A couple of days ago a member of the leadership team from Colorado for Equal Rights
sent me a link to the NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado home page
where I found something remarkable.
You see the pro-abortion forces in Colorado are up in arms, literally, over the personhood effort in the state, and have made the statement:
Changing Colorado’s constitution in such an extreme way could have far-reaching consequences beyond banning abortion, including making it illegal to use of the most effective forms of birth control, restricting in-vitro fertilization, and curbing embryonic stem cell research.
Well, I have to ask, what is so extreme about being consistent in the pro-life struggle to protect the personhood of the human being from the time his life begins, regardless of the manner in which that life begins? Would the pro-aborts like it better if pro-lifers contradicted their principles by arguing that they "take no position on contraception," or "will not oppose in vitro fertilization" or "support exceptions in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother?"
Because if they would be less offended by such inconsistent illogical politically correct positions they need only focus attention on South Dakota or some other legislative effort where consistency is lacking altogether. For as one recent news report stated
The Wall Street Journal on Monday examined the "philosophical split" among antiabortion groups over five state ballot initiatives, with some groups supporting only measures that seek to ban abortion, while others are supporting attempts to "chip away" at abortion rights through initiatives aimed at restricting access or limiting certain procedures.
If you are familiar with this blog you already know where I stand on the "split" but perhaps you have not quite gotten your arms around the reasons why. After all, you might be thinking, "Judie Brown is simply one of those “all or nothing” pro-lifers who doesn’t get it." Well, my friend, I do get it and that is why I abhor the argument that we can chip away at abortion rights in America in 2008.
Why? Let’s start with 35 years ago when the Supreme Court handed down the Roe
Supreme Court decisions decriminalizing abortion during all nine months of pregnancy. From that moment to this, the split in the pro-life movement has widened as many have inconsistently chosen to add on an exception here and an exception there until, as we all know, we have reached a point where we cannot even outlaw infanticide
– partial birth abortion – unless we support a life of the mother exception in the legislation.
What do these exceptions mean to the future of pro-life political efforts to restore personhood to the preborn child?
To put it succinctly, it means that we, at least some of us, are so good at undermining the personhood principle by "chipping away" at the fringes of abortion-murder that we have become extraordinarily efficient at denying that there is anything wrong with this "strategy." It is obvious that many of us simply do not want to do the difficult thing - the right thing - and be consistent in our arguments.
My view is that until we as a pro-life movement decide, from one end of the movement to the other, that we are dedicated to personhood and will oppose abortive birth control, in vitro fertilization and surgical abortion, we are going to spin our wheels. We are going to continue to cut down a small tree here and tinier one there, while thousands of babies continue to die every single day.
Personhood means defending every single human being without excluding a single one; anything less, commonly known as chipping away, is equivalent to opposing ourselves by claiming we are being realistic!
Come on, give me a break! NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado gets it! Why can’t some pro-lifers?