Not much has changed in the abortion debate? Everything has changed!

By Dave Andrusko

Off the top of your head, what would you say to sentiments (accurately) captured in the headline, “Not much has changed in decades’ long debate over abortion”? 

You’d know, of course, that a pro-abortionist would have written the piece that, as it happened, appeared in a Missouri publication, because there has been enormous change since 1973. 

And, if correct (and you would be), you’d anticipate the writer would rummage around in the attic and pull out justifications covered in cobwebs. Given the writer’s age, you would suspect he’d lead with an abortion that took place prior to Roe

The writer? He tells us he was the woman’s “confidant.” She found a “competent doctor,” doubtless due to her daddy having lots of money, and went away for a weekend. 

Nobody suspected anything because “After all, just about everyone had skipped on a Friday and taken a long weekend.” 

Get it? Some went home. Some went to the beach. She went to the abortionist. What’s the dif?

Besides, the abortion, it is implied, made it possible for the woman to rise “high in state and federal government” and the man to become a “stellar reporter.” 

Opposition? The only opposition is rooted in religion of which we can safely gauge the writer is not a devout fan. Tiresome, cliché-ridden but  great defense against thinking.

But is he right? Is it true that “Not much has changed in decades’ long debate over abortion”?  How about….

*A large and sophisticated pro-life movement, led by NRLC and its 50 state affiliates.

*The massive growth of women-helping centers, now numbering over 3,000.

* Astonishing advancements in pre-natal and perinatal care which, year in and year out, has lowered the age at which preemies can survive.

*A flotilla of sophisticated critiques of a leaky Roe v. Wade which is taking on more and more water.

*Courtesy of ultrasound, the everyday appearance of the unborn child—in commercials, in photo albums, in ultrasounds attached to refrigerator doors. Largely invisible in 1973, representations of unborn children are everywhere.

I could go on and on. But what matters is not a litany of change but the truth that because your devotion to the little ones has never waxed, the cause of life has never waned. What was once received wisdom—that the unborn was little more than a “clump of tissue”—is now laughable, embarrassingly out of date.

Planned Parenthood and its cadre of fellow travelers are the hosts for the anti-life virus. Their manically pro-abortion agenda in Congress speaks for only a sliver of the public, indeed I suspect only a sliver even of most Democrats who, had they any backbone, would stand up.

Final thought. I am reading a biography of economist and author Thomas Sowell, who is pro-life, written by Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal, titled “Maverick.” What Prof. Sowell said of his mentors  is also true of the way pro-lifers treat the case for life: with “intellectual Integrity, analytical rigor, respect for evidence–and skepticism towards the fashions  and the enthusiasms that come and go.”