Rebecca Kiessling’s Reply to Ann Coulter — Save The 1!
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.
Save The 1!
Save The 1!
By Rebecca Kiessling
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.
Women Who Cried Wolf — the illegitimate rape claim behind Roe v Wade
This past week, Congressman Akin was publicly chastised for his comments on abortion in the case of rape, employing the controversial term “legitimate rape.” There was outcry from the liberal left, and from moderate Republicans – an indignation that a candidate for U.S. Senate would dare imply that a woman’s claim of rape might not be legitimate, making him out to be a misogynist. Though I’ve previously written that the comment was a faux pas and unnecessarily uttered, I’d like to address the underlying implications of such a statement, which was very similar to Ron Paul’s phraseology about an “honest rape” when he too was asked about abortion in the case of rape. Are legislators really to blame for implying that there are false claims of rape? Is there a history of illegitimate rape claims, particularly as it relates to this issue of pregnancy and rape? Do some women fabricate these claims? If so, who is to blame for any tendency in our society to question the veracity of rape victims’ accounts? Skeptical lawmakers, judges, juries, media, and the public, or the women who have cried wolf?
When I was in law school, I was a victim of domestic violence. A boyfriend from law school beat me up, breaking my jaw, knocking my teeth loose, chipping them, and crushing all of the bone in my upper jaw, which eventually resulted in the loss of my front tooth after much effort and surgeries to try to save it. I became a family law attorney because of what was done to me. As a young attorney, I was idealistic and naïve – absolutely indignant that any judge or Friend of the Court referee would dare question the claims of a victim of domestic violence. After all, she finally had the courage to leave the abusive situation after having been threatened, abused and terrorized. How on Earth could a judge or Friend of the Court referee doubt her account and refuse to grant, or dismiss, a Personal Protection Order? I thought that these people must be uncaring women-haters, showing deference only to men. Maybe they were even abusers themselves?!
Then I gained experience. I had clients who I discovered were lying about their claims of domestic violence. I had clients who specifically asked me, “Well, what if I say I was abused?” — wanting to know how that could affect custody, or getting him removed from the home so she wouldn’t have to live with her husband during their divorce. Finally, the reality struck me – these judges are skeptical because there are women who cry wolf. That’s when I began seeing the judges in a new light, and my resentment grew toward the women who lied. I saw the reality that my clients who really were abused had a difficult time with the court system because of these other women who were ruining it for the real victims.
After learning my front tooth would have to be pulled, an expert in cosmetic dentistry offered to restore my smile for free, as part of the Give Back A Smile Program for victims of domestic violence, through the American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry — http://www.aacd.com/index.php?module=cms&page=556. The bridge and eight teeth with porcelain veneers would have likely cost me around $20,000 to have done by this expert in advanced cosmetic dentistry. http://www.forrestbryant.com Hence, the program had to ensure that there wasn’t fraud. I had to have a certification from a domestic violence counselor that I’d spent time with her, that she believed my claim was legitimate, and that I’d been out of the relationship for at least one year. Was this because these people who wanted to help restore my smile were really misogynist wife-beaters themselves who heartlessly mistrusted a victim’s story? No, of course not! This is the result of women who have cried wolf – and I got scrutinized.
In my conversations with many people this past week, I repeatedly got asked the question from those who were honest in their reactions to the latest news frenzy: “Well, aren’t there women who lie about rape? What about the Duke LaCrosse team rape scandal?” Margaret DiCanio, author of the book, The Encyclopedia of Violence: Origins, Attitudes, Consequences (1993), states that “while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of false allegations, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 8%.” Aren’t the ones who make the false rape claims prejudicing our society and hurting the 92 – 98% of rape victims who actually have legitimate rape claims, and doesn’t some of the blame rest on them? I believe so.
But what about the claims of pregnancy by rape? Do women lie about that? When I first learned that I was conceived in rape, I was 18, and I was devastated. My family and friends did not know how to relate to me. I was not given any kind of foundation in my life for dealing with this difficult truth, and they had no foundation themselves for offering real assistance. So they took the easiest strategy, which was to tell me that it’s probably not true, “because a lot of women lie about becoming pregnant by rape.”
When I finally met my birthmother several months later, she shared the horrible details of the rape, having been abducted at knifepoint by a serial rapist and brutally raped. She basically walked me through the entire evening of the rape, including the aftermath. There was no question her account was true. Once again, I had to try to cope with the reality of it, and I still had some family members who suggested that it may have been fabricated. I got very upset with them. I intuitively knew how unfair it was for them to question the veracity of her account, just because they didn’t want to deal with the painful truth and because of their discomfort with the fact that my rape-conception could not be reconciled with their world-view and pro-choice values. But once they realized my birthmother’s account was true, their abortion stance was instantly changed.
But why would family and friends suggest such a thing – that there are women who lie about becoming pregnant through rape? Are there any well-known documented cases where this happened, as in the Duke LaCrosse team false rape claim case?
The answer to that question lies in the very foundation for the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case which legalized abortion in the U.S. – the false rape claim by Norma McCorvey — Jane Roe in Roe v Wade. This is her testimony on January 21, 1998, before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“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.”
The largest illegitimate rape claim ever perpetrated in the history of our nation was the foundation for the filing of Roe v Wade, which led to abortion on demand in our country! So the next time you hear anyone complaining about Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” remark, I want you to remember that abortion rights activists are the women who cried wolf. They are the ones who are squarely responsible for the skepticism we see today regarding women who claim to be pregnant by rape, and they’ve set an example for other women to lie about it too. For those on the left who criticize Akin, I can assuredly call you out as hypocrites.
And for those who make the rape exception, some blame rests on you as well. After all, once you make a rape exception, you now have to set a standard in order to determine whether a claim of rape is legitimate so that the government will not be defrauded, as in the Hyde Amendment exceptions – when a woman wants to receive Medicaid funding to abort her child. Rape exceptions put the government in this position – whether they require a police report, social service agency report, or a doctor’s certification that he’s satisfied that her claim of rape is legitimate.
I’m a co-founder and board member of a newly-formed 501(c)(3), Hope After Rape Conception – http://www.hopeafterrapeconception.org, whose mission is to assist rape survivor mothers and their children. We seek to ensure that they are protected by law from the rapist having any parental rights, with model legislation posted on the site, and we also plan to post model guidelines for States so that rape survivor mothers will not be cut off from receiving state aid. This occurs all too often because federal and state laws require that a mother cooperate with the local child support enforcement division of the prosecutor’s office by naming the father. Some rape victims are unable to do so, and others are apprehensive about naming him because it could open the door for him to know about her child, and to be able to exercise parental rights. So part of our board members’ plans are to craft model guidelines . . . , which means that we’ll have the difficult task of recommending standards for states to set to determine whether a claim of rape is legitimate. Ah – there’s that word again!
As if that task is not sticky enough for a board composed of two rape survivor mothers, two members who were conceived in rape, and a grandmother of a child conceived when her minor daughter was raped, our future plans also include offering scholarships to rape survivor mothers and their children, as well as financial assistance to those who have been cut off from state aid. What this means is that we will be in the awkward position of having to ascertain ourselves whether a rape claim is legitimate. Juda Myers – someone who was also conceived in rape, runs a new organization called, “Choices 4 Life” — http://www.choices4life.org, which has presented “honor awards” to rape survivor mothers and which seeks to raise funds to provide financial aid to these women. She recently shared with me that she has experienced fraud where women – dare I say – had illegitimate rape claims. So this is not foolhardy or myth, but a reality in this world that there are indeed women who lie about having become pregnant by rape.
It does take a lot of courage for survivors of rape and survivors of domestic violence to come forward with their stories and to seek protection and justice, and I’m very protective of my own birthmother in this regard. Last year, I had friends alert me to a chat room where someone was making the accusation that my birthmother’s story was false, and/or that my claim of having been conceived in rape was false. It’s frustrating and insulting that such accusations are made. It affects me, and it hurts other women as well. But when we discuss this issue, let us not forget, and let us remind others, who it is that fabricated the greatest illegitimate claim of rape which has ever been perpetrated in the U.S., and perhaps around the world. These abortion rights activists are the women who cried wolf.
Another Good 100% Pro-Life Candidate Flubs on the Rape Question
http://rt.com/usa/news/republican-rape-pregnancy-comment-077/
Yesterday, U.S. Congressman Todd Akin — Republican candidate for U.S. Senate out of Missiouri — was asked about abortion in cases of rape, and responded with a major faux pas:
“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, if it’s a legitimate rape, that’s really rare. The female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
And then he went on to say,
The punishment ought to be on the rapist, and not in attacking the child.
I’ve received numerous e-mails and Facebook messages this morning asking me about this, and in a radio interview with Teresa Tomeo this morning, I was asked my thoughts on this as well.
First of all — NEVER say “legitimate rape!” Ron Paul used the same terminology last January and he got lambasted for it too, though he was saying that if it’s “legitimate rape,” then he’d give his daughter or granddaughter the Morning After Pill, which, of course, is not pro-life. This kind of remark only serves to perpetuate the suspision of rape victims’ accounts. It’s estimated that only 1% of rape victims ever see their rapist convicted as charged. Rape is rape. “Legitimate rape” almost sounds as if it was somehow justifiable. If you are 100% pro-life with no rape exceptions, there is no need to question the veracity of a rape victims’ account, because you are against all abortions. It would not matter if a woman was not or not raped. Rape exceptions in the law actually put the government in the position of having to ascertain when the child was conceived, who the father is, whether the child was conceived during the alleged rape or during intercourse with her husband or boyfriend, and if the child was conceived during the time frame of the alleged rape, then the government would need to determine whether the sexual intercourse was consensual or not. For example, this occurs because of the Hyde Amendment exceptions which provide for governmental funding in cases or rape. If a woman wants to have tax dollars pay for her baby to be aborted, then the states must determine whether she meets a Hyde Amendment exception, and therefore, must have standards for scrutinizing whether or not her story of rape is “legitimate.” So rape exceptions serve to perpetuate the injustice against rape victims that their accounts are to be viewed with skepticism, and it further leaves the majority of impregnated rape victims wholly unprotected under the law. Rape exceptions suggest that a “real rape victim” couldn’t possibly love “the rapist’s baby” and that rape victim mothers don’t exist. This is what Shauna Prewitt points out in her piece: “Giving Birth to a ‘Rapist’s Child’: A Discussion and Analysis of the Limited Legal Protections Afforded to Women Who Become Mothers Through Rape.” http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/98-3/Prewitt.PDF
Secondly, these candidates seriously need coaching on how to respond to challenges to their 100% pro-life position, and abortion in cases of rape. Senator Rick Santorum, during his presidential campaign, said that he thinks that a child conceived in rape is “a gift from God,” and he was made fun of for that. Just Google images for “Santorum rape” and you’ll see all of the posters where he is mocked for this statement. While I believe it’s true that every child is a gift from God, including children conceived in rape, I don’t believe this was the best response for the interview. If it had been my birthmother sharing that she believes that I’m a blessing and a gift from God, she would not be mocked and ridiculed in the same way he was. And then Sharron Angle, during her Senate race in Nevada, said it’s a “lemonade situation,” which did not come across well at all. The problem is not with these candidates’ values. The problem is how they express them.
Here are my suggested responses for candidates when asked about rape and abortion:
1. The Supreme Court has said that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for rapists and that rapists don’t deserve the death penalty. I don’t think the innocent child conceived in rape deserves the death penalty for the crimes of her father. It seems to me that is cruel and unusual punishment.
2. Rape victims are 4 times more likely to die within the next year after the abortion, with a higher rate of suicide, murder, drug overdose, etc.. As someone who really cares about rape victims, I want to protect them from the rapist, and from the abortion, and not the baby. A baby is not the worst thing that could ever happen to a rape victim — an abortion is. We need to educate the American public on the truth in this matter and not make public policy based on myth and misinformation.
3. Rape victims choose abortion at half the rate of the average unplanned pregnancy, which is over 50%. Only 15-25% of rape victims choose abortion, depending on the study. The majority of rape victims choose to raise her child — not “the rapist’s baby” — HER child.
Of course, I also think it helps to share a personal story and there are lots available, of women who became pregnant by rape and either regret aborting, are raising their children or are birthmoms, as well as stories of those of us conceived in rape and/or incest. You can find those stories on my website: http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html and www.rebeccakiessling.com/PregnantByRape.html
For life,
Rebecca Kiessling
Model Statutory Language to Protect Rape Victim Mothers and Their Children
This language is directly from the two statutes recently passed in the Indiana Senate, by a 50-0 vote, except that the language in the Indiana bill says that a judge cannot grant child support if parental rights are terminated: “If a court denies an individual custody, parenting time, and contact with a child under this section, a court may not require the
individual to pay child support for the child.” As a Family Law Attorney, and having worked with many mothers who became pregnant by rape, I do not recommend this language nor do I think it is necessary, which is why I am not including it as “model language.” I’m not so sure that the marital exemption is necessary and/or properly crafted, given that I represented women who were raped by their husbands during a pending divorce, so I believe the ideal language will protect a woman in that scenario.
Indiana is poised to become the first state to properly protect rape victims mothers, and I hope that many states will follow Indiana’s example. This is clearly a pro-life bill, and yet, every pro-choice Senator voted for it, because protecting these women and their children is the right thing to do. Only 18 states currently provide for the termination of the parental rights of rapists, but each one of those requires a conviction for rape. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the standard of proof in termination of parental rights cases of “by clear and convincing evidence,” and not the higher criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Rape victims should not be under greater burden than all other termination parental rights cases. It is estimated that only 1% of rape victims ever see the rapist convicted as charged. If a prosecutor actually pursues a case, most are plead down to a lesser crime than rape. It is further estimated that over a half a million rape kits sit on evidence shelves across the U.S.. Of those 18 states, only one makes the termination of parental rights mandatory (Louisiana,) and none of the states authorizes a rape victim to file the case herself when the prosecutor and/or child protective services has refused to do so. Finally, none of the states allows a Family Court judge to suspend parenting time and custody pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution and/or the termination of parental rights case. This statute allows a judge to do just that. Given that more than 50% of impregnated rape victims choose to parent their children, we need to focus on passing this model legislation instead of paying for her child to be killed. These women deserve better and need real help. If you really care about rape victims, you should be working to protect them from the rapist and from the abortion, and not the baby.
Synopsis:
Termination of parent-child relationship. Allows a parent
who is the victim of an act of rape from which a child was conceived
to file a petition to terminate the child’s parent-child relationship with
the alleged perpetrator. Requires a court to terminate the parent-child
relationship if the court finds: (1) by clear and convincing evidence that
the alleged perpetrator committed an act of rape against the parent who
has filed the petition to terminate the parent-child relationship and that
the child was conceived as a result of the act of rape; and (2)
terminating the parent-child relationship would be in the best interest
of the child.
“Act of rape”, for purposes of __
means an act described under:
___; or ____.
Sec. 1. A court, in a proceeding under ______, _________, or _______,
may appoint a guardian ad litem, a court appointed special advocate,
or both, for a child at any time.
Chapter ___. Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of an
Individual Who Committed an Act of Rape
Sec. 1. Proceedings under this chapter are governed by the
procedures prescribed by:
______ through _________, and
______ through _________;
but are distinct from proceedings under _ and _.
Sec. 2. The probate court has concurrent original jurisdiction
with the juvenile court in proceedings on a petition to terminate the
parent-child relationship under this chapter.
Sec. 3. If a child was conceived as a result of an act of rape, the
parent who is the victim of the act of rape may file a petition with
the juvenile or probate court to terminate the child’s parent-child
relationship with the alleged perpetrator of the act of rape.
Sec. 4. The verified petition filed under section 3 of this chapter
must:
(1) be entitled “In the Matter of the Termination of the
Parent-Child Relationship of ______________, a child, and
_______________, the parent”; and
(2) allege:
(A) that the alleged perpetrator committed an act of rape
against the parent who has filed the petition to terminate
the parent-child relationship;
(B) that the child was conceived as a result of the act of
rape described under clause (A); and
(C) that termination of the parent-child relationship of the
alleged perpetrator with the child is in the best interests of
the child.
Sec. 5. A showing by clear and convincing evidence that:
(1) the alleged perpetrator committed an act of rape against
a parent described in section 4(2)(A) of this chapter; and
(2) the child was conceived as a result of the act of rape;
is prima facie evidence that there is a reasonable probability that
continuation of the parent-child relationship with the alleged
perpetrator is not in the best interests of the child.
Sec. 6. (a) The court shall terminate the parent-child
relationship if the court finds:
(1) by clear and convincing evidence, that the allegations in a
petition described in section 4(2)(A) and 4(2)(B) of this
chapter are true; and
(2) that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the
best interests of the child.
(b) If the court does not find:
(1) by clear and convincing evidence, that the allegations in a
petition described in section 4(2)(A) and 4(2)(B) of this
chapter are true; and
(2) that termination of the parent-child relationship is in the
best interests of the child;
the court shall dismiss the petition.
Sec. 7. The court may appoint:
(1) a guardian ad litem;
(2) a court appointed special advocate; or
(3) both a guardian ad litem and a court appointed special
advocate;
for a child in a proceeding under this chapter as provided under
______.
Synopsis: Denial of parenting rights to rapists. Prohibits a person who
caused a child to be conceived by rape from obtaining custody,
parenting time, or contact with the child if a court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that the person perpetrated the rape. Provides an
exception if the biological parents of the child were married at the time
the child was conceived. Permits the court to order a party to pay the
prevailing party costs and attorney’s fees in an action to deny parenting
rights.
Chapter _. Child Conceived as a Result of an Act of Rape
Sec. 1. (a) This section does not apply if the biological parents of
a child were married at the time the child was conceived.
(b) If:
(1) an individual who:
(A) is the biological parent of a child; or
(B) alleges to be the biological parent of a child;
seeks custody, parenting time, or contact with the child; and
(2) the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that:
(A) the child was conceived as the result of an act of rape;
and
(B) the individual described under subdivision (1) was the
perpetrator of the act of rape;
the court shall deny the individual custody, parenting time, and
contact with the child.
Sec. 2. (a) The court may order a party to pay to the prevailing
party a reasonable amount for:
(1) the cost of maintaining an action under this chapter; and
(2) attorney’s fees, including amounts for legal services
provided and costs incurred, before the commencement of the
proceedings or after entry of judgment.
(b) The court may order the amount under subsection (a) to be
paid directly to the attorney of the prevailing party, who may
enforce the order in the attorney’s name.
“.
Romney proves to be more pro-life than Ron Paul
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290789/romney-flip-flopping-contraception-katrina-trinko
Yes, it’s true. In 2005, Mitt Romney recognized that Plan B can operate to take the life of a living human being: “I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk,” Romney wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed. “Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.”
Contrast that with what Ron Paul said in a recent CNN interview with Pierce Morgan. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/07/ron-pauls-curious-position-on-abortion-in-cases-of-rape/
When he was asked whether he thought that, if one of his daughters or granddaughters were raped and impregnated, she should have to carry the baby to term, Ron Paul said:
“No. If it’s an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen or give them…”
Pierce Morgan, who seemed to understand that Plan B can operate to end the life of an unborn baby challenged him — “You would allow them to abort the baby?”
Ron Paul replied, “It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I’m seven months pregnant and I don’t want to have anything to do with it, it’s a little bit different story.”
Again, Morgan pressed him: “Life doesn’t begin at conception?”, to which Paul replied, “Life does begin at conception.” Morgan properly concluded: “Then you would be taking a life.”
Ron Paul’s response is shocking — “Well, you don’t know if you’re taking a life either, because this is an area that is — but to decide everything about abortion and respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition, where there may have been a life or not a life.” This same rational would allow anyone to shoot a gun in the dark because “you don’t know if you’re taking a life . . . , there may have been a life or not a life.” WOW!
So, to recap: Romney vetoed a bill as the Governor of Massachusetts which forced Catholic Hospitals to provide Plan B to rape victims. Ron Paul would have given Plan B to his own daughter and/or granddaughter.
Governor Rick Perry’s heart was changed on rape exception after hearing my story
Gov. Rick Perry announced yesterday that he’d had a change of heart on the rape exception, at both a church in Iowa and at the Personhood USA tele-town hall.
http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/12/27/perry-god-was-working-on-my-heart-audio/ He told Pastor Joshua Verwers of Full Faith Christian Center in Chariton, Iowa, “You’re seeing a transformation. . .” and that it came about after he’d had a lengthy conversation with me at the premiere of the Citizens United film, “The Gift of Life.” Perry called our conversation “powerful.” He said he signed the Personhood Pledge the very next morning. At the tele-town hall sponsored by Personhood USA, Gov. Perry told the listeners that I’d shared my story of having been conceived in rape and that my life has worth. “This is something that is relatively new and it goes back to a meeting with Rebecca Kiessling, who was at the The Gift of Life. We had a fairly lengthy and heartfelt conversation about how she was conceived in rape. Looking in her eyes, I couldn’t come up with an answer to defend exceptions for rape and incest. Over the course of the last few weeks, the Christmas holiday, reflecting on that – I would suggest that my prolife position has been rather strong as the Governor of Texas. But she made a statement to me that was really strong and pierced my heart. As I signed that document, I will suggest to you that all I can tell you is God was working on my heart.”
You know how, sometimes, when two people relate the story of a conversation, they don’t always match up? Well, I think you’ll find that our recollections of the conversation definitely match up!
Last week, I’d sent a private e-mail to the leaders at Personhood USA, detailing my extraordinary conversation with Gov. Rick Perry. I waited to disclose these details publicly until he was prepared to make this announcement himself. Two days ago, I inadvertently discovered that I was in a Rick Perry video on his website, in a sort of cameo with Gov. Mike Huckabee as well, from the premiere of “The Gift of Life” film. This gave me an inclination that perhaps he’s ready to make just such an announcement. After all, why else would he choose to have me included in his video? Here is the content of the e-mail I sent to Personhood USA leadership:
I want to let you all know how things went in Des Moines. I had a back-stage pass, so I got to speak with the four candidates individually, giving each of them my two DVDs — my story, “Conceived in Rape: from Worthless to Priceless,” and the group film, “Except in Cases of Rape? 12 Stories of Survival,” along with my business card, “Conceived in Rape: Targeted for Abortion.” I told them each that I’m in the film being premiered, “The Gift of Life with Gov. Mike Huckabee,” and that I’m a national spokeswoman for Personhood USA. Both Santorum and Bachmann each said right away, “I signed the Personhood Pledge.” I thanked them, and thanked those two for being 100% pro-life. We had great conversations. With Gingrich, he told me he was about to go on stage, but that he really wanted to speak with me later. We did speak more later that evening, but he did not say anything like that he’d changed his mind on the exceptions. Each of the four candidates did say in their speeches that evening that they support either Personhood Amendments, or the Human Life Amendment. Gingrich said he supported a personhood bill by Congress, believing it would by-pass the Supreme Court. I’ve heard him put forth that argument before.
The best part of the evening, however, was my conversation with Gov. Perry. He was stunned as I handed him my DVDs, asking me more about my story. Then he said he wanted my autograph, which I tried to brush off, but he ripped open the cellophane, pulled out the DVD and a marker, asking me to sign it to his daughter, which I did: “100% Pro-Life, Rebecca Kiessling.” He asked more about my story, then he told me that I was his heroine. I thanked him and said, “Funny you say that, because my question for you is — would you be my hero? I’m alive because of pro-life leaders who were my heroes. They made sure abortion was illegal, even in cases of rape. They are my heroes and I owe my life to them. Would you be my hero too?” He said, “Yes, I would!” And I replied, “But you make the rape exception.” His responded, “Wow, this is so powerful.”
We went on to have our photo taken by his professional photographer (who still has not e-mailed me the photos.) Then we began to talk again and I said to him, “When you make that rape exception, it’s like you’re saying to me that I deserved the death penalty for the crimes of my father. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, my father didn’t even deserve the death penalty. The Supreme Court has said there is no death penalty for rapists. But you say that I, as the innocent child of rape, deserved the death penalty?” And Perry said, “No, no, I don’t believe that.” He hesitated, then went on, “Wow, you know, tonight’s event, and this film, is all about changing hearts and minds. Right now, you’re changing MY heart.” I looked him in the eye and asked, “No more exceptions?” He looked intently back at me and said, “No more exceptions.” He went on to say that he’d never really put a face to the issue and never considered it from the perspective of someone like me, then he said again that I’d changed his heart on this issue.
When he gave his speech later, he was talking about protecting every child, then looked at me and said something like “ALL are worthy of protection.” And that’s how he ended his speech. So I guess that was his way of announcing that he’s now 100% pro-life, but I’d really like to have him confirm that at the Personhood tele-town hall, if possible.
Wednesday evening’s premiere was absolutely one of the highlights of my life. I regularly have people tell me that I’d changed their minds on the rape exception — just not presidential candidates or governors! When I first heard that Perry was running, back in June, and I heard that he’d made the rape exception, I’d hoped and prayed for the opportunity to be able to share my story with him, but really thought that was a joke! Friends kept telling me I was going to have an “Esther” moment in Des Moines, and I surely did!
__________________
This is just such a surreal moment in time for me, which is the same thing I kept saying at “The Gift of Life” premiere. I feel like years of sharing my story has been culminating in this moment. When I first learned at 18 how I was conceived, it was 1988 and Ronald Reagan was still President. I immediately became very interested in his position on abortion and was utterly disappointed to hear that he made the rape exception. I remember calling my local Right to Life affiliate because I just wanted to meet someone who agreed that I had a right not to have been killed, and who would be willing to take a stand to defend my life and the lives of those who are similarly-situated. “If only I could have the chance to speak with the President,” I thought, “then maybe I could change his mind.” Then, I figured, many Americans would follow his leadership and stop making the rape exception as well, and it could lead to an end to legalized abortion in the U.S..
Of course, coming to know Christ was pivotal in my life — to understand that I’m not the Savior of the World, and that this is all not on my shoulders, thank God! But I just always knew that my life was spared for a purpose and that this was God’s mission for my life. With some of the failures this past year, you can begin to wonder if you can really make the huge difference you believe that God has planned. And then this all happens — The Gift of Life film, the four pro-life candidates all agreeing to speak at the film’s premiere, my conversation with Gov. Rick Perry, the four pro-life candidates all signing the Personhood Pledge and agreeing to participate in the Personhood tele-town hall, and then Rick Perry’s “announcement” that he no longer makes the rape exception.
It all just fits so well together — like a puzzle which was designed precisely that way. Part of the foundation was laid nearly six years ago when I was first involved in the Personhood Amendment petition drive here in Michigan. I knew without a doubt that Personhood was the right solution, and was so excited to be a part of something aiming to end abortion in the U.S.. And then I became involved with Personhood USA, writing endorsement statements in support of state Personhood Amendments, then testifying before state legislatures in support of Personhood Amendments. This past fall, I was named a National Spokeswoman for Personhood USA. I met Gov. Mike Huckabee four years ago when he was running for President, and I thanked him for being 100% pro-life. He’s come out as a strong advocate for Personhood, and is the host of the film with my story in it, “The Gift of Life.” It’s just all too perfect, and it’s culminated in this amazing moment — for me to be so blessed as to have Gov. Perry announce that my story changed his heart, for Personhood USA to have four major pro-life presidential candidates signing the Pledge and participating in this tele-town hall, for the future of the pro-life movement to be challenged to stop accepting the rape exception and to embrace Personhood, for Rick Perry to have his change of heart as the Governor of Texas and as a presidential candidate, and for others who hear his heart-felt conversion on the rape exception to allow God to change their hearts as well. I’m just in awe of how it all came together and I’m so blessed to have been a part of it! It was certainly God-ordained. There’s no way any of us could have planned this all out if we’d wanted to. It’s just awesome to see how He works!
But I know that this is only the beginning. I can’t wait to see what all God is going to do! I pray ultimately for an end to abortion, and that all lives will be valued and protected. Never forget that real lives are at stake, and I hope you’ll all have the same sense of urgency and sense of gratitude for life.
Rebecca Kiessling
REBECCA KIESSLING NAMED AS AN OFFICIAL NATIONAL SPOKESWOMAN FOR PERSONHOOD USA
http://www.personhoodusa.com/content/leadership
Today, Personhood USA officially named me as a national spokeswoman for Personhood USA. I’ve been testifying on behalf of Personhood USA before legislatures across the country, and I’ve represented the organization as a spokeswoman at these hearings on Personhood Amendments and Personhood bill, but now it’s official! I’m proud to be on the right side of history. Personhood Amendments lay the foundation for Roe v. Wade to be overturned because they address the key ruling in Roe. The Court basically issued a directive in it’s ruling — that if states want unborn children to be afforded their 14th Amendment right to life, due process and equal protection, then unborn children must be recognized as “persons in the full legal sense.” Personhood Amendments do just that. How hypocritical would it be for a state to argue that unborn children should have a right to life, when their own state has not even made the effort to pass a Personhood Amendment, recognizing unborn children as person in the full legal sense? And the beauty of Personhood is that there are no exceptions, no discrimination. Please visit my Personhood page for more information.
HERMAN CAIN’S “CLARIFICATION” IS INSUFFICIENT
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/20/cain-releases-clarifying-statement-im-pro-life-on-abortion/
After an outcry from pro-life advocates regarding statements made by Herman Cain in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN yesterday, Cain issued a “clarifying” statement:
“I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion. My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.”
The problem with this explanation is that his original statements on CNN went well beyond the President’s constitutional role:
“It’s not the government’s role, or anybody else’s role to make that decision,” Cain responded. “Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidence, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family, and whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.” . . . “I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.”
Hmm, “it’s not the government’s role?” That sounds very pro-choice to me! The government “or anybody else” clearly includes all three branches of government — Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, and it includes the Federal government and State governments. Cain’s clarifying statement is anything but clarifying and sounds a bit disingenuous to me. He has no legislative track record, and all we have to go by are his words. Herman Cain was asked a question which was clearly intended to challenge him — what about rape? And Herman Cain seriously failed this challenge.
TIME Magazine article regarding my activism and Personhood
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2097340-1,00.html
Regarding Ms. Theis’ comment at the end — “That’s fine that she is here.” My response is, “Phew! Wow, glad to hear that. So, she’s going to let me live now? I’m so relieved!”
