The Colorado Right to Life Blog!

Personhood Update: Colorado & Montana

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:46:00 +0000

We've been really busy, so I apologize for not updating you on Personhood around the country.

Though we made a really good go at it in legislatures, none of the legislative efforts at Personhood made it past the second house in the states where it was tried.

However, Mississippi's Personhood ballot measure is well underway, and so is Oregon's. Visit PersonhoodUSA for more information on those efforts, and about Montana's ballot initiative they launched this week too!

Here is video from the press conference in Colorado yesterday, where Colorado Right to Life and Personhood USA launched a new petition gathering initiative to build on the momentum from 2008's Amendment 48 Personhood measure.

4 Talk Show Hosts - $1,000,000 Challenge to Ann Coulter

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:45:00 +0000

Four conservative talk show hosts from across the country dared to pose tough pro-life questions about Mitt Romney to Ann Coulter, and all she could do was splutter!

Basically, she said, "Of course he's pro-life, though I can't prove it, but even if he isn't he's still the best candidate!"

We expected better of Ann.

ARTL and CRTL feel that it's necessary to challenge "fake pro-lifers" so that real pro-lifers aren't tricked into voting for them. If someone doesn't support a Right to Life from conception to natural death, they're not pro-life! Especially if they also support Roe v. Wade or a "right to choose," as Romney has, as often as not.

Here are all the reference citations to back up these claims:

http://artlaction.com/release/20080125/artla-rebukes-ann-coulter

As has been previously established by American Right to Life Action, Mitt Romney is only pretending to be pro-life -- it's not just a "flip-flop" if you switch back and forth several times. That's a "zig-zag", and it's a clear sign of dishonesty.

ARTLA's Romney Fairy Tale ad aired in 3 primary states where Romney lost (private donors paid for the ads specifically out of their pocket -- no ARTL donations were used if not earmarked for these ads). The ad won the Redstate.com award "Best Low-Budget Video" for the primary campaign, and ABC News indicated these ads had an impact with voters.

Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the definition of embryo is."

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 04:17:00 +0000

In a revealing interview that betrayed either the depth of his deception, or the level of his ignorance, former President Bill Clinton, on CNN, told Dr. Sanjay Gupta that he thinks it’s okay to experiment on what he calls "unfertilized embryos." Now, if that weren’t such a scientifically impossible claim, it would almost be reassuring that our former president seemed to be implying that it’s not okay to experiment on fertilized embryos. But Clinton seemed to miss the point that every embryo, by definition, has been fertilized, and has already become a living, growing, individual human being who has a God-given Right to Life. How tragic if he spent 8 years in the White House thinking embryos weren’t living humans. But, if you had to guess, was he being ignorant, or deceptive?

Rev. Euteneuer Speaks Out On Sebelius and Brownback

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:51:00 +0000

We would like to highlight a column by Human Life International's (HLI) Father Tom Euteneuer. It's harsh -- brace yourself! And, obviously, it's written from the perspective of a Catholic priest. But this is the kind of honesty Colorado Right to Life respects and demands.

Colorado Right to Life has the good fortune to have been blessed by what may be a unique alliance between steadfast Catholics and steadfast Protestants for a common goal -- two groups that all two often follow common goals by different means or different paths.

Along with American Life League, another of the major Catholic pro-life groups which has cooperated and collaborated with Colorado Right to Life is Rev. Euteneuer's Human Life International, the largest international pro-life group in existence.

Father Euteneuer is one of the stalwarts of the pro-life movement -- one of the most admirable, stellar spokesmen on behalf of the unborn child, who has the courage and fortitude to take on others who are considered pro-life heroes but who have sullied themselves by hypocrisy.

The pro-life movement is harmed and weakened when we cover up the weakness and compromise of those who are pro-life one day, and who turn their backs on the unborn (and us!) on other days. What priorities a leader holds matters -- if the unborn are not their priority, how pro-life are they?

Calling a spade a spade is even more important considering that Sen. Brownback ran for President last year, drawing from a constituency which was undoubtedly comprised almost entirely of committed pro-lifers who were led to believe the senator was one of the most dedicated pro-lifers running.

-- Bob Kyffin

Brownback - Turncoat
A column by Rev. Thomas Euteneuer
President, Human Life International

I am not a politician, I am a priest. So I would like to give my priestly perspective about the recent endorsement of Senator Sam Brownback for the candidacy of Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services: Senator Brownback's cowardly betrayal of his Catholic faith is even more damaging than his political permission for this renegade to take office.

The situation is atrocious. An extremist abortion hack (called the most pro-abortion governor in the nation by many), who falsely calls herself "Catholic," is given the opportunity to preside over the nation's healthcare system and normalize abortion even further; this radical is then endorsed by a US senator who also calls himself "Catholic" and who, many believe, wants her job back home when she becomes the abortion queen in DC.

With pro-lifers like Senator Sam Brownback, who needs pro-aborts?

Moral theologians can work out what level of cooperation in evil the Senator's endorsement represents - he is, after all, an influential senator whose opposition, if he had given it, may very well have stopped her nomination. Yet, those of us who do not breathe the rarified air of Washington DC and who have dedicated our lives to defending the sanctity of human life understand one thing: any covenant with the abortion industry or its promoters is consent to the killing. As a convert to the Catholic Faith, Senator Brownback seems not to understand the Church's profoundly wounded heart with regard the slaughter of the innocents. The Church tells us never to participate in that slaughter, no matter what the cost; we do not give aid and comfort to the enemies of human life, we do not stand by while the innocent are being dragged off to a violent murder, and under no circumstances do we endorse the political aspirations of their executioners. Politicians who sell the lives of babies for political gains are the worst kind of turncoats.

Yet, this Catholic Senator's decision constitutes, I think, a watershed moment for all of us who want to see an end to the immoral industry of baby-killing in our country. We will never be served by the compromise of our principles in any form. Catholicism is the solution to this culture of death. If only Catholics ourselves would fully live up to our doctrine and put it into practice, there would be no "Tiller the Killer"s in Kansas, no partial birth abortions, no immoral sex education in the schools or Planned Parenthoods dominating our public life. Self-described "Catholics" like Brownback (in politics), Doug Kmiec (in academia), Hannity, Matthews and O'Reilly (in media) and others are not the solution to the problem - they are enablers of the problem. Despite their high-sounding lip service to the culture of life, they are compromisers. They will never end abortion because they don't want to end abortion.

I have often said that false Catholics, whether they be Cardinals, politicians or janitors, are the ones who have the most to account for on the Day of Judgment when they will have to account for ignoring Christ in His "least brethren," the unborn. Whether through advocacy of the evil (like Sebelius) or negligence in stopping it (like Brownback), they have blood on their hands. They've been given everything the Church has to offer: the teaching, the sacraments, the example of the saints and the grace to stand against Satan and all his works and all his empty promises. In other words, they know better, and the Biblical warning applies to them: "To whom much has been given, much will be required." Cowards and turncoats beware.

Sincerely,

Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
President, Human Life International

_______________

On a side note, here is an article which details an earlier disagreement with Sen. Brownback's questionable methods: A Growing Split In the Pro-Life Community

Personhood on the March Nationwide!

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 22:12:00 +0000

In the past two weeks, the North Dakota House passed HB 1572 by a 51-41 vote. This Personhood bill will establish any unborn child of the human genome to be a person under N. Dakota law. HB 1572 will go to the Senate, where passage seems likely, perhaps as early as this week, and Gov. John Hoeven has reportedly said that he will sign it!

Furthermore, the Montana Senate has passed two bills, SB 46, which declares in the Montana Constitution that the state has a compelling interest in protecting unborn children, and so they are not meant by the legislature to be covered by the state's "privacy" clause (a common defense for abortion), and SB 406, also written by State Senate President Dan McGee, which declares "All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights," and later says, "Person means a human being at all stages of human development of life, including the state of fertilization or conception, regardless of age, health, level of functioning, or condition of dependency." SB 406 passed 26-24 on the 26th. The Montana House is Democrat-controlled, and so is not seen as a hospitable environment for this legislation, but it seems that if the House were to pass it, it would automatically become an amendment to the state Constitution.

Please pray that at least 74 Montana House members will support this legislation when it comes to them!

Please also pray for God's support for Personhood USA, an organization founded by friends of Colorado Right to Life (Cal Zastrow and Keith Mason), which is busy organizing Personhood legislation and new Personhood ballot initiatives in several states. By the end of the summer, we may see one form or another of Personhood legislation under consideration in as many as 15 states!

Colorado Right to Life is working on getting Personhood legislation in Colorado this year or next, and we intend to continue to educate the public through all possible means -- Internet, public demonstrations, mailings, radio, TV, etc. Of course, this is a follow-on effort to Colorado Right to Life's 2008 support for Amendment 48, the Colorado Personhood Initiative, which garnered the support of almost 600,000 Colorado voters in November!

If you would like to help Colorado Right to Life perform this important work, please visit http://www.coloradorighttolife.org/donate and make a donation!

Keep in mind that other pro-life groups across the country have different, and less far-reaching strategies for protecting children. Colorado Right to Life (and its national organization, American Right to Life) remains one of the central organizers of Personhood efforts nationwide, and much of the work in favor of Personhood that has been occurring is an outgrowth of the work of Colorado Right to Life's and American Right to Life's Nov 2007 Personhood Summit, which brought together the nation's leading supporters of Personhood into a concerted campaign.

CRTL Witnesses the End of an Era

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:46:00 +0000

America’s 1st & Longest-Running Abortuary, Denver’s
20th & Vine Finally Closes Its Doors "For Good"

Sidewalk counselors Ken and Jo Scott stand in front of the doors to the 20th & Vine abortuary, underneath the vacant signframe which once declared Planned Parenthood. Ken and Jo devoted their lives to closing down this site, spending almost every day for decades pleading with mothers to keep their babies.

The nation’s first legal abortion "clinic" has finally closed its doors. Some of the hundreds of activists who have protested outside the 20th & Vine abortuary over the past 41 years, holding signs, rosaries or baby dolls and offering shouted or silent protests against the evil being perpetrated inside, urging women to love their babies, not to kill them, were allowed recently to see the inside of the facility whose outside they knew so well. Planned Parenthood operations have moved into a new, larger center on 38th Avenue by Stapleton (we call it AuschWeitz).

The building was sold to a health provider who meant to turn it into a care center for the elderly. When they saw the condition of the building however, and considered what it had been used for, the company decided they would tear it down and rebuild instead. A special opportunity arose for pro-life activists to be invited inside to see the place where so many horrors had been committed.

An envelope, dated 1967, apparently hidden under a desk for 40 years, reveals one of the earliest crimes committed against children, women and God at 20th & Vine.

Several of those who had protested outside the clinic came to document and take photographs and video of the interior. What remained had been cleared of furniture, but left behind was evidence of the filthy working conditions. Some visitors were familiar enough with procedures to know which rooms were used for what, and video was taken of the closet where baby parts were reassembled after the abortion to ensure that no parts were left inside to cause infection (the leading cause of death to post-abortive mothers).

Representatives of the Christian Motorcyclists Association joined us and said prayers inside and outside the building to sanctify the property & the lives lost there.

Sidewalk counselors and riders with the Christian Motorcyclists Association gathered inside and outside to hold hands and pray over the site, that God would turn it to His purposes.

Just one example of the extraordinary filth found inside the abortion center (which purports to be a "medical clinic," though it obviously never followed medical procedures for cleanliness).

CRTL Debates on CSPAN!

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:48:00 +0000

CRTL Board Member and Pastor Bob Enyart spoke in favor of Colorado’s Personhood Amendement on CSPAN in October. He debated Crystal Clinkenbeard, leader of the "No on 48" campaign, in a 37-minute exchange broadcast nationwide.

Taking the initiative, Enyart spoke for most of the 45-minute program, with Clinkenbeard seemingly having few sound bites that would help her side. Enyart’s points were cogent, and hard-hitting. "Half the time the pregnant woman has a boy inside of her," he said, "so it’s not the woman’s body. It’s a separate body."

Clinkenbeard posed several lies and obfuscations, and raised extreme cases which would never come into play.

One of the charges Planned Parenthood made was that giving rights to "fertilized eggs" would send women to jail for miscarriages. Enyart responded, "The claim that women and doctors are going to be going to jail because of medical treatment, that is shown to be obfuscation, because before Roe v. Wade we had ectopic pregnancies in America – a baby developing in the fallopian tube. We did not have our courts filled with doctors and women going to court and to jail because of having to save the life of a mother in an ectopic pregnancy."

Clinkenbeard explained how concerned she and the pro-abortion forces are that what started in Colorado will spread to other states.

Host Pedro Echevarria asked, "If this amendment passes, could that ultimately go up the line to what it could do for Roe versus Wade?"

She answered, "Absolutely."

A pro-life caller said she was offended that her tax dollars were being used to support abortion. Clinkenbeard responded, "It’s absolutely not true, it doesn’t happen." And went on to say that under the Hyde Amendment, such taxpayer funding is illegal, so... of course it doesn’t happen!

Enyart wouldn’t let that drop, so he explained about the fungibility (transferability) of funds, and how adding funding for any reason to Planned Parenthood naturally supports their abortion services. "Regarding tax funded abortions, Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars, of federal tax money."

One caller challenged Enyart’s right to even speak on the issue, since he was a man. In his response, Enyart pointed out that Roe v. Wade and all the pro-abortion laws in the ‘60s and ‘70s were decided not by women, but by men. "Men are more pro-choice than women… they’ll use a woman sexually, impregnate her, and not want to have to love her or care for her or their child, and so men are more pro-choice than women, and that’s historic, because a woman carries the baby and knows it is a child."

During the program, Enyart compared abortion to slavery. "Back when we were trying to stop slavery — abolition — people said, ‘Well I’m against slavery, but think of all the difficulty this would cause for our economy, for our political system, if we acknowledge blacks as people, think of all the difficulties to our societal structure. Those arguments are irrelevant. What matters is that a child should be honored by the adults in society, should be loved and protected." Then he pointed to Snowflakes.org, which helps adopt out frozen embryos. Their site also shows pictures of beautiful babies who were adopted as frozen embryos and who are being raised as loved children today.

"Their rights started not in the hospital," he said, "Their rights started when they were created, at that moment of fertilization. And if we deny that, that fundamental truth of when life begins… they avoid the question of when does life begin. They can’t answer that question. All of science acknowledges that the human being comes into existence when the sperm fertilizes the egg."

Amendment 48, of course — the subject of the debate — would protect children from the moment of fertilization. "Our opponents say, ‘well, we don’t know when the moment of fertilization is.’ But that egg knows, because as soon as one sperm fertilizes that egg, a dramatic change happens in the cell wall, and all the other suitors, they’re rebuffed. It’s too late. There’s now a new precious little boy, or a little girl, right there. And we need to love and protect all children beginning right at that first moment of life."

Responding to Clinkenbeard’s charge that Personhood would even force a raped child to give birth, Enyart said, "Abortion for incest is cruel. What it does is it encourages the would-be criminal to rape his young relative, and he knows that if he impregnates her, he can bring her to Planned Parenthood, and nationwide, systematically, Planned Parenthood, Crystal’s former employer, does not they refuse to comply with mandatory reporting for suspected sexual abuse of minors. Just as in California, in August, a case noted by the California Supreme Court, a man will commit incest, impregnate his young relative, bring her to an abortion clinic, they will ask no questions, he’ll take her home and continue to abuse her. So the abortion clinic often sends the victim home with her rapist to be continually sexually molested."

Clinkenbeard brought up ectopic pregnancy and health issues, claiming 48 would prevent action, to which Enyart responded, "You don’t kill the mother to save the baby, and you don’t kill the baby to save the mother. You try to love and protect both. And when the baby dies, as is commonly the case, that’s a tragedy, but you don’t stop half-way, like in a partial-birth abortion, stop and kill the baby. If the mother’s life is at risk, you deliver the baby. You do a C-section. You remove the baby. You don’t deliver him half-way breach, stop, kill the baby, and then continue. That is not loving and protecting the mother. That’s the intention to kill the baby. And that’s what’s wrong. That’s why we have to love and protect all children."

Finally, refuting Clinkenbeard’s claim that Planned Parenthood is concerned for the well being of women, Enyart said, "Abortion is not only cruel to children, it’s cruel to the moms. And we owe it to the next generation of young women in the state of Colorado and our country to protect them from the cruelty of convenience and pressure to kill their little baby, their boy or girl, and so this amendment is a historic opportunity for the State of Colorado to acknowledge the God-given Right to Life comes, like the last caller said, at that moment of creation. Our rights don’t come from the hospital, they don’t come from the delivery doctor, the OBYGN. Our rights come from our Creator. And Planned Parenthood and Crystal, they cannot say when life begins, even though it is so obvious in any biology textbook, fetology, that life begins at that moment. All you have to do is refrain from killing it to find out what a beautiful and precious little boy or girl is right there in that embryo."

The full program is available online:
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/crystal-clinkenbeard-and-bob-enyart/1305153968/

March for Life Colorado: Metaxas, Wilberforce, Bonhoeffer & the anti-Slavery Model

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:40:00 +0000

Mark Your Calendar!
2009 March For Life
Thurs, January 22
12:00 Noon

Denver's State Capitol

Join us at Noon, Thursday Jan. 22 for the 2009 March For Life, with guest Eric Metaxas, who will talk about anti-slavery crusader William Wilberforce and anti-Nazi martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Two book signings will be held — one at the Capitol immediately after Eric's talk (purchase books at the Pillar of Fire Temple 1 block south of the Capitol starting at 11 a.m.), and another before that at the Lakewood/Littleton Mardels on south Wadsworth from 9-11 a.m..

2009 SPEAKER: BIOGRAPHER ERIC METAXAS
Eric Metaxas wrote the book which inspired the movie “Amazing Grace,” about anti-slavery crusader William Wilberforce.

The 2009 CRTL March for Life, on Jan. 22, will feature biographer Eric Metaxas, who will talk about his past book, Amazing Grace (which was later turned into a major motion picture most of you probably saw), and also about his upcoming biography about German Christian martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Eric will have books available for purchase, as well as a book signing after his speech.

DIETRICH BONHOEFFER
Christians are not proud of the predominant behavior of German Christians during the Nazi era — silence, acquiescence, collaboration — but some sterling examples of heroism stand out. Many Christians, certainly, lacked the courage to speak against Hitler, or even came to believe he spoke truth because their pastors would not speak against him. Hitler used a heretical theology based on fantasy which turned Jesus into a Jew-hater, and then used the power of the Nazi government to force many German churches to form a united German church not unlike the government-sanctioned churches in China (in concept, if not by degree).

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was one of a number of prominent Christian leaders who wouldn’t go along. They formed the "Confessing Church," and intended for it to follow Christ in every way where His teachings diverged from the Nazi government. It was the boldest of these confessing Christians who resisted the Nazis and hid Jews in their attics or basements. Unfortunately, as the most outspoken leaders were arrested, and as the government’s grip of fear intimidated pastors and churchgoers, even these churches remained mostly quiet in their resistance through the worst abuses of the Nazis.

Bonhoeffer was one of those bold Christians who did stand up. He ran a seminary, where he taught true Christianity, and spoke out against the Nazis, even so far as to condemn the official anti-semitism as unChristian. He was eventually banned from teaching, and later from any kind of public speaking. Through much of that time, he cooperated with the anti-Nazi resistance within Germany, even after the war had begun.

The anti-Nazi activism he involved himself in wasn’t limited to hiding or transporting Jews to safety. He joined a plot to kill Hitler, which included some of the top leaders of Germany. He was arrested and imprisoned twice, first for helping smuggle Jews, and later when the failed plot to kill Hitler was uncovered in 1944. After spending his last days in a concentration camp, he was cruelly executed by hanging just weeks before the end of the war.

Bonhoeffer lives on in Heaven, of course, but also as an inspiration to all those Christians who would stand up against evil, rather than hiding quietly while injustice abounds.

WILLIAM WILBERFORCE
William Wilberforce, was discussed not long ago, on these pages, in an article about whether he is proof that incremental laws work, or rather stands as proof of just the opposite. If you missed that article, it is available on the Colorado Right to Life Blog, at http://www.coloradorighttolife.blogspot.com/ (search for Wilberforce).

Wilberforce is another hero of the faith, for his dogged persistence and perseverance in fighting against first the slave trade in the British Empire, and later against slavery in general. From his earliest speeches, it’s clear he believed that slavery was a moral evil hated by God, and that Black men had a right to be free.

A conversion experience took Wilberforce from being a skeptical Christian to a life of devotion and passion. He expressed his Christianity by adopting the mission of freeing the slaves. Early on, partly because of his friendship with William Pitt the Younger, the Prime Minister, Wilberforce saw some success in trying to end the slave trade. But opponents stymied his efforts, and the Napoleonic Wars further frustrated him. He turned to incrementalism for a while, but later grew discouraged that further success did not seem to follow those moves. Ultimately, he returned to pushing for absolute abolition, and in that he saw success. He even recommended a strategy of absolute abolition for the United States, where American abolitionists had instead been pursuing incremental laws.

Today, we Christians look back to both of these men of faith for inspiration. They followed God’s law, not man’s. So should we all.

Defining Incrementalism

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:45:00 +0000

As we go through the CRTL Newsletter archives, plenty of important articles show up. One of them is Brian Rohrbough's (former CRTL president) refutation of a common charge leveled against us by other pro-lifers who want to continue regulating abortion. Here's his response:

"Clarification of the term 'incrementalism'

Pro-lifers today need to re-define 'incrementalism.' There’s nothing wrong with stopping only one murder out of a thousand if that’s all you can stop. But there is such a thing as bad incrementalism -- where you sacrifice some babies to save others. We call it 'compromised incrementalism' -- incrementalism that employs moral relativism, undermines personhood, further entrenches abortion in law, or makes any abortion appear more humane are misguided means to an end. Laws that allow or affirm killing any baby should never be justified or rationalized by the pro-life community, or in the langauge of any of the laws we give our support."
-- Brian Rohrbough, CRTL President (printed Feb 2007)

The Difference Between Wisdom & Folly

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:26:00 +0000

Praise God! A piece of criticism offers opportunity to make our argument more strongly, and move the ball forward toward the Personhood Strategy...

Kevin, a conservative Catholic blogger (I'll not identify him further, so that I don't discourage others from posting criticism -- the point is to dialogue, not to jump on everybody who criticizes, but rather to answer their points), posted this in response to our "Don't Let the Elections Get You Down" message:

"a full 27% of voters in Colorado (where even many Republicans are pro-choice) voted not just to prohibit all abortions, but also to end embryonic stem cell research, some forms of in vitro fertilization, and those forms of birth control that cause abortions,"

One of the few reasons I could bring myself to vote for it was because I didn't want it to fail by too much. What makes you think our society would respect such a law if passed? Amendment 48 backers overreached and wasted resources that would have been better directed elsewhere, such as swinging a few state senate or house races. Why was the effort led by a 21-year-old woman? However articulate she is, that's folly. Pro-lifers can't just pretend that these largely futile efforts are good for the cause. We need to ask ourselves if we are tempting God by our efforts. We sometimes ask too much from a deeply mistaken society. Had the Supreme Court even ruled on Amendment 48, it could have only further enshrined our wicked laws, and probably created a few new ones. What good is it if you have justice on your side, if you don't have wisdom?

We replied thus:

Kevin,

Thank you for your strongly felt opinion. I'm disappointed that you didn't have better reasons for voting for Am. 48, but I trust you mean that you disagreed with the strategy, not with the goal.

Our society will never start to respect such laws until they are passed. Period. We must try, or we will never achieve anything.

We admire Kristi because she had the courage to propose a principled law when so many, even on our side, reject principle in favor of compromise. But Kristi was hardly alone in leading the Personhood effort. Besides CRTL's full-scale efforts, there were many organizers, and 1,000 petition gatherers who moved the fight forward.

You're seeming to think the pro-life fight will be won by a margin of support in the legislature, or in the courts. That's not so.

Truly, it doesn't matter what the courts do yet, because abortion is already 100% enshrined, and today's court won't change that. We either try other means, or we give up.

Look at our $10,000 Challenge -- even if we'd waited for 2 or 3 more conservative Supreme Court appointments before trying this, it wouldn't have given us victory, because none of the Supreme Court justices there already would have supported this.

That doesn't mean victory is impossible. It means we must use other means to achieve victory, or else accept that victory may be 100 years away.

The courts, and the politicians will acknowledge Personhood if the people urgently shout for it! The judges and the politicians will NEVER take up the call for Personhood unless the people do it first.

That's what we've done!

And that's why moving forward from this point is so important. If they aren't paying attention this year, they will when we increase the margin by 10% or 20%. It's a matter of educating the public. That's how we'll achieve victory.

And, frankly, that's wisdom -- finding the way toward victory when other means have failed, and victory seems impossible.

Don't Let the Elections Get You Down!

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 22:24:00 +0000

Get Up & Help Instead!

Please! Don’t be demoralized because of Election Day! Amendment 48 was a bright, shining, positive example of progress — a victory which should outweigh any other setbacks we had that day. We at Colorado Right to Life would like to thank you from the bottom of our hearts for the hard work and determination you invested in the Amendment 48 campaign!

Your commitment to carry petitions, to get the signatures of your friends, coworkers and complete strangers — the gathering of more than 130,000 signatures — was the single most promising pro-life happening in this state in 40 years! When you and your friends went out to gather nearly twice the number of legally required signatures, it meant more volunteers were mobilized, gathering more signatures, than for any previous ballot initiative in Colorado history! It was the most energy and vitality we’ve ever seen in the pro-life movement!

But still, how can 27% of the vote be a victory???

Because Amendment 48 wasn’t your typical “abortion restriction.” Amendment 48 was the strongest anti-abortion legislation seriously considered in any state at any time since Roe v. Wade! In 5280 Magazine, our opponents expressed fear that we were shifting from the “chip-away” strategy of regulating abortion — they understood that the Personhood movement is nothing less than a direct attack upon “the abortion right” and all the central legal arguments in favor of abortion!

Consider this: Previous polls have showed only 10 or 15 percent of Colorado voters support a total end to abortion.

But this year, a clear, cogent, “life at conception” message got through to huge numbers of Colorado citizens — a full 27% of voters in Colorado (where even many Republicans are pro-choice) voted not just to prohibit all abortions, but also to end embryonic stem cell research, some forms of in vitro fertilization, and those forms of birth control that cause abortions, even while facing near-total media opposition, lacking the support of many prominent politicians and organizations, and while being outspent 10-1.

Despite all that, our campaign — yours and ours — doubled or tripled the number of people who realize that unborn children are Persons. They understand that, no matter how popular or “socially acceptable” certain forms of killing may be, no one can ever have a “right” to kill an innocent person for any reason. Nearly 600,000 voters were willing to stand up and proclaim that an unborn child at any stage of development is a Person with an unalienable Right to Life!

That’s not just a VICTORY — THAT’S HISTORIC!!!

Those numbers show the encouraging promise of the Personhood strategy — if people think abortion is something to be regulated, they’ll aim for a good middle ground and they’ll never support an end to all abortion. But if we educate them about the Right to Life, and present it as a moral evil worse than slavery, most people will see there IS no middle ground, and abortion will end.

This strategy — an older strategy, given new life — should give us all hope that sometime in the next few years we will see a total end to abortion, embryonic destruction and abortifacient use in the state of Colorado! Perhaps elsewhere as well. What’s more, FOCA (the Freedom of Choice Act) won’t stop Personhood — once Personhood is established, it overrides FOCA!

The whole Personhood campaign became a spectacular opportunity to spread the Right to Life message! Never before have we had such access to the ear of the public, and so many chances to talk to people about the concept of unalienable rights and how life begins at the moment of fertilization. We could never have reached this many people without Amendment 48.

Personhood will energize and mobilize the pro-life movement! Now, we must reach people who have never heard these concepts before! We must continue that outreach! That’s where you come in. We must continue this conversation with our citizens!

We’re not asking for money — this is a thank you letter, and a letter of encouragement! We want you to know we haven’t given up. We want to know you haven’t given up either! Will you invest your volunteer time on this mission???

Colorado Right to Life was always at the center of the Personhood effort, but now that we have access to the campaign’s volunteer list, we are asking you to join with us and continue the Personhood campaign! There’s so much more still to be done!

Please, call us at 303-753-9394 or e-mail us at office@coloradorighttolife.org or write to us at 1535 Grant Street #303, Denver, CO 80203, and let us know you’re with us! Let us know you want to be a part of a continued lifesaving ministry to the people of Colorado, so they can know the truth of God’s laws against murder, and can turn back the Culture of Death!

Re: Accountability for Our Actions

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:23:00 +0000

Here's another reply to a comment which probably rates a blog post (and topic) of its own. It's really great how many comments have been coming through on the blog recently, and I certainly hope more people will take the time to comment, whether they agree with us or not!

One anonymous poster had commented that she loved what CRTL was doing, and in reference to CRTL's position that we should not vote for the lesser of two evils (i.e. not vote for someone who favors abortion, even if they're less pro-abortion than another candidate) she said "those people will not reap the rewards of the kingdom of heaven".

Then, another anonymous poster responded, by saying, "I don't believe it's right to say someone will not reap the rewards of heaven if they vote a certain way." To which I responded, thus:

Accountability for Our Actions

Personally, I believe we are held responsible for what we know. A baby, for instance, is taken to Heaven even though they may not know enough to believe in Christ, because they couldn't have learned yet.

I also believe there are separate issues -- 1) salvation, 2) our "rewards" in Heaven. The Bible indicates saved people will be rewarded according to their fruits during their earthly life -- basically, your salvation does not depend on "good works" but your reward once you get to Heaven will.

A woman who believes the lies of the world and who murders her baby because she doesn't think it's human will be judged for that, but not as harshly as a woman who murders her baby while realizing what she's doing. Think of it, maybe, as the difference between manslaughter and 1st Degree Murder. It's a matter of intent.

I believe Sen. McCain, for instance, will be judged more harshly for his support for the murder of embryos for stem cell research than will, say, an atheist who did the same thing. Why? Because McCain said (whether he was sincere or not will factor in) he believes life begins at conception, which means he SHOULD believe destruction of an embryo is murder. Ironically, I believe McCain would be judged less harshly if he lied to the American people about his beliefs than if he really believed in life at conception!

Someone who votes, likewise, may be held accountable for what they know. Will someone who votes for McCain because they think he's pro-life be judged as harshly (the "rewards" of Heaven, beyond mere salvation) as someone who voted for him because they thought he was the lesser of two evils? I think I know, but I can't be sure. But God knows... and he left us enough information to have an idea.

The role of sincere pro-lifers is to reveal the truth -- to proclaim it so that all will know. We should tell women at the abortion mills that God doesn't want them to murder their babies, because if they believe us they might stop. Likewise, we should tell Christians not to vote for those who believe murder is okay under any circumstances, because if they believe us they might not. These things are what CRTL does on a daily basis (literally).

Whether someone will be judged or rewarded for their vote, I think, may depend on whether they thought they were doing the right thing or not. On the other hand, we don't know for sure -- you MAY be judged for voting for a murderer! But those who have HEARD that the person they're considering voting for is a murderer, and who then vote for them anyway, may very well be held accountable for that.

They will be saved, and will go to Heaven, but what happens beyond that depends on what God believes, right? So is ignorance of God's law a reasonable defense when 1) the Bible made clear what God wants, and 2) someone from Colorado Right to Life confronted you before you voted and said, "McCain supports some murders, and then reminded you, 'the lesser of two evils is still evil'"?

Reaching Out to Millions

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:24:00 +0000

Editor's Note: This started as a response to a reader's question, but it really deserves to be a post of its own.

Reader's Question: "No doubt it is exciting to have Pro-Life legislation bode so well. But what is CRTL doing to tell the millions. What are they doing to educate people about abortion itself."

CRTLBlog's Response:

Thanks again for your question - it's an important one, and fortunately I have a good answer!

First, it's important to note that CRTL and its partner organization American Right to Life (ARTL) are both working actively to change the direction and focus of other pro-life groups and voices so that THEIR outreach harmonizes with our message. That helps us reach millions as effectively as using our own voice.

That message, first and foremost, differs from most prominent pro-life groups in two primary ways: 1) rejection of the "regulation" mentality, and promotion of "personhood" or "life at conception" as the gold standard we should be pushing for, and 2) that if we're not using every opportunity we're in the news, or in the public eye, to promote the concept of a God-given Right to Life from fertilization (conception) to natural death, then we're really not leaving the right impression on the public, and therefore we're not being effective in our messaging. We say what we mean, say what we want, and we're frank and sincere about it -- I believe most open minded people respect that.

This difference of opinion between us and those other organizations is NOT because we are petty, or have a "my way or the highway" attitude -- it's because of a strong personal conviction within each of us that 1) the regulation strategy almost all of us pushed at one time has failed, and 2) THIS is the new direction which holds the MOST promise for ending abortion sooner, rather than later.

Now, having said all that first, let me tell you how CRTL and ARTL are reaching millions with this very message about the God-given Right to Life:

1) Our past president (ARTL's current president) Brian Rohrbough had a 90 second pro-life monologue broadcast by CBS during prime-time thanks to the (unwitting) cooperation of Katie Couric (clip located here). That broadcast reached hundreds of thousands, or perhaps a million people just by itself.

2) The world-record-breaking sign "Destroys uNborn Children" (DNC) which was erected on a mountain within sight of Denver during the Democratic National Convention received press nationwide (including a press release which explained "Personhood" and the God-given Right), in a thousand locations, before millions, and even reached the British media.

3) CRTL has had at dozens of opportunities to reach the public nationwide through various press releases or events we've presented. Our spokespeople have been on radio and TV on a regular basis (several times a year), often for long radio interviews, and even some long TV interviews. We take these opportunities to speak the the nation very seriously, because that's how we can change peoples' hearts and minds.

4) The Amendment 48 Personhood campaign here in Colorado not only received nationwide press in Newsweek (long article), and all major networks, but also presented the concept of Life at Conception to the full Colorado electorate of millions of people.

5) As CRTL gains prominence, we will have more funding (donations encouraged!) to spread the word to all of Colorado through news events and paid media like mailings and radio and TV ads (all of which we've already tried in Colorado, and some other locations).

The more CRTL speaks to Colorado, the world, and even to pro-lifers, the closer we get to transforming the whole pro-life vs. abortion debate nationwide. We've seen some amazing progress already, and I'm sure there will be more as we go on.

Thanks!

William Wilberforce: Proof That Incrementalism Works?

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 08:23:00 +0000

THE ASTONISHING LEGACY OF WILLIAM WILBERFORCE

Proof That Incrementalism Works?

by Bob Kyffin
(reprinted from the CRTL Newsletter Summer 2008)

William Wilberforce is a hero in the eyes of most of us in the pro-life movement. He’s an inspiration to all of us.

However, his work against slavery in Britain is often cited (by incrementalists) as proof that "incrementalism works." This claim not only mistakes the lesson we should take from his astonishing life, but also denigrates the true values that he held dear – those based upon a conviction in the God-given Rights to Life and Freedom.

The growing Personhood Wing of the pro-life movement holds that "any law which says ‘do this, and then you can kill the baby (or own the slave)’" is an evil regulation Christians should never support. Did Wilberforce support such laws during his nearly half-century of crusading? Yes. Have many sincere pro-lifers done so, even those who now support Personhood? Yes. The problem is not the person – it’s the naïve, emotional position they hold for a time.

Most supporters of Personhood once supported laws such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, or waiting periods. Some didn’t, but they are few. The intellectual path from incrementalism to abolitionism is a long, hard one. We can’t condemn someone for not "getting the concept" right away. All we can do is ask them to consider, and to learn.

A study of William Wilberforce shows he always held that slavery was absolutely wrong. He first stated his anti-slavery goal in 1789. "I from this time determined that I would never rest till I had effected its abolition." Every year, thereafter, for several years, he ran the same bill – an absolute end to the slave trade.

Discouraged (like many pro-lifers), he began trying incremental compromises such as registering slaves, regulating the number of slaves who could be on a slave ship, or prohibiting British slavers from trading with French colonies – laws which implicitly legitimized slaveowning, even while trying to reduce its misery, or prevalence. Was this an improvement? Debatable. Did the reduced misery of slaves, lessen public interest in ending the practice entirely, among some at least? Very likely. The abolitionists had a strong argument – that the slaves were being inhumanely mistreated – yet they reduced its potency through regulation.

In fact, it was often the slaveholders who advocated laws to improve the conditions of slaves! A document on slavery at http://www.guyana.org/ reports, "Sugar planters in Guyana and the Caribbean and their political and financial backers in Britain were not yet ready for the final abolition of slavery. They decided that it would be better to support legislation to improve the physical, moral and religious conditions of the slaves." These bills were called "Amelioration Laws," yet in reality, they only continued the suffering. Likewise, Wilberforce’s nemesis Henry Dundas stymied the anti-slavery movement by stipulating "gradual abolition," only prolonging it.
Do we want to "ameliorate" abortion? Or do we want to end it? As the craven interests of the slaveholders proves, these are not one and the same path toward abolition!

We must be discriminating when evaluating whether a measure is "compromised incrementalism" (one step forward, two steps back), or positive incrementalism. If Wilberforce’s limit on the number of slaves per ship had instead simply regulated the number of people on board, then it would have accomplished its goal without tacitly approving of slavery. Similarly, if his registration bill had specified that every laborer, paid or unpaid, must be reported.

An uncompromised law today might make it criminal to perform any surgical treatment on a minor without parental notification, accomplishing one positive goal of pro-lifers without the tragedy of authorizing murder of the innocent in law.

Was Wilberforce an incrementalist because he wanted to end the slave trade first, and slavery itself later? No. In a letter from 1797, Wilberforce urged Prime Minister William Pitt to revoke a contract requiring Britain to provide Spain with African slaves. This highlights the point that the slave trade and slave ownership were different parts of the same problem. Even had Wilberforce successfully banned slave ownership in British territories, he would have had to ban the slave trade too, to prevent massive British involvement in promoting slavery elsewhere. Therefore, he cannot be blamed for not trying to simultaneously ban both. Taking on one or the other was commendable. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently wrong with banning the slave trade as an isolated goal because, like banning taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, a law which would end such trade or funding would not necessarily affirm any rights to do evil, and therefore would not either promote the murder or ownership of people, nor undermine the argument that all men deserve life and freedom.

Did slavery, which persisted for 26 years after the end of the British slave trade, linger because abolitionists had fought the brutality of the trade, rather than focusing on teaching people that slavery is inherently wrong? Wilberforce became convinced it was so. In Eric Metaxas’ Wilberforce biography, Amazing Grace, he notes that Wilberforce became disenchanted with the incremental method, feeling it was counterproductive. He had hoped incremental improvements would lead inherently to emancipation. "But now, in 1818, it could be seen that this hope had been naïve. So once again, the course was clear: immediate emancipation by political means."

Today, we have the benefit of this lesson, and similar lessons from the United States’ abolition movement, to show us the superiority of principle over compromise. We must not reject these lessons of history!

The ultimate proof of Wilberforce’s commitment is his stand on abolition in the United States. Near the end of his life, an incremental anti-slavery society (a "colonization" faction) was able to secure Wilberforce’s endorsement by leading him to believe they were for an absolute end to slavery in America. However, the American absolutist William Lloyd Garrison arrived in England soon after, and explained the relative positions of anti-slavery societies to Wilberforce. He was greatly angered, revoked his earlier statement, and publicized an endorsement of Garrison instead.

Lest someone argue that Wilberforce’s chosen strategy for America was due to greater prospects of success, it is a fact that slavery remained strong in the United States, and was nowhere near abolition at that time (1833). There were many U.S. anti-slavery groups whose positions were less absolute than Garrison’s. But, no matter the difficulty of the road, at the end of his life Wilberforce preferred principle over compromise.

Surely, it can be argued that Wilberforce was an incrementalist at times. Wilberforce was led by his heart, and supported measures that would regulate slavery. We all face this temptation with regard to abortion.

By the end of his life, Wilberforce had become a staunch absolute abolitionist. Arguments that he is the poster boy of the "compromised incrementalist" movement are specious and unfair. When, with all his experience, Wilberforce had a chance to do it over again, he counseled against compromise. He preferred absolute abolition in the United States, not an incremental strategy.

A Well-Meaning Pro-Lifer

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:34:00 +0000

"What law do you propose?"

"I want a law which says a woman must see an ultrasound before she has an abortion."

"And what would that accomplish?"

"Many women would choose not to abort, because they see their baby is a little, living human being!"

"But do you believe it's a little, living human being?"

"Of course I do!"

"Then why, in your law, is it then allowable to kill that baby, if the woman chooses?"

"Well... Because it's already legal to kill that baby."

"Do you believe it shouldn't be legal to kill any of these babies?"

"Of course not. They're human beings."

"What about a woman's right to choose? Do you propose to prohibit all abortions?"

"Well... Yes, eventually. A woman shouldn't have a right to choose to kill an innocent child."

"But in your own law, you allow for that choice. Why is that?"

"Because society's not ready to outlaw all abortion. I could never pass a law to outlaw all abortion."

"Of course, that's true. Most people do believe in a right to choose, even if they're not really for abortion. Take me, for instance."

"So we have to stop as many abortions as we can, until the point when people understand there is no right to choose."

"But that's silly. In your own law, you respect a woman's right to choose, within certain limitations. Even you concede that right."

"I do not!"

"Your law does."

"No, it's just... It's a way of getting part of what I want until I have the opportunity to get all of what I want."

"So you're trying to trick us?!"

"No... I'm giving you what you'll accept."

"And then what?"

"And then, once I've taught you there's a Right to Life, you'll support an end to all abortion."

"No. That will never happen. Because you're not doing anything to convince me there's a Right to Life that supersedes a right to choose. Because your own law doesn't defend the Right to Life -- your law only defends the right to choose."

(originally posted on www.jillstanek.com)

Strict Constructionist Judges: A Good Thing for Christians?

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:48:00 +0000

I know it's been a Republican Party mantra for years, and I also know that Christians have adopted most Republican mantras as their own. But should Christians really be pushing for "strict constructionist" judges?

Consider this: If the law is corrupt, and a judge follows that law, then that judge is also corrupt.

Then consider this: The Nazi judges tried at Nuremburg in 1945 were strict constructionist judges. They said, in their defense, "I was just following the law" when I ordered that Jew put to death for hoarding eggs. Or, "I was just following the law" when I ordered that Nazi released for killing his neighbor.

In a moral court system -- in God's system of justice -- following the law, absent of moral considerations, is NO defense!

Strict constructionism, the way it's interpreted today, and the way it's applied today, is amoral. If the law says to kill Jews, then that's what these judges would do!

Besides, strict constructionism hasn't gotten Christians anything. Roe v. Wade, to be certain, was created by "activist judges" who should never have interpreted the law the way they did. A strict constructionist wouldn't have made that mistake. But a strict constructionist wouldn't have refused to sign Roe v. Wade on moral grounds. He would have refused to sign it because there IS no "right to privacy", nor any "right to abortion."

On the other hand, a moral justice would have refused to sign Dred Scott, returning a slave to his master. A strict constructionist, depending on how he read the Constitution, might very well have used the "strict construction" of the US Constitution to find a defense of slavery (which did exist, in the letter of the law). Never mind that a moral justice would have pointed out protections for life and liberty also.

Remember American Right to Life's (unclaimed) $10,000 Challenge to National Right to Life! There ARE no pro-life justices on today's US Supreme Court. None of them believes in a right to life. The most "conservative" justice, Antonin Scalia, has said on the record that the right to life is just for "'walking around' people."

Strict constructionist judges are amoral. We might as well have a computer in that office. In fact, a computer would probably decide morally more often than our justices on the US Supreme Court do -- just by random chance!

There was a time, in American jurisprudence, when a judge felt a higher calling to God's moral authority than he did to the actual letter of the law. If a law violated the "natural law" of God, it was appropriate for a justice to abrogate that law, and rule it invalid, because it violated God's natural law.

The Ten Commandments was once part of the law, which justices would use to decide cases. Yes, the Founders intended for judges to follow the letter and spirit of the law as written, but God's moral law, through the Ten Commandments, and the Bible, was PART of that written law!

What Christians should really want to see on the Court is Christian judges -- judges who believe in the Right to Life. Judges who believe in moral absolutes, and in the Ten Commandments.

We need judges who fear God, and who fear His wrath if they disobey God's laws.

Answer to Criticism re: McCain's "Pro-Life" Record

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 03:44:00 +0000

Since the last CRTL newsletter dealt directly and decisively with the myth that Sen. John McCain is pro-life, CRTL received quite a bit of criticism from certain "my party, right or wrong" Republicans who either have been fooled into thinking John McCain has "always been pro-life" (the campaign's mantra) or who think even if he's not strongly pro-life, he was better than Obama, and therefore principled Christians should still vote for him. We simply disagreed, on principle.

We spoke truth -- if you doubt our word on it, then look at the detailed white paper produced by Vision Forum (a major homeschool publisher, and publisher of books highlighting the Christian character of the American Founders).

Other things to consider: In 2002, Sen. McCain tied with Sen. Harry Reid (now the Democrats' Senate Majority Leader) on the National Right to Life scorecard, at 33%, and unlike virtually every other Republican Senator, McCain hasn't scored 100% on a NRTL survey in recent memory (averaging 66% over the past decade -- and consider that NRTL intentionally tries to give every Democrat a 0%, and every Republican a 100% rating). National Right to Life referred to McCain as "dangerous" and "not pro-life". James Dobson's statements against McCain, before his change of mind, were damning. Many other conservative sources confirmed that McCain was not very conservative on many issues at all, and certainly not on abortion.

Moreover, Sen. John McCain openly sought the support of the moderate wing of the Republican party as the "pro-choice alternative" to Gov. George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican Primary.

To help illustrate our opinion of what Christians should say, when faced with the "lesser of two evils" argument, here is a reprint of an article by Bob Kyffin:

The Lesser of Two Evils

Is Still Evil

by Bob Kyffin

Why are we being urged by our Christian friends (and maybe we’re doing the urging ourselves) to “vote for the lesser of two evils?” Doesn’t that mean support for evil, no matter whether it’s the lesser or not?

And why is it our Christian friends doing the urging, and not our Republican friends?

The answer is that “Republicans” are used to making these choices. There’s no such thing as “Republican morality.” Morality comes from somewhere else, and there’s nothing inherently moral about being or voting Republican. It’s a value judgment over who’s better, who’s more like us, who’s less likely to do harm.

As Christians, don’t we have a higher standard? Or shouldn’t we? There’s morality, and then there’s immorality. Amorality – to choose neither – is not a definition God accepts. He draws “bright lines” between one and the other, and you’re either with Him, or against Him.

But doesn’t God encourage us to be “salt and light?” To participate in society and be a positive Christian example? And doesn’t He also encourage us to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s?”

In Romans 3:8, Paul teaches, “Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—‘Let us do evil that good may result?’ Their condemnation is deserved.”

So not just are we never to do evil that good may come of it, but those who do are to be condemned.

Don’t we face this choice every election? Choosing between imperfect candidates is the American way of life! Besides, “the lesser of two evils” is just a saying, right?

Often, it is just a saying. Often, we’re choosing between two Christians (nominal or otherwise) who simply have different political opinions. So when does a candidate go from a bad political choice to being an evil choice?

That really depends on where God draws His line, as to what is truly evil. Even Christian denominations differ on what they consider evil. Envy? Possibly. Adultery or contempt for God? Sure – and worth considering in your voting. But what stands at the top of everybody’s list for evil? Murder of the innocent.

So where does that leave a Christian, who might be wondering when the “lesser of two evils” really becomes evil? Where do you think?

Now, some parties, and some members of those parties, hold a definite position on evils like abortion. Other parties, remarkably, hold a variety of opinions on abortion, some candidates clearly opposing, others clearly supporting, and still more trying to split the difference.

So where should a Christian come down on a candidate whose position “splits the difference” on abortion? What if that candidate, say, supports federal funding for the destruction of embryos? Or thinks the abortion of innocent children is okay in some circumstances?

Germans once faced a choice between Hitler and socialism. Sadly, most Christians chose Hitler. Americans often faced a choice between pro-slavery candidates. What should a Christian do, if forced to choose between Hitler and Stalin? If there were only two candidates on every ballot, Christian moral reasoning might force you to not vote.

Thankfully, we live in a country where there are more than two candidates on most ballots. But isn’t that “throwing away your vote?”

It’s strange how, in congressional districts where one party normally gets 70 percent of the vote, voting for the major-party candidate who’s guaranteed to lose isn’t considered “throwing away your vote.” Those 30 percent, or 10 percent, of the votes become protest votes, and they are valuable for that purpose.

When faced with two major-party candidates who reject God’s teaching on morality, and who try to split the difference, we are blessed with alternate choices. We can still cast a vote for a person who takes their Christianity, and its moral imperatives, seriously.

And Christians cannot let fear of “the boogyman” lead us into voting for those who oppose much of what we believe. Hitler stood against most of what Christians believe, and yet it was fear of the socialists and communists that misled Christians into voting for Hitler. Fear is not an excuse in God’s eyes, who assures us that we are His, and His hand is on our shoulder, no matter what dangers or turmoil we face.

The world wants you to ignore some of the most important moral and ethical questions we face. The parties – most of them – surely want you to as well.

As Christians, we cannot ignore them. You must decide whether to do good in the polling booth, or whether to vote for the lesser of two evils “that good may [supposedly] come.”

What will you choose?

Next week: Is William Wilberforce really a standard-bearer for the success of "incrementalism"?

Mike Coffman (candidate for congress) Clarification

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:23:00 +0000

Last week, while appearing on the Caplis & Silverman radio show (630 KHOW, Denver), Congressional candidate Mike Coffman was heard to say that he did not oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest. This sent CRTL and many other pro-lifers into a tizzy, because it went against what Mike had pledged in his Candidate Survey, as well as what we all thought we knew about Mike's beliefs.

When contacted about this, Mike immediately expressed surprise that he'd said any such thing. He thinks he may have gotten confused and said the opposite of what he meant. While with many candidates, we might suspect evasion, this didn't seem to be the case with Mike. He has written to attempt to clarify with Dan Caplis, so no one will misunderstand. Here is his note (copied to CRTL):

Dan,

First of all, thanks so much for your help with my campaign and for inviting me on your show. During the debate, Craig Silverman was questioning me on the issue of abortion. My response was focused on arguing that Roe v Wade was bad law. During that exchange, Craig asked me about the issue of rape and incest. Apparently, my answer came across as supporting abortions under a rape and incest exception. I absolutely do not believe in that.

Dan, I would deeply appreciate it if, during your show, you could state that I wanted to make sure that my position was clear, unequivocally, that I oppose abortion in all cases of rape and incest. I believe that all life is equally sacred irregardless of how it came into being.

Thanks again,

Mike Coffman

It takes a big man to admit such a mistake. And Mike Coffman's strong relationship with the pro-life community over many years is obviously important enough to him that he wanted to make this correction/clarification despite the fact that he surely has Colorado's 6th District race locked up and will almost certainly be one of Colorado's newly elected Congressmen in 2009.

This is great news for unborn children!

Presidential Scorecard & Schaffer vs. Udall

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 06:22:00 +0000

CRTL has examined the records and public platforms of all the candidates for US President on the ballot in Colorado (many of whom are on the ballot elsewhere also).

What we found should not shock most followers of CRTL or this blog, but it might shock alot of Republicans and the general pro-life community. Most candidates, of course, are NOT pro-life.

What's most shocking, is that even most of the candidates who CLAIM to be pro-life actually reject the God-given Right to Life.

We found 3 candidates on the ballot in Colorado who are truly pro-life (who believe we have a right to life, not just a privilege to be granted or revoked by the government): Ambassador Alan Keyes (who has been central to the Personhood movement, and who is a good friend of Colorado Right to Life -- his running mate nationally is Brian Rohrbough, former CRTL president), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), and Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party).

(click on image to get a clearer, close-up image)

John McCain is not pro-life (see ARTL Action for evidence). What's more, many of the candidates who claim to be pro-life are not pro-life. Libertarian Bob Barr was long respected as a pro-life congressman, but he believes some states should kill kids, just not others. Like the Libertarians, the Tea Party candidate supports abortion, and the Objectivist Party relishes in abortion -- all three "fiscally conservative" parties who reject a Right to Life. The Heartquake candidate runs as a pro-lifer, but believes abortion is appropriate if the mother is not "emotionally mature." Mr. McEnulty is associated with the Knights of Columbus, yet believes abortion is appropriate for victims of rape or incest (NOT the Catholic or KoC position).

Sen. John McCain is a liar when he says he's been "consistently pro-life" -- he has a long record of support for exceptions for rape and incest, a long record of middle-road avoidance of strong pro-life positions, a long record of contempt for Christians, and a long record of support for Mengele-style experiments on the smallest human beings (embryonic stem cell research), not to mention forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions and embryo destruction. John McCain was considered the moderate, "pro-choice" alternative to George W. Bush in the 2000 GOP primary -- a label he embraced!

Sen. McCain regularly earned only 50% or 66% or 75% scores, even on the National Right to Life scorecards, which would always attempt to give every Republican 100% ratings so they would be easier to get elected.

The fact that McCain said at the Saddleback (Rick Warren) debate that he believes "life begins at conception" only makes things worse for him. First, it's probably a lie. Worse, if he's not lying, then it means that McCain believes that innocent human beings should be cultivated for harvest, and slaughtered for the benefit of the elites of the world!

You will be told that you should vote for McCain because "he will appoint pro-life judges" to the Supreme Court. But that's a lie, too. McCain has said he will appoint justices like Bush appointees Alito and Roberts, both of whom chose to support Roe v. Wade in the Gonzales vs. Carhart decision, by refusing to sign the Scalia/Thomas concurring opinion which said Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. With McCain's maverick reputation, he can be counted on to appoint justices who are LESS pro-life than those Bush appointed (who were bad enough as it is).

If you believe CRTL is going too far with this charge of pro-abortion appointees by McCain, Bush or any Republicans, remember the $10,000 Challenge to National Right to Life, which has gone unclaimed so far (and will go unclaimed forever, unless good pro-life conservatives refuse to vote for people who don't believe in the Right to Life!). There are currently zero judges on the Supreme Court who believe an unborn child has a Right to Life.

What this means is that we must start from scratch, and quit relying upon the Republican Party to carry water for the pro-life movement -- they've been carrying empty buckets for years!

As an illustration...

Colorado's Senate Race -- Schaffer vs. Udall vs. Campbell

Former Congressman Bob Schaffer was once considered one of the most conservative, most pro-life representatives in Washington. He was one of the few legislators who would dare claim, in the '90s, that human life began at conception, and should be protected from that point on.

A perfect candidate for supporting Personhood (Amendment 48) wouldn't you think? Think again...

(click on image to get a clearer, close-up image)

Bob Schaffer is running as a "centrist" this year (his words), and has hired a campaign manager (Dick Wadhams) who hates Christians and any Christian moral positions (yet still considers himself a Catholic). Wadhams has said that GOP candidates should "avoid social issues" in the 2008 race, and has called supporters of Personhood "the fringe of the pro-life movement". He prohibited pro-life groups from having any tables at the 2008 GOP State Convention, and yet welcomed not one but two tables from pro-abortion groups opposed to Personhood.

Schaffer has refused to endorse Amendment 48 (Personhood), and has also refused to support Sen. Wicker's S.3111 Personhood bill, which Schaffer would be asked to support if he were elected.

Bob Schaffer will not be elected. He's lied his way into oblivion by alienating the conservative base which once thought he walked on water. Partly, that's Wadhams' fault, but the responsibility ultimately lay with Bob Schaffer, who hired Wadhams and who has himself turned his back on Christians, Catholics and everybody who once held out hope for him to be a conservative voice in Washington.

Pro-lifers who care about supporting the God-given Right to Life, rather than lip service or government regulation of the privilege to life should vote not for McCain, but for Alan Keyes. If you don't like Alan Keyes, then Chuck Baldwin is another good alternative.

Pro-lifers who care about the God-given Right to Life should support Doug "Dayhorse" Campbell, the Constitution Party candidate, rather than turncoat Bob Schaffer.

Legislative Scorecard 2007-2008

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 23:52:00 +0000

Colorado Right to Life has examined the legislative voting records of all Colorado legislators over the past two years in light of our stand on Personhood – grading people up for positive votes, and voting them down for votes that undermine the Personhood of the unborn child (even if it’s a supposedly “pro-life” bill which proposes to regulate the abortion industry).

Before we go on, we just want to remind you that a post about the Presidential Election is up next…

What we’ve found is that those legislators who scored highest – because of several positive votes that did not undermine Personhood – are often the same legislators who at other times undermine Personhood with votes for regulation. Clearly they do not understand that a “right” (to life) is something that cannot be regulated, and the government has no right to decide when it is granted and when it can be taken away.

This poses CRTL with a dilemma, because if we “endorse” or give one of these candidates an “A”, it confuses the whole issue about whether or not they actually support a guarantee of the Right to Life in law. We’ve decided, instead, to simply release raw data on specific votes or positions rather than try to place a value on these hit-or-miss voting records.

One positive measure is who has endorsed the Amendment 48 Personhood Initiative. Some of these legislators still undermine Personhood with compromised votes, but at least they can be seen coming in the right direction.

(click the image to see a clearer copy)

Remember there may be good candidates running for office who are not on these lists, because they may not have been elected yet! A number of the unelected candidates indicated they would not support compromised legislation, and have also endorsed Personhood.

This assessment deals primarily with Republican legislators who voted right or wrong. As a general rule, Democrats can be assumed to have voted wrong – the highest scoring Democrat senator cannot be considered a pro-lifer by any stretch, and the highest scoring Democrat member of the House recently switched parties from the Republicans.

Sadly, the same assumption of stance cannot be made of Republicans, since the lowest scoring Republican (Rep. Ellen Roberts of Durango) is well below many of even the liberal Democrats – she might as well be one!

(click the image to see a clearer copy)

X = voted wrong on bill; XX = voted wrong more than once, or cosponsored bill; More X's = sponsored bill or voted wrong more than twice (i.e. in committees, plus floor vote -- usually a combination of votes or sponsorship)

Shockingly, the Republican House Minority Leader, Mike May of Parker, is the 5th lowest scoring Republican, barely even scoring in the positive numbers! He supported “emergency contraception” mandates, and was even the primary sponsor of the bill to require all pre-teen schoolchildren to be vaccinated against the HPV venereal disease (a move which CRTL testified would encourage underage pregnancy, and therefore underage abortions). This kind of voting behavior from the leading Republican only demonstrates how much they take Christian and pro-life voters for granted.

Details:

SB 07-060 Emergency Contraception – This bill requires medical professionals who treat rape victims to tell them there is emergency contraception available that will “prevent pregnancy” (which we all know terminates a pregnancy – a chemical abortion). Those 20 Republican legislators who voted for this will tell you they modified the language of the bill so it specified that it did not refer to abortifacients. But that’s a silly argument – there is no such thing as “emergency contraception” which is not an abortifacient, and several of their Republican colleagues realized this and still voted against the bill. Gov. Ritter signed this bill into law.

SB 07-080 Requiring HPV Vaccine in Middle School – Colorado Right to Life testified against this bill because we believed it would encourage kids to think they were “immune” to STDs, and therefore they could have free sex, and the resulting pregnancies would increase the number of abortions. The House sponsor of this bill was the Republican Minority Leader, Mike May (R-Parker). Rep. May was told we would oppose it, and was asked to drop the bill, and he refused. This bill did not make it out of committee in the House, partly because of CRTL lobbying.

SJR 07-031 Reproductive Health Programs – This NARAL-sponsored resolution (a non-binding statement urging compliance) encouraged state government to use its power to promote “family planning,” which naturally (to the sponsors) includes use of various abortifacients, as well as surgical abortion. Two GOP representatives and 4 GOP senators voted for it. The only one who is not typically identified as a pro-abortion Republican is Sen. Shawn Mitchell, who is a compromiser, but generally supports responsible pro-life positions. No idea why he voted the way he did.

SB 08-003 Gov’t Funding for Reproductive Health – This NARAL-sponsored legislation would allow low-income Coloradans to use taxpayer funds for “reproductive health” and “family planning” programs. Gov. Ritter signed this bill into law. Two GOP House members and 3 GOP senators voted for this bill.

SB 08-192 Residential Picketing – This bill was aimed directly at Colorado Right to Life and allied organizations (most particularly, the Collaborator’s Project). It was aimed to restrict the free speech rights of picketers who protest outside the homes of abortionists or executives whose companies are building abortion centers (like AuschWeitz, the nation’s largest killing center, which was built by Weitz Construction). Several “pro-life” legislators felt it was important to vote for this bill (it was written/sponsored by pro-abortion Sen. Steve Ward) because they don’t want to support “extremists” (those of us who want abortion to be in the public eye, and who want abortion promoters to understand exactly what they’re doing to little children). While most Republicans who voted for this legislation are known to be pro-abortion, the big surprises on the list of supporters were Sen. Andy McElhany (Sen. Minority Leader), Sen. Shawn Mitchell and Rep. Amy Stephens (formerly a public policy expert at Focus on the Family), who obviously felt their responsibility was to promote quiet neighborhoods, rather than to stop the killing of unborn children. Gov. Ritter signed this into law, which does not stop the picketing, but places significant restrictions upon it.

HJR 08-1009 UN Womens’ Rights Resolution – This resolution (non-binding support) recommended support for the United Nations’ definitions of “womens’ rights,” which specifically means the “right” to abortion, “controlling their own bodies (and those of their unborn children)” and “reproductive health care.” Three GOP representatives and one senator (Steve Ward again) voted for this.

There were other votes related to abortion during these two years, such as Sen. Schultheis’ SB 95, which was a compromised informed consent and ultrasound bill (watch an ultrasound, and then you can kill the baby). We know those legislators who voted for this bill were well-meaning, even though we attempted to educate them about what was wrong with the bill. This bill, in particular, is why we decided not to issue any endorsements of these legislators this year – because they still do not understand the Right to Life.

Sen. Renfroe, in 2007, also ran a bill that would have totally banned abortion. However, it never made it out of committee, and Sen. Renfroe and Sen. Mitchell were the only legislators who were able to vote for it.

We welcome any questions you might have with regard to legislators or the legislation!

Beware Mary Arnold!

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 06:29:00 +0000

If you live in the northern Jeffco region (District 29, centered on Arvada), the Republican running there for the state house is no friend of life!

These are the comments of Mary Arnold, Republican nominee, to a CRTL member:

"As much as I would like to completely ban all abortions, I don't believe that its realistic that we could ever get this kind of legislation passed. Instead I believe that we should work to pass legislation that would severely restrict abortions. Studies have shown that states that have tough restrictions and promote education on alternatives to abortion, abstinence and birth control have a much lower abortion rate.

Amendment 48 I plan on voting no on. I believe the amendment goes to far in defining an embryo, fertilized egg or fetus as a person. This could have a negative impact on couples going through the invitro fertilization process and women's health care in general.

Let me know if you have any other questions.
Mary Arnold"

I wonder if she would have said the same about slavery...

She can be reached at maryarnoldforhd29@yahoo.com if you have insights to lend to her!

The Legislative Scorecard, and a Presidential information list should be appearing this weekend -- watch for it!

Yes, Information Is Coming!

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:48:00 +0000

Yes, CRTL does intend to publish more information on the election, including the results of our Legislative Scorecard, though without "letter grades" -- I'll explain once we get there.

Secondly, please urge your local candidates to send in their CRTL Candidate Questionnaires if you don't see them already listed as responding. This is critically important, because there ARE voters who will NOT vote for them if they have not responded!

Thirdly, please remember to support us financially. We're really wanting to have as much funding as possible for the Personhood (Amendment 48) campaign, and every dollar helps! See www.coloradorighttolife.org and locate the Donate link.

Lastly, please pray that God's will be done in this election. CRTL's positions are not typical positions held by "traditional" pro-life groups, and whether they're right, or we are, we DO want God's will to be done. Just keep in mind God's will may be that some supposed "pro-lifers" should be humbled for not doing his will!

Thanks! We'll be in touch in just a few days, so you'll have relevant information for the early voting and absentee balloting.

CRTL's Sign on the Mountain

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:16:00 +0000

First off, a pat on the back for Colorado Right to Life!

In August, during the Democrat National Convention, Colorado Right to Life, and several pro-life groups which joined us (Operation Save America/Operation Rescue, Missionaries to the Preborn and Survivors -- other groups may have cooperated with CRTL in smaller numbers) achieved a Guinness World Record by constructing the world's largest protest sign (530 feet tall, 666 feet long) on North Table Mountain (Golden) to protest the Democrat National Convention's (DNC) support for child killing. The sign read like a crossword -- DNC up and down, and Destroys uNborn Children lengthwise! The sign was visible (some say even readable!) from downtown Denver, where convention goers were in their hotels.
More thousands of people saw the sign as they drove by on I-70 during the 3 hours it was on display. Yet more thousands in Arvada, Golden, Broomfield and elsewhere within sight (it was readable for nearly 20 miles!) saw it as they stepped out of their houses.

News of the message and protest spread like wildfire across the country, on a thousand blogs and news services, and even hit the UK's Guardian newspaper! Everyone who saw the message had a clear view of what the Democrats do to unborn children, and that's going to leave a mark (on their minds, not on the mountain)!

Letters of the sign measured 160 feet tall (each!) and each consisted of dozens of bedsheets (donated from all around the country) sewn together by dozens of volunteers over a months' time, and hiked onto the 45 degree slope of a mountain by 50 volunteers! Each person's backpack was between 30 and 80 pounds. Because of volunteer involvement, and savvy collection of used bedsheets, the cost was minimal, compared to the public relations output!

See video on the sign from 9 News (Denver-NBC) which is great coverage of a pro-life message the way it should be covered!

And CRTL's efforts (and American Right to Life, and Missionaries, Survivors and OSA, etc.) caught the attention of the national and local news media for their passion and message. We completely showed up the anti-war demonstrators, on both counts, and left an impression on the minds of the American people who were watching with our bold message about the Right to Life! Don't just let me tell you... Here's the same from the Colorado Springs Gazette:

An "editorial" is a special type of opinion article which is actually written by the editors of the newspaper (basically, it's the newspaper's official opinion). The Gazette Editorial recognized the outsize influence of pro-life protests on the whole experience of the Democrat National Convention! They pay special attention not just to the sign, but to Colorado Right to Life's "Power In the Park" event, which drew prominent conservative Black leaders from across the country to speak to the neighbors in Denver's Stapleton neighborhood, which is mostly Black, and which is the location (naturally and predictably) of Planned Parenthood's new "AuschWeitz" killing center.

The Gazette editors indicate (correctly) that the pro-life message won't go away, especially now that Blacks are starting to recognize abortion is a genocidal war being perpetrated against their people!

Unfortunately, they didn't happen to mention that Colorado and American Right to Life planned both, the sign on the mountain and the Power In the Park. Alveda King (MLK Jr.'s niece) was invited by both CRTL and the Archdiocese, but Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, Rev. Childress (BlackGenocide.org) and Dr. Alan Keyes were invited by Colorado and American Right to Life.

On to other news, the CRTL Blog deserves a pat on the back too! This blog had more than 150 individual viewers in the one month running up to the Colorado Republican Primary -- people looking for information on candidates to vote for (or not), primarily. But not exclusively -- we also gathered quite a few hits from other states and other countries (perhaps 10-20% of the total), from people who just happened to be looking for pro-life information, and who found us through a search! We're getting more and more attention, which means the message of Personhood is getting out there!

Furthermore, the CRTL Blog is now rated 39 on Facebook's "Top 50 conservative blogs list!" We're running with the big dogs, like Hugh Hewitt and National Review Online's "The Corner"!

Great work, conservative readers!!! And great work, Colorado Right to Life!

Which brings us to something we hate to bring up, but it's for a great cause... CRTL is in need of funding to continue our fight in favor of Personhood, which is on the ballot in Colorado this November! CRTL wants to run television ads and radio ads in favor of Amendment 48, which is the most important measure on any ballot this year (and very likely the most important pro-life measure in history!). But we can't do it unless Coloradans and people from out of state contribute every penny they can to energize this tremendous opportunity!

You can Donate Online to help the cause of Personhood, and Colorado Right to Life! Please consider your largest possible contribution -- this is SO important, and it will transform the abortion debate forever!

More on this later, but it's important to remind you that effectiveness can't be driven on volunteer effort alone! Let's get this Personhood measure passed, and then take it to other states!

Sen. Ted Harvey and Sec. State Mike Coffman (URGENT 6th District Clarification)

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:05:00 +0000

In a previous blog post, we reported that we believed both Sen. Ted Harvey and Sec. State Mike Coffman hold uncompromised positions on Personhood and Life issues, according to the CRTL candidate questionnaire. Sadly, we must correct this information.

We now know that Sec. State Mike Coffman is the only candidate for the GOP 6th District Congressional primary who holds uncompromised views on abortion, and the only candidate who has promised not to continue supporting compromised legislation.

In two conversations today with CRTL officers or high-profile activists, Sen. Ted Harvey explained and clarified that he would still support compromised child-killing regulations of the type which he wrote and passed before (a compromised Parental Notification bill, which in essence said if you notify the parents, then it's okay to kill the baby). We believed he had promised not to support legislation like this in the future, but apparently he was being misleading in his "promise." Rep. Kevin Lundberg at least had the honesty to admit on his survey that he still believed in supporting such regulations, and earned a 6 out of 7 on our questionnaire. We hope both of these legislators will be open to hearing us out in a second discussion (both legislators attended CRTL's 2007 Legislative Luncheon and heard us explain why child killing regulations are wrong), and will eventually come around.

In these 2 conversations today, Sen. Harvey explained that he believed his Parental Notification measure was the right thing to do, and he would support legislation like that again. He also supported Sen. Dave Schultheis' Abortion Ultrasound bill (i.e. show the mom an ultrasound and if she still wants the abortion then you can kill the baby), and would apparently do so again.

We believed that by indicating on his questionnaire response he would not support "...and then you can kill the baby" legislation, he was being sincere. We now know differently.

It appears that Harvey was being intentionally deceptive when he indicated support for "point 7" on our questionnaire ("Will you refuse to support any legislation that would allow abortion, even if it is a 'pro-life bill' (i.e. legislation that says "Abortion shall be prohibited unless...")" Ted's answer (he did not specify yes/no) was "I would never support any legislation which says 'Abortion shall be prohibited unless...'"

Harvey's answer on this point was apparently specific to that wording (which, of course, would never specifically appear in any legislation), and not to the spirit of what we meant. He was trying to "get by" on a technicality, and claim support for CRTL's position, when it apparently was not true and his commitment was false. This, naturally, is a very disturbing development.

Which brings up another couple of points which it now seems necessary to discuss. Ted Harvey has claimed on his website and in literature that he was CRTL's "Legislator of the Year," and otherwise implying strong support from CRTL. The "Legislator of the Year" designation is true, but at the same time deceptive. That award was for a previous year, when he skewered pro-abortion Democrats on the House floor in a nationally publicized speech regarding Ms. Giana Jessen -- the young lady who survived a saline abortion, but who now suffers from abortion-related Muscular Dystrophy. We still applaud Ted for his action on that day, but it is inappropriate and unethical that he would imply our support and endorsement, when he knows he does not agree with our uncompromised stance on legislation.

Harvey has also claimed to be "the only proven conservative leader" which is a stretch of the truth -- Mike Coffman has a long record as a strong pro-lifer and a strong conservative. Ted also claimed at one time (he may have stopped saying it) he's the only candidate who has carried pro-life legislation. That's also not true -- Mike Coffman did so when he was a legislator, many years ago.

The combination of Ted Harvey's deceptiveness, and his promise to continue supporting the "child-killing regulations" of the past, mean that CRTL now has serious reservations about him. It's clear, at least, that he cannot truthfully claim he is currently an uncompromised pro-lifer, and therefore should not claim CRTL support.

We and Ted have had a long conversation on these subjects, and we believed he had come around to our point of view. This isn't true, though we hold out hope that he will continue listening to CRTL and our positions, and that he will eventually come to agree with us, and change his voting behavior.

Sen. Kevin Lundberg, Sen. Dave Schultheis, and Sen. Ted Harvey all remain some of the most likely legislators to eventually convert to the uncompromised, non-regulating point of view CRTL now holds. Sadly, none of them are at that point yet.

Thankfully, Sec. State Mike Coffman has met with CRTL board members for long and pointed discussions on these issues, and has seemed to understand, and has furthermore promised not to support compromised legislation. Mike Coffman also has a decades-long history (20 years or more) of not just support, but active involvement in the pro-life community, over and above what would be expected of any typical Republican official.

Mike Coffman has been a good and consistent friend to CRTL for many years, up to and including the last couple of years when even CRTL's strongest legislative supporters (including Harvey) found excuses not to attend CRTL events.

American Right To Life Action Statement on Bob Schaffer

noreply@blogger.com (Bob Kyffin) — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:26:00 +0000

Press Release

by ARTL president Brian Rohrbough

August 8, 2008

With his pronouncement that he opposes equal protection under the law for unborn babies, Republican Bob Schaffer confirmed what many in the pro-life community have long known: he believes that unborn babies are expendable, and he lacks the moral clarity and courage to defend their God-given right to life.

Ten years ago, Schaffer's indifference to the plight of Asian women forced to undergo abortions while working in American factories in the Marianas Islands proved him to be a politician without principle.

Schaffer has long given lip service to the truth that human life begins at fertilization, as stated in Personhood Amendment 48. Now that he has the chance to enact that truth in law, he opposes it. Actions speak louder than words.

Schaffer's refusal to stand for life at this historic opportunity leaves the Republican candidate at polar opposites with the 131,000 petition signers who put Amendment 48 on the ballot, and with the groups endorsing this personhood effort, including American Right to Life, Focus on the Family, Colorado Right to Life, American Life League and committed pro-life, pro-family Catholics and Protestants across Colorado.

Schaffer is unfit to represent Colorado in the U.S. Senate.

1-888-888-ARTL

Editor's note:

Many of us have felt for a long time that Bob Schaffer was on our side on abortion issues. He's even stated belief that life begins at conception - the foundation of Amendment 48! But he's now said on KHOW radio (Caplis & Silverman) that "I just don't support that initiative."

By first understanding that human life begins at conception, but secondly being unwilling to solidify that belief in law, Schaffer is saying he won't stick his neck out to save babies who he knows are babies! He's said all these years he believes in life at conception, but the first opportunity he has to establish that principle in law, and he balks! What kind of pro-lifer is this?

Bob Schaffer, this year, has established over and over again that he is no longer the pro-lifer he used to be:

He sneered at a petitioner at a GOP event this spring who asked if he would sign the Personhood petition.
He immediately refused to meet with Colorado Right to Life when asked if he would like to discuss his experience in the Marianas Islands (CRTL had refused to talk to a reporter when asked until we had heard Schaffer's side!) - If he had a good answer, he had his chance to offer it, but he refused.
Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager (and GOP Chairman), called Personhood supporters "the fringe of the pro-life movement," and both he and Schaffer emphasized he did not support Personhood.
Wadhams then refused any pro-life tables at the State GOP Convention, but allowed not one but two pro-abortion tables! Both tables distributed literature reviewed and approved by Wadhams which repeated his claim that Personhood supporters were "the fringe".
Wadhams then came out and called on all Republicans (having obviously already given this advice to Schaffer) to "avoid social issues" like abortion and marriage.
Schaffer now explicitly said on the radio he does not support Personhood.

Bob Schaffer makes a big deal about his past pro-life record. But his claims fall flat, even from the past. His list of legislation on his website are all abortion regulations, none of which are fundamentally anti-abortion. He's supportive of attacking abortion around the edges, like National Right to Life, which is why he has a 100% rating from NRTL -- something which does not impress us. The key question, when he brings up his past record, is where does he stand now? Not with us! And we believe, based on his statements, that he would also oppose Personhood at the federal level. The legislation on his website doesn't include any past support of Human Life Amendments, and he's served at times when he could have supported those. He apparently did not!

The old Bob Schaffer -- the man we knew and loved as close to our hearts on issues like the Right to Life -- is no more! He has renounced his old "extremism" and now calls himself a "centrist" (his words!).

Who is this new Schaffer, who associates with pro-aborts and anti-Christian political hacks like Wadhams? We don't know. But whoever he is, he's NOT on our side, and he opposes the very values we hold dearest -- like saving the lives of unborn children.