Upending the abortion status quo by demanding more for ourselves, for our families, and for our children

By Dave Andrusko

Yikes. The New York Times today ran another pro-life op-ed, written this time by veteran pro-life scribe Lauren Enriquez. The headline (which of course could easily be the Times’, not Lauren’s) is “How the New Feminist Resistance Leaves Out American Women.”

To be clear, for every one pro-life post in the NYTimes there are as many pro-abortion jeremiahs as there are stars in the sky. But, give the devil his due.

Lauren’s jumping off point was last month’s pro-abortion, anti-Donald Trump March in Washington, DC, the day after pro-life President Trump was inaugurated. The Times covered it as extensively as it did the inauguration, only this time not with venom and spite, but with hugs and kisses.

To elevate hate for Trump and an unwillingness to admit that pro-abortion Hillary Clinton lost, the “antis” had adopted the self-congratulatory pose of The Resistance.

Although preposterous, the Women’s March “claimed to speak for women in general, and indeed women of all ages, races and states poured onto the National Mall,” as Lauren wrote. Of course, there was no room on the Mall for pro-life feminists, or for any woman, for that matter, who (in Lauren’s words) “reject the version of ‘feminism’ that infers that we cannot be equal to men unless we snuff out what is unique about us as women: our ability to protect, nourish and nurture new life inside of our bodies.”

This one-sidedness shows the

“fatal chink in the armor of the new feminist resistance movement: its radical position on abortion. This movement will thus be unable to unite American women because it rejects the position that most American women take on abortion — that it should be completely illegal, or legal but with significant restrictions.”

This truism cannot be acknowledge, let alone accepted, by the feminist leadership which has its own membership rules: it is impermissible for anyone to say she is a feminist unless she salutes the flag of abortion on demand.

How could they peddle that line if they were to concede that a majority of the population–women and men– opposes the reasons for which well over 90% of all abortions are performed?!

Their fake news narrative conveniently (and necessarily) avoids the hefty majorities in favor of parental involvement, opposed to public funding of abortion, and in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Children Protection Act–to name just three off the top of my head.

You really should read Lauren’s op-ed in its entirety so let me make just one last point. She does a wonderful job explaining how pro-lifers “extend tangible, compassionate help to pregnant women who believe that abortion is the best or only option available to them. This is an underserved group, and we are working to stand in the gap for them.”

Women-helping centers “work with each woman to identify the unique circumstances that have made her feel powerless, and then we respond to those needs,” she adds.

Lauren ends her op-ed with this call (which no doubt, alas, will be ignored) for a kind of inclusiveness that turns the pro-abortion narrative on its head. It is pro-lifers, feminists or otherwise, whose stance on abortion is in the mainstream, not the death, more death, and more death still posture of the Planned Parenthoods and NARALs:

Women who defy the abortion movement know that our power is not in a clenched fist or an act of violence against anyone — especially not against our own preborn children. Rather, our power is in upending the abortion status quo by demanding more for ourselves, for our families, and for our children.