What to do about “The Woes of Roe”? Rebrand!

By Dave Andrusko

Gail Collins
via Twitter

The Abortion Industry and its minions in the media never run out of stories with complementary narratives. On the one hand, we’re told that Roe v. Wade is toast, but on the other hand, there is a way to save “reproductive rights.”

What changes is the immediate impetus for the Chicken Little stories: loss of elections, successful Supreme Court nominations, another batch of state pro-life laws, and so forth. But the thank-goodness remedies change little.

Let’s take one of my favorite examples which ran (where else?) in the New York Times sometime back. Written by columnist Gail Collins, “The Woes of Roe” it began with unfavorable Gallup poll numbers and a rise in pro-life sentiment among young people.

To take the edge off, in the very next sentence Collins reassured her readers that public opinion is all about how the question is asked. “According to the Quinnipiac poll, if you ask Americans whether they agree with the Roe decision, nearly two-thirds say yes,” she wrote hopefully. Which is true enough, but not for the reasons Collins suggested.

At my request, a friend of mine found the original poll. Note the actual question: “In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion?” 64% said yes.

But this is so vague (“in general”), so qualified (“established a right”) as to be essentially meaningless. The only ruse missing was to pretend Roe legalized abortion only in the first three months, a staple of pro-abortion misdirection for multiple decades.

What if Quinnipiac got down to brass tacks and explained that Roe effectively legalized abortion on demand for any reason or no reason for all nine months?

Or what if you gave respondents more nuanced options? As we have explained countless times, when Gallup began to get very specific, it found that a majority of the population opposes the reasons almost all abortions are performed!

Back to Collins, who then immediately shifted gears. The problem for pro-abortionists may simply be “branding.” That is, the shelf-life of “pro-choice” has expired. On to something else (e.g., “reproductive justice”; “sexual and reproductive health care”) and everything will be right as rain.

Next Collins reversed course. She bemoans all those “crazy rules” that make it difficult for women to abort. Such as? Actually requiring that abortion clinics be inspected!

If you’ve read our own stories and reposts, you know that while Kermit Gosnell may have been the worst of the worst, this trice convicted of first degree murderer is not “singular” or an “outlier,” as the Abortion Industry pretends.

Another “crazy rule,” according to Collins, is requiring that women have a chance to look at their baby before he or she is permanently and unjustly dispatched. It is a measure of how frivolous pro-abortionist truly are that even the slightest speed bump on the highway to death is turned into “unnecessary trauma,” as Collins dramatically put it. Or worse. Remember requiring the use of ultrasounds (which almost all abortionists already use!) was described as nothing short of “rape by instrument.”

As I say, please read Collins’s opinion piece. It is an important reminder that much of what matters takes place in the state legislatures, where pro-lifers remain strong and steadfastly determined as ever.