By Laura Echevarria, Director of Communications and Press Secretary
Editor’s note. This appeared in the July edition of National Right to Life News. I trust you are reading the entire 45-page-long edition and sharing it with your pro-life family and friends.
Standing in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in early March waiting for the oral arguments in June Medical to conclude, I was struck by the number of young women and men supporting the pro-life movement with encouraging signs and robin’s-egg-blue t-shirts which was the color in support of the state of Louisiana. As you remember that was the case which the justices unfortunately rejected Louisiana’s requirement that abortionists have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case of emergencies.
Equally striking were the young women and men at the Court with signs supporting abortion on demand. They were screaming slogans through a portable speaker system that so garbled the messaging it was unintelligible. Symbolic?
Still, the intent was clear. The messages on the signs and posters focused on the same tired old pro-abortion slogans centered on a woman’s body—ignoring the unborn child and the pain of so many women who suffer following an abortion.
It’s been my experience where I sit, that in recent years, we have witnessed more and more people engaging in political speech employing less and less logic and reasoning. Too many people, I’m afraid, are easily swayed by emotional arguments, unsound reasoning, a favored professor’s opinion, or the opinion of their roommate’s-cousin’s-uncle’s-best-friend. This is largely the “reasoning” undergirding the pro-abortion movement’s arguments for abortion.
When I was in college, I was on the debate team. I enjoyed the order and structure to debate as well as the challenge of going up against teams across the southeast region. Debate teams heavily rely on documentation and the composition of arguments.
When standing in front of a judge who may themselves be a seasoned debater, a law student, or a professor who coaches debaters, you can’t get away with using fallacies or drawing illogical connections and conclusions. However, this is exactly how the pro-abortion movement and its allies work: by using fallacies and illogical connections with bold unashamedness.
On July 7th, Alexandra Desanctis of National Review Online wrote about a New York Times technology reporter, Taylor Lorenz, who had reposted pro-abortion posts on her Instagram page. The posts, written by pro-abortion feminist Liz Plank, were full of misinformation, inaccuracies, and outright lies—yet Lorenz reposted the posts without commentary or even a hint of skepticism, as if they were undisputed facts.
Desanctis also recently wrote about CBS reporter Kate Smith who frequently uses language consistent with pro-abortion propaganda and conducts interviews with pro-abortion groups that glamorize leaders of the abortion industry.
Young men and women graduating with journalism degrees and moving up to larger markets have often been indoctrinated by their pro-abortion professors and campus political groups. Discerning fact from fiction and fallacy is quickly becoming a lost skill. A vast number of colleges are no longer teaching these skills, and no one cares or, if they do, in today’s “cancel culture,” they don’t dare.
More than ever, pro-lifers must speak up, from the head and the heart. Respectfully listen to the opposition—that is common courtesy and essential to reasoned public discussion—but fearlessly stand your ground.
Refuse to be shouted down. Speak out on behalf of the most vulnerable among us: the unborn child, the elderly, and those with disabilities.