NRL News

A fabric of omissions, distortions, lies, and effrontery

by | Mar 3, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

This has been a week, in many ways, unlike almost any I can remember in the three decades I’ve been at National Right to Life. Let me explain what I mean.

Like you, I understand that pro-abortionists, short on arguments, simply make them up out of whole cloth. In the case of the mass hysteria generated over Virginia’s ultrasound law (as amended, on its way to Gov. Bob McDonnell), they knitted together omissions, distortions, lies, and effrontery.

Omissions/distortions? That the very procedure they screamed from the hilltops was “rape” (a transvaginal probe) is medical SOP that virtually all abortionists use. It is  the best tool to date the age of the soon-to-be killed unborn child.

Even a pro-abortionist who has defended abortion for decades found this over the top. She wrote a piece for in which she [correctly] described ultrasounds as a  “benign and routine part of the abortion procedure” (see

Lies? How can I count them all. The worst, for me at least, was (as a Washington Post editorial implied) that the Virginia legislators were trying to slide something by the public, something as “obtrusive” as a transvaginal probe. In fact, even a veteran pro-abortion lobbyist confessed she didn’t know they were used in early pregnancies—and, to repeat, their use is not “rape,” it is customary.

Effrontery—defined a lot of ways but “barefaced audacity” captures it best in this context. PPFA and NARAL and the National Partnership for Women & Families and a host of zealots who hang out at the pro-abortion website knew they were lying through their teeth. Knew that their “objection”  was not only shamelessly untrue in its specifics, but to ultrasounds as such, not just to transvaginal ultrasounds. Knew that names they called Virginia legislators to their face had nothing to do with their (imaginary) righteous anger and everything to do with stampeding them into making a “change” to something that did not exist.

Now THAT is bold.

That same say-anything messaging was front and center in the fight against the Blunt Amendment. That amendment would prevent the Obama Administration from forcing employers to provide h­­ealth insurance that covers drugs or procedures to which they are morally opposed. But in the hands of the usual suspects that becomes not a sincere attempt to respect religious liberties but “a contraception ban,” which it is, of course, not.

But what made this an almost one-of-a-kind week was in addition to all this, appearing in the most prestigious bioethics journals were apologetics for infanticide and starving and dehydrating patients in a so-called Persistent Vegetative State. You have to read these “studies” in their entirety to appreciate just how anti-life they are, how deeply offensive they to basic human decency.

But we can console ourselves with the reassuring truth that you are out there every day to contest these lies and cruelties, in season and out.

Thank you, and have a great  weekend.

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

Categories: Legislation