By Kathleen Walker

Tireless efforts by pro-life leaders, dedicated to the rights of the preborn baby, are surging forth in Colorado. Stopping at nothing to ensure the right to life of all humans, these men and women of Colorado Personhood are hoping to make monumental changes for the state and its residents.

When Colorado pro-life folks decided to pursue human personhood four years ago, everybody who was anybody in pro-life political circles either panned the idea, saying the time was not right, or publicly argued that it wasn’t prudent to talk about preborn babies as persons because America wasn’t ready to hear the message. All gobbledygook to be sure!

For those of us who know that the battle to end the killing of the innocent can never be won through court cases or political/legislative efforts, human personhood is the only game in town. By talking about it, providing education and focusing on the child as someone whose human rights are being violated every time one of them is murdered chemically, medically, surgically or through human embryonic stem cell research, we are convincing more and more people that abortion is not an issue but, rather, a deadly act.

That is why American Life League has been talking about human personhood for more than 31 years.

And now strong, dedicated, young, aggressive pro-life leaders, like Keith Mason http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/2624912556.htmland Gualberto Garcia Jones http://www.personhoodusa.com/content/leadershipfrom the Colorado team, are doing likewise. For them and their legion of volunteers, the past four years in Colorado have been a time of testing, honing and now possibly achieving the first-ever state human personhood amendment to a state constitution.

The excitement is electric!

How did this happen? These young men, and their fellow champions Cal Zastrow http://prolifeprofiles.com/Cal and Rev. Walter Hoye, http://www.earnedmedia.org/phusa0721.htm have dedicated their lives to the truth that every single human being is a person from his biological beginning. Therefore each of these people logically deserves to have his rights protected by society and by the law. Through their single-minded efforts to teach, preach and literally walk the streets of Colorado, they have converted many, including a number of candidates who won their primary elections—in upsets we might add.

Having already said that we cannot achieve an end to the gruesome slaughter of innocents through political channels, you may think the above is contradictory. You would be wrong.

Had it not been for the sacrificial efforts of Garcia Jones, Mason and many others in Colorado over the past four years, hoeing the ground, planting seeds, spreading the word and focusing NOT on abortion but on who exists at the moment of creation—whether it occurs in a petri dish or a mother’s body—none of these candidates would have noticed this little known movement we call PERSONHOOD NOW!

Now that there are capable men in the public eye who have defied the odds and can speak clearly about Amendment 62, it is the responsibility of those of us who strive to convert the culture to step up our activities in the educational arena, and to do so with gusto, with financial support and with a whole lot of spiritual intercessory prayer.

It is my hope that you will join in these efforts no matter where you live. Time is of the essence and Personhood Colorado needs our support.

And lest we forget, the soul of this nation needs conversion! Through this human personhood message, each of us can offer all we do to God, hoping for a spiritual renewal in America.

Let’s face it, there are too many in the so-called pro-life political movement who have acknowledged long ago that the best way to be a foot stool for the GOP is to keep abortion around, nibbling at the outer edges in order to give an appearance of victory while carrying on with politics as usual.

That has got to end, and now we have the potential of turning such defeatism and despair into heroic action for human rights.

Come and join us! It will be a great experience because win, lose or draw, the Lord is in charge and we are blessed to be serving Him.

Contact Information:

Personhood USA: http://www.personhoodusa.com/

Personhood Colorado: http://personhoodcolorado.com/

Personhood background material and talking points: http://www.all.org/personhood/

© Kathleen Walker

 

WesternFront America

Antonia Senior’s recent opinion piece in the Times entitled “Yes, abortion is killing. But it’s the lesser of two evils”  has been analyzed by pro-life writers Dave Andrusko and Albert Mohler,  who are both disturbed by her statement “If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.”

Mohler thinks Senior’s article is a signal that the “moral ground” beneath our feet may be shifting. He opines, “Antonia Senior goes public with the argument that feminists should just admit that abortion is the killing of a human life, and then they should go on to assert that the right to kill an unborn human life is just the price that must be paid if feminism is to be defended.”

Andrusko’s perspective is this:

For these women, abortion=freedom and freedom=abortion. Doesn’t matter if over half of the babies aborted are female. Doesn’t matter that the category of the powerless used to include BOTH unborn children and most women… Nothing matters except “control” over “fertility,” which is synonymous in their minds with the “right” to retroactively “control fertility” by abortion.

Both of these men make excellent points. But to me, the most egregious aspect of Senior’s commentary is what is not there, and that is an admission that the entity she is willing to kill is less than a fully human being. She refers to the preborn baby as “a life,” “a fetus” and a “little seahorse shape,” but then focuses on the will of the mother and ignores the identity of her baby. She tells readers that if the baby in question resides in a “willing womb,” everything is fine, but “in a resentful womb it is not a life, but a foetus—and thus killable.”

Therein lies the fundamental error in the stream of consciousness Senior reveals in her column. She is confused about who a human being is, and is convinced that the answer to that question resides solely with the expectant mother and her desire to either carry or not carry her baby to term. Thus, it’s not surprising that she never uses humanizing language to describe the child she is willing to kill in order to protect her so-called reproductive rights.

What Senior has done is teach a valuable lesson to those willing to learn from it. If indeed the preborn human being is less than a person and has an identity that is a matter of subjective opinion, than the moral ground has not only shifted, it has disappeared. But if Senior is simply putting into frank, cruel words the actual mindset of those who fashioned the culture of death years ago, then the only response to such cruelty is the quest for human personhood. Nothing less will suffice.

Human personhood is not based on the ethereal concept of “wantedness.” The fact that a human being exists from his biological beginning is not rooted in the philosophical opinions of such notables (mentioned by Senior) as Friedrich Engels and Christian de Duve. Human personhood is determined by scientific fact coupled with right reason.

Senior simply cannot accept this because of her absolute commitment to “reproductive rights.” Her basic error is obvious, but I doubt seriously that her view is a minority opinion among her peers. “Reproductive rights” advocates cannot admit that the preborn baby is a human being for, if they did, they would cease to be the enemy of truth.

Yes, statements such as Senior’s are audacious, but they represent a wake-up call to all of us. Someone not familiar with or who has rejected moral absolutes is someone who believes in the supposedly lesser evil of killing. But her argument is no different than the supposedly lesser evil of agreeing that preborn babies can be killed if conceived through rape or incest, or when the mother is facing a life-threatening problem.

Recognizing the human personhood of all human beings, born and preborn, removes the supposedly lesser evil from the discussion and restores respect for human rights based on simple truth.

© Judie Brown

 

WesternFront America

A couple of recent studies that reflect negatively on abortion have come to our attention. We in turn want to make you are aware of them—not because they are shocking, but rather because the secular “news” media has once again found it not in their best pro-death interest to report them objectively. For the most part, there has been no mention of them.

The first deals with the Congressional briefing hosted by Congressman Chris Smith this past week, http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042909.html a well-known advocate for human rights, truth and life. The purpose of the Smith briefing was to discuss the global decline in maternal death rates and the reasons why improved prenatal care, rather than abortion, holds the key to continued success in this area.

During the briefing, Dr. Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) http://www.aaplog.org/ , focused attention on a recent study published in the British medical journal, Lancet http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60518-1/fulltext , entitled “Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980—2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5.” It credits these four reasons for the improvement in maternal health: declining pregnancy rates in some countries, higher per capita income, higher education rates for women and the increasing availability of basic medical care including “skilled birth attendants.” http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041505.html

As Dr. Harrison explained, the Lancet report http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10042909.html “never mentioned legal abortion as a factor in bringing down maternal mortality ratios. In fact, pro-life nations such as Poland, Malta and Ireland had just as low or even lower ratios of maternal mortality than the United States, Norway, and Canada, which all have very liberal abortion laws.”

Harrison pointed out that induced abortion actually puts women in danger of bleeding/hemorrhage, infection, and damage to reproductive organs, especially if not all the pieces of the destroyed unborn child are completely evacuated. The risks are even greater for medical abortion, Harrison said, highlighting a study published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, which found that women having a medical abortion had an eightfold risk of bleeding, fivefold risk of incomplete abortion, and twofold risk of (re)evacuation than surgical abortion. The study concluded that medical abortion was likely “to result in an elevated incidence of overall morbidity related to termination of pregnancy.

While this comes as no surprise to anyone involved in the pro-life apostolate, it is not us who need to hear these facts, but rather the general public who is still being spoon-fed the lie that abortion is “safe and legal” and childbirth can be deadly for the mother. So where is the media, you might ask?

Well, as the New York Times reports: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/health/14births.html

[S]ome advocates for women’s health tried to pressure The Lancet into delaying publication of the new findings, fearing that good news would detract from the urgency of their cause, Dr. Horton said in a telephone interview.

“I think this is one of those instances when science and advocacy can conflict,” he said.

Dr. Horton said the advocates, whom he declined to name, wanted the new information held and released only after certain meetings about maternal and child health had already taken place.

He said the meetings included one at the United Nations this week, and another to be held in Washington in June, where advocates hope to win support for more foreign aid for maternal health from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Other meetings of concern to the advocates are the Pacific Health Summit in June, and the United Nations General Assembly meeting in December.

“People who have spent many years committed to the issue of maternal health were understandably worried that these figures could divert attention from an issue that they care passionately about,” Dr. Horton said. “But my feeling is that they are misguided in their view that this would be damaging. My view is that actually these numbers help their cause, not hinder it.”

All I can say to that is, Dr. Horton, GIVE ME A BREAK! Who do you think you are kidding? Or are you so naïve you do not understand that those who equate maternal health with killing preborn children before birth don’t want any kind of good news being touted in the media that will undermine their heinous agenda.

If it were truly the case, that advocates for maternal health were committed to protecting expectant mothers and their babies from dreadful disease, difficulties, birth anomalies and death, they would be staunch advocates for both patients and never recommend killing as a healthy response! However, as we know, such is not the case here or in any of the developing nations where the United States has been funding the culture of death for so many years.

Further, these very same advocates, if they were honestly committed to women and children, would have been first in line with the news that researchers at the University of Manitoba have shown a distinct link between abortion and mental illness including thoughts of suicide: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10043012.html

The researchers, from the departments of psychology and psychiatry, as well as obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences, found that abortion was associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse and suicide attempts.

They report that depression and drug dependence followed abortion in about half of the women studied.  Additionally, women with a household income of $75,000 or more were more likely to report an abortion than those with household incomes under $25,000.

They used data from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Drug Abuse to look for correlations between a number of factors, including abortion, anxiety, substance abuse, eating disorders, disruptive behavior and suicide attempts. They then checked for evidence of mental disorders following abortions.

“This was the first study to examine associations between abortion and several mental disorders,” says Dr. Jitender Sareen, psychiatry. “We found a higher likelihood of lifetime mood disorder in women who had experienced an abortion compared with those who had never had an abortion.”

But even those involved with this study were rather hasty to tell the secular media no conclusions can be drawn linking abortion to mental illness! http://www.canada.com/news/Woman+abortions+report+more+depression+drug+abuse+Study/2975381/story.html The Canadian news agency reports that “[a]bortion providers worry the study’s findings could be misinterpreted and become fodder for anti-abortion groups.”

In other words, regardless of the actual clinical information that exposes the deleterious effects of abortion on the mother, let alone the child, the political advocacy of abortion is what is most important. Rather than being objective, the news media must rush to see what those negatively affected by such studies have to say because, as far as I can tell, the act of abortion is not in the same category as other surgical procedures when it comes to telling the truth to the public. The protection of the sacred act of abortion is clearly what is most important to far too many who should be dedicated to honest and fair reporting.

For many years, I have known that the relatively naïve pro-life activities of the late seventies and early eighties that ultimately put abortion into the framework of “political issues” were bound to backfire. Today, as these two studies and the public reaction affirms, this is in fact the case. We are not dealing with honesty in the media or the medical profession when we discuss abortion today. No, it is all about politics.

And frankly, the only solution for all this is an ongoing discussion about the humanity of the preborn child with a specific focus on his human personhood.

As advocates for these people, we are not and should not be involved in a partisan political discussion. Nor will we patiently wait for the medical world to own up to the truth and admit that those who commit abortion are committing murder. We are the ones who are going to repeat the truth about what abortion really is, regardless of our popularity, our social status or our opportunities to be welcomed into the wider community of secular thoughts and ideas.

We know that abortion is evil. We know that those who advocate it are literally working for the father of lies, and we will continue to say it. Abortion is an act that takes the life of a person and the antidote is human personhood. A focus on that child’s humanity is the only educational tool that has lasting power to turn the tide.

God does not expect us to engage in political bickering, nor does His Word give us permission to relegate His babies and their fate to nothing more than a mere political issue! God expects us to tell the truth. If not us, who? Personhood now!

© Judie Brown

 

WesternFront America

As the New Year commences, there are two things that each pro-life American should do: Take stock of progress over the past decade and refocus efforts if they have not produced the results that were anticipated.

This is precisely what American Life League is now doing. As a result, we are setting forth our goals, which means some projects will disappear or be significantly changed, while others will be enhanced as never before. Why this is so is best characterized by a slogan one of our former marketing experts came up with: It’s the babies, stupid!

Indeed, we are called to be pro-life because we care about preborn babies, their human rights and their families. The babies have an enemy that is most accurately portrayed as the devil. The devil has twisted words, promoted murder masquerading as “choice” and, in general, done all within his power to deny the humanity of the preborn human being. He has enlisted the services of many, but ultimately he will not be victorious.

I do not mean to suggest, however, that the vast majority of Americans are possessed by a devil. No, we have to evaluate individual attitudes in terms of what is actually comprehended by each person we encounter, not by what we wish they knew. We realize that the vast majority do not think about abortion much or at all.

Further, we know, from polling data, market research and political exit polls, that Americans are confused. For the most part, they think of abortion in terms of politics, not in terms of murder. As far as we can determine, this is the result of confusion, lack of knowledge and apathy.

It is therefore incumbent on us at American Life League to increase our efforts to teach the truth not only about the personhood of the human being from his biological beginning, but at a fundamental level, his identity as a member of the human family. We have to remain dedicated to personalizing that preborn baby so that Americans begin to understand that abortion is not about politics; it’s about killing babies.

How well we accomplish this goal will determine the pro-life movement’s future. With this in mind, our objectives for the coming year must be focused primarily on human rights for all, including every single preborn human being. We must be vigilant in assuring that every statement that American Life League makes to the media is focused on the fundamental truth of human personhood

We will make certain that each and every issue of our many publications, whether transmitted by U. S. mail or the internet, has at least one educational component concerning vulnerable human beings and their dignity, their human rights and their equal rights. This means that not a single edition of Celebrate Life magazine, http://www.clmagazine.org/ ALL News, Rock for Life’s e-blast, http://rockforlife.org/ the Wednesday STOPP Report , http://www.stopp.org/report.htm the American Life League Associate Newsletter, http://www.all.org/article.php?id=12424&search=associate%20news LiveCampus updates and the Daily News Summary http://www.all.org/article.php?id=12432 will be published without addressing human personhood. We must not miss an opportunity to teach this fundamental truth about the human being.

As a wise merchandising expert once advised us, “The day McDonald’s decides to run one ad a year to remind the country of what it is all about is the day American Life League can start mentioning the truth about the act of abortion once a year. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Repetition works!”

Along those lines, it has always been my contention that the reason assisted suicide, infanticide, euthanasia, prenatal genetic diagnosis, human embryonic stem cell research and the like have increased in recent years is because abortion has not been discussed nonstop in terms of the human person who dies from it. The following three examples illustrate this failure.

Pro-life Kansas state senator Tim Huelskamp is proposing a legislative effort to defund Planned Parenthood. http://www.wibw.com/localnews/headlines/80377402.html Good for him! When he announced his goal, he said, “Organizations that perform abortions and fail to report sexual abuse of young girls should never receive taxpayer subsidies. This flies in the face of basic Kansas values.”

Our educational efforts should eventually convince Senator Huelskamp that his point would resound with far greater clarity if he replaced the phrase “perform abortions” with “kill preborn babies.” This is why we believe elected officials need our consistent affirmation and education. It isn’t that they don’t care; they simply don’t think of abortion in the proper terms.

Here’s another example: The Bronx News Network http://www.bronxnewsnetwork.org/2009/12/pro-lifers-rally-against-bronx-doctor.html reported on a protest against Pierre Renelique. In the story, pro-life people themselves refer to Renelique as a “doctor.” But doctors take an oath to protect the lives of their patients, not kill them. Renelique is a hired killer who executes little children in the wombs of their own mothers. Pro-life people should never refer to an abortionist as a “doctor.” We must learn to call heinous acts by their proper names and to use accurate titles for those who perpetrate them.

My final example pertains to Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson, who is busy defending his compromise on paying for the practice of abortion as part of health care reform. He was interviewed by the Columbus Telegram.http://www.columbustelegram.com/articles/2010/01/02/news/local/topnews/doc4b3cc1189648c799420509.txt?orss=1 An excerpt from the report states,

It is made clear “no federal money can be used to fund elective abortions. Anyone that has abortion coverage has to pay the separate premium for abortion coverage,” which will not qualify for federal subsidy, Nelson said. “Sometimes they’re misinformed and other times the national groups are driving the agendas.
“Apparently I made the mistake of not letting some of the special interest groups go ahead and write the language. I thought I was the legislator,” he said. “I’m going to do the best I can to get the best language in the version coming out of the conference” to prohibit federal funds from subsidizing abortions.

Here we have a perfect example of a well-meaning elected official who thinks about aborting children in terms of his political agenda, his opinion of what is best for Americans and his perspective on the “issue,” rather than dead babies. He is either confused or misled.

Clearly on the defensive, Nelson takes the time to chastise “national groups,” but he does not admit that “to prohibit federal funds from subsidizing abortions” is meaningless in terms of saving lives. If the same expectant mother who cannot use tax dollars is permitted to use personal funds to pay for the killing of her child, where is the victory?

Oh yes, we know that committing an abortion is protected by the law of the land, but this tragic reality should provide greater inspiration than ever to politicians such as Nelson, who should be willing to accept the political heat for calling abortion by its proper name. If only he had said “to prohibit federal funds from subsidizing the direct murder of innocent babies” instead.

Nelson should be championing human personhood, but I will bet you my bottom dollar he does not even know what human personhood means and is quite happy, as are so many pro-life political types, to go along with the status quo for the sake of political unity. What about unity based on truth?

The only way to change an unjust law is address it and do so without calculating potential political fallout.

This is why it is so important to retool American Life League’s message, our work and our ability to teach the language of human personhood as simply as possible to as many individuals and groups as we can.

In the late 1970s, a wonderful editorial writer, Nick Thimmesch, http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/spec-coll/MSC/ToMsC750/MsC709/thimmesch.html described American Life League as the “green berets of the pro-life movement.” He wrote this about us because of our unswerving commitment to never compromise the life of even one innocent preborn child.

Today, more than ever, we must persist in this vein. We must do so through patient teaching and positive motivation, so that we bring as many Americans along with us as we can. By so doing, we are confident that America will witness a day when human rights are recognized for all human persons from their biological beginning to their natural—not imposed—death.

We look forward to bringing the nation American Life League’s refined focus for 2010 and beyond, and we feel confident that more and more of our fellow pro-lifers will be speaking the language of human personhood as the days go by.

In closing, for those readers who have never encountered American Life League’s human personhood effort, we invite you to visit our web site www.all.org/personhood, to read one of my many commentaries http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog_archives.php on the subject and to visit the web site of our friends at Personhood USA. http://www.personhoodusa.com/

Yes, that’s what it’s all about this New Year: Human personhood now!

 

WesternFront America

The problematic nature of pandering to politicians with half-measures while announcing to pro-life troops that a victory has been achieved is not a new malady. It has been a relatively consistent pattern woven into National Right to Life Committee politics for many years now. Having said that, the problem with what is currently being said about the Stupak Amendment to the Pelosicare bill is the most egregious I have seen in my 40 years of pro-life activism.

For starters, on Saturday, November 7, NRLC sent a letter to each member of Congress in which the following statement was made:

“As NRLC’s congressional scorecard for the 111th Congress will clearly explain, a vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment can only be construed as a position-defining vote in favor of establishing a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds, and a second federal program that will provide government subsidies to private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. NRLC regards this as the most important House roll call on federal funding of abortion since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997. If you do not wish to go on record in support of creating major new federal programs that will both fund abortions directly and subsidize private abortion coverage, please vote for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. NRLC will regard a “present” vote as equivalent to a negative vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.”

While it could appear that NRLC is threatening members of Congress with a bad score if they vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, the fact is that the amendment itself is halfhearted and fraught with problems. And if one examines the actual text of H. R. 3962, the Pelosicare bill, one finds the following:

This should make it obvious to anyone with a heart for the principles upon which the pro-life movement was founded to see right through the smoke and mirrors that NRLC is now using to deflect criticism from its political misjudgment.

To make matters worse, as if they could get worse, Lifenews.com published an article entitled “Pro-Life Movement Must Unify After Strategy Difference on Stupak Abortion Amendment.” Its simply unbelievable observations, http://www.lifenews.com/nat5638.html pitting Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona’s strategy against that of the Stupak supporters, defy logic. Steven Ertelt describes what Shadegg attempted to do to ensure the abominable Pelosicare bill’s failure and then defends the Stupak strategy, claiming that with or without the Stupak Amendment, the bill would have passed. Interesting how he defends the NRLC strategy as the only real game in town.

But the most troubling comments come toward the end of the article, where we find these Ertelt insights: http://www.lifenews.com/nat5638.html

The aftermath of the Stupak amendment vote hasn’t been pretty. I’ve read countless comments on Twitter and Facebook from pro-life people who are livid at one side or the other.

But attacking pro-life groups, lawmakers or people for supporting one strategy or the other is not productive. We have so many battles ahead that a divided pro-life movement only leads to losing the battles on abortion funding and stopping this pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia health care bill.

Even with Stupak added, every pro-life group admits that rationing and conscience issues remain and that the bill still has concerns or the pro-life movement. No pro-life group — and even the bishops despite some mis-reporting in the mainstream media — are supporting the House bill as approved.

Let’s cease the attacks on one another. This is only a strategic debate between people who wholeheartedly want to see abortion end immediately if not sooner and not a matter of one side or the other abandoning pro-life principles. We all want to get the ball in the end zone and some of us want to pass and some to run the ball.

There are too many unborn children and elderly and disabled at risk in the health care bill to let this one inning (excuse the mixed sports metaphors) define where we go as a pro-life community. There is an entire game to be played and adopting Stupak has riled and motivated the pro-abortion forces. Divided, they win, but united we can stop abortion funding and defeat this pro-abortion, pro-rationing bill.

Ertelt’s description of the pro-abortion forces is, of course, correct. NARAL Pro-Choice America has described the Stupak Amendment as “extreme anti-choice politics.” Of course it’s riled; not a single baby should be protected by law, according to its strategic plan. And it’s united with its fellow pro-deathers, including Planned Parenthood, which claims the Stupak Amendment is an  “unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today.”

In fact, Planned Parenthood is so upset it even forgot to mention that if this bill passes, with or without the Stupak language, Planned Parenthood’s already-huge government subsidies will increase dramatically. Gee whiz! How could it have been so absentminded?

I hope my point has been made. Regardless of who is riled, who is playing politics with babies’ lives or who is running for cover as they try to make lemonade out of the lemons they’ve tossed at principle, nobody should be pleased with the prospect of government-run health care. In case we have forgotten, dear friends at NRLC, this is the very government that thirsts for the blood of the innocent in unimaginable quantities!

Obama supporters’ “health care reform” bills, regardless of their title or bill number, are so fatally flawed that wise pro-life strategists would have withheld any 11th-hour efforts, including the back-room meeting orchestrated by the USCCB and NRLC that led to the Stupak fiasco in the first place. The concerns that Ertelt now mentions about rationing and conscience protections were a concern before Stupak and still are. And, of course (though curiously absent from his analysis), increased funding for PP, abortive birth control and the like, which have been included in every version of this “health care reform” effort and are equally disquieting. All of these provisions combined should have been sufficient for pro-life activists of every stripe to simply walk away, continue to preach the full pro-life message and let the bill go down in flames.

Instead, we have this silly argument about how we all have to go along, now that the Stupak language is in the bill, and do our best, tra la, tra la, tra la la la.

Well, sorry, but I don’t buy it! When people fail to be honest in their interpretations of pro-life philosophy before a major political effort, what will they do afterward? Now we know. They will spin a tale, whether valid or not, about uniting forces and pressing on.

In this case, I agree. Now that the water is over the dam and the damage is done, we all must do one simple thing! We must demand that the following be included in any health care reform proposal:

Respect for human personhood, respect for human personhood and respect for human personhood.

If this single principle were the cornerstone of reasonable health care reform—a reform based on justice for all—there would be no anti-life provisions in at all. As of this writing and regardless of which bill we read, none measure up to this standard, and thus all should be opposed.

But this is probably why American Life League does not get invited to those closed-door, 11th-hour meetings wherein some individuals negotiate away principle in order to rush out celebrating a fictitious success. Frankly, we at American Life League get on our knees and thank God that we are not invited to such events, as we would prefer to serve the best interest of the human person—who deserves equal protection under the law at all stages of life—rather than serve the special interests of Democrats and/or Republicans who are convinced that playing games with human lives is acceptable practice.

NRLC has exposed its agenda. While it’s surely no surprise, it is also deplorable. The good news is that this is not the final act in the “health care reform” drama.

So … now that the wayward have weighed in, the rest of us better get busy focusing on human personhood.

 

WesternFront America