NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

The Dawning of a New Day

by | Oct 31, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

Editor’s note. This editorial from the June 2003 issue of National Right to Life News is part of our year-long “Roe at 40” series in which we are reprinting some of the best from NRL News going back to 1973. I particularly enjoyed writing this editorial and I hope you share it with your pro-life family and friends.

“Let us not forget that there is always a moment when a moral choice must be made.” — Elie Wiesel, from his book, “Legends of Our Time.”

Laci Petereson

Laci Petereson

I have many shortcomings as a writer and editor, but writer’s block is not one of them. In 30 years of writing hundreds of stories and almost as many opinion pieces, I don’t think I’ve ever paused more than five minutes before beginning to hammer away at the keyboard.

Yet, curiously, in an edition that comes on the heels of as many positive developments as we’ve witnessed lately, it’s been far more difficult to write this editorial than usual. Where to begin? What to include? How can I justify not including what’s been omitted? How does all that we’re writing about fit together?

Let me begin by thanking all of you for subscribing to “National Right to Life News Today” (www.nationalrighttolifenews.org). Cyberspace comes as close to providing limitless space as you’re going to get. And coming out six days a week, it means that NRL News Today can cover breaking news within a couple of hours.

If you are not a subscriber, look in the upper right hand side of the home page of www.nationalrighttolifenews.org for a one-touch way to receive this free resource in your email box Monday through Saturday.

What else?

When our eyes land on the leading figures of the Abortion Establishment, figuratively if not literally huddling in the corner, we see what I would argue can only be described as an identity crisis. For over 30 years, whenever events would turn against the NARALs and the Planned Parenthoods, they knew they could, like children playing a schoolyard game, “return to base.” That sense of ultimate security – – a place where they were safe from challenge – – is now under siege.

Think of this haven as if it were constructed in the shape of a triangle. One side consists of rhetoric reducing the unborn child to the status of an almost inanimate collection of purposeless tissue. Nothing there for people to get excited about.

It is true that of late the anti-life set has awarded this whatever-it-is (which is going to “die anyway”) with a kind of significance by proxy: “its” existence can make a difference if “it” can be harvested, like a cash crop, to address the diseases of “real” people [a reference to embryonic stem cells].

The second side is a vicious caricature of the women and men who make up the pro-life movement. Every derisive, demeaning, dehumanizing label you can think of has been attached to people who’ve devoted their lives to speaking up for the voiceless. To the NARALs of this world, at best we’re modern-day Don Quixotes, at worst we’re vestiges of human development that the world would be better off without.

But without the third side, pro-abortionists would hardly have gotten past first base: the media’s willingness to accept whatever came out of the mouth of pro-abortionists as if had been inscribed on tablets brought down from Mt. Sinai.

Astonishingly, all of this has collapsed, robbing them of a sense of invulnerability. As I wrote in NRL News Today, you’ll get an upfront and personal view of the changing environment just by going to the stories that appeared in the June 9, 2003, edition of Newsweek under the headline of “Should a Fetus Have Rights? How Science Is Changing the Debate.”

What is clear is that at least some reporters are picking up on the pro-abortionists’ dilemma – – that the walls are closing in on them – – and are not nearly as charitable or sympathetic to them as they formerly were.

Why? Because these are college-educated professionals whose orientation may be decidedly pro-abortion but who are not completely immune to new evidence.

Put another way, it is impossible to run across ads on television showing incredibly dramatic full-color images of an unborn child and swallow the usual nonsense about a “collection of cells.”

It defies reason to expect that reporters (or anyone else) can observe the jaw-dropping photo of the tiny hand of an unborn baby grasping the finger of the surgeon who has just corrected his spinal anomaly and not be compelled to rethink their position on abortion on demand.

“Viability” has a whole new meaning when a surgeon can make an incision into a woman’s abdomen, remove her uterus, remove the unborn child from the uterus, correct the problem, tuck the child snugly back inside, place the uterus safely back in the woman’s body, and then deliver the child a few months later.

Such was the incredible journey of Samuel Armas, now 3 1/2 years old.

Space does not permit anything more than a word about the impact of the tragic murders of Laci Peterson and her unborn son. As Debra Rosenberg wrote in Newsweek,

“With the recent murders of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, nearly 9 months old, abortion-rights supporters are finding it increasingly difficult to claim credibly that a fetus just a few weeks, or even days, from delivery is not entitled to at least some protections under the law – – but they vigorously argue against such laws anyway, fearing that giving a fetus rights will lead to the collapse of abortion protections.”

Most people, by contrast, are quite capable of grasping the commonsensical point that when the unborn child of a pregnant woman is maimed or killed by an assailant there’s a second victim.

But I do understand why pro-abortionists go nuts. Posturing aside, it’s not because the child has been given “equal rights.” It’s that we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all if we agreed–with the pro-abortion set–that there’s no one there! That the unborn child is a cipher, a collection of cells, whatever the pro-abortion gibberish du jour happens to be.

If I were Kate Michelman of NARAL and Gloria Feldt of Planned Parenthood, I’d be nervous too. The day common sense is given a place in the debate is the day they witness the beginning of the end.

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Categories: Abortion