Carrying This Day

"A walking source of moral contagion, [President Clinton] is not only corrupt in himself, but the source of corruption in others."

Noemie Emery, Weekly Standard, August 10-17 edition

"Where [former Supreme Court Justice William] Brennan viewed the Constitution as wax for receiving the impressions of elite opinion, [former Supreme Court Justice Byron] White saw it as a bulwark against the follies of intellectual fashion."

Michael Uhlmann

"Responsible journalists do try to be fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid. But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone, choice of language or prominence of play."

Los Angeles Times media critic David Shaw, in Part One of his classic study of abortion coverage that appeared July 1, 1990 [See story, page 32.]

Eclipsed by the tragic bombings of two American embassies in Africa and the shadow of possible impeachment hearings stemming from President Clinton's pending testimony regarding Monica Lewinsky are upcoming votes on bills of genuinely historic proportions - - and not just to pro-lifers.

Agreed, it does require mental agility to juggle all the legislative balls in play, to grasp the breadth and depth of this confluence of legislative opportunities and hazards. But in stories on pages one, three, four, and seven of this issue we have succinctly and clearly explained what you need to know to be able to make a difference.

When considering this litany of fundamentally important initiatives we wish either to pass or to defeat, you will discover that, collectively, they speak volumes about where the Movement is as we approach September 1998 - - 25 and one-half years after the noxious Roe v. Wade decision: The Senate is making its second attempt to override a Clinton veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act; a first vote will be taken in the Senate on the Child Custody Protection Act which directly confronts the outrage of statutory rapists and other non-family members spiriting young adolescent girls out of states with parental involvement laws and into states which don't in order to abort the "evidence" of their crime; the Lethal Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 1998 comes before both the House and Senate for a vote, which may prove to be our best chance to quarantine the euthanasia plague; and, most ominously, the Senate will consider its own version of the House-passed Shays-Meehan bill, advertised as a campaign "reform" proposal, but in truth a radically undemocratic proposal that treats bedrock free speech rights like a quarry.

The stakes don't get much more fundamental than this. For example, you need to read the story that begins on page one to fully appreciate just how willing advocates are to smother constitutionally protected speech. Hiding under the mantle of " reform legislation," Shays-Meehan's reach is so broad, its impact so stifling that it would bar radio ads by NRLC chapters that merely alert pro-lifers to upcoming votes in Congress on our issues if they mention the name of a member of Congress and would air within 60 days of a primary or general election.

Please understand it is not as though such proposals would just put a crimp in what we do to educate the public about the position of officeholders and those who seek office. It is more like asphyxiation. This is very serious business to all of us who've dedicated our lives to saving unborn babies.

Our opponents are employing the tried-and-true formula of dishonesty, dissimulation, and disingenuousness but on a scale that is outlandish even by their standards. Why?

Try defending the act of plunging scissors into the backs of heads of live babies whose entire torsos are outside their mothers' wombs and then sucking out that child's brains. Or allowing physicians to kill patients with certain federally controlled substances when those drugs' only authorized purpose is supposed to be a "legitimate medical purpose." Would you like to try to make the case that it's okay to effectively immunize incumbent office holders from scrutiny by severely restricting what PACs can do and by muzzling citizen action groups such as local NRLC affiliates? And who wants to be first to stand up in favor of allowing someone to go behind parents' backs by taking their pregnant daughter to a state which does not have a parental involvement law to secure an abortion? When it comes to positions that are firmly opposed by strong majorities of American citizens, this is a hat trick plus one. Please read the Action Request on the back cover. Your job begins by making sure your elected officials know that you have dug through the intellectual rubble that passes for pro-abortion argument. Simultaneously, take the time to enlist other pro-lifers at this hour when such enormously important issues are up for grabs. Politicians do not heed constituents until they've heard from constituents. There is still time for you to help make a big, big difference.

Finally, reflect for a moment on what we do for the vulnerable: I think you will readily agree that pro-lifers are propelled by what Ravi Zacharias calls a "tenacious honesty." Our greatest advantage and our prime motivator is that we believe firmly and without hesitation that if the facts are not suppressed, spun, or spliced, the case for life will carry the day.

Help carry this day by calling and writing your member of the House and your two senators.

dha