NRL News

The lesson of the TIME magazine cover story: the truth hurts!

by | Jan 10, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

Charlotte Taft

Charlotte Taft

The TIME magazine lead story this week has pro-abortion feminists’ knickers in a knot. We’ve talked several times about the heated response to Kate Pickert’s  “What Choice? Abortion-rights activists won an epic victory in Roe v. Wade. They’ve been losing every since,” and for good reason.

Pickert’s account is really two stories not exactly seamlessly sown together: animosity/antipathy between the aging leadership of the Abortion Establishment and younger pro-abortion feminists (which could have been exaggerated), and the whomping they have taken in many state legislatures, which is not at all overstated.

Until today, I’d missed one of the early responses—from Charlotte Taft—which ran on the Internet home field of many of the grousers: Taft is described as ”the Director of the Abortion Care Network, an organization for independent providers and abortion care allies.”

Taft is obviously trying not to annoy Pickert whose sympathies are equally obvious to any marginally careful reader.  But many of Pickert’s statements—which happened to be spot on, by the way—hurt.

For example, that the American people are coming our way! Or that as one pro-abortionist (positioned as a kind of middlewoman between the warring camps) correctly explains

“The established pro-choice position—which essentially is: abortion should be legal, a private matter between a woman and her doctor, with no restriction or regulation beyond what is absolutely necessary to protect the woman’s health—makes 50% of the population extremely uncomfortable and unwilling to associate with us.”

But to Taft, this is unthinkable, literally and symbolically. Pro-abortionists have always insisted they are the majority and to acknowledge otherwise is more than they can bear.

Taft also picks up on another statement from the same source (former head of Catholics for Choice Frances Kissling) and grouses

“I also must take exception with the idea that illustrating that abortion is normal is counterproductive, as Frances Kissling is quoted as saying. We are not ‘normalizing’ anything—as if that is somehow making up a story. We are simply pointing out that abortion is normal and has been since the dawn of time.”

But of course the argument that pro-abortionists (especially at make incessantly is not that abortions are not new but rather than tearing unborn children limb from limb is no big deal (in most cases); that abortions are “empowering”; that to have second thoughts is to channel the misogynistic impulses of the Patriarchy; and that the more women talk about—celebrate?—their abortions, the faster the stigma of abortion will vanish. In short, “normalizing” abortion.

They should read their own publications more carefully.

Categories: pro-abortion