unborn-human-fetus

NRLC removes Georgia Right to Life’s affiliation for being too pro-life

unborn-human-fetus

In a statement released Saturday, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) announced that Georgia Right to Life would no longer represent them as their Georgia state affiliate, despite their massive pro-life successes over the past 12 years.

National Right to Life welcomed the Georgia Life Alliance as its new affiliate in the state. Georgia Life Alliance is backed by RedState.com’s Erick Erickson and others who hold that legislative exceptions for rape and incest are acceptable political compromises. Last summer, Erickson called Georgia Right to Life the “Westboro Baptist Church” of the pro-life movement because they encouraged their Georgia representatives in Congress to withdraw support for the federal Fetal Pain Act once exceptions for rape and incest were included by Rep. Eric Cantor.

Georgia Right to Life pointed out that the Pain Capable Act was a messaging bill that never had a chance of clearing the Senate or wooing President Obama’s signature. GRTL believed the introduction of exceptions for rape and incest in the messaging bill was not only morally repugnant, but completely unnecessary and counterproductive for the success of the bill.

What message does it send to our pro-life representatives when you whip them to support legislation that denies the right to life to innocent babies conceived in rape? What message does it send to America about the value of children conceived in that violent act?

Georgia Life Alliance will apparently endorse NRLC legislation that sometimes exempts children conceived in rape and incest from legal protection. Nevertheless, GLA attorneys Emily Matson and Lance Cooper, could not state what exactly GLA’s pro-life positions would be. Cooper stated, “The group is very much still in the formation stage.” Matson said, “We’re formulating . . . .  We don’t have, or have not produced or published, our position on all of those issues. There are a lot of people involved in this, and so we are still finding our position on a lot of those things.”

Save the 1 spokesperson Rebecca Kiessling, who was conceived in rape, was discouraged by NRLC’s decision. She writes on Facebook: “NRLC’s actions in support of rape exceptions and against Georgia Right to Life are disgraceful to the prolife no exceptions cause.” It is now “clear that the emperor has no clothes, and they will need to be told so.”

The controversy seems to point to a fundamental question within the pro-life movement: what is the standard for being pro-life?

  • Ingrid Heimark

    But the other PCUCPA-laws don’t have a rape exception, and don’t NRLC support those? I don’t get this. Even if someone believes Rape-conceived babies doesn’t deserve protection, shouldn’t they at least be protected from pain?

  • stevenertelt

    This article is completely false. GRTL lost its affiliation for lobbying Congress to OPPOSE an abortion ban and abortion funding ban. NRLC has always opposed abortions in cases of rape or incest.

    • Josh Craddock

      They only pulled support when rape and incest exceptions were introduced and only encouraged their Georgia representatives (who signed commitments never to make such exceptions) to fulfill their commitments.

      Sadly, while NRLC may hold that position philosophically, they have allowed exceptions for rape and incest in their legislation (even when it is not politically “necessary” to pass said legislation).

      • stevenertelt

        Using your logic, if NRLC supports abortions in cases of rape or incest, GRTL must support ALL abortions, since it lobbied against the abortion ban.

        • pfrman1

          I suppose if there was more than a 0% chance that Obama would sign it into law, that could be a valid point. Why the eagerness to show precedent that the pro-life community is not only willing to capitulate a rape/incest clause as a last resort but is eagerly willing to surrender it before anyone on the other side even asks for it (and for a bill that is basically window dressing anyway)? I just am not getting this. If there’s something more to this story that explains these puzzling details, I’d love to know.

      • Rebecca Kiessling

        As Keith Mason from Personhood USA has now pointed out, NRLC supports conscientious objection for religious liberties – to not be forced to pay for contraception against your beliefs, but they want to force legislators and GRTL to authorize the abortion of rape-conceived children against their beliefs.

        • stevenertelt

          But GRTL supports making everyone pay for all abortions then, according to your logic. They opposed the abortion funding ban!

          • Rebecca Kiessling

            All NRLC had to do was to take a stand and fight it — there was plenty of time from when it was introduced, to get someone like Pam, Ryan or me in to sway Chris Smith and the rest of the exceptions Congressmen to change hearts and minds. It works — you know about Perry and Gingrich. And Personhood USA has utilized me — and Pam Stenzel — numerous of times to change the hearts of rape-exception AND pro-choice legislators. But NRLC has never done that.

    • Rebecca Kiessling

      How did they “oppose” the rape exception in the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection bill? Rolling over isn’t opposing it. Failing to bring in those conceived in rape to lobby against it isn’t opposing it. Rewarding Congressman Eric Cantor, who introduced the rape exception amendment, with a 100% approval rating isn’t opposing it. Giving out PAC endorsements to rape exception candidates isn’t opposing it. Define “opposed!” PLINO!

    • pfrman1

      Did NRLC attempt in ANY way to get the bill passed without the exceptions?

      • stevenertelt

        NRLC’s model bill contains no rape or incest exceptions as NRLC has OPPOSED rape or incest exceptions since 1973. In fact NO model legislation from NRLC has ANY rape or incest exceptions (one of the many factual errors in this article) NRLC did NOT add the exceptions after the bill was introduced in Congress.

        • Josh Craddock

          Steven, are you saying the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (as amended by Rep. Eric Cantor to exempt children conceived in rape or incest) was *not* NRLC-endorsed legislation? If it was not, I’ll readily correct the article.

          • stevenertelt

            What I am saying is NRLC has always opposed rape and incest exceptions
            and its version of the bill has NONE of those exceptions in it. That is
            what it prefers.

            It **RELUCTANTLY** supported the bill after
            exceptions were added — not because, as you mislead people into
            thinking, that it supports abortions in those cases. It supported the
            bill — as did MANY pro-life groups that for some odd reason you don’t
            attack like FRC, SBA, CWA, Focus on the Family, the Catholic Bishops,
            Live Action, AUL, and the list goes on and on and on — because it
            supports banning as many abortions as possible as soon as possible.

            The original bill NRLC supported in the first House vote on the bill did not have those exceptions.

            But I know all this doesn’t fit into your “attack NRLC for any reason even if not true” narrative.

        • pfrman1

          Thanks but that wasn’t what I asked. I asked if they attempted in any way to pull back the exception after it was introduced.

          • stevenertelt

            I assume they told the people behind changing the bill that they prefer the original wording without the exceptions. But NRLC doesn’t run Congress, they don’t get a vote. They’re not even the only pro-life group lobbying Congress. Dozens of groups do, and virtually all of them supported the bill the House voted on.

            If you want to blame anyone, blame pro-abortion President Barack Obama, Harry Reid and their friends who are keeping late-term abortions legal financed with your tax dollars, with NO EXCEPTIONS. If you were as angry with them as you are NRLC, we’d make some progress.

          • pfrman1

            I’m not sure if you realize how milquetoast those first couple lines sound. Maybe NRLC was more aggressive and tenacious than you inferred. But that did not sound at all impressive. Of course I realize that NRLC doesn’t run Congress but if they had been as passionate to try to get the exceptions dropped as they were of passing the bill, perhaps it would have had a different result. I mean, we know it wasn’t going to get past the Senate and Obama anyway. So why the milquetoast support for all in the womb? Why set the precedent in a “send a message bill” that the message is we will give up ground on the issue before our opponents even ask?

            And it’s really a strawman that you imply we don’t blame the pro abortion politicians. But they aren’t the ones who are throwing prolifers under the bus who stand for conscience during an optics vote.

          • stevenertelt

            I’ll give you the last word – this is my last post on this page.

            It’s no strawman to imply you and the handful of others trashing NRLC don’t blame the pro-abortion side. You all rarely if ever do. You all attack pro-lifers more often than Planned Parenthood. The Facebook and twitter pages of some people in the last 24-48 hours don’t contain even ONE post attacking abortion, but contain VOLUMES of posts eviscerating pro-lifers. That speaks volumes.

            Instead of holding the other side accountable so we can replace them and get about the business of actually banning abortions, you all trash pro-lifers. Maybe that’s why we haven’t banned abortions. When you finally figure out who the enemy is, babies will be saved.

          • pfrman1

            You mention the last 24-48 hrs specifically and of course there is a reason for the focus on NRLC during this time period. It is they who decided to “trash prolifers” with their decision to penalize a vote toward conscience during an optics vote.

            I don’t know who “you all” would be or if you know how much any one of the people you lump into that group you have knowledge of; if you know how much time they spend campaigning against pro abortion candidates or standing in front of planned parenthood. I don’t claim to know the others who posted here. Maybe you know them personally. You don’t know me. Yet you have made assumptions simply because I defend the conscience rights of those that NRLC apparently does not defend.

          • BCSWowbagger

            Steve, as a longtime supporter of a both/and approach — I back Personhood, I supported the Pain-Capable ban, and I respect pro-lifers who disagree with one or the other on prudential grounds — I’ve striven to see peace in the pro-life movement, and have tried to make my criticisms (when I’ve had any) fair and kind.

            From where I’m sitting, it has indeed seemed to me that there are Personhood people who devote more energy to attacking mainstreamers than defeating abortion. But, at the same time, it has seemed to me that there are mainstreamers — led by you personally — who do the exact same thing in reverse. I had to stop reading LifeNews because your coverage of Personhood was so willfully slanted and generally terrible, while you cheerled for victories that were certainly no more efficacious. I haven’t been back in years. And that’s too bad, because your competitors at LifeSiteNews have been a bit unfair to some Catholic bishops, and I’d like a viable alternative to them.

            There is blood on the hands of some in the Personhood movement, yes, but I ask you to remove the plank from your own eye before you become Keith Mason’s vision doctor.

            I do wish we could all recognize the difference between tactical disagreement and moral evil. This internecine sniping would be finished overnight if everyone had that figured out, and then we could accept our tactical disagreements and get on with the work of saving babies. It’s very frustrating to be stuck on the sidelines watching my donated dollars get wasted on this nonsense, and I sometimes find myself wishing you’d ALL just destroy each other, leaving Mary Ann Kuharski to become the new face of the national pro-life movement.

            Respectfully,
            James

  • ProLifeWarrior

    No exceptions? WHAT?!?! GRTL rates state-legislators who voted in favor of allowing abortions for babies who have fetal deformities as being 100% pro-life. That’s playing fast and loose with facts and the faux-outrage. Not to mention the unmitigated gall of ANY pro-life group scoring Congressman Chris Smith as anything but 100 % pro-life. I’ve never been able to figure out alleged pro-life groups who do more attacking within the movement than at actual proaborts. Such a shame.

    • Rebecca Kiessling

      Congressman Chris Smith INTRODUCED the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion bill WITH a rape exception already in it! #NotProLife

      • stevenertelt

        And Georgia Right to Life approved a bill that allows disabled unborn babies to be killed. They’re “PLINOs” too right?

        • Rebecca Kiessling

          They removed their support for the Pain Capable bill in Georgia when the fetal abnormalies language was added. #NoCompromise — that’s right.

          • ProLifeWarrior

            Here’s were the real hypocrisy comes in. Yes GRTL pulled their support of he bill, but ALL OF THOSE state legislators who voted for the bill with THE DEADLY exception for fetal abnormalities continue to maintain a 100% pro-life rating from GRTL. In what Universe are those legislators more pro-life than Chris Smith?

      • ProLifeWarrior

        I don’t know who you are Miss Kiessling but to even insinuate that Chris Smith is anything but pro-life shows a total lack of understanding and some disdain of and for the pro-life movement. Do you even know what you’re talking about? Shame on you for even remotely misrepresenting Mr. Smith’s position on life. He is a stalwart with a long history of pro-life activism.

        • pfrman1

          So why did he introduce the exception into an optics bill with no chance of passing. I’m not saying he’s not pro-life. But I’m saying that action does not add up. Could you explain the reasoning behind such an action?

          • ProLifeWarrior

            There are a million people alive today because of the Hyde Amendment. It is clear that your ideology is more important to you than those million lives. Such a shame.

          • pfrman1

            What’s such a shame is your violent strawmanning which you already know to be untrue. The Hyde amenment was voted on by both houses and signed by the president. Anyone with even half a brain knew the fetal pain act would never see the light of day in the senate whether babies conceived in rape or incest were eagerly cast aside or not. Yet that’s just what happened. A bill used simply for political grandstanding with no chance of passage was the vehicle to communicate to the world we won’t even defend those conceived in rape and incest for a symbolic bill that we all knew would not pass and therefore saves zero babies. But apparently press releases and fundraising for a going nowhere compromise bill was more important than sending a consistent powerful message of respect for ALL life with that symbolic vote. THAT is a shame!

          • ProLifeWarrior

            Are you talking about the Hyde Amendment or the Pain Capable Bill?

          • pfrman1

            I addressed both in my comment.

          • ProLifeWarrior

            Yes but it would seem that your Miss Quisling objected to the Hyde amendment and that is what I was referring to. Realizing how difficult it is to justify opposing the Hyde Amendment you switched over to the Pain Bill. TO further clarify this began when your Miss Quisling attacked Congressman Smith. I still have yet to find anyone who can explain how such a pure 100 percent organization grant their 100% pure rating to legislators that voted for the fetal anomalies exception.

          • pfrman1

            I just did a word search. The only time the Hyde amendment comes up anywhere on this page is when you reference it. Not her. I’ve demonstrated why the comparison is apples to oranges. You haven’t refuted that demonstration. Yet YOU are the one that keeps bringing it up.

            To paraphrase you: Realizing how difficult it is to justify inserting the rape exception into the grandstanding pain bill (the subject of the article and preceding comments) you switched over to the Hyde amendment (not the subject at hand). It’s funny that you accuse me of changing the subject when it is you and only you that have done so.

            Furthermore, I am not Rebecca Kiessling nor to I necessarily agree with all of her viewpoints. I do understand how she can take such an issue very personally with her background. I find it repugnant that name calling results from disagreement. But I understand she’s been called worse due to how bigoted people view the circumstances of her conception. It’s sad when championing the rights of those who came into existence in the traumatic manner she did are slandered as traitors because of it. But that’s what I’ve come to expect from many “pro-lifers”.

            I can’t speak for how Ms. Kiessling assesses the difference between Smith and the other legislators you mention. I can’t even say that I am familiar with the Georgia bill you bring up. So at the moment, I’m ill equipped to talk about it.

            But if your defense of one bill relies not on discussing the merits or drawbacks of that bill, but on trying to say, “well it’s not as bad as ____”. That’s a rather weak defense indeed.

          • ProLifeWarrior

            Wow. That’s scary. The no-tax payer funding of abortion that SHE mentions is in fact called The Hyde Amendment.

          • pfrman1

            Just because you call it a fact doesn’t make it so. In this case it’s not a fact. They are not the same bill. I do notice your continued obfuscation of answering the questions I originally asked which were (unlike your comments) directly related to the main topic of the article. Let me remind you of these unanswered questions you try so hard to ignore: So why did he introduce the exception into an optics bill with no chance of passing? I’m not saying he’s not pro-life. But I’m saying that action does not add up. Could you explain the reasoning behind such an action?

          • ProLifeWarrior

            You’re confused and talking about two different bills. THe one Rebecca mentions is the Tax Payer funding of abortion referred to as the Hyde Amendment. That’s what I responded to. You jumped in with asking about the Pain Capable legislation. The amendments that you find so troubling were introduced NOT by Chris Smith but by Eric Cantor. A working knowledge of what happens on The Hill would be helpful to you.

          • pfrman1

            You are correct. I was confused at first. But you were confused as well by calling the Hyde Amendment and the No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Bill the same bill. So you don’t have the room to be condescending as you were in your last statement. It’s not very becoming either.But I should expect no less after observing the childish namecalling you aimed toward Rebecca.

            I was a little confused at first because Rebecca had referenced both rape exception clause insertions in the course of her comments. I had initially mixed up the two. Yet by my last comment, I was no longer confused and meant exactly what I asked. So you can either be condescending of the initial confusion I had already corrected by my last comment, or you can simply deal with the question. The choice is yours.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I think calling a woman quisling for being offended by a bill that would protect many babies, but not her, is kinda rude. In fact, the rape exception, althoguh it might make us seem more “humane” instead makes us look inconsistent and misogynistic, ie punishing women for sex, and not true pro-life.

            Just my two cents

          • ProLifeWarrior

            I apologize for that – it wasn’t intended. I was typing without looking up and that is how my spell-check most unfortunately changed her last name.

        • Marauder

          I really, really think it would be in your best interests to look up who Rebecca Kiessling is before you keep having this discussion.

  • Super_Red

    Josh, I’ve got to say this headline is incredibly misleading. The NRLC board voted to accept a new affiliate to represent Georgia since the current affiliate had publicly committed actions to get themselves disaffiliated. This isn’t about whether NRLC or GRTL are “too” prolife– but GRTL, by actively lobbying against good legislation, was no longer representing previously shared goals.

    NO babies deserve today, regardless of how they were conceived. But I prefer to spend my time fighting against those who are promoting abortion- not those who may have differing views of how to reach the end goal.

    • pfrman1

      Can you explain to me why you believe that legislation that everyone knew would not be passed by Reid and Obama but still that still surrenders the right to life for babies conceived in rape and incest (even before that surrender was even asked for by the pro-aborts) is a piece of “good legislation”?

      • Super_Red

        Sure. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act refocuses the abortion debate on the humanity of the unborn child. I grew up in the partial-birth abortion era. I was a kid when it was on the news all the time. My generation grew up with a distaste about abortion, and I believe it’s because we grew up with a face on the debate– the baby.

        In the same way, focusing on the pain of the baby can have an affect(or effect… I confess I can never remember the appropriate word) on many who try and choose to look the other way in the abortion debate.

        When there is a vote on legislation like this, it creates a line in the sand, and pro-abortion legislators have to deal with a vote against this legislation in their campaign. That won’t make a difference everywhere, but it will in some places, and that is worthwhile. Not only can it have an affect(or effect xD) on the election, but it also continues the conversation in the public eye about these babies who can feel pain, and further equating babies and late abortions with a “pro-choice” position.

        The very fact that it wasn’t going to be signed by Obama means that in-fighting with other groups over whether or not there were exceptions is particularly unhelpful. This was about scoring votes for elections and educational opportunities. If keeping this debate alive in the news sways even one person then I consider this “good” legislation. That’s my opinion, and others have obviously come to other conclusions, but we all want all babies to live. Let’s use these conversations to build each other up to better reach that goal, not loudly tear each other down over differences of strategy in how to achieve that goal.

        • pfrman1

          So it reinforces they are not human if conceived in rape, correct?

          • Super_Red

            “So it reinforces the belief that the unborn are not human and don’t feel pain if conceived in rape, correct?” —- Uhm, no. Absolutely not. ALL individuals are human beings deserving of protection. Right now, our laws say that a section of human beings- the unborn- are not deserving of protection from active killing. Those laws are wrong and must be changed.

            I don’t work on the Hill, and I never have. I wasn’t involved in strategy talks, so I can’t speak for anyone involved. My person opinion, for whatever that’s worth as a random person on the internet, is that many had seen what happened to the abortion discussion nationally– pro-life leaders being attacked about rape left and right. It didn’t matter WHAT they said or how they said it, the headlines were skewed and it became about victims of rape as opposed to victims of abortion. Having seen this, and knowing that the legislation was a message bill, they opted to put in language that they thought would keep the national messaging on track.

            That’s my opinion, and weighing the options, and having followed the media coverage prior to that language being put in, I can say that, whether or not I personally agree with their actions, I don’t doubt their motivations. That’s why I find that attacking other pro-lifers isn’t helpful to the cause.

          • pfrman1

            ‘So it reinforces the belief that the unborn are not human and don’t feel pain if conceived in rape, correct?’ —- Uhm, no. Absolutely not. ALL individuals are human beings deserving of protection. ”

            I never said the belief was true. I simply said the pain capable act specifically excluding those conceived in rape and incest reinforces a belief that they are not human and don’t feel pain. You gave your beliefs as the rebuttal to my question. But I wasn’t asking about your beliefs but rather about what the bill reinforces. You replied “absolutely not” but then never show how it does not.

            You already acknowledged that this bill was not about pass/fail. So why promote a innacurate message to a bill that is only about message and why punish organizations and politicians who don’t agree with promoting that innacurate message? Georgia Right to Life worked tirelessly to defend the unborn but were retributively punished for standing up for their conscience on a message bill that promoted a destructive dangerous message toward those conceived in rape.

            You have no proof pro-life members would have voted against the measure without a rape exception. I don’t believe they would have. If they had, it would have led to a productive conversation asking those members why they believed those conceived in abortion could not feel pain. It would have been a wonderful opportunity to get the rape discussion back on track. Instead, they opted to throw those conceived in rape under the bus for a bill that wouldn’t save a single baby. That is such a shame. And I’m sure it pains those like Rebecca to know people are so eager to throw those lives like her own away for even just a message bill.

          • Super_Red

            I haven’t thrown any lives away, and I work to ensure that EVERY life is treated as it is: Precious.

            Yes- I gave my belief. This is an opinion blog, and I gave you mine. I have no desire to argue with you and the questions that you’ve asked here are ones that I’ve already answered.

            I never said pro-life members would have voted against it- I gave you my opinion about national messaging. I stand by that opinion.

            I would never throw away Rebecca’s life or the lives of any children conceived in rape. Please don’t confuse who your actual enemy is.

          • pfrman1

            You keep saying “I” but the questions I asked have nothing to do with you personally but about the message the bill gives. So quite honestly, you AREN’T answering those questions with answers about “I”.

          • Super_Red

            I didn’t write the bill, and I didn’t vote on the bill. I can only give you “my” opinion of the message the bill gives. I believe the message of the bill is good. It connects pain- something you and I both experience and can relate to- to abortion – something most people choose to not think about. I do not believe that anyone looks at the bill, sees exceptions in it, and thinks “oh, well I guess babies who are conceived in rape don’t feel pain.”

            I’ve already given you my opinion on why the language was in the legislation.

          • pfrman1

            So you believe it is right and good for NRLC to retributively kick out Georgia Right to Life for having the same opinion as mine and Rebecca’s about the bill?

          • Super_Red

            Having not been there and only read the coverage and subsequent press releases? I believe that it was an appropriate action for an organization to accept a new affiliate when the previous one was actively and publicly fighting against their legislation. GRTL chose a course of action that they surely knew would end in disaffiliation.

            There is a difference in having a difference of opinion (something that GRTL has had for years while on the NRLC board, based on their own posts and commentary) and actively and publicly fighting them. No matter what the cause or organization, no one in their right mind would support that kind of public dissension.

          • pfrman1

            See above regarding your innacurate ephumism.

          • Super_Red

            As I responded, it’s not inaccurate and it’s not a euphemism. I hope we don’t disagree on the end goal that all babies be saved.

          • pfrman1

            Yes it is. See above. And of course we agree about that. I just don’t agree about mob tactics that seek to silence differing opinions.

          • Super_Red

            So if you were on the board of an organization, where most agreed on a particular strategy, you would vote to keep an affiliate who was publicly attacking the very organization they were part of? That just doesn’t make sense to me. I’m sure that GRTL will continue doing their pro-life work regardless of their NRLC affiliation, so the only thing that is affected is that two organizations who have different strategies, (with one of those organizations making that very public) are no longer affiliated as part of the same group.

          • pfrman1

            “Vote to keep”? But yet they didn’t get rid of them? How could there be a vote to keep them without a decision to get rid of them being on the table?

          • Super_Red

            I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re genuinely trying to answer my question and that I”m misreading snark in your last comment. In that vein, I will rephrase my question in hopes that I will be more clearly understood because I think that arguing amongst ourselves for the sake of it is completely unproductive.

            So again: Let’s say you were on the board of an organization, with a vote before to accept a challenge to one of your affiliates. The affiliate in question had *publicly* and *actively* gone against the organization calling attention to infighting within the ranks. Given those circumstances, I would be surprised if you would vote to keep the current affiliate (ie, vote against accepting the challenge). A challenge was brought, the board voted, an affiliate that has not publicly attacked the organization is in place. Everyone can now go about their business focusing on the strategy they think will be most effective in ending this holocaust without (on either GRTL or NRLC’s side) having to deal with others who are publicly opposed to your actions.

          • pfrman1

            I still disagree, maybe because of what I have seen from Right to Life in my own state. Cleveland, Ohio Right to Life was kicked out because they also stood for traditional marriage. They were not replaced. They were kicked out. So I see a pattern that everyone must be in agreement on every issue lock, stock and barrel or be kicked out. Meanwhile the Ohio Right to Life endorsed Democrat John Boccieri in 2004 when homeschooling dad, strong pro-life champion and organizer of our local Lifechain; Randy Pope ran against him. Pope lost and Boccieri later became one of the deciding votes for Obama care. Ohio Right to Life never got replaced. It seems in instance after instance that Right to Life has taken action opposed to my convictions. So I conclude that my efforts against abortion are better represented elsewhere.

          • Super_Red

            I do recall Cleveland being kicked out due to RTL being a single-issue only organization, so if you prefer supporting organizations that are multi-issue there are many out there to choose from.

            Your conclusion is reasonable to me- even if I come to a different conclusion for my personal efforts. =) We all do what we can to save lives.

          • Marauder

            “Cleveland, Ohio Right to Life was kicked out because they also stood for traditional marriage. They were not replaced. They were kicked out. So I see a pattern that everyone must be in agreement on every issue lock, stock and barrel or be kicked out.”

            Except that same-sex marriage debates have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. They were bringing an entirely separate issue into a movement that has a variety of opinions on same-sex marriage and making it part of their official platform.

  • Rob Cui

    Wow. The pro-life movement is in big trouble if we can’t even agree amongst ourselves and attack those who may not agree with our views. I am guilty of this myself. This is exactly what the Enemy wants. He delights in sowing division so that we lose focus on the goal, which to end abortion on demand in this country and globally. I suggest we all get on our knees and pray about how we can all work together and to not attack those who we disagree with. The focus needs to be on the pro-choice/pro-death side. Obama, Sebellius, Reid, Pelosi, NARAL, NOW etc. Remember them? Why not work on real and not just symbolic or message legislation? As someone who has been involved in the pro-life movement, I am also pro-personhood, especially in regards to educating people about the sanctity of life that touches on so many areas of our policy and health issues throughout all stages of life. I have not come across anything else as effective as personhood in getting the light to go on in people’s heads regarding their position on abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia. It makes people think and it is a valuable educational tool so don’t disregard it as a valuable asset in the pro-life movement.

    • Super_Red

      Well said, Rob. With over a million abortions a year just in the US, there is surely room for loving disagreement about strategy. I hope that all of us, no matter what we personally thinks works best for the overall goal, hopes and prays that this battle is won– regardless of what strategy achieves it. Let’s attack our real enemy!

      • pfrman1

        I wish we could lovingly disagree yet NRLC showed by their retributive actions toward Georgia Right to Life that they would not tolerate disagreement. It’s their way or the highway, conscience be damned.

        • Super_Red

          as I said above…. “The NRLC board voted to accept a new affiliate to represent Georgia since the current affiliate had publicly committed actions to get themselves disaffiliated.”

          Choosing to accept a new affiliate isn’t “unloving”. Posts attacking other pro-lifers, however, does fit that definition.

          • pfrman1

            You can use “choosing to accept a new affiliate”. But it is as much of a euphemism as when people say ” terminating a pregnancy”. They kicked Georgia Right to Life out for daring to disagree with them about excluding those like Rebecca from being said to have pain and being deserving of protection.

          • Super_Red

            It’s not a euphemism- it’s the reality. I’m sorry that you don’t like it. GRTL acted against the rest of the board publicly. It should come as no surprise to anyone that those actions were taken into account when a new pro-life group challenged.

          • pfrman1

            Terminating a pregnancy is also accurate. I don’t think you know what the term euphemism means.

          • Super_Red

            Well, I haven’t had any coffee today. Forgive me if my vocabulary isn’t up to your standards right now. Based on what I’ve read, the board did not “kick out” GRTL- they voted on a challenge and accepted it. Based on that, I find that choosing to use “kick out” is misleading and slanted, and don’t agree with that terminology.

          • pfrman1

            So if they didn’t kick them out than they are still an affiliate, correct?

          • Super_Red

            You can use whatever language makes you happy, pfrman. I’ve explained why I think yours is slanted and disagree with it’s usage.