Abortion
The California ProLife Council is an organization of diverse and caring people united to protect the precious gift of innocent human life from conception to natural death. Abortion is any induced procedure performed with the sole and willful intent to cause the death of the unborn child. Therefore, CPLC is opposed to abortion in any form.
A human being, once conceived, has the innate right to life regardless of disabilities or gender. CPLC also strongly opposes the conception of a child for the purpose of the harvesting of tissues or medical experimentation regardless of any benefit to other members of society.
Abortion in the Case of Rape and Incest
If a pregnancy occurs as a result of a sexual assault against a woman, abortion is not the answer. When a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, both the woman and the unborn child are victims. Using abortion to end a pregnancy which results from rape, does nothing to alleviate the pain and anguish of the rape. It merely allows society to forget the rape and pretend that justice has been done, leaving the woman to deal with the emotions of the assault and the added trauma of abortion.
In the case of incest, abortion actually protects the perpetrator of the crime by concealing the incestuous act. Aborting the baby and returning the incest victim to the incestuous situation is unthinkable. Child protective services and legal authorities must intervene.
Abortion if the Mother’s Life is in Danger
CPLC does not oppose medical treatment to save the life of the mother which may result in the unintended death of the child. The unintended death of the child is not to be construed as abortion. When the life of the mother is in danger, many times a doctor can treat both the mother and the unborn child separately. Because of medical advances, it is rare that the child’s life cannot be saved.
Adoption
In the interest of protecting human life and offering women in crisis pregnancy situations viable alternatives to abortion, the California ProLife Council fully supports the option of adoption. In supporting this, we realize that adoption will not be the choice of every woman facing a crisis pregnancy, but it is a choice that should be available during her decision making process.
While there is a surplus of families waiting to adopt a child into their home, there are women today being convinced that abortion or child rearing are their only choices. It is important that women in this crisis situation be presented with the life-giving choice of adoption and to be informed of the resources available to them.
In every adoption situation, there are three primary parties involved: the child, birth parents and adoptive parents. We recognize that the needs and special interests of each of these parties. We also wish to reaffirm and support the secondary parties to adoption: adoption agencies, government institutions, abortion alternative centers, and other supportive organizations.
Our efforts to promote adoption will be directed in three major areas: education, procedural and legal improvements, and enhancing maternal and adoption support services.
Civil Disobedience
The movement to support human life and to oppose abortion involves a great diversity of individuals and organizations with each contributing in different ways towards the goal of protecting the unborn child.
The California ProLife Council, a non-profit corporation, and it’s affiliates have decided to focus our energies and resources on education, legislative lobbying activities, and political action to achieve our goals. We have always opposed, and continue to oppose, actions that are contrary to the law. Other individuals and groups believe that civil disobedience is a legitimate approach in waging a campaign against abortion.
Without in any way judging individuals who choose this approach, CPLC and it’s affiliates reaffirm their dedication to lawful efforts to protect the unborn and have rejected any CPLC participation in civil disobedience.
The board of CPLC must be particularly concerned with the potential liability of the organization in the event of lawsuits surrounding civil disobedience activities. For this reason, it is essential that CPLC, it’s affiliates and members, avoid any involvement in the following activities:
- Use of the California ProLife Council and/or National Right to Life Committee name or designation of individual participants in civil disobedience activities as members or leaders of the California ProLife Council.
- Participation in or support for civil disobedience or other unlawful activities as CPLC affiliates or as CPLC representatives.
- Raising money as CPLC affiliates or representatives or providing CPLC funds or assistance to any group involved in civil disobedience.
- Use of CPLC membership or mailing lists for any activity involving groups involved in civil disobedience or other unlawful activities.
Of course, these policies do not preclude any individual from acting on the basis of his or her own conscience. They are designed to isolate the CPLC corporation and it’s affiliates from activities where CPLC and it’s affiliates may be inadvertently linked with activities which would subject the corporation and their board members to legal charges and financial claims.
Euthanasia
CPLC opposes all attempts to legalize or condone euthanasia. While once commonly understood as “mercy killing,” the term “euthanasia” now encompasses acts from lethal injection, to “assisting” in suicide, to withholding basic levels of care from non-terminal patients. In all cases of euthanasia, the action or omission is expressly intended to cause the death of a person.
By contrast, CPLC supports the tradition which allows persons suffering from a terminal illness to die naturally. Under this centuries-old ethic, patients are not obligated to use extraordinary or heroic medical treatment that would only prolong the dying process. Ordinary care and treatment should be provided to all patients to sustain their daily needs and comfort. When a person has clearly reached their “last days,” the focus of medical treatment may be switched from curing to caring, but never to killing.
In the name of true human dignity, we commend those in the medical profession who have committed themselves to advancing pain and symptom management, and hospice care. Real compassion for the dying comes through meeting all their needs: physical, emotional, and spiritual. The goal must be to eliminate suffering, not the people who suffer.
Human Cloning
On February 27, 1997, English scientists announced they had cloned a sheep named Dolly. Promptly following this news, researchers in Oregon on March 1, 1997, announced that a Rhesus monkey had been cloned. Unfortunately, the reality of human cloning is just around the corner. Science has an unquenchable thirst to do what seems impossible, sometimes without regard to moral implications.
Proponents of human cloning rush forward with proposals for it’s use that on the surface appear benevolent. Advocates mention replacing a dead child with a genetic twin, or creating a reservoir of genetically-matched material for spare parts for diseased organs such as bone marrow, livers, kidneys, etc. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) has recommended that clones grown outside the womb could provide genetic advances for fighting diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Parkinson’s disease and cancer. Individuals and groups are stepping out to be identified as “pro-clone.” Scientific and medical advancement will be the justification for these individuals.
In response to the introduction of Dolly, President Clinton charged the NBAC with making recommendations on human cloning. On June 9, 1997, based on the NBAC report, the President released his “Cloning Prohibition Act of 1997,” stating, “Banning human cloning reflects our humanity. It is the right thing to do. Creating a child through this new method calls into question our most fundamental beliefs.” This act, however, is only a temporary, five-year ban prohibiting cloned humans from being created and born. It does allow federally funded unrestricted research on cloned embryonic human beings. The ‘moratorium’ announced by the President on federally funded research applies only to research intended to “create [bring to birth] a human being.”
The California ProLife Council finds human cloning to be an inherent violation of human dignity. As with abortion, human cloning research denies the most fundamental of human rights – the right to life. The research process inevitably requires scientists to destroy and discard their “failed” experiments. For example, it took 277 attempts at cell manipulation and 29 embryo implants before the sheep, Dolly, was produced.
Cloning would further violate human dignity by denying the intrinsic value of each human life, thereby viewing human beings as products or commodities. For this same reason we already oppose surrogate parenting, genetic screening of embryos before uterine implanting, and sex selection abortion. Cloning could not possibly respect the intrinsic value of the person created, because a cloned person will not be created simply for their value as a person. There will always be an intended and specific utility attached to a cloned person because he or she was created with a particular genetic make-up for some purpose.
CPLC strongly advocates for the passage of tightly written legislation at the national and state level that will permanently ban all human cloning including research on embryos.
Violence
The National Right To Life Committee (NRLC) and the California ProLife Council (CPLC) strongly oppose any use of violence as a means of stopping the violence that has killed more than 36 million unborn children since the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1973, The California ProLife Council has always been involved in both peaceful and legal activities to protect human lives threatened by abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. We have always, and will continue to oppose, any form of violence to campaign against abortion. The CPLC has a strict policy of forbidding violence or an illegal activity by it’s staff, directors, or officers. Engaging in or encouraging any type of violence which endangers either human lives or property would be a contradiction of the purposes of the CPLC. Our sole purpose is to protect life.
It is false and offensive to suggest, as some pro-abortion groups have, that speaking in favor of the right-to-life movement somehow results in violence. Such a suggestion is like blaming the civil rights movement – and all those who courageously spoke in favor of the rights of African-Americans – for the riots or deaths that were part of that era.
The California ProLife Council will continue to work through educational, legislative, and political activities to ensure the right to life for unborn children, people with disabilities, and the elderly. The CPLC will also continue to work for peaceful solutions to our country’s social problems. These solutions do not involve violence of any kind against anyone for any reason.
