Where does Paul Ryan stand on abortion, the right to life?

Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is Mitt Romney's running mate, the Republican candidate for vice president in the Nov. 6 election. Where does he stand on the right to life?

Ryan is fully committed to respecting and protecting the dignity and right to life of every member of the human family, including the unborn. He told the Weekly Standard's John McCormack, "I'm as pro-life as a person gets." He wrote in a 2009 op-ed, "I remain committed to restoring the value of human life and fighting for the rights of the unborn. ... Most importantly, we must ensure that the most vulnerable among us—both unborn children and mothers struggling with unplanned pregnancies—are afforded the compassion and opportunities they need to choose life."

According to National Right to Life, Ryan has voted 78 times in favor of the pro-life position and zero times against it—a 100 percent pro-life voting record through his entire tenure in Congress. These include votes to prevent approval of the abortion drug RU486, ban partial-birth abortion, cut off federal funding to abortion giant Planned Parenthood, ban human cloning, prevent federal funding of embryo-destructive research, stop taxpayer funding of abortion, prevent abortion funding overseas, protect unborn children capable of experiencing pain, and repeal Obamacare.

Though he is known for his economic and budgetary expertise, Ryan has rejected Republican calls for a "truce" on "social issues" (such as abortion) in order to focus on economics: "You're not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they're unavoidable, and I'm never going to not vote pro-life."

Ryan has further explained:

Healthy debate should take place within the Republican Party on specific policies, but it is a false choice to ask which natural right we should discard: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not a menu of options. All planks—economic liberty and limited government; keeping our nation secure; championing America's founding truths and the dignity of every human person—are rooted in same timeless principles, enshrined in our Founding and the cause of our exceptionalism.

Indeed, Ryan penned an article in 2010 titled "The Cause of Life Can't Be Severed from the Cause of Freedom," in which he wrote:

Now, after America has won the last century's hard-fought struggles against unequal human rights in the forms of totalitarianism abroad and segregation at home, I cannot believe any official or citizen can still defend the notion that an unborn human being has no rights that an older person is bound to respect. I do know that we cannot go on forever feigning agnosticism about who is human. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time." The freedom to choose is pointless for someone who does not have the freedom to live. So the right of "choice" of one human being cannot trump the right to "life" of another. How long can we sustain our commitment to freedom if we continue to deny the very foundation of freedom—life—for the most vulnerable human beings? ...

[G]overnment must uphold every person's right to make choices regarding their lives and ... every person's right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature—the "law of the jungle"—the determination of who "qualifies" as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right.

"The pro-life Romney-Ryan team stands in sharp contrast to the avowed pro-abortion administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden," concludes National Right to Life President Carol Tobias. "With the election of a Romney-Ryan ticket, America, and her children, will be in good hands."

Mitt Romney offers pro-life contrast to Obama

"In the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than
a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America."

A version of the following ran in the May/June issue of MCCL News.

Mitt Romney is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee to challenge Democratic incumbent Barack Obama in the Nov. 6 election. The former Massachusetts governor and businessman takes a pro-life position that contrasts sharply with Obama's pro-abortion record.

Romney once did not favor laws against abortion (though he had repeatedly said that he personally opposed the practice), but he changed his position in 2004 when studying human embryology, stem cells and cloning as governor.

"The Roe v. Wade mentality has so cheapened the value of human life that rational people saw human life as mere research material to be used, then destroyed," he later said. "What some see as a mere clump of cells is actually a human life. Human life has identity. Human life has the capacity to love and be loved. Human life has a profound dignity, undiminished by age or infirmity."

Romney compiled a pro-life record during his tenure in office, vetoing a pro-cloning bill and a bill to redefine the beginning of life (as later than conception) and receiving an award for political leadership from Massachusetts Citizens for Life. "I publicly acknowledged my error, and joined with you to promote the sanctity of human life," he explained in a 2007 speech to the pro-life group.

Romney believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned and has promised, if he is elected president, to nominate judges who "adhere to the Constitution and the laws as they are written, not as they want them to be written." Romney says he will take pro-life executive actions, including restoring Ronald Reagan's Mexico City policy and denying funds to the pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund.

He says he will support pro-life legislation, such as bans on federal funding of abortion and federal funding of Planned Parenthood. And he advocates the complete repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which (if not repealed) will lead to government-subsidized abortion coverage and the rationing of lifesaving health care.

In all of these areas, Obama has taken the opposite view—he has promoted abortion and undermined the dignity of unborn human life at every turn.

"Let me be clear: Mine will be a pro-life presidency," Romney pledged in a February speech. "I will reverse every single Obama regulation that attacks our religious liberty and threatens innocent life." The stakes in this contest are clear.

NRLC criticizes media coverage of abortion issue

The following statement was released yesterday by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

WASHINGTON -- "The mainstream news media is once again demonstrating its eagerness to use any excuse to portray a Republican presidential ticket as out of the mainstream on abortion, while ignoring the truly extreme positions taken by the pro-abortion candidate -- this year, President Obama," said Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC).

The mainstream news media is again busy ginning up stories exploring the outer parameters of the abortion-related policy positions of pro-life Republican candidates, even where this involves remote, theoretical scenarios -- while demonstrating a near-total disinterest in putting the spotlight on the outer parameters of the "abortion rights" positions embraced by President Obama, even on matters under current legislative consideration.

The current media focus is on the position of the Romney-Ryan ticket on prohibiting abortion in cases of rape or incest. Governor Romney has been quite clear that he supports rape and incest exceptions to a law providing general protection for unborn children. ...

According to a 2005 study published by the Guttmacher Institute, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions," one percent of the women who were surveyed while seeking abortions reported having an abortion because they were victims of rape. Legislation to prohibit early abortion in cases of rape and incest is not under consideration in Congress. Indeed, since 1993, Congress provided federal funding for abortion in cases of rape and incest. ...

Despite the remoteness of these matters from any legislation currently under consideration in Congress or likely to be considered by the next Congress, the mainstream news media finds them worthy of sustained attention. Yet there is little interest by these journalists in performing a symmetrical exploration of the outer parameters of President Obama's policy positions on abortion -- even with respect to bills that are under active consideration in Congress.

For example, recently NRLC brought it to the attention of Congress that currently, in the District of Columbia -- a federal jurisdiction -- abortion is legal for any reason, until the moment of birth. (This is because the "District Council," utilizing delegated congressional authority, repealed the entire abortion law.) On July 31, 2012, by a solid majority of 66 votes (220-154), the U.S. House of Representatives voted for a bill (H.R. 3803) to overturn this policy, and replace it with a ban on abortion after 20 weeks fetal age (the beginning of the sixth month), except to save the life of the mother. At the same time, Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) filed the same measure as an amendment to cybersecurity legislation (S. 3414) -- a White House priority -- that was pending in the Senate when the August recess began.

So, what is President Obama's position on the pending legislation that has already commanded a substantial majority in the U.S. House, and that is at least technically still pending in the U.S. Senate? Good question -- but the mainstream media has been almost entirely uninterested in asking it. At the July 31 White House press briefing, one desultory question was posed to Jay Carney about the bill, to which Carney responded that he had not spoken to the President about this particular bill (although it had 223 cosponsors, and was to be voted on later that day in the House). There was no follow up.

Another example: On May 31, 2012, the U.S. House took up the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (H.R. 3541), a bill to prohibit the use of abortion for purposes of sex selection in the United States. Only one organ of the mainstream news media showed any interest in ascertaining what President Obama's position was on the bill: ABC News' Jake Tapper pressed for an answer, and obtained it the night before the House vote -- President Obama opposed the bill. His reason? "The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way." But aside from one-time, low-profile coverage on the ABC News blog, Obama's position on this legislation has gone virtually unmentioned in the news media -- although the bill commanded a substantial bipartisan majority (246-168) in the U.S. House on May 31. A recent poll found that 77 percent of the public (80 percent of women, 74 percent of men) favors banning the use of abortion for sex selection.

Thus, while consumers of the mainstream news media are likely to view and read countless stories that affirm that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan have expressed opposition to abortion "even in cases of [fill in the blank]," they are likely to see far fewer reports that President Obama supports allowing legal abortion "even when used for sex selection," or exploring President Obama's position on whether abortion should be allowed "even up to the point of birth" in the nation's capital. For the mainstream news media, the "even in cases of ..." knife only cuts in one direction.

"For the most part, the mainstream news media prefer to characterize President Obama's position in terms of hazy generalizations, avoiding specifics such as his actions to allow unrestricted abortion for sex selection and late abortions," said NRLC President Carol Tobias.

Video: Doctor describes second-trimester abortion procedure

This is congressional testimony earlier this year from Dr. Anthony Levatino, who performed more than 1,200 abortions (and hundreds more during his medical training). He describes how the most common second-trimester abortion procedure -- dilation and evacuation, or D&E -- is performed. A medically-accurate diagram of the procedure can be viewed here.

Dr. Levatino later says: "Some people think the doctor waves his hand and the baby disappears. It just doesn't happen that way." He calls D&E abortion "absolutely gut-wrenching for the physician ... to literally tear a human being apart with your own hands." He explains why he changed his mind about abortion toward the end (beginning at about 2:50) of this clip.

Expanded Safe Place for Newborns law will protect infants who are at risk

This spring, in response to cases of infant abandonment in recent years (including a baby left in the Mississippi River last fall), the Legislature revised the state's Safe Place for Newborns law, originally enacted in 2000. The expanded policy goes into effect this month.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) issued a news release this morning:

Enacted in 2000 and amended in 2012, the law allows a mother, or someone acting with her permission, to safely surrender her unharmed infant born within the past seven days to a designated safe place. A safe place includes a hospital, an urgent care facility during its hours of operation, or an ambulance that is dispatched in response to a 911 call. Previously, the law allowed for the safe surrender of infants born within 72 hours, and designated safe places were hospitals only.

Click to enlarge

"This amendment strengthens our law, ensuring children are safe, and giving frightened, sometimes distraught mothers an option if they are unable to care for their newborns," said Minnesota Department of Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson.

The law protects the newborn, the parent and the individual leaving the baby. Upon receiving an infant, personnel at the safe place must not try to determine the identities of the people involved. Nor can they call the police. Safe place providers arrange for immediate medical care of the baby and must contact social services for assistance within 24 hours of receiving an infant.

"As a mother, I understand what a woman goes through post-delivery, especially when she feels she has no options or hope," said the bill's chief Senate author Sen. Michelle Benson. "This law expands the window to seven days and broadens drop off locations. It also allows mothers the additional option of requesting an ambulance to come get the baby without facing the threat of prosecution. The law focuses on doing what is best for babies and their mothers."

"This is a great example of the good work that can be done when elected officials and department staff put politics aside and work together," said the bill's chief House author Rep. Jim Abeler. "Because of this collaboration, some children will get the chance to experience life with one of the many families that are waiting to open their homes and hearts to a child."

Information about this lifesaving option should be widely disseminated across Minnesota. DHS has provided a fact sheet (available online here) and a poster display (available here, and shown above).

Paul Ryan on life and choice

"Now, after America has won the last century's hard-fought struggles against unequal human rights in the forms of totalitarianism abroad and segregation at home, I cannot believe any official or citizen can still defend the notion that an unborn human being has no rights that an older person is bound to respect. I do know that we cannot go on forever feigning agnosticism about who is human. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, 'The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time.' The freedom to choose is pointless for someone who does not have the freedom to live. So the right of 'choice' of one human being cannot trump the right to 'life' of another. How long can we sustain our commitment to freedom if we continue to deny the very foundation of freedom—life—for the most vulnerable human beings? ...

"[G]overnment must uphold every person's right to make choices regarding their lives and ... every person's right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice. In the state of nature—the 'law of the jungle'—the determination of who 'qualifies' as a human being is left to private individuals or chosen groups. In a justly organized community, however, government exists to secure the right to life and the other human rights that follow from that primary right."

-- Paul Ryan, "The Cause of Life Can't Be Severed from the Cause of Freedom"

What you won't hear about Humphrey at his memorial dedication: He opposed abortion

The following statement may be attributed to MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach.

Humphrey on the cover of the MCCL
newsletter in 1974

The new Hubert H. Humphrey (HHH) memorial will be dedicated Saturday on the Capitol mall in St. Paul. Numerous officials including former President Bill Clinton, Governor Mark Dayton , U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, and former Governor Arne Carlson are speakers on the dedication program. I am sure that many of the accomplishments of the late U.S. senator and vice president will be lauded at the event. I am also certain that the crowd won't be reminded that Humphrey was against abortion.

Hubert H. Humphrey was a Democrat and a progressive for sure, but he was also a believer in civil rights and social justice. When asked on the campaign trail about legalized abortion he said flat out, "I am not for it."

Legalized abortion came towards the end of Humphrey's political career, but by the late 1960s and early 1970s abortion was being discussed widely. Even though those were the early days of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life's organizing efforts, Humphrey had lengthy dialog with pro-life leaders.

Humphrey was an exceptional orator. One of his most famous quotes from 1976 underscores his concern for society's most vulnerable citizens: "The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

HHH brought great zeal to the public arena to defend the defenseless, speak for the voiceless and protect the weakest among us in society. I doubt that he would understand the zeal that his memorial's dedicators have brought to the public arena to promote the destruction of innocent, voiceless and defenseless unborn children from abortion.

Kurt Bills, pro-life high school teacher, challenges Klobuchar

A version of the following was published in the July/August issue of MCCL News.

"I cling to the ideal of a citizen-legislator, not a career politician," says Kurt Bills. "My aspirations lie only in fixing what's broken and standing up for what's right."

An economics teacher

Bills is the Republican-endorsed candidate for U.S. Senate. He offers voters a pro-life alternative to pro-abortion incumbent Democrat Amy Klobuchar in the Nov. 6 election.

Bills currently represents District 37B in the Minnesota House of Representatives; he previously served on the Rosemount City Council. He has taught social studies, including economics and American government, for the past 15 years at Rosemount High School.

Bills lives in Rosemount with his four children and wife of 17 years, Cindy, who runs a home daycare. The family attends Christ Church in Apple Valley.

Record is pro-life

"Cindy and I are both staunchly pro-life," Bills says. He opposes abortion, human cloning, research that requires the destruction of human embryos, and health care rationing based on "quality of life" criteria. "I look forward to taking the pro-life message to the United States Senate."

During his two years in the Legislature, Bills has cast many pro-life votes, including votes to ban taxpayer funding of abortion, protect unborn children capable of feeling pain, and ban taxpayer funding of human cloning. This year he co-authored bills to license and inspect abortion facilities and prohibit "webcam abortions," in which the RU486 abortion drug is dispensed remotely absent the physical presence of a doctor. Both pro-life measures were vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton.

Bills strongly opposes the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which will result in government-subsidized abortion coverage and the rationing of lifesaving care. "Obamacare should never have passed, and it should be repealed as soon as possible," he explains. "My opponent Amy Klobuchar was the deciding vote in passing ... Obamacare."

Every vote matters

Recent history—notably the Obamacare debate—has shown that every Senate vote matters. Kurt Bills promises to make his vote count on behalf of unborn children and other vulnerable members of the human family.