January 2000

NRL News' Special January 22 Commemorative Issue

What Pro-Lifers Could Learn from King Solomon

Texas Pro-life Gov. George W. Bush

By Carol Tobias, NRL PAC Director

Pro-lifers want candidates to take a strong pro-life position, but it doesn't help the cause of unborn babies when a candidate tries to make himself appear to be "more pro-life" than another pro-life candidate by attacking the other candidate's legitimate pro-life credentials, or distorting the other candidate's record on abortion.
Granted, in the short run that may rally some pro-lifers to his cause. But in the end, it hurts--often deeply--the pro-life movement and, more importantly, the millions of babies we are trying to save.

Pro-Lifers to Fight Clinton-Gore on Vetoes in 2000


Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Il.), Chairman, House Judiciary Committee.	Congressman Charles Canady (R-Fl.), Chairman, House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee.

NRLC Federal Legislative Office

Editor's Note: This article provides a summary of congressional action on some major pro-life issues during 1999, with a look ahead at the 2000 congressional session. For details on the 1999 congressional session, please see the 12-page NRLC Congressional Scorecard that appears as an insert in this issue of National Right to Life News.
WASHINGTON (January 6) Pro-life forces achieved encouraging successes in advancing major legislation in Congress during 1999. But in 2000, much of that legislation may run hard up against its most formidable obstacle--The Clinton-Gore Administration and its threat of vetoes.

|main page|

From the President

Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

A SAD AND SHAMEFUL ANNIVERSARY

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled.... As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

--Justice ByronWhite
dissenting inRoe v. Wade

January 23, 1973, is a shameful and a sad date. Shameful, because on that day the Supreme Court arrogantly took away what is "endowed by the Creator," the "unalienable" right to life of every human being. And sad, because our country has not yet rectified this outrage. Instead of the "self-evident Truths" in the Declaration of Independence, it is the Court's dishonest verdict that rules the land.