National Right to Life Joins Pro-Abortion Groups to Kill SD Abortion Bill;

releases.usnewswire.com ^

[nickcarraway]

National Right To Life is taking a tremendous risk.

[RonPaulLives]

National Right to Life is to unborn babies
as the NRA is to gunowners.

Think about it.

[Coleus]

I was once told years ago that some, not all, republican politicians and pro-life organizations want to proceed slowly and not really make abortion illegal because if it is, many Reagan Democrats will have no reason to cross over to vote for a republican (causing them to lose) and that these NGO's and non-profits will lose funding and not be in the limelight anymore and close.

I would like to see the NRTL's official explanation and rationale for what they did in SD and wonder if they will apologize for the damage they caused.

[reflecting]

I thought this had already passed....did I not read articles saying so here on FR? This is very disturbing....NRtL has some explaining to do....NOW!

[George from New England]

There must be truth to this article...

It is posted right out front on the Thomas More web site.

http://www.thomasmore.org/

[k2blader]

Depressing...............................

(Thank you for the confirmation)

[Prolifeconservative]

This is absolutely infuriating. This is indeed a sellout by the National Right to Life.

I just spoke with a representative from the Thomas More Law Center and he as much said the reason for the National Right to Life's "sell-out" on this issue is because they feel the political environment is not yet conducive, at least to their liking, for pressing forward in such a big way.

So the bottom line from the National Right to Life's perspective is they'd rather sacrifice a few more unborn until the political landscape is ripe for the picking.

Yeah, I don't get it either. This is a travesty.

[nickcarraway]

many Reagan Democrats will have no reason to cross over to vote for a Republican

How many people are voting Republican soley for that reason, and would go back to voting Dem if it was not legal?

[Coleus]

I thought this had already passed....did I not read articles saying so here on FR? This is very disturbing....NRtL has some explaining to do....NOW!>>>

The State House/assembly passed the bill and needed the State Senate to pass their version of the bill which the National Right to Life helped to defeat.  The Senate Bill lost by ONE vote.

 

(South Dakota) State House passes bill outlawing abortion

 

NARAL Pro-Choice America: Santorum-Linked Group Succeeds in Pushing Total Abortion Ban in S.D.;

 

S.D. PASSES AN ABORTION-RESTRICTION BILL (Will the left still say "States' Rights"?)

[ninenot]

There's a REAL REASON that Judie Brown founded the American Life League--and the REAL REASON is the quisling compromisers at NRTL.

[Proud_texan]

"So the bottom line..."

I don't agree with it but their timing may be more a focus on getting a different justice, or justices, in the SCOTUS rather than a true "political" position.

If it's done now and loses it occurs to me that reduces the possibility of it being heard in the future when there's a more friendly SCOTUS.

[Prolifeconservative]

"I don't agree with it but their timing may be more a focus on getting a different justice, or justices, in the SCOTUS rather than a true "political" position."

Political position, different justices on the SCOTUS.....it's all one in the same.

Keep in mind, they (NRTL) are rolling the dice that Bush will be re-elected AND he will appoint a new Justice sometime soon in his new term to grease the skids for overturning Roe V. Wade. Imagine IF Kerry is elected, then where are we.

Every time you press this issue into the political and public domain you gain on this issue. This issue needs to say in the spotlight, because the TRUTH shall set some baby free who might have otherwise been aborted.

[Antoninus]

Let these scum-sucking cowards know how you feel. If they won't lead, then they'll be forced out of the way.

CONTACT INFORMATION

National Right to Life Committee
512 10th St. NW
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 626-8800
NRLC@nrlc.org

Make sure you mention that you'll be sending your donations to organizations that *actually* fight for the unborn, like:

Priests for Life

St. Thomas More Law Center

[Antoninus]

Sorry, my link was bad. Try this one:

NRLC@nrlc.org

[gravyfreak]

Watch the state right to life organizations too. I know in NY state the NY STATE RIght to Life organization is for Contraception and Abortion in some cases..and unfortunately they were collecting money in our catholic churches. We withdrew our support for NY State Right to Life some time ago. This is a travesty against justice.

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[old and tired]

There's a REAL REASON that Judie Brown founded the American Life League--and the REAL REASON is the quisling compromisers at NRTL

I believe there is a lot of truth to this statement. The NRLC has NEVER helped our Pro-Life group in any way, shape or form. I have not given them money in years. The American Life League (ALL) always tries to be helpful and more often than not they succeed.

If you need information about a company or politician, the American Life League are the go to guys. They will usually answer your email within 24 hours with all the information you need.

[k2blader]

Bump

[wvprolifer]

epow your speculation that the NRLC opposed the SD bill because they are trying to protect their high salaries and pensions is silly. You sound like John McCain. When the NRLC opposed the McCain-Feingold anti-free speech act he asserted that they were just trying to protect their six digit salaries. As it turned out no one at the NRLC makes any thing close to a six digit salary, in fact records show that their president is not even paid, and that their employees salaries are so low that many of them are eligible for the earned income tax credit for the poor.

[wvprolifer]

It seems from article below which is on the South Dakota Right to Life website that they opposed the bill not only because of timing but also because the bill contained a health exception that allows the abortionist to perform abortions throughout the pregnancy at his discretion.

Any one involved with pro-life legislation long enough knows that a health except like this is a killer amendment that renders the law useless. Which is why PRO-ABORTION law makers always try to add "health exceptions" to pro-life bills.

Pro-abortion lawmakers in the US Senate tried to add a "health" exception to the Partial-Birth Abortion ban but every pro-life lawmaker and organization opposed the exception because it would have make the ban useless.

http://www.sdrl.org/legislative_priorities/1191%20VETO%20OVERIDE.htm

1191 VETO OVERIDE

If 1191 should pass, besides a challenge in state court, 3 things can happen, they are --

1. Challenged in district court. We lose and appeal to circuit court.
We lose and appeal to Supreme Court and Cert. is denied.

Results: Law is dead, NO lives are saved, state has spent $1,000,000 of which $500,000 will go to help the advocates of abortion in their fight against any good pro life bill that we may bring when the opportunity for success is there.

2. Challenged in district court. We lose and appeal to circuit court.
We lose and appeal to Supreme Court and Cert. is accepted.
We argue in court and lose.

Results: Law is dead, NO lives are saved, state has spent $1,000,000 + of which more than $500,000 will go to help the advocates of abortion in their fight against any good pro life bill that we may bring when the opportunity for success is there, but the opportunity will be set back for at least 10-15 years and probably more because of the principle of stare decisis which means that the law is settled and there is no reason to revisit it.

3. Challenged in district court. We lose and appeal to circuit court.
We lose and appeal to Supreme Court and Cert. is accepted.
We argue in court and win.

Results: We have just enacted the most liberal abortion law for SD in the history of the state. The health exception in 1191 allows abortion at any time from conception to birth. All discretion is left to the abortionist, including partial birth abortion. It is solely his decision.

Of the three possibilities for 1191 the first is by far the most likely. The second is less likely but the consequences are far worse, we have not only not saved babies, as some claim 1191 will do, but have precluded doing anything substantive as to preventing abortions for at least a decade, probably another thirty years. If the third possibility should happen, I wonder if the proponents are willing to accept the consequences?

Probably the gravest consequence of all in passing 1191 is that we have deluded the vast majority of South Dakotans who understand what abortion really is, and have worked long and hard to eliminate, into believing we have done something to advance the cause, when in fact we have done the opposite.