By Dave Andrusko
Editor’s note. Today’s repost of a story that appeared in NRL News Today reminds us that pro-abortion publications occasionally stumble across the truth and that passing pro-life laws and thwarting pro-abortion initiatives require elected officials who understand unborn babies are human beings deserving of protection.
I’d like to comment on two abortion-related stories that appeared this week in the pro-abortion-to-the-hilt New York Times but were, by and large, remarkably balanced. This is not to overlook that NYTimes coverage is typically strewn with pro-abortion hyperbole but rather to acknowledge some darn good work.
Amy Harmon’s piece, that ran May 22, is literally about the battle of words, i.e., “The Language Wars of the Abortion Debate.”
The best way to understand the “language wars” is exemplified by what opponents and proponents of dismemberment abortion say about a “technique” that rips apart living unborn babies, limb from limb, until the baby bleeds to death.
Pro-abortionists, bless their generous and kind hearts, as always want antiseptic language used. For example, there’s “dilation and evacuation,” as if the child is being moved to a safe house rather than the grave.
And, as always, they let us know they are the oh-so-smart-ones:
“Medical procedures are not familiar to a lay audience, people don’t like to think about them, and they are hard to explain on a bumper sticker,” said Carole Joffe, a sociologist who studies abortion politics at the University of California, San Francisco. “That has put the pro-choice movement at a disadvantage.”
Agreed, most people aren’t eager to talk about tearing off little arms and tiny legs. However, I would argue this response is instinctive revulsion to the horror–the “thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness” (to borrow from Werner Herzog).
The other story ran May 18 and was written by Elizabeth Dias, Sabrina Tavernise, and Alan Blinder. “’This Is a Wave’: Inside the Network of Anti-Abortion Activists Winning Across the Country.”
No matter how many people they interviewed, not being insiders, they couldn’t get all, or even most, of the nuances correct. But here’s a thank you for what they did get right.