By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. This week’s final look back at what appeared in NRL News Today a year ago is a reminder that what’s sauce for the pro-abortion goose is never sauce for the pro-life gander.
When a pro-abortion down to the last metatarsal publication such as “Mother Jones” describes you as “Incredibly Effective—and Dangerous—Anti-Abortion Activists,” it is the ultimate compliment, but in a backhanded way. So we shouldn’t be surprised that Marisa Endicott is not content just to smear the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) for its public policy initiatives; she warns her reader ominously, “Your OB-GYN could be one of them”!
Endicott’s story is plenty long (over 5,000) words, but allows me to summarize her main points.
*By definition—and I do mean by definition—whatever comes out of AAPLOG is suspect—“fringe science,” “scientifically suspect anti-abortion research, “ etc. This is to be contrasted with the impeccably objective, science-driven work done by American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which offers cover for every pro-abortion initiative and criticism of every law, statute, administrative rule that doesn’t make the abortion industry happy.
*”AAPLOG doctors act as expert witnesses in state and federal legislative hearings and provide lawmakers with scientifically questionable claims to support abortion bans, mandatory ultrasounds, and abortion waiting periods,” Endicott writes. “And then, when those laws are challenged in court, AAPLOG officials and doctors testify and submit amicus briefs on behalf of their cause.”
How, exactly, does that differ from what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) routinely undertakes? It doesn’t, of course. Dr. Christina Francis, president of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, cut to the chase in an op-ed that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on March 4, 2020:
ACOG routinely puts politics ahead of medicine by adopting the most extreme positions on abortion. It has lobbied and briefed against parental notification of minors and informed-consent laws, and in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion. It has advocated for laws restricting speech around clinics and compelling pro-life pregnancy centers to tell women where they can go to obtain state-subsidized abortions. ACOG’s work has gotten so political that in 2008 it added a lobbying arm. I was refused when I asked if I could direct our dues only to the organization’s nonlobbying arm.
*Endicott laments that policy makers in the Trump administration listen to AAPLOG. Again, that is precisely what the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the equally pro-abortion American Medical Association habitually does when pro-abortion Democrats hold the White House. And, by stark contrast, whatever ACOG and the AMA say is treated by the media as if it came down from Mt. Sinai along with footnotes.
As I mentioned, this story goes on and on and on. Just one other of the many reasons Endicott is so angry. It’s bad enough that AAPLOG testifies and lawmakers listen respectfully. Worse yet, it’s what they testify about, for example, the capability of unborn babies to experience pain as they are torn apart. In full snark mode, Endicott tells this is part of “the recently renewed hysteria around infanticide.”
When talking about fetal pain in front of a congressional committee, the group’s executive director “even t[ook] out a small model of a fetus and a medical clamp to mimic pulling its limbs off one by one as she gave a play by play of the procedure,” an irate Endicott complains.
To talk about tiny arms being yanked off or heads crushed is “both extremely graphic and full of falsehoods about so-called fetal pain,” Endicott reports to her readers.
Final thought. The credentials of pro-life organizations, whether they be medical, like AAPLOG, or educational/legislative/political, like National Right to Life, will inevitably be caricatured and minimized by the Abortion Industry, backed up by pro-abortion medical organizations, and echoed by a legion of pro-abortionists’ media enablers.
But all of us persevere for the simple reason our cause is just and our analyses accurate.
“Mother Jones” may hate us, but millions of mothers love what we do for them and unborn babies.