Follow Save the 1
Monday, April 20, 2015
New Negotiations on the 20 Abortion Ban Would be Comical if They Weren't So Tragic by Jim Sable
As someone who is conceived in rape, who has
dealt with the trauma and stigmatization that this conception story engenders,
(I now see my story as a gift), it is very exciting to see an increase in
awareness on this issue. There is now
much more public debate, a growing number of articles and stories reaching the
mainstream media, and lots of discussion on internet social sites and
blogs. The rape exception has entered
the new presidential campaign early. Rand
Paul has used questions about his personal views about the rape exception to
effectively turn the tables on abortion supporters in order to demonstrate
their extreme, unwavering support of abortion on demand for any reason at any
time. (Although we wish that he will be
able effectively defend a no-exceptions pro-life philosophy at some point.)
Save The 1 was launched to help facilitate
this burgeoning awareness (and perhaps has been a catalyst in the spike in
interest in this topic), and to provide a venue of support and expression for
“the hard cases.” Our population of rape
and incest conceived persons willing to bring stories of redemption to society
as a whole, and to the abortion debate specifically, is growing daily.
Within this context, it is valuable to
examine how some of this increase in awareness has and will impact our rape and
incest conceived lives and the lives of those yet unborn, conceived through
similar trauma. There is a new surge of
enthusiasm to pass a national 20 week, pain related abortion ban (Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act -- PCUCPA); to
find a way to undo and correct the failure of the effort in January, 2015. Recently, pro-life protesters were actually
willing to get arrested in order to jumpstart the legislative process -- to keep reporting requirements in with the rape exceptions. However, negotiations, again, stall on the complications surrounding a rape
exception.
These new "negotiations" for the 20
week law would be comical, if they weren't so tragically pathetic. Renee Ellmers is still the face of a group
pushing to define and broaden the rape exception and their initiative was one
of the reasons the January bill stalled.
Not mentioned much, if at all, is the effort by others, advocating a
principled, no exceptions position, who were and are working to have the rape
exception removed entirely. Now, Ellmers
is demanding an even lower standard. Her
new exceptions language would only require that the physician know the
pregnancy was a result of a rape. She
actually said, “'I’m much more comfortable with this new language,” which is
ridiculous.
The people involved in crafting this bill
don't seem to realize that, from state to state, the legal reporting
requirements for rape are counted in years, not in months or trimesters. (Please see RAINN.org and AfterSilence.org,
among others.) Ironically, from a rape
crisis/post rape support perspective, Ellmers is correct in attempting to
remove reporting requirements from the 20 week bill. No rape crisis support organization would
approve of shortening the reporting requirement. There never seems to be much thought given to
the enforcement of these laws either, especially a law with Ellmers’ goofy
exception language. (We are depending on
the abortion clinic to enforce them.) They
don't seem to realize that including the exception causes the crafting of this
legislation to be so difficult. There
are many who are mad at Ellmers for being an exceptions candidate and
legislator who just wants a different
kind of exception, one that she, not others can define. The problem here is the rape exception
itself. The problem is the folly of
combining the morass of rape laws with any abortion-restricting law.
And, of course, whose voices are the least
considered? The voices of those who are
the most impacted: the rape and incest conceived, and their mothers who love
them. Again, our viewpoints are held at
arm’s length and our right to life is negotiated away. To make matters worse, we have legislators
who don’t seem to consider what they are saying and don’t realize what effect their
words have. A sponsor of the 20 week
bill – Congressman Trent Franks -- actually used the Federal Humane Slaughter
Act as a defense of his position supporting the PCUCPA with exceptions to ensure
that unborn children are provided the same protection as common farm
animals. When the exception is added,
the rape conceived effectively have less value and less protection under law
than a pig or a chicken, using the logic of the sponsor’s statement!
Where is the leadership from our pro-life "leaders"? It sure seems like they are leading from behind. National Right to Life claims their official position is that the rape exception should not be added, but there doesn’t seem to be much conviction behind the rhetoric. A popular, national pro-life blog boldly and unequivocally calls the rape exception "unnecessary and repugnant", then equivocates and supports any and all exception-laden bills that go up for a vote. Countless elected officials proudly crow about their pro-life credentials, despite the fact that the rape exception is part of their pro-life legislative template. Many of the national pro-life organizations accept the rape exception with hardly a whimper, or write it into their model legislation automatically, yet they now seem to be bragging that they are taking a stand against the reporting requirements being removed. If only they’d take a stand against the rape exception itself! These organizations give cover to the politicians through their ratings and endorsements. They are not leading -- they are following and enabling.
As a pro-life community, we are represented by many organizations and leaders along with the pro-life lawmakers, and they eagerly accept any support we offer them. Sometimes, I wonder which is the cart and which is the horse? In actuality, they work for us -- the pro-life grass roots community, not the other way around. I am hoping they hear the voices of the so-called “hard cases” and begin to work for a higher standard of what it means to be pro-life. Let’s stop living with the rationalizations that pro-life people are forced to live with when they accept the rape exception in law. "No exceptions" should be the standard.
Where is the leadership from our pro-life "leaders"? It sure seems like they are leading from behind. National Right to Life claims their official position is that the rape exception should not be added, but there doesn’t seem to be much conviction behind the rhetoric. A popular, national pro-life blog boldly and unequivocally calls the rape exception "unnecessary and repugnant", then equivocates and supports any and all exception-laden bills that go up for a vote. Countless elected officials proudly crow about their pro-life credentials, despite the fact that the rape exception is part of their pro-life legislative template. Many of the national pro-life organizations accept the rape exception with hardly a whimper, or write it into their model legislation automatically, yet they now seem to be bragging that they are taking a stand against the reporting requirements being removed. If only they’d take a stand against the rape exception itself! These organizations give cover to the politicians through their ratings and endorsements. They are not leading -- they are following and enabling.
As a pro-life community, we are represented by many organizations and leaders along with the pro-life lawmakers, and they eagerly accept any support we offer them. Sometimes, I wonder which is the cart and which is the horse? In actuality, they work for us -- the pro-life grass roots community, not the other way around. I am hoping they hear the voices of the so-called “hard cases” and begin to work for a higher standard of what it means to be pro-life. Let’s stop living with the rationalizations that pro-life people are forced to live with when they accept the rape exception in law. "No exceptions" should be the standard.
BIO:
Jim Sable is a husband, father of three,
and a national pro-life speaker and blogger
serves on the Board of Save The 1, as well
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Comment rules:
Please do not criticize or berate others you can disagree with their comments and views but please be an adult about things and don't resort to cursing, insulting, and name calling.
Please do not post any private information about yourself or others (i.e. email addresses, phone numbers, etc.)
Please be respectful, civil, and considerate.
The following is NOT allowed under any circumstances and will result in your comments being deleted and not published, and could result in you being banned from any further commenting.
No Blasphemy in any way shape or form this is a Christian owned blog.
No swearing, slandering, or threatening of any kind.
No insults of any religion, gender, race, will be allowed.
Any threats will be immediately reported to authorities.