Presidential Candidates and the Human Life Amendment

The American Family Association (AFA) has released it's Voter Guide for the 2008 Presidential Primary. The outcry must have been mighty, because the AFA rewrote it and released it again. The specific issues are designed to highlight differences in the positions of the GOP candidates.

The first edition, which only included the top 6 Republican candidates, gave the candidates' positions on the Human Life Amendment (HLA) as an indication of whether they were pro-life. Only Mike Huckabee supports the HLA.

The revised version includes 7 GOP candidates looks at two criteria: overturning Roe v. Wade and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. All the candidates except for Giuliani and McCain come down on the side of life on both issues. That's a change from earlier positions for Romney and Thompson.

While the first version of the Voters Guide could be misleading, as Huckabee appeared to be the only pro-life candidate, support for the Human Life Amendment is an important benchmark.

What is the pro-life strategy for ending abortion on demand in the US? In Phase 1, we work to restrict abortion as much as possible at all levels of government and to get judges who care about the original intent of the Constitution into office--especially on the Supreme Court. Then those judges overturn Roe vs. Wade by declaring restrictions that violate Roe to be constitutional. At that point abortion is still legal in nearly all states. The issue of abortion has been returned to the states, and some GOP candidates, such as Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, would stop federal involvement there.

In Phase 2, we work at both state and federal levels to restrict and ban abortion wherever possible, unhindered by Roe. Abortion will be banned with varying exceptions in many states, and still be legal in many others.

In Phase 3, we work to enact the Human Life Amendment to the Constitution to recognize the right to human life from the moment of fertilization.

Through all three phases, we must work to save individuals from the horror of abortion and to create a culture of life that views all human life as intrinsically valuable.

A constitutional amendment is not a federal intrusion into state authority--indeed most states must agree to it. So why is Mike Huckabee the only candidate of the top 6 GOP contenders to embrace the HLA?

If abortion is murder, why should we stop short of victory? On abortion there is no substitute for complete victory. While all Republican presidential candidates pledge to support good judges, I want a president who will lead as far as he can to the ultimate victory of life. I want a president who supports the Human Life Amendment. I realize the HLA won't happen for several more years, but I want a president who knows where we need to go, not one who is content to stop at Phase 1.

Wesley Wilson

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Disclaimer: Let Her Live does not endorse or oppose any political candidates, and political views expressed on this blog represent only the personal views of their authors.

Update on SC Ultrasound Bill

After the passage in the SC House of H3355, the bill requiring abortionists to review the ultrasound of the baby with the mother before an abortion, the state Senate amended it to make it almost meaningless.

Holly Gatling from SC Citizens for Life reports that State Senator David Thomas, R-Greenville, has proposed a compromise amendment to make the bill meaningful once again. According to Gatling, the amendment "would require abortionists to review and explain the ultrasound image to women before an abortion, but it would not require her to look at it."

1. The Thomas Amendment drops the House mandate on abortionists to perform ultrasound examinations before 14 weeks of pregnancy. (State regulations already require ultrasound at 14 weeks and recommend it at 12 weeks). The three licensed abortion facilities in South Carolina already do ultrasound as part of the abortion procedure so there is no need to require it by law.

2. If the abortionist performs an ultrasound, the Thomas Amendment keeps the duty on the abortionist to review the ultrasound information with the woman one hour before the abortion. Full disclosure by the abortion doctor is an essential element of informed consent if the pregnant woman is to make this decision intelligently.

3. The Thomas Amendment explicitly clarifies that the woman does not have to look at the ultrasound against her will. Neither the abortionist nor the woman can be penalized if the pregnant woman declines to look at the ultrasound. Although this is implied in both the House and Senate bills, it is not stated explicitly in either.

Please pray for the passage of the Thomas Amendment today. If you live in South Carolina, please contact your state senator today also.

To contact your State Senator go to http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/senatemembers.html. To find out who your legislators are, visit http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/zipcodesearch.exe.

Many thanks to Holly Gatling for her tireless work in Columbia.

What's Wrong with this Picture?

What’s wrong with this picture?

In my 13 years as a pro-life lobbyist, I have not witnessed an unprecedented attack on right-to-life legislation such as occurred last week. Eleven militant pro-abortion organizations spent tens of thousands of dollars on full-page newspaper ads all over South Carolina opposing the ultrasound law currently before the State Senate. It already passed the House by a vote of 91-23.

The Ultrasound Bill requires an abortionist or a qualified staffer to perform an ultrasound on a woman and review the image with the woman before the abortion. Ultrasound is the best, medically accurate, non-judgmental information a woman can have about her unborn child and her "choice." She has the legal right to know.

The big lie that the pro-aborts are spreading is that the legislation forces a woman to look at the ultrasound. Anyone who has read the bill even once knows this is not the case.

Pretend for a moment you are an abortionist who has to comply with the ultrasound law. How would you handle the situation to your advantage? You'd say, "Ms. Jones, I have the ultrasound image here showing the fetus is 12 weeks gestational age. I am required by law to review the image with you. You are not required to look at it. All you have to do is sign this Informed Consent statement verifying I have reviewed the ultrasound image with you."

If she says she want to see the image, she has the right to see it. She also has the right not to look. Chances are better than 80 percent that if she looks at the ultrasound, she will cancel the abortion and give birth.

South Carolina Citizens for Life and the National Right to Life Committee welcome this great public discussion of the humanity of the unborn child as seen in the ultrasound image. The abortion industry's militant opposition to the SC Ultrasound Bill is an indication the pro-aborts are terrified of any discussion of the humanity of the unborn child. When a pregnant woman chooses life, the abortionist loses money.

Back to the original question. What's wrong with the ultrasound picture? Nothing -- unless you are an abortionist who is afraid to give a woman the best available scientific, accurate, non-judgmental information on which she can make a truly informed decision about abortion or giving birth. The ultrasound image may be the only picture she will have of her child or it could happily be the first picture in the baby's scrapbook.

Holly Gatling, Executive Director
South Carolina Citizens for Life

Editor's Note: The S.C. Senate Medical Affairs subcommittee hearing the Ultasound Bill finished hearing testimony Wednesday. The subcommittee will meet again to vote on the bill. Please pray that the committee will approve it. If you live in South Carolina, please also contact your state senator and ask him or her to support the Ultrasound Bill, H3355/S84, as the state senate will need to vote on this bill.

All or Nothing Gets You Nothing

Many pro-life South Carolinians are aware of a group called Columbia Christians for Life (CCL) which spends the majority of its email messages attacking state and national pro-life organizations. Their email update on March 21 opposing the ultrasound legislation that passed the SC House 91-23 demands a response.

It [the ultrasound bill] may reduce abortions, but it will also prolong the practice of "legalized" ABORTION. In the 34-year battle to end abortion, it is yet another strategic and moral error, adopting the incrementalist approach to reducing the number of abortions, while distracting the pro-life community efforts and resources from the proper focus on ending abortion.

As even the well-meaning people of CCL acknowledge, this law will most likely reduce abortions, perhaps saving as many as 1000 or more lives per year. But they would rather build their campaign to completely end abortion on the bodies of those babies than save the ones they can while continuing to fight for a total ban.

CCL argues that Roe vs. Wade allows a total ban on abortions if the state recognizes babies as persons under the law. Obviously, the Supreme Court stands as the decider of all laws, as it has long ago usurped that role from the legislature. So the decision on that law, as the outcome of any challenge to Roe, will depend on the composition of the Court--at least until a state is willing to defy its unconstitutional authority--but that's another issue.

Some of the CCL literature indicates that the total abortion ban they desire would have no exception to save the life of the mother. While we may soon be able to surgically move ectopic fetuses to the uterus and save their lives, right now an ectopic baby will die. Condemning the mother to death as well is immoral and anti-life. Even if, in some rare instance, a choice must be made between the life of the mother and the life of the baby, the baby's life has no greater moral value than the mother's.

In the nine years that a total ban has been pushed in SC, pro-life organizations and citizens have lobbied the legislature to pass laws that restrict abortion, cutting in approximately half the number of babies murdered annually.

Meanwhile the all-or-nothing crowd has achieved nothing. That's the problem with demanding all or nothing. You usually get nothing. As CCL recognizes, the danger of the incremental approach is that you forget your destination.

So let's stick with an all-or-something approach instead. We can continue winning incremental victories and saving babies every day, and one day we will win the full victory.