By Dave Andrusko
The “guest essay” written by Thomas B. Edsall is as perfect an example of bigotry masked as exposing bigotry as you can ever expect. Even by the standards of the abortion-loving New York Times, “Abortion Has Never Been Just About Abortion” is slimy, a broadside at pro-lifers in general, Southerners in particular, that is nothing short of stunning in its ugliness.
The essay is 2,701 words long, but in that confined space, Edsall quotes a bundle of “scholars” who, in their wisdom and deep research, all make the same slanderous point, over and over again:
Whites who score high on measures of racial resentment and racial grievance are far more likely to support strict limits on abortion than whites who score low on these measures.
are more likely to be committed to a patriarchal worldview in which the control of reproduction, and female sexuality in particular, is thought to be central in maintaining a gender hierarchy that (as they see it) sustains the family, which they claim is under threat from secular, modern forces.
So, racists, patriarchialists, who are more concerned about defending segregated schools than protecting unborn babies, etc., etc., etc.
These vicious canards are nothing new. But why is Edsall recycling them yet again? The reason is obvious.
For going on 50 years, pro-lifers have not been allowed to be sincerely concerned about what has happened to over 62 million unborn babies. As we pass more and more protective legislation; as the Supreme Court considers a law to prohibit the evisceration of living unborn babies, the pro-death types such as Edsall and Stewart reach into the same old, same old bag of tricks. They must insist that our motivation is anything but what happens to almost 900,000 babies each year.
In those 2,701 words, there is one—one– passage in which a hater of pro-lifers (the stand in for the “Religious Right,” “Southern Evangelicals,” etc.) concedes that “they think abortion is wrong.”
Yes, we do. And we also think it’s wrong—deeply wrong– to heap slur upon slur, slander upon slander, insult upon insult on people the New York Times despises and could not possibly understand—not that they would ever want to.
On the other hand, what else is new?