Last updateTue, 21 Mar 2017 11am


Personhood Alliance Welcomes New Organization to its International Board


Contact: Daniel Becker, Personhood Alliance, 770-667-3777

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4, 2016 /Christian Newswire/ -- Our nation's newest national prolife group, Personhood Alliance, today announced the addition of a new at-large organization—SpeakLife Inc. (SpeakLife) to its membership.

SpeakLife Inc. is a non-profit organization that provides online courses for individuals, churches, and organizations in the Christian pro-life movement. They feature professionally designed curricula which presents the truth about life with evidence, compassion, and integrity and in the unique context of history, culture, and God's Word.

Sarah Quale, president and founder of SpeakLife, Inc. is to hold one of five at-large chairs and will be specifically representing the area of education, philosophy and pro-life apologetics.

Sarah Quale headshot portrait medium"We are blessed to have Sarah Quale join our efforts to help lead this nation back to first principles and biblical compliance in pro-life thought and action," said Daniel Becker, founder and president of Personhood Alliance. "Her unique abilities and contributions gives the Personhood movement the intellectual foundation to reshape the pro-life dialogue in ways the world has not seen since Dr's Francis Schaeffer and Jack Wilke came on the national scene in the early '70's." says Becker. "Beginning with the Enlightenment and then through every century of recent history, SpeakLife identifies and traces the consequences of embracing false philosophies in the Church and the culture and how these 'mis-steps' are perpetuating the travesty of failure that we see in current pro-life policy and politics," says Becker.

"SpeakLife is honored to partner with Personhood Alliance to take a principled stand for life. They—like we, understand the current crossroads the prolife movement faces and recognize this time in history as an opportunity for the movement to rediscover its values, return to first principles, and reclaim its spiritual authority. We are excited to provide the educational foundation the movement needs to seize this opportunity and prepare Christians to boldly speak the truth in love," said Quale.

"As noted, SpeakLife (see speaklifeinc.org) provides online courses that educate, equip, and empower Christians to stand for life in the unique ways they are called. This knowledge is essential for such a time as this." said Genevieve Wilson, officer and executive board member of Personhood Alliance.

The Personhood Alliance currently has established member organizations in Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.


The Pro-Life Debate - Defending Innocent Children, or Politicians?

Contact: Rebecca Kiessling, Save The 1, 248-495-2925

ROCHESTER HILLS, Mich., May 12, 2016 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following is submitted by Rebecca Kiessling:

    Are some candidates "more pro-life" than others? Yes! Is it important to know which candidates and which organizations are willing to compromise their pro-life values? Yes, because we're talking about lethal prejudice.

    This is not a political game for me. I literally owe my birth to the law being there to protect me. My heroes are pro-life legislators in Michigan who recognized that mine was a life worth saving, even in the case of rape – 100% pro-life, with no exceptions and no compromise. My birthmother did not choose life for me. She chose abortion. I was nearly aborted at two illegal abortionists -- my life-changing near-death experience. She only backed out because of the "back alley" conditions and because it was illegal. If your mother chose life for you – how nice for you, but mine didn't. Some of us are in need of heroes – those who are willing to protect us without exception, without compromise.

    I'm from Michigan where we've never had a rape exception in a single law. It's not because Michigan is a red state. We're a purple state in fact. It's because Right to Life of Michigan (RLM) is a no exceptions, no compromise organization and they made the determination in the early 70's that they would never forsake the child conceived in rape. This means a candidate does not get their PAC endorsement if he or she makes a rape exception, and they don't endorse rape exception legislation. As a result, we've passed some of the best laws in the nation – and they're clean laws, with no exceptions. We even overrode the Governor's veto a couple of years ago with a state-wide petition drive and a majority vote of the House and Senate. This is because of the stellar pro-life leadership of RLM.

    For many years, RLM was the only affiliate of National Right to Life Conference (NRLC) who refused to compromise on the rape exception. In the early 1970's, there was a schism within the pro-life movement over whether to forsake the child conceived in rape. Nellie Gray, founder of the March for Life (MFL), used to go on and on about it. She had their statement of principles read each year at the March, which outlined the MFL no compromise stance when she was in leadership. Judie Brown, President of American Life League can tell you all about this schism as well. Sadly, the majority voice on the national level has been that of compromise. The movement and innocent children conceived in rape have suffered as a result, because they've celebrated mediocrity instead of achieving success by electing the best possible pro-life legislators.

    At the state level, on the other hand, RLM was able to successfully persuade other state groups across the nation to go to the no exceptions, no compromise model – including Georgia Right to Life (GRTL). Dan Becker details Georgia's dramatic transformation within his book, Personhood: A Pragmatic Guide to Pro-Life Victory in the 21st Century and the Return to First Principles in Politics. Georgia was the worst in the nation – worse than California or New York, with no pro-life laws on the books. They only had 3% of the entire legislature who were 100% pro-life. When GRTL went to this model of no exceptions, no compromise, they lost half their board over it and both parties told them they were finished in Georgia and rendered irrelevant. But what did they have to lose? In about 10 years, when Dan Becker wrote his book, they went from worst to being ranked 4th in the nation by Americans United for Life, with a Gold Star rating. And Georgia's laws have NO rape exceptions! Every state-wide elected official – Governor, Lt. Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General were all 100% pro-life, and in fact, signed an affidavit with GRTL vowing not to compromise on that stance. This is ONLY the result of GRTL's leadership and the decision not to compromise pro-life values.

    Meanwhile, in Congress, they're not getting anything done. Yet somehow, NRLC and others still think their strategy of compromise is effective. You hear them say things like – "It's the burning building analogy. You save the 99 in exchange for the 1, saving as many as you can, while working to save all." There are several problems with this strategy. First of all, they are not working to save all. The reality is that they shut the water off, send the fire trucks home, and stand there watching the building burn with the 1 left inside. The compromisers never go back to save the 1. The Hyde Amendment's rape exception has been in place for more than two decades now, but instead of working to challenge it, the rape exception has become the standard and the Hyde Amendment is regularly used to justify it: "It merely incorporates the terms of Hyde." They've already determined that the child conceived in rape is an expendable casualty and not worth the effort to defend.

    Whenever I hear "Save the 99 in exchange for the 1," I can't help but think of the Parable of the Lost Sheep, because Jesus was all about saving the 1! He starts out by saying, "See that you do not despise any of these little ones." Despise? What a strange thing to say! Why would anyone despise a little one? Well, Sean Hannity called us an "evil seed" during his April 30, 2013 radio interview of Lila Rose. Bishop Paul Morton , Jr. called us a "demon seed, not what God created" at a pastors conference of 2,000. We're called "horrible reminder of the rape," "demon spawn," "monster's child," "tainting the gene pool." Yeah, we're despised – certainly more than any other people group today.

    Jesus continues in Matthew 18: "For I tell you that their angels in Heaven always look upon the face of my Father in Heaven." Then He goes into the whole Parable of the Lost Sheep, where the Good Shepherd leaves the 99 to save the 1, and Jesus ends the lesson by saying, "In the same way, your Father in Heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish." And neither should we! Who are "the least of these" of whom Jesus spoke? Are not children conceived in rape the least of the least in today's society? It's absolutely deplorable that any pro-life leader would suggest that they are in fact willing that any of these little ones should perish. Because we're despised, it makes it easier for you? Horrible!

    So back to the burning building – what's really happening is that you have people going in for job interviews (candidates) to become firefighters (legislators.) These prospective firefighters sit down and tell the fire chiefs (leaders in the pro-life movement,) "Just so you know – I discriminate. Yeah, if I go into a burning building and there are children in the midst of the fire in the back of the building, I'm not going to save them. They're going to be painfully disfigured and thus, will be a horrible reminder of the fire, and I'm just not going to do that to their parents, so I'm going to let them die. And if you try to force me to go in and save them, I just won't go in and save any."

    Now tell me, what fire chief in his right mind would hire such a person as a firefighter?! But that's what far too many pro-life leaders have been doing. And then, if somehow one inadvertently got hired, then refused to go in and save any if not allowed to discriminate, what fire chief would give his blessing on leaving an innocent child behind? And what fire chief wouldn't immediately fire that firefighter?! But instead, what's been happening is that the corrupt fire chiefs not only support these deadly actions, but they reward them with a bonus in the form of a 100% approval rating and PAC endorsement! The burning building predicament is not an emergency situation, but entirely foreseeable when they lower their standards and endorse these candidates. And it's preventable because there are good firefighters who don't discriminate.

    Do you see the problem now? And if that's not bad enough, then you have some good fire chiefs like GRTL who are attacked by the bad fire chiefs, and they try to run them out of their jurisdiction by appointing another corrupt fire chief like Georgia Life Alliance who wants to unravel all of the good work GRTL's done by undermining the standard of non-discrimination! Let me be clear – Georgia Life Alliance would bring Georgia back to the days of utter failure. They've already given Congressman Doug Collins a 100% approval rating when he allows for the rape exception! How is that possible? It's just like how Eric Cantor was rewarded with a 100% approval rating by NRLC when he introduced the rape exception in the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is completely misleading to those who think a 100% approval rating from a pro-life organization means the candidate is actually 100% pro-life. Go figure!

    And for the record, I AM pain-capable, despite the apparent rumors. Former Congressman Dr. Paul Broun from Georgia was absolutely correct when he pointed out that the rape exception in the Pain Capable bill creates a subclass of humans. Just imagine the screams of pain coming from the 350+ members of Save The 1 who were conceived in rape or mothers from rape. I assure you, the pain inflicted when we are targeted and devalued is life-long.

    But too many are just accustomed to my people group being treated as the scapegoat, pawn, bargaining chip, cannon fodder, sin eater of the pro-life movement – being punished not only for the sins of our biological fathers, but for the sins of mediocre politicians as well. Consider replacing the rape-conceived with any other people group – for example, "except in cases of Jewish babies." What message would that send to every Jew living in America today? It tells them that their life is not as valuable -- that they are "tainted" and not as worthy of life and protection as everyone else. No other people group is as systematically targeted and discriminated against in today's society as the child conceived in rape. Rape survivor mothers, who are raising their children whom they love, grieve at how their children are devalued and how they are being exploited, and this lethal prejudice must end!

    So now we must ask, who are these compromise organizations more interested in protecting? The innocent child conceived in rape, or politicians who vow to discriminate? The 14th Amendment says that no state shall deprive a person of their right to life without due process of law, and that no state shall deny a person equal protection of the laws. Rape exceptions violate equal protection. You cannot legitimately support the 14th Amendment right to life, while denying its equal protection requirements.

    There is a superior strategy – not only morally superior, but practically superior as well because being 100% pro-life is really the litmus test for how passionate a candidate is about protecting life. These are our champions who are able to bring us out of deadly stagnation. Dan Becker was right – being principled IS the most the pragmatic approach. Michigan and Georgia are proof of our success and Congress is proof of their failure. So let's punish rapists, not babies, and protect babies, not politicians.

BIO: Rebecca Kiessling is a wife, mother of 5, attorney and international pro-life speaker. She's the founder and President of the global pro-life organization Save The 1 -- addressing all of the so-called "hard cases" in the abortion debate, co-founder of Hope After Rape Exception, and national spokeswoman for and Executive Committee Board Member of Personhood Alliance.



The Planned Parenthood shooting was directly related to the Christian pro-life movement

Reprint from LifeSiteNews

COLORADO SPRINGS, December 11, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Yes, you read that correctly: there was a strong Christian pro-life element to the tragic shooting at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood. But it is not the motive or the person the media has been focused on.

The person is Officer Garrett Swasey, and his motive was his Christian faith.

I would like to see at least one news story cover the shooting at the Planned Parenthood from the perspective of Officer Swasey. I would like at least one reporter to ask: what was his motivation?

I think Officer Swasey earned it, don't you?

Instead of focusing on the motivation of a deranged killer, from which we will learn nothing of substance, why not focus on the motivation of a committed Christian pro-lifer who laid down his life for his prodigal brothers and sisters at the abortion mill?

Of course, other than the empty platitudes from president Obama and others, Officer Swasey's motivation has not been a story of interest for the media. Instead, immediately following the murders, the media went into a frenzy to link the deranged killer to the pro-life movement and advocate for more gun control laws.

Never mind that there is not a single credible pro-life organization in the whole world that advocates violence against abortionists or that most of these big shootings occur in tightly regulated gun-free zones. Never mind that the shooter apparently didn't target or kill a single abortionist or any of their helpers. The story was already written, and the motive was known – and the solution, too.

Swarms of reporters were dispatched by the media, and within hours, "clues" as to the motivation of the deranged killer started to emerge – pictures of twigs taped together to a shack vaguely resembling a cross in one of the former dwellings of the accused murderer, Robert Dear; a decades-old statement uttered to an ex-wife (!); apparent disgust at Planned Parenthood's trafficking of aborted baby parts.

Immediately, Planned Parenthood started – I should say, continued – to callously fundraise from the killings.

What was not reported was that the officer who had rushed to the abortion mill to stop the killings was a vocal opponent of abortion and a committed Christian pastor, who signed the petition that I wrote to amend the Colorado constitution to recognize all unborn human beings as persons. 


Officer Garrett Swasey's signature.

For that amendment, which Officer Swasey and another 140,000 Colorado voters supported and put on the ballot in 2014, personhood supporters have been labeled as American "Taliban," "extremists," and "anti-woman." They've been labeled potential right-wing extremists by the Department of Homeland Security.

Let me repeat that so that it can sink in: for supporting the view that all human beings deserve to be constitutionally protected, pro-lifers are considered potential extremists.

In reality, holding the view that all human beings are endowed by their Creator with inherent dignity and constitutional protection (even the most heinous abortionist or other such mass killers) should make the holding of pro-life views an indication not of violent extremism, but of extreme civic-mindedness. But the media is not interested in that story.

The heroic death of Officer Garrett Swasey proves this point. Here was a man who believed that what is going on inside Planned Parenthood is nothing less than the killing of innocent persons, but he was willing to lay down his life, leaving his wife and young children, in order to protect the lives of those who profit from the killing of the unborn.

So instead of looking into the motivation of the deranged killer (who will probably plead insanity), why don't we ponder the motivation of Officer Swasey? Why don't we think about the thought process and beliefs that probably motivated his heroic actions?

As for me, I imagine that, being an evangelical pastor, Officer Swasey was well aware of the biblical commandment to love even the evil and unrighteous. I can imagine the words that Jesus himself spoke racing through his mind as the bullets flew towards him. 

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Mt. 5:43-48)

It takes a great man to make the ultimate sacrifice for evildoers, and that is exactly what Officer Swasey did that day at Planned Parenthood. In doing so, he followed the steps of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Who died to redeem others less worthy than He.

The ludicrous media narratives and the Obama administration's obsessive focus on Christians and pro-lifers as potential terrorists are completely exposed by Officer Swasey's sacrifice and his consistent Christian pro-life beliefs and actions. Signing the 2014 Personhood Amendment to protect unborn babies and dying to protect abortionists most probably had one and the same motivation: Jesus Christ.

That snowy day on the hills of Colorado Springs, the entire Christian faith was replayed for all to see. A righteous man laid down his life for many who did not deserve his sacrifice.

I pray that the heroic action of Officer Garret Swasey reaches even the most hardened hearts of the worst abortionists and causes them to undergo a conversion. When that happens, I know that those abortionists will stop committing abortions and will stop the taking of innocent life, choosing instead to protect that most precious gift. That is what Christian pro-lifers do.

Gualberto Garcia Jones is the author of the 2010 and 2014 Colorado Personhood Amendments and the national policy director of the Personhood Alliance.

Personhood Alliance Initiates Fulltime Lobbyist on Capitol Hill

Washington, D.C.—One of today's fastest growing grassroots pro-life organizations inaugurated its fulltime lobbying efforts for the 2016 legislative session in Washington, D.C. this week. "I am pleased to announce our legislative agenda for 2016," said Personhood Alliance President Daniel Becker. "We are meeting with the nation's pro-life political leadership to discuss two pro-personhood pieces of legislation. We are requesting a hearing on two bills H.R. 426 (Hice-GA) Sanctity of Life Act and H.R. 816 (Mooney - WV) Life at Conception Act, which reflect a personhood approach to legal protection for all human life at any stage of development."

"We are actively working these two bills toward a single hearing that would anticipate a post election 2017 re-introduction and vote. These two bills represent the stated historical objective of the pro-life movement and we would like to begin the job of educating the grassroots base and setting expectations for a new bill in 2017 that firmly respects the biblical standards established by the movement in the early '70's", said Becker.

Each bill establishes the personhood of the pre-born as its legal objective. This has been the objective of the pro-life movement since its inception four decades ago. Recent "message" bills such as the 2015 Pain Capable Bill and S.R. 3762, a partial defunding of Planned Parenthood, have confused this legal objective by stipulating that there are classes of human life that can be sacrificed for the "greater good of the greatest number". "This utilitarian approach by pro-life leaders and politicians dilutes the standard that all life is to be protected by equal protection of the law" Becker claims.

Due to a Presidential veto, these bills have NO path to enactment. "These bills are simple 'message bills.' Politicians can show no credible path to enacting the protections for pre-born children that they so loudly proclaim. These type of bills will never save a single baby—they are designed to save politicians in an election year." said Becker. "We want substantive protections and we believe that a Life at Conception Act in 2017 would assure that every baby is protected from her earliest biological beginning."

Personhood Alliance is one of the only full-time pro-life lobbying efforts on capitol hill reflecting this pro-personhood position.




Montana Anesthesia Abortion Bill -- It's OK to Kill Your Victim as Long as They Don't Feel Pain?

by Rebecca Kiessling

 "Eric Scheidler, Jill Stanek and Fr. Frank Pavone – all of whom do great work for the pro-life movement, but all of whom are dead wrong on this bill."

About a month ago, I first heard about the Montana “Unborn Child Pain and Suffering Act,” (HB 479) which is their version of the “Pain-Capable” bill.  However, instead of banning late-term abortions based upon the premise that unborn children feel pain, this bill, as now passed by the Legislature and sent to the Governor for approval, merely requires that the mother be informed that her 20 week+ (from conception) unborn child may feel pain during the abortion and that she has the option to consent to anesthesia for the child.

Right away, I felt ill to my stomach because, as far as I’m aware, this would be the first time in American history that a precedent would be set that it’s okay to kill your innocent victim as long as he or she doesn’t feel pain, or as the bill now stands – as long as those involved in the killing are told that the victim might feel pain.  Just think of how far-reaching such a dangerous precedent could be extended:  euthanasia of special-needs children, as well as assisted suicide.  Do we mitigate first-degree murder to a lesser charge if the killer showed “compassion” by killing the victim swiftly while sedated?  Do we show leniency to rapists for drugging the victim and raping her while she’s passed out, or for using a condom?  How asinine would that be?!

For the last couple of years, I’ve been warning others that the fetal pain bills could backfire and that it is dangerous to suggest that our right to life is somehow linked to whether or not we feel pain.  In Gonzales v Carhart, the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case which upheld the Congressional ban against Partial Birth Abortion (also called “intact D&E”, the Court said that, “the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of ‘a living fetus.’ 18 U. S. C. §1531(b)(1)(A) (2000 ed., Supp. IV). If the intact D&E procedure is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure.”  Because of this chilling language, I’ve often cautioned others that the same Court which suggested that you can still perform a Partial Birth Abortion as long as you provide a lethal injection first, would similarly respond to a Pain Capable Act by merely suggesting you provide anesthesia first.  And now a state legislature is actually suggesting what I feared the Supreme Court would do!
What’s even more shocking to me now is the fact that several pro-life activists have come out publicly in support of the Montana anesthesia legislation, including Eric Scheidler, Jill Stanek and Fr. Frank Pavone – all of whom do great work for the pro-life movement, but all of whom are dead wrong on this bill.  We cannot sanitize abortion.  Can you imagine rape victim advocacy groups pushing for a bill which would require rapists to drug their victims first?  It’s lunacy!
I placed a personal phone call to Priests for Life to discuss this bill, and I received a friendly voicemail message back from Dr. Anthony Vento of Priests for Life, who explained that they “support incremental legislation regardless of any exception” – which I support incremental legislation as well, as long as it’s principled with no exceptions – and that they felt that “from a standpoint of morality, it’s immoral to take rights away from a person.  It is not immoral to add rights to one.”  PFL believes that informing the mother of the option of anesthesia is adding rights to the preborn.  He further stated that they feel the bill does not give an incentive to an abortion, but that the baby should not have to feel pain.
I took a day to ponder what he said about adding rights to a person.  Again, does requiring a rapist to use the date rape drug or a condom add rights to a rape victim?  I would say not. 
Something else which came to mind is the 3/5 Compromise during the 1787 Constitutional Convention which counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for determining a state’s population for purposes of congressional representation and taxation.  That provision is still in the U.S. Constitution to this day – Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3, but was effectively nullified by the 13th Amendment which made all persons free.  Interestingly, they didn’t want the word “slave” in the Constitution, so they referred to free Persons vs. “other Persons” – slaves, who were only counted as 3/5.  In the battle to protect preborn children, it’s the opposite, where they are given a dehumanizing name – “fetus” – instead of being called “Persons.” 
This “3/5 Compromise” is a shameful part of American history.  Arguably, it “added rights” to slaves by recognizing them as “other Persons” within the Constitution, although only being counted as 3/5 for apportionment, but having them recognized as persons brought slaves nowhere closer to being free!  In fact, it ensured their enslavement more by increasing the stake of Southern slaveholders in Congress.  Seven decades later, in the Dred Scott U.S. Supreme Court decision, slaves were still not recognized even as “citizens” under the U.S. Constitution, and so, had no right to sue in Federal Court.  Likewise, in Roe v Wade, the Court pointed out that preborn children have not been recognized as “persons in the whole sense.”  Most, if not all, of the compromises involving slavery were major failures, and we can see clearly now that the North should have never compromised at all.  Can you imagine if the pro-life movement supported a compromise bill to recognize the preborn as 3/5 of a person?  That would be ludicrous!  But under PFL’s standard, it would be “adding rights.”
Dr. Vento from PFL also suggested that the Montana legislation does not provide an incentive to abort.  However, I wholeheartedly disagree.  My friend, pro-life activist Abby Johnson explains it this way:  “Incremental legislation is great, but we have to be careful which incremental measures we support, and we certainly have to be careful when we make remarks praising these measures.  When I worked in the Planned Parenthood clinic, the most frequently asked question I received was, ‘Will my baby feel this?’ We would ask them how that would play into their decision. They would almost always say that they ‘wished there was a way to make it so that the baby wouldn't feel any pain before it dies.’  It wasn't that they were going to change their minds if the baby felt pain.  I personally believe, from my own experience in the clinic, that this will only ease the conscience of the woman seeking an abortion.  I'm not sure it's going to do what people think it will.”
With the anesthesia bill, I see significant parallels in the book “The Giver,” by Lois Lowry, when the character Fiona describes her experience with being trained to end the life of a baby in the manner in which the society deemed to be humane:
“I got to my assignment the next day.  The first thing I heard from my director was . . . ‘Today I will teach you to release new-children,’ she said looking straight at me.  I was shocked, did I really have that much respect already???  I had only become a nurturer yesterday, and she wanted me to release a new-child!  She put in one of my hands a small needle.  I know new-children need needles for health, but if he was being released wouldn't the people who were going to receive him have a health needle for him?  I looked around.  There seemed to be no door to some magical elsewhere that all elevens always whispered about when they thought of being released. I looked back at my director as she instructed ‘pass me the needle.’  I handed her the needle slowly, wondering what I was supposed to do.  I watched as she talked to the new-child with a soft mother-like voice.  She then said ‘this will hurt at first but in the end you won't feel any pain.’  What was that supposed to mean???   It didn't make any sense to me at the time.  Slowly she injected the needle into the new-child's head because his arm vein wasn't big enough.  He started wailing and I didn't know what to do.  I looked back to my director and she was looking at the new-child as if waiting for something to happen, and then it did.  In her arms the small new-child slowly stopped crying and then he went limp.  He was dead.  I stared in horror at my director as she placed the small body in a white box and threw it down the garbage chute.  This would be my job from now on!  Killing new-children!  They weren't even old enough to speak up for themselves!  My instructor then looked back at me and said ‘This is how people are released.  You must deal with it, and not tell anybody.’  She looked at me, her eyes held such certainty.  It was strange.”
This Montana abortion anesthesia bill is every bit as strange.  Just as the director in the Giver book was desensitized and training Fiona to be, I foresee that this legislation will actually have the net effect of doing the same and thereby increasing abortions in Montana.  In fact, I could see Montana becoming the new late-term abortion capital of the United States because the medical community and others who tend to bully women into getting late-term abortions for various reasons will be able to tell these women not to worry – that they can go to Montana to get their late-term abortions where they do them humanely.  That could become the new slogan for the late-term abortion industry in Montana! 
I understand that Fr. Pavone and others honestly believe that this measure will make people more aware of the fact that preborn children are capable of feeling pain, but an anesthesia bill merely raises the issue, then resolves it – “unborn children feel pain?  Offer anesthesia -- problem solved!”
In my research on this issue, I found an article in USA Today written by an anesthesiologist calling for “a moratorium on the use of anesthetics for lethal injection” of death row prisoners, and I was struck by the parallels:  “lethal injection created an illusion of humane, professional execution.  But the executioners are not doctors, and it's been well established that the executions themselves are not humane.”  This is the same with anesthesia abortions – they will give the illusion that late-term abortions in Montana are “humane,” although sedation doesn’t make abortion any more humane at all!  Dr. Joel Zivot points out that European pharmaceutical companies have stopped selling certain products in the U.S. because they’re being used to administer the death penalty.  If a pharmaceutical company is willing to take such a stand for convicted murderers – losing significant revenue from U.S. sales, surely we can take a better stand for pre-born children!
This brings me to a brief discussion of why many Catholic pro-life leaders are willing to compromise and to celebrate mediocrity – they improperly utilize Evangelium Vitae 73, an encyclical of Pope John Paul II on abortion, which states:  “When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.  This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”  First of all, this provision is only limited to an elected official – not a priest, pro-life activist or voter, and it’s only to be if it’s a deciding vote.

Secondly, as I pointed out in my radio interview on the Catholic Channel with Cardinal Dolan on January 21st, in which he completely agreed, there is no way that the Pope intended this provision to allow for the discrimination of an entire class of persons.  In fact, Cardinal Dolan called it “preposterous” to suggest that EV 73 allows such discrimination.  But he even went a little further, objecting to the premise of the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, quoting from an excerpt from my philosophical abortion essay:  “Does that make it okay to stab somebody in the back when they’re sleeping, because they can’t feel pain?” Then he declared, “Absolutely not -- that’s ridiculous!”

Think of children born with Congenital Insensitivity to Pain, otherwise known as Congenital Analgesia.  Are they any less worthy of their right to life, just because they are incapable of feeling pain?  Do we allow abortions for them?  The only way this Montana bill could possibly be any worse is if it had such an exception, or any other exceptions such as rape and incest – not that I wish to give them any ideas!  So many of these same pro-life leaders already support Pain Capable bills with rape exceptions – as if we (children conceived in rape like me) don’t feel pain, or it’s just that we can go ahead and suffer for all they care.  As soon as you compromise on principle, you’ve already lost.  People need to understand that.

We must not support a dangerous bill like the Montana abortion anesthesia bill!  Our rights cannot be linked to whether we feel pain, and we must not placate the concerns of mothers who might not otherwise obtain an abortion because of concerns about the baby feeling pain.  I urge everyone to refrain from supporting such legislation, and move away from the whole pain argument as defining our humanity.

BIO:  Rebecca Kiessling is an international pro-life speaker, writer and lawyer, having been conceived in rape and nearly aborted at two back-alley abortions, but legally protected by no-exceptions Michigan law.  She’s the founder and president of Save The 1 and co-founder of Hope After Rape Conception

Visit the Holocaust Memorial Wall