Rebecca Kiessling was conceived in rape, her mother having been abducted and impregnated. She defends the “1 percent” whom prolifers ignore.
Yes, some candidates and organizations are more pro-life than others. Some don’t value pre-born children based on how they were conceived.
This is not a political game for me. I owe my birth to the Michigan law that protected me — legislators who recognized that mine was a life worth saving, even in the case of rape. My birthmother tried to kill me by two illegal abortions. Today, we’re both thankful we were both protected from such horror.
By Rebecca Kiessling
Michigan has never had a rape exception and has passed some of the best laws in America because Right to Life of Michigan (RLM) is an uncompromising organization. Candidates with exceptions don’t receive their PAC endorsement, and they don't approve rape exception legislation.
RLM has succeeded in persuading other state groups to implement their model – including Georgia Right to Life (GRTL). Georgia was one of the worst in the nation, when GRTL implemented this uncompromising model. A decade later, they were ranked 4th in the nation by Americans United for Life — with NO rape exceptions! Every state-wide elected official was 100% pro-life.
Sending fire truck home
Despite failures in Congress, somehow National Right to Life and others still think their compromise strategy is effective, saying, “It’s the burning building — save the 99 in exchange for the 1, while working to save all.” But they are not working to save all. Instead, they shut the water off, send the fire trucks home, and let the building burn with the 1 left inside. The compromisers never go back to save the 1. They’ve established that the child conceived in rape is an expendable casualty not worth defending.
Whenever I hear “Save the 99 in exchange for the 1,” I can’t help but think of the Parable of the Lost Sheep, because Jesus was all about saving the one. See that you do not despise any of these little ones. Why would anyone despise little ones?
Jesus continues: “For I tell you that their angels in Heaven always look upon the face of my Father in Heaven.” Then He goes into the parable of the Lost Sheep, where the Good Shepherd leaves the 99 to save the 1, ending the lesson explaining, “In the same way, your Father in Heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should perish.” And neither should we! It’s absolutely deplorable that any pro-life leader is willing that any of these little ones should perish.
So back to the burning building – what’s really happening is that you have people going in for job interviews (candidates) to become firefighters (legislators,) telling the fire chiefs (leaders in the pro-life movement,), “Just so you know – I discriminate. If I go into a burning building and there are children in the midst of the fire in the back of the building, I’m not going to save them.”
They’re going to be painfully disfigured and a horrible reminder of the fire which would be awful for their parents, so I’m going to let them die. And if you try to force me to go in and save them, I just won’t go in and save any.”
What fire chief in his right mind would hire them? What fire chief would give his blessing on leaving an innocent child behind? And what fire chief wouldn’t immediately fire that firefighter?
But instead, the corrupt fire chiefs not only hire them, supporting these deadly actions, but they reward them with bonuses in the form of 100% approval ratings and PAC endorsements.
Worthless prolife endorsement
Congressman Eric Cantor was rewarded with a 100% approval rating by NRLC when he introduced the rape exception in the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is completely misleading to those who think a 100% approval rating from a pro-life organization means the candidate is actually 100% pro-life.
Worse yet, you have some good fire chiefs like GRTL who are attacked by the bad fire chiefs trying to run them out of their jurisdiction by appointing another corrupt fire chief who wants to unravel all of the good work GRTL’s done by undermining the successful standard of non-discrimination!
Former Congressman Dr. Paul Broun was absolutely correct when he said the rape exception in the Pain Capable bill creates a subclass of humans. Just imagine the lifelong painful groans coming from the 350+ members of Save The 1.
But many are accustomed to my people group being treated as the sin eaters of the pro-life movement – being punished not only for the sins of our biological fathers, but for the sins of mediocre politicians as well. Consider replacing the rape-conceived with any other people group – for example, “except in cases of Jewish babies.”
Equal protection
Who are these compromise organizations defending? The innocent child conceived in rape, or politicians? The 14th Amendment says no state shall deprive a person of their right to life without due process of law, and no state shall deny a person equal protection of the laws.
Rape exceptions violate equal protection. You cannot legitimately support the 14th Amendment right to life, while denying its equal protection requirements.
There is a superior strategy – not only morally superior, but practically superior because being 100% pro-life is the litmus test for how passionate a candidate is about protecting life. These are our champions who are able to bring us out of deadly stagnation. Michigan and Georgia are proof of our success and Congress is proof of their failure. So let’s punish rapists, not babies, and protect babies, not politicians.
Rebecca Kiessling is an attorney, international pro-life speaker, President of Save The 1, and national spokeswoman for Personhood Alliance.
To deny a woman the right too terminate a pregnancy that is the results of a rape where there was no consent on her part whatsoever is wrong, very wrong.
If a house on fire and a few good fire chiefs and the equal protection of the 14th amendment is the best analogy anyone can come up with I would tell the fire chiefs to get busy and put out the house fire. As for the 14th amendment some learned individual would have to show me in the amendment where there is any justification for rape. Let us see: man’s law says a whore, a prostitute, an adulterer can have a legal abortion. But the victim of rape must bear the criminal’s child?
If anyone can find a moral law that says a rape victim must not terminate a pregnancy, let me know. I am pro-life 100 percent. My question is, is there a distinction between terminating a pregnancy and aborting a baby? To say a woman must not terminate a pregnancy that is the results of rape is to say there is some justification for rape. God forbid.