I am an ally of Georgia Right to Life. I love what they do and how they do it. I am a conservative, evangelical, Christian pro-lifer. But I hate the one exception litmus test that has apparently benefitted Bill Stephens.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand, religiously, why it is there. I understand that a child, even an unborn child, should not be punished for the sins of the father. But I also understand as a practical, political and policy matter, that we will never advance the goal of ending abortion if we say that a woman should be forced to carry to term a child conceived through rape.
I would fully support any woman who does so. They have my respect and my compassion. But trumpeting the issue does not help with swing voters. Yes, I understand that the issue is not about politics — it is about principle. More power to GRTL. Most of my friends fully disagree with me on the issue.
I just know that I could never look into the eyes of a loved one and tell her she must be forcibly reminded for nine months that she was raped. I’d hope she did not have an abortion, but I could not stand in her way should she choose to. And I think the majority of the public is with me in that.
At one time, GRTL and other pro-life groups had three exceptions: life, rape, and incent. The last two are no longer good. Frankly, I think most (though not all) politicians who say they are advocates of the one exception are liars — I know more than a dozen legislators who have endorsements from various prolife groups because they support the one exception rule who will privately heap scorn.
The result is that GRTL and other prolife groups that refuse to give their endorsement unless a politician only supports the “life exception,