National Right to Life Joins Pro-Abortion Groups to Kill SD Abortion Bill;

releases.usnewswire.com ^

[chance33_98]

National Right to Life Joins Pro-Abortion Groups to Kill SD Abortion Bill; Thomas More Law Center Accuses Them of Betraying Unborn

To: National Desk, Legal Reporter

Contact: Brian Burch or Richard Thompson, both of Thomas More Law Center, 734-827-2001, Web: http://www.thomasmore.org

ANN ARBOR, Mich., March 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Shock waves are still reverberating one week after South Dakota's bill criminalizing abortion was defeated by a single vote over National Right To Life's complicity with pro-abortion groups to kill the legislation that pro-abortion lobbyists called the most restrictive anti-abortion measure since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973.

The bill was sponsored by Republican State Rep. Matt McCaulley who had asked the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., to help draft a bill that would directly confront the holding of the Roe decision. As a result, House Bill 1191 banned virtually all abortions in that state and made it a felony punishable for up to 15-years.

Immediately after the bill was announced, National Right To Life spokespersons and officers of their state affiliate opposed passage of the bill as not being the right time.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center accused National Right to Life of betrayal: "It is one thing for National Right to Life to disagree with the timing of a bill banning abortions, it is another thing for them to join forces with pro-abortionists to kill the ban -- it is betrayal of the unborn and pro-life movement. When is it the wrong time to do what is right? This organization has lost the moral authority to lead the pro-life cause."

The bill passed the state House by an overwhelming majority, 54 to 14. State Senator Jay Duenwald, an officer in both the state and National Right To Life organizations, led behind the scenes opposition when the bill reached the State Affairs Committee. Together with pro-abortion Senators, Duenwald's lobbying efforts succeeded in removing the ban and replacing it with an informed consent measure, something already covered by South Dakota law. However, the ban was reinserted on the Senate floor through a compromise measure that created an exception for the life of the mother and if there was a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.

Still the doctor was commanded to use reasonable medical efforts to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child.

South Dakota Rep. McCaulley, observed, "There is something horribly wrong when South Dakota Right to Life and Planned Parenthood are on the same side of an issue."

Leslee Unruh, a member of Right to Life for 25 years, and director of the South Dakota Alpha Health Center, an abortion counseling service, whose husband help start local Right to Life chapters throughout the state, expressed shock as well. "We were shocked, saddened and dismayed that National Right to Life lobbied against this bill. In effect, they aborted the right to life bill."

After 31 years and over 40 million babies killed, the case of Roe vs. Wade making abortion a constitutional right is still the law. Yet, it took homosexual activists only 17 years to overturn the Supreme Court decision that allowed states to criminalize homosexual sodomy. Still, according to National Right To Life -- the time is not right.

National Right To Life's criticism of the timing of the bill is similar to the attack on Martin Luther King's actions in Alabama. His famous letter from Birmingham jail answered his fellow clergy:

"Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was 'well timed' in view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has always meant Never. We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that, justice too long delayed is justice denied." Concluded Thompson, "One thing we know for sure, Planned Parenthood and NARAL could not be happier with National Right To Life."

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life through education, litigation, and related activities. It does not charge for its services, and depends on contributions from individuals, corporations and Foundations. It is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. The Thomas More Law Center can be reached at 734-827-2001, or visit its Web site at:

[chance33_98]

National Right to Life Joins Pro-Abortion Groups to Kill SD Abortion Bill

So when they want to stop a Bill it is killing it, when they want to stop a baby from being born they call it 'abortion'. Hmmmm.

[DameAutour]

This can't be right. I don't understand why National Right to Life would do such a thing. Of course if this law had been passed it would have been immediately challenged and some federal judge would have ordered an injunction, but what's the harm in trying? Everyone is hoping Bush will appoint a conservative Supreme Court justice or two and perhaps Roe can be overturned. Well someone has to start the process now, it can take years for a case to reach the Supreme Court.

For NRLC to work in hand in hand with Planned Parenthood to keep abortions legal for political reasons is horrible. I just can't believe this. Why didn't they just stay out of it if they didn't like it?

[Sweet Land]

They should change their name to National Right To Life But Not Today.

[findingtruth]

National Right to Life can't afford to have abortion made illegal. What would happen to their fund raising, their jobs, their pension plans?

[findingtruth]

"Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was 'well timed' in view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!' It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This 'Wait' has always meant Never.

Darned good quotation.

[k2blader]

I'd like to see further confirmation of this story before believing it.

[Dajjal]

so-called NRLC ping

[Land of the Irish]

Unbelievable. NRLC will never see another dime from me.

[Sweet Land]

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&ArticleID=9209&SubSectionID=83

Friday, February 20, 2004

Some hesitation on abortion-ban bill

By BOB MERCER, Republic Capitol Correspondent


PIERRE - Key lawmakers, top aides to the governor and several representatives of organizations that oppose abortion huddled in a closed-door meeting Thursday evening at the state Capitol. They privately discussed whether or not to proceed toward final passage of legislation next week that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota.

After the meeting, the measure’s prime sponsor, Rep. Matt McCaulley, R-Sioux Falls, said he would oppose any attempt to pull back.

“I’m committed to the bill in its present form. It’s moving forward,” McCaulley said. “It says South Dakota is not going to wait. We’re going to lead the country by protecting unborn life in our jurisdiction.”

The legislation, HB 1191, has already won approval in the House of Representatives. It is scheduled for a hearing Saturday morning before the Senate State Affairs Committee. But the question of whether to continue pushing for passage of the legislation has split abortion opponents in the Legislature.

One group, led by McCaulley, wants to push ahead in the hope that the law would force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. One of their arguments is that some members of the court might change before a South Dakota challenge reached there in the next three years or so.

The other group sees no chance of the Supreme Court’s current membership reversing itself and doesn’t want a defeat that would further cement the Roe vs. Wade decision into place. That cluster of lawmakers includes Sen. Jay Duenwald, R-Hoven, a long-time leader in the state and national Right to Life anti-abortion organizations.

“South Dakota Right to Life does not support HB 1191 in its current form, but we are working to get it into an acceptable format that will truly protect lives,” Rachel Hansen, the state organization’s executive director, said after the meeting. The organization previously had simply taken a “right idea, wrong time” position.

One of the suggestions under consideration by some senators is an amendment supported by Right to Life that would remove the bill’s criminal language. The bill currently seeks to make performance of an abortion a Class 5 felony.

What would be offered instead is a new sentence modifying South Dakota’s informed-consent law, so that the physician or agent must certify in writing that the woman had received the information already required under law and that she had sufficient time to review and understand it.

The other main concept of McCaulley’s legislation - that life begins at conception and that unborn life should receive the same protection of law as born life - would continue to be reflected in the amendment. But there are many substantial differences in the language and the statements about that concept between the House-passed bill and the amendment.

McCaulley was firm in his dislike for the possible amendment.

“There’s two parts to 1191: What we believe, and what we’re going to do about it. I would view any attempt to remove what we’re going to do about our beliefs as an unfriendly amendment,” McCaulley said.

Beside McCaulley and Duenwald, others observed entering or leaving the meeting were Jamison Rounds, a brother of and a top aide to Gov. Mike Rounds; Brent Wilbur, a private attorney who also serves as legal counsel to the governor on various issues; Sen Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, the bill’s lead sponsor in the Senate; Senate Republican leader Eric Bogue, of Faith; and the assistant GOP leader, Sen. Mac McCracken, R-Rapid City; as well as several other legislators and lobbyists.

Eighteen senators - 15 Republicans and three Democrats - signed as co-sponsors of the original legislation, the exact number needed for passage. Three of them - Bogue, McCracken and Sen. Drue Vitter, R-Hill City - are among the nine senators on the state affairs committee that will hear the bill.

[epow]

While I don't know enough about the SD situation to make accusations, I am afraid that NRL may have contracted what I think of as the NRA disease. When the officials and staff of such organizations become simply professional lobbyists with lifelong careers at stake, I think it is inevitable that they will become more interested in the continuation of their jobs and salaries than in the cause the organization was originally formed to advocate. After all, if the professed goal of such organizations is ever reached, what need is there then for the organization to exist, and what need is there for the high paying jobs it provides for the officers and staff?

I don't know how NRL is organized or if it's officials are well paid professionals, but I am familiar to some extent with NRA of which I have been a member for decades. I am convinced that the higher level officials of NRA are far more interested in keeping their well paid positions than in achieving the stated goals of the organization and it's membership. I am not saying that is the case with NRL, or the reason for what happened in SD, but it is one possibility.

[findingtruth]

I am afraid that NRL may have contracted what I think of as the NRA disease. When the officials and staff of such organizations become simply professional lobbyists with lifelong careers at stake, I think it is inevitable that they will become more interested in the continuation of their jobs and salaries than in the cause the organization was originally formed to advocate.

Excellent observation. I didn't know NRA was that bad.

[NYer]

Still, according to National Right To Life -- the time is not right.

Tell that to the babies being aborted in the mills! Not another dime to the Right To Life movement.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[NYer]

Unbelievable! Ping!

[johnb2004]

Has anyone from NRL explained this?

[FourtySeven]

National Right to Life can't afford to have abortion made illegal. What would happen to their fund raising, their jobs, their pension plans?

That's one of the most sarcastic, pessimistic, defeatest comments I've ever seen.

And given this article, may actually be spot-on, sadly.

[workerbee]

All I've found in the posted article is "it's not the right time" (no explanation), and in a post above from a Feb report, “South Dakota Right to Life does not support HB 1191 in its current form, but we are working to get it into an acceptable format that will truly protect lives,” (with no explanation of what that means, exactly).

This is really sickening. It would be like MADD helping defeat a bill to outlaw underage drinking (weak analogy but makes the point).

[F.J. Mitchell]

"The National Right to Life Prior to Being Aborted Committee."

"The National Right to Life Except for at the Improper Time Committee."

[johnb2004]

It seems so incredible that there must be more to the story. If there is no more to it than timing, then they are insane.

[F.J. Mitchell]

You can't handle reality, huh?

[epow]

I didn't know NRA was that bad.

Well, maybe I overstated the degree of the problem a little. I think the NRA is still the most effective pro-gun lobbying org out there even though some of it's strategies seem questionable, at least to me they do. But it isn't arguable that we gun owners are in a better position in relation to our 2nd Amendment rights than we would be without the NRA's efforts over the last 4 decades. So, I suppose I will continue to send in my annual dues and hope for the best.

Even so, I don't think anyone can deny that the paid leadership of all such special interest organizations has a vested interest in keeping the outcome of the controversy in perpetual doubt. It only makes sense. Once the issue is resolved one way or the other, there is no more need for their services.

[nickcarraway]

National Right To Life is taking a tremendous risk.

[RonPaulLives]

National Right to Life is to unborn babies
as the NRA is to gunowners.

Think about it.

[Coleus]

I was once told years ago that some, not all, republican politicians and pro-life organizations want to proceed slowly and not really make abortion illegal because if it is, many Reagan Democrats will have no reason to cross over to vote for a republican (causing them to lose) and that these NGO's and non-profits will lose funding and not be in the limelight anymore and close.

I would like to see the NRTL's official explanation and rationale for what they did in SD and wonder if they will apologize for the damage they caused.

[reflecting]

I thought this had already passed....did I not read articles saying so here on FR? This is very disturbing....NRtL has some explaining to do....NOW!

[George from New England]

There must be truth to this article...

It is posted right out front on the Thomas More web site.

http://www.thomasmore.org/

[k2blader]

Depressing...............................

(Thank you for the confirmation)

[Prolifeconservative]

This is absolutely infuriating. This is indeed a sellout by the National Right to Life.

I just spoke with a representative from the Thomas More Law Center and he as much said the reason for the National Right to Life's "sell-out" on this issue is because they feel the political environment is not yet conducive, at least to their liking, for pressing forward in such a big way.

So the bottom line from the National Right to Life's perspective is they'd rather sacrifice a few more unborn until the political landscape is ripe for the picking.

Yeah, I don't get it either. This is a travesty.

[nickcarraway]

many Reagan Democrats will have no reason to cross over to vote for a Republican

How many people are voting Republican soley for that reason, and would go back to voting Dem if it was not legal?

[Coleus]

I thought this had already passed....did I not read articles saying so here on FR? This is very disturbing....NRtL has some explaining to do....NOW!>>>

The State House/assembly passed the bill and needed the State Senate to pass their version of the bill which the National Right to Life helped to defeat.  The Senate Bill lost by ONE vote.

 

(South Dakota) State House passes bill outlawing abortion

 

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

 

S.D. PASSES AN ABORTION-RESTRICTION BILL (Will the left still say "States' Rights"?)

[ninenot]

There's a REAL REASON that Judie Brown founded the American Life League--and the REAL REASON is the quisling compromisers at NRTL.

[Proud_texan]

"So the bottom line..."

I don't agree with it but their timing may be more a focus on getting a different justice, or justices, in the SCOTUS rather than a true "political" position.

If it's done now and loses it occurs to me that reduces the possibility of it being heard in the future when there's a more friendly SCOTUS.

[Prolifeconservative]

"I don't agree with it but their timing may be more a focus on getting a different justice, or justices, in the SCOTUS rather than a true "political" position."

Political position, different justices on the SCOTUS.....it's all one in the same.

Keep in mind, they (NRTL) are rolling the dice that Bush will be re-elected AND he will appoint a new Justice sometime soon in his new term to grease the skids for overturning Roe V. Wade. Imagine IF Kerry is elected, then where are we.

Every time you press this issue into the political and public domain you gain on this issue. This issue needs to say in the spotlight, because the TRUTH shall set some baby free who might have otherwise been aborted.

[Antoninus]

Let these scum-sucking cowards know how you feel. If they won't lead, then they'll be forced out of the way.

CONTACT INFORMATION

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

Make sure you mention that you'll be sending your donations to organizations that *actually* fight for the unborn, like:

Priests for Life

St. Thomas More Law Center

[Antoninus]

Sorry, my link was bad. Try this one:

NRLC@nrlc.org

[gravyfreak]

Watch the state right to life organizations too. I know in NY state the NY STATE RIght to Life organization is for Contraception and Abortion in some cases..and unfortunately they were collecting money in our catholic churches. We withdrew our support for NY State Right to Life some time ago. This is a travesty against justice.

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

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

[old and tired]

There's a REAL REASON that Judie Brown founded the American Life League--and the REAL REASON is the quisling compromisers at NRTL

I believe there is a lot of truth to this statement. The NRLC has NEVER helped our Pro-Life group in any way, shape or form. I have not given them money in years. The American Life League (ALL) always tries to be helpful and more often than not they succeed.

If you need information about a company or politician, the American Life League are the go to guys. They will usually answer your email within 24 hours with all the information you need.

[k2blader]

Bump

[wvprolifer]

epow your speculation that the NRLC opposed the SD bill because they are trying to protect their high salaries and pensions is silly. You sound like John McCain. When the NRLC opposed the McCain-Feingold anti-free speech act he asserted that they were just trying to protect their six digit salaries. As it turned out no one at the NRLC makes any thing close to a six digit salary, in fact records show that their president is not even paid, and that their employees salaries are so low that many of them are eligible for the earned income tax credit for the poor.

[wvprolifer]

It seems from article below which is on the South Dakota Right to Life website that they opposed the bill not only because of timing but also because the bill contained a health exception that allows the abortionist to perform abortions throughout the pregnancy at his discretion.

Any one involved with pro-life legislation long enough knows that a health except like this is a killer amendment that renders the law useless. Which is why PRO-ABORTION law makers always try to add "health exceptions" to pro-life bills.

Pro-abortion lawmakers in the US Senate tried to add a "health" exception to the Partial-Birth Abortion ban but every pro-life lawmaker and organization opposed the exception because it would have make the ban useless.

http://www.sdrl.org/legislative_priorities/1191%20VETO%20OVERIDE.htm

1191 VETO OVERIDE

If 1191 should pass, besides a challenge in state court, 3 things can happen, they are --

1. Challenged in district court. We lose and appeal to circuit court.
We lose and appeal to Supreme Court and Cert. is denied.

Results: Law is dead, NO lives are saved, state has spent $1,000,000 of which $500,000 will go to help the advocates of abortion in their fight against any good pro life bill that we may bring when the opportunity for success is there.

2. Challenged in district court. We lose and appeal to circuit court.
We lose and appeal to Supreme Court and Cert. is accepted.
We argue in court and lose.

Results: Law is dead, NO lives are saved, state has spent $1,000,000 + of which more than $500,000 will go to help the advocates of abortion in their fight against any good pro life bill that we may bring when the opportunity for success is there, but the opportunity will be set back for at least 10-15 years and probably more because of the principle of stare decisis which means that the law is settled and there is no reason to revisit it.

3. Challenged in district court. We lose and appeal to circuit court.
We lose and appeal to Supreme Court and Cert. is accepted.
We argue in court and win.

Results: We have just enacted the most liberal abortion law for SD in the history of the state. The health exception in 1191 allows abortion at any time from conception to birth. All discretion is left to the abortionist, including partial birth abortion. It is solely his decision.

Of the three possibilities for 1191 the first is by far the most likely. The second is less likely but the consequences are far worse, we have not only not saved babies, as some claim 1191 will do, but have precluded doing anything substantive as to preventing abortions for at least a decade, probably another thirty years. If the third possibility should happen, I wonder if the proponents are willing to accept the consequences?

Probably the gravest consequence of all in passing 1191 is that we have deluded the vast majority of South Dakotans who understand what abortion really is, and have worked long and hard to eliminate, into believing we have done something to advance the cause, when in fact we have done the opposite.

[wvprolifer]

I don't understand. We should support the American Life League (ALL) because the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)opposed a bill with a "health" exception that leaves it up to the abortionist to decide if the abortion should be performed. A ban that would in fact ban nothing because of the health loop hole.

But I thought that ALL opposed abortion for any reason including for the life of the mother. In fact ALL opposed the NRLC backed Partial Birth Abortion Ban because it had a "life of the mother exception". They also opposed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act because it didn't ban abortions.

They have criticized pro-life groups like the NRLC for supporting legislation that contains "life of the mother exceptions" but now they want the NRLC to back a ban with a "health" exception. I'm confused?!?!

[Conservative til I die]

So, NRTL thinks abortion is murder, yet doesn't think murder should even be a Class 5 felony. How about even a misdemeanor or ticketable violation? These guys suck.

[Sweet Land]

It seems from article below which is on the South Dakota Right to Life website that they opposed the bill not only because of timing but also because the bill contained a health exception that allows the abortionist to perform abortions throughout the pregnancy at his discretion.

Looks that way. It appears that the "timing" argument is what they emphasized publicly; I can't imagine why.

[old and tired]

National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)opposed a bill with a "health" exception that leaves it up to the abortionist to decide if the abortion should be performed. A ban that would in fact ban nothing because of the health loop hole.

Where did you find this health loop hole as the reason for the NRLC opposing this law? It's my understanding that the NRLC is opposing the bill because there are criminal consequences and the bill is too strict. The American Life League has never opposed legislation because it was too strict, it opposes legislation that is not strict enough.

I personally don't agree with the "my way or the highway" approach but I can at least respect it. I have often heard that Nellie Gray refused to compromise back in 1973 on a constitutional ammendment that would ban all abortions except in the case of rape or incest. I think she's a loon for turning that deal down, but at least I can understand the logic. And she is of course, correct. Children of rape and incest are no less children of God than are children conceived by a night of passion.

The American Life League is at least consistent. They have been helpful to us numerous times. We have given the ALL and NRLC numerous IDENTICAL opportunities (via email or phone calls) to help us in our local fights and the NRLC have never lifted a finger in response - although they manage to send plenty of pleas for money.

[wvprolifer]

The statement put out by the NRLC on their position on the subject listed the health loop hole as one reasons they opposed the bill. This is also one of the reasons listed on the South Dakota RTL website for opposing the bill. The NRLC has consistently opposed “health” exceptions which leave the abortion decision up to the abortionist. The point was if the ALL opposes rape, incest and life exceptions I would also think that they would oppose a bill with rape, incest, life and health exceptions.

Also the press release by the Thomas More center and all the stories about the situation bashing the NRLC did not list anything about the bill containing a health loop hole. I first learned of the loop hole from the NRLC and the SDRTL. Then I actually ready the bill to make sure. Why “pro-life legal experts” would write and support such a bad bill with such a large loop hole is beyond me. I am also disappointed that so many conservative news sources would write about the situation and not even check the facts first.

I would hope that all pro-life groups in SD would be focusing first and foremost on getting rid of their pro-abortion US Senator Tom Dashle who is responsible for blocking the President’s pro-life judicial nominees. If as pro-lifers we really want to stop abortions, we must first get rid of the pro-abortion majority on the Supreme Court. To do that we must re-elect Bush and defeat Dashle. Pro-lifers should not be attacking each other we should be attacking Tom Dashle and John Kerrey. Hopefully that is something we can agree on.

[Coleus]

Thu, Apr 1, 2004

	Law Center Issues Report Exposing Disturbing Details of National Right to Life’s Efforts to Kill South Dakota’s Abortion Ban ANN ARBOR, MI — One week after accusing the National Right to Life Committee of betraying the pro-life movement, the Thomas More Law Center has released a seven page report detailing the role of the National Right to Life Committee and is its state affiliate, South Dakota Right to Life, in opposing and ultimately defeating a South Dakota law that would have banned virtually all abortions and challenged Roe v. Wade. The Law Center report makes clear that both NRLC national and local officials opposed the legislation from its very beginning because they felt that even after 31 years and 40,000,000 unborn babies killed, the time is not right to confront Roe v. Wade. The report issued Wednesday was released in response to a two-page form letter from NRLC defending their opposition to the South Dakota legislation. The Law Center report explains, “…pro-life Americans are entitled to know that NRLC’s lobbying efforts aligned with those of Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups, and resulted in the defeat of this anti-abortion legislation. In our view, such conduct raises important questions about NRLC’s claim to represent the interests of the unborn.” Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented on the release of the report. “Of course National Right to Life has a right to its opinions, but they don’t have a right to be wrong on the facts. This report has been released in response to NRLC’s misstatement of facts in their form letter response.” The report counters NRLC’s claim that the “health” exception” was the reason they opposed the bill. The language they complained of did not exist until after NRLC representatives lobbied legislators to abandon the “no exceptions” bill. The resulting “exception” was narrowly crafted, and did not contain the traditional broad “health” language as defined in Doe v. Bolton. The resulting abortion ban, even with the exception would have outlawed virtually all abortions. Accordingly, the report cites statements made by NRLC officials in multiple national news stories, revealing that the NRLC opposed the abortion ban when the legislation did not contain any exceptions, and criticizes the actions of South Dakota state senator Jay Duenwald, a board member of National Right to Life who lobbied against the bill and even voted with pro-abortion Senators against a no exceptions version of the abortion ban. The report takes on NRLC and the argument that the time is not right to pass an abortion ban, and that pro-lifers must wait for changes in the Supreme Court. “What if changes in the Court are for the worse? What if a certain pro-life majority on the Supreme Court does not come about for another 31 years? Can we afford to wait?” The report continues, “Nobody can know with any real certainty the ideal time to challenge any given decision. Under those circumstances, NRLC should demonstrate humility and respect for the efforts of those who differ with their judgment concerning the right time to ban abortion and challenge the Roe v. Wade decision.” The full report can be found on the Thomas More Law Center website at www.thomasmore.org Report Regarding NRLC Role in Defeat of South Dakota Legislative Effort to Ban Abortion and Challenge Roe v. Wade Wed, Mar 31, 2004 Law Center Issues Report Exposing Disturbing Details of National Right to Life’s Efforts to Kill South Dakota’s Abortion Ban Wed, Mar 31, 2004 National Right To Life Joins Pro-Abortion Groups To Kill South Dakota Bill Criminalizing Abortions; Law Center Accuses Them Of Betraying Unborn Mon, Mar 22, 2004 National Right To Life Joins Pro-Abortion Groups To Kill South Dakota Bill Criminalizing Abortions; Law Center Accuses Them Of Betraying Unborn ANN ARBOR, MI —Shock waves are still reverberating one week after South Dakota’s bill criminalizing abortion was defeated by a single vote over National Right To Life’s complicity with pro-abortion groups to kill the legislation that pro-abortion lobbyists called the most restrictive anti-abortion measure since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The Bill was sponsored by... more >>

[madprof98]

Suppose the bill had passed. The pro-abortion zealots, led by John Kerry, would have lashed out against the Religious Right for trying to take away even those "abortion rights" favored by most Americans--and would have demanded that President Bush repudiate the South Dakota bill. Bush most likely would not have done that, and the pro-abort forces would be much more likely to (a) win the upcoming election and (b) appoint the next Supreme Court justices, who would keep abortion legal forever. I imagine that was the thinking behind the opposition.

[Twinkie]

It looks like just about every good cause starts out
pure, then jobs, pensions, fringe benefits and the
like begin to figure into it. Then they can't afford
to win the cause. A la current civil rights "leaders".

[chance33_98]

Thanks for the info!

[Aquinasfan]

Too bad every state legislature isn't proposing such legislation. Someday we will look back on this as the great American genocide.