The National Right to Life worked with NARAL & NOW AGAINST South Dakota's anti-abortion Bill

[Coleus]

National Right to Life accused of complicity with the other side

 

Pro-life groups divide over abortion ban

 

Right to Life Leader Helps Pro-Abortion Folks Defeat Bill to Criminalize Abortion (Our Sad Times)

 

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

 

On Google

 

South Dakota Right To Life
PO Box 1032
314 South Central
Pierre SD 57501
Phone (605) 224-9181
Fax - (605) 224-2141
E-Mail:
sdrtl@iw.net
State Director: Brock Greenfield

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

[Coleus]

The Thomas More Law Center stated that again in 2006, the National Right to Life and their State affiliate in South Dakota did nothing to help South Dakota's anti-abortion law pass.

[vrwc0915]

typical

[Aussie Dasher]

What's going on here????

[ECM]

WTH Bump

[Coleus]

they don't want to work themselves out of power and out of a job. that's what it comes down to. Who are they to preach when the time is right? Notice they never elaborated as to when the right time would be.

[madprof98]

Maybe. I think a reasonable case can be made, however, that an AFFIRMATION of Roe by a 5-4 or even 6-3 court would leave us even worse off.

[wingman1]

bump

[Cicero]

Since its founding NRL has often been wishy washy and weak spined. As a result, I have never contributed to them.

They seem to be afraid of being thought extremists, or of taking a firm stand, or of offending the political establishment.

When Operation Rescue came out with their Truth Trucks, that struck me as a more useful way to proceed. I donate to maybe a dozen RTL organizations, but never to NRL. It's worse than the RNC.

[moondoggie]

Chas. Krauthammer hypothesized the other day that he thinks the Roberts' court is going to take on cases to slowly chip away at abortion rights in this country one case at a time.

Krauthammer says Robers is "much too smart" to take on a case for overturning the whole kit and kaboodle...which would plunge states into major chaos.

FWIW

Another perspective.

[Sun]

In New York State they would not endorse the Right-to-Life candidate in the governor's race in 2002. They will never do anything to hurt a Republican it seems, even though the Republican candidate was pro-abortion Pataki, who changed the NYS platform from pro-life to pro-"choice" I was told.

btw, I have heard that the NYS GOP contributes to them.

[TigersEye]

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Studies Find Abortions Have Long-Term Adverse Effects

Total Abortions since 1973

45,951,133

------------------------------------------------------------

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

Roe v Wade: FULL Text (The Decision that wiped out an entire Generation 33 years ago today)

[cgk]

Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...

[wagglebee]

HUH?!

[cgk]

That was my reaction. I couldn't even think of what picture to use I was so stunned. I guess I'm just naive.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

I believe the concern is that we are still one vote down on the Supreme Court. If Roe vs. Wade is reaffirmed a third time, several justices (Roberts and Scalia) might uphold it in any future challenge based on their professed allegiance to saving bad law to preserve precedent (stare decisis). The worry is that a challenge right now might permanently codify a constitutional right to abortion just before we will have enough votes to overrule it. Although I almost always support NRL's policy positions, I am personally not comfortable with this "lose the battle, win the war" approach in this case. I just don't believe there can be "acceptable losses" when dealing with the lives of the unborn.

[chae]

I thought I heard that this law doesn't have an exception for maternal health? Maybe they're not supporting it because if there is not a clause citing maternal health as a reason, they can't support it?

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

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

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[AliVeritas]

Thanks so much, I will call for an explanation (as if there is one). Will mail you with the answer.