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. 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.” 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! 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.

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.

20 thoughts on “Rebecca Kiessling’s Reply to Ann Coulter — Save The 1!

  1. Rebecca, well said! Good for you! Read the sample chapter from the new book “We Won’t Get Fooled Again” I co-authored with my friend Steve Deace (you have been on his show) at our site that features fake pro-lifer GOP pom pom girl, Ann Coulter. Would also love to send you a copy of the book:-) Thanks for your bold stand for truth!


  2. Thank you….I am feeling the same way….I am sick and tired of the moderates, libertarians and fiscal conservatives throwing us under the bus every time they blow it….


  3. As a woman who voted her prolife conscience, I was horrified to hear Ann Coulter’s hasty assessment of these losses. If anything, these unfortunate public communication lapses indicate the need for prolife people, especially those in the public arena, to become trained in Prolife Apologetics in order to state their positions with greater effectiveness. The 15 second (actually, a generous amount of time in today’s media) soundbite is a cruel taskmaster. Prolife statements must be honed to fit that criteria, or become fodder for misinterpretation without redress.


  4. Dear Ms. Kiessling,

    I, too, have been wondering what’s going on with Ann Coulter. While I didn’t exactly make your point, I thought you might be interested in my reply to Ms. Coulter in the comments section of her column, “Don’t blame Romney.” :

    “Ann, Ann, Ann. There you go again. One of the main reasons your anointed candidate lost was because 3,000,000 Republicans stayed home and didn’t vote for him. If they had turned out, would he have won? Maybe.

    But the question you should be addressing is, why didn’t they turn out? What kept them away, even in the face of the fascist policies of Obama? (No, I’m not calling Obama a Nazi. I’m using the classical definition of fascism: central planning with private ownership. So calm down, everyone.)

    Simple. They were tired of the mainstream Republican establishment picking a candidate based on “electability” rather than on principle. Romney is a great man. There’s no doubt he would have made a great president. But if you can’t turn out the base, you’re not going to win. Period.

    You bring up Tea Party candidates who lost, and infer that they lost because they stuck blindly to conservative principles. Bull. They lost because the Republican party establishment abandoned them. There were more establishment Republican losses this election than there were Tea Party-backed candidates who lost. So why blame the Tea Party and ignore the mainstream Republican establishment?

    I have noticed a tendency in your recent columns: you’re seeming to ask the party to move away from principle and toward expediency. You bring up Goldwater but gloss over Reagan. Did Reagan win because he compromised his principles? No. He won because he clearly and with passion expressed the core of what it is to be an American, and made us proud to be Americans again.

    Do you REALLY think the single women’s vote would have moved toward Romney if he had moderated his position on abortion? No, he just would have lost some of the married women and men’s votes. Republicans can’t win elections by being “Democrat lite.”

    So what should Republicans do? Do what the Democrats do. Put THEM on the defensive. Accuse THEM of ignoring the real issues. Make THEM answer the tough questions. Demagogue THEM the way they do us. Take the fight to THEM, and don’t back down from your principles by thinking if you move just a little toward the socialists, you’ll win some of their votes.

    We can only win if we convince people that our way leads to the best outcome for all Americans. If we can’t do that, we’ll continue to lose. And nominating a moderate liberal candidate like Romney is just going to guarantee that we are on the bottom looking up. And quite frankly, Ann, you’re not helping with columns like this one.”


  5. Speaking personally, I am thankful to Todd Akin for his misspeak. Not only was I able to vote for him, but I learned that many so-called defenders of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are more than willing to kill innocent babies if they deem it good for a vote. Romney, Ryan, and Coulter, but also Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and maybe Mark Levin (don’t listen to his show much, so unsure) were more than willing to toss Akin into the pit of despair because they feared their anointed one might not attract the abortionist vote. One is either for the right of all innocent children to their God-given lives with no exceptions, or one is pro-abortion. No third path available. They argue what about incest? Well, when incest occurs there are two possibilities given that it takes two to boogie: 1) both are willing and of age. So it’s really just about sex, and thanks to Bill and Monica we know that makes it OK. 2) They are not both of age or consenting. That means either a statutory or forcible rape happened, and the case should be prosecuted by lawful authority to the utmost. This article goes far in refuting the arguments in favor of aborting the children of rape. But Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1776 that Life is an unalienable right given us by God. God does not make mistakes. Therefore nobody He has given life can be a mistake. Nobody. Any in favor of aborting these least of us – even politicians – is claiming God made an error and only they are smart enough to correct His blunder. The U.S. Constitution tells us that nobody can be deprived of his or her life without due process. Due process is normally interpreted as a trial by a jury of the defendant’s peers. I do not recall that such a trial of any of these babies has ever taken place. These bold defenders of butchery also overlook Lot and his daughters. After God destroyed Sodom, they fled to a mountain and dwelt in a cave. Fearing their father the last man on earth, the daughters got him drunk and themselves with child by him. This was certainly incest, and an argument could be made it was rape since Lot was not a consenting adult. The son from the first union became the ancestor of the Moabites. The other son became the ancestor of the Ammonites. Surely these were lives worth living. Rebecca Kiessling is one of those rare persons who is beautiful inside and out. God bless her and hers.


  6. I have to admit I found the election very disappointing on many levels. And I was (and still am) pretty angry. One reaction is to ask why we lost, will we ever elect a prolife administration again? And so here comes Ann Coulter to tell us to abandon the prolife principles. So you have to ask yourself, well, politically is it just about economics or not? Why is God allowing this? Oh — we the American people — or a significant portion of teh American people — seem to have chosen it.

    In contrast to Ann Coulter’s angry comments, here is something I found more constructive, from an article by Matt Barber who is an attorney with Liberty Counsel Action – as we ask ourselves, “Where is God?” and “Has God turned his face from us?” :

    Through it all, you see, He remains sovereign. His will is being done, even when it is not our own. He is faithful, though we are not. Victory is His. We are His. And so victory is ours.

    Those of us who believe needn’t win every battle – any battle – to which we are consigned. We need only remain obedient. We need only remain faithful to his Word and to his commands. We need only remember that “all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.” (Romans 8:28)

    Truly, though God has given over a rebellious nation to the party of Romans 1, we remain the people of Romans 8: “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1)

    (From an article at )


  7. Ann Coulter isn’t pro-life. Neither is Sean Hannity for that matter. Listen to their interview before the election. They couldn’t wait to throw Todd Akin under the bus. If your first goal is to win the election, you may win, but you won’t win anything worth having if you’ve thrown away your principles to get there. Or, you may lose. Ask the “moderates” in the GOP.
    We’ve heard of “Reagan Democrats”, but have you ever heard ANYONE refer to himself as a “Dole” Democrat?


  8. love you Rebecca Keissling. Wish America heard from you before the election. My brother in law who is a doctor in OHIO says “if we dont kill the rapist, why kill the baby” Maybe this is why we lost the election!!!! We were soooo focused on winning the white house that we forgot our true PROLIFE VALUES——NO EXCEPTIONS!!!! Thanks for pointing out Ann COULTERS error. I have to admit it was mine also until today!!!! Thank you Rebecca


  9. Ann Coulter has always been way off base on everything. She is big government, just like alot of the other republicans. –Not a true conservative.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s