphor would be this -- rather than saying "We want to save all of you, but women and children first", you are instead saying, "Only women and children have a right to be saved. If you are a man, even if we have the ability to save you, even if we find you in the freezing water and have room in the lifeboat, you are still not allowed in the lifeboat because you do not have a right to life."

You may say that this analogy still supports you -- that historically, the Titanic did not have enough lifeboats to save everybody. But it did in fact have more than enough lifeboats to save some of the men. And there were some men pulled out of the icy water after the lifeboats left the ship. Besides this, the crew discriminated against third class passengers, which is perhaps a better analogy -- you are saving "first and second class passengers first", and leaving the third class passengers (offspring from rape, offspring from incest, etc.) to die, moreover saying in the wording of the legislation that it's okay that they do.

What you are really doing is asking... nay, demanding... nay, intimidating pro-life legislators and/or voters to vote for a measure which says "it is okay to kill babies if their father is a criminal (i.e. rapist)". You are forcing legislators (upon penalty of being called a "pro-abort"!!!) to stand up and speak with their vote: "I am willing to sacrifice this one baby and put it to death in order to save 870, because I recognize that there are mitigating factors which cause it to not have the same degree of right to life as the other 870." I understand the emotion behind wanting to save 870, even if you must sacrifice one, but telling the deathcamp guards that you will support them in killing all the gypsies if they will allow you to save all the Jews thoroughly eviscerates the principle of a "right to life". Yours is the emotional, not the rational, position.

The very act of making the statement evidenced in the new, compromised, S. Dakota legislation undermines the whole principle, and even the concept, of a "right to life", which is truly the most powerful tool we have to eventually end all abortions. In fact, by establishing and continuing to support that false division between the rights of some and the rights of others (some are more equal than others), you play into the hands of the abortionists and enable them to argue that even YOU -- the pro-lifers -- support abortion in cases of rape and incest. And they have the votes to prove that you did!

I do not disbelieve the fact that you desire to save all babies from abortion, including the "one" (another false figure) who will be a product of rape or incest. But that's not what the legislation says, so you should not be supporting it. If you really want to save the 870, you should change the law so that it does not confer a "right to an abortion" in any case -- that it does not explicitly defend any conditions under which a baby may legally be put to death. It may be possible to change the legislation so that it does not explicitly permit any abortions, but I think it would be hard to do.

By saving 870 babies today, you may literally uphold the "principle" of allowing abortion, and condemn "870 exceptions" to abortion over the next several decades, because you would not stand firm on the principle of a "right to life", and actually supported abortion in cases of rape or incest.\

You know Dr. Tiller. Would he allow something as simple as a prohibition against abortion "except in cases of rape and incest" to stop him? No! He's already violated the late-term ban. If he were in the situation of the S. Dakota abortionists (who probably look up to him and his methods), he would simply claim that "rape has made an amazing comeback!" And suddenly you have not 1, but 100 or 870 abortions a year in case of "rape or incest."

I, and others who oppose compromising on principle, will wait to see if you will push for that, or if you will continue to support a bill which upholds the "right to abortion" in some cases. I will remain very disappointed in you and Operation Rescue if you do not try to either fix this legislation, or publicly disavow your support.

Ed

Debut - Welcome!

I've been meaning to start this blog for some time, and just never got around to it. Now I'm on my way.

I will begin my blogging career by highlighting a column I submitted, which has been published at WorldnetDaily.com :

A growing split in the pro-life community


In the wake of last week's U.S. House vote on the Fetal Pain bill, several magazines, blogs and pro-life websites have begun to discuss a growing split in the pro-life community over bills like this that attempt to slow or regulate abortions, but not stop them.

Some such divisions can be detrimental to a cause. Others can finally crystallize the issue and energize the movement.

The debate over incremental anti-abortion laws, versus working toward the goal of stopping abortion altogether, is a necessary crisis of conscience for pro-lifers. Its resolution will determine the future of abortion in America.

To read the rest of the column at WorldnetDaily.com click below:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53382