NRL News

Never allow pro-abortionists to stifle pro-life speech

by | Nov 21, 2012

By Dave Andrusko

The day before Thanksgiving we can give thanks that there are millions of pro-life Americans whose dedication to the cause of unborn children is unwavering, undiminished, and unchangeable. We take time off for holidays but are then quickly back in the fray.

Having lost both the presidency and seats in the United States Senate, it is proper for Republicans, the pro-life party, to take stock: what did they do right/wrong and what could they have done more/better.

But one thing not to do is to suddenly become mute on abortion. That merely concedes the issue to those Democrats whose passion to increase the number of abortions is also unwavering, undiminished, and unchangeable.

I thought of all this as I read a column in the New York Daily News Today written by S.E. Cupp titled “Let’s talk more about abortion.”

Among her many excellent points is that not talking about abortion is not an option. “The respect for life is a moral imperative that defines conservatism as much as fiscal responsibility. Conservatism cannot abandon it and remain uncompromised.” (Alas, for now, the mantle of liberalism—true liberalism—has been hijacked by imposters who make unbridled support for abortion the core value.)

If we are to “reclaim the conversation,” Cupp writes, it is essential to challenge the bogus narrative that has “normalized abortion, first insisting it should be ‘safe, legal and rare,’ then painting pro-life advocates as fanatics who should be ostracized for foisting their puritanism on the public.” And that requires talking—intelligently—about abortion, not hiding noses in the sand.

In just 635 words Cupp systemically demolishes the mythology that has developed over abortion in general and its role in the 2012 elections in particular. That some Senate candidates spoke unintelligently and with gross insensitivity about abortion is obvious. Equally obvious, they did not raise the issue of abortion in the context of rape.

“The media cynically ask these questions to elicit crazy responses. In those two cases, mission accomplished.” Cupp writes. “So even when we don’t talk about it, liberals will find a way to get us to discuss abortion. We may as well direct the conversation instead of being dragged into it unprepared.”

[Side note: it makes no sense to complain about double standards—how the equivalent of hand grenades are lobbed at the feet of pro-life candidates while pro-abortionists are allowed to glide over their support for abortion without any limitation. That’s the way of the world. Pro-life candidates need to talk about the “tough” cases with compassion and love and intelligence.]

And of course that it was men—those dreaded men—who were caught in the media cross-hairs multiplied the impact. Same old same old: men aren’t supposed to be even allowed to talk about abortion, including the abortion of their own children.

“And men do belong in the debate,” Cupp writes. “The strongest argument I’ve heard against abortion was my father’s. There are sane, compassionate voices on this issue, and that they don’t have uteruses shouldn’t disqualify them.”

One other particularly astute observation on Cupp’s part. Pro-lifers often get hammered with the “anti-science” cudgel, which is astonishingly phony even by pro-abortion standards. Sound science is all on our side, and certainly when it comes to the basic question of when human life begins.

But Cupp notes “That’s the science — from there, the questions enter the realm of morality. As Ann Furedi, head of the largest independent abortion provider in Britain, said in a 2008 debate, ‘the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?’ Well, if that’s the point, then science really isn’t the issue.”

Indeed, pro-abortionists simply switch the grounds of the debate. They don’t really care when human life begins, they want to be able to stay that’s irrelevant—IT JUST DOESN’T MATTER!—what only matters is if the child “matters” to them.

Which is just one pro-abortion iteration (of a thousand), the common denominator of which is to never allow facts to get in the way of a good demagogic rant.

I would highly recommend the entire Cupp column found at The answer to pro-abortionists—not just now but any time—is to talk about abortion not less but more.

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: Pro-Lifers