The Deceit Of The Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation
By Louis R. Petolicchio
Posted June 2, 2006
In fact, it was this sycophantic behavior that lent itself to the establishment of the 100% Pro-Life PAC, whose leadership felt the PPLF had abandoned its mission to protect the unborn in exchange for having the chance to rub elbows with the politically powerful in Harrisburg.
For thinking individuals skepticism towards the true intentions of the PPLF had, in the weeks leading up to the 2006 Primary Election, rapidly given way to an outright disbelief that the PPLF even cares about bringing an end to abortions in Pennsylvania and that it has devolved into a mouthpiece for career politicians who are more interested in retaining power than in doing the right thing.
And the PPLF has only itself to blame for this growing conviction that it is a fraud.
In March, Keystone Review ran an expose that outlined how the PPLF PAC had received $6000 in 2005 - the most money it received the entire year - from a political action committee funded by gambling dollars donated by a convicted felon whose chairman was state Sen. Bob Jubelirer and whose Treasurer was his aide, Michael Long, brother-in-law of state Senator David J. "Chip" Brightbill.
Neither Jubelirer nor Brightbill had a stellar record on the abortion issue. In fact, both voted against the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, and as late as 2005 Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates had listed Jubelirer as "Pro-Choice" and Brightbill as "Mixed." If one needed poster children for the pro-life movement, these two would not be heading up the list.
But the historic facts don't seem to matter to the PPLF. in April, Jubelirer began sending out mailings claiming that he had been endorsed by the PPLF - in spite of his pro-abortion history, and just a few weeks before the Primary the PPLF distributed a Brightbill puff piece that it touted as a "Voters Guide" while completely ignoring Brightbill's Republican opponent, Mike Folmer, who is 100% pro-life.
This bizarre and erratic behavior by the PPLF seems inexplicable for genuine pro-lifers but it does bolster a theory about the PPLF which this writer has, a theory that is bound to get everybody ticked off but which is a valid theory none-the-less.
Simple put, this theory suggests that the PPLF does not really want to end abortions in Pennsylvania.
Sound crazy? Sure it does, but how else can one explain these burning questions:
* Why has there been no significant piece of pro-life legislation passed in Pennsylvania in 15 years (curiously, the same time period that the PPLF says Brightbill has been a "leader" in the pro-life movement)? Sure, there have been some items which pick around the periphery but nothing that really attacks the abortion issue head on in Pennsylvania.
* W hy has Pennsylvania spent millions of dollars on "family planning" services - money of which Planned Parenthood is a recipient - every year for about the last 15 years? In fact, State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe wanted to cut the $4.43 million appropriation from the 2006-2007 state budget but the PPLF was not only MIA in supporting that effort but it's Legislative Director, Mary Beliveau, actually released a statement criticizing Metcalfe's amendment.
* Why did the PPLF shade the truth about Brightbill's voting record when their moral antagonists, Planned Parenthood, seemed to think they could work with Brightbill? And why did the PPLF mail out to every household in the 48th district a sham and incomplete Voters Guide?
* If Jubelirer and Brightbill were such pro-life leaders, why was no mention of them made in the PPLF Spring 2006 or Winter 2005 newsletters, while plenty of other state legislators were referenced?
In other words, for all intents and purposes, under the PPLF's auspices, the pro-choice/pro-life struggle has come to a complete standstill in Pennsylvania - and the PPLF is covering for the very people who have stalled it!
Sure, there has been no further advance made for the pro-abortion folks - but neither has there been any advancement of the pro-life agenda in Pennsylvania.
Of course, one may ask, how does it benefit the PPLF to keep abortions going in Pennsylvania? Turns out, there are three pretty logical ones.
First, the PPLF can continue collecting money from pro-lifers who believe that they are trying to end abortions. The PPLF political action wing alone collects tens of thousands of dollars for advocating candidates - like Jubelirer and Brightbill - who have really done nothing significant to change the status quo of the abortion environment in Pennsylvania. Additionally, the PPLF collects money through it's tax-exempt education fund and through it's corporate fund. In short, these folks have figured out how to milk the cow from all angles.
Second, the PPLF can curry favor with politicians. Consider the Jubelirer/Eichelberger and Brightbill/Folmer races. By siding with the incumbents, the PPLF were hedging their bets. For if both or either incumbent had won, they could claim victory and use those victories to bolster their own reputation in Harrisburg. If either or both incumbents lost - which is precisely what happened, then the PPLF would be free to demand that Eichelberger and Folmer work with them because both men are pro-life and the PPLF will insist on accountability for the commitments these men made on the PPLF questionnaire.
Third, the PPLF can continue to 'serve a purpose.' After all, what reason would the PPLF have to exist in operation and continue to collect money if Pennsylvania were an abortion-free state? Fact is that as long as abortions are legal and cheap in Pennsylvania, the PPLF can "continue the fight." But if PPLF is "committed to promoting the dignity and value of human life from conception to natural death and to restoring legal protection for the unborn" then they have no reason to try and end any form of unnatural death (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) because ending such practices would put them out of work.
In fact, one of the dirty little secrets in the state budget is that for every dollar spent on pro-abortion groups, an equal amount is spent on "pro-life" services. That means that if Rep. Metcalfe's amendment had gone through, the "pro-life" money would have been jeopardized. And as the PPLF did not support Metcalfe's amendment, then one has to wonder: is the PPLF sucking up money from the public trough and if so, how much? If the PPLF is indeed on the public dole, then is it any wonder they were so quick to cover for Jubelirer and Brightbill - because they have to cover their own interests?
In light of these nagging concerns, can anyone blame this writer for pondering the true intentions of the PPLF, and should anyone be surprised that a growing number of people across this commonwealth are beginning to suspect that the PPLF is not all it claims to be?
Perhaps - sadly so - the fallout from the May 16 rout of incumbent legislators will not only impact the behavior of elected officials and career politicians but will also envelope their public policy lackeys.