I believe in my heart that we are on the cusp of overturning Roe v. Wade. And while that will not end,
throughout the United States, the human rights violation that abortion is, it is the essential first step in
doing so. (Overturning Roe will return the issue to the people, through their elected representatives,
where it belongs in a democracy.)

One of the chief reasons we are on that cusp is because Americans have refused to be bullied into
silence by the Supreme Court, in its grandiose claim (in Roe and afterwards) to have settled an issue of
national importance, in the words of Planned Parenthood v. Casey: “when the Court’s interpretation of
the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by
accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution”.

Abraham Lincoln refused to accept such high-handed nonsense (technically called, judicial imperialism)
with the Dred Scott decision and slavery. For the people to accept the idea that the Court could decide,
for all time, a fundamental issue unjustly would be to “resign their government into the hands of that
eminent tribunal”. Lincoln refused to do it.

And so did Nellie Grey.

As Lincoln refused to accept the “constitutionalization” by the Supreme Court of a right to slavery, Nellie
Grey refused to accept the “constitutionalization” of a right to abortion. And thus was born what is, I
believe, the longest running civil rights movement in American history, the March for Life.
Nellie Grey did not create the March alone, of course, but she was the fire that drove it. It was an evil
whose existence could not be tolerated. As she said, “I don’t understand slavery. I don’t understand the
Holocaust. I don’t understand abortion.”

Nellie Grey was sadly wrong in expecting the wrong to be corrected immediately. It is an evil that has
proved to have enduring power (though, as noted, I believe that power is eroding through deeper
understanding of the origins of human life, the realization that abortion harms women, and the
willingness of young people to be open-minded and thus to grasp the essential justice of the pro-life
cause.)

But what we must not miss is the incredible enduring witness of the March. Every year, for forty years,
rain or shine, snow or wind, the Marchers come. And every year they seem to get younger.
But make no mistake about it — immense political pressure was on the pro-life movement to go away, to
go home, to keep any objections for, perhaps, one’s conscience but not to express them in the public
square. Yet the commitment and resolve of Nellie Grey (and many like her) resisted that seemingly
irresistible tide (after all the Court had summoned everyone to accept its “common mandate”). And 40
years later, the March continues.

This is the cause to which Nellie Grey gave her life. It is one to which we (as Americans committed to
equal justice under law) should give ours.

She is a great role model and she will be missed. But we will keep marching.

In the midst of the feeding frenzy over Todd Akin’s now-infamous rape remark, a number of pro-life groups, including Americans United for Life have fallen victim to a misunderstanding, at best. A 40-year-old collection of essays we funded prior to Roe v. Wade included an essay by Dr. Fred E. Mecklenburg that has been used to smear pro-life advocates with contents pulled from medical moth balls.

The essay by Dr. Mecklenburg addressed the reasons for induced abortion before 1972, including rape.  The original commentary on his piece in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch—later picked up by the Huff Post, Wall Street Journal and others—speculated that Mecklenburg’s piece “influenced two generations” and Congressman Akin, without any evidence whatsoever.

In its cherry-picking of quotes and data, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch commentary also ignored several important points:

The Planned Parenthood connection: The author, Dr. Fred Mecklenburg, was Assistant Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Minnesota Medical School, and a member of the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians.

The Planned Parenthood data:  Mecklenburg cited a 1960 medical essay by Planned Parenthood statistician Christopher Tietze that argued the chance of pregnancy from one act of unprotected intercourse (as might be the case in rape) is low.

But, perhaps most importantly, the commentators seem to overlook the fact that a lot of medical data has flowed under the bridge since 1972 – more than 40 years worth of science, research, and knowledge, some learned through tools like ultrasound. To argue over this data today creates the false impression that this data is relevant or in use. It is not.

The concerns of Americans in 2012 are not medical opinions from the 1950s or 60s.  Today, the United States is one of four nations (with North Korea, China and Canada) that allows abortion for any reason after fetal viability.  That’s our national law due to Roe v. Wade. And it is this reality, and not 40-50 year old medical opinions, that concerns most Americans — the majority of whom self-identify as pro-life today.

Clarke Forsythe is Senior Counsel of Americans United for Life.

Deliberate attempts are being made this week by abortion advocates to equate Congressman Todd Akin’s recent use of the phrase “legitimate rape” with the inclusion of the legal term “forcible rape” in a draft of H.R. 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” This deliberate dissembling must be addressed.  Simply, abortion advocates are peddling misleading accusations in an attempt to smear pro-life legislators.

H.R. 3, overwhelmingly passed by the U.S. House Representatives, would establish a comprehensive prohibition on the use of federal funds for abortions and insurance coverage for abortion.  The bill includes the same exceptions that are found in current federal abortion funding restrictions (i.e., when the pregnancy “is the result of an act of rape or incest” or when the pregnancy places the woman “in danger of death unless an abortion is performed”). 

When H.R. 3 was introduced it included the term “forcible rape” in the exceptions.  The term “forcible rape” was borrowed by the drafters of H.R. 3 from the FBI, which used the term in their crime statistics.  However, because the sponsors of H.R. 3 wanted to be clear that the exceptions in H.R. 3 were intended to be consistent with existing law, the word “forcible” was removed during a committee mark-up of the bill, a change that Americans United for Life Action encouraged and supported.  

Critically, the sponsors of H.R. 3 never intended to change the nature of the exceptions to federal abortion funding restrictions.  They wanted to ensure that the law was as clear as possible, an aspiration that good lawmakers strive toward.   

However, the powerful abortion lobby and its friends in the media have attempted to muddy the waters and vilify the intent and motivation of lawmakers who were attempting to protect the interests of the American people. Efforts to malign the sponsors of H.R. 3 over the initial use of the term “forcible rape” in their bill should be condemned as purely political.