By Dave Andrusko
Let’s tie together NRL News Today posts from Monday and Tuesday and see what they reveal. And for good measure, let’s add a few references to some of last week’s 50 stories.
Tonight President Obama will, we’re told, tilt toward more positive “unifying” themes in his final State of the Union address. If I were a betting man, I’d wager a pretty penny that he’ll be as petty and mean-spirited and contemptuous of opponents as ever.
The pro-abortion feminist circle of death is surrounding its champion Hillary Clinton, beginning with endorsements prior to the outcome of the primaries from NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. The former Secretary of State promises to “have your back.” Clinton pledges include extracting tax dollars to pay for abortions, which is widely opposed by the public.
If public policy begins with compare and contrast, consider this. Republicans have countered with legislation to codify the Hyde Amendment and similar policies by permanently applying a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion across all federal programs.
With that as a backdrop, let’s take a step back. If you think about it, there is an unacknowledged race taking place, a competition that is fierce and potentially pivotal.
In Lane One, is the pro-death side either/or side, which features various manifestations of “tell your [abortion] story.” Their hope is that they can persuade the public that abortion is commonplace, totally devoid of ethical and moral components, and a rite of passage for up to a third of all women. How can it not be praiseworthy if abortion is that common?
In Lane Two, the pro-life, both/and camp, is buoyed by all the technological improvements that have turned the once-invisible unborn child into “one of the family.” I appreciate that people can hold contradictory views in tension, but over time it has grown implausible to celebrate unborn children as children temporarily residing elsewhere and then kill them anyway. Somehow “it happens so often” doesn’t have the same punch any more.
Also, ponder the impact over time of passing legislation (regardless of what a pro-abortion media says) that makes sense to the electorate. As Prof. Teresa Collette explains, the result of pro-abortionists opposing Texas’s HB2, which requires upgrading clinic requirements and admitting privileges for abortionists at a local hospital, is a “bizarre combination of objections” which
leads to the very real possibility that when an injury or complication occurs during or after an abortion, the clinic will be less equipped than an ambulatory surgical center to address the problem on site and more likely to transfer care to an emergency room where the abortion practitioner has no relationship with any of the medical staff. In short, their arguments make it appear that abortion activists care more about access to abortion (safe or unsafe) than they do about protecting women’s health.
So, if pro-abortionists already come off like hard-hearted money grabbers by opposing HB2, how much worse do they look when they tie up in courts legislation to ban killing unborn babies capable of experiencing horrific pain?
Do they come off any better when they scream to high heaven that it’s an abridgment of the “right” to abortion to prevent an abortion method that uses sharp metal clamps and scissors to tear apart, piece by piece, a well-formed, living unborn child?
To circle back to the race metaphor, can pro-abortionists dull the instinctual, gut-level revulsion to ripping apart unborn children before our collective eyes are pried open to the point where we can no longer avoid what we are doing to the littlest Americans?
I think the smart money ought to be on the pro-life competitor.