Pro-life vs. pro-life

Looks like Senate Bill 95, which would have required women to have ultrasounds and acquire informed consent prior to having an abortion, is dead. SB 95 not the end of Roe vs. Wade, but it is a step up from what currently exists in Colorado. However, apparently during the testimony phase yesterday at the capitol, Colorado Right to Life spoke against the bill because it was not a 100 percent outlawing of abortion. So yes, their "no" vote was lined up right next to the likes of NARAL, who also testified against it. Colorado Right to Life's testimony contradicted opposing testimony from other pro-life lobbyists and caused the bill to be shelved.

At one point, Joe Riccobono, legislative chairman for Colorado Right to Life, lambasted the bill as “pruning a weed.”

“It’s the regulation of child killing,” Riccobono said, as he argued for an outright ban instead of more regulation.

Colorado Right to Life is only hurting the pro-life movement by sinking legislation like SB 95. It wouldn't lead to the complete ending of abortion but lives would be saved, as ultrasounds have proven to be a very effective way to convince mothers to keep their unborn children. Colorado Right to Life may think they're being vigilant, but when you have a chance to upgrade the law from what it was -- even if it's not the ultimate law you seek -- you take it. No wonder National Right to Life shed itself of this group.