That’s according to Dr. Patrick Johnston, who practices family medicine in Zanesville, Ohio. Dr. Johnston wrote a column about the political situation regarding the pro-life movement in Ohio and he makes this point:
“On June 13, 2006, Right to Life kissed the cheek of the pre-born in Ohio. Their rhetoric that the unborn should be protected and that abortion should be outlawed infuriated the pro-choicers just as it thrilled the pro-lifers that packed the Health Committee hearing room at the Ohio statehouse. But the speech was concluded by an expression of Right to Life’s reluctance to endorse the Ohio abortion ban, House Bill 228, a reluctance exploited by questions from the Committee Chairman, John R. White, who appears all too happy to adopt Right to Life’s excuses as reasons to shelve the Ohio abortion ban and not let it out of committee.
“Why did Right to Life help keep abortion legal in Ohio? Let’s examine their reasons. Right to Life’s reason for not supporting the bill was concern that the Supreme Court would not uphold it. They expressed concern that the Supreme Court would reject the language of House Bill 228 that re-criminalized all abortion, and yet accept the deletion of portions of Ohio’s code that regulates abortion, legislation for which Right to Life has worked hard over the past decade (if abortion was banned, informed consent legislation, right-to-know legislation, mandatory waiting periods, and partial birth abortion bans would no longer be necessary.) Thus, Right to Life speculates that the Supreme Court might transform this pro-life bill into practically a pro-abortion bill, effectively wiping out all abortion regulation for which Right to Life has fought hard over the past decade.
“Such speculation is completely groundless, as there is no historical precedent that the Court might interpret a law to be the opposite of the plain language of the legislation and the expressed intent of the authors of the legislation.”
My, oh my. I wonder why there is always an excuse at the NRLC compound to avoid, oppose or undermine personhood? And I wonder why.
