CONFIRMED: Georgia Right to Life Opposes Legislation to Prohibit Abortions

June 18, 2013 12:18 pm

by Erick · 12 comments

With friends like these…

Life News confirms Georgia Right to Life is opposed to one of the most pro-life pieces of legislation to come out of Congress since the partial birth abortion ban.

While the rest of the pro-life movement lobbies today for the ban on abortions from 20 weeks to the point of birth, one pro-life organization is apparently calling members of Congress to oppose it.

Georgia Right to Life issued an action alert to its members calling on them to urge members of Congress to oppose the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 1797) because it, as most pro-life legislation does, has exceptions for rape and incest. Women considering an abortion late in pregnancy likely never consider an abortion for such a reason, but GRTL decided that those exceptions were enough to seek the defeat of a bill that would stop late-term abortions that have killed 1-2 million unborn children since Roe.

This all or nothing approach might be admirable until you consider, not the conjecture, but the actual data. The number of abortions after 20 weeks that arise from rape or incest are very small. Even if, suddenly, women started claiming rape or incest to have abortions after 20 weeks, we would more likely than not see a 100% increase.

For the sake of argument and because math is hard, presume there are 100,000 annual post-20 week abortions excluding rape and incest. Now presume suddenly 90% of those abortions become attributed to rape or incest. While that is not going to happen, even so, that would still save 10,000 additional lives per year.

For the sake of further argument, let’s assume the absolutists are right and that 100% of those cases will suddenly claim rape or incest. Well then the situation would be no different from status quo.

So if Georgia Right to LIfe were right, the situation under HR 1797 would be unchanged from the status quo. If Georgia Right to Life is wrong — the more likely presumption — they would rather keep the slaughter for purity of cause than save lives. You can read the Georgia Right to Life action alert here.

They claim the legislation was hijacked. In truth, the legislation had the rape/incest exception added to increase its likelihood of passage and prevent Democrats from attacking the GOP as anti-women in the process.

Members of the Georgia General Assembly tell me that this past year the Georgia legislature passed a fetal pain bill that was heavily opposed by left-wing groups and Georgia Right to Life. One member of the state legislature told me, while the legislature was actively working to stop abortions after 20 weeks — the point at which a child in utero can feel pain — Georgia Right to Life was impossible to work with, rude, and quite obnoxious. It left members of the legislature scratching their heads wondering why they were bothering to pass pro-life legislation that would save lives when the pro-life group in town was attacking them for doing it.

And we can now add for certain that Georgia Right to Life would rather keep having children slaughtered, even past the point of feeling pain, unless they can get an all or nothing solution. How many children must die before Georgia Right to Life recognizes its folly.

F. Underwood June 18, 2013 at 12:49 pm

GRTL has been getting out of control for a while now.

George Chidi June 18, 2013 at 1:19 pm

Modern politics, in microcosm. Policy groups don’t aim to represent the needs of most people reasonably well. They aim to represent small groups really really well. At best, 15 percent of Georgians would agree with their position here. But that 15 percent are the 15 percent that write a check. If there were money in being an abortion moderate, you’d see different things.

BigRedConservative June 18, 2013 at 1:27 pm

No policy is perfect, or ever will be. GRTL is off on this one.

jedmonds5 June 18, 2013 at 2:06 pm

GRTL is asking to amend or oppose the bill (HR 1797). If the exception, which is an unnecessary measure added out of fear, were removed, then it would be supported. Let’s try to keep all of this in perspective:

1. This legislation has no chance of passing the Senate, and certainly has no chance of getting signed by Obama. So we’re not talking about actually gaining or losing any legislative ground over it. It’s all about taking a stand and making a show to the voters what the legislature is willing to do. Think of it as an encouragement to the pro-life voters that if they get out during primary season next year and put the Senate in the Republican column, this is what they’re capable of doing in return.

2. This legislation didn’t originally have rape/incest exception in it. It was being promoted up until Friday as only carrying absolute medical health of the mother exception. Georgia Right to Life endorsed the bill up until that point. House leadership even took this bill away from Rep. Franks and gave it to Rep. Blackburn when they added this new exception so that they could better peddle the bill with a friendly female face. GRTL isn’t approaching this as all or nothing. Remove the exception – it’ll be endorsed and supported. Keep the exception – they’ll lobby to oppose or amend it.

3. A recent national poll (which had a 47% pro-abortion sampling) found that 64% of voters support a 20wk abortion ban with only an absolutely life of the mother exception. So, why add rape exception to the current Fetal Pain bill? It’s not political experience if we own the only Chamber that it has a chance of passing anyhow and if we have a majority of the public opinion.

4. So, we have an opportunity to present to the voting public what the pro-life a symbol of their conviction and dedication to ending abortion. Nobody *wants* abortions. Nobody *wants* the rape exception. We’re holding our noses because it’s a “step in the right direction.” The bill in it’s current form says that is all the legislature is willing to do – take steps.

So, let’s not get lost in the rhetoric of lives being saved. This bill was never going to save any lives in the first place. It was only ever a show, to educate the public, to hold the line before the culture, to show our hand to the voters, and to beckon a response at the ballot box. As long as we make everyone feel good about it, we’re just gonna ignore the elephant in the room – if the bill is based on when babies feel pain, then why make exceptions for any people who feel pain? The Republican party can do better than this. But, we’re so scared of not making progress that we keep taking what they feed us. McCain, Romney, HR 1797 Amended, etc. Where do we draw the line?

Charlie June 18, 2013 at 2:26 pm

“So, let’s not get lost in the rhetoric of lives being saved. This bill was never going to save any lives in the first place.”

Thank you for finally admitting, once and for all, that nothing Georgia Right to Life is doing is about saving lives, but is instead all a cynical play on politics.

Your justification disgusts me.

F. Underwood June 18, 2013 at 3:26 pm

Thank you.

Mike Hassinger June 18, 2013 at 7:35 pm

+1

John Konop June 18, 2013 at 2:51 pm

…………… 3. A recent national poll (which had a 47% pro-abortion sampling) found that 64% of voters support a 20wk abortion ban with only an absolutely life of the mother exception. So, why add rape exception to the current Fetal Pain bill? It’s not political experience if we own the only Chamber that it has a chance of passing anyhow and if we have a majority of the public opinion………

I call BS! No way 47% of people would support forcing 10,000 women a year who have late miscarriages to carry the baby to term. Only a very cruel and or insane person would support forcing families through that pain. NO WAY the question was asked right!

saltycracker June 18, 2013 at 4:27 pm

No amount of data will cause an absolutists or fundamentalist on “no exception” to save a mother. Our legislators should quietly listen (no debate needed) and move on to rational considerations.

A miscarriage is also called a spontaneous abortion but don’t think, by definition, there is such a thing as a miscarriage carried to term. A fetus that has died is usually expelled by the body but if not, the medical advice would be to get help and remove it before it toxicates.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/miscarriage.html

Scott65 June 18, 2013 at 5:08 pm

1. they are not children until they are born. To say otherwise is to try and elicit an emotional response instead of an intelligent one.
2. This forces a woman using the deadly force of government to carry a stillborn fetus to term causing untold mental pain to the parents. Nobody seems to care about their pain.
3. many women dont report rape or incest to police because they fear being made into the villain (and often are)
4. there is almost no credible scientific research that proves the idea that a fetus feels pain
5. ” In truth, the legislation had the rape/incest exception added to increase its likelihood of passage and prevent Democrats from attacking the GOP as anti-women in the process.” You think? Really? I guess vaginal ultrasounds forced by government dont either, eh?
Once again…living in the bubble does the GOP no favors. Weren’t they going to avoid social issues? I guess not.

mpierce June 19, 2013 at 10:56 am

1) Child – 1a : an unborn or recently born person
2) H.R. 1797
(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section the following definitions apply:

‘‘(1) ABORTION.—The term ‘abortion’ means the use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device—

‘‘(A) to intentionally kill the unborn child of a woman known to be pregnant; or
‘‘(B) to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant, with an intention other than
‘‘(i) after viability to produce a live birth and preserve the life and health of the child born alive; or
‘‘(ii) to remove a dead unborn child.
3) Relevance to the bill?
4) It seems to me most of studies disagree with when a fetus feels pain as opposed to if.

northside101 June 19, 2013 at 8:33 am

“The (U.S.) Constitution grants the federal government no authority to act against common crimes – such as murder and theft. In fact, only three crimes are mentioned in the Constitution – treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Since the federal government has no constitutional authority to deal with abortion, I oppose any federal activity in that area…so…I would..(veto)…the ‘Women’s Right to Choose’ bill (supported by pro-choice legislators back in the mid 1990s), the partial-birth abortion (ban) bill (favored by pro-life legislators in the late 1990s)…and any other proposal from either side of the debate.”
—From “The Great Libertarian Offer” (2000), published by Harry Browne, Libertarian candidate for president in 2000.

Comments on this entry are closed.