By Dave Andrusko
I know a thing or two about “rallying the troops.” Inevitably there will be down times—see the elections (and re-elections) of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. At such times the temptation is to conclude we are like Sisyphus: we rolled the rock–if not to the top of the mountain, close to it–only to have it roll back down.
But we could not give up for the simple reason that it is not for us that we fight: we do battle on behalf of unborn children and their mothers. So we persevered and now we have a President with a 38% job approval rating, the House of Representatives in pro-life hands, and a very reasonable chance of capturing the Senate. And that doesn’t even mention the passage of pro-life legislation in the states.
So, you might ask yourself, what in the world is pro-abortion Katie McDonough talking about in a piece headlined (in Salon.com) “Doomsday for religious right: How anti-choice radicals finally lost respectability.” (For deep thinkers like McDonough, the pro-life movement and the “religious right” are synonymous. Go figure.)
The core of her argument, such as it is, includes the following. Last Friday, a judge who they can count on to invalidate pro-life legislation, took a sledge hammer to the 2013 Texas omnibus pro-life bill, HR 2.
But, McDonough concedes, “it was an admittedly narrow victory.” U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel’s 100% predictable decision will be reviewed by the full U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. McDonough is hoping for the best (from her perspective) but one easily can conclude from her comments that she fears the worse.
Pro-abortionists have relied on the courts to override state legislatures going back to the 1960s. That is their fervent wish…again. Nothing new here, nothing that signals the “loss” of pro-life “respectability.”
What else? We’ve already had fun with the nonsensical conclusions pro-abortionists drew from the spot-on comments NRLC President Carol Tobias made Sunday in her appearance on ABC News’ “This Week.”
McDonough recycles the same non-sequitur: that Carol somehow “admitted” that the Texas law didn’t make abortion (“which is already incredible safe”) “any safer.”
Of course, that is not what she said, as any fair reading makes abundantly clear. As we wrote yesterday, pro-abortionists operate out an abiding commitment to either/or: either the mother (actually always the mother) or the baby.
Pro-lifers are committed to win-win, both/and solutions, which is exactly the position Mrs. Tobias articulated. A Huffington Post pro-abortionist put it this way:
“Asked directly whether all the new abortion restrictions are about restricting access to abortion or about women’s safety, Tobias said, ‘It’s about both.”” Got that? Both.
She calmly stated what every pro-lifer says and believes. We don’t want women dying in substandard abortion clinics—period– and we don’t unborn babies dying in any abortion setting–period.
McDonough concludes by stringing together more tedious pro-abortion talking points, including a ham-handed NARAL poll as evidence the public is on their side. We’ve already addressed this lame effort and we’re reprinting it for your convenience.
Among other things, NARAL (a) manages to miss that only 23.2% of responses said having an abortion is “morally acceptable” and (b) unfairly combine categories of responses to get the “correct” number.
As we’ve said many times, writers do not ordinarily write the headlines, which is why so many pro-abortion stories have these outlandish claims embedded in the headlines that the story itself cannot begin to support.
But, to be fair, the pro-abortion movement is in startling disarray, as many admit, sometimes directly, sometimes between the lines. With that as backdrop, the old adage makes perfect sense: the best defense is a good offense—especially when you are back on your own goal line.