NRL News

PPFA Cecile Richards’ interview with Bill Moyers: The “rest of the story”

by | Jul 28, 2014


By Dave Andrusko

Bill Moyers interviewing Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards

Bill Moyers interviewing Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards

Understandably so, pro-lifers have paid the most attention to PPFA President Cecile Richards’ bizarre comparison of abortion to a colonoscopy in a July 18 interview with Bill Moyers. But if you either saw the program (which I did not) or read the transcript (which I just did, you know there was no comparison too absurd, no hyperbole too hot for this pro-abortion tandem.

Here are just a few nuggets at As you would expect from Moyers, many comments are snarky, snide, and over the top.

#1. “Thanks to a sustained legal strategy in particular, which includes achieving a Supreme Court majority of five conservative Catholic men, all appointed by Republican presidents, they have been inching toward success.” Moyers loves to hammer “conservative Catholics,” conservative Catholic men even more.

Is it somehow un-American to have a “sustained legal strategy”?” To name just two examples, how did pro-abortionists overthrow the laws of all 50 states (in Roe v. Wade) if not by use of a “sustained legal strategy”? More benignly, how did African Americans overturn separate but equal laws except by “a sustained legal strategy”?

#2. Every chance Moyers gets he conflates passage of protective state laws with individual acts of violence decades-old and condemned by pro-lifers then and ever since. They are not alternative “tactics.” Passing laws is wholly legitimate, violence wholly illegitimate.

#3. Moyers does ask, “Is it conceivable to you that your opponents have won the moral argument, that is they’ve convinced enough people in conservative circles that abortion is morally wrong, leaving politicians that you talk about no choice but to go where the voters lead?” Richards, of course, vehemently disagrees, but it is interesting that Moyers (who more than once talks about pro-choicers losing) even raises the possibility.

Of course, pro-life legislation wouldn’t be passing in many parts of the country if only “conservatives” believed abortion is “morally wrong.” If you look at data from Gallup and Rasmussen—to name just two—shows that a majority believes abortion is morally wrong while only about a third believe it is morally right.

#4. From then on, every question is in Richards’ wheelhouse. “Do you really think that Women’s Health Protection Act that was debated this week could undo some of the damage being caused by this onslaught of regulations?” To which Richards responds, “Absolutely.”

Here is one of the clearest examples of pro-abortion abracadabra in the interview. As we have documented at NRL News Today, the law is better described as the “Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act.” In testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee [], NRLC President Carol Tobias patiently explained why the measure is even more radical than the infamous Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). She said

“Having failed, in many cases, to persuade the federal courts to strike down the laws they dislike, the extreme abortion advocates now come to Congress and demand that this federal pro-abortion statutory bulldozer be unleashed to scrape everything flat.

“The bill would subject any law or government policy that affects the practice of abortion, even indirectly, to an array of sweeping legal tests, designed to guarantee that almost none will survive. The general rule would be that any law that specifically regulates abortion would be presumptively invalid. The same would be true of any law that is not abortion-specific but has the effect or claimed effect of reducing access to abortion.

“It is apparent that those who crafted this bill believe that, where abortion is involved, immediate access to abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, is the only thing that matters.”

And, finally,

#5. Moyers asks

“What is your response to what some of your opponents say that abortion is vastly different from other procedures and therefore needs higher medical standards? Is there any merit in that argument?”

Richards answers,

“Absolutely none. I mean, again, abortion is one of the safest medical procedures in the country.”

Requiring “Higher medical standards” than for what? In many locales, tanning salons are more closely regulated than abortion clinics. In the post-Gosnell era, does anyone who does not draw a check from the Abortion Industry really believe that the “problem” is over-regulation?

Which brings us back to abortion as equivalent to a colonoscopy.

I don’t suppose anyone should be surprised. This really IS how Richards thinks and speaks.

We should also remember (as noted in #2) that the objective of the hyperventilating rhetoric is to make it as difficult as possible for pro-life people to peacefully, legally work to change laws, or indeed even to exercise their freedom of conscience not to be involved in any way with abortion.

The Cecile Richardses of this world have one goal: ever more abortions. And that requires silencing opposing voices—you and me.

Categories: PPFA