NARAL’s latest report: it’s enough to give hypocrisy a bad name

By Dave Andrusko

Tip of the cap to Breakpoint for alerting us to a new report from NARAL Pro-Choice America. One good thing, you don’t have to waste time figuring out what the narrative is. The title tells all: “The Insidious Power of the Anti-Choice Movement.”

By way of clarification, most years NARAL cranks out a dreadful report under the generic title, “Who Decides? The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States.” Perhaps they became as tired as we were of the habitual national grade of “D” (give or take a + or a -). I’m guessing this is the substitute for 2018.

What to say? A good way to judge whether there is a shred of impartiality is to simple ask, “Are all the awful things NARAL accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they would do (or have done) if they could”? If they are, then their (our) actions are not “insidious,” or “invidious” or attempts to “insinuate” ourselves into anything.

For example, we’re told, “The anti-choice movement has been strategically curating and nurturing judges to [be] appointed to federal courts, laying the foundation for courts that will rule in their favor–all the way up to the Supreme Court.”

Are we to believe pro-abortionists are uninterested in “curating” a cadre of judges who will knock down any and all protective state abortion laws? That they don’t have their own pipeline? Give me a break.

Of the five bullet points, my favorite is #2. Here it is in its entirety:

The anti-choice movement wields outsized influence, appearing to have more support than they actually do, because individuals at every level — be it a protester, leader of a fake health clinic, or founder of an anti-choice advocacy organization — have outsize influence in their field and actively work to reinforce each other’s work and raise each other’s profile. This echo-chamber effect creates the facade that their audience is broader than it actually is, and makes anti-choice beliefs seem much more popular than actually reflected in public opinion.

If I were the NARAL staffer writing that paragraph, I would blush. They attribute to pro-lifers exactly the influence they wield. For instance, as we have explained repeatedly, they crank out report after report and for support of their conclusions they quote each other.

You can’t make this stuff up. One other …#4

The anti-choice movement crafts legislation that’s intended to go through the court system and provoke a challenge to Roe v. Wade, hopefully overturning it one day.

Is NARAL totally oblivious to the obvious? Isn’t that exactly the strategy pro-abortionists employed that culminated in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton which laid a wrecking ball to all state abortion laws, no matter how permissive?

It’s enough to give hypocrisy a bad name