Open Letter to the Chairwoman of the North Dakota Republican Party opposing Resolution 6 (women as co-conspirators)

PL-2024-001 · April 2, 2024 · formerly L16

Explicit opposition to a tenet Primary source Coalition letter 8 / 12

Explicit opposition to a tenet. Takes a position directly contrary to an Abolitionists Rising tenet (exceptions, mother-immunity, opposing an abolition bill).

Shortfall type
Explicit opposition to a tenet
Date
April 2, 2024
Lead organization
SBA Pro-Life America
Recipient
NDGOP Chair Sandi Sanford / delegates
Topic
Equal-protection party resolution
Type
Coalition letter
Verification
Primary source
Signature rows
18 (18 reported)
Completeness
Complete from letter text

§ 1 Key language

“turning those women into criminals is not the way to protect the unborn” SBA Pro-Life America, April 2, 2024

§ 2 Scorecard

Composite 8 of 12 — explicit opposition to a tenet. Each dimension is scored 0 (none), 1 (implied) or 2 (explicit); the rationale column is the editor's one-line reason for every non-zero score.

DimensionScoreMeaning at this scoreRationale
D1 Exceptions 0 None
D2 Immunity for the mother fault line 2 Explicitly opposes prosecuting or criminalizing women Reaffirms 2022 letter; opposes charging women.
D3 Incrementalism 1 By implication — a funding, drug, research, Hyde or Title X letter that takes no abolition position Redirects to incremental legislation.
D4 Opposition to abolition or equal-protection bills fault line 2 Explicitly opposes or lobbies against one Asks delegates to reject equal-protection resolution.
D5 Framing 1 Implied "through the legislative process".
D6 Secular framing 2 Wholly secular, legal, fiscal, medical or political argument Secular framing (CLI coercion data).

§ 3 Signatories

18 signature rows · 18 reported by the letter · Complete from letter text. Full signature block transcribed from the letter itself. Rows are transcribed as printed, in the order they appear; names link to the person, organizations to the organization.

#Name as printedTitle as printedOrganization as printed
1 Marjorie Dannenfelser President Susan B. Anthony Pro-life America
2 Mark Jorritsma Executive Director North Dakota Family Alliance
3 Carol Tobias President National Right to Life Committee
4 Kristan Hawkins President Students for Life of America
5 Jeanne F. Mancini President March for Life Action
6 Penny Y. Nance President & CEO Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee
7 Brian Burch President Catholic Vote
8 Christina Francis, M.D. CEO American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
9 Donna Harrison, M.D. Chair Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
10 Nicole D. Hayes Executive Vice President American Academy of Medical Ethics
11 John Mize CEO Americans United for Life
12 Kristen A. Ullman President Eagle Forum
13 Bradley Mattes President Life Issues Institute
14 Timothy R. Head Executive Director Faith and Freedom Coalition
15 Thomas A. Glessner, J.D. President National Institute of Family and Life Advocates
16 Jor-El Godsey President Heartbeat International
17 Jeffrey Barrows, DO, MA (Ethics) President American Academy of Medical Ethics
18 Steve Ertelt Editor LifeNews.com

§ 4 Organizations on this letter

17 distinct organizations and 18 named individuals, after normalizing renamed and affiliated entities.

Organizations

§ 5 Sources

Letter/statement text read from the organization’s own document.

sbaprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/…https://sbaprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/North-Dakota-Letter.pdf
Primary source
sbaprolife.org/newsroom/press-rele…https://sbaprolife.org/newsroom/press-releases/pro-life-groups-call-on-gop-to-oppose-resolution-criminalizing-women
Secondary

§ 6 Notes

Quotes the 2022 NRLC letter verbatim and cites its PDF.

Legacy ID in the earlier research report: L16.

Editorial note The rubric records distance from the standard published by Abolitionists Rising, not a moral verdict; every organization scored here regards itself as pro-life. Scores are judgment calls applied consistently by the published rubric; a disagreement is a disagreement with the rubric's conventions, not with an individual cell.