Pro-Life Victory Strategy for the 21st Century

My intention in writing this document is to foster a debate within the Pro-Life movement about it's direction and the possible adoption of a new strategy, fitted to 21st century America, that will pave the way to victory. The strategy which I will detail would contain elements which many of you who are active in the movement are already familiar with. Some elements of the strategy to be presented, however, are not yet common knowledge. It is my hope that by presenting these ideas in the context of an overall strategic plan, we can begin to coalesce behind a general tack that will result in success for our movement. I come to the Pro-Life movement from a religious perspective and, therefore, I have written this document from that same perspective. This should not be interpreted as being exclusionary. I am well aware that there are many in the movement who are not religious and Pro-Life unity is essential to achieving any victory. I simply felt that in order to convey my points effectively, I had to approach the subject from a biblical standpoint. Although many of you who are non-religious may take offense at some of my observations and conclusions, I hope you will stick with it nonetheless. The technical plan presented here is, after all, what is ultimately directly relevant and important to the movement. Furthermore, I believe the appeal of these ideas cross secular/religious lines.

As I have pondered the tragedy of abortion and the political debate surrounding it, I have often wondered if a Pro-Life victory would ever be possible. Would we ever achieve the main objective of our movement, full legal protection for the unborn? After all, we live in a hedonistic society that is more concerned with ease and convenience and pleasure, than with altruism. An America without abortion would be an America that would have to sacrifice certain things. It would have to change the way it thinks about the unborn. Instead of being a disposable mound of flesh, an unborn child would have to be respected as a human being from the point of conception. America would have to change it's behavior, as well. The free sex culture in which we live would have to conform to a new and radical view of human sexuality. One that cherishes and celebrates sex as the gift from God that it is, but that does so within the bounds of marriage. Is this too much to ask from America? We look around us and see countless signs of moral decay strewn across the nation. From the explosion of promisquity among young people, to the fall of the family, to the political success of our current President. The prospects of a genuine spiritual revival appear bleak. Can the Pro-Life message triumph, even survive in such a society? Not as it's been traditionally presented.

When we argue for the right to life, we have to assume certain things. First, we are assuming that those we're trying to convince understand the concept of good and evil, of right and wrong. This is a difficult assumption to make in today's America. With children and young people being taught moral relativism and situational ethics in schools and universities, and with the cultural elite regularly reinforcing the idea of "if it feels good, do it", the public is becoming unable to clearly distinguish moral truth. The second assumption we have to make is, even if the people understand right and wrong, that they will be compelled to do the right thing once the information is known. Even if doing the right thing would cause inconvenience and disruption. This is even more difficult to believe, considering we now live in a pragmatic compromise society. People don't necessarily care about what the morally right position is, they care about what position or state of law will produce the least amount of trouble. Hence the position "I personally abhor abortion, but I'm Pro-Choice". And things aren't getting any better. America has been trending in this direction for more than thirty years and the forces of cultural nihilism are getting stronger and bolder. Within this context, it is almost impossible to see how the Right to Life message gains a consensus of support in what is essentially a Godless society. Understanding these hard truths will, in my opinion, strengthen the Pro-Life movement.

Am I a defeatist? Absolutely not! Furthermore, I am in no way calling for a retreat or a compromise (re-read the title of this document). The argument I will make in this memo will have to do with adopting a plan of action consistent with the secular nature of the American people that will result in the eradication of abortion and the eventual enactment of protective laws for the unborn. I will use polling data to support my claims and paint a picture of how the plan would work and be received. I will discuss technology and it's potential for liberating the unborn child from the peril of the human womb. I will also provide my thoughts on how we might go about organizing this endeavor and what it will take to win.

Lastly, I would like to encourage everyone who gets this memo to share it with others. I would like to achieve as wide a circulation for these ideas as possible. So, please go ahead and send it to anyone you think would be interested, be it your friends, a talk show host, a Pro-Life group, any Pro-Life media group (magazines, broadcasters), a Pro-Life politician, etc. It probably wouldn't be terribly productive to send it to a mainstream media outlet. This is a very internal document and no one really needs to know this information except committed activists. If any of you have a website, please feel free to post this. I only ask you not alter the substance of this memo. Spelling or typo corrections and re-formatting adjustments are obviously ok. Any publication of this document, either in part or in whole, can occur without permission as long as it is not altered.

Please refer to footnotes where indicated.

In January of 1998, The New York Times and CBS conducted a nationwide poll to sample public opinion on abortion. The results were considered to be positive for Pro-Life, showing slight movement on support for a ban without exception and increased majority support for a general ban on abortion after the first trimester. The polling showed overwhelming support for various restrictions including parental consent, waiting period etc. The poll also showed majority opposition to "convenience" abortions. It is also important to note that fifty percent said they believed abortion is "the murder of a child" (NY Times/CBS), while thirty-eight percent said they believed it was not. One negative point was that a consitent majority (61%) still believe abortion should remain legal in the first trimester, although restricted. The following are poll responses from the survey.

• 61% said they favor legal availability of abortion in the first trimester. This number may have fallen since last year, I will discuss this at the bottom of this section.
• Only 15% said they favor legal availability of abortion in the second trimester. Two-thirds said they opposed legal second trimester abortion. The rest were undecided.
• 22% said they support a ban on all abortion with an exception for the life of the mother. A ban with the rape and incest exception registers in the high thirties to low forties in other polls.
• 80% support parental notification for minors and a waiting period. (This is very significant because it shows that the public overwhelmingly supports the concept of regulating abortion, which is crucial to this strategy.)
• 78% said they believe a woman experiences feelings of guilt and regret after an abortion. (This is important as well because we can use this to make the case that an anti-abortion strategy resulting in a dramatic decline in abortion will benefit women by saving them from emotional distress.)
• Finally, many polls are now finding a majority or plurality of Americans self-identifying as Pro-Life. This despite the fact that support for legal abortion in the first trimester has virtually remained constant. We now obviously have a growing moral opposition to abortion in America that may or may not translate into support for the Right to Life position.

Almost as I write this, The Center for Gender Equality, a liberal feminist organization, has released a poll showing that 53% of women nationwide believe abortion should be banned except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. This means that a majority of women are now Pro-Life! This percentage represents an 8 point increase from a poll taken in 1996. This dramatic move is clearly a result of the Partial-Birth Abortion debate which started in late 1995. Faye Wattleton, the director of this group and former head of Planned Parenthood, called these results "disturbing". While this is cause for great hope and optimism amomg Pro-Lifers, we need to take this new information soberly. Here's why.

I, like probably most of the people who will read this, do not support a rape or incest exception to a ban on abortion. I take this position primarily for two reasons. First, I believe the baby has inherent, immeasurable value, regardless of how or by whom it was conceived. The only time I believe the law should remain neutral is in an extreme case where the life of the mother is at risk. I take this position because in that instance, we have two innocents, one of whom will die. Luckily, with current medical technology, an abortion for this reason would virtually never occur. My second reason for opposing the exceptions is that it would be too easy for a woman to fake a rape or incest claim. The only way to effectively control the inevitable fraud would be to provide for severe criminal penalties against the women committing it. I guarantee you that this will not happen. The result of a ban with these exceptions could very well be a million and a half abortions every year for reasons of rape or incest! This is why I believe the movement should oppose the adoption of a ban containing these exceptions. In the next section, I will present a strategy that I believe will build on the momentum our side is experiencing and that will cultivate support for protecting all unborn children by law.

It is apparent that the recent debate on Partial-Birth Abortion has, at the very least, changed the focus of attention in the larger abortion debate from women's rights to the rights of the unborn. The graphic descriptions used by proponents of a ban on the grisly procedure have resulted in the American people becoming sensitized to the plight of the unborn like never before. As has been demonstrated, the polls show a consensus of support for not only a ban on mid and late term abortion, but a general policy of regulation and restriction for all abortion as well. A point of concern, however, is raised by the fact that, although the debate on PBA has fomented outrage at the practice of late abortion, support for the legality of first trimester abortion has virtually stayed the same.#1 This indicates that the public draws a distinction between abortion prior to 12 weeks and abortion after 12 weeks. For them, the former is tolerable, the latter is not. There is also the issue of practicability. Many Americans clearly believe a total ban on abortion could not be effectively enforced and that it may result in a public health crisis if there are scores of women seeking illegal abortions. This leads them to the position of supporting legal abortion in early pregnancy, while still maintaining a moral opposition to it's practice. I think it is safe to say that this describes the position of at least half of those who call themselves "Pro-Choice". Then there is the segment of the population who believe ideologically that abortion is a righteous act by a woman exercising sovereignty over her own body and over the life of another. Based on polling data, I determine that they represent anywhere from 15% to 33% of the American people. They are most likely unreachable and should be left to their fate. This, of course, leaves at least two-thirds of the people who would respond to a call for doing away with mid and late term abortion and the establishment of a comprehensive national anti-abortion strategy, which, as I will shortly explain, will be the beginning of the end for legal abortion in this country.

Before I lay out my vision for a new winning strategy for our movement, I'd like to first revisit and examine the successes and failures of the old one. As I see it, the general tack of the Right to Life movement since 1973 has been essentially a three pronged strategy. Firstly, the movement concentrated on electing Pro-Life politicians at the state and federal level. This we have done with remarkable success. The Right to Life position is well represented in state legislatures across the country and for the first time in forty years, Pro-Lifers are setting and controlling the agenda in Congress. We have successfully taken control of the Republican nominating process at all levels in most states of the union. We also still have influence in the Democratic party's nominating process in many southern states. Secondly, the movement set out to have the infamous "Roe V. Wade" decision overturned by the Supreme Court. On this front we have had minimal success. While we were able to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980, two of his three Supreme Court appointments turned out to be pro-abortion. Whether it was that the Democrats provided too much opposition or whether it was a simple betrayal is moot. The reality is that we missed a vital chance to get a majority of the court on our side. Likewise, President Bush managed only one friendly justice out of two appointments. The result is that the current 6-3 majority in favor of "Roe V. Wade" looks to be a daunting obstacle for us to overcome. Especially considering that President Clinton, who is the most pro-abortion U.S. President in history, may still have one or two appointments left to go. Regardless, he has already stacked the lower federal courts with scores of pro-abortion judges. I would be less than honest if I didn't say that this front looks less than promising. Thirdly and finally, the Right to Life movement has attempted to build support for a human life amendment to the Constitution. This ties in with the first prong of the strategy which deals with electing congressmen who would vote for the amendment. This amendment would ban all abortion and grant the unborn child a right to life. This is the crown jewel of our movement but, very unfortunately, there seems to be little appetite for this amongst the American people (anywhere from 35% to 45% support with rape and incest exceptions). While we do have many elected Pro-Lifers in Congress who would support the amendment, we have no where near the two-thirds votes in each house required for passage. Furthermore, it is unlikely such an amendment could be ratified against the will of the people. Judging from the fact that support for legal abortion has basically remained unchanged for almost thirty years #1, I am forced to conclude that a meaningful human life amendment without self-defeating exceptions, at least for now, is unreachable.

Time for some perspective.

Let me now take a minor pause to reflect on where we are and how we got here. The Right to Life movement is founded on a simple core principle; every innocent human life has the right to exist from it's conception to it's natural death. This principle comes out of an ancient document not terribly popular these days but still relevant as ever, the Bible. THOU SHALT NOT MURDER - It's a simple commandment. One might even think it would be the easiest one to keep. But in America of 1999, there are over a million and a half unborn babies who meet a planned, deliberate death every year because of the holocaust of abortion. Why? Why would so many people in a country that calls itself civilized resort to such a barbaric and inhumane act of violence against the innocent? Because America is the classic victim of that detestable rot that has doomed so many civillizations before it, decadence. Cultural, political, social, you name it. We're declining because we have lost touch with our spiritual foundation. We've lost touch with the God that created us and therefore, his law. If we were in the Kingdom of Heaven, we wouldn't have to fight political battles to protect the unborn. Of course, we're not in the Kingdom, we're in a secular humanist state where sex, money and convenience rule the day. We're in a country where the elite media despises and regularly ridicules God's people. We're in a country that registers 70%+ support for a President that commits serial adultery, lies repeatedly until caught and supports infanticide.#2 I hesitate to use the old cliche, but it fits - we're not in Kansas anymore.

So what are those of us who fear God supposed to do, give up? No, we can't. God has commanded us to protect the weak and vulnerable and to rescue those who are unjustly condemned to death. What we must do as Pro-Lifers is engage in an extensive self-review. Find out what we're doing wrong and what we're doing right, then re-focus on a new plan. I firmly believe after having conducted such a review of our movement, that our main problem is that we have failed to promote an enactable agenda. For decades we've been arguing to a secular people that they should install God's law as their own. We have met with frustration. Since they don't fear God, why should they obey his law much less adopt it? Our challenge in the 21st century will be to formulate a new agenda that will appeal to those I mentioned earlier. People who don't approve of abortion but who don't support a ban for practical reasons. If we can form a coalition with them to enact the policies I will next lay out, we will destroy the abortion culture and save millions of unborn children.

Please be aware as you read the following that I am not a lawyer so the details of what I'm proposing may have to be jiggled a bit but the idea is what's important. I believe that we need to support an amendment to the Constitution that would allow the federal government to regulate abortion. As most of you know, "Roe V. Wade" allows very little in the way of government intervention in the abortion industry, either state or federal. The recent Webster/Casey decisions allowed states to do more in terms of regulation. Since then several states have enacted parental consent/notification, informed consent, and other laws designed to curb the abortion rate. Where they've been enacted, these laws have had a dramatic effect. In Mississippi, for example, after a tough informed consent law went into effect, the state experienced a 50% reduction in the abortion rate! Informed consent regs have proven very effective in reducing abortion because they explain to the woman exactly what is to be done to her child. They can mandate that the woman view an ultra -sound image of her baby and receive graphic descriptions of the abortion procedure. The really great part is that these informed consent laws not only deter the woman's abortion but they also change her mind about abortion. If we had a tough national IC law in effect, more than a million women a year would be forced to face the gruesome reality of abortion. Videotapes, photographs, explicit descriptions would literally turn women away from abortion in shock as the purest evil on earth is exposed. They would, in turn, tell their friends, relatives, neighbors about what they'd seen. Within time, not only would abortion be rare but it would be irrelevant to the lives of the vast majority of Americans. The people would be more receptive to our argument for the right to life. After all, we know that the reverse is certainly true. Throughout the eighties the abortion rate was steadily climbing, and so was public support for abortion. It only stands to reason. As more and more Americans used abortion, more and more Americans supported it's continued availability. Informed consent is only one aspect of what would be a comprehensive national anti-abortion strategy. Other ideas beside the usual notification laws would be mandatory Pro-Life counseling, fetal development education, 3 day waiting periods, anti -abortion ads, etc. All of it would be supported by the American people because it sounds "reasonable". The key, of course, is empowering the federal government to regulate. Once we've done that, it's only a matter of time.

The amendment would have to provide for serious, meaningful regulation by both the federal and state governments. The individual regulations and restrictions would be added over time, incrementally. We should start with a national informed consent law because, as I've shown, it's the most effective in reducing abortion and changing public opinion. A crucial aspect of this law will be a requirement that the woman view a Pro-Life video showing an abortion at about 8-10 weeks and one at 24 weeks. The video should describe everything being done in graphic detail. This is necessary because, in order to deter the abortion, the woman must be made to understand exactly what it is she is considering doing to her own baby. Seeing the mangled and severed remains of a fetus will bring the shocking reality of abortion into her conscious mind. We have to realize that these women have been trained by the cultural elites that abortion is the responsible, even the right thing to do in their situation. They've been made to believe that abortion isn't really killing because the unborn child isn't really a baby. The only way to defuse this notion is to confront the woman with the truth in explicit detail. As Pro-Lifers, we have no better weapon than the evil truth. These videos will be our best offense against the abortion culture because, not only will they turn the woman against abortion, but they will also cause a shift in support for abortion in the general population as well. Think about it, do you think these women are going to keep to themselves what they saw? Of course not. They will tell everyone they know, and that will be the beginning of the end for abortion. The devastating truth will permeate society and people's opinions will change as it does.

When we advocate these regulations in public, we should be clear and unequivocal in stating that these policies are intended to discourage and reduce abortion and that, in order to be effective, they must have teeth. We should make the point that the videos are no more graphic than those shown to 16 year old high school students that reveal the consequences of reckless driving by showing the mangled bodies of car crash victims. Those videos are designed to prevent violence, we should assert, and so are these. We should repeatedly insist that a woman needs to know all the facts about the decision she is considering, both for her good, and for the good of the baby. Those who oppose the regulations can be portrayed as extreme and wanting to keep women ignorant about a decision that will change their lives forever.

The amendment should also contain a provision to ban abortion in the second and third trimester of pregnancy. According to the public opinion polls, two-thirds (66%) of the American people would support such a provision. And this is before the debate begins. As we've seen with the Partial-Birth Abortion debate, once the graphic descriptions of late term procedures make it into the public square, our polls only go up. So, the amendment should basically be a combination regulation and late abortion ban amendment. We'll need an easy name for it that will communicate both aspects. Any ideas?

There may be a technical problem with empowering the federal government to regulate without also giving it the power to ban abortion. The amendment would, of course, ban second and third trimester abortion explicitly. First trimester abortion, however, would not be addressed. If the amendment, which would also give broad regulatory power to the federal government over all abortion, were to also give the power to ban, it would essentially be a total repeal of "Roe V. Wade". I think it would be very difficult to sell this politically if that were the case. Remember, we're talking about two-thirds majorities we have to come up with. Whether or not this is an actual problem is really better suited for the lawyers to decide. As a matter of common sense, though, it would seem possible to give the government power only to regulate and not ban. The Constitution is, after all, a document specifically ascribing certain powers to the federal government even though, historically, the courts have been overbroad in their interpretation of it. The advantage politically to us of pushing an amendment that would allow regulation but not the power to ban would be that we could sell it as only a reigning in of some of the more extreme aspects of "Roe V. Wade" and not a total repeal. Women would continue to have their right to abort but the government would also have the right to legally deter the act. This is the only way that we could get the kind of majorities of the public and Congress behind us that we would need to pass an amendment to the Constitution. Nevertheless, if we have to go ahead and include the various regulations in the actual amendment, then so be it.

Let me say a word about why I believe this strategy must be pursued nationally rather than state by state. Firstly and obviously, a ban on second and third trimester abortion cannot be achieved by anything less than a constitutional amendment, assuming "Roe V. Wade" retains it's current scope. Secondly, while we may have little trouble passing laws like informed consent and reflection periods in Mississippi and Utah, states like California and New York, where it's difficult for Pro-Life politicians to get elected, are much tougher nuts to crack. These liberal states tend to elect pro-abortionists to state office who are opposed to even the most sensible regulation on abortion. Furthermore, these states have large populations and astronomical abortion rates. If we are going to succeed in reducing the national abortion rate and swaying public opinion, these states have to be subject to the regulations I've talked about. Finally, I believe a national strategy, well articulated and presented, will be politically advantageous to our movement. It will serve to mainstream the appearance of the movement without sacrificing principle by giving our politicians something popular to advocate while at the same time asserting their committment to the right-to-life. The abortion movement will look extreme in opposing the amendment and various regulations to follow. The key is that the terms of the abortion debate will have changed. The question on the Sunday talk shows will change from "Do you support a woman's right to choose?" to "Do you support abortion regulation?".

After the amendment has been enacted and the regulations have been passed, it's easy to imagine that the abortion rate will have fallen dramatically. Public support for abortion will have as well. I don't know if we'll ever build enough support to pass a human life amendment, but I do know that the people will be much more open to considering it. I think that as abortion is exposed, the people will feel revulsion and perhaps even shame at it's presence in our society. And, of course, we will have saved millions of children who would have otherwise met the abortionist's cold knife. Furthermore, we will have lost nothing in enacting this amendment. We will still argue for the right-to-life of every unborn baby, but we will do it in a society with a rapidly falling abortion rate and an increasing contempt for the practice. We will also have effectively enlisted the awesome power of the federal government onto our side in the abortion war.

Finally, I would like to say that reducing abortion is not enough. We must also support policies to help women care for their babies after birth. We must always be pro-women and support them every way we can. Crisis pregnancy centers, which are Pro-Life community charities, help women across the country give birth to their babies and take care of them. They are staffed by mostly volunteer Pro-Lifers who commit their blood, sweat, and tears everyday for the cause of life. They are usually underfunded and overburdened. We should support federal and state grants to help them meet their demand. As abortions go down, their funding should go up. This can be included in the overall national strategy.

In the next section, I will talk about organization. Constitutional amendments are not easy to pass, even one that would enjoy two-thirds support from the people. There will be entrenched opposition in the Congress and in the state legislatures where we will eventually have to fight for ratification. The abortion groups will mount a massive effort to defeat the amendment. We have to be prepared for all of this. When we engage this fight, we must have money, organization, and perseverance at the ready.

A Constitutional amendment banning mid and late term abortion and granting the power of regulation to the federal government should be popularly supported, if the polls are correct. Whether or not it can be passed considering the current makeup of Congress, is an entirely different question. I haven't done a formal count, so I'm going to have to speculate a little here. It seems to me that the vote cast on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the House of Representatives is indicative of at least a widespread openess among the members of that chamber to the idea of curtailing the right to abortion. The ban passed with more than the two-thirds vote needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution. Likewise, the Senate, having voted for the ban with nearly as great a majority, shows the same potential. This does not necessarily mean that the members who voted for the PBA ban will vote for our amendment. On the contrary, the amendment we propose would go much much farther in not only banning certain abortions, but also in attacking the overall demand for all abortion. While the vote for the Partial-Birth Abortion ban was considered a "safe" vote for many "Pro-Choice" members because they knew it would likely be overturned by the courts, the passage of this amendment could not be nullified by the courts and would eventually devastate the abortion empire if it were ratified. I think we can expect to receive much less support from them than was shown for the PBA ban.

This means, of course, that we have work to do. We're going to have to increase the number of pro-amendment members of Congress to the two- thirds level we need for passage. Can this be done in the current political climate? Yes! I will now give you my ideas as to how we can mount this challenging effort and win. Some of you will have other and different ideas and that's just fine. We need as much input as possible but for now, I'll give you mine.

The following are some ideas on how we can get this going at the grass- roots, assuming the national groups are slow to embrace this plan. Raising public awareness about the purpose and the necessity of this amendment should be one of our first goals. This can be done with the organization we already possess. There are many Pro-Life groups all over the country that have websites, distribute flyers, make phone calls, and engage in electioneering. We're going to have to bring these resources to bear to spread the message about this amendment and what it would do. Pro-Life and conservative media are also crucial to the dissemination effort. It would also be best if we had a central website where we could post the details of the amendment in easy-to-understand terms that the general public could appreciate. There should also be important statistics about abortion, fetal development information, even photographs of aborted late-term fetuses available on the site. We should essentially use the website to make our case to the people. It should have an easily remembered name like "www.lateterm.com or .org". Once established, it would be nice if we could get some prominent sympathetic personalities like talk-show hosts, moral leaders, or politicians to give out the website address when they have access to media. It will also be important, obviously, to get our elected people talking about the amendment. They should be encouraged to discuss it at town hall meetings, in interviews with the press, and advocate it in their political rhetoric.

After we've inserted this amendment into the political arena, we still have to go about electing candidates who will support it. There are several political action committees already working to elect Pro-Life candidates. They've been doing this for several years, even decades and have elected many Right-to-Life politicians. As I have pointed out, however, there are not nearly enough votes in the Congress to pass such a meaningful anti-abortion amendment as the one we're proposing. Even though it would be considered mainstream by the measure of public will. This is because the nature of two-party politics causes there to be a polarization of ideologies on controversial issues like abortion. Even though most of the public might be in the middle on a given issue, the politicians in both parties are usually found on either extreme. Part of the reason is money. PACs that contribute to political campaigns are typically ideological in orientation. This means that they represent the extreme view on one side of an issue (please note that I do not use the word "extreme" here in a negative way, I myself am extremely Pro- Life and proudly so). Candidates, therefore, are under great pressure to take an extreme position in order to receive money from friendly PACs. What this does, of course, is cause there to be a lot of elected officials on one side of an issue and a lot of elected officials on the polar opposite side of the same issue, with very few in the middle. It is doubtful that we will ever elect two-thirds majorities of Right to Life politicians in both houses of Congress. It is even more doubtful that we will convince a substantial number of "Pro-Choice" members to support our amendment because they are beholden to the pro- abortion PACs. This leaves us with a problem. I believe I have the solution to this problem and I will now present it. It may be slightly controversial but, upon moral and scriptural reflection, I believe it to be justified.

If we're going to increase the number of pro-amendment members of Congress, we're going to have to support the election of "Pro-Choice" candidates who will commit to supporting this amendment. This does not mean, obviously, that we would work to elect a candidate for the House or Senate who supported legal abortion over one who was Pro-Life. It simply means that in a race where there is no Pro-Life candidate running, we would side with one who would support us on the amendment. As many of you know, in very liberal areas of the country, both parties often nominate pro-abortion candidates for the general election. If we could influence the primary processes that nominate these candidates, we could compel one of the candidates to commit to supporting our amendment. This could be done by agreeing to bring to bear our organizational abilities to turn out voters in exchange for their support. Furthermore, in primaries, very few people ever turn out to vote, so our task would be that much easier and cheaper. This tactic should be used very selectively and only in very liberal districts and states where Pro-Lifers are almost never elected. A perfect example of an ideal district would be Washington DC. The DC delegate is a Democrat and down-the-line pro-abortion. To my knowledge, DC has never elected a Republican and the Democrat always wins in a massive landslide in the general election. If we became active in the Democratic nominating process in DC, we could recruit an otherwise very liberal candidate who would support our amendment. Once we got him or her nominated, election would be certain. This would not hurt Pro-Life representation in Congress at all, since that particular district never produces Pro-Life politicians anyway. We basically need to give moderate politicians, who are running for election in very liberal areas of the country, "cover" to take a middle ground position on abortion which would be defined by support for our amendment.

Now let me explain why we would be morally and scripturally justified in doing this. First, it would be morally right because we would be helping to facilitate the banning of infanticide and the establishment of a policy that would result in millions of saved babies. The candidates we elect this way, whether they knew it or not, would be contributing to the end of abortion in America and the eventual legal protection of the unborn. As I hope I've already convinced you, this plan, fully enacted, will result in ultimate victory for our movement.

Scripturally, we are justified because Our Lord was not a politician. He lived under the most corrupt and wicked government known at that time, the Roman Empire. Under Roman law, a father had the right to kill his children until they reached the age of eighteen. Talk about freedom of choice! Yet, Jesus Christ never ran for office on a platform of reform. He never organized political rallies. He never attempted to foment rebellion against the emperor. He simply commanded those who would follow him to protect those who could not do it for themselves. To plead the case of the oppressed and the despised. As Pro-Lifers, our responsibility is to win the babies' lives, however we can. We must always obey the law, of course. Both that of our government, and that of our God. But we must work within the realities of this fallen world to do what we've been commanded. Also, remember what the Lord said when told by John that there was someone using his name to cast out demons who was not traveling with the disciples. John had forbidden the person from using the Lord's name, but Jesus replied - "Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us." - Luke 9:50 KJV.

Let me say that it may not be necessary to support many "Pro-Choice" candidates to increase our pro-amendment majority. There are several congressional districts across the country that are overwhelmingly composed of minority constituents. Minorities tend to vote heavily in favor of Democrats. African Americans, for instance, usually vote 80% to 90% Democrat reliably, even if the candidate is pro-abortion. This despite the fact that possibly half of African Americans are Pro- Life. These minority districts almost always elect pro-abortion Representatives because the national Democratic Party supports only those candidates in the primaries that take the party's pro-abortion position. If we could inject ourselves into these Democratic primaries in minority districts, we might be able to help nominate Pro-Life but liberal candidates for the general election. We might even be able to use the abortion issue as a wedge to draw Pro-Life support to our candidate in the primary. This would be especially likely in Hispanic districts where the constituents are usually overwhelmingly Pro-Life.#3 Minorities are the pro-abortionists' achilles heel. They depend on them to reliably elect pro-abortion Democrats in their districts, even though the minority voters themselves are Pro-Life. If we can undermine this unholy arrangement, we can elect many more Pro-Lifers to Congress. The point here is that there is fertile ground within the Democratic Party's voter base to cultivate electable Pro-Life candidates for nomination. If we in the Pro-Life movement are ever going to elect vast majorities of friendly politicians, we're going to have to look beyond the Republican Party.

There may very well be other ways to build our pro-amendment super majorities that I haven't considered. This will no doubt be fully and thoroughly debated among the activists. One thing is certain, if this plan is going to work, we need to start arguing for this amendment now. The national movement should be pressured to prioritize this as soon as possible. This is where we come in. We need to write the National Right to Life Committee, the Christian Coalition, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, and every other national Pro-Life group we can think of to lobby for this idea. If they aren't immediately responsive, we should go ahead and start without them at the grassroots. Once they see that this thing is supported by the rank and file, they'll get moving. After all, you know what they say - When the people lead, the leaders will follow.

Even after we have successfully enacted this amendment, we will still have an uphill fight on our hands in arguing for a human-life amendment to the Constitution. As I stated previously, although most Americans harbor moral opposition to the practice of abortion, many still believe that it is better off left legal for practical reasons. Many fear the spectre of desperate women seeking illegal abortions and the public health crisis that may engender. What if we could allay these fears by providing women with a surgical method of ending their pregnancy that would not harm the unborn child? A non-lethal abortion? The news article that follows appeared in the Reuters news service.

    10:20 AM ET 07/18/97

    Japanese Scientist Develops Artificial Womb

    TOKYO (Reuter) - A Japanese scientist has developed
    an artificial womb capable of incubating goat fetuses
    but it may take 10 years before it could be used to
    save human babies, he said Friday.

    "We're  aiming eventually to use the technology for
    human  fetuses  but  it  will take maybe 10 years."
    Juntendo University  gynecology professor Yoshinori
    Kuwabara told Reuters. Kuwabara's findings have been
    published in the Journal of the Japan Medical Assoc.,
    the country's medical review publication.

    Kuwabara said he had maintained goat fetuses for up
    to three weeks in a plastic tank until  the  end of
    their incubation period,  but it would be some time
    before it could be used for human fetuses.

    "Other researchers around the world have managed to
    maintain fetuses outside the womb for up to several
    days but we're  the  only ones who  have  sustained
    life in  an artificial womb for so long."  Kuwabara
    said.  The artificial womb is a  rectangular  clear
    plastic box  filled  with  amniotic fluid  at  body
    temperature and connected  to an array  of  devices
    for vital functions.  The fetus  lies  submerged in
    the tank womb which replaces oxygen and cleans  the
    fetus' blood with  a  dialysis machine connected to
    the umbilical cord, he added.

    Professor  Koyo Yoshida,  a member of Kuwabara's
    research team, said he was wary of exaggerations by
    the press of a miracle artificial womb which  could
    free women of the pain of childbirth.  "Some of the
    stories printed in the British press are only half-
    true.  We are not trying to extend the the possible
    incubation period in the artificial womb right now.
    Three weeks  is  the limit with the  technology  we
    have now." he said.

    Many of the experimental goat  fetuses incubated in
    the artificial womb only survived for  a  few  days
    after being taken out of  the  tank  although  some
    remained alive for much longer, he added. "The next
    step is to see how the fetus develops after it  has
    been taken out  of  the artificial womb."  Kuwabara
    said.

    Although his  team has  experimented  for  over  10
    years, it was  still early to hope for  an  end  to
    miscarriages  and premature baby fatalities through
    the use of an artificial womb, he added.

    End.

This technology is clearly still in it's infancy, but the promise and hope it brings to our struggle is nothing short of miraculous. Imagine, if these wombs could be perfected and made widely available across the country, abortion could be made obsolete. A safe fetal transplant method would have to be invented to allow the transfer of the baby from it's mother to the new womb, but that's not too difficult to envision considering the current pace of modern technology. Furthermore, if a deliberate research effort were undertaken, we could have a practical working alternative to lethal abortion within the next 20 years.

The implications of replacing abortion with this new procedure are simply staggering. Not only will the unborn be liberated from the danger of pregnancy, but we will be able to make the case that the unborn must be granted legal rights. They would no longer be dependent on their mothers for survival. To argue that a woman should continue to have the right to a lethal abortion, in light of this new procedure, would be the same as arguing for a right to kill. No more could the case be made that a woman must be allowed to abort because she has the right to do with her body as she pleases. Her body would not be relevant to the ability of the child to survive. She could end her pregnancy if she so desired, but the child would live. Much like the "women's liberation" that built it's success on their blood, the unborn would now be liberated from the women who would do them harm.

Again I must confess my lack of formal legal education, but it seems plausible to think that a court challenge to the scope of "Roe V. Wade" might have a good chance of succeeding if we could show that the fetus, being independent of it's mother through technology, is a person worthy of protection under the fourteenth amendment. At the very least, the court might be persuaded to limit the right given women in "Roe" to a non-lethal procedure.#4 I, however, am very aware of the capacity for judicial activism present in abortionist idealogues who all too commonly populate the federal courts. It is very possible, perhaps even likely, that they will rule that a woman does indeed have a right to kill. In that instance we would, of course, have to pursue another amendment to the Constitution. Abortion having been replaced, I believe that our task of bringing the American people along will be substantially less difficult than would have otherwise been the case. No doubt there would be continued opposition from our friends in the pro-abortion groups, but it would be they, not us, who would be fending off accusations of "extremism". It would be they who would be arguing for a right to kill. I believe we could retain the support of those crucial moderates who are morally opposed to abortion and win eventual passage of an amendment granting legal protection to the unborn.

This new soon-to-be technological reality brings forth a tantalizing idea. Instead of including a provision in our regulation amendment to ban second and third trimester abortion, we may want to consider inserting a provision to ban abortion after fetal viability. This would mean that lethal abortion would become illegal after the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb with the aid of technology. Right now that point is at about 22 weeks, but when this procedure becomes available, that point will be virtually at implantation! This would be exceedingly easy to argue for. We would simply make the point that a baby that can exist independently of it's mother should have a right to live. As I've pointed out, to argue otherwise would be to argue for a right to kill. "Roe V. Wade" already allows for a ban on abortion after viability, but this is just a clever sham engineered by the pro-abortion ideologue Justices that crafted the decision. "Roe V. Wade" requires that any ban after fetal viability contain an exception for the health of the mother. The same court that decided "Roe" also decided "Doe V. Bolton" which is the case that defined what the health exception means. The court ruled that a woman could obtain an abortion for health reasons if she was depressed, economically disadvantaged, was too young, or for virtually any other trivial reason you can think of. This means of course, friends, that there can be no meaningful ban on abortion after viability by statute. It must be done by constitutional amendment.

If we decide to take this tack, we would essentially be enacting a time delayed or "stealth" human-life amendment. As technology progressed, the unborn child would come closer and closer to full legal protection. How soon it happens would depend on the progress of the research. Let me say that I believe the movement should support funding for fetal transplant and artificial womb research. The research can be confined to animals for the time being. It should be perfected or at least reasonably dependable before the experiments move to humans. Human experimentation should be confined only to women who would otherwise have an abortion. This would make the experimentation morally acceptable since the baby would have a good chance of surviving the experiment whereas it would have no chance of surviving an abortion. Once these wombs and procedures are perfected, they should be made available to every American woman by the federal government, whose constitutional responsibility is to promote the general welfare.

With scientific technologies like human cloning and genetic engineering threatening to undermine human dignity, isn't it refreshing to think that science might be able to eradicate the most dispicable assault against that same dignity. The evil of abortion has been practiced from the very beginning. We all know that. Wouldn't it be marvelous if, in the 21st century, we could walk away from that evil and leave it on the trash heap of history to rot alongside it's busom companion, slavery?

The future is on our side, folks!

I know that there will be many of you who disagree with my conclusions, even though I've attempted to present them as appealingly and as persuasively as possible. As I said at the beginning, it is simply my hope that this document will spur debate within the movement about where we're headed and how we're going to get there. I think internal debate is healthy and can refine a movement. When we do decide how we are going to proceed in the 21st century, we need to stand united and strong. This is the most righteous political cause in history and we must employ faith, committment, and cunning to win it.

May God bless always.