Nat'l Right to Life Opposes the Right to Life

One would think that National "Right to Life" was founded with one clear agenda. America must recognize that unborn children have a right to life.

Now by opposing the Colorado personhood amendment, NRtL has clearly come out against the unborn having a legal right to life. How can a "right to life" organization oppose a law to recognize that an unborn child actually has a right to life?

National Right to Life has lost their way. They can no longer see what they clearly saw at their beginning.
NRtL has been promoting child killing regulations, none of which deals with the right to life of the unborn.

Parental consent laws deal only with the rights of parents to have authority over their minor children. They never even suggest that the unborn child has a right to life.
Informed consent laws deal only with biology, but never suggest that the unborn might have a right to life.
Manditory waiting times never suggest that the unborn child has a right to life.
Fetal pain laws again inform about possible fetal pain and that you have the option of making the pain go away, but never suggest that the unborn child has a right to life.

Now, as real right to life people are backing an amendment to truly recognize the legal right to life for the unborn in Colorado, NRtL actually gets in the way. Somehow legally recognizing that the unborn have a right to life doesn't fit into their strategy. The NRtL strategy becomes more convoluted as time passes. They continue to raise vast sums of money, but they do nothing to reach their original goals. If fact, it seems like they are actually opposing their original goals.

Wouldn't we be stunned if NASA decided to oppose space exploration?

It would be very shocking if the National Football League came out against football.

But, National "Right to Life" opposes the right to life and most pro-lifers seem not to even notice.

The Legacy of Judas National Right to Life
By Brian Rohrbough
President, American RTL

Governor Arnold Can Stop Lying Now

Arnold Schwarzenegger is now showing his true colors. He has always privately supported homosexual marriage.

But didn't he twice veto bills that would have allowed homosexual marriages? Hasn't he repeatedly spoken publicly against legalizing homosexual marriage? How would I possibly come to the conclusion that he actually support homosexual marriage?

Last week the California Supreme Court overturned the state law that forbid homosexual marriages. Was Arnold outraged? No! Was he even a bit peeved? No!
What was his response?

He promised to not only fully support the ruling, he declared that he would oppose any movement to amend the California constitution to ban homosexual marriage. Why on earth would he oppose such an amendment?
He is opposing an amendment because he was never against homosexual marriage. He always privately supported it.

His public position was simply a lie for political expediency. Now that the court has ruled, Arnold can claim, "I wasn't me. It was the court. It's not my fault!".

Conservatives in America have tolerated and in some cases supported Arnold... just because he's a celebrity who calls himself a Republican. The Republican party loves having an immoral womanizer liberal celebrity in their party. It's just another sign of what they have become.

Speaking of immoral Republicans... did you notice that three out the four California Supreme Court judges who overturned the homosexual marriage ban... were Republicans?

The immoral court has now given an immoral Arnold political cover to support an immoral law.

Were we really expecting more from him?