Colo. chapter had ripped Dobson in newspaper ads
*By Jean Torkelson, Rocky Mountain News*
*June 14, 2007 *
Colorado's anti-abortion movement is in turmoil after Colorado Right to Life was dumped by its national organization Wednesday, in large part for attacking Focus on the Family founder James Dobson.
"We got kicked out for speaking the truth," said Leslie Hanks, longtime vice president of Colorado Right to Life, one of the nation's oldest anti-abortion groups. "But we have to stand for what's right and suffer the consequences."
The booting of the organization, which was founded in the early 1970s - several years before National Right to Life - signals a deep philosophical rift in the movement. It's between those who believe abortion must be stopped all at once, which is the hard-line approach of Colorado Right to Life, and those who believe abortion will be overcome by making incremental changes in public beliefs and laws.
Officials of National Right to Life banished the Colorado chapter during its annual convention in Kansas City. The vote was at the urging of a new organization, Colorado Citizens for Life.
That group was immediately accepted as the new chapter for Colorado. It was founded by former state legislator Pat Miller and longtime Colorado Springs Right to Life activist Connie Pratt.
"Colorado Right to Life wants Roe vs. Wade overturned - the whole thing - all at once," Miller said Wednesday. "All of us in the pro-life movement wish it could happen that way, but common sense says it won't."
Long-simmering resentments erupted in a coup after Colorado Right to Life and three other groups took out newspaper ads accusing Dobson of misrepresenting a Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion.
Dobson had praised the ruling as a victory for abortion foes, but the Colorado group jeered that it would only encourage doctors to find "less shocking" methods.
"It's our contention it's a wicked ruling," Hanks said. She added that her group expected Dobson "to stick with his own pledge he made back in the early '90s saying he would never support any strategy that compromises life."
On Wednesday, Focus on the Family issued a statement calling Colorado Right to Life "a rogue and divisive group," and praised the National Right to Life organization for making "the tough decision" to kick out the group.
"Rather than use their money and energy to advance pro-life goals, (the Colorado group) chose instead to attack its allies in the cause," the Focus statement said.
Miller said anti-abortion activists began a chorus of complaints after the Dobson attack, indicating they wanted new leadership in Colorado.
"I just think it was an embarrassment when they took on James Dobson," she said.
She lamented the rift between longtime colleagues but predicted they would all work together again: "You know, these are my friends. This isn't anything personal; this is politics.'"
Miller said her new group has just begun to organize "from scratch" by sending out letters to about 200 people they know are sympathetic to their cause.
Hanks also lamented the rift but said, "Obviously, people are critical of us for causing division, but what good is unity and saying everything's great if babies are still dying?"
Hanks said her organization, with a mailing list of 14,000, would continue to use the name "Right to Life" and added, "If there's any attempt to go after our name, there truly will be a lawsuit."
/torkelsonj@RockyMountainNews.com
Copyright 2007, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.
Sometimes it is a privilege to be booted out; Colorado Right to Life has just experienced such an honor. Three cheers for those who, like the leadership of COLORADO RIGHT TO LIFE, stand up for every single preborn child and never apologize for it! Personhood now!
Judie Brown
What pro-lifer wouldn't want abortion to be illegal immediately?
Colorado Right to Life wants the impossible. It's one thing to want the impossible, but it's quite another to attack those who, upon seeing that an immediate ban on abortion from out of the blue is not going to happen, use the only viable strategy of incrementalism.
You can cry "Personhood now!" all you want, but it will come to nothing if your strategy is flawed.
Seems to me that the only "flawed" strategy is the one that has been in place for the past 30 some odd years.
It also seems to me that since no one has ever really tried to go the "all-or-nothing" route, then maybe it's about time we did.
I don't know how any truly pro-life group (that is, one which believes in the sanctity of EVERY human being) would want to be affiliated with a national organization that says it's ok to kill children for the crimes of their fathers anyway. (That's right, NRLC makes exceptions!)
Congratulations to CRTL!
Please tell me what is necessary for the pro-lifers to show one another charity and respect? Anyone?
OK, Donna, please tell me the non-incrementalist strategy which would be used to outlaw all abortion at once.
I can tell you the incrementalist strategy: elect pro-life and conservative government officials who will support pro-life legislation and originalist judges. Get a majority of originalist Justices on the Supreme Court and Roe can be undone, returning the right to make anti-abortion laws to the states. And then, the debate can truly begin, and one by one, law by law, we can put an end to abortion in every individual state.
But if you have a strategy which will lead up to a sudden and immediate end to all abortion, please, do tell.
The best chance you have with banning abortions is Ron Paul. He's in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade and letting the state governments decide whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal. You're NOT nor ever going to have a federal ban on abortion. You've already had a republican controlled presidency, congress, and supreme court and still could not get it done. At least with Ron Paul you can ban it at the local level in your state. That's a start! Without Ron Paul making abortion illegal is just not going to happen.
Richard, the President of the United States does not have the authority to overturn a decision of the US Supreme Court. The best he can do is nominate pro-life and/or originalist Justices for the Supreme Court whenever vacancies appear. We have not had a majority of originalists on the Supreme Court since long before the Roe v. Wade decision, but currently we only need one more. It's not an issue of the judges being "Republican" or "Democrat" - it's their judicial philosophy. Of course the current sad reality is that every single Democrat candidate running for president would nominate pro-abortion judicial activists for the courts if elected, while the Republican candidates have promised us originalists.
I don't think we would have these divisions within the pro-life movement if we all had a better understanding of how the US government works.
John, you're very confused. This isn't an incrementalist debate. Our open letter (which you obviously didn't read) said incrementalism is fine. The PBA ruling was not incrementalism. It's still legal to partially deliver a baby and then kill it. The PBA ruling only modified the procedure, they didn't ban anything. Get with the program, babies lives are at stake.
Will, I read your rash, insulting letter. Forgive me for missing a line which seemed arbitrarily thrown in at the last minute since it pretty much contradicts the rest of the letter.
I just happen to completely disagree with your logic, or rather lack thereof. Claiming that a law doesn't ban PBA because the law states that it must be the intent of the abortionist to commit PBA is rather ridiculous.
Do you know why the PBA ban was written in the first place? It's because every other anti-abortion law was struck down by the courts. It was specifically designed to be able to survive a challenge from the courts, and it did survive, barely. And what was your response? You complained that it didn't go far enough, apparently because you haven't been paying attention for the past 34 years when nearly every single anti-abortion law has been struck down by the courts.
Your foolish letter also condemned the only Justices on the Supreme Court who could one day overturn Roe v. Wade, thus causing great and unnecessary confusion within the pro-life movement for no good reason. You really should be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt that you are. Justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas are our only hope to be rid of Roe, yet you suggest that they're the same as the pro-abortion Justices. It's unbelievable.
John, you are obviously unaware of all of the radical pro-abortion rulings that these justices have ruled on. All of these justices vote according to man's law and right now that law states babies can legally be murdered so they support that. Even though it goes against God's law of Thou Shall Not Murder. Which is more important God's law or man's law? Read the Bible and see what Daniel did.
MR, you and everyone at CRtL need to learn how the federal government works, immediately. I am perfectly aware of the pro-abortion decisions made by Justice Alito, but you are currently incapable of understanding how he could make those decisions and still rule against Roe.
Of everything CRtL has said, I think that the worst by far is spreading the nonsensical implication that the judicial originalists on the Supreme Court - our ONLY hope of being rid of Roe - are just as bad as the radical pro-abortionists on the court.
Justice Alito could have been found guilty at Nuremberg.
See the dvd "40 Years in the Wilderness" available at
kgov.com or coloradorighttolife.org
Justice Alito could also overturn Roe. Does that mean nothing to CRtL? Look how contentious his confirmation process was. Do you honestly believe that we can get an openly and brazenly pro-life Justice on the Supreme Court?