I wish that were true, but it isn't. ALL's Wisconsin affiliate, Pro-Life Wisconsin and Planned unParenthood both opposed pro-life legislation such as Wisconsin's 24 hour waiting period and parental notification requirements.
Cite the law and cite the "affiliate."
You can dig through the statutes on your own, but one of the bills was 1995 Assembly Bill 441. The ALL state affiliate that opposed it is "Pro-Life" Wisconsin.
If you show me the text of the law, maybe there is a flaw.
How naive, of course there are flaws. No law, or anything else shaped by man, is perfect. The real question is whether it will do more good than harm. Waiting periods and parental consent requirements reduce abortions.
ALL isn't against parental notification.
You are 100% wrong. From ALL's own website:
It is against exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother and life of the mother.
Every pro-life group is against all abortion. The difference is that ALL actually opposes legislation that would ban the other 97% of abortions if it doesn't include these rare cases.
Why? Because as former abortionist Bernard Nathanson admits...
Thanks anyway. I'm not interested in the what former or practicing abortionists have to say.
Furthermore, there is a way to write into law the priciple of double effect which holds no doctor liable should a child die while the physician is trying to save him and his mother. That's why exceptions are never necessary. (E.g., SD's ban applies double effect.)
Psychobabble. I would take any ban that reduces the number of abortions that will be committed. It's that simple. I wouldn't oppose a law that said "No abortions may be performed on Sunday", would you? According to someone I know who now works for ALL, ALL would. These modern day pharisees may well be doing far more harm legislatively than they do good.
Magnus:
I will check out the 1995 law and deal with that later.
In the meantime, let's address this: "How naive, of course there are flaws. No law, or anything else shaped by man, is perfect. The real question is whether it will do more good than harm. Waiting periods and parental consent requirements reduce abortions."
I wrote: ALL isn't against parental notification.
Again Magnus: ALL isn't against parental notification or waiting periods, for that matter.
You wrote: "You are 100% wrong. From ALL's own website: 'ALL opposes parental consent legislation'"
Magnus, it is you who are 100% wrong, because parental notification is not parental consent. ALL supports parental notification as a proper form of incrementalism.
However, ALL opposes parental consent because it would set bad legal precedents on at least two counts: 1) it would make the parent an accessory to abortion, both morally and legally 2) it sets a precedent for adults permitting other crimes by minors or against minors, and those who cannot protect themselves (such as the disabled, or incompetent patients like Terri Schiavo, etc.)
Magnus, I work with my state delegate on these matters and he confirms that it is legally correct. So who is naïve?
I wrote: [ALL] is against exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother and life of the mother.
You wrote: Every pro-life group is against all abortion. The difference is that ALL actually opposes legislation that would ban the other 97% of abortions if it doesn't include these rare cases.
Magnus, NRLC is for exceptions - so that's not all abortions now, is it?
I wrote: Why? Because as former abortionist Bernard Nathanson admits...
You wrote: Thanks anyway. I'm not interested in the what former or practicing abortionists have to say.
Have it your way, Magnus. The facts are the facts.
I wrote: Furthermore, there is a way to write into law the priciple of double effect which holds no doctor liable should a child die while the physician is trying to save him and his mother. That's why exceptions are never necessary. (E.g., SD's ban applies double effect.)
You wrote: Psychobabble. I would take any ban that reduces the number of abortions that will be committed. It's that simple. I wouldn't oppose a law that said "No abortions may be performed on Sunday", would you? According to someone I know who now works for ALL, ALL would. These modern day pharisees may well be doing far more harm legislatively than they do good.
BS, Magnus. ALL would support a law that bans abortions on Sunday, providing it has no exceptions because, again, it is the proper form of incrementalism. I don't know who you spoke to over there, if anyone, but I'm repeating what Judie told me, and I suggest you call and ask for someone who knows ALL policy.
Magnus, apparently you don't know or understand much about law. But thanks for the bill number, I will look into it.