Pro-life Christians Attempting to Snatch Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
by Angela Michael

To be pro-life or not to be pro-life … catfish Christians, all mouth and a thimble-full of guts

Hold the presses, it gets better!

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt and some pro-life organizations including Missouri Right to Life, and Campaign Life Missouri leader, Sam Lee, say, this is not the right way to go about banning abortion, maybe this is not the right time to ban abortions in our state. But one Democrat legislator says it all, “If you're pro-life why wouldn't you back this legislation?”

Cha..ching...can you smell the $$$?

I've said this before, there are pro-death and some pro-life organizations that, if abortion was to end tomorrow, would be jumping off the roofs of their million dollar buildings.  They would be out of a title, job, retirement fund, plush office and perks.   God help us, this shows the pro-life movement for what it really is - not all of them, just most.

Here we are, just like in Nehemiah, rebuilding the walls and we've got a spear and sword in one hand and a troll in the other trying to rebuild the wall.        Neh. 4: 16-17 "From that day on, half of my men did the work, while the other half were equipped with spears, shields, bows, and armor. The officers posted themselves behind all the people of Judah who were building the wall. Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other."

You cannot change what you are not willing to confront. 

Still being encouraged! ~Angela

Missouri anti-abortion leaders question strategy of bills to ban procedure
By Matt Franck and Jonathan Rivoli
POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU

03/02/2006

JEFFERSON CITY

One might think that a bill filed this week to ban nearly all forms of abortion in Missouri would have anti-abortion groups dancing in the marbled halls of the Capitol.

Instead, they're saying "not so fast."

Leaders of three of the state's top anti-abortion groups say they're uncomfortable with the strategy behind the sweeping legislation.

Meanwhile, some leaders in the solidly anti-abortion Legislature say the ban is not a top priority for legislators. And Gov. Matt Blunt told reporters Thursday, "I'm not convinced it's necessary" to pass a general abortion ban.

Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, filed the bill Wednesday to provoke a court battle to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. A similar bill was filed earlier by Rep. Wayne Henke, D-Troy.

Both legislators hope two recent appointments to the high court will shift the court's stance on the issue, allowing an abortion ban to stand in Missouri .

The aggressive approach is part of a growing national trend among state legislators who are reacting to a changing Supreme Court. The South Dakota Legislature recently passed a broad abortion ban, and similar bills have been filed in at least eight other states.

But that daring playbook is not one that's shared across the anti-abortion movement.
Nationwide, abortion opponents are split over whether it's time to pull out all the stops on banning abortion or continue seeking to restrict the procedure with less ambitious bills, such as measures to require parental consent or regulate clinics.

"The pro-life community is divided on what the best strategy is," said Sam Lee, of the anti-abortion group Campaign Life Missouri .

Lee, like other anti-abortion activists, worries that it's too early to test the new Supreme Court on abortion, especially because the views of new Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito aren't yet known.

The Missouri Catholic Conference lobbies heavily against abortion. The conference's Larry Weber said, "I'm very disinclined to bring cases that intended to overturn Roe v. Wade without knowing if we have the votes."

That view is mirrored by Patty Skain, executive director of the Missouri Right to Life, who said he shares Crowell's goal but not his timing.

Different approaches

Crowell said he has no doubt that the time for a bolder approach on abortion is now.

"Ultimately I think we need to get down to the core issue," he said. "Should abortion be legal in the state of Missouri ?"

One national abortion opponent described a different kind of crossroads, one that's testing whether anti-abortion groups are on the same page politically.

"It's a brand-new world for pro-life people right now," said Tom McClusky, of the anti-abortion group Family Research Council in Washington . "You've got people who are cautious and people who think it's not a time for caution."

Abortion supporters such as Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said recent events show the true colors behind the anti-abortion movement. She said the goal all along has been to overturn Roe v. Wade.

"I think most Americans have been watching a stealth strategy," Keenan said. "But now they're coming out from behind the curtain."

Keenan said there are two sides of the movement - one that's extreme and one that is intent on chipping away at abortion rights because it is the better political strategy.

"Both sides are dangerous," she said. "Both sides are infringing on freedom. They both share the goal of overturning Roe."

Political priorities

Lee and other abortion opponents in Missouri fear that a strategy to ban abortion could backfire. He said the high court might not agree to hear an appeal involving a state abortion ban.

Others say there's always the possibility that the court could actually strengthen abortion rights.

"It might just further validate Roe v. Wade, which is one of the fears," McClusky said.

Senate President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons, R-Kirkwood, shares some of those reservations related to Crowell's bill.

Gibbons also wonders why such an abortion ban needs to be a priority for Missouri , when states such as South Dakota are already triggering a possible court battle. That measure is now before the governor there.

Gibbons, who opposes abortion, said Crowell's bill is not a priority for leaders in the Legislature. He did not promise that it would reach the Senate floor for a debate.

Sen. Chuck Graham, D-Columbia, believes legislators may smother the bill because they fear exposing rifts between anti-abortion legislators.

The proposed ban on abortion includes no exception for rape or incest. Graham, who supports abortion rights, says many anti-abortion legislators would be uncomfortable with that wording.

"What some of them fear is being pinned down on each one of those votes," he said. Others say an abortion ban has legs in Missouri .

"I do think this legislation would have the possibility of passing," said House Minority Leader Jeff Harris, D-Columbia. "Presumably, you would get some support for it from the Democratic side of the aisle."

Leaders of abortion rights groups say they will oppose the bill aggressively. Some say the recent changes on the Supreme Court have galvanized their support, even as it has split the strategy of anti-abortion groups.

"Our people are angry and motivated, and they continue to believe that politicians should not be involved in a decision that's between a woman, her family and God," Keenan said.

Some say that as the issue develops nationally, the abortion battle could increasingly be fought at the state, rather than federal, level.

They say they expect abortion ban measures to increasingly find support in conservative states, but not in states such as Illinois , where most legislators support abortion rights.

But McClusky said even strong anti-abortion states might not act on such a ban, given the split over political strategies.

That strategy talk frustrates Henke, who filed his bill last month to ban abortion.

"I can't say I've got a lot of strategy behind this, it's just what I believe," he said. "If you're pro-life, you're pro-life. Don't tell me you're pro-life and then not support this."

The Associated Press and Jeremy Kohler of the Post- Dispatch contributed to this report.

*COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [ Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]