Abortion and the Shock of Recognition

Editor’s note. This editorial appears in the latest digital edition of National Right to Life News, the “pro-life newspaper of record.” Please be sure to read the entire issue and forward it using your social media contacts.

I’m not going to spend a lot of time here discussing Kathy Griffin’s disgusting actions. We covered that in detail in NRL News Today, to which I trust all of you subscribe.  Check here to subscribe.

But the blowback on this wretchedly unfunny pro-abortion “comedian” stemmed from sincere repugnance—that in participating in a photo shoot in which she held a bloodied and detached replica of President Trump’s head and then posted it on a tweet was a bridge too far.

It was not until after I wrote about Griffin’s disgusting stunt that I recalled the wholly [in]sincere criticism of a simple black-and-white line drawing NRLC used to illustrate the ghastly partial-birth abortion technique. Nothing remotely bloody or gory, it was the model of unembellished simplicity. But it was enormously effective because it matter-of-factly showed how very, very close to infanticide PBAs actually were.

Enter the ban on dismemberment abortions. Earlier this month, Texas became the eighth state to enact the ban, joining Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. A week ago Monday I posted a story about a pro-abortion professor of law who airily dismissed the chances that the Supreme Court would uphold the law, when/if it came before the justices.

But Sherry F. Colb, to her credit, avoided the euphemistic blather that her associates trot out to mask the utter brutality of this abortion “technique.” Here’s what Prof. Colb wrote

The method of abortion at issue in the Texas statute is not for the faint of heart. It involves dismembering the fetus while it is still in the woman’s womb and removing its parts, piece by piece, through the birth canal. One Texas legislator described the procedure as drawing and quartering, an old (and torturous) method of execution. …

The notion, accepted by the [Supreme] Court, that D&X [partial-birth abortion] is uniquely barbaric was questionable, to be sure. It is not obvious that dismembering a fetus after removal from the womb is more barbaric or terrible than dismembering it inside the womb and then removing its parts. Both methods are stomach turning and would likely upset people learning that they had undergone either one.

Later in her piece she concedes (to my amazement) that if word got out, there could be an impact. Truer words were never spoken.

Answering her own rhetorical question why Texas legislators would pass a law which is “plainly unconstitutional” [which is not true], Colb suggests “First, their hope may be that consumers of abortion services—women experiencing unwanted pregnancies and in their second trimester—will perhaps be moved by the legislation to take their pregnancies to term rather than abort. Learning that second-trimester abortions are disturbing affairs could potentially influence the behavior of those considering such abortions.”

Why, yes! By the way, Prof. Colb, if a woman is going to exercise her “right” to abortion in furtherance of her “autonomy,” how can that be legitimately exercised if she doesn’t know the barbaric technique the abortionist will use to dispatch her child?

Just as was the case with PBAs, you don’t need to “sensationalize” a “procedure” that not only kills the child but dehumanizes the abortionist in the process. How would you like to live with using sharp metal clamps and scissors to crush, tear and pulverize living unborn human beings, to rip heads and legs off of tiny torsos until the defenseless child bleeds to death?

These are visual examples of cutting through gauzy pro-abortion propaganda. Here’s another way, a different example, the significance of which almost people (including pollsters)perpetually miss.

We recently posted about Gallup’s latest finding vis a vis the public’s posture on abortion. For our purposes here, consider the dramatic difference a very slight change in wording in one question makes.

Writes about Gallup’s findings, Lydia Saad tells us “Slightly more U.S. adults today believe the procedure is morally wrong (49%) than morally acceptable (43%). This has also been the case in most readings since Gallup started tracking this annually in 2001.” A gap of 8 points.

Last month Pew asked this question: is having an abortion morally wrong (44%) or morally acceptable (19%). A gap of 25 points!

Did you notice the difference? The word “having” an abortion as opposed to abortion in the abstract.

By making the abortion experience more of a concrete reality, almost two and one-half times as many people say having an abortion is morally wrong as say it is morally acceptable.

No wonder pro-abortionists insist on talking about anything but what happens to the unborn child.