Editor's note. The following are remarks delivered by NRLC President Wanda Franz, Ph.D., to the 11th Annual Proudly Pro-Life Awards Dinner.
Esteemed Donors and Friends of the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund:
Let me welcome you on behalf of the Board of the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund. We are pleased and thankful that so many of you have taken the time and trouble to join us at the 11th Annual Proudly Pro-Life Awards Dinner. After 10 years of celebrating the event in New York City, we thought we would make it easier on our friends in Congress and come to Washington, D.C.
The year since our last awards dinner has been rather eventful for the right-to-life movement: The following three important bills were passed by Congress and signed by President George W. Bush.
The first bill signed into law by President Bush was the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Its purpose is not only to protect a child surviving an abortion attempt but any child after birth who is in danger of becoming the victim of what might be called a "retroactive abortion."
The second bill had been passed several times by Congress before, but had fallen victim to former President Clinton's veto - - not once, but twice! President Bush has corrected this monstrous mistake of his predecessor. And now the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is law.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act has been challenged in three different federal courts: in Lincoln, Nebraska, in New York, and in San Francisco. Some of the testimony in these cases has been quite revealing. I'll discuss it later.
In spite of wave after wave of furious counter-attack and outrageously dishonest propaganda by pro-abortionists, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act made it to President Bush's desk for signature because National Right to Life and its chapters did a superb job of educating the public about this horrific abortion procedure.
The extended discussion of partial-birth abortion not only showed the public that the cruelty of the abortionists knows no bounds, it also refocused the whole abortion debate away from the dishonest slogan of so-called "choice" onto what actually happens in every abortion.
The third law was signed by President Bush just earlier this month. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act makes it a crime within federal jurisdictions to harm and kill an unborn child as a consequence of an attack on the mother.
The pro-abortionists opposed this law with all means at their disposal. Their furious insistence that there was only one victim and not two in these cases was most revealing. It was also completely at odds with public opinion. It appears that the false god of "choice" demands the sacrifice of children not only at the hands of abortionists but also at the hands of any criminal attacking a pregnant woman.
Dramatic cases of violence against pregnant women persuaded a large majority of the public that such legislation was needed. For people endowed with common sense and the ability to count, it is plain as the light of day that a violent assault on a pregnant woman injures or kills two victims: the mother and the child in the womb.
That it took so long for this law to come onto the books is not due to any lack of effort on the part of pro-lifers. No, it is entirely due to the fact that certain members of Congress in the pockets of the pro-abortion lobby insisted that one plus one adds up to one, and not two.
Apparently, being "pro-choice" amounts to being willfully clueless. A certain senator who missed many votes this past year hurried back to Washington and cast his vote to be counted among the clueless. Or did he actually vote for the bill before he voted against it? No, that was some other act of statesmanship.
As I have mentioned earlier, abortionists have challenged the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in three separate federal courts. The testimony in these proceedings should shock any person of normal moral sensibilities.
In the San Francisco trial, the government lawyer asked Dr. Maureen Paul, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, whether the unborn child experiences pain during the abortion procedures. Dr. Paul replied,
"I have no idea what you mean." Think about that. She has no idea.
In the New York trial, Judge Richard C. Casey questioned Dr. Timothy Johnson, a professor at the University of Michigan and a research scientist at the Center for Human Growth and Development.
"Does the fetus feel pain?" asked Judge Casey. Dr. Johnson replied that he did not know and did not know of any research about that. Judge Casey then asked Dr. Johnson about fetal pain during abortions involving fetal dismemberment. According to an Associated Press report, the questioning continued like this:
"Simple question, doctor. Does it cross your mind?" Casey pressed.
Johnson said it did not.
"Never crossed your mind?" the judge asked again.
"No," Johnson answered.
Here is a professor of human growth and development doing abortions, and the question of fetal pain never crosses his mind.
In the Lincoln, Nebraska, trial, Dr. LeRoy Carhart testified that "there are terms in this act that I do not understand." This lack of understanding did not keep Dr. Carhart from asserting that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban covers "at least 21 different procedures." The Associated Press report on the proceedings then contains this statement:
Carhart said at least once a month, an entire fetus is expelled from the mother during a D&E he is performing. "The fetuses are alive at the time of delivery," he said. There is a heartbeat "very frequently."
The AP report doesn't say what Dr. Carhart does in cases as these. Someone should enlighten him about the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Or does that law, too, contain terms he doesn't understand?
It would be an understatement to say that abortionists have been resistant to our educational efforts. It is a different story with the general public. Here we have had remarkable success. During the last several years public opinion has steadily shifted in the pro-life direction.
Let me give you polling numbers which were collected at the direction of Ms. Faye Wattleton, who for several years was the president of Planned Parenthood. Ms. Wattleton is now director for the Center for Gender Equality. The poll tells us what women think about abortion.
In 2003, 30% of women thought that "abortion should be generally available to those who want it." This reflects, of course, the current legal situation. This number is down from 34% in 2001.
In 2003, 17% of women said that "abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now." In 2001, the number was 19%.
In 2003, 34% of women said that "abortion should only be available in cases of rape, incest, or to save the woman's life." That is up from 31% in 2001.
And finally, in 2003, 17% of women said that "abortion should not be permitted at all." This is up from 14% in 2001.
If you add up the last two sets of numbers, the result is that in 2003 51%, a majority, of women wanted abortion to be either unavailable altogether or restricted to the rare cases of rape, incest, or saving the life of the mother. In 2001, 45% of women took this position.
These shifts in public opinion did not spontaneously occur out of nothing. To a large degree these shifts are the result of years of hard work in the right-to-life vineyard. Patient educational pro-life work pays off. And I thank you all for supporting the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund.