From Jill Stanek's comment section:

Dear friends,

Let me set the record straight.

NRLC [National Right to Life] has NOT openly lobbied against our Human Life Amendment. They have graciously remained silent and practised a "laissez-faire" policy. They recommended against it, but did nothing to pressure us to desist. Our dealings with them on this matter have been very cordial. We at GRTL [Georgia Right to Life] appreciate the resources and support which NRLC gives to us in fighting on behalf of the unborn . . . we just agree to disagree on strategy. So far ... our strategy has worked quite well in Georgia.

The same can NOT be said for the Georgia Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Archbishop himself came to the Statehouse and met with senior pro-life Republicans. Atty. Frank Mulcahy, spoke against the bill during its hearing last week. He represented the GA CCB. Initially the Archdiocese swore that they would stay neutral. They were anything but!

Clark Forsyth, Pres. of Americans United for Life, came personallyhu [sic] to Georgia where he also was introduced to high Republican pro-life officials and distributed a paper that condemned the national Personhood movement. Some of his criticism was not even valid to the Georgia HLA. Unfortunately, our "pro-office" Republicans heard what they wanted to hear and cited his treatise, Jim Bopp's Memorandom [sic] and the Bishops statement as THE REASON they tabled the bill.

Dan Becke
Pres., Georgia Right to Life

Interesting. If I were to speculate, I would imagine that many at NRLC would be quite irritated that one of their affiliates are doing this. However, unlike the Colorado Right to Life fiasco a year of so ago, NRLC is not breaking it's connection with GRTL. I wonder why that is!

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