NRL News

What you can learn between the lines of even the most rabid pro-abortion account

by | Nov 10, 2014


By Dave Andrusko

Pro-life U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts

Pro-life U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts

I am asked fairly often why I read so many pro-abortion narratives. I often reply because I really do want to see what they are telling each other and to see which defense of the indefensible they are encasing in enough euphemisms to be marginally effective.

But I also scan them because between the sarcasm and the put downs of pro-lifers, if you read closely enough, some important truths come out. (Granted, sometimes you need someone who was there to fill in the missing pieces.)

For example there is Mark Warren’s, “This year, ideological purity itself is on trial in Kansas,” which appeared in Esquire the day before the mid-term elections. Let me make three points.

First, Warren heavily suggests that if pro-abortion “independent” Greg Orman were to lose the next day, pro-life incumbent Pat Roberts would prevail only because of a minor dust up that cropped up the last few days of the campaign. That contretemps was never going to amount to anything, and a near 9 point victory makes it clear Orman lost for other reasons (hint: among them, abortion).

Second, Kansas was a particularly interesting test case this year: pro-life Gov. Sam Brownback was also up for re-election. Brownback won by 4 points.

Why did so many reporters glom onto Kansas?

Not just because of the possibility that either or both Roberts and Brownback would lose. And not just because without winning Kansas, Democrats had no realistic chance of holding the Senate.

It was rather because of a narrative we heard going into the election, coming out of the election, and will hear unceasingly for two years: in-fighting among Republicans. Of course, reporters did their best to minimize the Cold War simmering between pro-abortion Senate Democrats and pro-abortion President Obama and to miss that so-called “moderate” pro-abortion Senate Democrats were also likely to lose (they did).

Republicans just eviscerated Democrats not only in the Senate, but added at least 12 seats in the House as well. And that doesn’t even get it to what happened to Democrats in the gubernatorial races and in the nationwide battle to control state Houses and state Senates.

Third, Warren had lots of fun mocking the executive director of Kansans for Life, who introduced Roberts and former Senator Bob Dole at a rally Warren attended. When she left, he wrote, “the air leaves the room for a moment, and comes back in a rush as the crowd shouts welcome for the senator’s surrogate” [Santorum].

I asked Mary Kay Culp about this. She wrote back

I noted the fetal pain issue [the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act] which Sen. Roberts co-sponsored in the Senate and which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was sitting on. I informed the audience of pro-lifers about how researchers found that later in pregnancy we humans can feel pain more severely than at any other time of our lives because the baby’s pain “dampeners” don’t develop until later in pregnancy.

I said: “One’s first thought upon hearing that is ‘Why would God do that?’ But one’s second thought is, “Oh, yeah. He didn’t count on anyone sticking sharp objects there to purposely destroy an unborn child. In fact he created a Commandment against that.”

And that, as they say, is the rest of the story.

Categories: Politics