Yesterday, we considered the potential for media coverage of this year’s March for Life, given the extensive coverage of last Saturday’s pro-abortion, anti-President Trump “Women’s March.” What can be expected in the near future?
How about our old friends (ahem) at the New York Times?
If one were to accept the assertions of Laurie Goodstein and Anemona Hartocollis, one might conclude that there is a distinct possibility that the number of pro-life demonstrators on Friday will be significantly smaller than the number of pro-abortion demonstrators six days prior.
However, a new sense of urgency, anxiety, and perhaps even a hint of envy has accompanied this year’s event. This is due to the realization by anti-abortion organizers that they had a challenging task ahead of them.
It is curious that in the pages of the abortiphile New York Times, an outpouring of perhaps several hundred thousand pro-lifers would be cause for “urgency, anxiety, and maybe a little envy.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
In contrast, the Washington Post offered a more nuanced and accurate account of the event this morning, with a headline that reflected a more optimistic tone: “The annual March for Life will have a new mood this year: Optimistic.”
It is difficult to imagine that the prevailing mood could be anything but optimistic in the context of the above-mentioned developments. Firstly, the current President of the United States is a proponent of the pro-life movement, having already signed a memorandum to end funding of organisations that perform or promote abortion overseas and having vowed to nominate only pro-lifers to the Supreme Court, among other pro-life assurances.
Furthermore, as a significant indication of solidarity, pro-life presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway and pro-life Vice President Mike Pence will be speaking at tomorrow’s March.
However, the prevalence of pro-life individuals within the Trump administration is not the sole factor that should induce pro-life individuals to adopt an optimistic outlook. Indeed, both the House of Representatives and the Senate are currently led by pro-life politicians, with the latter having already passed the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.
The abortion industry has long benefited from a steady stream of federal funding, both to advance the cause of abortion domestically and internationally. If this measure is passed in the Senate and sent to President Trump for his signature, it will represent a fundamental shift in the allocation of federal funds.
Moreover, this does not even address the major pro-life initiatives already in the legislative pipeline at the state level.