Supreme Court Ruling Brings Split in Antiabortion Movement

themuzicman

Well-known member
Well done pro-life movement! You've taken what is a small but important symbolic victory in the courts and created a huge divisive issue in the movement that has us at each other's throats, rather than continuing the fight against abortion.

I can't imagine the number of unborn that will die because you decided to make a huge deal about a fairly minor ruling, and set back the movement by at least 5 years.

Muz
 

Wamba

`
LIFETIME MEMBER
Well done, pro-life movement! You've taken what is a small but important symbolic victory in the courts and created a huge divisive issue in the movement that has us at each other's throats, rather than continuing the fight against abortion.
To start, have you read the ruling? It is not pro-life. It gives the abortionist permission to rip apart the baby, as long as he doesn't pull the baby out past the belly button. Does that sound pro-life to you? Get back to me when you've read the ruling.
I can't imagine the number of unborn that will die because you decided to make a huge deal about a fairly minor ruling, and set back the movement by at least 5 years.
Muz

If anyone has stopped trying to save babies because he was offended by what CRTL and the other signers are saying, he is a foolish and self-absorbed person, and apparently cares more about his own little feelings than he does about the truth and about saving children's lives.

Would you call a ruling that tells a doctor how he is allowed to murder someone "minor?"
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
To start, have you read the ruling? It is not pro-life. It gives the abortionist permission to rip apart the baby, as long as he doesn't pull the baby out past the belly button. Does that sound pro-life to you? Get back to me when you've read the ruling.

Abortionists could already do that. The court doesn't give the abortionists anything they didn't already have. The court is simply stating what the ruling does not do, which is end late term abortions when the child isn't removed past the belly button.

Again, the supreme court upheld the law which said that you couldn't kill a child that had proceeded past the belly button. This is the first time since 1973 that abortion has been limited in any way. This is a small but important symbolic victory, which you are turning into a crash and burn defeat!

Maybe YOU should go back and read the whole ruling in light of the state of the law before the ruling, and realize that a particular kind of abortion has been outlawed which was not outlawed before.

If anyone has stopped trying to save babies because he was offended by what CRTL and the other signers are saying, he is a foolish and self-absorbed person, and apparently cares more about his own little feelings than he does about the truth and about saving children's lives.

The point isn't whether the hard core RTL folks will stop or not stop. The point is that when the RTL movement has these stupid "shoot your own people" battles, those who are think about becoming pro-life, or those who are peripherally in the movement are repulsed, and public opinion on abortion swings back the other direction.

If there is one thing that the Religious Right (and RTL in particular) could learn is that these kinds of disputes in public only hurt the cause and the credibility of those within the cause! This whole blowup, which should have been a reason to celebrate, has now set the movement back, rather than giving it momentum in moving forward.

The problem is that the folks at CRTL are apparently more interested in getting some attention at the cost of saving babies than actually saving lives. Either that, or they're too politically and legally stupid to understand what actually happened.

Would you call a ruling that tells a doctor how he is allowed to murder someone "minor?"

When the previous condition of the law stated that the doctor was allowed to murder in any way he wanted, that's a small but important victory in moving towards eliminating legal murder altogether. It would be momentum for the movement, which is finally headed in the right direction.

Muz
 

Wamba

`
LIFETIME MEMBER
Abortionists could already do that. The court doesn't give the abortionists anything they didn't already have. The court is simply stating what the ruling does not do, which is end late term abortions when the child isn't removed past the belly button.
Again, the supreme court upheld the law which said that you couldn't kill a child that had proceeded past the belly button. This is the first time since 1973 that abortion has been limited in any way. This is a small but important symbolic victory, which you are turning into a crash and burn defeat!
Listen, read the ruling, or at least read the analysis and/or open letter. Not only does it say that if you pull the baby out to the belly button but not past you may murder the baby, it also says that if the baby comes out too far by "accident" then you can go on with a text-book partial birth abortion. And guess what? To quote Alan Keyes in one of my favorite quotes by him, "People can lie!" So, if the baby comes out too far by "accident" you can still proceed with the partial birth abortion, inserting the scissors into the baby's brain then vacuuming out his brains. That is not a win, victory or otherwise. There is no way you can argue with that.
Maybe YOU should go back and read the whole ruling in light of the state of the law before the ruling, and realize that a particular kind of abortion has been outlawed which was not outlawed before.
No true. Read the ruling.

The point isn't whether the hard core RTL folks will stop or not stop. The point is that when the RTL movement has these stupid "shoot your own people" battles, those who are think about becoming pro-life, or those who are peripherally in the movement are repulsed, and public opinion on abortion swings back the other direction.
The movement is not trying to make people look bad or attacking people, but is trying to show people the truth. Is it important to tell the truth?
If there is one thing that the Religious Right (and RTL in particular) could learn is that these kinds of disputes in public only hurt the cause and the credibility of those within the cause! This whole blowup, which should have been a reason to celebrate, has now set the movement back, rather than giving it momentum in moving forward.
The problem is that the folks at CRTL are apparently more interested in getting some attention at the cost of saving babies than actually saving lives. Either that, or they're too politically and legally stupid to understand what actually happened.
It doesn't take a legal adviser or a lawyer to realize that this ruling is bad. It tells the abortionist how to kill the baby and still keep it legal; the abortionist is not limited, and now we have to go back and fix this before we could actually get abortion illegal. CRTL is not trying to get publicity, but is trying to show people the truth that this is a horrible ruling that is letting children die, and telling people how they're allowed to murder.

When the previous condition of the law stated that the doctor was allowed to murder in any way he wanted, that's a small but important victory in moving to wards eliminating legal murder altogether. It would be momentum for the movement, which is finally headed in the right direction.

Muz

This is in no way helping the pro-life movement move along and get momentum, but is actually taking it back, so that we'll have to try to erase what we've done and the damage that we've now caused.
 

Mr. 5020

New member
You mention the 'issues' of the republican party. Attached is a screenshot from the Issues menu at www.rnc.org Can some rePublican tell me, where in that lengthy menu, is the issue of abortion?
I found this on their Faith & Values page...
  • Building a Culture of Life: President Bush is the most pro-life president in history. He has signed into law the Born Alive Infants Act, Partial Birth Abortion Ban and Laci & Connor Peterson’s Law.
  • President Bush believes that marriage is the union between one man and one woman. He supports a Federal Marriage Amendment.
  • President Bush has nominated and appointed conservative judges who will follow the letter of the law and will not legislate from the bench.
  • President Bush has created a national Faith Based Initiative that is serving people in communities all across America.
  • President Bush has been a strong protector of religious freedom. He has signed a reaffirmation of “In God We Trust” as the national motto and has defended the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
 

asstpastor

New member
Asstpastor reply

Asstpastor reply

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer- Monday, June 4, 2007


SOURCE: Washington Post

In a highly visible rift in the anti-abortion movement, a coalition of evangelical Protestant and Roman Catholic groups is attacking a longtime ally, Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson.

Using rhetoric that they have reserved in the past for abortion clinics, some of the coalition's leaders accuse Dobson and other national antiabortion leaders of building an "industry" around relentless fundraising and misleading information.

At the center of the dispute is the Supreme Court's April 18 decision upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, a federal law against a procedure in which a doctor partially delivers a late-term fetus before crushing its skull.

Dobson and many other antiabortion leaders hailed the 5 to 4 ruling as a victory; abortion-rights organizations saw it as a defeat. But six weeks later, its consequences have been, in part, the reverse.

"The Supreme Court decision totally galvanized our supporters" by raising the prospect that the court could soon overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 opinion that established a woman's right to choose an abortion, said Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Both our direct-mail and online giving got a serious bump," she said.

Among antiabortion activists, meanwhile, the decision in Gonzales v. Carhart has reopened an old split between incrementalists who support piecemeal restrictions and purists who seek a wholesale prohibition on abortions.

In an open letter to Dobson that was published as a full-page ad May 23 in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Focus on the Family's hometown newspaper, and May 30 in the Washington Times, the heads of five small but vocal groups called the Carhart decision "wicked," and accused Dobson of misleading Christians by applauding it.

Carhart is even "more wicked than Roe" because it is "not a ban, but a partial-birth abortion manual" that affirms the legality of late-term abortions "as long as you follow its guidelines," the ads said. "Yet, for many years you have misled the Body of Christ about the ban, and now about the ruling itself."

A Focus on the Family spokesman said that Dobson would not comment. But the organization's vice president, Tom Minnery, said that Dobson rejoiced over the ruling "because we, and most pro-lifers, are sophisticated enough to know we're not going to win a total victory all at once. We're going to win piece by piece."

Doctors adopted the late-term procedure "out of convenience," Minnery added. "The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling."

Brian Rohrbough, president of Colorado Right to Life and a signer of the ads, disagreed.

"All you have to do is read the ruling, and you will find that this will never save a single child, because even though the justices say this one technique is mostly banned -- not completely banned -- there are lots of other techniques, and they even encourage abortionists to find less shocking means to kill late-term babies," he said.

Another signer, the Rev. Bob Enyart, a Christian talk radio host and pastor of the Denver Bible Church, said the real issue is fundraising.

"Over the past seven years, the partial-birth abortion ban as a fundraising technique has brought in over a quarter of a billion dollars" for major antiabortion groups, "but the ban has no authority to prevent a single abortion, and pro-life donors were never told that," he said. "That's why we call it the pro-life industry."

In Rohrbough's view, partisan politics is also involved.

"What happened in the abortion world is that groups like National Right to Life, they're really a wing of the Republican Party, and they're not geared to push for personhood for an unborn child -- they're geared to getting Republicans elected," he said. "So we're seeing these ridiculous laws like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban put forward, and then we're deceived about what they really do."

Chuck Donovan, executive vice president of the Family Research Council, a Washington advocacy group allied with Dobson, said the dispute is the most visible rift in the antiabortion movement in at least a decade. He called the ads "a bit bizarre" and said they "might be an attention-getting device" for some of the signers, which also included the heads of the American Life League, Operation Rescue/Operation Save America and the Catholic group Human Life International.

"But," he added, "there are certainly a fair number of people, including in our own building, who think the [Supreme Court] decision's practical importance has been overrated -- that, practically, there may not be even one fewer abortion in the country as a result."
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How should the 5 have voted on the specific procedure before them? With the 4, and Ruth Ginsburg?

I know this is not a right leaning court. I tell liberals that all the time. There are 2 conservatives on the court. If you dont' know who they are, they are the most hated ones on the bench by the media. 2 down, 7 to go.
 
Top