By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. My family and I will be on our vacation through August 27. I will occasionally add new items but for the most part we will repost “the best of the best” — the stories our readers have told us they especially liked.
The media flagship of the Abortion Movement—the New York Times—offered an intriguing editorial Thursday’s newspaper worth thinking about. The headline reads, “What Happens When Lawmakers Run Out of Abortion Restrictions to Pass.”
As you would expect, the editorial is wrong on many specifics and quasi-hysterical on others. But it offers some interesting advice/counsel to its pro-abortion brethren. Let me focus on a few points.
*One man’s “restriction” is another man’s or woman’s measure to protect women’s health and /or to give them breathing space–and time–to make an informed decision. This is why the Abortion Industry hates anything, no matter how commonsensical, that slows the pace of assembly-line killing.
*Over the years what drives the New York Times crazy is that our Movement understands you can do all this coming from multiple directions: “a 24-hour waiting period before getting an abortion and mandat[ing] parental consent for minors,” to name just two.
But another phase of the counter-offensive is returning programs to their original purpose, not the purpose pro-abortionists have twisted it to mean for their own benefit.
To take just one example, Title X was supposed to be—was written to be—a preventative family planning program. In order to ensure that the program did not directly or indirectly promote abortion Congress wrote strong anti-abortion language into the statute.
In preventing Title X funds from going to facilities that perform abortions or refer for abortion, the Trump Administration is merely restoring the original character of the 1970 law.
*We have many states that are pro-life (“red,” so to speak). Not all have been able to pass the full panoply of protective laws and administrative rules. So there is much work there.
Meanwhile, in “purple” states, we are trying to turn the tide in a pro-life direction. In “blue” states overwhelmingly dominated by pro-abortion Democrats, one of our tasks is to demonstrate to the wider public that Democrats are insatiable in their lust for abortion on demand, throughout all 40 weeks of pregnancy—and beyond.
*The Times’s editorial offers this warning to their anti-life friends: “Opposition to anti-abortion laws can backfire: Anti-abortion forces push them in part because they want to prompt legal cases that could grant the newly abortion-hostile majority on the Supreme Court the opportunity to overturn Roe.”
We won’t know for sometime whether there is an “abortion-hostile majority on the Supreme Court.” What we do know for sure is that President Trump is choosing justices (and lower court judges) who are averse to reading their own policy preferences into the Constitution—which is exactly what Justice Harry Blackmun did in his absurdly reasoned Roe v. Wade decision.
*Ignoring all that, the editorial argues, “For an anti-abortion lawmaker who wants to signal to his base that he remains committed to the cause, there’s little left to do but to try to outlaw the procedure.” For good measure, they also talk about the willingness of “anti-abortion lawmakers” to spend a lot of money defending pro-life laws.
But (and the Times, of course, manages not to mention this), pro-abortionists challenge each and every state law, and (as is the case with the Hyde Amendment) promise to reopen the federal spigot by eliminating the Hyde Amendment which even a wildly-hostile Supreme Court upheld. It costs money to defend laws against the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights, which often times go up and down the legal chain multiple times.
What if a state Supreme Court conjures up an imaginary “right” to abortion mysteriously located in their Constitution? Then an amendment to the state Constitution saying there is no right to abortion becomes a necessity.
You get the point. The New York Times’ editorial page writers mock pro-life legislation in one breath and then lament that the Supreme Court will uphold it in the next.
Note the editorial writers omit consideration, for example, of newer proposals which have wide-spread public support such as protecting pain-capable children from abortion.
Why would they?
It doesn’t fit in with their narrative.