Back in the Jolly-Chuckle-and-wear-a-Cheesehead days of Abp. Dolan, he made a very, very, stupid move.
He decided to plant a big, sloppy, kiss onto Wisconsin Right to Life--and at the same time, to move his chubby imprimatur away from Pro-Life Wisconsin.
Actual Catholics knew that +Dolan was screwing up big-time, as Right to Life was then, and still is, a squish. They push* the Bush family stance: if the baby results from rape or incest, then the baby may be executed.
IOW, kill the baby because of the sin of the father.
WRTL has done some good. But then, any part-timer can do some good. And that's what they really are.
Part-timers.
Why does it matter?
Because Wisconsin statutes bar abortion, period. No exceptions. So when SCOTUS knocks down Roe, the Wisconsin law will apply.
Naturally, Wisconsin Right to Life will push the Legislature to "repair" the Wisconsin statute to include rape, incest, and "health of the mother." And they will drag out their +Dolan endorsement as part of their effort.
That's why it matters.
Think +Dolan will 'clarify'?
*Actually, they endorse Bush-esque Leggie candidates.
8 comments:
Wisconsin Right to Life has NEVER supported rape and incest exceptions. If you are going to accuse them of doing so, then it is incumbent upon you to cite specific examples of Wisconsin Right to Life supporting rape and incest exceptions.
I'll get back to you on that, soon.
Will look forward to your response. I realized after posting that you had not only accused WRTL of supporting rape and incest exceptions but also of promoting those exceptions. So please include that in your response. Thanks.
Perhaps you should study what RTL actually DOES, rather than what they say. Check out their legislative endorsements, for example. Or check out their lobbying track record, where they are often SILENT instead of opposing actually 100% pro-life initiatives.
Do the 'push' the exceptions? Not directly. But when they endorse candidates, those candidates DO 'push' exceptions.
Maybe you should also look at their position on "morning after" legislation and their devil's dance on the "science" of abortifacient pills. Funny--it's just like Fauci's "science" dance.
Sorry, pal. Having a website that says "pro-life" does not "pro-life" make.
"Opposing" s/b "pushing" in above.....
They have NEVER opposed 'life of the mother' exception. On the 'rape/incest' they are squishy, but as you know, candidates and Leggies who use 'life of the mother' generally are also 'rape/incest' folks.
Hello again. Thanks for your responses to my inquiry.
Those responses did not support your contention that Wisconsin Right to Life supports and promotes rape and incest exceptions. But what those responses did highlight was the decades’ old debate within the pro-life community regarding what should be the correct strategy in building a culture of life.
On one hand, there is a segment of the pro-life community that will never, under any circumstances, support a candidate who indicates they support rape and incest exceptions ...even if that candidate is solid on all other life issues. If that candidate is facing a radical pro-abortion candidate who supports abortion on demand for any reason, this segment of the pro-life community views both candidates as equally objectionable and will sit the election out. This approach does nothing to further the pro-life cause.
On the other hand, the other, and much larger, segment of the pro-life community (which includes WRTL ) always works with candidates who state support for rape and incest exceptions in order to educate those candidates on why rape and incest exceptions are objectionable. As objectionable as those exceptions are, this segment of the pro-life community does not view these candidates as equally objectionable as a radical abortion supporter. The candidate who supports rape and incest exceptions will support 97% of the pro-life legislative agenda and lives will be saved as a result. But taking this approach does not mean an organization supports rape and incest exceptions. It means that organization wants to save as many lives as possible....right now. You can compare this approach to a burning building scenario. Do you enter the burning building to save as many lives as you can or do stand on the sidelines and do nothing because all lives cannot be saved?
I believe all segments of the pro-life movement desperately want to eventually eliminate abortion in our nation. But in the meantime, we must take the opportunities we are given to save as many lives as possible. I am just sorry that one segment of the movement is unfairly demonized by some pro-life people.
I do enjoy your blog and agree with you on many, many things....just not this.
Wishing you a blessed Christmas.
You illustrated what will be THE debate over the next 20 years regarding the governance of the entire country, not merely the abortion debate.
First Things, Dreher, Deneen, and Turning Point USA are debating that question: should the country be governed by Christian principles or continue its "fusionist"/agnostic Libertarian course?
WRTL believes it is prudent. PLW believes that prudence costs lives.
Blessed Christmas to you, too!!
Post a Comment