NRL News

The “Gun-Shy” Pro-Abortion Litigators

by | May 5, 2011

By Dave Andrusko

Today the pro-abortion site ran a piece by Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights under the revealing headline, “The Abortion Battle: Are Pro-choice Litigators Gun-shy?” To jump ahead, in fact pro-abortionists are so gun-shy they won’t even MENTION what it is that they are gun-shy about!

Northrup’s goal is to dispel pro-abortion worries that the legal arm of the Abortion Movement doesn’t have the courage of its convictions. She refers to several sympathetic “media pundits” who (inadvertently or on purpose] “are stoking the anxiety by painting pro-choice litigators as gun shy.”

These pundits are talking primarily, although not exclusively, about Nebraska’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, passed in 2010, and duplicated successfully in three states this year-Oklahoma, Kansas, and Idaho.

Northrup adopts a three-fold strategy: ignore, take credit, and ask for patience (kind of a “stay tuned” response).

#1. She altogether avoids the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, maintaining that legal energies have been used to defeat (“beat back”) other “radical” pro-life initiatives. Revealing, is it not?

#2. Northrup takes credit for getting a state court to temporarily block Oklahoma’s new ultrasound law–that goes beyond merely making sure abortion-vulnerable women have access to an ultrasound image– pending a final determination in that case.

#3. They haven’t given up the fight/need to use scare resources wisely. But what does that mean?

“If a state passes a law that impairs women’s access to abortion services, and that fails to meet constitutional standards, it will be challenged — when the circumstances and timing are right.”

Okay, what does THAT mean?

“To the extent that states have unconstitutional, and unchallenged, abortion laws on their books, it is because those strategic criteria have not yet been met.”

Oh, I get it. Everyone is supposed to ignore the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room—Nebraska’s law. Why? Presumably not because—as everyone believes—pro-abortionists are terrified the Supreme Court will uphold a law that bans abortions after a baby is capable of experiencing pain but because the “circumstances and timing” aren’t right.

In fact the circumstances and timing are just right—to add to Nebraska, Idaho, Oklahoma, and Kansas other states who have Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts on their books.

Your feedback is very important. Please send your comments to If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at

Categories: Uncategorized