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

National Right to Life Joins Pro-Abortion Groups to Kill SD Abortion Bill; Thomas More Law Center Accuses Them of Betraying Unborn

Contact: Brian Burch or Richard Thompson, both of Thomas More Law Center, 734-827-2001, Web: http://www.thomasmore.org

ANN ARBOR, Mich., March 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Shock waves are still reverberating one week after South Dakota's bill criminalizing abortion was defeated by a single vote over National Right To Life's complicity with pro-abortion groups to kill the legislation that pro-abortion lobbyists called the most restrictive anti-abortion measure since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973.

The bill was sponsored by Republican State Rep. Matt McCaulley who had asked the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., to help draft a bill that would directly confront the holding of the Roe decision. As a result, House Bill 1191 banned virtually all abortions in that state and made it a felony punishable for up to 15-years.

Immediately after the bill was announced, National Right To Life spokespersons and officers of their state affiliate opposed passage of the bill as not being the right time.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center accused National Right to Life of betrayal: "It is one thing for National Right to Life to disagree with the timing of a bill banning abortions, it is another thing for them to join forces with pro-abortionists to kill the ban -- it is betrayal of the unborn and pro-life movement. When is it the wrong time to do what is right? This organization has lost the moral authority to lead the pro-life cause."

The bill passed the state House by an overwhelming majority, 54 to 14. State Senator Jay Duenwald, an officer in both the state and National Right To Life organizations, led behind the scenes opposition when the bill reached the State Affairs Committee. Together with pro-abortion Senators, Duenwald's lobbying efforts succeeded in removing the ban and replacing it with an informed consent measure, something already covered by South Dakota law. However, the ban was reinserted on the Senate floor through a compromise measure that created an exception for the life of the mother and if there was a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

Still the doctor was commanded to use reasonable medical efforts to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child.

South Dakota Rep. McCaulley, observed, "There is something horribly wrong when South Dakota Right to Life and Planned Parenthood are on the same side of an issue."

Leslee Unruh, a member of Right to Life for 25 years, and director of the South Dakota Alpha Health Center, an abortion counseling service, whose husband help start local Right to Life chapters throughout the state, expressed shock as well. "We were shocked, saddened and dismayed that National Right to Life lobbied against this bill. In effect, they aborted the right to life bill."

After 31 years and over 40 million babies killed, the case of Roe vs. Wade making abortion a constitutional right is still the law. Yet, it took homosexual activists only 17 years to overturn the Supreme Court decision that allowed states to criminalize homosexual sodomy. Still, according to National Right To Life -- the time is not right.

National Right To Life's criticism of the timing of the bill is similar to the attack on Martin Luther King's actions in Alabama. His famous letter from Birmingham jail answered his fellow clergy:

"Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was 'well timed' in view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has always meant Never. We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that, justice too long delayed is justice denied." Concluded Thompson, "One thing we know for sure, Planned Parenthood and NARAL could not be happier with National Right To Life."

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services, and depends on contributions from individuals, corporations and Foundations. It is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. The Thomas More Law Center can be reached at 734-827-2001, or visit its Web site at:

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&ArticleID=9209&SubSectionID=83

Friday, February 20, 2004

Some hesitation on abortion-ban bill

By BOB MERCER, Republic Capitol Correspondent

PIERRE - Key lawmakers, top aides to the governor and several representatives of organizations that oppose abortion huddled in a closed-door meeting Thursday evening at the state Capitol. They privately discussed whether or not to proceed toward final passage of legislation next week that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota.

After the meeting, the measure’s prime sponsor, Rep. Matt McCaulley, R-Sioux Falls, said he would oppose any attempt to pull back.

“I’m committed to the bill in its present form. It’s moving forward,” McCaulley said. “It says South Dakota is not going to wait. We’re going to lead the country by protecting unborn life in our jurisdiction.”

The legislation, HB 1191, has already won approval in the House of Representatives. It is scheduled for a hearing Saturday morning before the Senate State Affairs Committee. But the question of whether to continue pushing for passage of the legislation has split abortion opponents in the Legislature.

One group, led by McCaulley, wants to push ahead in the hope that the law would force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. One of their arguments is that some members of the court might change before a South Dakota challenge reached there in the next three years or so.

The other group sees no chance of the Supreme Court’s current membership reversing itself and doesn’t want a defeat that would further cement the Roe vs. Wade decision into place. That cluster of lawmakers includes Sen. Jay Duenwald, R-Hoven, a long-time leader in the state and national Right to Life anti-abortion organizations.

“South Dakota Right to Life does not support HB 1191 in its current form, but we are working to get it into an acceptable format that will truly protect lives,” Rachel Hansen, the state organization’s executive director, said after the meeting. The organization previously had simply taken a “right idea, wrong time” position.

One of the suggestions under consideration by some senators is an amendment supported by Right to Life that would remove the bill’s criminal language. The bill currently seeks to make performance of an abortion a Class 5 felony.

What would be offered instead is a new sentence modifying South Dakota’s informed-consent law, so that the physician or agent must certify in writing that the woman had received the information already required under law and that she had sufficient time to review and understand it.

The other main concept of McCaulley’s legislation - that life begins at conception and that unborn life should receive the same protection of law as born life - would continue to be reflected in the amendment. But there are many substantial differences in the language and the statements about that concept between the House-passed bill and the amendment.

McCaulley was firm in his dislike for the possible amendment.

“There’s two parts to 1191: What we believe, and what we’re going to do about it. I would view any attempt to remove what we’re going to do about our beliefs as an unfriendly amendment,” McCaulley said.

Beside McCaulley and Duenwald, others observed entering or leaving the meeting were Jamison Rounds, a brother of and a top aide to Gov. Mike Rounds; Brent Wilbur, a private attorney who also serves as legal counsel to the governor on various issues; Sen Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, the bill’s lead sponsor in the Senate; Senate Republican leader Eric Bogue, of Faith; and the assistant GOP leader, Sen. Mac McCracken, R-Rapid City; as well as several other legislators and lobbyists.

Eighteen senators - 15 Republicans and three Democrats - signed as co-sponsors of the original legislation, the exact number needed for passage. Three of them - Bogue, McCracken and Sen. Drue Vitter, R-Hill City - are among the nine senators on the state affairs committee that will hear the bill.

While I don't know enough about the SD situation to make accusations, I am afraid that NRL may have contracted what I think of as the NRA disease. When the officials and staff of such organizations become simply professional lobbyists with lifelong careers at stake, I think it is inevitable that they will become more interested in the continuation of their jobs and salaries than in the cause the organization was originally formed to advocate. After all, if the professed goal of such organizations is ever reached, what need is there then for the organization to exist, and what need is there for the high paying jobs it provides for the officers and staff?

I don't know how NRL is organized or if it's officials are well paid professionals, but I am familiar to some extent with NRA of which I have been a member for decades. I am convinced that the higher level officials of NRA are far more interested in keeping their well paid positions than in achieving the stated goals of the organization and it's membership. I am not saying that is the case with NRL, or the reason for what happened in SD, but it is one possibility.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.