Leading up to the March for Life—and perhaps in an effort to grab a headline or two with a new or innovative idea—several pro-life legislative proposals are on the horizon. But at a time when the pro-life movement is focused on commemorating the deaths of millions of babies killed by abortion, these proposals are written in such a way that they would do nothing to halt the madness.
The awkwardly titled Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act deals with those babies who are capable of feeling pain during an abortion and therefore require special attention. But, according to the language of the proposal, only those pain-capable babies NOT created by acts of rape or incest or perceived to be a direct threat to the life of the mother would be protected.
The same problem exists in the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. The act would not prohibit Title X money (your tax dollars) from going to organizations that commit or advocate for abortions IF the babies they are killing are conceived due to an act of rape or incest or because of a perceived threat to the life of the mother.
Let me repeat that. This proposal does NOT prohibit all Title X taxpayer funds from going to organizations or individuals that commit abortions.
Thus, sadly, neither of these even makes a dent in ending every abortion of every innocent baby from the moment of creation—his biological beginning. This is so because we don’t even know how to talk about when a preborn child’s life actually begins. It seems to me that my pro-life friends are either suffering from a political blind spot or simply do not want the fullness of truth to be part of their agenda.
For example, the March for Life publishes a set of principles that, by including the phrase “when the father’s sperm fertilizes the mother’s ovum,” does not address the protection of all preborn babies. By that definition, it would overlook babies who are created asexually. Only God knows how many babies would go unprotected if these principles prevailed.
Like the legislative proposals we discuss, these principles are flawed.
I ask you, if we pro-lifers are truly committed to defending and protecting every single preborn baby’s life, then don’t we have to be certain that our language reflects the truth? And if that is so, then why in the world aren’t we talking like we know what it means to defend every innocent person’s life from his biological beginning until his death?
Are we permitting politicians to tell us what is practical? I don’t know! But I can say, American Life League—thanks to the patient teaching of experts like Dr. Dianne Irving— has been at the forefront of teaching the right science for many years. And we fail to understand why such disconnect occurs repeatedly in the larger pro-life community.
After 42 years, why don’t we all get it? Are we dull, or do we intend to deconstruct the truth and leave the bodies of babies in the wake of our flawed efforts?
As for me and all of us at American Life League, we stand by what our vice president, Jim Sedlak, said publicly last week:
“You’ve gone about this all wrong for 40 years. You should have been fighting for the life of every single human being since the beginning; if you had, you wouldn’t need exceptions today. You’d be talking about every human being created by God instead of stating which ones of God’s creations need to be sacrificed for the greater good.”
I sincerely hope we have not forgotten—and that we will never forget—that a human being dies every time an abortion is performed.
For more information about the humanity of the preborn baby, follow these links:
Caution Again: Need to Use Newer URL’s for Carnegie Stages for Issues Concerning the Early Human Embryo, at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_226new.url.html
Theological, Scientific, Moral and Legal Reasons NOT to Promote “From Conception to Natural Death,” at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_224erroneousphrase.html
What you need to know about “IVG” (in vitro generated gametes), (March 20, 2014), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_221invitrogeneratedgamete.html
Junk Science In, Junk Prolife Out (October 28, 2013), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_218junksciencejunkprolife1.html
#1 – Totipotency: Scientific References (September 23, 2013), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_217totipotencyscientificreferences1.html
Beware New Prolife Calls for Human Cloning “Bans” (June 3, 2013), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_213beware.html
FERTILIZATION and IMPLANTATION of the Early Human Embryo: Accurate Scientific Resources (May 8, 2013), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_212accurateresources1.html
Plan B’s Manufacturer: Pills Can Be Abortifacient (April 27, 2013), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_211manufacturerandpills.html
“Contraceptive” and “Morning After” Pills: Women and Young Girls, You’re On Your Own (April 5, 2013), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_210asecret.html
“Conception” is not “The Immaculate Conception” (January 26, 2013), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_209immaculateconception1.html
Errors in the “Sanctity of Human Life Act”, and the March For Life “Principles 2013” (January 15, 2013), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_208errorprolifeprinciples.html
“Why Accurate Human Embryology Is Needed To Evaluate Current Trends In Research Involving Stem Cells, Genetic Engineering, Synthetic Biology and Nanotechnology” (November 20, 2012), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_206accuratehumanembryology1.html
“Any Human Cell – iPS, Direct Programmed, Embryonic, Fetal or Adult – Can Be Genetically Engineered to Asexually Reproduce New Human Embryos for Purposes of Reproduction (‘Infertility’)” (November 2011), at: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_194cellasexuallyreproduce1.html