CHAPTER 86 SLAVERY AND ABORTION: HISTORY REPEATS
American Life League

There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of a higher order than the right to life ... That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside of your right to be concerned.

                                                                       Jesse Jackson, February 13, 1975.[1]

Anti-Life Philosophy.

Any parallel drawn between the Abolitionists or civil rights activists and anti-choice terrorists is outrageous, inaccurate, and insulting to all people of color.

While those who worked to end slavery were fighting for the freedom of people of color, anti-choice fanatics are doing exactly the opposite: They are attempting to deprive women everywhere of their fundamental right of reproductive freedom and this program of oppression and repression especially impacts women of color.

Introduction.

The pro-aborts squawk endlessly about how "inappropriate" the analogy between abortion and slavery is. They also snivel about parallels between the Nazi Holocaust and the current American Holocaust, as described in Chapter 53, "Holocaust Analogy to Abortion."

However, they know that these parallels strike very close to the truth too close to the truth for their comfort. This is why they never try to refute any of the many parallels between the two injustices. All they can do is whine as loudly and as bitterly as possible in the hope of diverting attention from the central issue the mass slaughter of innocent preborn babies.

The similarities between the old institution of mass slavery and the new program of mass abortion in the United States are discussed in the following paragraphs.

The Striking Similarities Between Slavery and Abortion.

Introduction.

Karl Marx once said that "History does everything twice; the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."[2]

If this bit of wisdom is true, abortion in America is the greatest farce of all a farce, for all intents and purposes, that is exactly equivalent to the tragedy of slavery in the following ways;

(1) the use of incrementalism;
(2) the dehumanization of the victims;
(3) vicious attacks upon the victim's defenders;
(4) the rise of pro-oppression 'churches;'
(5) legal parallels; and
(6) historical political coincidences.

These parallels are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Parallel #1: The Use of Incrementalism.

The Principle.

A social evil must inevitably 'progress' through a process that always requires three steps;

(1) the social engineers describe the behavior as a 'necessary evil' while they work to legalize it;

(2) when the behavior is legal, it is reclassified as a morally neutral issue that nobody can really pass judgment on;

(3) finally, the supporters of the behavior defend it as a positive good and resist any and all efforts to limit it in any way while making sure that it becomes entrenched at all levels of government.

This three-step process is a description of the process of gradualism, or 'incrementalism,' and is explained more fully in Chapter 7 of Volume I.

Slavery and Abortion.

We have reached the second stage of incrementalism with abortion. Pro-aborts now demand that we all recognize abortion as a positive social good. They unflinchingly demand that taxpayers fund abortions (no matter what their views on the issue), that the courts keep the abortion 'right' inviolable, and even that Catholic hospitals and physicians perform abortions.

There is no room for 'dissent' among pro-aborts.

One extraordinary quote by an Abolitionist highlights the vivid similarity between the attitudes of the slaveholders and that of the pro-abortionists. Simply substitute the word "abortion" for the word "slavery," and you will see the striking analogy.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them [the slavers]? What will convince them? This, and this only: Cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Holding as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.[3]

Parallel #2: Dehumanization of the Victims.

The Principle.

In any large-scale act of oppression, it is absolutely necessary to reduce the target population to a subhuman state through propaganda, so that the general public does not perceive (or does not care about) the injustices that are being heaped upon them. The more brutal the oppression, the more extreme the propaganda must be.

Dehumanization is necessary in order to keep the [Jews, niggers, products of conception] in their places and, most importantly, to prevent others from seeing their inherent humanity and sympathizing with them.

The basic idea here is that an entire subset of the human race is rendered biologically inferior to others through the use of manipulative words.

Slavery and Abortion.

During the days of slavery, Blacks were called "dregs of humanity," and were considered "exactly intermediate between the superior order of beasts such as elephant, dog, and orangutan, and European or white men."[4]

Other slave owners referred to the slave's "ignorance, brutality, obscenity, animal appetite, viciousness, and illegitimacy," and called them "ignorant, perverse, wicked, the pest of white men, and agents of satan."[5]

Today in America, the same dehumanizing terms are used as an effective weapon against the preborn. The following terms, used by anti-life writers to describe the unborn, are all extracted from pro-abortion literature;

• "Just like fingernail clippings or warts;"
• Products of conception, contents of the uterus;
• Little worms or maggots;
• Abortus, conceptus, gobbets of meat;
• Blob of tissue, parasite, leech;
• Masses of protoplasm, human waste;
• A kind of venereal disease;
• A "loathsome plague," a "hideous affliction;"

And many more.

It is interesting indeed that the number of dehumanizing names attached to a target population is directly proportional to the perceived threat it poses to the oppressor.

It is obvious from the above that anti-lifers consider preborns very dangerous indeed.

Parallel #3: Attacks on the Victim's Defenders.

The Principle.

When a people are being oppressed, their aggressors know that any effective voice raised in opposition may prod the conscience of the nation and lead to the victim's protection. Therefore, it is mandatory that the opposition be silenced at all costs. The Abolitionists were viciously attacked a century and a half ago, and pro-life activists are being just as viciously attacked now although generally by different and only sometimes subtler means.

Slavery and Abortion.

Gangs of pro-slavers burned and plundered the homes, churches and printing presses of the Abolitionists. Those who fought slavery were beaten, hung, tarred and feathered; were ridiculed by the mainline press; and became pariahs even to their churches.

Abolitionist Marcus Robinson was kidnapped, tarred and feathered, and dumped by a roadside; Theodore Weld was stoned almost to death; Elija Lovejoy's press building was torched while he was in it, and, when he emerged, he was beaten to death by a mob.

Today, pro-lifers are physically attacked, not only by abortionists but by police; they have been shot at, doused with acid, blinded, and attacked with cars and baseball bats; their homes, churches and cars have been torched, splattered with excrement, and otherwise vandalized; their viewpoint is ridiculed and censored by the press; in fact, until recently, pro-lifers were barred from medical schools (a situation only remedied by an act of Congress).

Details of some of these violent physical attacks are given in Chapter 19 of Volume III, "Anti-Life Violence."

Every pro-life activist is aware of the extraordinary range of labels applied to them by the allegedly "tolerant and nonjudgmental" pro-abortionists; "fanatics;" "terrorists;" "reactionaries;" "anti-progressives;" "Papist slaves;" "hypocrites;" "oppressors of women (misogynists);" "small but vocal minority;" "hysterical Bible-beaters;" "Ayatollah Khomeini clones" (abortionist Bill Baird); "drooling androids" (abortion lawyer Ed Tiryak); and a universe of other derogatory and belittling terms.

Pro-life journalists have been harassed, demoted, and fired because of their views, while pro-abortion journalists proudly strut in pro-death marches (there is, in fact, not a single case of a pro-abortion journalist being disciplined because of his or her views).

Professor Dennis Horan has revealed that being pro-abortion was mandatory for Federal judgeships during President Carter's term, and Bill Clinton has promised that all of his Supreme Court nominees will be required to swear allegiance to Roe v. Wade. Meanwhile, pro-life judges are urged to disqualify themselves from rescue trials (while pro-abortion judges never are); pro-life viewpoints are generally censored in schools and universities as "too controversial" (while pro-abortion viewpoints are considered "contributions to plurality") and pro-abortionists even vigorously oppose informed consent for women seeking abortions and have attempted to drive crisis pregnancy centers out of business.

Pro-life rescuers are given sentences of years for simple trespass, just as several states mandated imprisonment for Abolitionists who agitated a little too loudly or effectively for the comfort of the slavers in power.

Interestingly, in their efforts to discredit the pro-life position, pro-abortionists trot out quisling Blacks who wholeheartedly support abortion. These people are generally referred to as "Oreos:" Black outside, White inside. This is the same tactic of infiltration and subversion the pro-aborts use to undermine the moral authority of the Catholic Church with the fake religious group 'Catholics' for a Free Choice.

The media, as always, is ready and eager to help in this charade. One good example could be found in the September 13, 1989 issue of USA Today. An article on page 3A trumpeted that "Black Women Support 'Roe.'" What was the size of the sample population they examined to arrive at this conclusion? Exactly four women including Faye Wattleton, then-president of Planned Parenthood, and Patricia Tyson of the 'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights!

Other elements of the pro-abort movement use statistical chicanery to "prove" that most "women of color" are "pro-choice." These dishonest methods are identical to those used in general polls, as described in Chapter 76, "Public Opinion Polls on Abortion."

For example, the results of one public opinion survey of 1,157 "women of color" (Black, Latina, Asian and Native American) conducted by the Communications Consortium "showed that 75 percent of the respondents were pro-choice." Supposedly, only 19 percent thought that abortion should be completely illegal.[6] Naturally, the question offered in the poll was "Under what circumstances should abortion remain legal?," and the allowable answers were "Under no circumstances," "Under all circumstances," and "Under some circumstances." Then the pro-aborts lumped the last two categories together to make their "pro-choice majority." What they didn't say, of course, is that a "woman of color" who believed that abortion should only be legal to save the life of the mother was classified as "pro-choice" under this dishonest system.

Parallel #4: Rise of Pro-Oppression Churches.

How many times have learned clergymen told us that abortion is too messy, embarrassing, or inappropriate for action? How many times have they wailed that they may lose their precious tax exemption if they take concrete action? And how many 'Catholic' and so-called 'Christian' priests and ministers have simply come out in favor of "a woman's right to kill?"

In the days of slavery, many churches were weak and equivocating in their opposition to slavery. One Methodist conference found that slavery was "... not a moral evil nor a proper subject for proper action of the Church."[7]

Not surprisingly, the pro-abortion United Methodist Church takes the same position today regarding the preborn.

The Presbyterian Church "... insisted it [slavery] was a political question and will not legislate against it."[8]

Today, the Presbyterian Church, USA takes the same position towards our unborn brothers and sisters.

150 years ago, large numbers of people (usually, those believed in the inerrancy of the Bible) saw the evil in the stands of the mainline churches, and broke off to form their own churches and organizations, just as they are doing today. These modern groups have names like Methodists for Life, the Jewish Anti-Abortion League, and the National Organization of Episcopalians for Life (NOEL).

These organizations, and those Jews and Christians who believe likewise, will one day stand before the Judge, who may ask them; "I was being torn limb from limb by suction machines; dismembered by surgical cutting tools, and scalded alive by saline; and you saw, and came to My rescue."

They will ask "When did we do this for You, Master?"

And He will most likely answer, "Just as you did this unto the least of My brethren, that also did you do unto Me."

The positions of most religious denominations and the addresses of a number pro-life religious organizations may be found in Chapter 42, "Church Positions on Abortion."

Parallel #5: Legal Underpinnings.

The issue in the Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v. Sanford was not whether the slave Dred Scott was a human being, but whether or not he could sue as a citizen in a Federal Court. He was denied this right by the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that slaves were not citizens.

Although slaves were referred to as "human beings" 21 times in the Court's written majority opinion, they were also frequently referred to as "non-persons" a critical distinction. The Supreme Court set the representative power of a Black person equal to 3/5 that of a White person.

The National Abortion Rights Action League and other pro-abortion groups apply the same distinction to the preborn; they acknowledge that the preborn are living and are human beings, but are not whole persons. For example, the National Abortion Rights Action League claims that "It is a fact that the fetus is a human life, but when do we accept that developing human life as a fellow human being? That question can only be answered according to our individual beliefs."[9]

This twisted 'logic,' of course, has been carried down to the state court level in both the slavery and abortion issues.

In State v. Cheatwood, the Supreme Court of South Carolina ruled that

The criminal offense of assault and battery cannot at common law, be committed on the person of a slave for ... he is mere chattel, and his right of personal protection belongs to his master ... A slave is not generally regarded as legally capable of being within the peace of the state.[10]

In a parallel situation, a drunk driver in Michigan crashed head-on into a car carrying a woman pregnant with a baby that was due to be delivered in just two weeks. The baby died, the American Civil Liberties Union took up the cause of the drunk driver, and the mother could not recover a cent in damages, because, as the Court ruled in 1988, she had not suffered any injury and, since her 8-1/2 month preborn baby was not a human being, he had suffered no injury either!

The ACLU correctly assumed that, if the woman had been allowed to recover damages, such a decision would tacitly acknowledge the personhood of the unborn, and would pose an unacceptable threat to abortion 'rights' through legal precedent.

Parallel #6: Political History.

Lincoln and Reagan.

Although they perhaps are the most trivial of the many parallels between slavery and abortion, purely historical coincidences of a political nature are nonetheless fascinating.

Both Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan supported the status quo at one time in their lives. When Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, it had virtually no actual impact at the time. It took a civil war and the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution on December 18, 1865 to free the slaves.

Ronald Reagan, on January 14, 1988, issued his Personhood Proclamation, which was totally ignored by the media and even by most anti- and pro-abortion activists. However, it will inevitably one day be cherished as a landmark document which freed an even larger category of persons from oppression than did the Emancipation Proclamation.

The text of the Personhood Proclamation is shown in Figure 86-1.

Hopefully we will not need an abortion civil war to secure a Human Life Amendment, although some activists on both sides of the issue predict such a conflict.

FIGURE 86-1
PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN'S PERSONHOOD PROCLAMATION

By the President of the United States of America:

A PROCLAMATION

America has given a great gift to the world, a gift that drew upon the accumulated wisdom derived from centuries of experiments in self-government, a gift that has irrevocably changed humanity's future. Our gift is twofold: the declaration, as a cardinal principle of all just law, of the God-given, unalienable rights possessed by every human being; and the example of our determination to secure those rights and to defend them against every challenge through the generations. Our declaration and defense of our rights have made us and kept us free and have sent a tide of hope and inspiration around the globe.

One of those inalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence affirms so eloquently, is the right to life. In the 15 years since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, however, America's unborn have been denied their right to life. Among the tragic and unspeakable results in the past decade and a half have been the loss of life of 22 million infants before birth; the pressure and anguish of countless women and girls who are driven to abortion; and a cheapening of our respect for the human person and the sanctity of human life.

We are told that we may not interfere with abortion. We are told that we may not "impose our morality" on those who wish to allow or participate in the taking of the life of infants before birth; yet no one calls it "imposing morality" to prohibit the taking of life after people are born. We are told as well that there exists a "right" to end the lives of unborn children; yet no one can explain how such a right can exist in stark contradiction to each person's fundamental right to life.

That right to life belongs equally to babies in the womb, babies born handicapped, and the elderly or infirm. That we have killed the unborn for 15 years does not nullify this right, nor could any number of killings ever do so. The inalienable right to life is found not only in the Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution that every President is sworn to preserve, protect, and defend. Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.

All medical and scientific evidence increasingly affirms that children before birth share all the basic attributes of human personality that they in fact are persons. Modern medicine treats unborn children as patients. Yet, as the Supreme Court itself has noted, the decision in Roe v. Wade rested upon an earlier state of medical technology. The law of the land in 1988 should recognize all of the medical evidence.

Our Nation cannot continue down the path of abortion, so radically at odds with our history, our heritage, and our concepts of justice. This sacred legacy, and the well-being and the future of our country, demand that protection of the innocents must be guaranteed and that the personhood of the unborn be declared and defended throughout our land. In legislation introduced at my request in the First Session of the 100th Congress, I have asked the Legislative branch to declare the "humanity of the unborn child and the compelling interest of the several states to protect the life of each person before birth." This duty to declare on so fundamental a matter falls to the Executive as well. By this Proclamation I hereby do so.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare the inalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare that I will take care that the Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of America's unborn children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgement of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. I also proclaim Sunday, January 17, 1988, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon the citizens of this blessed land to gather on that day in their homes and places of worship to give thanks for the gift of life they enjoy and to reaffirm their commitment to the dignity of every human being and the sanctity of every human life.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of January, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and twelfth.

Ronald Reagan

Reference: Ronald Reagan's Presidential Personhood Proclamation was published in the Federal Register, Presidential Documents, Volume 53, No. 11, Tuesday, January 19, 1988. Proclamation 5761 of January 14, 1988. FR Document 88-1081.

Democrats and Republicans.

Amusingly, the Democratic Party was solidly pro-slavery. Abolitionists finally had to join the Liberty Party, the first anti-slavery political party, which was organized in Albany in 1840. The Liberty Party was renamed the Free Soil Party at a 1848 Buffalo convention, and was once again renamed the Republican Party in 1856. Today, once again, the Republican Party defends the fatherless and the oppressed, while the Democratic Party enthusiastically embraces every type of perversion and evil, including the greatest evil of all, abortion.

Lessons We Can Learn from the Abolitionists.

Introduction.

Pro-life activists have been labeled "The New Abolitionists" by their defenders in the press and in the court system. However, we can only live up to this high ideal if we succeed in learning the lessons that our spiritual forefathers passed down to us.

Be Single Issue!

The so-called "Seamless Garment" is a deadly trap laid for pro-lifers by the opposition. This concept states that you can't really be 'pro-life' unless you are anti-apartheid, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-old growth logging, anti-nuke, anti-heterosexism, and a score of other 'antis.' Longtime pro-life activists know that, if we get tangled up in all of these other issues, we will dilute our strength, lose our effectiveness, and therefore never win our battle.

This slippery and dangerous concept is described in Chapter 84.

The Abolitionists had to learn this lesson as well. Pro-slavery people condemned them for being 'single-issue,' just as pro-abortionists condemn pro-lifers now. In reply, Theodore Weld stated that "The sin of slavery in this country is omni-present. In the present crises, it not only overshadows all others, but involves all others, and absorbs them into itself. It is my deliberate conviction that revivals, moral reforms, etc., must and will remain stationary until the temple is cleansed!"[11]

This is perfectly true of the abortion issue today. Abortion is certainly what is stalling revival in our country.

Be Implacable!

Compromise is death. Compromise is what got our country into its present mess not only with abortion, but with homosexuality, drugs, pornography, and now euthanasia.

The Abolitionists recognized the absolutely essential quality of implacability. We should not be at all concerned (or surprised) that we will be unpopular with the press and the public if we take an uncompromising stand; after all, our soft and sickly society thrives on compromise, 'deals,' and deceit. We may even be shunned by our co-workers, friends, family, and others who call themselves 'Christians.'

This should not matter to us. It did not matter to the Abolitionists! James Birney stated "that slavery shall cease to exist, absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably." William Lloyd Garrison thundered that "I will be harsh as truth, as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, speak, or write with moderation."[12]

William Seward said in 1858 that

The United States must and will sooner or later become either entirely a slave-holding nation or entirely a free-labor nation."[7] This also rings true with abortion no checkerboard laws for us! As long as babies are dying anywhere, they are all in danger. As Martin Luther King so ironically said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

It is different, of course, for those on the defensive. Perhaps the pro-abortionists would be able to delay their inevitable defeat if they would compromise even slightly; if they would cooperate in the banning of sex-selection and third-trimester abortions, for example, or if they would allow parental consent or informed consent laws.

But they will not. They resist even discussion on these points. They agitate to close down all Crisis Pregnancy Centers, they try to ban pro-life advertising, they aggressively sue pro-lifers for millions of dollars, they obtain injunctions to keep sidewalk counselors from even speaking to their victims ... and so, the outrage will continue to build until the overwhelming evil and hypocrisy of abortion and its minions is at last exposed and overthrown!

Look to God for Guidance.

The Abolitionists ignored the edicts of the Supreme Court, the press, and the public, and carried on the fight. They knew that God gave all people inherent dignity, and that all people are equal in His sight. Abolitionist Gerrit Smith said that "I deny that decisions of any, even the highest earthly tribunal, against fundamental, unchangeable, internal human rights are ever, even for a moment, to be regarded as final and unalterable."[13]

This statement is even more true of the Right to Life than it was of slavery. We must take this lesson to heart.

Be Prepared to Sacrifice.

No goal is really worth the effort if it does not require hard work and sacrifice. Abolitionist Charles Beecher knew this well, as do today's rescuers;

Disobey this [Fugitive Slave] law. If you ever dreamed of obeying it, repent before God and ask his forgiveness. I counsel no violence, I suggest no war-like measures of resistance, I incite no man to deeds of blood. I speak as a minister of the Prince of Peace ... If you are fined or imprisoned, wear gladly your chains. For on the Last Day, you will be rewarded for your fidelity to God. Do not think it any disgrace to accept such penalty. It is the devil and the devil's people who enact, enforce, or respect such penalties.[14]


References: Slavery Analogy to Abortion.

[1] Jesse Jackson, a formerly pro-life politician who gave up his principles for personal gain. Quoted in Catholic Twin Circle, April 9, 1989.

[2] Karl Marx, quoted in Francis Canavan. "From Tragedy to Farce." The Human Life Review, Spring 1987, pages 17 to 29.

[3] R.R. Basler (editor). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, pages 547 to 549.

[4] Simon Clough. A Candid Appeal to the Citizens of the United States, Proving that the Doctrines Advanced and the Measures Pursued by the Abolitionists Relative to the Subject of Emancipation, are Inconsistent with the Teachings and Directions of the Bible and that those Clergymen Engaged in the Dissemination of these Principles Should be Immediately Dismissed by their Respective Congregations as False Teachers. New York, 1834. Also see Richard H. Colfax. Evidence Against the Views of the Abolitionists, Consisting of Physical and Moral Proofs, of the Natural Inferiority of the Negroes. New York, 1833.

[5] W.P.N. Fitzgerald. A Scriptural View of Slavery and Abolition. New Haven, 1839. Also see R. Yearson. The Amenability of Northern Incendiaries ... Charleston, 1835, page 5.

[6] "Poll Says Most Women of Color Are Pro-Choice." WomenWise (A publication of the Concord Feminist Health Center), Summer 1992, page 4.

[7] James G. Birney. The American Churches: The Bulwarks of American Slavery. London, 1840, pages 15 to 18.

[8] Dwight L. Dumond (editor). Letters of James Gillespie Birney, 1831-1857. Volume I, page 345.

[9] Looseleaf booklet entitled "Organizing for Action." Prepared by Vicki Z. Kaplan for the National Abortion Rights Action League, 250 West 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10019. 51 pages, no date.

[10] W.R.Hill. Reports of Cases at Law, Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of South Carolina (3 volumes, Charleston, 1857), II, page 459.

[11] Lewis Tappan. "Letter to Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelina Grimke Weld, and Sarah Grimke." November 17, 1835.

[12] "Constitution and Address of the Kentucky Society for Gradual Relief of the State from Slavery." Olive Branch - Extra, December 24, 1833.

[13] Gerrit Smith. Abstract of the Arguments on the Fugitive Slave Law, Made by Gerrit Smith, in Syracuse, June 1852, on the Trial of Henry W. Allen ... , page 26.

[14] Charles Beecher. The Duty of Disobedience to Wicked Laws, a Sermon on the Fugitive Slave Law. New York, 1851, page 14.


Further Reading: Slavery Analogy to Abortion.

Father James Tunstead Burtchaell. Rachel Weeping: The Case Against Abortion.
New York: Harper & Row, 1982. 381 pages. Five essays, marked with crystal-clear reasoning and fully documented, addressing several major arguments against abortion, including the Holocaust analogy, the slavery analogy, and point-by-point rebuttals of pro-abortion slogans. Of particular interest is the first essay, which uses pro-abortion sources to show how damaging abortion is to women.

Lewis E. Lehrman. "The Right to Life and the Restoration of the American Republic."
Originally published in National Review and now available as an educational reprint from American Collegians for Life, Post Office Box 1112, Washington, DC 20013.

J.C. Willke, M.D. Abortion and Slavery: History Repeats.
Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. A well-written comparison between the slavery issue of the mid-1850s and the abortion issue of today. Dr. Willke finds that the organizations, the slogans and logic, and the political maneuvering are remarkably similar. Most of this chapter's material is drawn from this book.


© American Life League BBS 1-703-659-7111

This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published by American Life League.


Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com