Abortion: The Catholic Church has compromised
Transcript of the Exclusive Video-Interview (Abortion: The Catholic Church has compromised) with the pro-lifer Rebecca Kiessling (USA), who was conceived in rape:
Why is the Catholic Church so unsuccessful in fighting abortion?
Well, I know that in America the Catholic Church has compromised. The Catholic Bishops Conference in America supports rape exceptions. They are part of the majority voice in the pro-life movement in the United States that is more interested in protecting politicians than protecting the innocent child conceived in rape. They will say that they are pragmatic. Or, that this is all we can get so we must support this legislation with the rape exceptions.
But they do not understand that the most pragmatic strategy is to not compromise. Stop protecting mediocre or poor politicians, who aren't really pro-life, who do not really care about this issue. I'm from Michigan and we have never had a rape exception in any laws, because the pro-life leadership there refuses to compromise and will not forsake the child conceived in rape.
And what is the solution?
I think for too long in the United States we have been celebrating mediocrity. We are not discussing ending abortion, but instead the discussions are more about reducing or regulating or trying to win over public opinion - instead of ending abortion.
Where do the bishops support rape exceptions?
Well for example in Obama Care. In Obama Care there was a settlement, which was called the Stupac-Amendment. It was a congress man, Bart Stupac, who was actually from my home state of Michigan. He was a Democrat and he negotiated if they added a rape exception than a certain number of pro-lifers would vote for Obama Care.
It was part of what is called an executive order which does not even hold weigh in the United States. A president can't just sign a law and change things. The whole thing was, what we call smoke and mears. It was a sham.
But the Catholic bishops came out along with other pro-life groups like "National Right to Life" saying: "This is wonderful. Now there will be no tax payer funding of abortions under Obama Care." That was not true, because there was a rape exception.
What were the bishops saying?
They said: "This is wonderful, with this compromise there will be no funding of abortion." Well, instead, with the compromise we have a funding of all abortions under Obama Care, because the whole compromise was a sham. It was not even real. They used the rape exception in order to get this through.
Did the pro-lifers react?
When it was pointed out by other pro-life leaders, like Judie Brown with "American Life League" and "Personhood USA" and I with my organization "Save the One" - we pointed out: "Wait a second, this has a rape exception." www.lifesitenews.com thankfully reported that there is a rape exception.
And then the Catholic Bishops Conference came out saying: "Yes, there is a rape exception but it merely incorporates the terms of the Hyde Amendment."
What is the Hyde Amendment?
The Hyde Amendment was passed many years ago with no exceptions originally. The Hyde Amendment was a ban on what is called medicate-funding of abortion - which is different than Obama Care. Obama care is far more extensive. The Hyde Amendment had rape exceptions added about 22 years ago. The rape exceptions were in and out of the law for a while. The last 22 years the rape exceptions have been in. Nobody went back to try to remove the rape exceptions from the Hyde Amendment.
And the bishops?
Then the Catholic bishops point out: "It's already settled. If the Hyde Amendment settled this 22 years ago, it's no big deal. We don't even have to mention it, because it merely incorporates what we already settled on."
Just because you compromised on children conceived in rape a generation ago, doesn't mean you need to compromise on them now.
Are there other problems except the bishops?
The other problem is... let me say, there are many good bishops. I visited through Europe and have spoken at different conferences with some excellent bishops.
But if it's anything like America: We have many Catholic schools that are actually very aggressively supporting abortion rights. In fact my brother-in-law teaches at a Catholic Middle School in Massachusetts. He is the only pro-life teacher in the whole school. If the Catholic bishops wanted to, they could make it clear, that you must teach pro-life values in the schools.
Is there enough conviction of the bishops in fighting abortion in general?
That's what I don't see. I don't see local bishops often speaking out like that. Or chastising the schools or chastising the priests. Every parish in the United States should have a respect-life-group. But they don't. Many of them have social justice committees. But the social justice for many of them means abortion. I feel like there is much that bishops can do to clean things up here. And to sort of regulate what's happing in the schools and at the parish level.
Are there exceptions among the bishops?
Many people point to some of the cardinals who speak out. I've met bishops all over the United States, who are passionate about this issue. But they are frustrated, that the other bishops are not speaking out. I think that there is also a sort of an understanding amongst bishops that you don't speak ill of another bishop. So even the ones who are really sound, they will speak generally: "Oh I wish other bishops would...." But they won't call them out by name.
Do you know European bishops who are pro-life?
When I spoke in Biarritz, France, the bishop of Bayonne hosted the pro-life-conference. That was the first time I've ever been invited with the bishop being the one who hosted the conference. And he invited the bishop of Navarre in Spain, because it was an international pro-life conference. That was very encouraging to see.
In Germany, the bishops allow the use of the morning-after pill in Catholic hospitals.
This is wrong. Many people do not understand how the morning-after-pill operates.
Number one is: If you have not ovulated it might prevent ovulation. If you have already ovulated, it might prevent conception. But if you have conceived, it might prevent implantation - which is approximately one week after conception. The unborn child passes through fallopian tube and makes his or her way into the uterus.
What happens is: Plan B can create a hostile environment with the uterine lining so that there will be no opportunity for the unborn child to implant in the uterine wall.
Which amounts to an abortion…
The "American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Ob-Gyns)" redefined pregnancy in the wake of Row v. Wade for political reasons. In the early 70ths they redefined pregnancy as implantation. So they will tell women: "Don't worry. This will not terminate a pregnancy." But they are not giving women informed consent. They are not telling them the whole truth - that you may have conceived. There may be a human life there. And now you have created an environment, where the human life will die, because of what you did. This is very important for people to educate on. Because we know life begins at conception. And so if you are going to err - you must err on the sight of caution - where there might be a person there.
So what shall a raped woman do?
There was a politician in the United States who was running for president, four years ago. He was asked about this on national television. He said that he had no rape exception and was asked: "What would you do if your daughter or granddaughter became pregnant by rape?"
He is a physician and said: "I would give her some hormones." He was referring to the morning-after pill, which we call Plan-B. Which is interesting that he didn't even say: "I would ask her if she wants it." He just said, he would give it to her. This is so true. Most of the time they are just given it by the doctor. They are not really being told what it is or what they want. They are just given. And many are pressured into taking this pill.
And the pro-abort TV-show host knew enough himself about how the morning-after pill works that he challenged him more and said: "You do believe that life begins at conception, correct?"
This politician said: "Yes, life begins at conception."
He said: "This may kill the child then."
The response of the politician was: "It may or it may not." He says you don't know if there is a human life. May or may not. Which is ridiculous, because would you ever use that for foreign policy? Would you use a drone to drop bombs when there may or may not be a person on the ground. We do not know if there is a person. So it's not so bad to drop a bomb on the ground. Really? Would that really be your foreign policy? Would a bishop really support dropping bombs with the drone when you don't know if there is a person? That's what you are doing. It's the same thing.
The German bishops allow the morning-after pill specifically for cases of rape.
Which sends a message; the message is: A child conceived in rape is worth less than everybody else. That a child conceived in rape needs to be destroyed. They perpetuate the myth that the children are a horrible reminder of the rape - not healing. Like most rape-victims see children like me as bringing them healing. So they perpetuate this myth that the mother is better off destroying the child, which is not true in reality. And that the world is better off if we get rid of that child.
And I believe it is sending a message, that the child was not created by God. If you really believe, that God is the creator of all human life and that God creates every life for a purpose, then how as a bishop could you possibly support that? There is something wrong with your theology. Either you think that children like me were not created by God, which is not biblical. Would you think Lucifer created me? Or you think that God created me but he made a mistake. This does not make sense. There is a problem with the theology.
How could the German bishops correct their fatal decision? Among other, they fear the media.
You need to fight back. You need to fight back!
Having personal stories helps. Humanize that child. Explain that we do not punish a child for the sins of the father. That is from Deuteronomy in the Bible. It says that each person will be punished for their own sin. You do not punish the child for the sins of the father. That is our system of justice. You do not punish someone else for another person's crimes.
Has it become a new fashion in the Vatican to consider pro-lifers as cultural warriors?
I am proud to be a cultural worrier. It is like the story of Deborah. When Barak didn't want to lead the men into battle, a woman had to do it. That was shameful, right? But she was warrior. I'm proud to be a warrior. I will fight for life. This is what is expected of us.
We are told in Proverbs (24,11-12) to rescue those who are being led away to death and holdback those who are staggering towards slaughter. That is a very strong charge. We are to be rescuers, we are to be heroes.
He says: "And if you say we knew nothing of this does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?"
Let us talk for a moment about the encyclical "Evangelium vitae". How do some politicians used it?
They are using "Evangelium Vitae" section 73 to justify supporting legislation with rape-exceptions in it. That is an encyclical of Pope John Paul II. He made it absolutely clear throughout the entire document that there should be no exceptions.
But in section 73 he talks about the imperfect law. He says that a Catholic politician in a deciding vote could vote for legislation that was imperfect, if it had the net effect of reducing abortions. I explain that this was only talking about regulating abortion, where it was imperfect, because it is not ending abortion. But it's regulating abortion, or reducing abortion through parental consent laws for example, or informed consent laws, or restrictions on abortion, or that they have to be in a hospital, or doctor privileges at a hospital, or banning certain types of abortions. They are imperfect, because they are not ending abortion. And so I believe that is what he was talking about. But not talking about discriminating against an entire class of persons.
An example?
This would be like the example of Lebanon. Lebanon is no longer a Catholic nation. It is a Muslim nation, but there are a number of Catholics there. Or let's say in Iraq. So you have certain Muslim nations, where there is a population of Catholics. Do you mean to tell me that under "Evangelium Vitae" 73, that the pope meant, that a Catholic politician, Catholic leaders, Catholic organizations can support legislation with an exception in cases of Catholic babies. So if they had a ban on abortion except in cases of Catholic babies you could support that. Really?
In Muslim nations they have different laws - for Muslims than they do for non-Muslims. For example many Muslim nations have a ban on adoptions. You are not allowed to adopt. But they allow Catholics to adopt. They have to adopt only Catholic Babies, not Muslim babies. So it is very conceivable that they could pass a law like that in a Muslim nation. Have an exception in cases of Catholic babies. So you really mean the pope would endorse that?
But it is still better to have an abortion-ban with rape exception than having abortion?
So let's back up and look at the landscape, the conditions. You are telling me, that you have politicians, who are 99 percent pro-life. These politicians are so close, but they make a rape exception. And they will pass this law. You know they pass the law with the rape exception in it. They are very pro-life. Just one percent; they have difficulty with the rape issue. This is why you can get it pass with the rape exception.
What is the alternative?
Well in Michigan they said: "We are not ready for this law then. Let's wait. Let's keep working on the politicians." Someone who is 99 percent pro-life it's very easy to change their mind on the rape exception, when you present them a person, who has a story.
Under those conditions I ask: "Tell me, have you brought in someone with my story, have you brought in women who became pregnant by rape, who love their children, have you brought in people like me who were conceived in rape?"
"Oh, well. No."
"Then, you haven't tried everything. You are not ready for this law. You need to wait. Let's do it right. Let's work on these politicians, let's change hearts together." And then you come back two years later. And you pass the law with no exceptions.
If not?
Or if those politicians will not change, because they are not really pro-life. They dabble in mediocrity. They want you to give them little laws here and there. You know: regulating abortion. But let's not get crazy. Let's not say it should be illegal.
They are not our friends. They are not going to carry the water for us. This is not their issue.
They just want it to look like they are pro-life so that your people will vote for them. So, what are you doing when you help push this law through? You are protecting politicians instead of protecting the children conceived in rape. You are caring more about protecting mediocre politicians than protecting innocent children created by God, in his image for a purpose.
In Michigan they said: "Let's hold off. If these politicians will not change their mind, let's vote them out. We will target them and we will tell people: This person is not pro-life. And we will bring in people who are articulate, who know this issue, who know people like me and bring forward these stories - know how to fight and argue to defend all life. Bring in heroes.
Most European pro-lifers do not want to forbid abortion because they consider such a goal “not realistic”.
We have a similar problem in the United States. We have a five state study on messaging. First of all we can show that we can dramatically change people's opinion on the rape question with proper messaging. We can dramatically change hearts. I do it all the time. I know - even politicians running for president. God has used me to change their hearts. It's very easy when you put a face to the issue, when you have a strategy for trying. There is this cowardly mentality, where you settle for mediocrity.
How to go beyond mediocrity?
Our study shows that 90 percent or more of people know that life begins at conception. They believe that abortion is wrong or immoral, but they are still having abortions. They are not voting pro-life and they are not calling themselves pro-life.
The study shows that about 50 to 60 percent, depending on the state, call themselves pro-life. So you have people, who know it's immoral, know it's wrong and they believe life begins at conception, but they won't call themselves pro-life.
Many pro-lifers say: "This is a victory now, that we are at 50-60 percent, that a majority of Americans call themselves pro-life." But the problem is, if you ask the further question: Do you think it should be illegal, it should be criminal, than the numbers drop. It's between 30 to 40 percent who believe it should be criminal.
Why?
I believe that the reason for that number is because of the pro-life movement, the pro-life leadership, the pro-life messaging. For four decades in the United States the message has been: "Choose life. Choose life. Life begins at conceptions. Abortion is bad." Well: 90 persons of people already know that. They already believe that. But they are still having abortions. You are not preventing abortion with that. We have reduced some abortions with pregnancy centers. There is a percentage now that would choose life. We have one on one. We have people who are there, who give counseling.
But there is still a million every year in the United States, who are aborting. I feel that the pro-life movement has completely missed out on the message. This is about protecting. These children deserve to be protected. That this really is killing.
So…
As soon as you say it's not about protecting, that we shouldn't make it criminal, you are saying that it's not that big of a deal. Even when you pass a late term abortion ban and you make it a misdemeanor - like less than one year in jail you are saying it's not a that big of a deal. Any other form of homicide, you know - for murder that's life in prison.
Ok, mothers who abort deserve punishment: How can one sell this politically?
Now, this is my idea: First of all I believe that women are inherently exploited. There are studies that show that overwhelmingly - 70 to 80 percent of women - are coerced into aborting. They really are not given another choice. They express that given different circumstances they would want this baby. It is not that women hate babies. It's they feel that they have no other choice. I believe that women are inherently exploited. I would want to see testimony to this effect in front of legislators.
All right…
Then I would want to number one: empower women with the right to sue their abortionist for negligent infliction of emotional distress and for wrongful death of their baby. That's what we call it in the United States, I don't know how you call it in Europe, for instance: when a doctor kills a child you can sue for wrongful death or when there is a car accident and someone is killed, not only might there be criminal actions, but someone can personally sue for the loss of life and we call that wrongful death.
I think women should be empowered to sue the abortionist for wrongful death - whether it is legal or illegal. If we outlaw abortion there would be very few illegal abortions, because doctors would be afraid that the patients will turn around and sue them after they regret their abortion.
That has a positive message of being pro women and I'm for empowering women.
And the second thing?
The second thing is if we make abortion illegal, when we come to the point when we are criminalizing abortion we provide the woman with - I don't know what you call it in Europe - it's like a whistleblower. There are certain laws, like for environmental laws: somebody who works for a company that is dumping toxins into the ground. They can be immune from prosecution under whistleblower laws. If they report what is happening they will be protected from prosecution. We call that immunity.
I believe in having a whistleblower law. If a woman has an abortion - in exchange for her testimony, in exchange for her reporting the abortion and naming the abortionist, that she could be offered immunity from prosecution. So we will not be putting those women in jail, only the abortionists in jail.
Can we reach the goal that abortion will be recognized as a crime?
Yes. Yes, I believe that it will eventually happen.
Even in America if it comes down to the point that there is a majority of Muslims in our nation. The Muslims will outlaw abortion. If Muslims take over Europe it eventually will be outlawed. But: Why not have the Catholics lead this effort?
This is also a personal battle for you…
I'm alive because I was protected. My birth-mother did not choose life for me. She chose abortion. She tried to kill me at two illegal abortions. But I was protected by law. I owe my birth to the law being there to protect me.
So this is not like a theoretical argument for me. This is not a game. I'm so thankful that my life was spared. But so many others deserve the same protection I received. I feel like my life was spared from a burning building. And as I have the opportunity to go back and save others I'm going to do it. To me there is a sense of urgency - to go back and safe others. Again: It is not just a theoretical game. There are real lives at stake. This is very, very real for me. I'm grateful for other people who did not have a personal story, but they care enough as if it was their own personal story, as if their own lives had been at stake.
I wish everyone could have that same passion and sense of urgency, and compassion for others.
Why is the Catholic Church so unsuccessful in fighting abortion?
Well, I know that in America the Catholic Church has compromised. The Catholic Bishops Conference in America supports rape exceptions. They are part of the majority voice in the pro-life movement in the United States that is more interested in protecting politicians than protecting the innocent child conceived in rape. They will say that they are pragmatic. Or, that this is all we can get so we must support this legislation with the rape exceptions.
But they do not understand that the most pragmatic strategy is to not compromise. Stop protecting mediocre or poor politicians, who aren't really pro-life, who do not really care about this issue. I'm from Michigan and we have never had a rape exception in any laws, because the pro-life leadership there refuses to compromise and will not forsake the child conceived in rape.
And what is the solution?
I think for too long in the United States we have been celebrating mediocrity. We are not discussing ending abortion, but instead the discussions are more about reducing or regulating or trying to win over public opinion - instead of ending abortion.
Where do the bishops support rape exceptions?
Well for example in Obama Care. In Obama Care there was a settlement, which was called the Stupac-Amendment. It was a congress man, Bart Stupac, who was actually from my home state of Michigan. He was a Democrat and he negotiated if they added a rape exception than a certain number of pro-lifers would vote for Obama Care.
It was part of what is called an executive order which does not even hold weigh in the United States. A president can't just sign a law and change things. The whole thing was, what we call smoke and mears. It was a sham.
But the Catholic bishops came out along with other pro-life groups like "National Right to Life" saying: "This is wonderful. Now there will be no tax payer funding of abortions under Obama Care." That was not true, because there was a rape exception.
What were the bishops saying?
They said: "This is wonderful, with this compromise there will be no funding of abortion." Well, instead, with the compromise we have a funding of all abortions under Obama Care, because the whole compromise was a sham. It was not even real. They used the rape exception in order to get this through.
Did the pro-lifers react?
When it was pointed out by other pro-life leaders, like Judie Brown with "American Life League" and "Personhood USA" and I with my organization "Save the One" - we pointed out: "Wait a second, this has a rape exception." www.lifesitenews.com thankfully reported that there is a rape exception.
And then the Catholic Bishops Conference came out saying: "Yes, there is a rape exception but it merely incorporates the terms of the Hyde Amendment."
What is the Hyde Amendment?
The Hyde Amendment was passed many years ago with no exceptions originally. The Hyde Amendment was a ban on what is called medicate-funding of abortion - which is different than Obama Care. Obama care is far more extensive. The Hyde Amendment had rape exceptions added about 22 years ago. The rape exceptions were in and out of the law for a while. The last 22 years the rape exceptions have been in. Nobody went back to try to remove the rape exceptions from the Hyde Amendment.
And the bishops?
Then the Catholic bishops point out: "It's already settled. If the Hyde Amendment settled this 22 years ago, it's no big deal. We don't even have to mention it, because it merely incorporates what we already settled on."
Just because you compromised on children conceived in rape a generation ago, doesn't mean you need to compromise on them now.
Are there other problems except the bishops?
The other problem is... let me say, there are many good bishops. I visited through Europe and have spoken at different conferences with some excellent bishops.
But if it's anything like America: We have many Catholic schools that are actually very aggressively supporting abortion rights. In fact my brother-in-law teaches at a Catholic Middle School in Massachusetts. He is the only pro-life teacher in the whole school. If the Catholic bishops wanted to, they could make it clear, that you must teach pro-life values in the schools.
Is there enough conviction of the bishops in fighting abortion in general?
That's what I don't see. I don't see local bishops often speaking out like that. Or chastising the schools or chastising the priests. Every parish in the United States should have a respect-life-group. But they don't. Many of them have social justice committees. But the social justice for many of them means abortion. I feel like there is much that bishops can do to clean things up here. And to sort of regulate what's happing in the schools and at the parish level.
Are there exceptions among the bishops?
Many people point to some of the cardinals who speak out. I've met bishops all over the United States, who are passionate about this issue. But they are frustrated, that the other bishops are not speaking out. I think that there is also a sort of an understanding amongst bishops that you don't speak ill of another bishop. So even the ones who are really sound, they will speak generally: "Oh I wish other bishops would...." But they won't call them out by name.
Do you know European bishops who are pro-life?
When I spoke in Biarritz, France, the bishop of Bayonne hosted the pro-life-conference. That was the first time I've ever been invited with the bishop being the one who hosted the conference. And he invited the bishop of Navarre in Spain, because it was an international pro-life conference. That was very encouraging to see.
In Germany, the bishops allow the use of the morning-after pill in Catholic hospitals.
This is wrong. Many people do not understand how the morning-after-pill operates.
Number one is: If you have not ovulated it might prevent ovulation. If you have already ovulated, it might prevent conception. But if you have conceived, it might prevent implantation - which is approximately one week after conception. The unborn child passes through fallopian tube and makes his or her way into the uterus.
What happens is: Plan B can create a hostile environment with the uterine lining so that there will be no opportunity for the unborn child to implant in the uterine wall.
Which amounts to an abortion…
The "American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Ob-Gyns)" redefined pregnancy in the wake of Row v. Wade for political reasons. In the early 70ths they redefined pregnancy as implantation. So they will tell women: "Don't worry. This will not terminate a pregnancy." But they are not giving women informed consent. They are not telling them the whole truth - that you may have conceived. There may be a human life there. And now you have created an environment, where the human life will die, because of what you did. This is very important for people to educate on. Because we know life begins at conception. And so if you are going to err - you must err on the sight of caution - where there might be a person there.
So what shall a raped woman do?
There was a politician in the United States who was running for president, four years ago. He was asked about this on national television. He said that he had no rape exception and was asked: "What would you do if your daughter or granddaughter became pregnant by rape?"
He is a physician and said: "I would give her some hormones." He was referring to the morning-after pill, which we call Plan-B. Which is interesting that he didn't even say: "I would ask her if she wants it." He just said, he would give it to her. This is so true. Most of the time they are just given it by the doctor. They are not really being told what it is or what they want. They are just given. And many are pressured into taking this pill.
And the pro-abort TV-show host knew enough himself about how the morning-after pill works that he challenged him more and said: "You do believe that life begins at conception, correct?"
This politician said: "Yes, life begins at conception."
He said: "This may kill the child then."
The response of the politician was: "It may or it may not." He says you don't know if there is a human life. May or may not. Which is ridiculous, because would you ever use that for foreign policy? Would you use a drone to drop bombs when there may or may not be a person on the ground. We do not know if there is a person. So it's not so bad to drop a bomb on the ground. Really? Would that really be your foreign policy? Would a bishop really support dropping bombs with the drone when you don't know if there is a person? That's what you are doing. It's the same thing.
The German bishops allow the morning-after pill specifically for cases of rape.
Which sends a message; the message is: A child conceived in rape is worth less than everybody else. That a child conceived in rape needs to be destroyed. They perpetuate the myth that the children are a horrible reminder of the rape - not healing. Like most rape-victims see children like me as bringing them healing. So they perpetuate this myth that the mother is better off destroying the child, which is not true in reality. And that the world is better off if we get rid of that child.
And I believe it is sending a message, that the child was not created by God. If you really believe, that God is the creator of all human life and that God creates every life for a purpose, then how as a bishop could you possibly support that? There is something wrong with your theology. Either you think that children like me were not created by God, which is not biblical. Would you think Lucifer created me? Or you think that God created me but he made a mistake. This does not make sense. There is a problem with the theology.
How could the German bishops correct their fatal decision? Among other, they fear the media.
You need to fight back. You need to fight back!
Having personal stories helps. Humanize that child. Explain that we do not punish a child for the sins of the father. That is from Deuteronomy in the Bible. It says that each person will be punished for their own sin. You do not punish the child for the sins of the father. That is our system of justice. You do not punish someone else for another person's crimes.
Has it become a new fashion in the Vatican to consider pro-lifers as cultural warriors?
I am proud to be a cultural worrier. It is like the story of Deborah. When Barak didn't want to lead the men into battle, a woman had to do it. That was shameful, right? But she was warrior. I'm proud to be a warrior. I will fight for life. This is what is expected of us.
We are told in Proverbs (24,11-12) to rescue those who are being led away to death and holdback those who are staggering towards slaughter. That is a very strong charge. We are to be rescuers, we are to be heroes.
He says: "And if you say we knew nothing of this does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?"
Let us talk for a moment about the encyclical "Evangelium vitae". How do some politicians used it?
They are using "Evangelium Vitae" section 73 to justify supporting legislation with rape-exceptions in it. That is an encyclical of Pope John Paul II. He made it absolutely clear throughout the entire document that there should be no exceptions.
But in section 73 he talks about the imperfect law. He says that a Catholic politician in a deciding vote could vote for legislation that was imperfect, if it had the net effect of reducing abortions. I explain that this was only talking about regulating abortion, where it was imperfect, because it is not ending abortion. But it's regulating abortion, or reducing abortion through parental consent laws for example, or informed consent laws, or restrictions on abortion, or that they have to be in a hospital, or doctor privileges at a hospital, or banning certain types of abortions. They are imperfect, because they are not ending abortion. And so I believe that is what he was talking about. But not talking about discriminating against an entire class of persons.
An example?
This would be like the example of Lebanon. Lebanon is no longer a Catholic nation. It is a Muslim nation, but there are a number of Catholics there. Or let's say in Iraq. So you have certain Muslim nations, where there is a population of Catholics. Do you mean to tell me that under "Evangelium Vitae" 73, that the pope meant, that a Catholic politician, Catholic leaders, Catholic organizations can support legislation with an exception in cases of Catholic babies. So if they had a ban on abortion except in cases of Catholic babies you could support that. Really?
In Muslim nations they have different laws - for Muslims than they do for non-Muslims. For example many Muslim nations have a ban on adoptions. You are not allowed to adopt. But they allow Catholics to adopt. They have to adopt only Catholic Babies, not Muslim babies. So it is very conceivable that they could pass a law like that in a Muslim nation. Have an exception in cases of Catholic babies. So you really mean the pope would endorse that?
But it is still better to have an abortion-ban with rape exception than having abortion?
So let's back up and look at the landscape, the conditions. You are telling me, that you have politicians, who are 99 percent pro-life. These politicians are so close, but they make a rape exception. And they will pass this law. You know they pass the law with the rape exception in it. They are very pro-life. Just one percent; they have difficulty with the rape issue. This is why you can get it pass with the rape exception.
What is the alternative?
Well in Michigan they said: "We are not ready for this law then. Let's wait. Let's keep working on the politicians." Someone who is 99 percent pro-life it's very easy to change their mind on the rape exception, when you present them a person, who has a story.
Under those conditions I ask: "Tell me, have you brought in someone with my story, have you brought in women who became pregnant by rape, who love their children, have you brought in people like me who were conceived in rape?"
"Oh, well. No."
"Then, you haven't tried everything. You are not ready for this law. You need to wait. Let's do it right. Let's work on these politicians, let's change hearts together." And then you come back two years later. And you pass the law with no exceptions.
If not?
Or if those politicians will not change, because they are not really pro-life. They dabble in mediocrity. They want you to give them little laws here and there. You know: regulating abortion. But let's not get crazy. Let's not say it should be illegal.
They are not our friends. They are not going to carry the water for us. This is not their issue.
They just want it to look like they are pro-life so that your people will vote for them. So, what are you doing when you help push this law through? You are protecting politicians instead of protecting the children conceived in rape. You are caring more about protecting mediocre politicians than protecting innocent children created by God, in his image for a purpose.
In Michigan they said: "Let's hold off. If these politicians will not change their mind, let's vote them out. We will target them and we will tell people: This person is not pro-life. And we will bring in people who are articulate, who know this issue, who know people like me and bring forward these stories - know how to fight and argue to defend all life. Bring in heroes.
Most European pro-lifers do not want to forbid abortion because they consider such a goal “not realistic”.
We have a similar problem in the United States. We have a five state study on messaging. First of all we can show that we can dramatically change people's opinion on the rape question with proper messaging. We can dramatically change hearts. I do it all the time. I know - even politicians running for president. God has used me to change their hearts. It's very easy when you put a face to the issue, when you have a strategy for trying. There is this cowardly mentality, where you settle for mediocrity.
How to go beyond mediocrity?
Our study shows that 90 percent or more of people know that life begins at conception. They believe that abortion is wrong or immoral, but they are still having abortions. They are not voting pro-life and they are not calling themselves pro-life.
The study shows that about 50 to 60 percent, depending on the state, call themselves pro-life. So you have people, who know it's immoral, know it's wrong and they believe life begins at conception, but they won't call themselves pro-life.
Many pro-lifers say: "This is a victory now, that we are at 50-60 percent, that a majority of Americans call themselves pro-life." But the problem is, if you ask the further question: Do you think it should be illegal, it should be criminal, than the numbers drop. It's between 30 to 40 percent who believe it should be criminal.
Why?
I believe that the reason for that number is because of the pro-life movement, the pro-life leadership, the pro-life messaging. For four decades in the United States the message has been: "Choose life. Choose life. Life begins at conceptions. Abortion is bad." Well: 90 persons of people already know that. They already believe that. But they are still having abortions. You are not preventing abortion with that. We have reduced some abortions with pregnancy centers. There is a percentage now that would choose life. We have one on one. We have people who are there, who give counseling.
But there is still a million every year in the United States, who are aborting. I feel that the pro-life movement has completely missed out on the message. This is about protecting. These children deserve to be protected. That this really is killing.
So…
As soon as you say it's not about protecting, that we shouldn't make it criminal, you are saying that it's not that big of a deal. Even when you pass a late term abortion ban and you make it a misdemeanor - like less than one year in jail you are saying it's not a that big of a deal. Any other form of homicide, you know - for murder that's life in prison.
Ok, mothers who abort deserve punishment: How can one sell this politically?
Now, this is my idea: First of all I believe that women are inherently exploited. There are studies that show that overwhelmingly - 70 to 80 percent of women - are coerced into aborting. They really are not given another choice. They express that given different circumstances they would want this baby. It is not that women hate babies. It's they feel that they have no other choice. I believe that women are inherently exploited. I would want to see testimony to this effect in front of legislators.
All right…
Then I would want to number one: empower women with the right to sue their abortionist for negligent infliction of emotional distress and for wrongful death of their baby. That's what we call it in the United States, I don't know how you call it in Europe, for instance: when a doctor kills a child you can sue for wrongful death or when there is a car accident and someone is killed, not only might there be criminal actions, but someone can personally sue for the loss of life and we call that wrongful death.
I think women should be empowered to sue the abortionist for wrongful death - whether it is legal or illegal. If we outlaw abortion there would be very few illegal abortions, because doctors would be afraid that the patients will turn around and sue them after they regret their abortion.
That has a positive message of being pro women and I'm for empowering women.
And the second thing?
The second thing is if we make abortion illegal, when we come to the point when we are criminalizing abortion we provide the woman with - I don't know what you call it in Europe - it's like a whistleblower. There are certain laws, like for environmental laws: somebody who works for a company that is dumping toxins into the ground. They can be immune from prosecution under whistleblower laws. If they report what is happening they will be protected from prosecution. We call that immunity.
I believe in having a whistleblower law. If a woman has an abortion - in exchange for her testimony, in exchange for her reporting the abortion and naming the abortionist, that she could be offered immunity from prosecution. So we will not be putting those women in jail, only the abortionists in jail.
Can we reach the goal that abortion will be recognized as a crime?
Yes. Yes, I believe that it will eventually happen.
Even in America if it comes down to the point that there is a majority of Muslims in our nation. The Muslims will outlaw abortion. If Muslims take over Europe it eventually will be outlawed. But: Why not have the Catholics lead this effort?
This is also a personal battle for you…
I'm alive because I was protected. My birth-mother did not choose life for me. She chose abortion. She tried to kill me at two illegal abortions. But I was protected by law. I owe my birth to the law being there to protect me.
So this is not like a theoretical argument for me. This is not a game. I'm so thankful that my life was spared. But so many others deserve the same protection I received. I feel like my life was spared from a burning building. And as I have the opportunity to go back and save others I'm going to do it. To me there is a sense of urgency - to go back and safe others. Again: It is not just a theoretical game. There are real lives at stake. This is very, very real for me. I'm grateful for other people who did not have a personal story, but they care enough as if it was their own personal story, as if their own lives had been at stake.
I wish everyone could have that same passion and sense of urgency, and compassion for others.
