By Dave Andrusko
So, what do we have here? Well, according to Marie Solis, the Abortion Industry is retooling its message for the gabillionth time.
So why pay attention to the latest camouflage campaign cranked out by NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood ? Here are a few reasons, all of which are strong signals that our benighted opposition understands how fragile their position is.
According to Solis, NARAL did some polling and, guess what? Framing abortion as “reproductive freedom” resonates better than “pro-choice” and “reproductive rights.” No kidding.
In the land of the free, by employing the freedom idiom, pro-abortionists hope to invoke what amounts to an almost patriotic feeling to order to bury the grim reality of what they are doing– the obliteration of the unfree, the unborn child.
On the one hand Solis and the NARAL/Planned Parenthood types tout what Solis describes as polls showing that “72 percent of American voters support the right to the procedure,” while on the other hand (in a backhanded acknowledgement that this percentage is wildly misleading) bemoaning the passage of pro-life legislation in state after state. Notice, the 72 percent is not for the procedure but the “right to the procedure.”
But what about Planned Parenthood? How is it repackaging the slaughter of the innocents?
Solis bundles PPFA and NARAL together to come up with this gem:
NARAL is the second major pro-choice organization to shift its external messaging in the last month. On July 16, former Planned Parenthood President Leana Wen was pushed out after spending her eight-month tenure attempting to depoliticize abortion and frame it solely as a healthcare concern. Similar to NARAL, the group is moving away from traditional categories in the fight for abortion rights like “pro-choice” and “pro-life,” focusing instead on attacks on abortion and what it means not to have the ability to access it, according to a Planned Parenthood spokesperson.
So, the idea is, “Hey, folks, you may be uncomfortable with abortion, but just consider how awful pro-lifers are and, besides, what if women didn’t have access to the procedure?”
Is this really new? About as new as “New Coke” was in 1985.
The really interesting part of Solis’ story is that pro-abortion organizations not directly affiliated with either NARAL or PPFA question whether there is any one message that will work for a pro-abortion coalition that is, to put it mildly, unwieldy and decidedly very, very, very left-wing.
Take SisterSong, “a Georgia-based reproductive justice group.” Its director, Monica Simpson “doesn’t think it’s necessary for ‘large mainstream organizations to be the sole architects of the message, and then pass that down to other people.’”
Simpson says SisterSong’s messaging is tailored to center the most marginalized people, who are always the first to feel the impacts of abortion restrictions. And having a reproductive justice framework—which links racial justice, economic justice, indigenous rights, and other movements to the fight for reproductive rights—means the way SisterSong’s members talk about abortion may depend on what group of people they’re talking about, recognizing that a black woman has different obstacles to accessing abortion than a white woman, for example.
In fact, if you read tweets from PPFA’s political arm, you see it, too, is gesturing to all these niche groups—and many more—saying, in effect, “We’re there with you/we’re all in this together.”
Back to Dr. Leana Wen, the ousted president of Planned Parenthood. Wen made it abundantly clear that she was not downgrading the importance of abortion to the largest abortion provider in the known galaxy. But Wen understood something fundamental for which she was unceremoniously canned.
When you promote yourself as a women-helping provider of medical services, yet cut back the provision of real medical services year after year, eventually the public will get wise. They will see you for what you are—as the senior partner to the Democrat Party—and that together you are all about accumulating power and making money off of the unsavory business of abortion.
That is why in her op-ed that appeared in the New York Times days after she was forced out, Dr. Wen wrote this intriguing paragraph:
I believed we could expand support for Planned Parenthood — and ultimately for abortion access — by finding common ground with the large majority of Americans who can unite behind the goal of improving the health and well-being of women and children. [My underline.]
I think it’s fair to say the Abortion Movement is at a crossroads. The internal squabbles Solis so gently outlines are real.
Which is why all the blabbering about 72 percent support for “the procedure” cannot mask the truth that the public does not now, never has, and never will support PPFA/NARAL’s agenda of abortion on demand and beyond.