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

releases.usnewswire.com ^

[chance33_98]

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

To: National Desk, Legal Reporter

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:

[wvprolifer]

I don't understand. We should support the American Life League (ALL) because the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)opposed a bill with a "health" exception that leaves it up to the abortionist to decide if the abortion should be performed. A ban that would in fact ban nothing because of the health loop hole.

But I thought that ALL opposed abortion for any reason including for the life of the mother. In fact ALL opposed the NRLC backed Partial Birth Abortion Ban because it had a "life of the mother exception". They also opposed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act because it didn't ban abortions.

They have criticized pro-life groups like the NRLC for supporting legislation that contains "life of the mother exceptions" but now they want the NRLC to back a ban with a "health" exception. I'm confused?!?!

[Conservative til I die]

So, NRTL thinks abortion is murder, yet doesn't think murder should even be a Class 5 felony. How about even a misdemeanor or ticketable violation? These guys suck.

[Sweet Land]

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.

Looks that way. It appears that the "timing" argument is what they emphasized publicly; I can't imagine why.

[old and tired]

National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)opposed a bill with a "health" exception that leaves it up to the abortionist to decide if the abortion should be performed. A ban that would in fact ban nothing because of the health loop hole.

Where did you find this health loop hole as the reason for the NRLC opposing this law? It's my understanding that the NRLC is opposing the bill because there are criminal consequences and the bill is too strict. The American Life League has never opposed legislation because it was too strict, it opposes legislation that is not strict enough.

I personally don't agree with the "my way or the highway" approach but I can at least respect it. I have often heard that Nellie Gray refused to compromise back in 1973 on a constitutional ammendment that would ban all abortions except in the case of rape or incest. I think she's a loon for turning that deal down, but at least I can understand the logic. And she is of course, correct. Children of rape and incest are no less children of God than are children conceived by a night of passion.

The American Life League is at least consistent. They have been helpful to us numerous times. We have given the ALL and NRLC numerous IDENTICAL opportunities (via email or phone calls) to help us in our local fights and the NRLC have never lifted a finger in response - although they manage to send plenty of pleas for money.

[wvprolifer]

The statement put out by the NRLC on their position on the subject listed the health loop hole as one reasons they opposed the bill. This is also one of the reasons listed on the South Dakota RTL website for opposing the bill. The NRLC has consistently opposed “health” exceptions which leave the abortion decision up to the abortionist. The point was if the ALL opposes rape, incest and life exceptions I would also think that they would oppose a bill with rape, incest, life and health exceptions.

Also the press release by the Thomas More center and all the stories about the situation bashing the NRLC did not list anything about the bill containing a health loop hole. I first learned of the loop hole from the NRLC and the SDRTL. Then I actually ready the bill to make sure. Why “pro-life legal experts” would write and support such a bad bill with such a large loop hole is beyond me. I am also disappointed that so many conservative news sources would write about the situation and not even check the facts first.

I would hope that all pro-life groups in SD would be focusing first and foremost on getting rid of their pro-abortion US Senator Tom Dashle who is responsible for blocking the President’s pro-life judicial nominees. If as pro-lifers we really want to stop abortions, we must first get rid of the pro-abortion majority on the Supreme Court. To do that we must re-elect Bush and defeat Dashle. Pro-lifers should not be attacking each other we should be attacking Tom Dashle and John Kerrey. Hopefully that is something we can agree on.

[Coleus]

Thu, Apr 1, 2004

	Law Center Issues Report Exposing Disturbing Details of National Right to Life’s Efforts to Kill South Dakota’s Abortion Ban ANN ARBOR, MI — One week after accusing the National Right to Life Committee of betraying the pro-life movement, the Thomas More Law Center has released a seven page report detailing the role of the National Right to Life Committee and is its state affiliate, South Dakota Right to Life, in opposing and ultimately defeating a South Dakota law that would have banned virtually all abortions and challenged Roe v. Wade. The Law Center report makes clear that both NRLC national and local officials opposed the legislation from its very beginning because they felt that even after 31 years and 40,000,000 unborn babies killed, the time is not right to confront Roe v. Wade. The report issued Wednesday was released in response to a two-page form letter from NRLC defending their opposition to the South Dakota legislation. The Law Center report explains, “…pro-life Americans are entitled to know that NRLC’s lobbying efforts aligned with those of Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, and resulted in the defeat of this anti-abortion legislation. In our view, such conduct raises important questions about NRLC’s claim to represent the interests of the unborn.” Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented on the release of the report. “Of course National Right to Life has a right to its opinions, but they don’t have a right to be wrong on the facts. This report has been released in response to NRLC’s misstatement of facts in their form letter response.” The report counters NRLC’s claim that the “health” exception” was the reason they opposed the bill. The language they complained of did not exist until after NRLC representatives lobbied legislators to abandon the “no exceptions” bill. The resulting “exception” was narrowly crafted, and did not contain the traditional broad “health” language as defined in Doe v. Bolton. The resulting abortion ban, even with the exception would have outlawed virtually all abortions. Accordingly, the report cites statements made by NRLC officials in multiple national news stories, revealing that the NRLC opposed the abortion ban when the legislation did not contain any exceptions, and criticizes the actions of South Dakota state senator Jay Duenwald, a board member of National Right to Life who lobbied against the bill and even voted with pro-abortion Senators against a no exceptions version of the abortion ban. The report takes on NRLC and the argument that the time is not right to pass an abortion ban, and that pro-lifers must wait for changes in the Supreme Court. “What if changes in the Court are for the worse? What if a certain pro-life majority on the Supreme Court does not come about for another 31 years? Can we afford to wait?” The report continues, “Nobody can know with any real certainty the ideal time to challenge any given decision. Under those circumstances, NRLC should demonstrate humility and respect for the efforts of those who differ with their judgment concerning the right time to ban abortion and challenge the Roe v. Wade decision.” The full report can be found on the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org Report Regarding NRLC Role in Defeat of South Dakota Legislative Effort to Ban Abortion and Challenge Roe v. Wade Wed, Mar 31, 2004 Law Center Issues Report Exposing Disturbing Details of National Right to Life’s Efforts to Kill South Dakota’s Abortion Ban Wed, Mar 31, 2004 National Right To Life Joins Pro-Abortion Groups To Kill South Dakota Bill Criminalizing Abortions; Law Center Accuses Them Of Betraying Unborn Mon, Mar 22, 2004 National Right To Life Joins Pro-Abortion Groups To Kill South Dakota Bill Criminalizing Abortions; Law Center Accuses Them Of Betraying Unborn ANN ARBOR, MI —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 v. Wade decision in 1973. The Bill was sponsored by... more >>

[madprof98]

Suppose the bill had passed. The pro-abortion zealots, led by John Kerry, would have lashed out against the Religious Right for trying to take away even those "abortion rights" favored by most Americans--and would have demanded that President Bush repudiate the South Dakota bill. Bush most likely would not have done that, and the pro-abort forces would be much more likely to (a) win the upcoming election and (b) appoint the next Supreme Court justices, who would keep abortion legal forever. I imagine that was the thinking behind the opposition.

[Twinkie]

It looks like just about every good cause starts out
pure, then jobs, pensions, fringe benefits and the
like begin to figure into it. Then they can't afford
to win the cause. A la current civil rights "leaders".

[chance33_98]

Thanks for the info!

[Aquinasfan]

Too bad every state legislature isn't proposing such legislation. Someday we will look back on this as the great American genocide.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

Absolutely right.

[Notwithstanding]

Did you miss this part?:

"The report counters NRLC’s claim that the “health” exception” was the reason they opposed the bill. The language they complained of did not exist until after NRLC representatives lobbied legislators to abandon the “no exceptions” bill. The resulting “exception” was narrowly crafted, and did not contain the traditional broad “health” language as defined in Doe v. Bolton. The resulting abortion ban, even with the exception would have outlawed virtually all abortions."

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

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

[hocndoc]

"Timing"??? Time (in the womb without being killed) is really all that the unborn child needs!!

Thank you for the link. I was inclined to believe that the fuss was just that, a "fuss" between factions within the prolife groups in SD, But, the TMLC is very persuasive in it's arguments that the NRTL killed the bill.


So many of us were looking forward to the discussion in the National media and even at the Supreme Court. I'm convinced that a Supreme Court case will save some lives, simply because it will force more women to think about what they are actually doing, and because the science of human development has made such leaping strides that Blackmun's "we can't know" argument is patently absurd.

Not to mention that the Internet trumps all past forms of spreading the word about current events and the fact of the humanity of even zygotes.

[hocndoc]

Thanks for the ping.

[Saundra Duffy]

This is just great. Pro lifers fighting with each other. They must be Republicans.

[Coleus]

`

[Coleus]

Watch out who your friends are! I do post articles from the National RTL since they have some good information but I NO longer trust them as advocates for the unborn. They just don't want to legislate themselves out of a job! They had no right to interfere with the State of South Dakota and what they legislate, who are they to say whether the timing is right or wrong? The NJ RTL cut ties with them about 10 years ago.

National Right to Life says this is not a good time to pass an abortion ban

Thomas More Law Center disagrees and says that NRLC helped to kill the South Dakota abortion ban. Hear them debate the issue on LifeTalk.

Pro-life talk radio & TV wants your
questions or comments on the
pro-life vs. pro-choice issue
CALL 1-(940) 484-LIFE

• Pro-choice vs. pro-life
  
• Anti-abortion vs. pro-abort
  
• Right to life vs. women's rights
  

  No matter how you describe the pro-life abortion debate, now you have a chance to speak your mind on: partial-birth abortion, abortion pictures and displaying photos of aborted babies at abortion clinics, a woman's right over her own body, abortion law and court decisions like Roe vs. Wade & Doe vs. Bolton, the sanctity of human life and the personhood of an unborn child, RU-486 abortion pills and birth control, Planned Parenthood clinics' protection of sexual predators, etc. etc. etc.

  Join Mark Crutcher and his guests for the latest in pro-life news and abortion information that will keep you on the cutting-edge of the pro-life pro-choice debate. This program provides a forum for discussion on the most critical moral issue of our time, legalized abortion in America. Get answers to your questions, find out which pro-life arguments to use against abortion supporters and the pro-choice media, learn about the undermining of parental authority by taxpayer funded abortion providers like Planned Parenthood or just tell pro-life America your thoughts on the abortion issue - no matter if your pro-choice or pro-life.

  It's your chance to voice your opinion, so call 940-484-LIFE. You can call anytime to leave your question or comments for use to play on the show. You can be anonymous or you can leave your name and number so we can contact you about being on an upcoming show. Call 1-940-484-LIFE anytime 24-hours-a-day to leave questions or comments for us to use on the next show. If you'd prefer, you can call 940-383-LIFE on Tuesday mornings from 9-9:30 Central Time so we can take your call live on the air.

Email questions or comments to: Mark@ProlifeAmerica.com  (notice)
OR you can fax your questions and/or comments to: 1-940-380-8700
OR just click here and use our feedback form

To get LifeTalk on audio CD, DVD or VHS tape, click here

Broadcasters click here

Get a FREE CD or DVD

Search/view transcripts of shows

[Coleus]

Listen to this link

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/proliferadio/

[Coleus]

Listen to this link

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/proliferadio/