On May 23, a group of pro-life purists distributed a press release entitled, "Rift opens in Christian Right unprecedented criticism of Dobson by major ministries," to announce they had placed a newspaper ad shaming Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family for supporting the Partial Birth Abortion Ban.The title of the release revealed the group's intent: to cause public dissension in the pro-life ranks....
At issue is strategy. Purists believe supporting legislation with compromises or exceptions is supporting abortions of babies not covered by that legislation. Purists also oppose parental notification/consent laws, abortion informed consent laws, fetal pain laws, and abortion clinic regulations, because they say those condone abortion, too....
Three weeks ago an Oklahoma bill became law prohibiting taxpayer funds from being used for any abortions except in certain cases of rape and incest. Previously, Gov. Brad Henry vetoed an identical bill with no exceptions.
Purists would have to oppose this new law because of its exception, even though the pure bill failed. So if purists had their way, taxpayers would still be funding all abortions this law stops, instead of blocking 99%. This is fanatical thinking, to be blunt, the equivalent of saying one cannot pull any victims from a burning building if all cannot be pulled out.
Some purists may sense they are boxing themselves into a corner. One friend wrote she could indeed support certain incremental legislation, providing this example: "No baby shall be killed/aborted after the second trimester by any means or it shall be considered first-degree murder."
When I reminded her she couldn't support such a law because the purist position would be it condones first
trimester abortions, she had to concede my point....
Continue reading my column today, "Purely fanatical," on WorldNetDaily.com.
From Dr. Dobson's June 2007 Focus on the Family Action e-mail alert:
"Ending partial-birth abortion, which would more accurately be named "late-term murder," does not save a single human life."
Here's a greater context of Dobson's statement, which certainly was not meant to diminish the value of the Supreme Court Ruling
It appears that Dobson's statement is being used beyond its intended scope and in a manner that he would disagree with.
If the ban "does not save a single human life," as Dr. Dobson has said in addition to other comments, isn't the better question, "What is there to celebrate?"
Leslie,
"What is there to celebrate?".....how about the first piece of anti-abortion legislation since Roe? It opens the door so we can get more done...how do you not see this? Lori v.