Law Center Issues Report Exposing Disturbing Details of National Right to Lifes Efforts to Kill South Dakotas 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 NRLCs 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 NRLCs 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 dont have a right to be wrong on the facts. This report has been released in response to NRLCs misstatement of facts in their form letter response.
The report counters NRLCs 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 Lifes Efforts to Kill South Dakotas 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 Dakotas bill criminalizing abortion was defeated by a single vote over National Right To Lifes 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 >>
|