Nathan Sheets

Colorado Right to Life (NOT affiliated with National Right to Life) opposed a bill that would require women seeking abortions to see an ultrasound.

In Portland, Oregon, 70% of abortion-minded women who see their babies on the ultra-sound screen don't abort. That's a huge percentage. Can you imagine if it were actually required?

But Colorado Right to Life, closely affiliated with American Right to Life, opposed it saying that it regulates child-killing. So, instead of potentially saving 70% of the babies, they would rather none be saved.

Thankfully they offer another solution: an outright ban on all abortions! Well why didn't we think of that?

Like I've said before, we'll see how many babies are saved via the purist crowd. Maybe this is all a part of their strategy and we'll all think them later.

See, it's one thing to be against parental notification and claim that it doesn't save any lives (which I disagree with but at least that makes sense), it's another to actually oppose a bill that will actually save lives. Maybe 20%, maybe 70%, who knows? I think the pro-choice reasons for being against this bill (traumatizing women!!!) are better than CRL's.

HatTip: Anonymous

Welcome everyone to my blog. A few things: if you'd like to leave a comment, you will have to leave it "anonymously". Please, at the end of your posts, put your name at the bottom so we can address you by it.

Judging by the love fest from the show's listeners so far (I track your IP address, by the way!) I'm sure it's just a matter of time before I join "the personhood wing" of the pro-life movement!

Currently I am working on researching some of the concerns put forth by the show. In the mean time, I'll be working on going through all of the hate mail I've received so far.

My recent discussion on the Bob Enyart show with American Right to Life president Brian Rohrbough is now posted online here.

There's really a lot to say. They were very nice, and said a lot that I would like to look into. I have already gotten a few e-mails telling me I've been "duped". Well, OK, considering I haven't yet changed my mind on anything!

Stay tuned!

I just finished my radio debate with Brian Rohrbough of American Right to Life. I will post a link when it becomes available to me.

It went well. It actually went exactly how I envisioned. They have a lot of good points to bring up, especially regarding the Supreme Court, so I hope to research that a little more, talk to some people and either go back on the radio or publish my findings on here.

Perhaps it's my inherent love for "weird" groups (Survivors, Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, the folks protesting outside the houses of abortionists/contractors in Colorado), but I like them, which is obviously more than could be said for NRLC :). The fact remains, however, that both ideologies will clash and there's nothing that can be done about it. There isn't much wiggle room; you have to pick a side (or, like most Americans, ignore abortion altogether).

They gave me a lot to think about. Again, I'll post the link here when they get it up.

I have recieved quite a bit of feedback from many different people due to my rather scathing post on American Right to Life a few days ago, including from American Right to Life themselves. They invited me on their radio show for a discussion/debate. (First it was framed as a disscussion, then as a debate. Blah!) I will be participating in that on Tuesday, but I am not yet sure of the air-date/time. I will be sure to let you all know as well as provide it on here.

Catch up on what the deal is here, here, here and here just to get you started. Or you can click on the "American Right to Life" tag on my sidebar.

Does anyone have any questions that you would like for me to present to them? I'll screen comments and let you ask away. I'm sure I'll be able to get to them.

I anticipate that this will be a good discussion. As most of you know, I'm somewhere in the middle, trying to find out when it's "smart" to pass laws and when it's detrimental.

Yesterday I cross-posted my American Right to Life post to ProLifeBlogs here. Frankly, I was surprised that they (ProLifeBlogs) approved it to appear on the front page because pro-lifers in general are terrified at being negative. The only reason why I posted it there was because ProLifeBlogs bizarrely approved the "media advisory" I told you all about basically titled, "National Right to Life Turned Jesus into the Romans".

American Right to Life has since contacted me and I will possibly be on their radio show next week to discuss pro-life strategy with their director. I will give credit where credit is due: Donna, their office manager, has been especially nice to me despite my screaming at her over the phone. (Just kidding!)

One of the "you can never be negative!" commenters on the entry assumed that National Right to Life is "my organization". Just to be clear, I don't work for National Right to Life. I interned for an affiliate for three months years ago. I remain friends with the office staff and occasionally do stuff with them (including a pro-life leadership camp), though I do talk to them quite often on the phone. I know two people in the National office personally, only one of whom I speak to on a semi-regular basis. Other than those two, I doubt anyone in that office has ever heard of me. I'm an obscure blogger. I am very careful to distance myself and my generally harsher rhetoric from NRLC and ORTL so as not to inadvertently create the impression that I'm speaking on their behalf.

As for "being negative", I have no problem with that whatsoever. Frankly, I think we need to be a little more harsh in the pro-life movement, especially to pro-choicers if you read this blog. No, I'm not talking about with pregnant women, so don't go there. I'm talking about thinking  about abortion using common sense. Call it child-killing. Describe it as slaughtering. I have more negative remarks from pro-lifers for using the word "slaughter" on some days than I do from pro-choicers who take faux offense at me comparing abortion to the holocaust. Seriously. As I wrote in a comment:

Also, there's not a problem at all with being negative. My problem has nothing to do with ARL being "negative" as opposed to the substance of what they are saying. If someone (ARL) truly believes that someone is all but keeping abortion legal, I welcome them being negative. ARL's message is that NRLC has it all wrong and that they are acting immorally. How are they supposed to convey that in a positive way? I just didn't think that the "Judas" post should go unanswered.

I'm not defending ARL's position here, but we're talking about child-killing. ARL thinks that NRLC is all but performing the abortions. What's wrong with them being negative about it? So long as they expect and welcome people to respond in like-fashion about their own organization and principles, who cares? And don't say that it "doesn't accomplish anything". On the contrary: it forces people to think about the long accepted strategy of the pro-life movement (National Right to Life) and question if it's really what we should be doing (my position: yes). I welcome that. My problem is ARL is more than just "Oh, they're being negative toward National!" It's that I believe that their strategy is 1) fundementally flawed and 2) possibly more damaging to the unborn. And hopefully ARL and I can hammer these questions out over the next few weeks. I am glad that they invited me to their show, as, in the past, I've only gotten screeching comments from their supporters (and possibly their staff). So long as they want to discuss the issues respectfully, who cares if the discussion gets a little heated?

Brian Rohrbough, president of the new pro-life organization American Right to Life has recently issued a "Media Advisory". As I suspected from the inception of this new organization, ARL is going to be spending a lot of time criticizing National Right to Life.

It’s interesting to note, first of all, that when you go to the American Right to Life website you’ll find many cross words with NRLC but little explaining the “better” way to be pro-life. NRLC is constantly denounced by ARL as being worse than pro-choicers themselves, but yet the solutions to the “failed” stratagem of NRLC is no where to be found on the ARL website.

Oh wait, unless you want to pay $15, that is. That’s right: on the “Strategy” page which I eagerly clicked on in order to find out how ARL plans on ending abortion in twelve years very quickly blasts the “immoral” strategy of the National Right to Life and then tells us that we have to order a DVD in order to find out how we can stop being immoral. It's like those late night infomercials that promise us a way to earn one hundred-grand with minimal work...and we only need to buy a program to find out how!

I’m all for denouncing, by the way. Go ahead: attack the National Right to Life, call them baby-killing accomplices—but at the very least show us how to do things the right way without charging us money. It’s for the children, after all.

ARL peeps seem to think that should Roe vs. Wade become overturned and the choices of abortion finally go back to the states, NRLC will simply cease to be an organization. Ah yes, come the glorious day of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade they’ll brush off their hands, pack up their Washington DC office and go back home. ARL seems to think that the most important thing for the people at NRLC is to be all Libertarian about abortion and return power to the states, case closed.

And I’m not saying that National Right to Life is perfect—they aren’t. But I fail to see how creating an organization that will, over time, raise thousands of dollars for the sole purpose of attacking National Right to Life helps anything. That’s what American Right to Life is. Well, at least that’s all I can tell that they do via their webpage without paying $15 for the “strategy” that will end abortion in 12 years.

While it certainly is possible that American Right to Life will pass some kind of personhood bill in some small, conservative state, the fact remains that it will have to make its way up to the Supreme Court. And such a bill will be struck down by the Supreme Court. This is the realistic reality right now. We must continue to pray for God to touch the hearts of the people of this wicked nation, and He surely will do so. But 1) He will not force morality into their hearts, 2) abortion is the root of a greater spiritual problem and 3) we should be doing what we can and be at least trying to save some of the children. This is a point that ARL refuses to address.

ARL would rather 1.5 million children all be slaughtered than save, say, half of them. They have the position that it is unacceptable for even one child to die (which is a correct position) and that no children should be saved unless they all can be saved (which is a morally reprehensible position).

The ultimate goal of the ARL is to pass a Personhood Amendment. These days an Amendment is very, very hard to pass, requiring three-fourths of the States to ratify it. Yes, if abortion ever becomes viewed as slavery is now viewed, it may be easier, but it should be noted that that’s not how abortion is viewed. Should we go to war over the issue as we did with slavery? Maybe, but you’ll have to order the DVD to find out!

I recently go the following comment from what I presume to be an American Right to Life supporter:

Alan Keyes is not "against" a Human Life Amendment as you said. Alan Keyes said he supports a HLA, but that it is not necessary, because the Constitution already protects the lives of the unborn.

When it comes to child-killing regulations such as parental notification, the question is not, "Will it save babies?" but should be, "Is it in obedience to God?" There are a million ways to save babies from abortion. Paul Hill most definitely saved babies by his actions, but most would agree that even though he saved babies lives, it's not okay to take the life of someone in order to save others.

But child-killing regulations do exactly that. They justify the killing of the innocent in order to save some. Passing a law that says, "You can kill all your kids if you just get your parents permission first" is evil in the sight of God. "Do not murder" is a moral absolute, and is not relative. If Satan offered to end abortion in America, as long as one Christian was willing to kill one innocent child, that would be evil. It would save millions, perhaps more, but still evil. Satan wants us to disobey God, and we disobey God when we say it's okay to kill children.

There are some things here worth noting. The first is that I think it's worth pointing out is that I don't think anyone who works for the National Right to Life is against a Human Life Amendment either. I think the general feeling is that we would like a Human Life Amendment that will actually pass, not cause abortion-on-demand to become more cemented in our society.

Secondly, at least this person (albeit anonymously) says straight-out that they know that their position would cause more children to die. They're OK with millions of babies dying while standing on principle, but not millions of babies being saved while creating laws slowly prohibiting abortion in a nation that is so wicked that it will kill its own children.

Now, to get to the actual point: I understand where these people are coming from. I am tired of abortion. But until our movement adopts the position of going out en masse and taking over abortion clinics in a Boston Tea Party form, babies are going to continued to be killed. The question is, what are we going to do about it?

ARL seems not to understand that NRLC doesn't go into a place where abortion is illegal and say, "We want parental consent!" Abortion is legal everywhere in the United States. They also seem not to realize that, because of the wicked state of our nation, we also can't just waltz in and say, "Abortion is over!" We don't have the power, nor the authority to do so. We are blessed by God to live in a country where we are part of the political process and where we can actually be having this conversation. Does this mean that America makes God smile? No. I don't believe a nation that slaughters it's children will come down favorably in the eyes of Adonai Tseva'ot.

ARL apparently would rather have total abortion-on-demand rather than abortion only in cases of rape and incest. Not that I (or any pro-lifer in the Natioanal Right to Life, by the way) approves of killing children conceived in rape or incest, of course. But I would venture to say that that would be an improvement, considering only 1% of abortion cases come out of rape. But no, says ARL, we would rather have 1.5 million children dead!

While the commenter says that "there are a million ways to save babies from abortion," there is no way to do it politically with a no-compromise attitude. So while this person espouses obvious points such as "there are a million other ways" to end abortion, it's kind of interesting that, at the same time, ARL will spend resources, money and time into doing what will not work (at this time): passing a Human Life Amendment. For those who don't know, passing an amendment is virtually impossible.

I realize the importance of having faith in God. Believe, I realize it more than most people, I think. We can do nothing without Him. But in His goodness He will not force His will on the free will of people. People have to change by their own choice. We hope that they change in a process of getting to know Him, but when it comes to child-killing, the fact remains one does not have to believe in God to be against it. Legislation, along with education, are what we need. We cannot force total pro-life thought on a nation where even the Christians are up to their knees in abortive birth-control pills and an anti-child mentality.

You know what cements abortion into a culture more than parental consent? Total, unregulated abortion-on-demand, with a pro-life movement who will only move if every child is spared.

Yesterday I blogged that Alan Keyes is a part of the newly formed group American Right to Life. I actually don't think it's true. They have his name listed on their website but for something else. We are still awaiting a list of their supposed "board members".

I probably should write something that's relevant to the theme of this blog. That is, that child-killing is wrong. One thing I noted in an article this morning is that Alan Keyes, who is victoriously listed on the American Right to Life website that I blogged about two days ago as being against the "ineffective" Partial-Birth Abortion Ban is actually against a Human Life Amendment, which is pretty much the sole goal of ARTL, other than blasting the National Right to Life, that is.

I wonder if this will irritate the ARTL people. Having a quick conversation with one of them on friend Jill Stanek's blog (which I quickly ditched in favor of not going insane) I get the feeling that making basic, logical connections is not their m'etier. Attacking other pro-lifers is.

Question: Do parental consent laws directly kill babies?
My answer: No. In fact they will save a handful of babies now that parents are clued in. Without the law the baby will be killed a lot easier.
ATL Supporter's Answer: Actually, it's the law that kills the child.

This is literally what I've been told by an ATL supporter. This is not a joke. I'm beginning to think that the pro-choicers are right about pro-lifers' intelligences. (Italics designate sarcasm, S4C ladies!)

Another quote from a supporter of ATL:  "Incrementalism has never, and will never, save a single baby." That's quite a statement to make. NRLC has never (and will never!) save a single baby?

Perhaps I'm being a bit brazen in attributing this perplexing and dim stance on parental consent laws to the entire American Right to Life organization, but I doubt it. I've come across groups like this before, where their sole purpose is to attack Right to Life. Then when you start talking to them—and I'm not even a member of Right to Life, by the way—they attack you and say that your support for parental consent is what sticks the curette into the womb for dismemberment, not an ignorant teenaged mother and murderous abortionist. That's really going to endear me to your cause, guys!

I'm hoping that I can lay off the American Right to Life posts, because I do want to be able to support them if they can actually come up with legislation that won't bring us into another thirty years of Roe vs. Wade. I just wish they would stop insinuating that the rest of us aren't true pro-lifers. Heck, I'm apparently the only pro-lifer in the world that actually thinks mothers should be punished for getting abortions! It doesn't get much more die-hard than that!

Recently I was talking with my "connection" at National Right to Life (by "connection", I mean an old-coworker) and that got me to thinking about the current branches of the pro-life movement, about which I blogged just one entry ago.

If you look at the American Right to Life website, you will see that their goal is to end abortion in 12 years. And if they don't, they say, their entire leadership board will step down and replace it with new leadership. I wish they would have made this commitment in 1973 when Roe vs. Wade went through, because then they might have a little bit more of an appreciation for the road blocks ahead. I fail to find one way in which you can blame the NRLC for abortion still being legal. I defy anyone to produce a decent hypothesis.

But I was reminded about what former Oregon Right to Life president Dr. Ken Wilson said about abortion a few years ago in a promotional video. To paraphrase: Jeremiah went 30 years without a single convert.

American Right to Life apparently wants abortion to end now. But then again, who doesn't? The problem is there is a big difference between wanting something and attaining something. You can't just stick the abortion issue in the microwave and have it be done in 6 minutes. Abortion is a complex issue (though it shouldn't be) and abortion rights have been ingrained into the lives of Americans. You can't just take it away without resistance. And our resistance is strong: the pro-choice movement has the money. They have a lot of political power. They have the colleges and universities. All we really have is the truth and some great organizations like...National Right to Life.

I really can't stress enough that I am a total "on principle" pro-lifer. I never agree with abortion. This is why I'm a blogger and don't work for Right to Life—because as a Right to Life employee you have to be gracious with the "other side" in order to save babies. That's not my cup of tea. So I choose to blog and help Right to Life out any way I can as a volunteer. But I choose to save as many babies as possible as opposed to saving a principle. Making an exception for rape and incest doesn't approve of abortions in cases of rape and incest: it is saying "Fine, we'll give you this for the time being." Once we can save 90% of the babies we'll be able to work on the hearts of the mothers who want to abort a rapist's child.

Jill Stanek broke the news yesterday of a new group forming called American Right to Life. In consists of several prominent pro-life leaders, some who I like (Alan Keyes), and many who I don't like (remaining nameless).

This group was formed with the basic function of opposing Natianal Right to Life, also known as the only pro-life organization that is politically effective. And what irritates me most is that I agree with American Right to Life on virtually everything.

This all comes down to what I've talked about before: principle vs. effectiveness. ARTL is apparently shocked that "NRTL and others have dictated a strategy of child-killing regulations (consent; waiting, consent, PBA, etc., "and then you can kill the baby"). Geeze. If this is how these people see the actions of Right to Life, we can see just how effective they'll be politically.

Note to ARTL: No one in National Right to Life agrees with abortion. But because they'd rather save babies than stand by and complain, they do what is politically savvy. I constantly have to lecture pro-choice advocates that Americans are not gung-ho for partial-birth abortion, and now apparently I have to lecture you that the majority of the country is not pro-life to the "extreme" extent that you (and, hey, what do you know, and I!) are.

Suppose National Right to Life doesn't put a rape and incest exception in a bill for parental consent. It simply will not pass. Even in the most conservative states it's tough for pro-life legislation to pass without a "rape and incest" exception, because the pro-choice movement has managed to fixate Americans so much on that phrase. If NRLC doesn't put them in there, they won't pass.

Parental Consent Bill Passing: Babies saved.
Parental Consent Bill Not Passing: Babies not saved.

Which one does teh evel NRLC want and which one does ARTL want? Their political ignorance makes it clear.

Even more sad is the ARTL's opposition of the only piece of federal regulation on abortion, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. No, seriously, they're against it. Why? Because it only bans a certain procedure, AND IT DOESN'T SAVE EVERY SINGLE BABY IN THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!! Um, OK. Even James Dobson claims that the partial-birth abortion ban "does not save a single human life", which is one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard. Of course it will save a life. Some of the doctors who were insane enough to perform partial-birth abortions will probably be too scared to try anything more dangerous to the life of the mother.

But since when is ARTL and their posse concerned about efficacy? On the one hand they cry because National Right to Life supposedly doesn't stand on principle, and then when National Right to Life tries to pass a bill largely based on principle, they are still upset.

So let's wait. Let's see how many bills ARTL manages to pass, especially at the federal level. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.