Perhaps I am naive, but until this year I was completely unaware of the clashes between the various leading forces within the pro-life movement.
In my Evangelicals and American Politics class, I learned for the first time about the considerable differences in the immediate post-Roe era between groups like the National Right to Life Committee (dedicated to legislative action) and members of the rescue movement such as Randall Terry and company. I would still like to do some research on the motives and methodologies of each group before making a complete judgment about who was right or wrong, but I honestly cannot see myself absolutely disagreeing with either side. Is it really that novel of an idea to think that we need both legislative pressure and social action? Lobbyists and protesters? I would be hard-pressed to criticize either of their goals and actions.
Currently, I’m in the midst of an amazing learning opportunity — basically, I’m studying at the feet of some of the most influential pro-life leaders in the country and obviously enjoying every minute of it. :) That said, there are a lot of questions that I’ve been asking myself and I’m interested in what a lot of you may think on the issue as well.
One of my assigned readings was a commentary (from Nov. 2003) by Thomas A. Droleskey of the American Life League. I have always been impressed with the publicity materials produced by ALL. Their pro-life t-shirts, signs, and various literatures tend to stand out with their boldness and include solid information. They are a strongly Catholic organization, so some of their articles have not really appealed to me from that angle.
Anyway, I could not find the Droleskey article on the ALL website, but I was able to find it midway down the page here, titled “Affirming the Merchants of Death.” The gist of this article and much of the other material propagated by ALL is that incrementalism is an inherently anti-life strategy. Therefore, groups that use such a strategy (read: National Right to Life Committee) are actually pro-abortion baby killers. Don’t believe me? Here is a quote straight from the horse’s mouth:
Here is a simple rule of thumb for pro-life Americans: ignore all of the political and policy judgments of the National Right to Committee. They have affirmed the very principles that have given rise to the culture of death in which we find ourselves at this point in salvation history. All of their pragmatism and incrementalism have failed the cause of saving preborn babies and are failing now the cause of those threatened by euthanasia.
Honestly, this blows my mind. According to the American Life League, supporting a bill such as the Partial Birth Abortion Act is wrong because it does not make all abortions illegal right now. Sure, it’s logical to say that ultimately this act probably won’t save many unborn children because women will just get different types of abortion. Nevertheless, we have established a boundary! We’ve shown that there is a line that Congress and the Supreme Court will refuse to cross. No, it’s not perfect, but I recently heard an analogy that makes a lot of sense: compare the road to making abortion illegal to a large room. Logically, we simply cannot cross the room in one step. We’re physically incapable of flying to the other side, so we have to take it step by step. If each step is successful, we will arrive at the other side of the room.
Is this a satisfying metaphor? No. More than anything else in the world I wish we could make all abortions illegal right now. If there were any sort of plausible way to do that, I would support it 1000000%. There simply isn’t such a way at this time. Abortion has become socially acceptable, or at least unmentionable. The inherent sanctity of life has become a back-burner priority to many politically ambivalent Americans. This does not mean our goal is unachievable, but it does mean that it may take some time and effort — as horrible as it is to think of the unborn children that will continue to die.
Now, that said, I do believe that some leaders within the pro-life movement take incrementalism much too far. They argue that it would be best to accept electable candidates who support a rape/incest exception just so that we have mostly pro-life individuals in office. I simply cannot accept that option. If we’re not in favor of a rape/incest exception, why would we want to elect people who will only support legislation with such a rule? That is one criteria which falls into the “all or nothing” category, in my opinion.
Alright, I’ve rambled enough and I have homework/reading to do. Please, please, please skim that article or think about incrementalism as a pro-life strategy and tell me your thoughts on the issue. How do you think the pro-life movement would be most effective? In an ideal situation where we had unlimited funding to spend toward saving the lives of unborn children, what methods would you employ to reach that goal?
Sphere: Related Content
Excellent points on an under-reported and sad situation. Saving some lives is better than saving no lives!
If I had unlimited money I’d go for the whole thing via mass education of people. I think most people quit thinking about this years ago and are stuck with a bunch of lame pro-choice sound bites.
But we don’t have unlimited money OR unlimited access to the public (newspapers and TV probably wouldn’t show the ads we want them to). Aim at the whole thing, but live with incrementalism because it is more likely to succeed. And we shouldn’t demonize each other - we’re on the same side!
<blockquote>And we shouldn’t demonize each other - we’re on the same side!</blockquote>
Exactly my view! I was shocked that a group like ALL would say such things about NRLC. I’m not sure how that could be anything but counter-productive. ALL was also one of the forces behind an advertisement in Colorado in May (I think) attacking Dr. Dobson and others for supporting the Supreme Court’s ruling. I’m just not sure what goal they’re hoping to accomplish with that.
“According to the American Life League, supporting a bill such as the Partial Birth Abortion Act is wrong because it does not make all abortions illegal right now.”
Tieki Rae…..I agree fully. According to this would the same people resist rescuing the same children from a burning building until they could get them all in one fell swoop or evacuate as many as you can as fast as you can knowing there are going to be casualties. I’ll go with the latter……….steve
Oh, forgot to mention that this is like going down with the ship when it is at dock……….steve
The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
What people who advocate for full overturning of the “laws” fail to note is that there is no overriding abortion “law” in the US. We have only Supreme Court decisions, which limit our ability to pass legislation.
As it is, we need to work incrementally for two reasons:
1) that’s all that will pass Constitutional muster until we can get another conservative on the bench; and
2) it underscores the ridiculousness of the current pro-choice position. When people flip out about the PBA Act, it shows how extreme they are. Incrementalism is good for the simple reason that we can stop arguing about rape and incest and health and start arguing about some really horrible things.
I have to admit, one of my weaknesses is an all or nothing type personality. I do understand where ALL is coming from, but that doesn’t make it right. You save who you can when you can. If we didn’t accept progress in the pro-life movement in incremental steps, then we really would have no progress to speak of at all.
Neil is right — we are all on the same side! We need to protect and save the unborn every way possible, not quibble among ourselves. To me, it doesn’t make any sense for ALL to bad mouth National Right to Life.
Okay, that’s all I’m going to say about that.
PS. I miss you — are you ever coming home again?
Steve, thanks for the comment. You’re exactly right about those examples, and I’m sure there are a thousand others. Nobody is saying that if we had the ability to do everything we wanted immediately we shouldn’t do it. Rather, they’re saying that what we can do right now, we should. To do nothing because we cannot do everything is doing no service to the babies.
<blockquote> The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.</blockquote>
Bridget, it’s like you’re reading my mind or something! I heard that exact statement in another lecture today. Actually, we were discussing Dr. Wanda Franz’ article in the National Right to Life News from April 2007 (found <a href=”http://www.nrlc.org/news/2007/NRL04/PresidentColumn.html” rel=”nofollow”>
here</a>). I’m somewhat ashamed as we go through all this, because I feel like I’ve been immature wishing and hoping for the perfect candidate. Not that we shouldn’t strive for that at all, but I’m really learning that we have to do everything we can to help the babies. That does not equal holding out for a hero (to steal from a great song). It means doing whatever we’re capable of right now.
Mom - I know exactly what you mean about the “all or nothing” personality type. In fact, I probably get that from you.
It is definitely a challenge to me, having the incrementalist viewpoint presented in such a logical way. I’m starting to realize that we’ve got to do whatever we can do <em>now</em>, at the same time never losing sight of what we want to do in the future. There really is a balance to be had between those two strategies, it’s just not an easy one to come to when you feel the pressure of unborn lives on your hands. That’s another thing I’m learning: Being anxious about the life or death nature of this debate doesn’t do us any good. Obviously it is always going to be in the front of our minds, but to let it take over our thought process and always have an attitude of desperation is not going to be effective.
You know what? All this just serves to tick me off at that pro-abortion baby-murdering disabled/elderly-hating leftist FREAK crowd. If they weren’t such murderous idiots, we wouldn’t even have to worry about strategies. Surely we all agree on that no matter what?
OK, I finally made it. Would I love to see a law that banned all abortions at the stroke of the President’s pen? You bet I would! Will that happen today, given
1) The current Congressional make-up
2) the current Supreme Court Bench
No, it won’t. Could it happen someday? Possibly. Most assuredly, the best way would be the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The lady behind Roe is in fact now adamantly pro-life and wants to see her case revisited and overturned.
Should we gripe at laws that ban ONLY one type of abortion, such as PBA’s? Absolutely not. That is a victory in a battle of a huge war.
Let’s take an analogy that we can understand in the Rocky Mountain west: forest fires.
It may take several days before the crews get the upper hand on the blaze. If the goal is containment, the crews are going to be focusing on establishing a parameter that the blaze can’t cross under normal circumstances.
We watched that happen up here over the past couple weeks. Did they get a fire line established on day one? No, but they worked to get one done as quick as possible. They had to deal with the surprise jumps the fire made, but they kept on the mission of getting a line
*on the East and South to protect private lands
*on the West to protect more forest lands
*and on the North to prevent the fire from jumping to the other side of the mountain.
As far as the in-fighting in the pro-life movement, we need to come together and recognize that our ultimate goal is the same. If ALL wants the “all or nothing” approach, then they can take the helm on that arena, but they can’t belittle the efforts of those that are leading the charge on taking baby-steps, because eventually those baby steps are going to have us all rendezvousing together to storm the castle.
Tieki Rae,
I’m so thankful for everyone who is engaged in the fight against child murder!
I still can not grasp on any level, the slaughter of the unborn as an acceptable practice in my country.
I personally feel overwhelmed when ever I think about it, like, what can I do to make a difference….
How about the mind set of the millions of mothers that are offering their unborn children up to be killed on the alter of selfishness?
The demand for this service of murder is so great. It’s insane.
The very ONE (the mother) who should have greatest, the strongest instinct to protect their child is accommodating their being killed?! I truly don’t think I’ll ever understand it.
What is being said concerning the mothers?
TW
<blockquote>If they weren’t such murderous idiots, we wouldn’t even have to worry about strategies. </blockquote>
I’m nominating you for Comment of the Week.
You’re right on.
It would be interesting to compare these differences with those differences in the abolitionist movement in the antebellum period- immediate versus gradual.
Two things:
1. ALL’s position is that they would support a *true* ban on late-term abortions The so called “partial birth abortion” ban is not an “incremental” step at all: it doesn’t save a single life. It bans *one* specific kind of late-term abortion, *because* there are other forms of late-term abortion that can be used. Pro-lifers have dedicated over 10 years of time and millions of dollars to a law that saves not one single baby.
2. I have doubted the motives of NRLC for years, long before I knew ALL existed. They actively campaign *against* 100% pro-life candidates like Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes in favor of hypocrites like George Bush. And you may not be aware that, last year, NRLC campaigned *against* the total abortion ban in South Dakota. You read that right: they *opposed* it. You think ALL is bad becaues they opposed the partial birth abortion act as smoke and mirrors? NRLC said that banning abortion totally “would not be appropriate at this time”!
3. Where has “incrementalism” gotten us in 35 years?? 35 years ago, Americans considered abortion a taboo, a necessary but unspeakable evil at best. Now, they consider it a fundamental right. 35 years ago, any pro-lifer would have aghast at a court decision saying that a “fetus” is an “organism” (_Roe v. Wade_, in contrast, said the fetus is a “person” but not a “citizen”), and that “all other forms of abortion are permissible,” but today you have pro-lifers rejoicing over _Gonzalez v. Carhart_.
Fr. Paul Marx once said that the worst defeat of the pro-life movement was the late unlamented Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” teaching. i’d say the worst defeat of the pro-life movement was when NRLC bamboozled everyone with “incrementalism.” Liberals don’t use “incrementalism”: they pass sweeping laws and sweeping court decisions that wipe out traditional values in society. And we’ve had *numerous* opportunities to overturn _Roe_, if not completely ban abortion in America, in the past 35 years, and how much closer are we, really, to that end?
JC - I appreciate your comment, but I would really encourage you to sit back and think about this issue a little more.
Unfortunately, the American public thinks they are pro-choice. They do not understand the exact extent that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. In their hearts (we know this through polling) they really do not believe that abortion-on-demand is a legitimate form of birth control. They are open to alternatives. On the other hand, they are not open to the idea of some “radical” pro-life group immediately and completely outlawing all abortions. They are still under the impression that abortion is necessary in some situations. They don’t understand what a truly horrific procedure abortion is - for both mother and child.
I say all that to say this: we MUST take one step at a time on the road to saving the lives of unborn children and saving their mothers from the pain and violence of abortion. Over the 10 year battle for the partial birth abortion ban, many Americans became MORE pro-life. They recognized that abortion is NOT friendly to women and that it is certainly not friendly to these partially born children. They saw people like Doug Johnson demonstrate what a partial-birth abortion was on a plastic doll with real abortionists’ scissors. We made huge gains in public opinion polls because we showed how extreme and disgusting the pro-abortion movement really is.
Furthermore, you are entirely misinformed when you say that NRLC campaigns against pro-life candidates. There are certain situations when they must endorse certain pro-life candidates over others, but that’s just a fact of politics: only one person can win. As for endorsing Bush over Buchanan and company, tell me, do you really think Keyes or Buchanan could have won the presidency? They are clearly amazing pro-life men, but how popular were they with the American public? Not popular at all. As for Bush, the leaders of NRLC met with him numerous times before endorsing him. I have another question for you, where has Bush failed us on pro-life issues? Perhaps he has not been as zealous as we would like, but what about the partial-birth abortion ban? Vetoing legislation promoting embryonic stem cell research? Giving us two solid SCOTUS justices (so far)? The point is, Bush was elected. NRLC picked the winner.
Finally, for you to say that we have made no progress in 35 years is simply offensive. 35 years ago, abortion on demand was legalized. Now, we have many states with parental involvement laws, women’s right to know legislation, and a partial-birth abortion ban to boot. No, this is not perfect. Read the entire freaking post, will you? We are not stopping here as if we are completely satisfied. But the fact is, we got behind in the beginning (late 70’s and early 80’s) because we stubbornly held to the idea that a Constitutional Amendment was 1) possible and 2) effective when it was neither. It was a rude awakening, to say the least. We have to do what we can. I absolutely adore ALL for the pro-life material they put out and for their strong stance against the murder of unborn children, but I would like to turn your question on you. Where has ALL’s (and your) all-or-nothing approach gotten us in the past 35 years? Hm? Nowhere.
Stop trying to divide the movement. Why don’t you try to work together for once with people who genuinely want to end abortion effectively?
Oh, and by the way, liberals do use incrementalism. By nature, no “sweeping” law is passed without some social history. Take the pro-euthanasia movement as an example. All throughout the 1900’s, they were introducing law after law that failed in state legislatures. Then, they began their campaign for so called “advanced care directives” or “living wills”. Basically, they presented the idea of complete control at the end of your life to the American public and we swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Now we have one state with a “right to die” law on the books and the pro-euthanasia movement is still going strong. There are many other examples of this sort of strategy. People are inherently anti-change on an immediate time scale. However, present an idea over and over for years and make your message sound nicer and nicer… eventually, for better or worse, you’ll get somewhere.