Manhattan Declaration Unveiled, Attacked by Media

More than 150 pro-life and pro-family leaders, including SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, have signed an affirmation of the right of pro-lifers to follow their conscience. All pro-lifers are encouraged to sign as well.

    Called the Manhattan Declaration, the 4,700 word statement was unveiled on the 20th of November. The first signers included Christian leaders of all denominations, from Catholic to Protestant to Orthodox.

    The declaration says today’s pro-life movement “claim[s] the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide.”

    “Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good,” it says.

    “Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality…We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”

    Sure enough, the historic declaration has already come under the mainstream media. The Los Angeles Times published an editorial titled, “Christian leaders’ stance on civil disobedience is dangerous,” in which it says signers are “going too far when they declare they will break laws on abortion.”

    Ironically, as points out, the Times weakens its own argument in the second paragraph when it recognizes that “Few today would criticize civil rights activists, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., for participating in or condoning the violation of laws that perpetuated white supremacy.”

    The Times goes on to dismiss the gravity of the abortion issue by saying the signers are reserving the right to not comply with pro-abortion laws “in situations far removed from King’s witness.”

    However, there is a very strong parallel between abortion and the slavery that allowed the civil rights movement to exist. In the 1857 Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford, a 7-2 majority decided Dred Scott was a slave, the property of his owner, and could be used, bought, sold, or killed at will.

    In the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, a 7-2 majority decided an unborn child was a slave to the will of his or her mother, and could be killed at will.

    Those who were pro-slavery told abolitionists not to impose their morality on them. Likewise, those who are pro-“choice” tell pro-lifers not to impose their morality on others.

    The Times goes on to dismiss the gravity of the abortion issue by saying the signers are reserving the right to not comply with pro-abortion laws “in situations far removed from King’s witness.”

    Of course, the Times could not resist playing the abortionist-killing card, claiming that the declaration would “embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn.”

    There is something mind-boggling about these arguments. When homosexual activists paint their unpopular fight to legalize gay “marriage” as a civil rights issue, the media accept their argument as legitimate and even praiseworthy. But when we pro-life advocates describe abortion as the human rights violation that it is, we are bashed and stifled.

    Something tells me that the right to life is a much more important and noble cause than the “right” to redefine a sacred and timeless institution.

To view the full text of the Manhattan Declaration, click here.
To see news articles on the Declaration, click here.
To sign the Declaration, click here.

Share this article: