|Volume 40, Number 1 www.nrlc.org Winter 2013|
40 Years after Roe: If Not for You….
By Dave Andrusko
With the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on the near-horizon, it is well worth any pro-lifer’s time to look back at how the Media Establishment reacted to a decision that in one fell swoop gutted the abortion laws of even the most “liberal” state. Why? What purpose would that serve?
Such a reflection helps put into context the bitter taste we feel at the re-election of a President who is wedded to the Planned Parenthoods and NARALs of this world. Whatever we feel today, a couple of months after all of us went all-out for Mitt Romney, we need to remember to view our situation not through the zoom lens of emotion but through the wide-angle lens of experience.
All the media gloating over the election of their candidate is as predictable as it is momentary. What matters near-term and longer-term is that you have made an enormous difference in hedging in the assault on the Innocent. More importantly you will continue to do so not just because of the kind of people who make up this Movement but because of the nobility of the cause you fight for unceasingly.
To borrow the opening line of Rick Warren’s mega-best selling book, “It’s not about you.” You and I know it’s about the babies and their mothers, not us.
Learning from the 2012 Elections
By David N. O’Steen, Ph.D.,
A determined, one-sided media together with a sequence of most unfortunate statements by candidates created a “perfect storm” that played into and greatly augmented the pro-abortion narrative in this election. This effectively neutralized the usual pro-life advantage.
The pro-life movement and pro-life candidates cannot ever let this happen again. We must see that the issue before the public is how and why abortion is actually used in this country, and, of course, the baby who dies. If this is done, then with a majority opposed to abortion on demand pro-life political victories will once again be the norm.
Much has been written about the effect of abortion on the 2012 presidential race and the apparent sudden shift in polls from the pro-life plurality (or majority, which we have seen in recent years) to a plurality or bare majority self-identifying as pro-choice. What has not been reported is that 1) of those who voted on the basis of abortion, the pro-life vote for pro-life candidates essentially equaled the pro-abortion vote for pro-abortion candidates; and 2) basic attitudes on abortion itself have not changed. A plurality, or even majority, of the public continues to oppose the vast majority of abortions that are actually performed.
While much has also been written about the “women’s vote,” race and ethnicity was a much greater determinant of how people voted than gender.
The CNN exit poll found that Mitt Romney won 59% of the white vote while Obama won 93% of the black vote and 73% of the Hispanic vote. Significantly, Romney won 56% of white women and 51% of young white voters, 18–29.
From the President
By Carol Tobias
As the right-to-life movement enters the 40th year of legalized abortion on demand in our country, it’s appropriate to look at the current state of affairs. Fifty-five million children have been killed by abortion. It’s difficult to comprehend that number. Almost 18% of our entire population, that number is equal to the population of the entire middle portion of the country. It’s almost the population of New York and California.
How different our country would be today if those 20- and 30-somethings were working, maybe creating jobs for others, getting married and raising children of their own. Grandchildren are missing, having been erased from the family tree. Women are hurting, knowing they cannot reverse the decision that took from them a part of their own life.
Our loss of respect for the innocent human life of that, oh so little, unborn child has created a mindset that no human life is special. If some elderly person is taking up necessary space in a hospital or nursing home, let’s determine that food and water are medical treatment and consider them to be unnecessary. Is a disabled person taking up too many medical resources and not giving enough back to the state? Deny him or her treatment.
NRL News Archive
November/December 2009 January 2003
December 2003 2002
NRL News 2002 Subject Index
December 2002 January 2000
Subject Indexes for 1990