THE 2008 LLDF BANQUET
LLDF held its annual banquet on November 15, 2008. Once again the venue was the elegant and historic Bellevue Club in Oakland overlooking Lake Merritt. Built as an exclusive club for women in 1926, the Bellevue Club retains the look and feel of that era. The banquet took place just 11 days after Election Day. Pro-lifers are generally a cheerful lot, so despite the election of the most pro-abortion president in American history, guests took the occasion to rejoice is such victory as there was, and to affirm their resolve to continue the fight for innocent life in the face of the challenges an Obama administration will undoubtedly bring.
The formal program began with an invocation by the courageous Rev. Walter Hoye of Berkeley. [See related article on page 1.] LLDF Legal Director Katie Short then set the cheerful tone of the evening in her presentation of the Attorney of the Year award to a surprised Tom Condit of Cincinnati, Ohio. Tom’s first clue came when Katie recounted that Tom had once remarked, “Rescuers are my favorite clients: no money and absolutely no expectation of winning.” “That attitude”, Katie observed wryly, “promises a great relationship with LLDF.”
In expressing his appreciation for the award, Tom said that of the many pro-life organizations he has worked with over the years, LLDF was closest to his heart. He gave two reasons for this sentiment: “[LLDF Administrative Director] Mary Riley is always on the other end of the phone. And I have a special affinity for the pro-life activists on the streets. Of all the pro-life organizations, LLDF strikes me as more of the street fighters.”
LLDF Executive Director Dana Cody then gave her Year in Review presentation. She prefaced her remarks by pointing out one irony of the election results: Obama, the first black president of the United States of America, is a pro-abortion politician who has promised Planned Parenthood that he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, a step that will certainly result in the deaths of even more unborn babies. “We have come full circle in this country”, Dana observed sadly. “The oppressed has become the oppressor.”
While acknowledging the narrow Election Day defeat of California Proposition 4, the Parental Notification Initiative (“Sarah’s Law”), Dana recognized the substantial efforts of Katie Short in connection with the proposition (including authoring, qualifying, campaigning, etc.), as well as with similar California initiatives in the two prior elections.
In happier news, Dana reported the addition of two staff attorneys to LLDF during the year: Rebekah Millard, who is serving LLDF as a research attorney, and Allison Aranda, a trial attorney whom Dana described as “a one-woman free speech machine on university campuses.”
The featured speaker of the evening was Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. Having earned her doctorate in economics and taught the dismal science for a number of years at prestigious universities, Dr. Morse has more recently turned her talents and energy to matters relating to the support of traditional marriage and family. Dr. Morse reminded the guests that not everything was doom and gloom the morning after Election Day. Having worked tirelessly in support of the California Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act, Dr. Morse was gratified to see her efforts and those of many others rewarded with the passage of that proposition.
Dr. Morse pointed out that the pro-life and pro-marriage movements have two elements in common. First, both are “child-centered” as opposed to “adult-centered.” Both ask the question, “What is owed to the child?” From the point of view of what is owed to the child, the pro-life movement insists that the child is owed life itself. For its part, the pro-marriage movement maintains that every child has a legitimate interest in having a relationship with two parents. But children cannot defend that right themselves, so marriage is society’s way of protecting it for them.
The second element that the pro-life movement and the pro-marriage/pro-family movement have in common, says Dr. Morse, is that both have been undermined by the sexual revolution, specifically, the separation of sex from reproduction in our society. The sexual revolution has resulted in a society in which many people believe that unlimited sexual activity—without a live baby resulting—is an entitlement. Many people in our society now believe that there is no moral or social significance associated with the sex act. “The norm in this culture is that sex is a sterile activity,” said Dr. Morse, “with reproduction thrown in as an afterthought.” This adult-centered mentality of an entitlement to sterile sex necessarily denies the child-centered right to life.
Furthermore, says Dr. Morse, the view of sexual activity as a recreational activity unconnected with reproduction leads one to view his or her sexual partner as essentially recreation equipment—a consumer good. “And we all know what we do with consumer goods when they don’t make us happy,” concluded Dr. Morse. “We get rid of them.” Such a mentality inevitably weakens the institution of marriage.
Dr. Morse believes that one of the reasons for the success of the Defense of Marriage Act was that its supporters put the child at the center of the discussion. “One of the things we are learning from the success of the pro-marriage movement is that there is a constituency for bringing the child back—for taking the child seriously.”
That is encouraging news for pro-lifers. Depending on the size and the depth of conviction of this constituency, the parental notification campaign may yet succeed, for it seeks to protect two children: the unborn child, and the child-mother.