Abortion is not the answer to a pregnancy which is the result of sexual assault. Right to Life abhors the violence of rape and the violation of incest; but recognizes that caring for the victims can not justify the killing of the innocent child. Abortion merely allows society to forget about the acts of rape and incest and pretend that justice has been done, while often the perpetrator is protected from the crime. Often the woman is left alone to deal with the emotions of assault and abortion.

A human being once conceived has the innate right to life regardless of disabilities or gender. Tennessee Right to Life opposes the conception of a child for the purpose of the harvesting of tissues or medical experimentation regardless of any benefit to other members of society.

It is absolutely indisputable that the life within the womb is a unique human being. To say that this irreplaceable life can be deliberately destroyed for any reason denies the intrinsic humanity of the unborn.

Rape and Incest
Abortion is not the answer to a pregnancy which is the result of sexual assault. When a woman is raped and becomes pregnant, the woman and unborn child are the victims. Using abortion to end a crisis pregnancy does nothing to alleviate the rape. It merely allows society to forget about the rape and pretend that justice has been done, leaving the woman to deal with the emotions of the assault and abortion often alone.

In the case of incest, abortion actually protects the perpetrator of the crime by concealing the incestuous act. Incest represents a family situation where help is needed.

When the life of the mother is in danger, many times a doctor can treat both the mother and unborn child separately. Because of medical advances, it is rare that the child's life cannot also be saved. In those rare cases, the intent is not to kill the child but to try to save both lives if medically possible. Before the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decisions legalizing all abortions, the standard abortion law, including Tennessee's, had an exception for the life of the mother.

It is absolutely indisputable that the life within the womb is a unique human being. To say that this irreplaceable life can be deliberately destroyed for any reason denies the intrinsic humanity of the unborn.

Adoption
In the interest of protecting human life and offering women in crisis pregnancy situations viable alternatives to abortion, Tennessee Right to Life fully supports the option of adoption. In supporting this, we realize that adoption will not be the choice of every woman facing a crisis pregnancy, but it is a choice that should be available in her decision making.

While there is a surplus of families waiting several years to adopt a child into their home, there are women today being convinced that abortion or child rearing are their only choices. It is important that women in this crisis situation be presented with the life giving choice of adoption and to be informed of the resources available to them.

In every adoption situation, there are three primary parties involved: the child, birth parents and adoptive parents. We recognize and wish to emphasize that the needs and special interests of each of these parties should be given utmost consideration. We also wish to reaffirm and support the secondary parties to adoption: adoption agencies, government institutions, abortion alternative centers, and other supportive organizations.

Our efforts to promote adoption will be directed in three major areas: education, procedural and legal improvements, and enhancing maternal and adoption support services.

Euthanasia
Tennessee Right to Life opposes all attempts to legalize or condone euthanasia. While once commonly understood as "mercy killing," the term "euthanasia" now encompasses acts from lethal injection, to "assisting" in suicide, to withholding basic levels of care from non-terminal patients. In all cases of euthanasia, the action or omission is expressly intended to cause the death of a person.

By contrast, Tennessee Right to Life supports the tradition which allows persons suffering from a terminal illness to die naturally. Under this centuries-old ethic, patients are not obligated to use extraordinary or heroic medical treatment that would only prolong the dying process. Ordinary care and treatment should be provided to all patients to sustain their daily needs and comfort. When a person has clearly reached their "last days," the focus of medical treatment may be switched from curing to caring, but never to killing.

In the name of true human dignity, we commend those in the medical profession who have committed themselves to advancing pain and symptom management and hospice care. Real compassion for the dying comes through meeting all their needs, physical, emotional, and spiritual. The goal must be to eliminate suffering, not the persons who suffer.

Civil Disobedience
The movement to support human life and to oppose abortion involves a great diversity of individuals and organizations with each contributing in different ways towards the goal of protecting the unborn child.

Tennessee Right to Life, a non-profit corporation, and its affiliates have decided through years of consensus planning to focus our energies and resources on education, legislative lobbying activities and political action to achieve our goals. We have always opposed, and continue to oppose, actions that are contrary to the law.

Other individuals and groups believe that civil disobedience is a legitimate approach in waging a campaign against abortion.

Without in any way judging individuals who choose this approach, Tennessee Right to Life and its affiliates reaffirm their dedication to lawful efforts to protect the unborn and have rejected any TRL participation in civil disobedience.

The board of TRL must be particularly concerned with the potential liability of the organization in the event of lawsuits surrounding civil disobedience activities. For this reason, it is essential that TRL, its affiliates and members, avoid any INVOLVEMENT WHATSOEVER OF THE ORGANIZATION in any of the following activities:

1.  Use of the Tennessee Right to Life name or designation of individual participants in civil disobedience activities as members or leaders of Tennessee Right to Life.

2.  Participation in or support for civil disobedience or other unlawful activities as TRL affiliates or as TRL representatives.

3.  Raising money as TRL affiliates or representatives or providing TRL funds or assistance to any group involved in civil disobedience.

4.  Use of TRL membership or mailing lists for any activity involving groups involved in civil disobedience or other unlawful activities.

Of course, these policies do not preclude any individual from acting on the basis of his or her own conscience. They are designed to isolate the TRL corporation and its affiliates from activities where TRL and its affiliates may be inadvertently linked with activities which would subject the corporation and their board members to legal charges and financial claims.

Violence
Peaceful solutions to the violence of abortion is the goal of Tennessee Right to Life. For over two decades our members have marched, educated, lobbied, and voted for peaceful solutions to the violent ending of life. Each day, during every abortion procedure, babies are dismembered and women often suffer long-lasting physical and psychological harm. The violence of abortion kills approximately 1.4 million babies each year.

Any bombings, vandalism, assaults, or arson in other parts of the nation against abortion facilities concern Tennessee Right to Life. To counter violence with violence is against our principles. Pro-lifers have consistently worked peacefully through the democratic process in order to reach our goal - the end of violence within clinic walls. We are a peaceful movement.

Clearly, the actions against abortion clinics are unrelated to Tennessee Right to Life and its legislative and educational efforts. We reject any attempts to link these isolated incidents to the Tennessee pro-life movement which is composed of citizens throughout the state who are committed to restoring the civil rights of the unborn child and additionally to helping the woman facing a problem pregnancy.

There are peaceful alternatives to abortion. There have to be.

Human Cloning
Until February 1997, the human cloning of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was a futuristic, science fiction scenario. On February 27, 1997, the chills of reality went down our spines with the announcement that English scientists had cloned a sheep named Dolly. Promptly following this news, researchers in Oregon on March 1, 1997, announced that a Rhesus monkey had been cloned. The reality of animal cloning stares us in the face and human cloning is around the corner. Science has an unquenchable thirst to do what is possible, sometimes without regard to moral implications.

Proponents of human cloning rush forward with proposals for its use that on the surface appear benevolent. Advocates mention replacing a dead child with a genetic twin or creating a reservoir of genetically-matched material for spare parts for diseased organs such as bone marrow, livers, kidneys, etc. The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) has recommended that clones grown outside the womb could provide genetic advances for fighting diseases such as cystic fibrosis, Parkinson's disease and cancer. Individuals and groups are stepping out to be identified as "pro-clone." The right to choose philosophy, with which pro-life groups are so familiar, will be the ultimate justification for these individuals.

Cloning, also called "somatic cell nuclear transfer (donor cell)," involves a transfer of a nucleus of a somatic cell (any 'body' cell other than an egg or sperm) to an egg that has had its nucleus removed. This egg is stimulated by a tiny electrical current to begin to develop. The embryo later is transferred from the lab to the host uterus to complete the development of the new individual. This new individual is not an exact duplicate of the donor since a small genetic contribution is made by the mitochondrial DNA of the host cell.

In response to the introduction of Dolly, President Clinton charged the NBAC with making recommendations on human cloning. On June 9, 1997, based on the NBAC report, the President released his "Cloning Prohibition Act of 1997," stating, "Banning human cloning reflects our humanity. It is the right thing to do. Creating a child through this new method calls into question our most fundamental beliefs." This act, however, is only a temporary, five-year ban prohibiting cloned humans from being created and born. It does allow federally funded unrestricted research on cloned embryonic human beings. The 'moratorium' announced by the President on federally funded research applies only to research intended to "create [bring to birth] a human being."

Tennessee Right to Life finds human cloning to be an inherent violation of human dignity. As with abortion and assisted reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, human cloning research denies the most fundamental of human rights -- the right to life. The research process inevitably requires scientists to destroy and discard their 'failed' experiments. For example, it took 277 attempts at cell manipulation and 29 embryo implants before the sheep, Dolly, was produced.

Cloning would further violate human dignity by denying the intrinsic value of each human life, thereby viewing human beings as products or commodities. For this same reason we already oppose surrogate parenting contracts, genetic screening of embryos before uterine implanting and sex selection abortion. Cloning could not possibly respect the intrinsic value of the person created, because a cloned person will not be created simply for their value as a person. There will always be an intended and specific utility attached to a cloned person because he or she was created with a particular genetic make-up for some purpose. Any action taken to create or destroy human beings based on their genetic qualities their intrinsic value.