Skip to content

WLC Reports: The Case of the Missing Endorsements

July 21, 2010

Washington Life Coalition’s newest report, “Dino Rossi: Not the Pro-life Choice”, takes aim at Dino Rossi’s curious lack of pro-life endorsements:

What many pro-life voters may not realize, is that Dino Rossi, in his two runs for governor, never received the endorsement of Human Life of Washington, the only pro-life organization in Washington state that surveys (in writing) all candidates for state and federal offices on the issue of abortion.  The same is true this year as Dino seeks a spot on the general election ballot to challenge Patty Murray:  He has not received the Human Life endorsement. 

This is newsworthy of course, only because it is largely assumed that Dino Rossi is a rock-solid pro-lifer and adherent to the teachings of his Catholic faith (which he references proudly). But WLC goes on to detail Rossi’s deviation from pro-life and Catholic principles.  Rossi supports keeping abortion legal in the hard cases of rape and incest–an exception which might seem insignificant until you realize the moral and intellectual ramifications:

Washington Life Coalition’s ‘Little Emily’ video put a human face on what some consider a ‘reasonable position’. The proponents of [making exceptions for rape and incest] protest, ‘You’re talking about 1%!’ If their estimate is accurate, their position callously discards an estimated 12,000 innocent babies per year, every year! The rape/incest caveats to a so-called ‘pro-life’ position also weaken the entire case that a human person exists from the moment of fertilization and is therefore worthy of legal protection. After all, if the pro-life movement is going to argue that a human person exists at fertilization, then how can we justify that it is okay to kill some of them.

Even pro-choice liberals can agree that adding the “exceptions” only serves to weaken credibility, revealing inconsistency and suggesting a bent towards political expediency.

Not only does Rossi have “rape and incest” exceptions, but he has a history of indicating that abortion will in no way be a priority in his campaign, or in elected office.

Fortunately, in the upcoming open primary, we have the option to vote for an authentically pro-life candidate. According to WLC:

Human Life of Washington issued a dual endorsement in the U.S.Senate race to: Paul Akers and Clint Didier, having both met the criteria.  (Endorsements have not yet been listed on Human Life of Washington’s website, but the press release went out recently). 

WLC concludes with a call to action:

How seriously do you want to end legalized abortion in America? Are you content with the right to life being a ‘back burner’ issue? We believe it is time to get serious about our political strategy!

What is your strategy? As a recovering pro-life pragmatist, I now rejoice in an opportunity to break free and vote my conscience this August. What about you?

To all the battle-weary, I will leave you with a brief excerpt from the book All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery. Here, New England abolitionists William Lloyd Garrison, and Benjamin Lundy are discussing the frustration with local anti-slavery politics:

‘My soul was on fire then,’ Garrison remarked, when he recalled the ‘moral cowardice’ and ‘cruel skepticism’ of Boston’s would-be reformers. Lundy, however, was used to such setbacks. He knew that ‘philanthropists…think forty times before they act,’ and he reminded the disappointed Garrison that their public meeting had at last broken the ‘stupid spell of apathy.’

Let us, by God’s grace, join the great tradition of breaking that “stupid spell of apathy”.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. Jim permalink
    August 2, 2010 6:43 pm

    So Terra… I get you and I get the pro-lifers. I really do. I think abortion is a tragedy. But I fail to see the connection between the political side and the christian side. You see, as a christian, I would expect you to be working to reduce the demand for abortions. Educating women about birth control, helping young women make proper choices or choosing condoms. The idea may offend some Christian sensibilities, but in the end, resigning oneself to the most base elements of human nature and going from there simply makes better sense for your cause.

    By the way, you seem very nice. Please don’t take offense.

    • August 3, 2010 12:07 am


      Thank you for your comments. I have heard similar arguments in the past, just let me assure you that there is no confict between being a Christian, and being engaged in politics.

      As Dr. R.C. Sproul aptly explains it: The Church has certain responsibilities, and the State has others. The most basic function of any government is to protect life and property. When government fails at this most basic duty, it is the right and responsibility of Christians to tell “the state to be the state”.

      We see examples of this in Scripture: John the Baptist rebuking the immorality of King Herod…leading to his beheading; Old Testament prophets, crying out against the authorities. We are commanded to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” (Proverbs 31:8)

      Should Christians also be involved with addressing the issue of abortion on a personal level? Of course!

      Many Christians I know who are involved with pro-life politics, are also involved in engaging the culture–reaching out to women in crisis pregnancies, donating money, educating, praying, etc. This battle is being waged on many levels.

      The same is true of many social reforms. Consider slavery: some abolitionists focused on counseling slave owners one by one to release their slaves, others circulated controversial anti-slavery tracts, while still others ran for political office. Now, at the time I’m sure their were some who argued that what we really needed was to reduce demand for slavery…that we couldn’t legislate morality, that the slaves were better off under the “shelter” of their masters. Ending slavery in America required many different approaches, but aren’t you glad that making it illegal, was part of the plan?

      As far as educating women about birth control, that is a great passion of mine. Perhaps you already know that I am opposed to the use of “The Pill”, and other forms of hormonal birth control, regardless of marital status. (Browse through my blog and you’ll find out why).

      What abortion providers realize, is that access to contraception does not eliminate the need for abortions. Have you ever wondered by abortion workers and pro-choice groups have such a bizarre infatuation with birth control meds and condoms? Hint: it’s not because they are trying to work themselves out of a job.

      I’m glad that I seem “very nice” …hehe. But I hope I become less “nice” and more loving.

      Thank you for reading and sharing,


  2. Jim permalink
    August 3, 2010 3:55 pm

    I predicted that response honestly. I don’t agree at all but that’s besides the point. What is more important is that you skipped over the one aspect that no matter how you feel about abortion or birth control or whatever, none of these positions/opinions address human nature. Why? Because they can’t. People are going to have sex. And as long as that is going to happen, pregnancies and abortions will as well. From your position, the best way to mitigate that is make the practice illegal. Which it is not and never will be. It will still happen unless – of course – everyone becomes just like… you. Which they are not and never will be. Whatever you think the motives of PP or other organizations promoting birth control, their efforts to mitigate should be considered equally noble as yours. Historically, they have an advantage in that argument. It might be nice to look at the issue as one that is black and white, but it is not and will never be. As long as we humans keep behaving… human.

    I still think you are nice. 🙂

    • August 3, 2010 11:12 pm

      Jim, using this logic, nothing should be made illegal, because there will always be some people who will do it anyways. History and statistics show: laws influence behavior. As an unborn child, I would want the protection of law. It won’t prevent all abortions, but I’m guessing that the “1-in-5” rate will be reduced.

      (I never suggested that sex should be illegal, btw.) Churches and Christians have a duty to teach the biblical view of sexuality to believers. If someone doesn’t agree with what Scripture teaches, they have the right (and obligation) to leave the church.

      As far as dealing with human nature… I’m sure we will disagree on this one, but I believe human nature is fallen, sinful, and degenerate…yes, I include myself in that category. On a spiritual level, there is only one cure, but we are speaking here about government. Either we can (a)give in to our depraved nature, (b)deny our depraved nature, or (c)recognize it, and set up boundaries and safeguards to defend the most helpless members of society.

      I choose option c.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: