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?

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?

I’m nominating you for Comment of the Week. You’re right on.

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

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.