The Pro-Life Circular Firing Squad

One of the first topics, I talked about on Race42012 related to the defeat of 3 pro-life ballot measures: A personhood amendment in Colorado, in South Dakota another measure failed that would ban abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the health or life of the mother, and another measure in California requring parental notification before abortion.

Jill Stanek pointed out something quite interesting in her WorldNetDaily column :

The defeat of abortion ballot measures across the country… may have been the result of divisions among anti-abortion groups. …Opposition to the measure in South Dakota came from the anti-abortion groups American Life League and South Dakota Right to Life. The groups did not support the measure because of its exceptions to the abortion ban – cases of rape or incest or in narrowly defined instances “to preserve the health or life of the woman.” …

Voters defeated South Dakota’s measure by 55 percent to 45 percent, but the state produced a win for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, who opposes abortion rights. …

In Colorado, the failed Amendment 48 measure … found opposition from Americans United For Life and National Right to Life, which questioned the timing and the approach of the measure…

It’s very hard to get pro-life legislation passed when you have National Right to Life and other pro-life groups lobbying against it. At the same time, some people who were personally pro-life refused to support the California or South Dakota measures based on the fact that they still allowed abortions under some circumstances. Stanek has more anecdotal evidence of this (some e-mails sent to her) than a hardline specific organized group, but it’s still a factor.

Stanek breaks the problem down into two groups: Purist hardliners or Incrementalist hardliners. Any law that allows abortion under any circumstances is bad according to the purists and unacceptable as it doesn’t protect all unborn children.

The position of the Incremntalists position is somewhat more complex:

Incrementalist hardliners opposed the South Dakota measure because they feared it wouldn’t survive a Supreme Court challenge. They feared Obama would win and add to the number of pro-Roe justices, already in the majority. They opposed the Colorado personhood amendment for that reason and also because they feared a huge loss would look bad for our side. They supported the California parental notice proposition.

I’ll add that certain incrementalists lobbied the bishops in both Colorado and South Dakota to oppose the pro-life endeavors, causing their “ambivalence.”

My problem with incrementalist hardliners is they operate from a place of fear. Jesus said we’re to be shrewd as snakes, but when at a certain point we behave more like the 10 spies who scouted Canaan, I’m out. Isaiah 46:12-13: “Listen to me, you stubborn people who are so far from doing right. For I am ready to set things right, not in the distant future, but right now!” In other words, it is never wrong to do the right thing. This is not blind faith.

Stanek reports that South Dakota Right to Life actually sent out mailers opposing Measure 11 (that’s an odd way for a pro-life group to spend its donations). If there’s a takeaway lesson here, perhaps it may be that divisions within the pro-life movement may make passing pro-life ballot measures impossible and that voters who might vote for Pro-life candidates are going to have one reason or another to reject pro-life legislation at the polls. That’s why we have a republican system of government. We elect people and expect them to sort out the details.