Perhaps I am naive, but until this year I was completely unaware of the clashes between the various leading forces within the pro-life movement.
In my Evangelicals and American Politics class, I learned for the first time about the considerable differences in the immediate post-Roe era between groups like the National Right to Life Committee (dedicated to legislative action) and members of the rescue movement such as Randall Terry and company. I would still like to do some research on the motives and methodologies of each group before making a complete judgment about who was right or wrong, but I honestly cannot see myself absolutely disagreeing with either side. Is it really that novel of an idea to think that we need both legislative pressure and social action? Lobbyists and protesters? I would be hard-pressed to criticize either of their goals and actions.
Currently, I’m in the midst of an amazing learning opportunity — basically, I’m studying at the feet of some of the most influential pro-life leaders in the country and obviously enjoying every minute of it. 
That said, there are a lot of questions that I’ve been asking myself and I’m interested in what a lot of you may think on the issue as well.
One of my assigned readings was a commentary (from Nov. 2003) by Thomas A. Droleskey of the American Life League. I have always been impressed with the publicity materials produced by ALL. Their pro-life t-shirts, signs, and various literatures tend to stand out with their boldness and include solid information. They are a strongly Catholic organization, so some of their articles have not really appealed to me from that angle.
Anyway, I could not find the Droleskey article on the ALL website, but I was able to find it midway down the page here, titled “Affirming the Merchants of Death.” The gist of this article and much of the other material propagated by ALL is that incrementalism is an inherently anti-life strategy. Therefore, groups that use such a strategy (read: National Right to Life Committee) are actually pro-abortion baby killers. Don’t believe me? Here is a quote straight from the horse’s mouth:
Here is a simple rule of thumb for pro-life Americans: ignore all of the political and policy judgments of the National Right to Committee. They have affirmed the very principles that have given rise to the culture of death in which we find ourselves at this point in salvation history. All of their pragmatism and incrementalism have failed the cause of saving preborn babies and are failing now the cause of those threatened by euthanasia.
Honestly, this blows my mind. According to the American Life League, supporting a bill such as the Partial Birth Abortion Act is wrong because it does not make all abortions illegal right now. Sure, it’s logical to say that ultimately this act probably won’t save many unborn children because women will just get different types of abortion. Nevertheless, we have established a boundary! We’ve shown that there is a line that Congress and the Supreme Court will refuse to cross. No, it’s not perfect, but I recently heard an analogy that makes a lot of sense: compare the road to making abortion illegal to a large room. Logically, we simply cannot cross the room in one step. We’re physically incapable of flying to the other side, so we have to take it step by step. If each step is successful, we will arrive at the other side of the room.
Is this a satisfying metaphor? No. More than anything else in the world I wish we could make all abortions illegal right now. If there were any sort of plausible way to do that, I would support it 1000000%. There simply isn’t such a way at this time. Abortion has become socially acceptable, or at least unmentionable. The inherent sanctity of life has become a back-burner priority to many politically ambivalent Americans. This does not mean our goal is unachievable, but it does mean that it may take some time and effort — as horrible as it is to think of the unborn children that will continue to die.
Now, that said, I do believe that some leaders within the pro-life movement take incrementalism much too far. They argue that it would be best to accept electable candidates who support a rape/incest exception just so that we have mostly pro-life individuals in office. I simply cannot accept that option. If we’re not in favor of a rape/incest exception, why would we want to elect people who will only support legislation with such a rule? That is one criteria which falls into the “all or nothing” category, in my opinion.
Alright, I’ve rambled enough and I have homework/reading to do. Please, please, please skim that article or think about incrementalism as a pro-life strategy and tell me your thoughts on the issue. How do you think the pro-life movement would be most effective? In an ideal situation where we had unlimited funding to spend toward saving the lives of unborn children, what methods would you employ to reach that goal?
Excellent points on an under-reported and sad situation. Saving some lives is better than saving no lives!
If I had unlimited money I’d go for the whole thing via mass education of people. I think most people quit thinking about this years ago and are stuck with a bunch of lame pro-choice sound bites.
But we don’t have unlimited money OR unlimited access to the public (newspapers and TV probably wouldn’t show the ads we want them to). Aim at the whole thing, but live with incrementalism because it is more likely to succeed. And we shouldn’t demonize each other – we’re on the same side!
Exactly my view! I was shocked that a group like ALL would say such things about NRLC. I’m not sure how that could be anything but counter-productive. ALL was also one of the forces behind an advertisement in Colorado in May (I think) attacking Dr. Dobson and others for supporting the Supreme Court’s ruling. I’m just not sure what goal they’re hoping to accomplish with that.
“According to the American Life League, supporting a bill such as the Partial Birth Abortion Act is wrong because it does not make all abortions illegal right now.”
Tieki Rae…..I agree fully. According to this would the same people resist rescuing the same children from a burning building until they could get them all in one fell swoop or evacuate as many as you can as fast as you can knowing there are going to be casualties. I’ll go with the latter……….steve
Oh, forgot to mention that this is like going down with the ship when it is at dock……….steve
The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.
What people who advocate for full overturning of the “laws” fail to note is that there is no overriding abortion “law” in the US. We have only Supreme Court decisions, which limit our ability to pass legislation.
As it is, we need to work incrementally for two reasons:
1) that’s all that will pass Constitutional muster until we can get another conservative on the bench; and
2) it underscores the ridiculousness of the current pro-choice position. When people flip out about the PBA Act, it shows how extreme they are. Incrementalism is good for the simple reason that we can stop arguing about rape and incest and health and start arguing about some really horrible things.
I have to admit, one of my weaknesses is an all or nothing type personality. I do understand where ALL is coming from, but that doesn’t make it right. You save who you can when you can. If we didn’t accept progress in the pro-life movement in incremental steps, then we really would have no progress to speak of at all.
Neil is right — we are all on the same side! We need to protect and save the unborn every way possible, not quibble among ourselves. To me, it doesn’t make any sense for ALL to bad mouth National Right to Life.
Okay, that’s all I’m going to say about that.
PS. I miss you — are you ever coming home again?
Steve, thanks for the comment. You’re exactly right about those examples, and I’m sure there are a thousand others. Nobody is saying that if we had the ability to do everything we wanted immediately we shouldn’t do it. Rather, they’re saying that what we can do right now, we should. To do nothing because we cannot do everything is doing no service to the babies.
Bridget, it’s like you’re reading my mind or something! I heard that exact statement in another lecture today. Actually, we were discussing Dr. Wanda Franz’ article in the National Right to Life News from April 2007 (found
here). I’m somewhat ashamed as we go through all this, because I feel like I’ve been immature wishing and hoping for the perfect candidate. Not that we shouldn’t strive for that at all, but I’m really learning that we have to do everything we can to help the babies. That does not equal holding out for a hero (to steal from a great song). It means doing whatever we’re capable of right now.
Mom – I know exactly what you mean about the “all or nothing” personality type. In fact, I probably get that from you.
It is definitely a challenge to me, having the incrementalist viewpoint presented in such a logical way. I’m starting to realize that we’ve got to do whatever we can do now, at the same time never losing sight of what we want to do in the future. There really is a balance to be had between those two strategies, it’s just not an easy one to come to when you feel the pressure of unborn lives on your hands. That’s another thing I’m learning: Being anxious about the life or death nature of this debate doesn’t do us any good. Obviously it is always going to be in the front of our minds, but to let it take over our thought process and always have an attitude of desperation is not going to be effective.
You know what? All this just serves to tick me off at that pro-abortion baby-murdering disabled/elderly-hating leftist FREAK crowd. If they weren’t such murderous idiots, we wouldn’t even have to worry about strategies. Surely we all agree on that no matter what?
OK, I finally made it. Would I love to see a law that banned all abortions at the stroke of the President’s pen? You bet I would! Will that happen today, given
1) The current Congressional make-up
2) the current Supreme Court Bench
No, it won’t. Could it happen someday? Possibly. Most assuredly, the best way would be the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The lady behind Roe is in fact now adamantly pro-life and wants to see her case revisited and overturned.
Should we gripe at laws that ban ONLY one type of abortion, such as PBA’s? Absolutely not. That is a victory in a battle of a huge war.
Let’s take an analogy that we can understand in the Rocky Mountain west: forest fires.
It may take several days before the crews get the upper hand on the blaze. If the goal is containment, the crews are going to be focusing on establishing a parameter that the blaze can’t cross under normal circumstances.
We watched that happen up here over the past couple weeks. Did they get a fire line established on day one? No, but they worked to get one done as quick as possible. They had to deal with the surprise jumps the fire made, but they kept on the mission of getting a line
*on the East and South to protect private lands
*on the West to protect more forest lands
*and on the North to prevent the fire from jumping to the other side of the mountain.
As far as the in-fighting in the pro-life movement, we need to come together and recognize that our ultimate goal is the same. If ALL wants the “all or nothing” approach, then they can take the helm on that arena, but they can’t belittle the efforts of those that are leading the charge on taking baby-steps, because eventually those baby steps are going to have us all rendezvousing together to storm the castle.
Tieki Rae,
I’m so thankful for everyone who is engaged in the fight against child murder!
I still can not grasp on any level, the slaughter of the unborn as an acceptable practice in my country.
I personally feel overwhelmed when ever I think about it, like, what can I do to make a difference….
How about the mind set of the millions of mothers that are offering their unborn children up to be killed on the alter of selfishness?
The demand for this service of murder is so great. It’s insane.
The very ONE (the mother) who should have greatest, the strongest instinct to protect their child is accommodating their being killed?! I truly don’t think I’ll ever understand it.
What is being said concerning the mothers?
TW
I’m nominating you for Comment of the Week.
You’re right on.
It would be interesting to compare these differences with those differences in the abolitionist movement in the antebellum period- immediate versus gradual.