[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

[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.

[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...

[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.

[Coleus]

The Legacy of Judas: National Right to Life