The National Right to Life Committee held a convention in Pittsburgh recently, so it goes without saying that angry pro-aborts wrote letters into the PG:
I’m commenting on Ann Rodgers’ June 26 article about Wanda Franz, president of the National Right to Life Committee (“Retired Educator Has Spent 20 Years Battling Abortion,” June 26). The National Right to Life Committee is a conservative organization
Really? NRLC supports lower taxes and strong national defense? NRLC is not “conservative”. It supports all pro-life causes and that’s it.
founded in the early 1970s by a group of extremist Catholic bishops
While the mental imagery of a bunch of gun-toting terrorist bishops is amusing, sad to say, NRLC was not founded by Catholic clergy, gun-toting or otherwise. In response to the Roe v. Wade atrocity, numerous state pro-life groups started to be formed by Americans. The various state groups eventually combined into the NRLC.
in response to growing public support for women’s reproductive freedom.
Actually, NRLC formed due to an imaginary right to kill your children being “found” hidden in a penumbra from the US Constitution by seven unelected “Justices”.
Its members are predominantly from male-dominated conservative Catholic and Protestant denominations.
I wasn’t aware that only men are capable of supporting the right of innocent humans to live.
Its main purpose is to recriminalize medically safe abortion.
Actually, we want to recriminalize abortion in general, regardless of how medically safe it is, because when done correctly, it always results in the death of a human being.
I found much of what Ms. Franz had to say deeply disturbing and hypocritical — especially coming from a psychology professor and a woman.
Because only men can oppose killing innocent humans!
It’s unconscionable for anyone to compare the Holocaust with women’s reproductive freedom!
Is that because only about 10 million Jews and Catholics died in the Holocaust, while considerably more people have died from abortions?
Women and doctors who respect women’s moral authority aren’t Nazis.
Only if they aren’t supporters of national socialism.
Women’s lives, circumstances and conscience actually matter.
I agree; the lives of unborn women actually matter.
The 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized medically safe abortion was a milestone for women’s equality.
Except for unborn women.
I remember the days of the Underground Railroad for women. Just as some folks today deny the Holocaust ever happened, NRLC too denies the tragic plight of women before Roe v. Wade.
NRLC does not deny that women have been forced into killing their children. And the irony is not lost that now, there are women who fight tooth and nail to ensure that more children are killed.
The so-called “partial birth abortion” ban was a political scam used to sensationalize a rare alternative medical procedure used to protect the health and life of the mother.
Except that suctioning your unborn baby’s brains out is never medically necessary.
This ban will never save one fetus!
Then why are you concerned about it?
I believe abortion is a moral option between a woman and her faith or conscience.
Taking an innocent life is taking an innocent life, whether you “choose” to acknowledge it or not.
From experience I know women don’t take their decisions lightly.
Aside from a few insane liberals, women don’t abort because they have “choice” – they abort because they feel that they have no choice. Often it’s because their boyfriend or husband either abandoned them or commanded them to get an abortion. How “feminist” to have no choice but to destroy your offspring on the whim of a man.
Wanda Franz will continue to defend the patriarchy and its oppression of women because she doesn’t know any better.
Sue Amos will continue to defend child murder and its slaughter of innocents because she doesn’t know any better.
To do otherwise would require her to examine her own “inner patriarch.”
And she says it once again – only men care about protecting the innocent! What a scandal.
The writer is a member of the National Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
For Jesus but against babies. The very definition of “perverse”. Do not look for Christ in the finery of a clerical robe; look for him in the face of that tiny baby you said “No” to. The tiny baby who you told that he was not wanted or welcome. The tiny baby who you killed. Your ideological progenitor is not Hitler; it is King Herod. It is the Pharaoh of Egypt.
While I would rather that people like Wanda Franz not get the attention they crave (“Retired Educator Has Spent 20 Years Battling Abortion,” June 26), I recognize that the National Right to Life Committee’s gathering in Pittsburgh is news. Your paper was right to cover it and also correct to send your religion reporter, Ann Rodgers, since the activities of this group are not so much political as they are an improper interference of religion in politics.
The previous letter writer claimed that only men can care about innocent human life. This one tells us that only religious people can do so. Oddly enough, NRLC is not a religious organization. What it is is a pro-life organization.
Furthermore, the irony is no doubt lost on the PG that they published a letter from a “religious” pro-abortion woman and followed it with a letter from a secularist pro-abortion man, bemoaning the fact that religious people are involved in politics.
That said, I must object to the statement that Ms. Franz’s group “does much of the legislative heavy lifting for opponents of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.” In fact, everyone is opposed to infanticide, which is why it has always been illegal.
You would think that everyone would be against infanticide, but Barack Obama supports it. That’s why as a member of the Illinois State Senate he voted against hte Born Alive Infant Protection Act which would prevent babies who survive abortions from being the victims of infanticide.
Grouping abortion with infanticide
Inside the womb and outside the womb. It is like the difference between vehicular homicide and murder with a pistol.
— and lumping the difficult issues of assisted suicide and living wills under the umbrella of “euthanasia,” as if these were the same as Nazi Germany’s massacres of people with disabilities — are both insidious attempts by the Right to Life Committee to draw a moral equivalence between these practices that does not exist.
How we delight in pretending that the Nazis somehow exist outside of our reality; we could never be like them! Sure.
To enable this rhetorical trick is to confer on this group a legitimacy that it does not deserve.
“Choice” is a rhetorical trick. “Yes We Can” is a rhetorical trick. NRLC is for innocent life. That’s it.