The Georgia Life Alliance

We had hoped to sit back and make it through this weekend, but opponents are attacking us as “the establishment” trying to weaken the pro-life cause. In fact, in an email from a reporter, I was asked about us having a less hard line position than the other organization.

I’m talking about the Georgia Life Alliance, of which I am a part and will be on the board. This weekend we are asking National Right to Life to affiliate with us, which would mean ending their relationship with Georgia Right to Life (“GRTL”).

I have been calling for a new pro-life organization in Georgia since GRTL sided with Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups to oppose the 20 week abortion ban in the U.S. House of Representatives. GRTL has held its head up and said it took a hard line position and suggested other pro-life groups were going soft.

In fact, as I said then and repeat now, life is too precious and important for political gamesmanship. And I believe GRTL took that position for other political purposes instead of joining every other pro-life group in America to advance the life agenda down the field.

I have been saddened over the last few years with what I perceive as an organization too mired in political machinations to actually be effective any more.

A pro-life organization should support privatizing our adoption and foster care system because the state has proven itself incompetent in both.

A pro-life organization should support a mother’s right to a birth certificate when her child is still born.

A pro-life organization should support school choice because there can be no pursuit of life, liberty, or happiness if a child is forced into a failing government school with no way out.

A pro-life organization’s agenda should not stop at the womb, but should advance to protect, promote, and foster the lives of those made in God’s image as they enter the world and strive to glorify God in life.

Without knowing who we are or what positions we will take, critics allied with GRTL are attacking GLA — trying to abort our effort before we are even standing — by accusing us of being compromised, moderate, or weak.

At RedState, one must be pro-life to be a front page writer. To my knowledge, we are the only site on the right that requires that. I have fought for that rule and been willing to lose my position here in order to keep that rule.

I am neither a pawn nor tool of the establishment. I just happen to think it is time for a pro-life organization in Georgia that holds the line on life for the unborn, but continues to support pro-life policies for those once born. And I believe life is too precious for political games. We must do everything possible to advance our cause and unite to protect life.

The critics attacking the Georgia Life Alliance are attacking me and friends of mine who, though we may disagree in other ways and on other issues, are adamantly committed to the cause of life, all of which is sacred and should be protected.


  1. gcp says:

    “At RedState, one must be pro-life to be a front page writer.”

    Always wondered how many of these pro-life group members believe abortion is the most important issue and must a candidate be “pro-life” before these voters even consider supporting a candidate. I find such one-issue obsession a little troubling.

    • Jon Lester says:

      RedState never has been particularly libertarian on either this issue or foreign policy.

      I would submit that, just as most pro-gun people would really rather not need to shoot anybody, most pro-choice women would rather avoid the awful decision, too, but neither constituency would want the right taken away.

  2. blakeage80 says:

    Erick, I am glad you are taking time to fight for this cause. If everything I am reading about GRTL from here and other sources is true, then it is time for a more noble organization to take the mantle as Georgia’s defender of the unborn.

  3. BriscoeDarlin says:

    A birth certificate for a still born child? Birth certificates are issued for live births. Name the baby if you want, but there is no need for a birth certificate for a deceased child.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      Should then a death certificate should also be issued too?

      Another conservative for less bureaucracy and smaller government, except when he’s not.

  4. debbie0040 says:

    So I take it Erickson nor the rest of you think it is unethical for a political consultant to bring up a new pro life group for the purpose of giving endorsements to his clients?

    What if the Democrats were doing this? Hey, wait a minute, they ARE doing this…. #LifeSiteNews

    “Dooley observed that the board members listed on GLA’s founding paperwork includes a who’s who list of behind-the-scenes Georgia political operatives, most with strong connections to moderate Republicans who have been spurned in the past by GRTL.

    “The Secretary of State’s website shows board members of this newly formed group to be people never involved in the life issue. Never campaigning for life at the Capitol, and never heard of in the pro-life community,” she wrote in a Facebook post about the issue.

    One member of GLA’s board is Lance Cooper, a personal injury lawyer who lost his 2004 race for state Senate after GRTL withdrew its endorsement when they learned he had donated thousands of dollars to pro-abortion Democrats at the federal level.

    Cooper declined to give an interview an interview for this story, referring to his former campaign consultant, Joel McElhannon, whom he described as “the coordinator, for lack of a better term,” behind GLA. However, McElhannon did not respond to requests for comment either.

    LifeSiteNews did hear back from GLA founder Emily Matson, who adamantly denied any direct involvement by McElhannon with GLA, pointing out that his name is not on the founding documents. “Joel’s not an incorporator,” she said. “I’ve had no phone conversations with him about any of this.”

    Another member of the GLA board is Kristin Radtke, who is married to Trip Radtke, a longtime friend of McElhannon’s and one of the principals of Stoneridge Group – a political direct mail firm that works hand-in-hand with McElhannon’s consulting firm to elect Republican candidates. reached out to the Radtkes, but did not hear back by press time.

    Some of the Stoneridge Group’s clients have sought and failed to secure GRTL’s endorsement – including Cooper as well as Georgia Speaker of the House David Ralston, a Republican who self-identifies as pro-life, but who has consistently fought to include rape and incest exceptions.”

    • John Konop says:

      In all due respect it seems the issue is about policy. The 2 big issues are IVF and exceptions for rape/incest via abortion policy. GRTL have activity trashed candidates that do not support a 100 percent no compromise view.

      We have seen this debate for years on the PP. GRTL has created this opening by choice. In my opinion with the changing demographics tied to country leaning toward libertarian views on government, it was only time before the challenge would happen.

      GRTL support will melt as the population ages…..Eric and his group will be the new lion kings for the movement in less than 10 years…He is way more media savvy, and understands the trends ie in touch/ street smart vs. out of touch/no compromise It is only a matter of time…..Eric did not become a national figure by accident…..

      • saltycracker says:

        GLA….”adamantly committed to the cause of life, all of which is sacred and should be protected.”

        I posted a question above on exceptions as it appears the GLA has a 100% no exceptions, no compromise position. Guess the answer is obvious: Assume that “ALL” means all.

        Going down that road is sure to fail…..not that some would like it but why wouldn’t they begin with a more sellable political position like “no public funds can be used for abortion”…….

      • saltycracker says:


        BTW, confused over your gushing on Erick as you have been adamantly pro-choice and positioning that pro-lifers promote welfare dependents. Obviously I missed something.

        • John Konop says:


          I disagree on Erick on some policy…..but in this situation he will win within the GOP. As you know I am pro IVF, exceptions for rape/incest and have made the point numerous times on the this blog about how we pay for the kids…..with that said Erick has done a great job making himself a king maker within the GOP. Even if I disagree on issues with Erick……you have give him credit for what he pulled off….

      • debbie0040 says:

        We do wade into unethical issues like a political consultant bringing up a group in order to obtain an endorsement for his client

        • griftdrift says:

          Who just happens to be an opponent of the Tea Party’s “NO man” candidate who just happens to be the most rigid in the social issues. Of course correlation doesn’t equal causation.

          But it is sometimes convenient.

  5. peach_pundit_comments says:

    I have a 4 year old son that was created by God as a result of a rape. He is handsome, smart, joyful and creative. He loves his sisters and brothers, his parents, his grandparents and his friends. He is often helping his younger sister with her pacifier, her bottle or sharing some of his toys. Who knows what he will be in the future? A garbage collector, an accountant, a senator standing his ground on Life issues, a Ben Carson, a Ronald Reagan, a Martin Luther King, a Martin Luther, an Erick Erickson. Who knows? Only God knows why he was allowed to be conceived in such a terrible situation. Why does he not deserve to live if God chose to create him. If life begins at conception, then why doesn’t his?

    • Noway says:

      PPC, you are undoubtedly a unique woman to have the attitude you do. I cannot begin to know the pain you suffered as a result of your being raped. Here’s wishing you and your son all the happiness that life can bring. I would be willing to bet that most women who suffered through a rape that resulted in conception would want the choice in whether to proceed with the “fruits” of that crime.

    • Harry says:

      A baby should never be given a death sentence for the parents’ mistakes. Rather, the rapist himself should be punished with death; and females should be advised not to put themselves in risky circumstances. It’s become really difficult for a suspected rapist to avoid prosecution, which prosecution provides a deterrent. The mother should be required to carry the baby to term even if unwanted, and then give it up for adoption.

      • griftdrift says:

        “Required”. So essentially the mother is nothing more than an incubator. Knew that was your position Harry but always worth it to be sure.

        *required does sound a lot softer than forced doesn’t it Harry.

      • Jon Lester says:

        It often happens under circumstances that no reasonable person would call “risky.”

        This is yet another reason why you should consider universal contraception as a social investment.

        • Harry says:

          We’ve learned that bad things do happen to innocent people, but you don’t compound the error with another error, such as making available contraception by government largess which action which would repress the purpose of sexual reproduction as well as aid and abet in the breakdown of morality and further break down the society and lead to further problems or damage.

  6. Thadius says:

    The Georgia Life Alliance was formed by a gentleman (who I know and admire, by the way) who gave thousands of dollars to… Harry Reid (pro-abortion), Denise Majette (pro-abortion), John Barrow (pro-abortion), John Edwards (pro-abortion), Max Cleland (pro-abortion), the list goes on…

    In fairness, the guy also gave money to republican prolifers such as Handel, “W”, Collins, and Hice… But it doesn’t look his past efforts have been strongly directed by this issue – which would be expected of someone wanting to be the new pro life banner bearer for GA.

    Both parties (GLA, GRTL) are taking on a lot of perception risk if they square off against each other and do battle over a single race (Handel v Broun) instead of maintaining a view of the larger picture…

  7. debbie0040 says:

    If National Right to Life grants the charter to the fake pro life group, then they will be attacked as pawns of establishment by activists nationally and so will the board members. ANY elected official or candidate that donates, seeks or receives the endorsement of this fake group will not receive my vote and I will strongly encourage everyone to oppose those candidates. The war begins… This is going to create a Tsunami of a backlash and will be used as a campaign issue …

    • Charlie says:

      Exodus 20:13: Thou shall not Murder.

      Exodus 20:16 Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

      It’s been proven here many times that GRTL in it’s current form has forgotten and willfully ignored Exodus 20:16 in pursuit (ostensibly) of Exodus 20:13.

      But if your goal is merely to have a position of power to lord over others, it makes it a lot easier to ignore verse 16 while using verse 13 to club others deemed impure.

      But the fact of the matter is, GRTL is currently morally compromised. That is a point that none of the critics can or will defend. Because you can’t.

      Casting dispersion on the intentions of the others who have said “enough” doesn’t change the fact that Dan Becker is an unmitigated liar, and that Mike Griffin has earned the title of “the meanest man at the Capitol” – one that he earns “in the name of God”.

      These people need to be removed. You can talk all day long about who needs to replace them, but they have defiled the life movement and my religion by their sanctimonious and hypocritical actions.

      It’s time to turn over their tables and drive them from the temple. Period.

      • debbie0040 says:

        This new fake group is morally compromised and so are the members of the board.
        This will be a campaign issue and the battle is just beginning
        Any candidate that runs for an endorsement from this will lose far more votes than they gain

        I think more highly of GRTL than I do members of that group

        • debbie0040 says:

          This is war and I will refuse to work with the people behind this fake, unethical group. Tea party activists are already aware of the mechanisms behind this new group and are very angry

          • Will Durant says:

            Why would “Tea party activists” care about the machinations between groups advocating slight differences of wanted Theocratic laws implemented be angry? When I go to the Tea Party Patriots website I get these as the stated core values:

            Constitutionally Limited Government or your Personal Freedom and Your Rights
            Free Market Economics or Economic Freedom to Grow Jobs and Your Opportunities
            Fiscal Responsibility or very simply, a Debt Free Future For You and Generations To Come

            I don’t see anything on the site advocating Theocracy or Pro-Life. In fact your comments in support of a puritanical group that is an advocate for breaking down the separation of church and state is in direct conflict with those core value statements wanting “Constitutionally Limited Government” and “Personal Freedom.”

          • John Konop says:


            I agree this is a no win fight for the Tea Party….You will divide social conservatives and alienate libertarians……Do not get the strategy…..

            • debbie0040 says:

              This issue is not about pro life. It is about a faux conservative group being bought up by a political consultant to help his candidate. It is sleazy and unethical and it will backfire. We will continue to blast this group as a tool of RINO’s to defeat tea party candidates. I am calm compared to what other tea party activists are feeling and want to do. I am not wading into the pro life issue but will continue to call this group out for what they are..

              At the same time Martha Zoller was interviewing Tim Echols claiming to not want to take sides in this fight, she was on the board of this new group . That is sleazy and unethical and it infuriated tea party activists. Needless to say she won’t be welcomed at many tea party meetings.

  8. northside101 says:

    What exactly does it mean to hold the line of life for the unborn? My way or the highway (like Georgia Right to Life)? And what exactly is pro-life according to your definition? No exceptions? One? Three? All or nothing? If it is the last point ,then they are likely to end up with…nothing. Even the AJC reported (Dec 7, 2013) that a GOP poll conducted by Public Opinion Strategies of Alexandria, VA showed only 35 percent of general election voters supported a constitutional ban on abortions except when the life of the mother is in danger (I’m surprised it was even that high). Maybe Debbie would like to explain to us what a “fake” pro-life group is?

    • saltycracker says:

      Points (clarifications) raised and ignored. “ALL” by GRTL and GLA would be significantly less than 35% with an exception.

    • debbie0040 says:

      I will tell you what I believe. I don’t see how you falsely claim to be pro life and support the murder of a baby conceived by rape..

      I want absolutely nothing to do with this new group nor anyone affiliated with it.

      There are some tea party activists that want to go to places of business of the board members and protest and also the GA GOP because Joel is paid as an consultant. I don’t believe in going that far and have tried to discourage that.

  9. AthensRepublican says:

    I wish Georgia Life Alliance much success. I agree, the GRTL is more about politics and games. I agree with the GRTL in principle as I am opposed to abortion even in the cases of rape or incest. That said, I was disappointed that they opposed legislation that includes the exceptions. That showed me GRTL cares little about saving the lives of the unborn.

    • John Konop says:

      I have a different theory on advocacy groups in general…..on a macro abortion has gone way down…..but if the group helps creat a rational compromise, the advocacy groups goes out of business….the groups always keep pushing to raise money… money fuels their job….the groups really has no incentive to really solve anything….they would rather fire up their base and pass the hat….this strategy is color blind to race, religion, party,issue……just my 10 cents…

  10. Jane says:

    If Bloomberg formed a fake Guns Rights group to give cover to Democrats to circumvent the NRA. How many gun owners members would consider that unethical?

    How many people consider groups sell outs when they are weaken their endorsement criteria in order to increase their fund raising or popularity among the establishment class?

    • Will Durant says:

      Not a valid straw man argument. As far as I know the NRA is not claiming a better pipeline to God than other groups. The changes in the laws they seek are not attempting to introduce more theocracy.

Comments are closed.