Dear Mr. Hill,
Thank you for applying for pro-life status from the National Right to Life Association (NRLA).
In making the determination for pro-life status, NRLA looks at a number of factors. Of prime interest to us is an applicant's voting record. We also examine their personal philosophy with regard to how that philosophy derives in terms of legislation.
After examining your voting record, we found that you've supported bills which are somewhat favorable to the pro-life position.
Our records show you voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000. However, one of the provisions in the bill allows this gruesome procedure to be performed in the event the life of the mother is threatened. Medical professionals have gone on record to say that "there is no circumstance by which partial-birth abortion would ever be needed to save the life of the mother." Our concern is that not only will abortion providers continue using this barbaric practice, but they will use the provision contained in the legislation, which allows the practice, as an excuse for partial birth abortion on demand.
You voted for the Child Custody Protection Act which makes it a federal crime for an adult, other than a parent, to transport a minor across state lines to have an abortion in order to circumvent parental consent laws.
You also voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which imposes criminal penalties on those who through violent acts cause injuries or death to an unborn child.
The goals of all three pieces of legislation are laudable. In particular, we find that these last two pieces of legislation are worth honorable mention.
However, we are concerned about your lack of consistency with regard to voting your claimed values. You have written, "While I personally oppose abortion, I ultimately believe abortion is a private matter in which the federal government should not be involved." That means that although you claim to value the life of the unborn, your values are worthless, because you lack the intestinal fortitude to vote your moral convictions. After all, why would you personally oppose killing the unborn unless you think that there's something wrong with it. But if there's something morally wrong with it, why do you want to keep it legal?
Moreover, the fact that you support abortion on demand from a legislative perspective while simultaneously supporting the Unborn Victims of Violence Act shows a lack of clear moral direction. What is the difference between an unborn child who is murdered by a boyfriend and an unborn child who is murdered by her mother through abortion? In fact the legality of murdering an unborn child is based on a single criterion: The child must be unwanted. Based on your voting record and your philosophy with regard to abortion on demand, it would appear you support the protection of the unborn, but only if the unborn are wanted. Such a view, which reflects moral, logical, and intellectual inconsistency, is troubling to us here at the NRLA.
Finally, Mr. Hill to be pro-life means to advocate "full legal protection of embryos and fetuses (especially opposing the legalization of induced abortions)." While we value your support of bills which are sympathetic to our cause, your philosophy is inconsistent with the orthodox definition of what it means to be pro-life. We, therefore, respectfully deny your application for pro-life status.
Unlike you Mr. Hill, we at the NRLA not only believe in the sanctity of life, but we believe in taking action to ensure Roe v. Wade is overturned. We hope one day you will realize stopping the scourge of abortion requires more than just lip service and expansion of failed government programs. The rhetoric of "I personally believe, but I won't legislate" is morally and intellectually vacuous, particularly when you have no problem legislating your values on other issues.
Sincerely,
Michael Choen
Director, National Right to Life Association
“Medical professionals have gone on record to say that “there is no circumstance by which partial-birth abortion would ever be needed to save the life of the mother.”
Speaking of “vacuous” this statement has utterly no meaning. Who are these “Doctors”, what are their names? What was their reasoning?
And I’m fairly certain I’ve never seen members of the NRLA out protesting the war. I thought you were in favor of “moral, logical and intellectual consistency”? Maybe you meant something else, and accidentally made yourself look like a complete hypocrite.
Surely, your “love of life” isn’t really Politically Motivated.
That’s some mighty fine propaganda though, and I can tell you put a lot of effort into carefully wording it so to sound extra pious with a cherry on top. It must be quite a burden to be so “morally perfect” in a world filled with heathens.
Actually, uuuuh…no, it isn’t that hard.
“It must be quite a burden to be so “morally perfect” in a world filled with heathens.”
Well, if we let the heathens have their way, they’ll keep aborting themselves and pretty soon there won’t be any more heathens.
“Well, if we let the heathens have their way, they’ll keep aborting themselves and pretty soon there won’t be any more heathens.”
Do you people ever read? You should research a little bit. Overwhelming majority of people who have abortions in America, CHRISTIANS.
Not “heathens”.
Of course, on the flip side of your coin, we “heathens” can continue to watch you yokels have child after child you cannot afford until you starve yourselves out.
This plan however could potentially backfire considering so many in rural areas are already surviving on Big Momma Government’s Teat.
“Overwhelming majority of people who have abortions in America, CHRISTIANS.”
Nope- they might CLAIM to be Christians, but they’re still heathens. Last time I checked, the Bible still condemned premarital sex.
Rural areas? Don’t you mean urban areas? I’ve never heard of hos cranking out babies in the sticks. That’s normally in the inner city.
I fail to see how your question negates the truth of the statement about “medical professionals.” References, or the lack thereof, don’t make it vacuous. Your logic seems to be, without the name of an authority figure to hang this on, the statement has no meaning and no correspondence to reality. If that proposition is true then all I need to do is give you the names and you’ll just accept the statement and move on to something else, right? Of course, you won’t (accept the proposition, that is) because you and I both know that after I start naming names, you’ll find something else wrong with the article. Why? Because you have no interest in accepting the truth, no matter how much evidence I produce, or how many questions I answer. However, in the interest of being intellectually honest and as an aid to those who are willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, I will entertain your question. The former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, among others, Diego has gone on record with the statement about partial birth abortion. Also, medical professionals (Dr. Micheline M. Mathew-Roth, Harvard University; French geneticist, Jerome LeJeune; and Dr. Hymie Gordon, professor of medical genetics and physician at Mayo Clinic) have testified before congress (without dispute, BTW) that life begins at conception. But all this name dropping is just as vacuous as your original assertion, unless the authorities in question have produced ample evidence to the truth of their claims. They have. Conversely, the “pro-choice” (“pro-choice” now there’s a misnomer) camp does everything in its power to keep the question of fetal status off the table. That’s because they know that once we start talking about the status of the fetus, all the tough questions come out and their entire system collapses.