Monday, March 30, 2009

From the files of Ben Wetmore: "A plan to save 1,170 babies a year in the state of Massachusetts through the passage of an informed consent law utilizing political pressure"


NJO: "Benjamin Wetmore: A mentor of mine; a genius", said James O'Keefe in an interview in September 2009. So let's take a look at some of the wisdom of this certifiably mentorial influence on James' life.

Today, from March 2009, "A plan to save 1,170 babies a year in the state of Massachusetts through the passage of an informed consent law utilizing political pressure".

Source: http://benwetmore.com/documents/MCFL/proposals/MCFL_LaurasLaw-proposal.doc [Now a dead link]


A plan to save 1,170 babies a year in the state of Massachusetts through the passage of an informed consent law utilizing political pressure


Massachusetts Citizens for Life

Prepared by: Ben Wetmore

For the Gerard Health Foundation’s consideration

March 30, 2009



On September 13, 2007 Laura Hope Smith, a 22 year old girl who was 13 weeks pregnant, died during an abortion.  The tragedy of losing both grandchild and daughter was not lost on her mother, who was shocked and angered because Laura had been raised in a pro-life and Christian household.  As the details unfolded, it became clear that the initial decision that Laura made to abort was not the choice she would have made if given the correct information about the risks to abortion, information on fetal development, and the ultrasound picture that the abortionist had already taken.
Informed consent laws have been passed in various forms in 33 states.  Such laws are often non-controversial and not seriously opposed by the abortion industry.  Social science researcher Dr. Michael New has shown that such laws have on average a clear reduction in the abortion rate by .86% in the overall abortion rate on average.  The sporadic judicial nullification of such laws has made it clear as to their impact by showing the subsequent spike in abortions in a year following nullification.  As Massachusetts’ abortion rate is currently 19.9 per thousand women of reproductive age, reducing that through passage of such a law to 19.04 per thousand women of reproductive age would save 1,170 babies a year.

Passage of any legislation is not a direct and clear affair, but the death of Laura Smith has given rise to a unique window of time where the tragedy of her death demands action not only from Laura’s mother but from those few who have heard about her story and the few media outlets that have so far covered the case.  Her abortionist is currently being taken to trial, and the opportunity to pass the legislation slows with each passing day.  The two key obstacles are getting the media to cover Laura’s story, and convincing the public that it is not an isolated case.
Already, Massachusetts Citizens for Life has gotten bipartisan support for the legislation, including not just conservative Democrats but even pro-choice politicians.  Informed consent is a bill that even those who are pro-abortion can support and defend to their constituents; as such it has the chance to succeed in the Massachusetts legislature if given the proper grassroots media campaign.  Of the 19 sponsors of the legislation, a majority of 10 are Democrats.  Few have the rabid attachment to abortion that demands women be precluded from receiving information before their abortion.  The timing is critical, the law is proven to save lives, and the political momentum has begun but lacks the needed traction.
Simply educating the public at large would be too costly and yield too few results.  Instead, this grant proposal would enable two new staffers to focus not only on highlighting and drawing attention to Laura’s case and developing the public narrative around her tragedy, but also to research and promote other local cases and other informed consent tragedies ignored or undiscovered by local media outlets.  And this is not to say that it would be about sending press releases.  Rather, this proposal would have two staffers who were conducting and videotaping interviews, collecting primary source material, and finding new cases of abortionist abuse and the denial of critical information that will lead to citizen outrage.  The goal is to promote civil and criminal lawsuits and pressure legislators to learn about and support the issue of informed consent.  This is potentially a common ground area that can get beyond the traditional right-left, life-abortion divide and pass a pro-choice legislature because it is empowering real choices rather than falling into the perception of rights-restrictive legislation.
If we can raise the profile of the Laura Smith tragedy, if we can show that it was not an isolated case the lobbying effort already exists at Massachusetts Citizens for Life to help steer this legislation to enactment.  The grant would promote and educate around the issue of informed consent.  It would research how the issue has impacted individual lives, connecting those stories to the mainstream media, the online media and alternative media outlets.
Two staffers on this task would cost $150,000 per year and we would expect the timeline to take two years, for a total cost of $300,000.  That cost divided by the one-year number of babies saved would yield a return on investment of one saved baby for every $256.41 spent.  After the legislation passes, the babies saved per dollar obviously becomes a better return with each additional year.  If the average abortion costs $413, this represents a revenue loss of $483,210 per year to the abortion industry.
The court has routinely upheld informed consent as a permissible regulation of abortion rights.  The two ways to pass it would be through explicit language in a piece of legislation, or through the judiciary where as a matter of reasonableness it becomes a civil action not to receive certain information and consent before the abortion procedure.  Both methods and avenues require a greater public exposure that this grant will fulfill.  By creating local awareness and channeling it into legislative contact and media contact, we will give energy to the existing lobbying effort.
The primary researcher would be responsible for researching, messaging and marketing the information about the violations of informed consent and would be responsible for creating and crafting all content, including the management of the online presence and all media communications.
The field agent would be responsible for reporting back new contacts, doing subject interviews, collecting information, meeting with current chapters and activists to try to uncover every violation of informed consent and connecting that material on a regular basis to the project manager.

Budget:

Researcher/Proj. Man.:              $50,000
Field agent:                        $40,000
Marketing:                          $20,000
Paid advertising:                   $20,000
Travel, meetings, expenses:         $15,000
Management:                         $5,000
Annual total:                       $150,000
Two-year project total:             $300,000

Dollars per baby saved:             $256.41

No comments:

Post a Comment