continue at Wisconsin Christian NewsPersonhood is Planned Parenthood’s worst nightmare. It would mean an end to one of its biggest money-makers, abortion, and it would present a serious challenge to the culture of death they promote. Personhood would enshrine the dignity of human life -- every human life -- into our state constitution. It would legally protect the unborn from the moment of conception against any violent attack, surgical, chemical, or experimental.
So the question arises, why has Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin been almost completely silent about the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment? Why haven’t they come out fighting violently against it?
The answer is simple: They don’t have to because one of Wisconsin’s biggest pro-life groups is doing the dirty work for them. Regrettably, I speak of Wisconsin Right to Life. Wisconsin Right to Life has attacked personhood at every opportunity, using vilifying rhetoric on a regular basis.
According to Wisconsin Right to Life, personhood is dangerous, risky, and actually threatens the pro-life cause. (Perhaps their most deplorable argument against personhood is that it is too expensive. Since when has cost ever been a factor in doing what is right?) These statements are patently absurd. We have explained over and over why WRL’s accusations are legally baseless (and the state legislature’s top non-partisan legal advisors agree), yet they continue to attack the cause of personhood with the very same arguments. Do they really think pro-life champions Senator Glenn Grothman and Representative Andre Jacque -- co-authors of the Wisconsin Personhood Amendment -- would introduce legislation that would harm unborn children?
If you analyze Wisconsin Right to Life’s criticisms of personhood, they boil down to one thing -- fear. WRL is afraid like the armies of Israel before the giant Goliath. They are afraid of the implications of personhood, they are afraid of the financial cost, they are afraid of losing donors, of facing backlash, and they are afraid of countless other hypothetical scenarios which may or may not happen. So they choose the safer, less controversial route of regulating abortion.
Yep.
In fact, with marriage in the headlines, wouldn't this opposition to a Personhood Amendment be the same as opposition to Wisconsin's marriage amendment?! Should we not have a state marriage amendment because the Supreme Court could then overturn it(one of WRTL's arguments)??
Photo
1 comment:
Pro-lifers in Wisconsin need to replace the leadership at WRTL.
Post a Comment