Exposing Domestic and International Abortion Strategies

If you’ve ever wondered how the leaders of the pro-abortion movement talk among themselves, wonder no more. Thanks to the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (CFAM) we have in our possession a series of memos written by the intellectual epicenter of the pro-abortion movement, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). It reveals a legal strategy — a vast, left-wing conspiracy, to paraphrase Hillary Clinton — to absolutely gut protections for human life both in the U.S. and around the globe. And they are ready to play dirty to get their way.

Exposing Domestic Abortion Strategies

The internal Center for Reproductive Rights memos were never intended for public dissemination. Reading them, one can see why. As Congressman Christopher Smith remarked, before placing them into the Congressional Record, “It is especially important that policy makers know, and more fully understand, the deceptive practices being employed by the abortion lobby. These documents are from recent CRR strategy sessions where, according to a quote from a related interview session, one of the CRR’s trustees said, ‘We have to fight harder, be a little dirtier.’ These documents expose the wolf donning sheep’s clothing in an attempt to sanitize violence against children. These papers reveal a Trojan Horse of deceit.”1

CRR opposes any regulation of the abortion business, wants Medicaid to pay for abortions in all 5U states, and even objects to “Choose Life” license plates. Their answer to any and all challenges to the abortion-on-demand mentality is the same: Sue, sue, sue.

Overturning “TRAP” Laws

The CRR would overturn in the courts any standard medical regulations of abortion clinics. To use the CRR’s own jargon, these medical regulations are called “targeted regulation of abortion providers” or TRAP laws. According to CRR, “TRAP laws regulate the medical practices of doctors; who provide abortions by imposing burdensome requirements that are different and more stringent than regulations applied to comparable medical practices. These excessive and unnecessary government regulations ultimately harm women’s health and inhibit their reproductive choices.”2

In reality, however, these laws protect women from dangerous medical complications, even death, at the hands of the abortion-clinic worker. One so-called TRAP law — Arizona statute 36-431(A); 13-707{A)(3), 13-802(C) — ensures that an abortionist has a valid medical license: “A person is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor who… establishes, operates or maintains [an abortion clinic] unless the person holds a current and valid license.”

Another such law, Missouri statute 301.3, requires that nurses in abortion clinics work under a registered nurse: “The abortion l facility nursing service shall be under the “direction of a legally and professionally qualified registered nurse.”

Missouri statute 19 CSR 30-30.060 (l)(c)(4) provides for adequate medical response to life-threatening complications: “Physicians performing abortions,. shall have staff privileges at a hospital within fifteen (15) minutes travel time from the facility or the facility shall show proof there is a working arrangement between the facility and a hospital within fifteen (15) minutes travel time from the facility granting the admittance of patients for emergency treatment whenever necessary.”

Medicaid Coverage

So far, courts have ordered 13 states to provide coverage for abortion under Medicaid (Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey. New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont and West Virginia), Three states (Hawaii, New York and Washington) voluntarily provide coverage for abortion under Medicaid. Five states (Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin) either voluntarily, or by court order, provide some abortion coverage under Medicaid. But seven states (Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas) have warded off litigation attempts to mandate abortion coverage under Medicaid.

The CRR litigation strategy would press courts to mandate universal abortion coverage under Medicaid for every state.

No Choice on License Plates

According to the CRR memo, “We are following through on cases challenging Choose Life license plates and the fundraising these plates do for so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers. We are currently seeking law firm support for new cases in two or three states.”

License plates for ears with the popular “Choose Life” message have been legal in Florida since 1998, Over 24,000 plates were sold in Florida that year, raising almost $500,000.00 dollars. As of September 2003, over $2.000,000.00 has been raised and the tags continue to sell, raising aver $70,000.00 per month. Every tag sold raises $20 to help organizations such as maternity homes, crisis pregnancy centers, and certain non-profit adoption agencies, which are helping women committed to making an adaption plan for their child.

Choose Life, Inc., the Florida group that developed the idea, is communicating with groups and individuals in over 40 states at this time,3 including Virginia State Delegate Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun-Virginia), author of Virginia’s parental consent law, whose efforts to promote the tag have gained wide support but have been blocked by a pro-abortion Governor and lawmakers.

Roe No More?

The final section of the document reveals the reason for this aggressive campaign of lawsuits. The abortion movement is in a near state of panic over the possibility that Roe v. Wade may be overturned. The authors of the memo write that “we are examining whether our traditional work will continue or whether we need to anticipate a new legal landscape, either because limitations on the right to choose will be firmly established and viable legal challenges will dwindle or because Roe v. Wade will be overturned or substantially undermined, also eliminating the cases that make up much of our current docket.”

Exposing International Abortion Strategies

In addition to removing protections on human life in the U.S., the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and its allies would like to legalize abortion around the globe. Yet they find themselves in a position of grave weakness, since most countries outlaw abortion, some international treaties and agreements explicitly oppose it, and not a single treaty or agreement promotes it. But for the true believer, none of this matters. Treaties can be twisted, documents can be distorted, and words can be made to mean what they want them to mean.

CRR begins by openly acknowledging the weakness of its hand. “We have been leaders in bringing arguments for a woman’s right to choose abortion within the rubric of international human rights. However, there is no binding hard norm that recognizes a women’s right to terminate a pregnancy.”4 This is a glaring “normative gap,” to use CRR’s own words, in international documents and treaties. How does CRR intend to bridge this normative gap?

CRR intends to fill this normative gap by explicitly including “abortion” as a “reproductive right” within the panoply of human rights referred to in international treaties and norms, which include: “the rights to life and health; the right to be free from discrimination; [and] those rights that protect individual decision-making on private matters.”5

In a sense, they are seeking to replicate the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision of the Supreme Court, which found a “right” to abortion in the “penumbra” of the 14th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Their stumbling block is that there is no international equivalent of the “Supreme Court,” dominated by people of like mind, to hand down this ruling.

In lieu of this, CRR lays out a strategy of legalizing abortion through legislative action around the world. In CRR’s words, “The goal of strengthening international norms and enforcement is to ensure that appropriate legal norms are in place at the national level…”6 They describe the “adoption and implementation of appropriate national-level norms” — namely, legislation enacted by national governments to legalize abortion — as a “prerequisite” to establishing the right to abortion in international norms.

At the same time, however, CRR seeks to justify the legalization of abortion in specific countries by claiming that international norms and standards already include a right to abortion. This is smoke and mirrors, since they have just admitted that international norms do NOT include a right to abortion.

Nevertheless, the CRR abortion strategists go on to say that they will promote such a right to abortion by “repeated interpretations” of the concept of “reproductive rights.” Through these “repeated interpretations of they hope that international treaties and norms will gradually be seen to support abortion. To wit, “As interpretations of norms… are repeated in international bodies, the legitimacy of these rights is reinforced.” In other words, they will continue to repeat the lie that abortion is an international right until the lie is, they hope, believed.

International Law

Pro-abortion lobbyists overseas will cite these false claims to promote the legalization of abortion in their own countries. Whenever any country legalizes abortion based upon these lies, then this would be used to strengthen the “interpretation” that abortion is a “reproductive right” under international law.

If all this sounds confusing, not to worry. It is. It is the product of minds who will stoop to any lie, to any deceit, to promote abortion. Truth and justice matter nothing to such zealots.

But take heart. While the CRR memos hope to promote abortion in “international jurisprudence,” they go on to note that “we are forever at risk of losing ground in the same fora.”7 Their worst fear should be our plan. And a public examination of their memos is a good place to start.