Warning!: Pro-lifers cannibalizing each other ahead.
Is Sarah Palin pro-life? Not if you ask the American Right to Life which is promoting their site with pro-life profiles of some heavy hitting pro-life leaders. These guys don’t cut anyone much slack. Even Fr. Frank Pavone doesn’t get their highest rating. Sarah Palin and George W. Bush fare terribly and I’m not sure that’s completely fair.
But I thought I’d throw it out there even if some of their standards seem a little wacky to me including an endorsement of creationism as a benchmark of pro-life-ness. There are some, to me, legitimate criticisms of Palin in there as well.
Here’s some of it:
•As a Candidate Whom Many Pro-lifers Would Like to Support: her actual abortion record and rhetoric is shocking to the conscience in that Sarah Palin:
– appointed in 2009 a Planned Parenthood board member to the Alaska Supreme Court
– argues that chemical abortifacients that kill the youngest children should be legal
– distinguishes between her “personal” and public pro-life views (personally pro-life means officially pro-choice)
– indicates support for public funding to kill some unborn children
– whitewashes other candidates misleading millions to believe that pro-choice politicians are pro-life
– allows her name to be used in ads promoting grisly government-funded embryonic stem cell “research”
– undermines the God-given right to life by promoting evolution while officially opposing creation
– harms personhood by claiming that “equal protection” should not apply to unborn children
– has never announced support for any state’s personhood amendment nor the Federal Human Personhood Amendment
– opposes personhood by claiming that the majority can decide to legalize the killing of children.
In her vice-presidential acceptance speech Sarah said, “there is a time for politics and a time for leadership.” During the above, which time was it for her? Sources below document Sarah Palin’s record and political rhetoric.
•Thinks the Morning After Pill should be Legal: Palin says that personally she would not take the Morning After Pill (an abortifacient chemical that kills the tiniest children) but that it should not be illegal. “I don’t think that it should necessarily be illegal.” This demonstrates the ARTL adage that “To be personally pro-life means to be officially pro-choice.”
As far as nominating a pro-choicer to Alaska’s highest court, Palin kind of had her hands tied on that one. And while I do believe she probably could’ve made a bigger stink over it, the Democratic legislature only offered her a couple of bad choices.
As for the personhood amendment I know many pro-lifers who don’t agree that now is the time to push that agenda. That doesn’t make them less pro-life.
So even though I’ll admit that what was written about Palin’s stance on the morning after pill is troubling and I’ll look into it more, this seems like a pretty rough and at times unfair evaluation of Palin’s pro-life credibility.
In the end, this kind of thing isn’t really all that helpful in my opinion other than to gain awareness for your organization. All in all, I came out of this wondering more about the American Right to Life than I did about Sarah Palin.
November 18, 2009 at 9:47 pm
The web site of the American Life League is http://www.all.org. The site you linked appears to be affiliated with an organization called "American Right to Life," which apparently is a different organization entirely.
November 18, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Completely right Paul. Fixed now. Thanks for the heads up.
November 18, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Thanks, Matthew.
I read through some of their criticisms of Sarah Palin, and a few of them do seem a bit un-hinged, to say the least.
I also cringed at the title "Prolife Profiles." That's a typo waiting to happen if ever I have seen one! (In fact, I had to use the backspace key at least five times in typing those two words just now.) 🙂
November 18, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Yeah… I'm sure that Palin isn't as Pro-life as I'd like her to be… but she did give birth to her down syndrome child, so she's at least leading by example, if nothing else.
While I know I'd love for her to be 100% Pro-life and praying outside of abortion clinics, it's hard for me to give serious sway to this, especially since it seems to have a "Take our word for it" tone.
Reagan rarely went to church, something I would never consider for myself, but would I really demand much better of a politician?
I mean, I'd love to, but it just doesn't feel realistic.
November 18, 2009 at 11:33 pm
OK Matthew, my sister and I both read CMR, she in Virginia, I in Iowa. She thinks you don't like Sarah Palin, and she used this post as proof. Why else would he post this? I think you do like her. Do you, or not?
Kate
November 19, 2009 at 12:51 am
I love Sarah Palin. I'd vote for her over Obama in a heartbeat. However, I fear she may have been too demonized to run for President in 2012. I'd love to see her boot Michael Steele out of his position and take over as head of the RNC.
November 19, 2009 at 1:30 am
One thing in the pro-life-o-sphere that I find incredibly disheatening is when some pro-life organizations demand politicians that could be canonized saints. I think what many forget is that if we are Catholic (and/or Christian), Christ is our only perfect King. Politicians are not meant to be ( and are incapable of being ) perfect on every single issue… in fact, I would say that is not their job, to be a Church and/or infalible ruler. As opposed to someone like Obama, who is against much of what I believe (and whom I would not vote for), there are other politicians that are not perfect, but at least are on the mark most of the time. The 'all or nothing' pro-life mentality has caused much division in the state where I reside, and it was sad to see, as Matthew states, pro-lifers cannibalizing each other. I imagine that when this happened (i.e. last year some 'all or nothing pro-lifers' voted AGAINST a personhood initiative that would have guaranteed legal rights to all persons from conception to natural death), the devil was laughing all the way to the bank. And so was Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood actually stated that they weren't even going to fight the personhood initiative because pro-lifers themselves would bicker and bring it to nothing… how tragic.
Those who founded our country were not perfect either… but they were good instruments, just like I believe Sarah Palin is. I believe that in the political world, much can be done to save lives, and even overturn anti-life laws, by imperfect 'instruments' who are on the right track.
November 19, 2009 at 1:32 am
I've run across American Right to Life several times and have always come away unimpressed.
"Slightly unhinged" is putting it mildly.
November 19, 2009 at 3:09 am
Wow, I'd fail their test. I constantly find myself using pro-choice terminology and just the other day almost signed up for a group that would support ESC research. I at one time considered the morning after pill OK as well as abortion in cases of rape and insest. I still think creationism is as dumb as it can get – and I'll take that one to my grave.
So with that I'd fail, all my pro-life work wouldn't matter at all. I'm glad I'm not a politician, I'm going to pray for Palin and for ARL.
November 19, 2009 at 3:15 am
One thing you never hear pro-deathers say is Now is not the time. They never give up, they never evaluate time, they just go, go, go, all the time, no exceptions, fighting for death for the most vulnerable amongst us. When a pro-lifer says Now is not the time, we make pro-deathers very happy. But we're forgetting someone–How many children do you think who are waiting to be slaughtered by abortion say Now is not the time?
November 19, 2009 at 3:46 am
Recovering Feminist,
I think the worry about the personhood amandment is when we know we don't have the votes for it, we have to pick our battles.
November 19, 2009 at 6:13 am
I usually give the benefit of the doubt to idealists (idealogues?) on the pro-life front. But mixing in creationism shows they are merely a front for Evangelical sects, most likely using "pro-life" as a segue to their larger agenda. I'll stick with lifesitenews, thank you kindly.
My family and I have a pretty rigorous voting standard; we don't vote for anyone who has openly/publicaly endorsed a pro-abortion stance. But I often wonder if there has ever been someone that slipped through. The wife and I have written several times to Carly Fiorina to get her to commit at least in email. We'd really like to back her, but can't in good conscience, even if she is the lesser of two evils. Sure would be nice to have that pug…er…Boxer out once and for all.
November 19, 2009 at 12:12 pm
It's fun to read about crazy vs. crazy.
Thanks for posting this!
November 19, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Matthew said: "I think the worry about the personhood amendment is when we know we don't have the votes for it, we have to pick our battles."
Maybe a better question to ask is If you were scheduled for slaughter by abortion, would you be worried about the votes or would you want someone to pick your wish to live battle?
Those that are born are trying to outwit the devil on timing. You can't–he's smarter than all of us. Do you think the sodomites cared whether or not they lost a Supreme Court case in Texas? It was 2003, and we we had a so-called conservative president and conservative Congress. The important thing is we must try, all the time, without compromise or care for "votes" or "timing" or "I'm not in the mood."
November 19, 2009 at 2:18 pm
RecoveringFem,
I doubt many of us are saying that the goal isn't the complete elimination of abortion. However, no matter what ARL demands, abortion isn't ending today. Yes, you have to lay the groundwork, and that means incremental improvements. Supporting incremental improvements doesn't mean you don't care about those who fall out of the saved-from-abortion category, it doesn't mean that you're secretly pro-choice, it means that you would rather be able to save 10% of those who would be aborted today and another 10% tomorrow rather than try to hit the lottery and have all abortions end today. The odds of hitting that lottery and nearly zero, and in the meantime, you don't save those 10% who could have had a chance with an incremental approach.
As for the demand that strict creationism is a requirement for pro-life, well, that's not the Catholic Church's position, and I have a lot more faith in the Church than the leaders of a splinter group out in Denver who think they are all holier-than-thee.
November 19, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I think the worry about the personhood am[e]ndment is when we know we don't have the votes for it, we have to pick our battles.
Hmm.. the SSM folks don't seem too worried about pushing same sex marriage laws even when they know they don't have the votes for it. I know, they aren't the ones asking for it to be voted on, but they certainly don't back down when it is up for vote. Are we closer to voting in SSM or a personhood amendment? Which strategy seems to be working?
November 19, 2009 at 3:12 pm
The odds of hitting that lottery and nearly zero, and in the meantime, you don't save those 10% who could have had a chance with an incremental approach.
Why are the two mutually exclusive?
November 19, 2009 at 9:15 pm
"undermines the God-given right to life by promoting evolution while officially opposing creation"
..and that's all I needed to know about this group, and their agenda. Next.
November 20, 2009 at 12:37 am
I'm as pro-life as the next pro-lifer, have stood outside abortion clinics, do Project Rachel bible studies, etc… but I'll be the first to admit that if I have a candidate that has clearly stated she's pro-life and against abortion but will leave contraception (not talking about RU486), then I'd support her whole heartedly.
Contraception, unfortunately does lead to abortion in many cases (the failed ones) but at the same time, the only way to eat a 100lb steak is one bite at a time. If abortion is eliminated, and once people start to think for themselves instead of swallowing the idiocy of the "safe sex" mantras, then maybe they'd start to see how important and effective the abstinence only programs truly are. And then maybe people will start to see how effective NFP truly is and then maybe we'll start to see more respect about sex in general.
But if I put myself up to the standard listed in this post, consider me a fail- which is sad to say because I'm a pretty staunch pro-lifer.
November 20, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Dirtdartwife said: "I'm as pro-life as the next pro-lifer."
As one priest had to sit me down and say, No, you're not. You are not as pro-life as the next pro-lifer if you accept the deaths of any children. There is a mentality difference: some of us will accept no deaths, no excuses, no compromises. Some of us will.
The root of all this evil is the contraceptive mentality. Whether we want to believe it or not, if you look at some of the above responses, there is still the evil remnant of the acceptance of the contraceptive mentality. Search your souls: Do you really believe that we are talking about the deaths of children, or are we excusing our abstract understanding of these children as expendable for political expediency?
If you saw a child's body at the bottom of a pool, would you risk your life, jump in and try to save that one child? If we truly saw every unseen child as a person ready to be murdered, would we accept any compromise on trying to save that one child?
How can we "win" if we accept defeat at the beginning of the battle? It's a long, hard road to eliminate our societal and contraceptive mentality. Concede the battle at the beginning, and we lose the battle at the beginning.
"Contraception is Anti-God" by Msgr. Foy, quoting Fr. John Hardon: http://www.all.org/associates/v05n23.htm
"…The contracepting person gravely violates the commandment of God "Thou shalt not kill." In one sense, contraception is worse than abortion. The aborted child will live forever in that degree of happiness which God's mercy lovingly bestows. The contracepted child, if we can so speak of a child that will never be, but might have been a great saint, is sacrificed to the lust of should-have-been parents.
Also guilty of a grave offense against God are the cooperators in contraception. These are the purveyors of pills, condoms and devices that are anti-life and often abortifacient. Guilty also are bishops, pastors, confessors, theologians and counsels who lead others astray…"