Wednesday I posted about Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton and about how many don't really know or realize what those cases truly did and made legal for abortion in all 50 states. Today I want to talk about another aspect of both of those landmark cases that many don't know and that the media has helped to cover up in their almost overwhelming support of abortion ever since the rulings of those cases back in 1973.

Both Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were both built upon lies, deceit, manipulation, and in the words of one of the plaintiffs in one of the cases fraud. NEITHER case by the admission of both of women who were used as the plaintiffs in these cases were based on truth. Which begs the question why with these now known facts have these two cases not been retried and the judgments and decisions in both cases reviewed and indeed overthrown with vast new evidence in recent years on so many fronts that were fundamentally involved in both cases?

"Jane Roe" of the Roe v. Wade lawsuit, whose real name is Norma McCorvey was a very troubled young woman in 1969 and was pregnant with her third child that she did not want. Friends had advised McCorvey to say that she had been raped and she would then be eligible to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas's pro-life laws allowed abortion in the cases of rape and incest). But due to lack of police evidence or documentation, the scheme was not successful and McCorvey would later admit the situation was a total fabrication. She was never raped. She also attempted to obtain an illegal abortion but the clinics that she went to had been closed down by authorities. Eventually, McCorvey was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington who took her case (still based on the false accusation that McCorvey was raped and by the time the case had gotten to trial the lie had ballooned into that she had been gang raped) all the way to the Supreme Court. In the meantime in the time that it took for the case to make it through the courts, McCorvey had given birth to the baby in question, who was eventually adopted. McCorvey never had an abortion herself before or after the famous Roe case. Norma McCorvey revealed herself to the press as being "Jane Roe" of the decision within days of its issuance and stated that she had sought an abortion because she was unemployable and greatly depressed. In the 1980s, McCorvey asserted that she had been the "pawn" of two young and ambitious lawyers (Weddington and Coffee) who were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion.

I highly recommend you read her story here it's very eye opening on many points about McCorvey as a person and on the details behind the scenes and what really led up to the Roe case. http://www.paprolife.org/voices/Normas_story.html

Norma McCorvey while working at an abortion clinic in 1995 was befriended by several pro-life advocates and went through a very dramatic change. She was converted and became a Christian. Since then she has become a very outspoken pro-life speakers and advocate as well. McCorvey has since dedicated the rest of her life to helping end the Holocaust of abortion and to see the law that she helped pass overturned. 

  

On January 21, 1998 McCorvey spoke before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee 105th Congress, 2nd Session. (You may read the entire transcript here... http://www.endroe.org/mccorveytestimony.aspx)

She had this to say “My name is Norma McCorvey. I’m sorry to admit that I’m the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn’t happen the way I said it did, pure and simple. I lied! Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable. Rape seemed to be the ticket. What made rape even worse? A gang rape! It all started out as a little lie, but my little lie grew and became more horrible with each telling.”

"Not only did I lie, but I was lied to. I did not come to the Supreme Court on behalf of a class of women. I wasn't pursuing any legal remedy for my unwanted pregnancy. I did not go to the federal courts for relief. I met with Sarah Weddington to find out how I could obtain an abortion. She and Linda Coffey said they didn't know where to get one. Sarah already had an abortion but she lied to me just like I lied to her! She knew where to get one, obviously, but I was of no use to her unless I was pregnant. Sarah and Linda were looking for somebody, anybody, to use to further their own agenda. I was their most willing dupe.

Since all these lies succeeded in dismantling every state's protection of the unborn, I think it's fair to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie.”

Likewise and even more disturbing in it's own way is the true story behind Doe v. Bolton. "Mary Doe" of the companion case whose real name is Sandra Cano was a pregnant mother who was seeking a divorce from an extremely abusive husband (after being the victim of domestic violence for many years) and was also looking for legal help in getting her other three children back who had been taken from her and put into foster care. She never went to the lawyers looking for an abortion and she has sworn under oath that she never wanted an abortion at all nor asked for one at any time. She had always been pro-life and didn't believe in abortion. Abortion was never even mentioned. However she soon became the focal point of the lawsuit that was Doe v. Bolton and was used to legalize abortion on demand and the horrifying partial birth abortions. 

Doe allegations stated that on March 25, 1970 Doe applied to the Abortion Committee of Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, for a therapeutic abortion . . . Her application was supposedly denied 16 days later, on April 10, when she was eight weeks pregnant. Because her application was denied, she was forced either to relinquish "her right to decide when and how many children she will bear" or to seek an abortion that was illegal under the Georgia statutes.

This is not what happened as Sandra Cano has since testified in court and before Congress. She states implicitly "Abortion is against every belief I have. I've never been for abortion. I never went for an abortion. I was not the person they say I was. This case was based on lies." Sandra states that her lawyer, Margie Pitts Hames, tricked her into signing the affidavit that formed the basis of the plaintiff's charges in Doe. "I do not believe it is my signature on the affidavit, and Margie either forged my signature or slipped this document in with other papers while I was signing divorce papers. I never told Margie that I wanted an abortion. The facts stated in the affidavit in Doe v. Bolton are not true." 

There is no record at Grady memorial hospital of her alleged application for an abortion and the hospital has no records of ever treating Cano or even reviewing her case. In fact, she says, she was so opposed to the idea of having an abortion that when her mother and Hames tried to make her have one later on during the case she fled to Oklahoma until they promised that she could keep her child! But Hames managed to persuade her to return and appear in court as a plaintiff in the initial hearing of the Doe case also under false reasons. Then Cano was told that she would appear in the courtroom but that she would not get to speak or even tell anyone her name. Cano stated that "The way she phrased it to me, it was a woman's liberation right. She said, "If you're working a job, and you're doing the same job as a man, don't you want to make the same salary?" I said, "Well, of course." So that's what I thought the issue was about and everything. It's really hard for people to believe something like that. God knows my heart. He knows the truth. I really was that naive and that stupid."

After the end of the case and the decision had been handed down and Sandra Cano learned what all had truly transpired in Doe v. Bolton Sandra tried to get the courts and media to hear her side of the story but they ignored her and refused to let her tell her story. She fought unsuccessfully for many years to have her case records unsealed but was unsuccessful. Finally in 1988, Cano went to some Christian lawyers (one of whom was Michael Farris, who now heads the Home School Legal Defense Foundation) once again to try and have her records unsealed. Hames objected, telling the court that there was nothing more to be gained, that the case was decided 16 years before and that was that. But this time the records were unsealed, and Farris says he was sure enough of the fraud they contained that he and attorney Wendell Byrd asked to have the entire case reopened. That motion was denied, because by then, the law against abortion had been struck from Georgia's books.

Other legal professionals and some people in state legislator have befriended Cano and have worked to verify Cano's story they have an impressive stack of documents to show she's telling the truth. They have letters from attorneys and hospitals, Supreme Court transcripts and affidavits.  

Plaques signed by Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano - March 23, 1997. These plaques can be seen at the National Memorial for the Unborn.

http://www.memorialfortheunborn.org/Home/MoreInformation/RoeVWadeRevisited/tabid/70/Default.aspx

  

Sandra's plaque at the national memorial for the unborn reads: "I AM SANDRA CANO, I BECAME KNOWN AS MARY DOE WHEN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RELEASED ROE V. WADE'S COMPANION CASE, DOE V. BOLTON, WHICH ALLOWED ABORTION FOR VIRTUALLY ANY REASON.

"I AM AGAINST ABORTION; I NEVER SOUGHT AN ABORTION; I NEVER HAD AN ABORTION. ABORTION IS MURDER. FOR OVER TWENTY YEARS, AND AGAINST MY WILL, MY NAME HAS BEEN SYNONYMOUS WITH ABORTION. THE DOE V. BOLTON CASE IS BASED ON DECEIT AND FRAUD.

"I STAND TODAY IN THIS PLACE OF HEALING, THE NATIONAL MEMORIAL FOR THE UNBORN, AND PLEDGE TO THE MEMORY OF THESE INNOCENT CHILDREN, THAT AS LONG AS I HAVE BREATH, I WILL STRIVE TO SEE ABORTION ENDED IN AMERICA."

-SANDRA CANO, MARCH 23, 1997

Sandra has kept good on her promise she has since then started her own Pro-life ministry and is an adamant pro-life advocate. 

In 2003, she went to court herself in an attempt to reverse Doe, arguing that new laws and scientific evidence provide justification for overturning the 1973 decision. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied Ms. Cano's motion to reconsider Doe on procedural grounds. 

On June 23, 2005, for the first time, members of the United States Congress heard the truth about the Doe v. Bolton case from Sandra herself. She testified before the United States Judiciary Sub-committee on the Constitution.

She testified, "The Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decision bears my name. I am Sandra Cano, the former ''Doe'' of Doe v. Bolton. Doe v. Bolton is the companion case to Roe v. Wade. Using my name and life, Doe v. Bolton falsely created the health exception that led to abortion on demand and partial birth abortion. How it got there is still pretty much a mystery to me. I only sought legal assistance to get a divorce from my husband and to get my children from foster care. I was very vulnerable: poor and pregnant with my fourth child, but abortion never crossed my mind. Although it apparently was utmost in the mind of the attorney from whom I sought help. At one point during the legal proceedings, it was necessary for me to flee to Oklahoma to avoid the pressure being applied to have the abortion scheduled for me by this same attorney.

Please understand even though I have lived what many would consider an unstable life and overcome many devastating circumstances, at NO TIME did I ever have an abortion. l did not seek an abortion nor do I believe in abortion. Yet my name and life is now forever linked with the slaughter of 40-50 million babies.

I have tried to understand how it all happened. How did my divorce and child custody case become the basis by which bloody murder is done on infants thriving in the wombs of their mothers? How can cunning, wicked lawyers use an uneducated, defenseless pregnant woman to twist the American court system in such a fraudulent way? Doe has been a nightmare.

Over the last 32 years, I have become a prisoner of the case. It took me until 1988 to get my records unsealed in order for me to try and find the answer to those questions and to join in the movement to stop abortion in America. When pro abortion advocates found out about my efforts, my car was vandalized on one occasion and at another time, someone shot at me while I was on my front porch holding my grandbaby.

I am angry. I feel like my name, life, and identity have been stolen and put on this case without my knowledge and against my wishes. How dare they use my name and my life this way!

One of the Justices of the Supreme Court said during oral argument in my case "What does it matter if she is real or not." Well I am real and it does matter.

I was in court under a false name and lies. I was never cross-examined in court. Doe v. Bolton is based on a lie and deceit. It needs to be retried or overturned. Doe v. Bolton is against my wishes. Abortion is wrong. I love children. I would never harm a child and yet because of this case I feel like I bear the guilt of over 46 million innocent children being killed. The Supreme Court is also guilty. The bottom line is I want abortion stopped in my name. I want the case which was supposedly to benefit me, be either overturned or retried. If it is retried, at least I will have an opportunity to speak for myself in court, something that never happened before. My lawyers at The Justice Foundation have collected affidavits from over one thousand women hurt by abortion. We have filed those affidavits and a Rule 60 Motion to reverse Doe which is now on its way to the Supreme Court through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. I am also giving you a copy of my affidavit in the case. Millions of babies have been killed. Millions of women have been hurt horribly. It is time to get my name and life out of this case and its time to stop the killing."

You can read the full transcript here http://www.endroe.org/sandracanotestimony.aspx .

With it being common knowledge now that both cases were based upon false evidence and lies WHY have these cases not been retried and overturned? WHY with the sworn affidavits of both of these women that the very cases themselves were based upon stating that they were founded on lies, falsehoods, and yes even fraud WHY do they still stand and are costing thousands of innocent lives everyday? These cases are nothing short of a disgrace and a mockery of the judicial system and of the founding principles of the United States themselves. 

   

Those who wanted to see abortion legalized pushed through these falsified cases and under the gross Unconstitutional judgments that were handed down by those judges in the Supreme Court they have cost our country more than can ever be truly be realized. I find especially sickening and extremely sad that the judges in these cases used the 14 Amendment that so emphatically states that no one shall deprive any person of life to legalize the murder of so many innocent and defenseless U.S. citizens. The 14 Amendment states - " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." 

They took one small peace of that Amendment (the due process clause) and ruled by a vote of 7-2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment would overshadow the right to life for countless human beings who were and are U.S.citizens. SERIOUSLY think about that logically for just a moment. One person's right to privacy justifies them killing another innocent human being.? Under that kind of warped thinking wouldn't any murder be justified because the killer's right to privacy? Just a thought…but it is an extremely scary one! When you open the door to that kind of thinking, where can you legally and morally close it again for other situations? When another person's life can be decided on the by the choice or opinion of another my friends all LIFE at every stage is in danger. It started with abortion but it is quickly going down the slippery slope to opening even more right to life issues. You need look no further than the recent attempts to legalize doctor assisted suicide /euthanasia in several states.

In their decision to legalize abortion which takes the LIFE of an innocent person who is a child and a citizen of the United States they violated not only the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of our country but all of the beliefs that our forefathers founded our great country upon. And yes it is another person's life. Why that should have been such a hard question for supposedly very well educated people as the judges and lawyers in these cases is nothing short of pathetic. Our forefathers realized that children in the womb were people their personhood didn't come into question back then and it never should have been an issue in the first place in these cases it's absurd honestly. Every human being is a person and every unborn child in their mothers womb is a human being from the moment of conception. It is both a religious and a well known and accepted scientific fact. Top embryologists, geneticists, biologists and all kinds of physicians in various fields agree that a distinct and new life of a human being is present at the very moment of conception. These are not new revelations they have been widely known and accepted in the medical and scientific fields for many, many years. You need not look any further than even the most basic textbooks of Human Embryology and Biology that "human life" begins at fertilization, or conception, which is the same as fertilization and they have been there for over a century. 

Read this great article here on the subject http://www.all.org/abac/aq0203.htm by Dr.  C. Ward Kischer Ph.D. He states it perfectly in his article, "Abortion, partial birth abortion, in-vitro fertilization, human fetal research, human embryo research, cloning and stem cell research are all core issues of Human Embryology. Yet, in all of the Supreme Court cases since 1973 and at all of the Congressional hearings on these issues, no human embryologist has been called as a witness and no reference to Human Embryology has ever been made. Further, among the NIH Human Embryo Research Advisory Panel, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, and President Bush's Council on Bioethics, no human embryologist was appointed as a member, nor called as a witness.

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the Roe v Wade decision: "we need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins." Blackmun smeared the distinction between the biological (or embryological) meaning with the legal meaning, and conflated the two into his declaration. His inference was that he was talking about biological life without specifically stating so.

From this source followed a science of Human Embryology that has been parsed and perverted, revised and redefined, changed and corrupted. In fact, the transcripts of President Bush's Council on Bioethics clearly show how extreme the adulteration of the science of Human Embryology has become. The media have especially ignored Human Embryology in their many articles on the core issues. The media have preferentially published a distortion of this science while totally ignoring the many references available for factual information. The impact of this on public policy has been staggering. 

Every one of the core issues identified above is ultimately distilled down to the question of "When Does Human Life Begin?"

The answer is there in the textbooks of Human Embryology, that "human life" begins at fertilization, or conception, which is the same as fertilization. It has always been there, at least for 100 years."

Again you can read the rest of this great article at http://www.all.org/abac/aq0203.htm 

The Declaration of Independence states boldly - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

How very sad how truly far our country has fell from it's great beginnings and how blind, disillusioned, and callus have it's people become when they would deny the first great right of all, that of LIFE, to their fellow human beings. For without the right to life all other rights are meaningless and irrelevant. 

Those judges and lawyers are responsible for the legalized murder and legal holocaust of over 55 million U.S. citizens and legalized the greatest breach of human rights ever to be allowed. Because abortion truly is at it's very core the greatest civil rights violation ever. How is it so different than that of slavery? Both tried to take away the rights of a group of human beings. And just as the evil of slavery was abolished the evil of abortion should be abolished as well!

I pray that God will have mercy on the U.S. and help us to see these abominable cases retried and these laws abolished once and for all very soon. That the men and women of the U.S. will once again embrace a way of life that allows for the LIFE of everyone not just themselves and their loved ones, but for every human being. 

I just read a very interesting article on Jill Stanek's site. http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/11/why-the-preborn-have-the-right-to-use-their-mothers-bodies

I think the writer of the article makes a very good point! The uterus is put in the woman's body for holding and carrying children that's what its there for. And the child is a separate being from it's mother. The child is alive and growing from the time it is conceived with its own DNA that contains everything about what that person will be if it's not interfered with, everything is already decided from eye and hair color, sex, bone structure, fingerprints, even male pattern baldness if it's a boy, everything genetically is already there and present at the time of conception. That child that is created is a unique and living human being. If they don't believe that they need to look at even the very basics of embryology and biology. It's a scientific fact so they can't use that as an excuse either. This isn't just a Biblical belief. Though I do believe what the Bible says we are all created in the image of God and he knows all of us and has a plan for all of our lives. The truth is the truth if they believe it or not is their choice. That is their real choice there. They have to choose if they will believe the truth or a lie if they want to do what is right or wrong. We can choose to believe that the sky is purple and tell everyone around us that it is and that it's our choice. But that doesn't mean that the sky is really purple. A person can CHOOSE to believe anything but that doesn't make what they believe the truth or what is right.

Unless a woman is raped she did consent for that child to possibly be conceived and put in her uterus. Even if she used a condom or birth control because everyone knows (or should know if they are having sex) that there is NO 100% effective form of birth control accept abstinence. If you are having sex you are taking the chance of getting pregnant that's a fact. So she did use her brain to let the child be in her uterus.

And if the woman was raped the child should still not be killed for something it had no control over, or the crime of it's father either. It's still a living human being it's still half her as well and it is innocent of everything just like the mother is. Two wrongs don't make a right. An abortion won't change the fact of what happened and it won't help the mother heal it will only violate her more research show this. Women suffer many times more from the abortions than they did the rape. She can carry the child and give it up for adoption if she doesn't want to raise the child herself. The baby is innocent and shouldn't be killed because of the actions of another. Rape is a horrible crime and should never happen to begin with but God forbid when it does the baby if there is one as a result should not suffer because of it that baby did nothing wrong.

Just because some women have been lied too and are believing that selfish lie that their body is theirs and that a child is disposable because it's in her body for a time and that gives her the right to destroy that life doesn't make it the truth or whats right. These women need to learn the truth and educate themselves and look past their selves for the good of their children, and for themselves! They are hurting themselves so badly as well. I don't want to see any woman or baby hurt by abortion. Abortion is NEVER the right answer in any situation.

I had to share this great blog post from International Pro-life speaker, Attorney Rebecca Kiessling where she takes on a recent article by Ann Coulter where she claimed that pro-lifers like Mourdoch and Akin lost their elections because they were 100% pro-life. Coulter also claims in her article that only 1% of Americans are 100% pro-life which is totally untrue as well.
There should never be any exceptions made in the right to life.  All children regardless of how they were conceived are human beings. Children that are conceived in cases of rape and incest are completely innocent and had nothing to do with the way that they were conceived. The children have done nothing wrong just like their mother's did nothing wrong and were victims of these terrible crimes. No woman should ever be the victim of such horrible crimes, and there is excuse for any woman to ever go through that. However if they do become pregnant because of them being victims of these horrible acts the answer to a resulting pregnancy is not an abortion. Abortion will only victimize and traumatize the woman more and take an innocent life in the process. These babies do not deserve the death penalty for the crimes of their fathers. Rebecca was conceived in rape and she has become an internationally known pro-life speaker who is helping others see that every life is precious and matters, and that there should not ever be exceptions to anyone's life. 
I got permission from Rebecca to post her response here and I encourage you all to please share this with your family and friends and on your own Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites as well. This is an issue that everyone needs to address and talk about even those that are already pro-life. I have heard way to many say that they are pro-life with exceptions or they are pro-life...but... there should never be a but when you are talking about life. The true stories of people like Rebecca and others like Ryan Bomberger,  Pam Stenzel, and others are changing hearts and minds and helping to open people's eyes to the truth every day. Please let's help them spread this message that the children who are conceived in rape and incest their lives aren't any less valuable than yours or mine. Because this is truly a life or death matter! 
Visit Rebecca's webpage at  http://www.rebeccakiessling.com she has many stories and videos of women who were the victims of rapes and became pregnant, and many stories and video from men and women who were conceived in rape. These true stories are so thought provoking and touching and they put a real face to the exceptions issue. Please visit her site and read theirs stories and watch their testimonies and invite others to as well! I can't tell you how important this you just might save someones life!
If you would prefer you can read the response at Rebecca's blog and this is the link to share it...
http://rebeccakiessling.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/rebecca-kiesslings-reply-to-ann-coulter-save-the-1/
Below is the entire response copied and shared with Rebecca's permission.
Rebecca Kiessling’s Reply to Ann Coulter — Save The 1!

I knew this would happen! I predicted that Republican party apologists would blame Richard Mourdoch and Todd Akin’s losses on the fact that they are 100% pro-life, instead of acknowledging that the losses were due to how poorly they expressed their positions. And sure enough, the day after the election, Ann Coulter did just that. In her article entitled, “Don’t Blame Romney,” she spent half of the article blaming these two Senate candidates for daring to defend the life of every preborn child. Her exact words were, “because these two idiots decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest,” calling them “pro-life badasses,” “purist grandstanders,” with “insane positions,” who were “showing off.” Unfortunately, Coulter has a huge following and will surely influence many uninformed readers with her misstatement of the facts and her flawed reasoning. I have great concern that these Senate losses will have a chilling effect on pro-life legislators and voters. Hence, a swift and thorough response is in order.

Ann Coulter, referenced “all the hard work intelligent pro-lifers . . . in the trenches” and what they have accomplished, as if she was one of them. Well, I’ve been in the trenches since 1995, and I must point out that Ann Coulter has been missing in action. I’ve never once seen her in here, so I can’t comprehend how she could possibly include herself in this group. I’m a hard-working intelligent pro-life activist, and I’m 100% pro-life – for good reason. I was not only conceived in rape, but nearly aborted at two back-alley abortionists. The only reason I wasn’t killed through a brutal abortion is because I was legally protected. My heroes are those pro-life legislators and activists who were hard-working and intelligent enough to understand that mine was a life worth saving.

Coulter went on to erroneously write that Mourdoch and Akin lost because they had “abortion positions that less than 1 percent of the nation agrees with.” Her figure is way off, and she has totally ignored the fact that their abortion position adheres to the Republican party platform! All she’s doing is further alienating the base. Mitt Romney alienated the base – not only by making the rape exception, but also by his own gaffes, such as when he said, “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” Pro-life leaders were left to mop up that mess, from which he never recovered. Many pro-lifers who were already skeptical either voted third-party or stayed home. Three million Republicans stayed home, compared to 2008.http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/republican-turnout-in-2012-election-less-than-2008-and-2004/ Making matters worse, Romney ran ads in battleground states suggesting that it’s extreme to be 100% pro-life. How could anyone deny that such ads hurt Senate candidates like Akin in Missouri, Mourdoch in Indiana, and Smith in Pennsylvania, as well as congressional candidates like Koster in Washington and Bachmann in Minnesota? And let’s not forget how the party leadership threw these candidates under the bus – something Democrats do not do to their own.

Additionally, the 1% figure Coulter threw out there is just not even close to being true. Polls in the last few years have consistently shown that the number is between 20 to 24% of Americans who believe abortion should be illegal in cases of rape. The other 31%+ of Americans who are pro-life with exceptions are 99% of the way there, and only need to be nudged another 1%. My experience shows that this is easy to achieve – if you try, just as how my story changed the heart of Gov. Rick Perry during his presidential campaign. And that’s the key. Who has really tried? I know that the number of 100% pro-life Americans would be much higher if the pro-life movement as a whole actually went after this ground. Instead, Coulter is right in pointing out where the effort has been focused – on things like parental notification laws and efforts to ban partial birth abortion. The lives of children conceived in rape are often minimized with the standard dismissive language of: “Well, it’s only 1%.” Why continue to minimize? Why not stand up and really defend our lives? We need to try to gain ground on this issue, by educating the public, by equipping candidates and legislators on how to most effectively respond to the rape question, by making ads with children conceived in rape available for anyone who wishes to utilize them, and by removing rape exceptions from the law, beginning with the Hyde Amendment.

My response to people like Ann Coulter is – WE ARE NOT CANNON FODDER! You do not get to put us out on the front lines and then take a giant step back. The “burning building” analogy fails because you have no interest in working to save all. You do not get to call yourself pro-life by shutting off the water, sending the fire trucks home, while you stand there watching the building burn down with the 1 inside of it. If you want to see who the real extremist is, Ann Coulter, come on Fox News with me, look me in the eyes and tell me how you think my birthmother should have been able to abort me. Tell me that my life was not worthy of protection and that I don’t deserve to be living, and I’ll show you who is the one who is extreme.

Some strategists will suggest that you have to accept rape exceptions in order to get candidates elected and legislation passed. This is untrue – just look at Right to Life of Michigan as the model. They have been a standard-bearer in this cause and have never accepted the rape exception. You can’t get their PAC endorsement if you make the rape exception, and they will not put their stamp of approval on legislation if it has an exception. When they didn’t have the votes to pass the ban on Medicaid funding of abortion without a rape exception, they worked on the exception-legislators to convince them to change their positions. When they still didn’t have the votes, RLM targeted them in their primaries, got them voted out, then passed the ban without exceptions. That’s how you get it done!

Now Right to Life of Michigan has mentored many other state NRLC affiliates to go to this model of being a standard-bearer, maintaining the principle that all are worthy of protection. Since the change on their Board of Directors nearly 12 years ago, Georgia Right to Life has passed more pro-life legislation then they’d ever passed before. They were told at the time by the Republican party leaders that they were dead, irrelevant, and called extremists. Now, every constitutionally-elected official – Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, are all 100% pro-life with no exceptions. The lobbyist for Georgia Right to Life, Dan Becker, wrote a book about it, “Personhood: A Pragmatic Guide to Prolife Victory in the 21st Century and the Return to First Principles in Politics.” www.tkspublications.com Tennessee Right to Life and Alaska Right to Life are other examples of state affiliates who successfully transitioned from the compromising model of accepting the rape exception to being a standard-bearer with no exceptions.

We must not discriminate! Children conceived in rape are surely the most outcast members of our society, being unfairly demonized and portrayed as a “horrible reminder of the rape,” “the rapist’s baby,” “tainting the gene pool,” and even “demon spawn.” This not only affects the pre-born, but also those born under such circumstances. Can you imagine if a law was introduced with an exception in cases of bi-racial rape? I could hear the rationale, “Well, it’s only 1% of 1%,” and “the child would look more like the rapist and would surely be more of a reminder of the rape” – an argument which I’ve actually heard before. There would be a national outcry for such discrimination! Civil rights leaders would be outraged and demand that the exception not only be removed, but that the legislator who introduced it must immediately step down. And yet, half of pro-lifers think nothing of discriminating against children conceived in rape, and it’s wrong!

If we are going to gain ground in this effort to protect unborn children, we must maintain a standard, and we must make more of an effort to educate. I believe that the best people to do so are those of us who have been on the front-lines as pro-life speakers who were conceived in rape, who have been spending our entire adult lives defending our right to life. We’ve heard every question, every challenge, every argument. Why not utilize us? Just to name a few, there is Ryan Bomberger, Susan Jaramillo, and Pam Stenzel. On my website, there are dozens of stories of others conceived in rape and who became pregnant by rape. We’ve publicly shared our stories for a reason – please use them!www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html I’m partnering with Personhood Education to form Save The 1 – an organization which will implement the strategies necessary to defend the 1%, as well as the 99%. Here are three of our new ads which will be launched soon. www.youtube.com/savethe1child

Back to Ann Coulter’s article – she wrote that “No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist.” I don’t believe that. Laws DID protect children like me and these protections can and should be restored. She went on to add: “Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape.” Ann, your words speak volumes as to what you really believe. A preborn child is not an “it.” He or she is a life, a human being, a person, a son or a daughter. They have a gender. This is not a mere philosophical or political exercise, but real people’s lives are at stake. When I represented the mother in Michigan’s “frozen embryo” case, the fertility doctors testified at deposition that from one cell, they are literally male and female, and ascertainably so! Just as it says in Genesis, “male and female, He created them.” Using words of gender serve to demonstrate the humanity of these children.

Lastly, Ann Coulter goes on to suggest being 100% pro-life is not wise because too much of a good thing can harm you – like too much iron, or too much sugar in your coffee. I couldn’t help but think of the words of Mother Teresa: “How can you say there are too many children? That’s like saying there are too many flowers.” No offense Ann, but I’d rather heed the words of a godly woman like Mother Teresa than you.

Amen Rebecca! Keep standing up for and speaking the truth! God bless you!

I wanted to take this opportunity to share this new video featuring Rebecca for the upcoming Save the 1 campaign too! Please share this with others and let's all be a voice for the voiceless and help to Save the 1!

I wanted to share this wonderful video because this is one I believe everyone should watch! This shows the truth behind the "exceptions" rule. Every child matters and abortion is NOT the answer for women who are raped. These are the true faces of those who have lived it and their lives matter! God did have a purpose and a meaning for their lives just like yours and mine and God doesn't make mistakes!