Letter Regarding Charles Rice view on RTL candidates

        September 14th 19??

        In the Wanderer of September 14th Charles Rice gave the impression that pro-lifer voters in New York State are morally bound to cast their votes for Mary Jane Tobin, the so-called Right-to-Life Party candidate for governor. In a letter that I circulated among my friends. I took issue with Mr. Rice's position. In the Wanderer of November 2nd in an article under Charles Rice's name, there is listed a number of truths, platitudes, and half truths as reasons why Mrs. Tobin should be supported.

        I repeat the statement that appeared in the letter which I circulated which was in turn extracted from Mr. Rice's September 14 article: "The fact that a candidate is pro-life does not necessarily mean that he should be supported ... [He] may be incompetent." I agree with this statement. The fact that Mary Jane Tobin is an outstanding R N. does not quality her to be governor of the State of New York. Politics is not for well-meaning amateurs.

            It is also true that the governor wields a great deal of power.

        He can veto a measure. However, getting the two houses of the legislature to prepare and pass the pieces of legislation that he wishes is another matter, particularly when the governor is a member of a third party.

        According to Mr. Rice, pro-life leaders in New York State "offer nothing but counsels of timidity and retreat." He feels that these leaders "seem unable to resist the temptation to wheel and deal with the issue ..." Mr. Rice knows that wheeling and dealing is inherent in the art of having legislation prepared and passed. At the moment there is no consensus among pro-lifers as to whether the phrase "to save the life of the mother" should be omitted from or included in the proposed Human Life Amendment. Mr. Rice knows that the objectives in the minds of those who draft a piece of legislation is often not the one that is attained by the adoption of the legislation. People have an uncanny skill in devising practices that circumvent the legislation.

      To my knowledge, Mr. Rice has not been intimately involved in the day to day operations of the New York State RTL Committee. From reading his article, I get the impression that Mr. Rice has been mesmerized by. a small group of super activists who want their way# to prevail even if that entails the destruction of the whole movement. For years they have been carping at and obstructing programs that were not suggested by members of their coterie. They are imbued with the assumption that they, and only they, have all the answers. Obviously, neither group has all the answers. These have to be hammered out with free and open discussion followed by acceptance of the decision of the majority. A respect for the persons having positions differing from theirs must prevail.

      A word about the choice of the method taken to respond to my position is in order. If they were sincere in -unearthing the truth, it seems they would have sent to me immediately a carbon copy of their response. The Wanderer would have better served their readers if they had printed my response along side Mr. Rice's. The coterie is more interested in having their way than they are in having the truth prevail.

           

      Robert Mauro, who is under the spell of the coterie and who has been pontificating weekly on matters pertaining to life has this misleading statement in his November 2nd column: "State legislators who have blocked or delayed pro-life convention resolutions should be strongly opposed." How can sincere pro-lifers question the wisdom of using the convention route. It may and it may not be the best route to follow.

      In the same article, Mauro in evaluating the Minnesota senatorial candidates writes: "Boschwitz's pro-life stand is not the best one could hope for." Referring to a second Minnesota contest: "Short supports a mandatory human life amendment while Durenberger favors a life of the mother exception." These are cited to indicate that few candidates are "lily white" in their position on right to life. Those who pass

      muster solely on their right to life position could, because of their lack of training and experience bring catastrophic devastation to other areas essential to respecting life.

    To keep the record straight, I did not say that Mrs. Tobin was "incompetent". The phrasing that I used was: "Without in any way demeaning Mary Jane, it is obvious that she does not possess the training and experience that is required to fill the office of governor." Mr. Rice "completely disagrees" with my statement but he offers no evidence to disprove it.

    In the practical order, little will be accomplished by the mere adoption of a human life amendment. The law books are filled with good laws which are not enforced. To be effective the attitude of the people towards the value of life must be changed. The change will not be brought about by the brash, abrasive approach of the super-zealous activists who believe they can ram respect for life down the throats of the ordinary citizens. Honey and finesse are helpful, if not essential, ingredients in winning the uncommitted to the pro-life point of view.

    Patrick H. McHugh