Pro-life or con?
Published on -11/2/2012, 1:34 PM
Is the current occupant of the 111th House seat really pro-life, as he'd like some of us to believe? Consider the following.
Eber Phelps spares no effort promoting Democrat politicians and their agendas, no matter how anti-life they are. Take, for example, Phelps' unrestrained enthusiasm for Kathleen Sebelius. Well before becoming governor, Sebelius proved to be the most rabidly anti-life politician in state history, receiving huge donations not only from late-term abortionist George Tiller and his PAC, but from out-of-state lobbyists EMILY's List, the National Abortion Rights Action League, National Organization for Women and Planned Parenthood. By 2006, Sebelius and fellow anti-lifers in academia and the pharmaceutical industry had formed the sweet-sounding Kansas Coalition for Lifesaving Cures to lay groundwork for a tax-subsidized human cloning and harvesting industry in Kansas. Fully aware of her monstrous designs, Eber Phelps gushed about Sebelius in the op-ed section of this paper, of her "vision" and her concern about "giving kids a healthy start in life." Healthy? Not for those on Sebelius' macabre industrial chopping block.
And speaking of chopping blocks, what about Phelps' de facto support of Kansas' notorious abortion industry? In 2006, Phelps campaigned vigorously to unseat Attorney General Phill Kline, who had made news investigating Tiller and Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri for manifest violations of state law. Phelps supported pro-abortion Republican-turned-Democrat Paul Morrison, even though it was common knowledge Morrison had been bought and paid for by Tiller. Despite this, Phelps tried convincing readers that Morrison "never will play favorites or bend the law to suit the persons involved in a controversy." Phelps' true colors became downright vivid when he wrote that Morrison "will not pursue a narrow, ideological agenda, as has been occurring in the Kansas attorney general's office for the past four years, and he will not embarrass us by causing us to be held up to ridicule nationally, as has happened during the tenure of the incumbent." If Eber Phelps is pro-life, why did Kline's efforts "embarrass" him? Why did he feel that investigating injuries and deaths of young mothers, falsification of medical records and refusal to report evidence of rape was a source of "ridicule" for us? And why would he so derisively characterize attempts to stem the bloodshed of abortion the pursuit of "a narrow, ideological agenda"?
We all know what happened after Phelps helped to further their careers. Morrison, whose integrity Phelps swore was "unquestioned," resigned in disgrace after attempts to undermine the abortion investigations came to light. And Sebelius became Obama's secretary of Health and Human Services, implementing a health care travesty that promotes abortion, encourages euthanasia and tramples the civil rights of Catholics and others who respect human life.
So what explains Phelps' voting record in Topeka? The Democrat leadership is well aware that in such a heavily Catholic district, Phelps needs to tread carefully; he learned this early in his career, after publicly supporting Planned Parenthood. This is why he's been allowed to vote with House conservatives when it comes to abortion. After all, with significant Republican majorities in the legislature, his additional vote has no net effect.
Still, Phelps is wary of alienating constituents who support abortion, which would explain his reticence on the issue. Compare this to Sue Boldra, who easily admits she's pro-life. Not long ago, she told me of seeing her twin granddaughters via ultrasound. Clearly moved, she asked how anyone can deny the humanity conveyed by such an image. Eber Phelps either lacks her conviction and backbone or simply doesn't care.
On Tuesday, I'm voting pro-life; I'm voting for Sue Boldra.
John Francis Borra