Skip to main content

Scott Brown’s Election to US Senate: A Hollow Victory for the Preborn.

By Angela Wittman

Many “pro-life” leaders are applauding the victory of Scott Brown (Republican) to the United States Senate in a special election held this past week in Massachusetts. In all honesty, his victory is at best, a hollow one for the preborn. Let’s take an objective, non-partisan look at Scott Brown’s record and rhetoric on prenatal child-killing as recorded at the website “”:

Scott Brown on Abortion

* 2005: Conscience-based opt out of post-rape contraception. (Jan 2010)
* Provide info about emergency contraception to rape victims. (Jan 2010)
* Support legalized abortion, but not partial-birth abortion. (Jan 2010)
* Supported by right-to-life groups for stem cell stance. (Jan 2010)
* Authored bill for 24-hour waiting period for abortion. (Jan 2010)
* Abortions should always be legally available. (Nov 2002)

Provide info about emergency contraception to rape victims

Brown voted for a 2005 amendment to deny emergency contraception to rape victims, but Coakley's ad [on that subject] doesn't mention that when the amendment failed, Brown voted for the underlying bill anyway.
The most misleading part of the ad, though is not what the narrator says, but what appears on screen. As the contraception amendment is mentioned, viewers see the words, "Deny rape victims care." Emergency contraception is certainly a type of care. But the language on screen implies that Brown would support denial of even, say, treatment of injuries sustained in a rape.

That's far from the truth. The bill required that rape victims be provided with accurate information about emergency contraception and that they be offered it. Brown voted for the bill after unsuccessfully trying to carve out a religion exception. And there is nothing in the record that we are aware of to suggest that Brown ever supported denying any other type of care to victims of sexual assault.

Source: FactCheck "Bay State Battle" AdWatch: 2010 MA Senate debate Jan 13, 2010

Support legalized abortion, but not partial-birth abortion

Brown pointed out that he and Coakley both support legalized abortion. "Yet we have a very real difference," Brown said, "and the difference is I'm against partial-birth abortion, you're not."

"That's not right," Coakley shot back.

"Martha", Brown said, "with all due respect, you wrote an editorial that anyone can go online and find where you actually criticized partial-birth abortion, the fact that it's in fact not allowed. And we also have have a difference in that I don't believe that federal funding of abortion should be allowed, and I believe in a very strong parental consent notification law."

In a 2007 op-ed article in the Quincy Patriot-Ledger, Coakley called a Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on late-term abortions "tragic."

Source: WBUR article on 2010 MA Senate debate Jan 12, 2010

Abortions should always be legally available

Rep. Brown indicated he supports the following principles concerning abortion:
Abortions should always be legally available.
Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape.
Abortions should be legal when the life of the woman is endangered.

Source: Massachusetts State Legislative Election 2002 NPAT Nov 1, 2002

(Sources: , )

As any dedicated, principled pro-lifer knows, prenatal child killing is murder at any stage of the baby’s development and there is absolutely no circumstance which can make the murder of a preborn baby acceptable. This leaves me to wonder at the motives of those so called “pro-life” leaders who are celebrating the victory of a pro-abortion candidate to the US Senate. I must ask, “Are they more Republican than Pro-Life?”

The St. Michael Society, (A society of Catholic professionals and activists engaging to defend and promote the faith in the public policy and political arena, SMS will mobilize on numerous issues from a Catholic perspective including abortion, assisted suicide, gov-run health care, population control, marriage, economic justice and defend against the many political attacks aimed at the Catholic faith. – Taken from their “About Us page at ) reports reactions from well known national “pro-family” and “pro-life” leaders in their article “Pro-Life Leaders React to Brown Win, Healthcare, Abortion Funding” ( ).

Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council, is reported to have said:

“For a Senate seat, considered to be in the left-hand column into eternity, the results of the Massachusetts race is near revolutionary. It is clear from the national involvement in this race that it was more of a referendum on the liberal agenda of the Obama Administration. While the individual candidates were important, it was the respective banners they marched under that was the deciding factor. Coakley marched under the banner of the President’s big government agenda embroidered with healthcare reform. Brown marched under the opposing standard – and won.”

Kristan Hawkins, Executive Director, Students for Life of America, is reported to have said:

“The election of Senator-elect Brown has shown that Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, do not support the pro-death policies in the current health care reform legislation before Congress. The unborn won last night. Now its time to see if Congressional leaders will allow them their chance at life.”

St. Michael’s goes on to report the response of David Bereit, National Director, 40 Days for Life as saying:

“On the week of the 37th anniversary of the unjust Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, the liberal state of Massachusetts has decisively elected Scott Brown who campaigned on the promise to vote against abortion-laden health care reform. This vote is a clear referendum to President Obama, Congress, and abortion industry lobbyists: NO abortion in health care!”

You can read the entire report here: .

The Catholic News Agency reported in their article “Pro-life leaders cheer Brown's win over Coakley” ( ) Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life political action group Susan B. Anthony List as saying:

“‘Martha Coakley's defeat is not a setback for women in politics, it is a victory,’ the SBA List president said.

“She went on to call Scott Brown's success ‘a win for the majority of American women who demand authentic representation that reflects commonsense pro-life views, like abortion funding restrictions and conscience protections.’

“‘Abortion is never good for women,” Dannenfelser asserted, “and it should never be a legitimate aspect of any 'health care' debate.’

“‘The message is clear, abortion is not health care,” Dannenfelser of the SBA List concluded in her Wednesday statement. “Americans should not be forced to fund it, and medical providers of faith should not be forced to participate in it.’”

The information on Scott Brown’s views and record on prenatal child-killing was readily available to these groups and their leaders before the election.

The so-called “pro-life” leaders of America celebrating the victory of pro-death Scott Brown to the United States Senate not only boggle my mind, they make me want to draw a clear line between them and myself. They have sacrificed pre-born babies for a hollow Republican victory. It is time for principled pro-lifers to withdraw their support from these groups and begin seriously contending for the personhood of the preborn to be legally recognized.

Please note: Links provided are for informational purposes only.


  1. Amen, Angela. Well said.


  2. Angela, some who proclaim Christ, the Maker and Giver of life, give "the lesser of two evils" argument - "our pro-abort is better than your pro-abort."

    To whom, much is given, much is required.

    Christians, who dishonor God by supporting candidates such as Scott Brown (and others, too numerous to mention) do greater harm to the pre-born, than Naral or Planned Parenthood.

    Great column

  3. Scott Brown voted for Obama style health care in his own state, why would he vote against it on a federal level? Saying that is a good way to get votes. Christians Republicans are engaged in a game of sports when it comes to politics and their team has to win. They believe their baby killer is better than their (Dems) baby killer. Once you're ok with murder, lying comes easy.

    If things are to change for the better especially the unborn, a person running for elected office, must support personhood. The view that the unborn are persons from day one, reveals the true motives of a person's heart.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts (All Time)

A discerning look at 'Biblical Patriarchy' and those who abuse it

By Angela Wittman While much of what Doug Phillips teaches regarding Patriarchy sounds biblical, because of the lack of practical application, his teachings are often taken to extremes. Sometimes, men just hear his vision of men always “leading,” and they become domineering and demanding, causing undue stress on the wife. I know of one family that divorced precisely because of hearing this teaching and not understanding what it really should be. Sometimes, men will try to emulate what they see in Doug Phillips, and start requiring their families to have all the same rules as the Phillips. Unfortunately, if there are no personal convictions behind the rules, they soon become extremely oppressive and smother the family. Some men just have no clue about how to “lead” their families; they just know that it’s being constantly preached at them from the pulpit. Having come from a home without a godly leader, these men need lots of practical examples. (Taken from: Doug Phillips’ Kangaroo Court

A discerning look at Ted Weiland's "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective"

By Angela Wittman I believe I have found within the Scriptures the key to what made America great, and this key can restore her to her former greatness. - Ted Weiland, ( Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution; The Christian Perspective , A couple of years ago Ted Weiland contacted me and asked if he might send me his primer on  Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective . After receiving and reviewing the primer, I decided to toss it in the trash due to the concern that Mr. Weiland was missing a foundational point - Biblical covenanting.  And after recently reviewing his work in greater detail, I believe the reformed and theonomic community should be cautious about Mr. Weiland's book and his beliefs. Due to some glaring "red flags" I encountered while researching Mr. Weiland, I've decided to write this warning and state my concerns. First of a