NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

The intrinsic extremism and ugliness of abortion on display as never before

by | May 21, 2014

 

Editor’s note. This appears in the May issue of National Right to Life News, the digital edition of the “pro-life newspaper of record.” You can read the entire edition at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsMay2014.pdf

Gosnellguiltypage2First things, first. If you have not registered for the National Right to Life Convention in Louisville June 26-28, please read convention director Jacki Ragan’s terrific preview that appears on page 5 [http://nrlc.cc/1gPdjPA]. Attendance for the pro-life educational event of the year is a must.

Most of our NRL News readers also subscribe to our Monday through Saturday pro-life feed, National Right to Life News Today. And thus you know, as numerous as the challenges facing our Movement are, grassroots pro-lifers are meeting them head-on.

Thus, it may seem strange to begin with events abroad. I hope to quickly show why it’s not.

As daunting as what we face here in the United States clearly is, remember the dilemmas faced by our sisters and brothers elsewhere requires a steely determination above and beyond. Canada has no abortion law, for example, and England places only nominal “restrictions” on abortion at any point in a baby’s development. In a real sense, any forward movement requires pro-lifers to rebut the dismissive assertion that the issue is “settled” and the discussion “closed.”

That’s why it is important when the other side makes statements that really are beyond the pale. It exposes their intrinsic extremism, which they usually adroitly hide, in an unmistakable way.

For example, a couple of weeks ago Justin Trudeau, who heads the Liberal Party in Canada, brazenly announced that ”The Liberal Party is a pro-choice party and going forward, all new members and all new candidates are pro-choice.”

People (and newspapers) who would never agree with pro-lifers on anything were aghast at his arrogance. He has since been under siege. (The Archbishop of Toronto wrote Trudeau a polite letter of protest. Thomas Cardinal Collins drily observed that had Pope Francis instead chosen a life of politics, “he would have been ineligible to be a candidate for your party.”)

And sex-selection abortion remains the splinter in many consciences, even “pro-choicers.” That grotesque mockery of human rights (not to mention feminist orthodoxy) continues to roil the political waters.

And not just in Canada. So, too, in England. The Daily Telegraph did an undercover investigation that proved beyond dispute that there are abortionists in England who would abort a baby if the mother said she wanted that “termination” because the child is a girl.

And in the same investigation it was discovered that the one requirement doctors are supposed to observe—see the woman in advance of the abortion before signing off on the abortion—had been ignored. Instead 67 doctors had pre-signed abortion forms without even knowing the names of the women they would be used for!

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

In neither case was anyone punished, which has raised howls of protest, again from people who are not pro-lifers. The anti-life forces had overplayed their hand. In both cases (Canada and England), the door to revisiting abortion is now slightly ajar.

And I chose the words “intrinsic extremism” for a reason. There is an interior logic to the “reasons” anti-life forces offer for whichever group of victims they are currently attacking that is inherently expansionary.

This used to drive pro-abortionists and proponents of assisted suicide crazy. How dare you say if you allow thus-and-such it opens the door for this-and-that.

Now, more than a few celebrate what not so long ago they insisted could never happen.

Abortion only for “tough” cases; abortion as a “last resort”; abortion that is “safe, legal and rare”? How quaint, how positively 1990s-ish.

Read the orthodox pro-abortion response to Emily Letts’ giddy celebration of her abortion that she videotaped and then obscenely uploaded on YouTube. (See story, page 15.) They simply glide by behavior that is so nauseous even some dyed-in-wool pro-abortionists blanched.

Take Charlotte Taft, the Director of the Abortion Care Network, described as “an organization for independent providers and abortion care allies.” (Taft was also once the director of a Dallas abortion clinic.)

Writing on a pro-abortion site, Taft says ixnay to keeping “secrets,” which is code for women not telling their abortion “stories.” And then, “Likewise, sharing the complex, nuanced reality of abortion, adoption, and parenting—telling the secrets that harm us when we hide them—may help us create a dialogue with pro-choice people who are uncomfortable with the reality of our work.”

So in one paragraph, Taft does the usual pro-abortion shuffle—“abortion, adoption, and parenting” are morally indistinguishable—and admits that even “pro-choice people who are uncomfortable with the reality of our work.” But again, the idea is, the more you throw abortion in people’s faces, the more desensitized (they would say understanding) they will become. This is a highly dubious proposition.

By videotaping an actual abortion in which Letts treats the whole thing like a joke, an exercise in bonding with the staff, Letts has taken the next outlandish step. But note that Letts’s apologists keep reminding us that her abortion is not shown “in a graphic way.” Why the need for the assurance?

Obviously because they want to pretend what Letts pretends. That abortion is a walk in the park (only easier)—safe, painless, and…not graphic (read bloody and stomach-turning). Can’t show the reality of a baby being torn to shreds. Doesn’t fit the narrative.

May 13 was the one-year anniversary of the triple murder convictions of abortionist Kermit Gosnell (see stories, pages 19 and 23.) When it comes to the owner of the “House of Horrors,” pro-abortionists pine for the Memory Hole in Orwell’s “1984” novel. They want all reminders destroy and, in the interim, altered.

So instead of an Abortion Industry complicit in his ghastly behavior, we’re told they condemn his horrific treatment of women (less so his barbaric manner of delivering viable children alive and then slitting their spinal cords).

Instead of the face of an industry that traffics in the blood of unborn children and the misery of their mothers, Gosnell was a “renegade,” an “outlier,” a “rogue.” Yet the Abortion Establishment fights to their last breath any legislation to give women a chance to reflect or to clean-up pits like Gosnell’s Women’s Medical Society.

The Abortion Industry and their legion of defenders and apologists have as much time for truth, candor, and honest admissions as Planned Parenthood has for “unplanned” children.

But we wouldn’t ever expect anything else. Babies are invisible to them, except when they announce that “unwanted” children are better off dead.

However since we are in the business of finding win-win solutions for mother and child, it is your and my privilege to shine the light of truth on the ugliness that is abortion.

My wife and I hope to see you in Louisville. June 26-28 will be a three-day experience you will never forget.

Categories: Abortion