NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

The Regime of Roe v. Wade must fall

by | Sep 5, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

Pro-abortion Barack Obama and Pro-life Mitt Romney

Every four years when the Republican and Democratic parties assemble to nominate a candidate for President, attention is paid both to what the candidates say and the position of their party platforms.

Last week, NRLC President Carol Tobias informed us about the staunchly pro-life Republican plank on abortion (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/08/the-republican-national-convention-republican-partys-strongly-pro-life-presidentialvice-presidential-team-backed-by-life-affirming-platform).

Yesterday NRL News Today wrote at length about the Democrats’ vastly different platform plank on abortion (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2012/09/the-democratic-national-convention-part-two-placing-abortion-in-larger-context-allows-obama-to-evade-his-extremist-position-on-abortion/#more-17275).

As noted Tuesday, under “Protecting A Woman’s Right to Choose,” President Obama and his party affirm (a) their unequivocal support for Roe v. Wade; (b) a woman’s right to make whatever decisions she wishes about her pregnancy “including a safe and legal abortion” (the insincere but once politically useful “rare” had already been abandoned); (c) federal funding of abortion (under the code words “regardless of ability to pay”); and (d) the boilerplate language about abortion being “an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way.”

Roe v. Wade—whether it should stand or fall—divides the two parties as clearly as any issue could. Pro-life Mitt Romney has said, “I support the reversal of Roe v. Wade” and his explanation why cuts to the heart of why Roe must go. Romney said he supports reversal “because it is bad law and bad medicine. Roe was a misguided ruling that was the result of a small group of activist federal judges legislating from the bench.”

Running for President in 2008, Obama said, “I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade.” “With one more vacancy on the court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade, and that is what is at stake in this election.”

Another way of posing the what-is-at-stake-question is this: are we comfortable as a nation killing with relentlessly efficiency 1.2 million unborn children–year after year after year after year?

If there really is a “pro-choice majority” (an assertion which used to be glibly trotted out, but not so much anymore), why would pro-abortionists be so afraid that the right to fashion laws governing abortion be returned to the states where it resided before Roe gutted the abortion statutes of all fifty states?

Could it be that 50% now self-identify as pro-life? Could it be that laws such as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act are raising the consciousness of a growing number of people? Could it be that people would be shocked to learn that unborn babies are being killed specifically BECAUSE they are female—and the Abortion Establishment and its congressional allies are unwilling to do anything about it other than thwart attempt to protect these unborn females? Could it be as simple as the omnipresence of ultrasound photos, “a baby’s first photo”?

Over the next two months there will be spurts of attention paid to Roe v. Wade, more so the closer we get to November 6. But for those who cherish life, we don’t need to be  reminded that the regime of Roe v. Wade must fall.

Keenan, who is retiring at the end of the year, told the convention why NARAL is among the President’s biggest supporters:” We are proud to have a president who stands with women; a president who signed into law one of the greatest advancements for women’s health in a generation; a president who believes in a woman’s right to make her own decisions.”

Women could not “trust’ Gov. Romney, she said, because “He would overturn Roe v. Wade and sign into law a wave of outrageous restrictions on a woman’s ability to make decisions about her pregnancy.” Those “outrageous restrictions” no doubt would include informed consent legislation, waiting periods, parental involvement, and ultrasounds, all of which enjoy solid support among the American people.

Support for abortion was woven into virtually every speech. For example, Mrs. Obama’s speech, delivered brilliantly, included the sentence that her husband “believes that women are more than capable of making our own choices about our bodies and our health care.” (See “Michelle Obama given rave reviews, little attention paid to issues that would paint a different picture of President Obama.”) Gov. Patrick spoke for many when he shouted, “We believe that freedom means keeping government out of our most private affairs, including out of a woman’s decision whether to keep an unwanted pregnancy.”

And after a season of quiet, support for ObamaCare was voiced loud and clear. As National Right to Life has documented in great detail, the President’s “signature” domestic issue is rift with abortion-promoting features and mechanisms that ensure rationing of medical care. Of course, those inconvenient truths were conveniently avoided.

More of the same is on tap tonight when, among others, pro-abortion former President Bill Clinton will speak. Ironically, it was Clinton who formulated the all-purpose escape clause for pro-abortionists: he talked of making abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” By 2008 and again in 2012, the Democrats’ platform on abortion had omitted the word “rare.”

Categories: Roe v. Wade