Posted on 04/27/2006 9:07:55 AM PDT by Reagan Man
With the heated debate regarding immigration and the ongoing frustration being felt by grassroots conservatives on issues such as government spending, now is a good time to highlight an issue where progress has actually been made. The efforts in the pro-life movement by committed social conservatives have resulted in a number of legislative successes. More importantly, these efforts are changing the American perception of the issue and moving us closer to embracing a culture of life.
Part of the progress is due in large part to the efforts of President George W. Bush. President Bush has been an ally of the pro-life movement from the moment he took the oath of office. Still in his first year as president, Bush addressed the nation and called for a ban on new embryonic stem cell research. President Bush also ended federal funding for abortion counseling and signed Lacy and Conner’s Law which treats the violence against a woman and her unborn child for what it is: violence against two human beings.
In addition, when we talk about Roe v. Wade, we naturally turn our attention to the United States Supreme Court. It is in that arena — that of judicial nominations — where, but for one oversight, President Bush has excelled. Even some liberal judicial scholars have gone on record saying that Roe v. Wade was poorly determined. Given one or two more nominees to the Supreme Court who see the Constitution for what it is and who do not legislate from the bench, there is growing optimism that Roe v. Wade will one day be overturned.
A look at abortion statistics is another reason to see hope. Although a tragic 1.3 million abortions are still occurring each year, the numbers have declined steadily from the early 1990s. As Rod D. Martin notes in America: Choosing Life?, “Vast numbers who were “pro-choice” before the partial-birth abortion debate have come to see the pro-life light, and — for the first time since Roe — a clear majority of America’s women reject the idea of a legal “right” to kill one’s own child.”
And now we have South Dakota and the recent pro-life legislation which bans all abortions in the state except when the life of the mother is at risk. Assuming the South Dakota law is challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, which is almost a certainty with organizations like NARAL and NOW ready to turn loose their armies of attorneys, America could be on the verge of turning the tables on the abortion culture once and for all.
As Martin noted in his column, USA Today recently did a story on the implications at the state level if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, and the results of their study show that only sixteen states would likely enact laws which would provide for abortion-on-demand services (or as USA Today puts it, sixteen states would likely “protect abortion access”). Twenty-two states would move pro-life legislation forward to restrict abortions. Twelve states are “in the middle” according to the USA Today story.
Add the twenty-two states together with the toss-ups, and as Martin describes:
[T]his two-thirds of America’s population is just four states shy of the 38 necessary to change the United States Constitution, recognizing babies as fully human just as the 13th Amendment recognized blacks.
With progress seen in so many states, now is the time to keep the momentum going. In states that that have parental notification, we must push for parental consent. In states with parental consent, we must push for legislation such as South Dakota’s new law.
As Martin notes:
"The USA Today map suggests an immediate state-by-state strategy, pushing the envelope relentlessly, protecting preborn life “to the maximum extent consistent with federal law” in the words of several states’ pro-life constitutional amendments, designed to trigger upon Roe’s demise.
Pro-lifers should fight right now for these “Unborn Child Amendments” everywhere they can, and for laws like South Dakota’s as well. Win or lose, just fighting the fight will rally the troops, force pro-abortion groups onto defense — spending precious time and treasure just to stay even — and raise the public awareness necessary for future, ultimate victory."
By going one step at a time, and never falling back, we can eventually reach our goal of having a nation which not only respects but honors all innocent human life. Some 44,000,000 children have lost their lives since 1973 due to abortion. We owe it to their memories to continue the fight.
Always good to recognize the good as well as the bad.
I think that the GOP is maybe somewhat fanatical in this area. Right now, every woman has the RIGHT TO CHOOSE whether or not she'll have a child, and there is no problem other than that of those who are obsessed with wanting to take away that right and return her to the last century.
The author of this piece isn't going to saying anything negative about the party because he's running for Vice Chair in TX.
One of the things that has hurt the pro-life movement is the horrible way it's been handled in the past, vis a vis bombing of clinics and shooting physicians. We will have to come a long way to combat those marks against us.
There was a 'tribunal' recently between pro-lifers and pro-choicers and they actually were able to hit common ground on the basis of the WAY in which communication is done.
Bottom line: both sides can be and have been equally as nasty and it just doesn't help either side to be that way.
I didn't see that Black comment, but I don't have my glasses! You are correct, and/but GOPUSA is somewhat MORE fanatical about abortion than the rest of the party.
The GOP will be hard-pressed to find an appropriate candidate for 2008 who is solidly anti-abortion, and I predict this will further divide the conservative from the more moderate in the party.
Baby-saving bump.
Whether Bobby Eberle is courting a political position within the Texas GOP or not, he has always shown himself to be a solid pro-lifer, one who respects the right to life for all people.
>>>>>Bottom line: both sides can be and have been equally as nasty and it just doesn't help either side to be that way.
Wrong. Pro-choicers advocate and promote abortion on demand. The differences between the pro-abortion forces and the pro-life forces, are the difference between life and death itself.
That should read...Right now, every woman has the RIGHT TO CHOOSE whether or not she'll KILL a child...
If you were properly informed, you'd know that is exactly what Free Republic advocates. The abolition of abortion on demand from American society. Free Republic places the rights of the unborn, the life of the unborn, above the right of a woman to kill her unborn child.
There, I fixed it for you, because in case you didn't know it, ABORTION IS MURDER.
How come we never hear about prosecutions and imprisonments, then? Murder is a specific legal category.
You're so right. In order for an abortion to be "successful", a baby has to be killed.
Elaborate, please.
You spittled out, "Right now, every woman has the RIGHT TO CHOOSE whether or not she'll have a child, and there is no problem other than that of those who are obsessed with wanting to take away that right and return her to the last century." Do you really want we freepers to believe you see no difference in 'right to have a child' and right to kill an alive unborn child conceieved by no fault or irresponsibilty on the child's part? Is your goddesshood actually dependant upon the 'rite' to hire the slaughter of an unborn girl or boy to avoid child birth of an alive human being? Do you really believe the unborn are not human beings? My my, you sure have fallen upon the wrong website for your goddesshood.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=abortion&ok=Search&q=quick&m=any&o=score&SX=4450fded1123f7830f95e920f7d58855f80e3da8
There is one study by U. of FL (poster sez 'Baarff') and another further down from the NYT starting with 'Some abortion foes...quiet talk.'
It's been some time since I read the peace I was thinking of, but IIRC there were some pro-life folks who decided against an exhibit after participation in the both-sides conference. This was based on a new understanding - and respect - for the other side's point of view.
While some would agree the 'wrongness' is the tantamount argument, I think there is some merit to maintaining some CIVILITY as the common ground by which to best achieve retroactive correction.
I have no particular interest in Dr. Eberle's current or past thoughts on abortion. The point is, this piece is more about focusing on the positive than it is about fighting abortion. It is a pep talk.
Your post is a good example of the 'talking down' that the conference I read about [here, BTW] is focusing on correcting.
The "I'm right, you're wrong" approach is not the way to achieve the abolition of Roe v Wade. Striving for common ground is tantamoung to success.
Next time you want to be cavalier about pro-choice, try talking to someone whose relative was KILLED in one of those clinic bombings. Can you truly defend THAT murder based on the concept that the clinic employee had a choice?
I just thought of something: abortion is like drug addiction. Take away the supply and I just bet you'll see a decrease in demand. Except for the black market, of course.
tantamoung=tantamount.
Just think if we could rally the numbers of people out on the streets to stop abortion as the illegal immigrants did a few weeks ago!
That would send America a message.
Whenever I hear about that 44 million executed babies since Roe v Wade, I always wonder though about how many babies were illegally aborted before Roe v Wade.
Anybody know of any statistics on that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.