ALL's Judie Brown: 'Most Important' Pro-Life Bill Could End Abortion If Passed

Agape Press ^ | 8/2/06 | Jody Brown and Bill Fancher

[wagglebee]

(AgapePress) - One of the nation's premiere pro-life leaders says a bill currently before a House committee could bring an end to abortion in America. Ironically it originated with strong sponsorship from the Republican Party -- a group she contends is not as "pro-life" as some people think.

The Right to Life Act, sponsored by California Congressman Duncan Hunter, contains no exceptions for an abortion or compromises any pro-life principles, says Judie Brown of American Life League (ALL) -- and that's why she calls it "the most important piece of pro-life legislation under consideration today."

H.R. 552, which now has 100 co-sponsors in Congress, establishes "equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person" -- then goes on to define "human person" as a member of the species homo sapiens "at all stages of life," including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or "other moment" at which the person "comes into being." ALL president Brown believes such legislation is critical in fight against legalized abortion.

ALL President Judie Brown

"Establishing personhood for the preborn baby is the only way we will see a concrete end to decriminalized abortion in this country," she says. And it has been a long battle, Brown adds. "After 33 years of gnawing at the edges of legal protection for abortion, now is the time for a substantial challenge to the status quo. Without total protection under the law," she says, "preborn children will continue to die."

Congressman Hunter introduced the Right to Life Act in February 2005 with 36 co-sponsors, and it has picked up 25 more since the first of the year. It has now been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee awaiting hearings. "For the first time in years," says Brown, "we have a politically significant number of supporters in Congress who are willing to stand up for life. Now is the time to act."

It isn't lost on Brown that the bill's sponsor is a member of the Republican Party -- a party about which she has voiced repeated disappointment as the GOP, the majority party in both chambers, appears to be unable to get pro-life bills enacted. The pro-life leader's frustration was evident recently when the Republican-led Senate voted to approve funding for embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR).

"You know, I think it's about time that pro-lifers understood where they need to go: they need to go to God on their knees," she says. "And they need to understand that this struggle is for the heart and soul of this country -- not partisan politics," she adds.

Brown contends the nation will change as people go to God -- not to the GOP. "I honestly believe that if everybody, every one of us, did that we would see a miracle," she remarks. "But until we get our priorities straight, politics not being one of them, we're going to continue to see this -- and it's not us who are being betrayed; it's little babies."

President Bush eventually vetoed the ESCR bill, as he promised he would. Still, says Brown, the fact that a Republican-led Congress passed such a measure should be a wake-up call to those who still believe the GOP is a pro-life party.

[wagglebee]

"For the first time in years," says Brown, "we have a politically significant number of supporters in Congress who are willing to stand up for life. Now is the time to act."

What I want to know is why this wasn't done years ago.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[supercat]

Politically, abortion is not going to be ended overnight. Even if Congress did manage to pass legislation doing so, the backlash would be sufficient that the next Congress would repeal it.

Conservatives need to borrow a page from the liberals' playbook and learn incrementalism. The vast majority of the public is opposed to the late-term abortion on demand and unambiguous infanticide that goes on (I know of very few people--even abortion supporters--who would say that throwing a live baby into a dumpster so it dies is anything less than infanticide). Then once the most heinous forms of abortion are restricted, one can start to ask how the next-most-heinous form is really different.

Once there is near consensus among the public that a particular form of abortion is sufficiently bad that it should be forbidden, then legislating such prohibition will cement that. Trying to pass legislation without such consensus, though, is a recipe for disaster.

[BearArms]

Without total protection under the law," she says, "preborn children will continue to die."

"Preborn children" do continue to die in dozens of countries around the world where abortion is and has been very illegal. Has this woman been to South America lately?

[Neidermeyer]

Conservatives need to borrow a page from the liberals' playbook and learn incrementalism.

---

Overturning RvW would throw eveything back on the states.. RvW was not "incrementalism" ... abandoning it will open the debate in 50 statehouses and will allow for incrementalism to occur.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

It isn't lost on Brown that the bill's sponsor is a member of the Republican Party -- a party about which she has voiced repeated disappointment as the GOP, the majority party in both chambers, appears to be unable to get pro-life bills enacted.

Judie and her ilk in Wisconsin have actually lobbied against pro-life legislation such as our 24 hour waiting period and parental notification laws. I've had several pro-life state legislators come up to me completely dumbfounded over why ALL's Wisconsin affiliate would join forces with Planned Parenthood to oppose their baby saving legislation. Sadly, these modern day pharisees may well be doing more harm than good in ending the abomination of abortion.

[mvpel]

H.R. 552, which now has 100 co-sponsors in Congress, establishes "equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person" -- then goes on to define "human person" as a member of the species homo sapiens "at all stages of life," including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or "other moment" at which the person "comes into being."

I think she may be overreaching in thinking that a simple legal definition of what has been scientifically established as fact would immediately end all abortion.

After all, it is, and always has been, 100% legal for an ordinary person to kill another adult human person under certain circumstances.

[StAnDeliver]

"Conservatives need to borrow a page from the liberals' playbook and learn incrementalism."

Yes, and how exactly have the liberals "played" incrementalism? By asking for far more than they know they'll ever get, then seeming so reasonable by settling for less. This has been the ongoing GOP strategy on abortion!

[A. Pole]

What I want to know is why this wasn't done years ago.

Election is coming now.

[Deadshot Drifter]

Election is coming now

Ah, you beat me to it.

[supercat]

[i]Yes, and how exactly have the liberals "played" incrementalism? By asking for far more than they know they'll ever get, then seeming so reasonable by settling for less. This has been the ongoing GOP strategy on abortion![/i]

The Democrats have been more effective, though, when they've denied that they were seeking what they really wanted. Why do you think the Coalition to Ban Handguns (I think that's what it was called) changed its name?

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[.30Carbine]

"You know, I think it's about time that pro-lifers understood where they need to go: they need to go to God on their knees," she says.

Thanks for the ping, cpforlife!

[NewJerseyJoe]

>> abandoning it will open the debate in 50 statehouses

Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Right now, Planned Parenthood and their ilk concentrate on nationwide efforts, whereas the many pro-life organizations, large and small, tend to operate on more local levels. If RvW is overturned, PP will be forced to split its national effort into 50 smaller efforts. I don't think PP has the personpower for such an effort. I have read that they have fought things like this so vociferously in the past -- not just because they're pro-abort, but because they in no way have the resources to fight 50 individual battles, at varying levels of complexity, with thousands of state politicans to be schmoozed and shnookered.

[Quiet Man Jr.]

"Judie and her ilk in Wisconsin have actually lobbied against pro-life legislation such as our 24 hour waiting period and parental notification laws. I've had several pro-life state legislators come up to me completely dumbfounded over why ALL's Wisconsin affiliate would join forces with Planned Parenthood to oppose their baby saving legislation. Sadly, these modern day pharisees may well be doing more harm than good in ending the abomination of abortion."

WHOA. Let's get the facts straight.

When did Judie Brown and ALL join Planned Parenthood on anything? Never. Cite the law and cite the "affiliate." If you show me the text of the law, maybe there is a flaw.

ALL isn't against parental notification. It is against exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother and life of the mother. Why? Because as former abortionist Bernard Nathanson admits, those are abortion ploys - gigantic eyes in the needle (biblical sense) that render laws null and void since it would be easy to get some doc to lie about a woman's health, etc.

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.)

[Ronaldus Magnus]

When did Judie Brown and ALL join Planned Parenthood on anything? Never.

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:

"ALL opposes parental consent legislation"

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.

[Quiet Man Jr.]

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.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

parental notification is not parental consent. ALL supports parental notification as a proper form of incrementalism.

Parental consent is a stricter requirement than parental notification. ALL's opposition to the stronger restriction that would save more lives is truly bizarre.

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

It would also make abortion more difficult and less likely because the parents would be able to stop it, but I guess that doesn't matter to ALL.

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.)

This makes no sense at all. ALL's logic is more perverted than I thought!

Magnus, I work with my state delegate on these matters and he confirms that it is legally correct. So who is naïve?

It that is true, you both are.

Magnus, NRLC is for exceptions - so that's not all abortions now, is it?

No, NRTL is not FOR exceptions. The difference is that they will accept pro-life legislation that saves babies even if it contains exceptions, while ALL would rather have no legislation than a restriction that only saves 99.9% of babies that would otherwise be aborted.

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 was told by an ALL representative that they wouldn't.

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.

You can call them if you want, but they already gave me and many others the answer I quoted above. Their website fact sheet I posted earlier says a great deal about their perverted viewpoint.

Magnus, apparently you don't know or understand much about law.

Apparently you and the ALL bunch don't know much about reason, and I thank you for posting your pharisaical poppycock here for all to see. Regardless of their intentions, the ALL cabal is likely doing far more harm than good with their twisted view of morality.

[Quiet Man Jr.]

"Apparently you and the ALL bunch don't know much about reason, and I thank you for posting your pharisaical poppycock here for all to see. Regardless of their intentions, the ALL cabal is likely doing far more harm than good with their twisted view of morality."

Take a pill, Magnus.