Home › Blogs › valentinebilly's blog ›

The Pro-Life Movement is Alive and Well

Submitted by valentinebilly on Thu, 04/02/2009 - 20:42
in

Out of power in both houses of Congress and the White House, one would think that like the Republican Party, the Pro-Life Movement is in the wilderness and without leaders. However, this couldn't be further from the case... In fact, the Pro-Life Movement is more united then ever. Case in point: the Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Dinner held earlier this month in Washington, D.C.

 

In case you are unfamiliar with the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA), founded in 1994, it is EMILY's List, except the opposite: it elects Pro-Life women to Congress or Pro-Life men running against Pro-Abortion women.

This past election cycle, its connected PAC bundled and earmarked over $1 Million into key races across the country. Besided electing pro-life candidates, it mobilizes over 150,000 pro-life activists nationwide to lobby Congress on critical life issues, and even helped form the Pro-Life Women's Caucus for the women it helps elect. It also trains future generations of activists by conducting training academies on college campuses.

Unlike many Pro-Life organizations, SBA was not left in the dust by technology, as it has a very clean, cool website. SBA also has over 1,000 friends on Facebook, is active daily on Twitter and has its own "SuzyB" blog.

SBA founder and president Marjorie Dannenfelser and former chairman Jane Abraham, with the help of Jeri Thompson, were the braintrust behind the wildly successful Team Sarah Ning website of over 60,000 members which helped defend Sarah Palin against attacks during the general election.

But, back to to the dinner, which was held at the historic Willard in downtown Washington. The dinner was so packed that there was barely any room to move around in the biggest ballroom the hotel had to offer.

To show how united the Pro-Life Movement is in the face of a White House and Congress lead by Obama and Pelosi, there were all sorts of factions of the Pro-Life movement present.

I saw many of its Catholic leaders, many of its Protestant leaders. I saw one of the leaders of the troops on the ground, 40 Days for Life founder David Bereit. I saw some of its leaders in Congress, such as Cong. Trent Franks, Cong. Jean Schmidt, Cong. Marsha Blackburn, Cong. Joseph Cao, and Cong. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who gave a fantastic speech centered on her baby boy with Down syndrome. I saw Romney backers, I saw Brownbackers. I saw Thompson backers, which was easy since Fred and Jeri Thompson headlined the dinner. I saw Ken Blackwell, I saw Michael Steele staffers. I saw past members of Congress, such as Sen. Spence Abraham, Cong. Mike Ferguson, and Cong. Bob Livingston. I also saw future pro-life members of Congress, such as Rob Wasinger, who is a candidate for Congress in Kansas.

The mood wasn't what you'd expect: instead of being depressed about the number of babies that will be aborted due to Obama's anti-life policies or the millions of tax dollars that are being funneled to Planned Parenthood, the mood was... wait for it... of hope. All the speeches were about looking forward, about pro-lifers taking back Congress.

This was especially evident when SBA gave out their annual Susan B. Anthony List Trailblazer Award, which is given to young women who are making a difference in the battle to end abortion. It was especially a proud moment for my family, as my sister, Christina, was given an award for her work in the pro-life movement (she got her start in the movement as SBA's first intern long ago). However, the climax of the night was when Lia, a very bright 12 year-old girl, received the award for a very compelling and persuasive speech on abortion to her class (which of course, school administrators tried to censor) that was put up on YouTube and has been viewed by over 500,000.

SBA also used the occasion to announce its new, groundbreaking project, "Votes Have Consequences," a program that will target members of Congress who vote out-of-step with the pro-life views of their district. The project is being headed up by former Cong. Marilyn Musgrave, and will start targeting members in Fall of this year, well ahead of 2010 elections.

Overall, the night was a smashing success for the Pro-Life Movement. It strong, is here to stay, and isn't going anywhere until every unborn child is welcomed into the most prosperous nation on Earth and women are protected from the horrors of abortion.

Billy Valentine is vice president of Students for Life of America and can be reached at billyvalentine(at)gmail.com

Susan B. Anthony List Trailblazer Awardees with Jeri Thompson and Marjorie Dannenfelser at the Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Dinner.

12-Year Old YouTube Star Lia with Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-OH)

(cross-posted at Race42012 and Redstate)

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

So... how many children have you adopted?

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 10:10.

If I hear less than three, I'm switching the channel.

That's not fair...

Submitted by jesdynf on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 11:59.

I'll award credit for walking the walk at one.

life ain't fair, kiddo.

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:13.

three, or I walk. Maybe I'll consider two, if they're both black and adopted after the age of five.

 "It strong, is here to stay,

Submitted by Ray in TX on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:10.

 "It strong, is here to stay, and isn't going anywhere until every unborn child is welcomed into the most prosperous nation on Earth and women are protected from the horrors of abortion."

After just one month of allowing unwanted Chinese babies into this country and you'd never hear another peep from social conservatives about overturning Roe v. Wade again. 

That is great

Submitted by valentinebilly on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:38.

RisingTide and jes, that is great both of you have adopted. I am 22 and unmarried, so am not exactly eligible for adoption. RisingTide, you can walk, but of course, that is not really fair. That is the same as saying to someone who writes on homelessness that you can't write about it if you haven't taken a homeless person in your home, or someone writing about Darfur and asking them how many trips they've taken there, etc.

Ray in TX, sex-selective forced abortions in China have left the country with way too many men and too few women. Not to mention our taxpayer dollars go to pay for the forced abortions, too.

 

Did I say that I had adopted?

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 12:52.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008874782_gayfosterba...

You're eligible, most likely. And your fertility is dropping by the minute, so I could make some comments about bearing babies now rather than later when they're more likely to be malformed by your desire to wait until you "find the right man." What's that? I'm supposed to be nice? Nah, I ain't nice, never was.

Am I saying that you can't write about something positive without sacrificing yourself? nope. but I am saying that you've got to discuss the current problems, and discuss current solutions. The person who founds a newspaper run by the homeless is just as qualified as the person who rescues a sandwich from a rat in order to give it to a homeless guy.

I do believe that the pro-life movement is irredeemably ethically compromised and fundamentally selfish, not to mention puritannical in their insistence that everyone else must bow to their beliefs UNDER GOD.

You see, one can be both pro life and pro choice. I know a lot of those folks, and they're generally good people.

You really think

Submitted by valentinebilly on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 13:16.

the pro-life movement is selfish?

Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider and recipient of over $300 million in taxpayer funds, charges hundreds of dollars to women seeking abortions to pay the six to seven figure salaries of the abortionists. On top of that, they refuse to provide a woman with any other options, to the point where the government has to mandate that they do. Once the woman gets the abortion, its goodbye -- let her deal with the emotional trauma.

Pro-Lifers, on the other hand, run pregnancy resource centers that provide women with REAL solutions to what is often a very tough sitatuon. These resource centers are run by volunteers or staff making next to nothing. They are funded by pro-life donors, not the government. They are stocked with diapers and other needs by volunteers. They provide post-abortive retreats for women who have had abortions. All of the above, free of charge. Also, I don't see where religion fits in to anything I just said, pro-lifers are simply giving women a better choice then that offered by "Planned Parenthood."

I think that the pro-life movement has been ethically

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 13:25.

compromised by people who would like to mandate pro-life law, in order to further their own selfish desires.

I personally could not bear the thought of being so selfish as to bear a child I could not support, that in all likelihood would die of malnutrition and subsequent starvation by the age of ten.

Millions of women find themselves in this situation -- and it's people like you who doom millions of children to death each year. Every two dollars that you give to save an unborn life? could save a born baby from certain death.

But leave it to the pro-life movement to continue to waste oodles of money trying to get women to revert back to taking poisons in order to "hopefully" kill only the baby -- unless you're going to ban tansy too? or other abortifacients?

We saw exactly how well prohibition worked out, didn't we?

You don't pay doctors zero, that doesn't happen. Volunteers are volunteers, that's fine. And it's so sweet of you guys to manufacture emotional dissonace in women who often have none from an abortion.

Seriously, if yinz weren't so adamantly for the Hyde ammndt., they wouldn't have to charge so much.

But I find the concept of surgical abortions a lot more life-friendly than bashing babies into the doors of fundamentalist churches.

Question

Submitted by thirdeblue on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 13:18.

When did conservative become synonymous with pro-life.  How do you make sure people aren't having abortions without undulying prying into their personal affairs?

when people like OP took over the republican party

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 13:26.

;-)

I thought that Conservatives

Submitted by valentinebilly on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 13:51.

Stood for personal responsibility? Isn't it a personal responsiblity to bear a child that you brought to life? I thought conservatives stood for the principle of subsidarity -- isn't that when the local community -- not the government -- helps each other out in times of distress, such as an unplanned pregnancy?

yeah, that means that you aint responsible for my sin

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 14:01.

And If i dont' consider abortion a sin, what the fuck business is that of yours?

You sound like someone who's never met a Shamus, nor lived in a small town. Just like there's little mercy in high school... I don't fancy the scarlet letter!

do you think

Submitted by valentinebilly on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 14:09.

that laws outlawing murder are from religious motivations?

And actually, I live in a town of about 20,000. Is that small enough for you? I love how you base all your arguments on not juding people, but here you are judging me. Are you done?

nope. but I'm not against considering financial considerations

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 14:19.

before deciding whether or not to pull a plug on my mom, either. I believe the same principle applies to fetuses. They aren't living humans (at best, they are parasites).

No, I don't really think so. Though I think you might understand what a Shamus is, judging from my experiences in towns the size of yours.

I've sat on a 100 mile bus trip through small towns, I've heard how people were burnt out for having 'the wrong views', I've known people who have attended satanic rituals in small towns (weren't members).

don't be judgin' me either, mmmkay?

So when does a person become a person?

Submitted by valentinebilly on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 14:42.

When do you believe life begins? Is the fetus alive or dead?

Also, how about you look up for me what percentage of abortions are done for financial reasons. The result might surprise you.

A person becomes a person at around six months of age

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 15:01.

according to the latest psychological research. I do not find infanticide to be immoral up until that point -- although obviously contraception and abortion are VASTLY preferable, as they aren't illegal, and cost less in terms of health of the mother. (in short, under certain circumstances, I would kill a child I had born -- very harsh circumstances, but I consider it a different category than murder, which is always wrong -- even when absolutely necessary).

The child becomes alive at the moment of birth (though you could say viability and I'd nod along -- to me the difference by that point is immaterial).

I've looked at the figures, and the change in relationship status to me often signals financial reasons. 30% of those eligible to use Medicaid to have an abortion (if it was legal) decide not to have an abortion, because of financial reasons. I don't expect they're terribly good parents, after all that...

I don't really know what more to say

Submitted by valentinebilly on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 15:23.

Except that I think your position is extreme and very, very sad. I can't say I have ever heard of anyone who would kill their own newborn child under any circumstance. I know you're going to hate hearing this, but I'll be praying for you.

aww, aint' that sweet?

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 15:35.

yeah, I do realize my position is extreme. What would you do, if your child would be blind by the age of five, and dead by the age of ten? If you could see the throngs of other children, abandoned by their parents who were unable to support them?

$2 to save a child, I repeat, $2 to save a child from this fate.

Most people haven't intimately studied malnutrition, haven't had the mindfulness to put themselves in other people's shoes.  I've read accounts of a baby's head being dashed against a brick wall while his mother watched.

At some point, the desire to keep a child becomes selfish, in my most humble opinion. At some point, life is not better than death, in terms of pain and suffering.

you should read Roe v. Wade

Submitted by Ray in TX on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 15:19.

The justices wrestled with this very question when coming up with their decision regarding the balance between the rights of the mother and the unborn.

 

I've read it

Submitted by valentinebilly on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 15:25.

... and its wrong. It says that there is no evidence of when life begins and therefore people must make that choice for themselves. Science clearly shows life begins at conception. I have studied embryology for several months in the classroom, and it couldn't be more clear.

that's ridiculous. eggs and sperm are alive too!

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 04/03/2009 - 15:37.

;-)

several months in a classroom?

Submitted by Ray in TX on Sat, 04/04/2009 - 10:23.

Excerpts from the decision:

Concerning historical laws towards abortion:

It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today.

Contrasting the rights of the fetus with those of the mother:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.

Does the constitution implicity grant rights to the unborn as "persons"?

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible prenatal application.

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

When does life begin?

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

 It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 

 

 Indeed, the ignorance shown

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Sat, 04/04/2009 - 11:27.

 

Indeed, the ignorance shown by "pro life" proponents like valentinebilly amazes me. You studied about embryos in high school science classes for a  few months and concluded that life starts in a zygote? Of course. Of course. Pehaps you do not know that most zygotes don't make it to their next stage of an embryo. They die a natural death , or just flushed out of the reproductive system. And most embryos don't make it to the fetus stage, due to various reasons. So, would you also blame the mother for murder of these unborn babies that failed to survive in the first few days? You know maybe she wasn't takling care of her health, or nutrition during these stages...you can surely hold them as guilty as a mother who takes pleasure in aborting a baby, or indulges in infanticide. Recenlty, an adult man was operated to seperate a parasitic twin that had visible head and limbs. I supose you call this murder too. Obviously, like a zygote, embryo or better, a fetus in first trimister,  this biological tissue is not a human organism with consciousness or an individual human identity. Maybe you should adopt such parasitic twins as well instead of letting us murder them.

Stop abusing science, and be content  to just accept the truth of your relegious beliefs.  Thanks. 

they'd better be prepared for bloodshed

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 08:54.

coathanger abortions, and shit like that.

Banning something does not make it stop. It just makes it more likely to take more lives.

Birth control, sex education

Submitted by lgm on Sat, 04/04/2009 - 08:40.

The anti abortion movement can prove that they are pro life rather than anti sex by supporting birth control and sex education. 

  Case in point: the Susan B.

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Sat, 04/04/2009 - 11:50.

 

Case in point: the Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Dinner held earlier this month in Washington, D.C.

I can guarentee you that this is not a vegetarian affair. Apparently the Catholic religion doesn''t prohibit their followers from killing pregnant animals, eating eggs, spring lambs and other mammals.

Wonder why abortion laws(those that are more liberal than the average American laws) are not a controvesial issue among Buddhists and Hindus. (I am not talking about the mal practices of gender specific abortion and female infanticde in China and India here.) I guess becuase those relegions/philosophies/traditions are more spiritually evolved than Catholicism.

Anti-life posters

Submitted by Stand Firm on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 10:27.

There is a lot of anti-life posting on this thread. Rising Tide is the most extreme in his disregard for life, but, frankly, the spirit of murder is rather predominant.  After reading the posts yesterday, I decided to reflect and pray for the posters before coming back here and leaving my comment. At this point I do not think any of you are open for either a change of mind or a change of heart. Yesterday and again this morning I have prayed for your souls and your conversion, especially for you Rising Tide. Sometime in the future perhaps the Holy Spirit of God will work on your mind in conviction, repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, the giver of life. None of us will ever be perfect in this world, but I hope the day will come that you will search the Scriptures (the Gospel of John and Epistles of John) are good places to start, with a hunger to do what is right, and not merely a political ideology.

If your callous disregard for the most defenseless of human life is typical of THE NEXT RIGHT, then  THE NEXT RIGHT will leave a path of destruction as has the old and new Left.

I expect to be attacked because of this post. I have made the essential points I thought should be made and it is doubtful that I will return to this thread either to defend myself or engage further in what at this time would probably be futile debate.

I respect your religious opinions

Submitted by Ray in TX on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 10:48.

But I think it's naive that you expect everyone to share them and therefore come to the same conclusions on various social issues, especially when there is disagreement within Christianity on this.

What happened to the child of David & Bathsheba? Who made the decision to murder that innocent child?   2 Samuel 15, in case you need a refresher.

Are you familiar with the concept

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 11:55.

Are you familiar with the concept that we do not use theology to make laws in this country?

 

my religion includes neither ritualized cannibalism

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 08:57.

nor symbolic deicide.

I understand that your religion is "universale" -- just like Communism.

 

G-d judges us based on our works, not merely our faith, so I hope and pray that you're doing more than merely praying for me.

"Pro-Life" Movement on life support; operation aborted

Submitted by Remains of the ... on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 12:59.

 

PZ at Pharyngula:

Another outbreak of reason in the upper Midwest

First Iowa, and now North Dakota — North Dakota has rejected a bill that would have given "personhood" to every fertilized egg. The senate voted by a large majority, but not unanimity, to squash that very silly bill.

 

That fact that such bills have to be introduced

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 04/05/2009 - 13:40.

That fact that such bills have to be introduced demonstrates just how far removed the position of the religious right is from our legal tradition - which, I repeat, is constitutionally barred from being based on theology.

encouraging

Submitted by alex_william on Mon, 08/03/2009 - 06:45.

t’s encouraging to read her polling analysis with respect to women. Her association with pro-life groups may lead to some bias, but I haven’t read in any of her material any indication that she believes the abortion issue is an obstacle to us winning over more independent women (liberal democrat women, that may be another issue). In her last article in NewsMax, she essentially said the party had to go after more single women. She even pushed the GOP to be more aggressive on social issues, JN0-531 braindumps a concept that is anathema on this site! and That is great Tommy I hadn’t seen that article yet. It is so much more effective when women speak about the pro-life issue, which is why what SBA is doing is so important.the Party has to focus on this tough but important issue because this is where we can win Reagan Dems, old school Catholics, etc. But we have to be willing to talk about it and fight for it, we can’t just mention it once in a campaign speech or do a last-minute mailer on it — it has to be a prominent issue for our party. and you know What worries me is that more Americans have broadly pro-life views and would support increased restrictions on abortion, parental consent laws, etc. 000-078 braindumps but a majority in polls consider themselves pro-choice.Clearly they are doing better at marking the battle lines. We need to get people to understand the consequences of unrestricted abortion and its long-term damage to society, which will in time become weak, old, and decrepit, in spite of high immigration levels which are maintaining it for the time being. It ought to be available only in special cases. And most importantly it’s probably a better basis on which to fight than on the ambiguity of whether human life begins at conception, viability, or birth that we like to frame the debate around. Clearly the electorate at large does not hold the party position with respect to that, otherwise there wouldn’t be any abortion. EC0-350 braindumps Approach it on different terms, and I think people will start to see the light.