Separating Pro-life Congressmen from Pro-Death Ones.

by Cal Zastrow
Edited by James Niemela

"I'm pro-life," said ex-President Bill Clinton. Especially when campaigning in churches, politicians will say that they are pro-life. Saying you are pro-life doesn't save any babies, acting pro-life does. We don't need to overturn Roe v. Wade to re-criminalize the murdering of preborn children. It could be done in one week if the leadership of either major political party in Congress would become pro-life and act accordingly. For starters, here is what a pro-life Congressman could do right now:

1. They could co-sponsor H.R. 552, the Life at Conception Act, and move it through committee and bring it up for a vote, now!

2. They could vote against all spending bills that include one cent for Planned Parenthood or any other organization that commits, promotes, or accepts "abortion."

3. They could introduce articles of impeachment against all anti-life federal judges.

4. They could repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

5. They could refuse to endorse, campaign for, support, or vote for any other candidate who does not commit to the first four points in writing and on their websites.

Here is what some federal politicians will say after you challenge them on how pro-life they are:

"I won't get re-elected if I bring up bills that the leadership is opposed to. Do you know how mad my political party leadership would get at me if (I) tried to impeach a bad federal judge?"

Pro-Life response: "You are clearly demonstrating that your posh government job is more important to you than your soul or the lives of children. Stand on principle and trust God."

"If you don't vote for me, then my pro-choice opponent will win."

Pro-Life response: "No, you just want fewer dead babies than the other guy, but you can accept some murdered babies. I won't vote for evil by voting for the lesser of two evils. If there is not a 100% pro-life candidate on the ballot for Congress, then I won't sin by voting for any more compromisers for that office. Remember that many German churches supported the election of Hitler because he appeared to be a lesser evil than Communism."

"But if you don't vote for me, than that other wicked party will get control!"

Pro-Life response: "Well, your political party hasn't impeached bad judges, defunded Planned Parenthood, or stopped the killing. I will vote in faith and not in fear anymore."

"Your 'no-exceptions' candidate doesn't stand a chance of winning. He isn't viable!"

Pro-Life response: " Not viable! That's what they say about preborn children before they get murdered. Winning is honoring God and standing for Truth. That is more important than being elected and violating principle to do it."

"You're not being realistic."

Pro-Life response: "Reality is that over 4,000 American children get murdered daily by 'choice.' Reality is that God will destroy America unless we repent and stop the shedding of innocent blood!"

"We have to go slow and work incrementally."

Pro-Life response: "You don't regulate Auschwitz. You shut it down! These are people being murdered and I will not support any candidate that does not get serious, by impeachments, no-exceptions legislation, and endorsements.

"But if I start impeaching and bringing up the bills you want, than I'll lose my endorsement and p.a.c. money from this other 'pro-life' group.

Pro-Life response: "Wouldn't you rather be endorsed by God for obeying Truth than be judged by Him for compromising the lives of children to gain money or favor from men?"

After your Congressman ignores your correspondence or walks away from you, go recruit a real pro-life candidate to run against him.


Note: This is an article from last election, so some details may not be valid anymore, such as bill numbers, etc. But the truths are timeless!

Pro-life victory in Minnesota

Dear reader,

I am writing to let you know about a great pro-life victory in Minnesota. May God bless the faithful Christian prolifers who were vindicated by the Minnesota Supreme Court!

Minnesota Supreme Court Overturns Convictions of Pro-Lifers Who Held Graphic Signs

By John Jalsevac

MINNEAPOLIS, July 17, (LifeSiteNews.com) - On Thursday, July 12, the Minnesota Supreme Court handed down a ruling reversing the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad. The pair was convicted for displaying large signs on an overpass on two occasions in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka, Minnesota just weeks before the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photo of the aborted infant, "Baby Malachi," while next to it was a large handwritten sign that branded a local Congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." On both occasions the pro-lifers were arrested and jailed by Anoka police, who also took their signs. Charges of "criminal nuisance" and a violation of Anoka's sign ordinance were upheld by a trial judge. Stiff fines and prison sentences were imposed.
The Thomas More Society, with the same team of appellate specialists that won Joe Scheidler's RICO case twice in the U.S. Supreme Court, filed a further appeal. Oral arguments were held last November, and last week, when a four Justice plurality ruled that the prosecution had not proven the signs a criminal "nuisance" or that Anoka's sign ordinance even applied. Two other Justices agreed with Justice Alan Page, former NFL star, who wrote in his concurrence that the defendants' First Amendment rights were violated as the prosecution had been "content-based" - that is, aimed at the pro-life message.
"It is clear on this record that the state's prosecution of appellants under the statute was content-based and therefore barred by the First Amendment," wrote Justice Page.
Tom Brejcha, chief counsel of the Thomas More Society stated, "Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers. We urge that they be used prudently and sparingly - with warning signs wherever possible. But our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
Brejcha added, "It is impossible to convey certain messages, including the message that pro-lifers Rudnick and Otterstad sought to convey - with all its emotional content - without the use of graphic anti-abortion images. The First Amendment protects political speech that is annoying and even offensive, including speech that stirs people to anger or produces deeply unsettling effects. Those who disagree with a speaker's message must not suppress or criminalize it, but answer it with more speech."

The link to this story online can be found by clicking here.

My thanks to Mr. Matthew Schoech from Michigan for alerting me to this development, and providing the link to the story. Thanks Matt!

James Niemela

Colorado's Personhood Amendment

Abortion could soon end in the state of Colorado. Yes, that's right! A group called Colorado for Equal Rights has launched an effort to get an amendment on the 2008 ballot in Colorado which would define life as starting at fertilization. Personhood amendments get at the root of the issue-by defining and declaring that preborn children are indeed persons, have all the legal rights of postborn children, and are entitled to the same protections as born people. You may visit the website of Colorado for Equal Rights by clicking here. Please take the time to encourage them in their work, and, if you are able, please consider supporting them financially or in other ways. You may contact them through their website. Let's pray that God would bless this effort for His glory!

For the preborn and King Jesus,

James Niemela