"Pro-Lifers In Obamaland"

"Pro-Lifers In Obamaland"

Such is the headline of a Newsweek "web exclusive," written by Sarah Kliff. We are not blind: we all know that the political terrain is far rougher, more demanding, than it was before pro-abortion Barack Obama became President. But the questions raised (which are mostly either bogus and/or riddled with the fallacy of false alternatives) in such stories demand a steady hand and a calm explication of the facts.
 
Please understand that we are being given "helpful" advice whose only outcome would be to voluntarily embrace irrelevance and abandon the cause of unborn babies. It is their right to try. It is our responsibility not to be so foolish as to be taken in.

The subhead to Kliff's story is very instructive: "Now that the political climate has changed, will those dedicated to eradicating abortion embrace abortion-reduction strategies instead." It is simultaneously self-evident (the political climate has changed) and profoundly misleading (propagating the truly odd notion that those who refuse to be suckered in haven't been assiduously working--and successfully so--to reduce the number of abortions).

Part of the three-pronged strategy of those who are dedicated to sowing seeds of discord within our Movement is to build on the made-out-of-whole-cloth myth of Obama as the trans-partisan builder of accord on abortion. (The most bizarre line in Kliff's piece is, "But the Obama team may still have a hard time bringing the two sides together.")

So, for example, we are supposed to take it as a sign of Obama's willingness to "reach out" to pro-lifers that he waited until the massive crowd that attended the March for Life left town before obliterating the Mexico City Policy. In case you (like me) don't get it, opening the door to the likes of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which is ideologically committed to increasing the number of abortion across the world, is nothing compared to Obama's willingness to wait 24 hours before giving them the green light. Talk about settling for crumbs…

A second component of the strategy of convincing pro-lifers to give up the fight to pass legislation such as women's right to know and laws that give women the chance to look at an ultrasound before aborting is to chide "both sides"--the pro-life movement and the pro-abortion movement--ostensibly for being locked into equally futile positions. (We are supposed to miss that all the criticism in these stories is of pro-lifers.) In that case who is the reasonable "middle"?

According to Kliff, groups such as Third Way, which she describes as "a non-profit think tank that promotes bipartisan cooperation." Let's assume Kliff is simply uneducated. Who is Third Way?

In a piece he wrote for nationalreview.com, here is how NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson explained the background to the organization:

"One important part of the 'faith outreach' sales pitch has been to insist that Obama would promote 'abortion reduction' policies -- that is to say, policies that would have the practical effect of reducing the number of abortions performed, without actually restricting abortion directly. This spiel was really a public relations strategy cooked up at a liberal think tank called third way, where veteran pro-abortion activists develop 'messaging' strategies to help pro-abortion politicians camouflage their positions.

"The third way 'Culture Program' (responsible for the 'abortion reduction' strategy, among other projects) is directed by Rachel Laser, whose previous job was with the Health and Reproductive Rights group at the National Women's Law Center, and who before that worked for Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, a major abortion provider."

Can't get any more "bipartisan" than that, right?

The third prong of the strategy to convince pro-lifers to voluntarily choose irrelevance is closely related to the first two.

According to Kliff, "The idea of lobbying Congress to reduce abortions--rather than ban them outright--strikes many as a wrong-headed signal that tolerating any level of abortion is acceptable."

Again, let me assume out of a sense of charity that she actually believes this. What would you say in response?

The abortions rate is down a third from its high-water mark in 1980-81 while the absolute number of abortions has dropped by one quarter from the peak of 1.6 million in 1990. Nine million lives have been saved.

That didn't just happen coincidentally. It is a direct consequence of: passing legislation that informs women about the nature of their unborn child and gives them time to reflect; limiting the direct funding of abortion by the federal government and state governments; enacting measures that involve parents in the abortion decisions of their minor daughters; pro-life educational efforts in general; and the saintly work of crisis pregnancy centers.

In other words, pro-lifers in the 50 states already have adopted a proven abortion-reduction strategy. But all these proven routes to decreasing the number of dead babies are precisely the roads Obama and the pro-abortion leadership in Congress want eliminated, all in the name of (you guessed it) "abortion reduction."

There will be no end to stories such as this one. Their objective is to convince us that people and organizations whose entire reason for existence is to multiply the number of abortions have suddenly seen the bipartisan/compromise/common ground light. How dumb do they think we are?

Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Source URL: http://www.nrlc.org
Publish Date:
Link to this article:
http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/news/090129_5.htm