Nathan Sheets

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!

As many of you know, January 22nd is the time when pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike remember Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States.

Hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers congregate every year in Washington DC to, as Jill Stanek points out, commemorate the deaths of those children who have died as well as to celebrate life.

I really wanted to go to Washington DC this year, but I am going to opt out of going for the March for Life in order to do to the National Right to Life convention in July.  The March for Life has become very blogger friendly, and I would love to meet everyone. Maybe next year!

I will be attending the Roe vs. Wade rally in Salem on Sunday at 2:30. I spoke there last year and was well-received. I cannot believe it's already been a year. Crazy! This year I'll be going as a participant and I'll take a bunch of pictures. I still need to figure out which sign to make! Here are the narrowed-down choices:

Poll #1123524
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 9

Which sign should I make for the Roe vs. Wade rally?

This is a pro-life event, so any of the more humorous signs would be for our amusement only :)

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 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.

First, I don't understand Thompson's fixation with nonexistent state laws that would send girls and women to jail who abort. There never have been such laws, and there never will be. Thompson's insistence on bringing up this abortion industry scare tactic, unprovoked by any interviewer and all the while maintaining he doesn't want to discuss hypotheticals, only puts thoughts in people's minds that ought not to be. He needs to just shut up about that.

—Jill Stanek

I have also found these comments by Thompson to be annoying, and by saying them I think that he further proves my suspicion that he's in cahoots with NARAL. I mean, really, no actual pro-lifer would ever say something like this! Well, except for me of course, advocating such laws. But I'm the only pro-lifer apparently who actually thinks that the mothers who slaughter their children should receive some form of punishment. Ahem.

While the issue of abortion "going back to the states" is certainly what I believe should happen, I don't use that argument to shield the underlying principle I have about abortion: that it's murder. If anything, saying that abortion should be left to the states should be a way of softening the blow for poor college pro-choicers who can't fathom a world without a woman's right to choose; but not the other way around.

Thompson clearly doesn't care about his pro-life base, and that's annoying. Every Republican president needs to be aware of what the people who vote for him value. Usually at this point we could laugh maniacally and say that we hold the power through the NRLC endorsement...but, oh wait, NRLC chose to endorse Thompson who 1) has yet to say abortion is morally wrong, 2) shallowly says that it's a "state issue" in order to avoid any moral grandstanding, 3) talks as if he's a NARAL intern about "girls going to jail", 4) won't sign a Human Life Amendment, 5) has a bad position on end-of-life issues. Next we'll be finding out he supported McCain-Feingold!

You all know that I was somewhat disappointed with National Right to Life's (NRLC) recent endorsement of Fred Thompson. This was however, in my opinion, an inevitable endorsement. Romney's my man, and perhaps that played a part in the slight sadness as well. But I think really what I didn't like was the timing of it.

Other than that, I have agreed with virtually every thing that NRLC does on the political level. To insinuate that they don't care for unborn children is childish in of itself, and thankfully there aren't too many people who care to throw that accusation around anymore. But there sure are a lot of pro-lifers complaining.

There are two kinds of pro-life groups in our country: groups that stand on principle and groups that strive to be effective politically. NRLC is the latter group. Yes, they make "compromises" all of the time. They'll throw in a "rape and incest" exception in a bill if it will be the difference between the bill passing and not passing. And I highly doubt that a single person in the NRLC office is actually pro-slaughtering-rape-and-incest-babies. But they do what they can to save 90% of the babies in a particular bill if that is what the situation calls for.

There are other groups that stand on principle. And that's great—we need them. And, frankly, I'm with them most of the time as the pro-choicers in the blogosphere can attest to. I don't use the candor and language that the sensible people at NRLC use. That's because I don't pass bills, I blog. And I blog what most pro-lifers think but are too scared to utter aloud. However, I'm not with the "principled pro-lifers" when they complain about RTL and their political efforts. Many "extreme" pro-lifers hate the NRLC because they and their affiliates make exceptions in bills, with the very stupid reasoning that we should not pass any bills unless all of the babies are saved. That's simply stupid. These groups fail to see that, given their way, they sentence hundreds or thousands of children to death so they can stand on their principle. One such annoying group here in Oregon said that our very pro-life Speaker of the House and house members were not pro-life because they eventually passed a budget that allowed abortion funding. Apparently these political geniuses think that these reps should have starved to death in the House Chamber. What they failed to acknowledge was, while they were complaining, our pro-life people managed to at least shrink the "Abortions on the House!" budget by over $100,000.

If abortion were illegal—save cases of "rape and incest"—I guarantee you NRLC would still be in existence saving them. But they work with what they have, which is a culture of pro-choicers and apathetic "evangelical pro-lifers" who would much rather spend their time jet skiing than saving the unborn. They have passed countless bills at the national and state level, and have fought the good fight countless more times. Let's compare their political record with that of the groups that refuse to "compromise" in order to pass laws. Hmmm...virtually nothing passed vs. hundreds by RTL. Sure, the "principle groups" can save babies through "education", but so does NRLC and their affiliates. They are involved in every single aspect of Pro-Life outreach, except for that infernal band scene!

Because of the recent endorsements, the bashing of Right to Life has begun from pro-lifers. "They opposed the Human Life Amendment", "They accepted a bribe from Thompson", "They don't have cookies at their meetings". If the first South Dakota ban that NRLC opposed had passed and gone to the Supreme Court, we would be looking at another 30 years of Roe vs. Wade. People who know nothing about law and the SCOTUS have it easy: they can sit and complain about RTL and their opposition of what seem like great, life-affirming bills. What they should be doing is thanking Right to Life for not going with a group of pro-lifers whose actions, however unwittingly, would have sacrificed millions more children to death.

*cries* Yes, they are already endorsing Fred Thompson. I am not surprised in the least. And you all know that I love Right to Life, but I'm going against them on this one. I'll update as more information comes in.

UPDATE: Fox News report here.

UPDATE: I really believe that NRLC was "forced" to do this because of Robertson's recent endorsement of Giuliani. They need to undo some of the damage. Right to Life has always been about political strategy rather than endorsing the most pro-life candidate—something I totally agree with, by the way. But I think that 1) Fred Thompson is not the man to endorse at this point, 2) Mitt Romney would benefit from a Right to Life endorsement (and is the most pro-life viable candidate) and 3) they are doing this way too early as a reaction to Robertson.

UPDATE: Politico Article

Jill Stanek responds.