|click here for Today's News & Views|
Will you stand with the unborn?
Real Heroes Standing in the Gap
By Don Parker
NRLC Development Director
|Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist
administered the oath
of office to President George W. Bush.
On January 20, I had the honor to stand on the chilly grounds of the U.S. Capitol and watch as history was being made.
As the 55th Inauguration of a President of the United States unfolded before me and thousands of other Americans, it was hard not to think of the hope and promise that the first President, George Washington, must have felt for the new republic that he would lead. This reminded me of the hope that we pro-lifers have today for our nation and its unborn children.
History has brought us to a time when hope is rife that we can change our laws and our culture so that they protect every precious life, as promised in the Declaration of Independence. Could this be the time in history when the promises of our nation's founding documents are finally fulfilled?
As I was thinking about this, a truly amazing thing happened. On a large viewing screen, I could see the leader of one of the institutions charged with protecting those precious rights, the U.S. Supreme Court, begin to walk down the long series of stairs just inside the Capitol Building.
For most people, this would not be a remarkable feat. But for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who has been fighting what is thought to be a particularly aggressive form of thyroid cancer, it was an act of sheer willpower.
|Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)||Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl.)|
WASHINGTON (February 3, 2004) - - Pro-life forces have hit the ground running in the just-convened 109th Congress, hoping to fast-track two major pieces of pro-life legislation.
One high-priority measure is the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (UCPAA), a bill to require abortionists to inform a woman who is seeking an abortion after 20 weeks that the baby will feel pain during the abortion, and, if she proceeds, to require that she accept or refuse administration of a pain-reducing drug to the baby.
Also a top priority is legislation to protect the right of parents to be notified before a minor undergoes an abortion in a state other than her state of residence.
"President Bush supports both pieces of legislation," White House press spokesman Trent Duffy told reporters on January 24.
Be a Part of the NRLC E-Mail List
Be a part of the National Right to Life E-mail List. We are sending out up-to-the-minute alerts that deal with pro-life legislation, breaking pro-life news, and much, much more.
This will not be a daily abortion update, but rather a way to bring crucial, time-sensitive material to our grassroots supporters.
So, don't delay and sign up today!!
The address again is
Wanda Franz, Ph.D.
I want all of you, our members and friends, to have a clear view of what we are facing.
What is ahead is a much tougher struggle than the elections of 2004. In the past, some pro-lifers made the faulty assumption that election victories would almost automatically transform themselves into new pro-life laws and policy changes. By now, it should be clear to everyone that it is not so.
To change law is always difficult.
First, a law that gives "rights"--no matter how questionable--is hard to repeal because people are reluctant to take "rights" away. It's hard, but it can be done.
Second, and more importantly, our Founding Fathers didn't want government to be able just to wave a wand and change the lives of millions of people. They wanted deliberation. And deliberation is what they--and we--got. Look at how pro-abortionists in Congress exploited the process of legislative deliberation to stall passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The Senate couldn't muster the votes to override two vetoes by Bill Clinton.
The third, and most difficult, obstacle to legislative change arises in the case of Supreme Court-imposed law--law that was never subject to legislative deliberation. What our Founding fathers did not anticipate was an arrogant Supreme Court "waving the wand" and "legislating" massive social change "from the bench"--as it did in Roe v. Wade--inventing the "right" to abortion-on-demand through the entire nine months of pregnancy. Overriding Court-imposed law requires us either to persuade the Court to reverse itself or to pass a Constitutional amendment correcting the Court's arrogance.