NRL News

Pro-abortion editorial runs off the deep end, reminding us who real “extremists” are

by | Mar 18, 2014


By Dave Andrusko

STLPostDistFull-throated, pedal to the metal editorials by pro-abortion newspapers are—as strange as it sounds—very much worth the time of pro-lifers to read. In this case I’m thinking of the 987-word skein that ran last week in the St. Louis Post Dispatch titled, “Political ambitions fuel Republican effort to restrict reproductive rights.”

How can something that reads as if it were written by committee but without the benefit of an editor possibly be instructive to us?

Well, we can be reminded (yet again) that the real “extremists” on abortion reside in the other camp. What triggered the Post-Dispatch’s wrath?

There were two bills in particular, both of which built off of current law in Missouri. First, HB 1307, which would increase the time for a woman to reflect on a life and death decision from 24 hours to 72 hours; and, second (HB 1192), which would require girls under 18 to notify both parents (not just one) five days before having an abortion.

But as annoying as those bills are (both of which have passed the House of Representatives), there is the specter (from the editorial page’s perspective) of a whole slew of other proposals. “Typical Missouri,” the editorial sneers, “always at the top for the wrong reasons.”

What makes the piece so fascinating is to try to figure out how in the world this editorial was put together.

For the most part, the tone is harsh, even vindictive, smarmy at best, ugly at worst.

Not a hint that the legislators who are promoting these bills could possibly believe in what they are doing; just the opposite. “Women were thrown under the bus because of election-year fervor among Republican lawmakers looking to score big with religious conservatives who make up a big part of their base,” is the second sentence. (Never mind, of course, that when—for example– Senate Democrats in Iowa refused to allow a vote on a measure with huge support in the state, one could certainly say they were playing to their base. That putdown only applies to pro-life legislators.)

Click here to read the February/March issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”

But at the end, lo and behold, “Four decades after Roe v. Wade, abortion remains an intractable issue. The belief that human life begins at conception and must be protected at all costs is morally defensible.” The editorial page doesn’t share that view, of course, but are they talking about the same legislators whom 900 words earlier the Post-Dispatch was trashing as nothing more than political opportunists? Or did somebody suggest they tamp down the over-heated rhetoric just a tad?

One other quick thought. I don’t know where in this process this might be, but another proposal would require four yearly inspections of “abortion providers.” Now, if you believe (or have convinced yourself, as the editorial writers clearly have) that abortion clinics are a haven of first-rate medicine, then even one visit yearly is probably one too many.

But if you look at the abortion industry around the country—and remember that it was only 10 months ago that abortionist Kermit Gosnell was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter—you know that the places like Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” thrive in the absence of inspection.

Hats off to pro-lifers in the Missouri legislature.

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at Send your comments to

Categories: Media Bias Politics