ARTL Strategy Talk with Nathan Sheets
This is the show from Tuesday January 8th, 2007.
SUMMARY:
* American RTL president Brian Rohrbough and a Blogger: Pro-life blogger Nathan Sheets from Portland Oregon has posted criticizing ARTL's rejection of National RTL's regulating of child killing. Brian Rohrbough wrote a widely-read rebuttal to NRTL's anti-personhood memo titled, The Legacy of Judas: NRTL, to which Nathan had some objections. Nathan accepted an invitation from Mr. Rohrbough to discuss pro-life strategy, and that happened on today's BEL program. The personhood wing of the pro-life movement disagrees with those who advocate regulating child killing as the best approach toward saving some lives now, and eventually stopping abortion. The following is not a verbatim transcript of the show, but rather, a description of the constructive discussion.
Nathan Sheets: opening comments including something that there was no disagreement over, a rejection of the argument that, "We should be changing hearts first." Nathan stated that we should be changing laws. He also asked whether we should be changing pro-life strategy since, as he asserted, we are closer than ever to overturning Roe v. Wade.
Brian Rohrbough: stated "I think we were closer to reversing Roe in 1973 than we are today. I don't think that anything we have done has proven to change the minds of our lawmakers to be against abortion. If anything, I think everything that we've done over the years has actually promoted the culture of abortion. I can't find any evidence that we have pro-life Supreme Court justices, I can't find evidence that we have federal judges who are pro-life, even state judges who are pro-life, with very, very few exceptions."
Bob Enyart: Nathan, do you see any downside to the regulating of abortion? Can you describe potential problems with the regulation strategy?
NS: I think ARTL makes some good points, including by asking, what kind of effect do these regulations have on the public?
BE & NS: Some pro-lifers wrongly oppose the term murder to describe abortion, by that hesitancy to state the truth, inherently undermining the personhood of the child.
BE: Brian, are there any downsides to promoting personhood and rejecting child-killing regulations?
BR: Personhood is based on the God-given right to life and no government ever has the right to take that away. But promoting that does bring about division within the pro-life movement. Also, we will lose the support of activists dedicated to regulations, and of many in the Republican party, many Republican legislators are already angry with ARTL, thinking we are much too strong.
BE: Nathan, considering the effect of child-killing regulations on judges, as when NRTL asks a judge to authorize a law that states, "Sign this informed consent, and then you can kill the baby," can you see any negative effect of child-killing regulations on the judges who are asked to uphold them?
NS: No, I really don't see a negative effect.
BR: Anywhere we establish in law, that as long as you follow this regulation, it is then legal to kill the baby, that is inherently evil. Anything that authorizes the murder of the innocent, regardless of how you arrive at it, whether it's by signing a consent form, or getting your parent's permission, or waiting twenty-four hours, and then you can legally kill the baby, that is inherently evil. What you are telling the judge is, "There is no law from God that says, Do not murder." And you're establishing that, "It's okay to murder; you just have to follow our legislative principles." That's inherently devaluing to human life, and it harms society. Those types of regulations can only persuade people that there is no God-given right to life, and it's up to men to decide what to do, and how to do it. And regulating child-killing undermines Christianity; it undermines all of God's commands; and it elevates man's law to being the supreme justice, which it is not.
NS: What Brian is saying on principle, as far as the God-given right to life, that sounds good in principle, but I don't think that judges use that as a criterion for what laws they're passing. Maybe they should but...
BE: Yes, American RTL agrees, that the entire U.S. Supreme Court, all the justices including the seven of the nine nominated by Republican presidents, think God's command, Do not murder, is irrelevant. What they think is relevant, is that as long as they follow the process, they can legitimize the intentional killing of the innocent. Nathan, let me ask you this: Does the government have the authority to regulate the intentional killing of innocent children?
NS: The spiritual authority, no, not at all. Within it's jurisdiction, the government can pass laws that are just, and laws that are not just.
BE: Right. So we're talking about laws that are just. In Germany, there were laws that said you can kill Jews, and they had justices giving out sentences to kill Jews. Let me ask you that, to test the bottom line of your world view, is it just for a judge to rule to kill a Jew, if he's following the process?
NS: No, not at all.
BE: In America, is it just for an American judge to rule that you can kill a baby, if he's following the process?
NS: No, not on principle. No.
BE: That is correct. It is not right. But the pro-life movement is conditioning our own judges, who we nominate and get confirmed, to think that it is just, that it is legitimate, for them to authorize the killing of innocent children.
NS: I would not agree with that. While there is [the law of God], while there is what is just and what is not just from what our ideal is, we still live in a pro-choice United States, generally. I think a conservative judge like you describe [passing such a regulation], I think it is more of a reaction, to do something: are we going to do nothing and just stand on our principle, or are we going to do something, and save some of the children?
BR: Nathan, one of the things I would use as evidence that the pro-life movement has caused harm, is that the first permissive abortion laws in this country were not federal, but state laws. Here in Colorado on April 25, 1967, our Republican governor John Love signed in the first permissive abortion law for health, rape and incest. This is critical to think through. What he was saying for rape and incest was, ‘It's okay to kill the child for the crimes of his father.' That was in 1967. But now, most Republican legislators want an amendment to any law that would end abortion that gives an exception for rape and incest. We have come so far, that the very first laws that opened the door to this killing are now the standard that Nation RTL promotes. I think that is evidence that there is great harm, when you start trying to regulate, and reason, saying, ‘Okay, we will allow some killing, to try to stop others.' You're not establishing that every life is precious; you're establishing the authority of the government to allow the killing of some, for whatever reason they see fit.
NS: I understand the line of reasoning of why it would be bad to have an exception for rape and incest. But I don't think Republicans generally agree with that because they agree with it, but because they think there is no other way to pass a bill. So I don't think these exceptions undermine personhood.
BR: Nathan, but don't you see that the thing that opened up the door to the slaughter to all these children was rape and incest. That was the standard by which abortion was legalized. Now it has spread through all nine months, right up through and during delivery, it is legal to kill the child. The door opened with this; and now people who are saying they're trying to stop abortion are holding the same standard that opened the door. If it opened the door in 1967, there's no way forty years later, that the same logic can close the door. It's not possible.
NS: I don't follow that at all. For Americans, the very first thing they think about abortion is rape and incest. Just because [rape and incest exceptions] may have started abortion, doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't follow the strategy now of including rape and incest exceptions in bills.
BE: Nathan, I'm glad you're crystallizing this; you are acknowledging that the strategy that was started by the pro-abortion forces is the same strategy that the pro-life movement is following today in hopes of defeating them. When they introduced abortion for rape and incest, what that did, to accept that, means that you reject the personhood of the child. And even Harry Blackmun, who authored Roe v. Wade stated that the pro-abortion litigants agreed, that if you could establish the personhood of the unborn, the case for abortion collapses, because if the unborn is a person, then you can't regulate the killing of that child.
NS: Correct.
BE: I'm thankful Nathan, that you just acknowledge that. Now, when Roe v. Wade was argued and decided, the pro-abortion forces admitted the following, ‘If you consent to the killing of the fetus because its father is a rapist, therefore the fetus is not a person, and should not be granted the rights of a person.'
Post-show note: Brian Rohrbough will soon point out that the state of Texas prior to Roe v. Wade had wickedly legislated the killing of a rapist's fetus, which hypocrisy, contradiction, and injustice was seized upon by Blackmun and the pro-aborts to prove that even the Texan pro-lifers did not believe in the personhood of the fetus. So if "pro-life" Texas could decide under what circumstances a fetus could be killed, why couldn't a woman, or some other division of government, decide the same thing? Thus, as NRTL's failures to this day illustrate, compromised pro-lifers have no actual defense of their position to outlaw the killing of a fetus, and they lose the argument with judges and anyone who can see the enormous fallacy and hypocrisy in their argument. And Bob Enyart will point out that a significant number of conservative Republicans, including president George W. Bush, don't make these exceptions as a concession, but they actually do support the killing an innocent child because his father was a criminal.
BE: Most Republican-party leaders don't agree that the unborn is a person.
NS: Are they against the personhood efforts because they don't agree that the unborn are people?
BE: Many believe that the unborn is not a person, until the fetus takes a breath, etc., so when you put in the law that you can kill a child for rape and incest, you have undermined the public's recognition of the personhood of the baby. NRTL and Republican pro-lifers spend millions promoting laws and candidates that say ‘you can kill the baby for rape and incest.' That promotes confusion among the masses regarding personhood.
NS: In a debate on a college campus with a pro-choice person, I'm willing to say, "Okay fine, we'll look past rape and incest at this point, but lets look at these other things," because rape and incest is a road block. That's National RTL's purpose, when they promote a law, they don't want people to get caught up on rape and incest, which I think in a lot of ways is what American Right To Life does [i.e., ARTL gets caught up on these exceptions, to which point there was no disagreement], because NRTL wants a law to pass that will at least save some babies. Whether or not you agree with that, I think that is their thinking.
BR: One of the things that Roe v. Wade author Harry Blackmun wrote was that Texas couldn't have it both ways: they couldn't claim that the child had rights, but then have their own exceptions for rape and incest. That was actually a cornerstone of the justification to legalize abortion, that Texas was claiming what you just attributed to NRTL as their position.
NS: Regarding the effect of Informed Consent laws on the mother, realize that child-killing is already legal. So whether or not there is an informed consent law, the child killing is going to happen, and Informed Consent will at least do something for the women who will have their minds changed by access to information.
Post-show note: This program did not discuss the additional problem that Informed Consent and other "pro-life" regulations will keep abortion legal if ever Roe v. Wade is simply overturned. As respected law professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame has stated on this radio show, something many pro-life leaders have so far refused to address, "If the court says the states can regulate abortion, then to protect the right to life, you'd have to get rid of the 'pro-life' abortion laws." To use the Indiana Code as an example, IC Title 16, Section 34, Chapter 2. Requirements for Performance of Abortion... 1. (a) Abortion shall in all instances be a criminal act, except when... (1) During the first trimester of pregnancy for reasons based upon the professional, medical judgment of the pregnant woman's physician if: (A) the abortion is performed by the physician; (B) the woman submitting to the abortion has filed her consent with her physician." Etc., etc., around the nation hundreds of times over, for another downside of regulating child-killing (which laws are immoral because they violate God's enduring command, Do not murder), is that regulations inherently authorize an activity, and thus, if Roe v. Wade is simply overturned, the "pro-life" laws will be the nails that keep open the abortion clinic doors, perhaps for years or even decades, as pro-lifers face ridicule, from the media, the government, and the public, for attempting to repeal their own laws.
Pre-show note: Mitt Romney stated that as governor he always came down on the side of life with every bit of legislation that crossed his desk, except that Romney Health Care pays for abortion, promotes chemical abortions with Plan B, gives Planned Parenthood a seat on the Massachusetts Health Care advisory board, and attempts to force Catholic hospitals to dispense abortifacients. Like John Kerry before him, Mitt Romney is a lying, liberal pro-choice Massachusetts politician.
Today's Resource: Watch the latest BEL DVD, Bob Debates the Stars! Watch Bob debate comedian Martin Short, filthy publisher Larry Flynt, platinum rapper Sisqo, comedienne Ruby Wax, ABC's crotch-humorist Jimmy Kimmel (twice), and actor Dennis Weaver. This DVD will soon be added to our BEL Store, but to get it now, you must call us at 800-8Enyart (836-9278)!
This is the show from Tuesday January 8th, 2007.
SUMMARY:
* American RTL president Brian Rohrbough and a Blogger: Pro-life blogger Nathan Sheets from Portland Oregon has posted criticizing ARTL's rejection of National RTL's regulating of child killing. Brian Rohrbough wrote a widely-read rebuttal to NRTL's anti-personhood memo titled, The Legacy of Judas: NRTL, to which Nathan had some objections. Nathan accepted an invitation from Mr. Rohrbough to discuss pro-life strategy, and that happened on today's BEL program. The personhood wing of the pro-life movement disagrees with those who advocate regulating child killing as the best approach toward saving some lives now, and eventually stopping abortion. The following is not a verbatim transcript of the show, but rather, a description of the constructive discussion.
Nathan Sheets: opening comments including something that there was no disagreement over, a rejection of the argument that, "We should be changing hearts first." Nathan stated that we should be changing laws. He also asked whether we should be changing pro-life strategy since, as he asserted, we are closer than ever to overturning Roe v. Wade.
Brian Rohrbough: stated "I think we were closer to reversing Roe in 1973 than we are today. I don't think that anything we have done has proven to change the minds of our lawmakers to be against abortion. If anything, I think everything that we've done over the years has actually promoted the culture of abortion. I can't find any evidence that we have pro-life Supreme Court justices, I can't find evidence that we have federal judges who are pro-life, even state judges who are pro-life, with very, very few exceptions."
Bob Enyart: Nathan, do you see any downside to the regulating of abortion? Can you describe potential problems with the regulation strategy?
NS: I think ARTL makes some good points, including by asking, what kind of effect do these regulations have on the public?
BE & NS: Some pro-lifers wrongly oppose the term murder to describe abortion, by that hesitancy to state the truth, inherently undermining the personhood of the child.
BE: Brian, are there any downsides to promoting personhood and rejecting child-killing regulations?
BR: Personhood is based on the God-given right to life and no government ever has the right to take that away. But promoting that does bring about division within the pro-life movement. Also, we will lose the support of activists dedicated to regulations, and of many in the Republican party, many Republican legislators are already angry with ARTL, thinking we are much too strong.
BE: Nathan, considering the effect of child-killing regulations on judges, as when NRTL asks a judge to authorize a law that states, "Sign this informed consent, and then you can kill the baby," can you see any negative effect of child-killing regulations on the judges who are asked to uphold them?
NS: No, I really don't see a negative effect.
BR: Anywhere we establish in law, that as long as you follow this regulation, it is then legal to kill the baby, that is inherently evil. Anything that authorizes the murder of the innocent, regardless of how you arrive at it, whether it's by signing a consent form, or getting your parent's permission, or waiting twenty-four hours, and then you can legally kill the baby, that is inherently evil. What you are telling the judge is, "There is no law from God that says, Do not murder." And you're establishing that, "It's okay to murder; you just have to follow our legislative principles." That's inherently devaluing to human life, and it harms society. Those types of regulations can only persuade people that there is no God-given right to life, and it's up to men to decide what to do, and how to do it. And regulating child-killing undermines Christianity; it undermines all of God's commands; and it elevates man's law to being the supreme justice, which it is not.
NS: What Brian is saying on principle, as far as the God-given right to life, that sounds good in principle, but I don't think that judges use that as a criterion for what laws they're passing. Maybe they should but...
BE: Yes, American RTL agrees, that the entire U.S. Supreme Court, all the justices including the seven of the nine nominated by Republican presidents, think God's command, Do not murder, is irrelevant. What they think is relevant, is that as long as they follow the process, they can legitimize the intentional killing of the innocent. Nathan, let me ask you this: Does the government have the authority to regulate the intentional killing of innocent children?
NS: The spiritual authority, no, not at all. Within it's jurisdiction, the government can pass laws that are just, and laws that are not just.
BE: Right. So we're talking about laws that are just. In Germany, there were laws that said you can kill Jews, and they had justices giving out sentences to kill Jews. Let me ask you that, to test the bottom line of your world view, is it just for a judge to rule to kill a Jew, if he's following the process?
NS: No, not at all.
BE: In America, is it just for an American judge to rule that you can kill a baby, if he's following the process?
NS: No, not on principle. No.
BE: That is correct. It is not right. But the pro-life movement is conditioning our own judges, who we nominate and get confirmed, to think that it is just, that it is legitimate, for them to authorize the killing of innocent children.
NS: I would not agree with that. While there is [the law of God], while there is what is just and what is not just from what our ideal is, we still live in a pro-choice United States, generally. I think a conservative judge like you describe [passing such a regulation], I think it is more of a reaction, to do something: are we going to do nothing and just stand on our principle, or are we going to do something, and save some of the children?
BR: Nathan, one of the things I would use as evidence that the pro-life movement has caused harm, is that the first permissive abortion laws in this country were not federal, but state laws. Here in Colorado on April 25, 1967, our Republican governor John Love signed in the first permissive abortion law for health, rape and incest. This is critical to think through. What he was saying for rape and incest was, ‘It's okay to kill the child for the crimes of his father.' That was in 1967. But now, most Republican legislators want an amendment to any law that would end abortion that gives an exception for rape and incest. We have come so far, that the very first laws that opened the door to this killing are now the standard that Nation RTL promotes. I think that is evidence that there is great harm, when you start trying to regulate, and reason, saying, ‘Okay, we will allow some killing, to try to stop others.' You're not establishing that every life is precious; you're establishing the authority of the government to allow the killing of some, for whatever reason they see fit.
NS: I understand the line of reasoning of why it would be bad to have an exception for rape and incest. But I don't think Republicans generally agree with that because they agree with it, but because they think there is no other way to pass a bill. So I don't think these exceptions undermine personhood.
BR: Nathan, but don't you see that the thing that opened up the door to the slaughter to all these children was rape and incest. That was the standard by which abortion was legalized. Now it has spread through all nine months, right up through and during delivery, it is legal to kill the child. The door opened with this; and now people who are saying they're trying to stop abortion are holding the same standard that opened the door. If it opened the door in 1967, there's no way forty years later, that the same logic can close the door. It's not possible.
NS: I don't follow that at all. For Americans, the very first thing they think about abortion is rape and incest. Just because [rape and incest exceptions] may have started abortion, doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't follow the strategy now of including rape and incest exceptions in bills.
BE: Nathan, I'm glad you're crystallizing this; you are acknowledging that the strategy that was started by the pro-abortion forces is the same strategy that the pro-life movement is following today in hopes of defeating them. When they introduced abortion for rape and incest, what that did, to accept that, means that you reject the personhood of the child. And even Harry Blackmun, who authored Roe v. Wade stated that the pro-abortion litigants agreed, that if you could establish the personhood of the unborn, the case for abortion collapses, because if the unborn is a person, then you can't regulate the killing of that child.
NS: Correct.
BE: I'm thankful Nathan, that you just acknowledge that. Now, when Roe v. Wade was argued and decided, the pro-abortion forces admitted the following, ‘If you consent to the killing of the fetus because its father is a rapist, therefore the fetus is not a person, and should not be granted the rights of a person.'
Post-show note: Brian Rohrbough will soon point out that the state of Texas prior to Roe v. Wade had wickedly legislated the killing of a rapist's fetus, which hypocrisy, contradiction, and injustice was seized upon by Blackmun and the pro-aborts to prove that even the Texan pro-lifers did not believe in the personhood of the fetus. So if "pro-life" Texas could decide under what circumstances a fetus could be killed, why couldn't a woman, or some other division of government, decide the same thing? Thus, as NRTL's failures to this day illustrate, compromised pro-lifers have no actual defense of their position to outlaw the killing of a fetus, and they lose the argument with judges and anyone who can see the enormous fallacy and hypocrisy in their argument. And Bob Enyart will point out that a significant number of conservative Republicans, including president George W. Bush, don't make these exceptions as a concession, but they actually do support the killing an innocent child because his father was a criminal.
BE: Most Republican-party leaders don't agree that the unborn is a person.
NS: Are they against the personhood efforts because they don't agree that the unborn are people?
BE: Many believe that the unborn is not a person, until the fetus takes a breath, etc., so when you put in the law that you can kill a child for rape and incest, you have undermined the public's recognition of the personhood of the baby. NRTL and Republican pro-lifers spend millions promoting laws and candidates that say ‘you can kill the baby for rape and incest.' That promotes confusion among the masses regarding personhood.
NS: In a debate on a college campus with a pro-choice person, I'm willing to say, "Okay fine, we'll look past rape and incest at this point, but lets look at these other things," because rape and incest is a road block. That's National RTL's purpose, when they promote a law, they don't want people to get caught up on rape and incest, which I think in a lot of ways is what American Right To Life does [i.e., ARTL gets caught up on these exceptions, to which point there was no disagreement], because NRTL wants a law to pass that will at least save some babies. Whether or not you agree with that, I think that is their thinking.
BR: One of the things that Roe v. Wade author Harry Blackmun wrote was that Texas couldn't have it both ways: they couldn't claim that the child had rights, but then have their own exceptions for rape and incest. That was actually a cornerstone of the justification to legalize abortion, that Texas was claiming what you just attributed to NRTL as their position.
NS: Regarding the effect of Informed Consent laws on the mother, realize that child-killing is already legal. So whether or not there is an informed consent law, the child killing is going to happen, and Informed Consent will at least do something for the women who will have their minds changed by access to information.
Post-show note: This program did not discuss the additional problem that Informed Consent and other "pro-life" regulations will keep abortion legal if ever Roe v. Wade is simply overturned. As respected law professor Charles Rice of Notre Dame has stated on this radio show, something many pro-life leaders have so far refused to address, "If the court says the states can regulate abortion, then to protect the right to life, you'd have to get rid of the 'pro-life' abortion laws." To use the Indiana Code as an example, IC Title 16, Section 34, Chapter 2. Requirements for Performance of Abortion... 1. (a) Abortion shall in all instances be a criminal act, except when... (1) During the first trimester of pregnancy for reasons based upon the professional, medical judgment of the pregnant woman's physician if: (A) the abortion is performed by the physician; (B) the woman submitting to the abortion has filed her consent with her physician." Etc., etc., around the nation hundreds of times over, for another downside of regulating child-killing (which laws are immoral because they violate God's enduring command, Do not murder), is that regulations inherently authorize an activity, and thus, if Roe v. Wade is simply overturned, the "pro-life" laws will be the nails that keep open the abortion clinic doors, perhaps for years or even decades, as pro-lifers face ridicule, from the media, the government, and the public, for attempting to repeal their own laws.
Pre-show note: Mitt Romney stated that as governor he always came down on the side of life with every bit of legislation that crossed his desk, except that Romney Health Care pays for abortion, promotes chemical abortions with Plan B, gives Planned Parenthood a seat on the Massachusetts Health Care advisory board, and attempts to force Catholic hospitals to dispense abortifacients. Like John Kerry before him, Mitt Romney is a lying, liberal pro-choice Massachusetts politician.
Today's Resource: Watch the latest BEL DVD, Bob Debates the Stars! Watch Bob debate comedian Martin Short, filthy publisher Larry Flynt, platinum rapper Sisqo, comedienne Ruby Wax, ABC's crotch-humorist Jimmy Kimmel (twice), and actor Dennis Weaver. This DVD will soon be added to our BEL Store, but to get it now, you must call us at 800-8Enyart (836-9278)!
