Several years ago, a small group of pro-life friends and I began to meet because of some real and disturbing problems, both in the pro-life “movement” and politics. None of us were neophytes. We had all been active pro-lifers for some time, most of us since Roe v. Wade.
Although for almost thirty years the political impact of the pro-life movement has been nothing less than abysmal, we all agreed, reluctantly, that politics is one avenue for saving babies, and this cannot be ignored. The specific problem we have had in this arena, however, is the identification of truly pro-life candidates for office.
In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, some “pro-life” organizations have tried to tackle this dilemma by providing little voter’s guide cards that identify “pro-life” candidates. This is an excellent idea, especially since the average pro-lifer usually lacks the time or inclination to research this information. Unfortunately, many of the candidates endorsed on the cards are not as “pro-life” as presented. Some of them have even carried the endorsement of Planned Parenthood! The terrible upshot is that hard-core pro-lifers frequently didn’t find this out until after the election. Incumbents with voting records that are nothing short of disgusting have also received “pro-life” voting card endorsements.
At first we thought that poor research or ignorance was the cause of this disinformation. Inquiries made to the “pro-life” organizations responsible for the cards were initially met with surprise and, on occasion, apology. But the “errors” have persisted, and now inquiries are often met with apathy, disinterest and even hostility. These “pro-life” organizations have used and continue to use changing and questionable criteria to determine “pro-life” candidates.
A reliable judge
In response to this crisis, our group decided to form the 100% Pro-Life PAC. Its purpose: the identification of truly 100% pro-life candidates. We are incorporated in Pennsylvania and speak on state and national races.
We have established a very informative web site (www.prolifepac.com), and any candidate for any office in any state can download and submit our evolving questionnaire, which is evaluated by our board. Selected ones are posted on the web site, stating whether or not the candidate has been identified as 100% pro-life.
The 100% Pro-Life PAC has a prestigious and nationally known board of advisors. Though this should limit petty attacks on the group’s position, this has not been the case. The PAC has regularly been labeled impractical, ignorant, neophyte or merely stupid when it comes to political realities. This is nothing short of absurd. Most of the group has pro-life and political experience that spans decades.
Our greatest opposition comes from supporters of candidates who are the “lesser of two evils” on life issues. We have two major difficulties with this position. The first is that “lesser of two evils” candidates have not and will not stop the baby killing. Politicians who allow for the murder of some babies have not and will not ever stop abortion. The simple truth is that the “lesser of two evils” position doesn’t work. Secondly, we feel that it is basically dishonest to mislead the average pro-lifer by calling a candidate “pro-life” when he is really in favor of abortion with exception. If such a candidate is considered to be the “lesser of two evils,” label him as such and allow each pro-lifer to make his own decision of whether or not to support them.
We expected that the PAC would cause some controversy, and surely it has. The PAC holds that support for the “lesser of two evils” argument is based on ignorance of the realities of the political process.
Rita, who can be a candidate for any office in any state, sends the message to political parties that the pro-life vote is not given to any candidate that voices a little pro-life rhetoric.
The pro-life write-in
More recently, the PAC has considered the problem of voting in an election in which there is no true pro-life candidate. The PAC has developed the “Pro-Life Rita” write-in effort in response to this dilemma. Rita is not a person; she represents the principle. Instead of wasting a vote on a “lesser of two evils” candidate, we simply write-in “Pro-Life Rita.” In this way, pro-lifers who refuse to compromise can speak in unison with others doing the same and also directly target the concern that is top priority. Rita is the pro-life position. Writing in Pro-life Rita is an easy, no-cost, “out of the box” solution!
From our observation at PAC, the “lesser of two evils” approach has succeeded in one way: It has made life a non-issue. Since “pro-lifers” will endorse candidates with little or no real pro-life credentials, there has been no real political necessity to vigorously address the life issue. Rita, who can be a “candidate” for any office in any state, sends the message to political parties that the pro-life vote is not a “given” to any candidate that voices a little pro-life rhetoric. It doesn’t take a large percentage of votes to influence an election. You can ask Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan. Or better yet, ask George W. Bush or Al Gore.
Of course, you may be skeptical. If you like political failure, just keep doing what you have been doing, or become so frustrated that you avoid political activity, like voting, entirely.
Facebook Comments