NRL News

How pro-abortion litigators interpret 2015

by | Dec 17, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

Abortionreport40The Center for Reproductive Rights is one of the most visible and influential pro-abortion litigators. Thus it’s more than a little useful to see how this “legal advocacy organization” that is among the busiest in attempting to thwart pro-life initiatives, interprets this past year.

Having read the 32-page report, “2015 State of the States: Fighting Back by Pushing Forward,”  let’s focus on four quotes that appear in the Introduction…

The headline-grabbing attacks on abortion access and reproductive rights occurring in Washington, DC, in the latter half of 2015—while outrageous in disregarding women’s health for political gain and harmful in their contribution to an increased level of hostility facing abortion providers and growing stigma facing abortion patients—should not stand out as unusual. They are the continuation of years of extreme hostility in state legislatures in every region of our nation, and indicative of the well-coordinated, well-financed political network intent on dismantling our constitutional right to abortion by any means necessary.

Point #1. There was and is plenty of action at the nation’s capitol, which is largely outside the purview of this report. But worth noting is that it is the pro-abortion movement that is awash in money: just look at Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List and they tip more than most pro-life organizations take in. We prevail because we have an highly developed grassroots network of committed citizen activists.

However CRR’s point is that much of the action has been in the states because (although they do not say so) an abortion-happy President Obama stands ready to thwart federal pro-life measures.

In 2015, many courts did their duty by applying the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent to expose abortion restrictions from years past as medically unjustified attacks on reproductive rights.

Pshaw. Courts routinely overrule pro-life laws. Nothing new in 2015. Our task is to pass as many of these measures and defend them up and down the judicial chain up to and including the Supreme Court.


A new crop of outrageous bills made their debuts, signifying the ongoing experimental nature of measures introduced by opponents of safe, legal abortion care. Such opponents are less concerned with medical necessity, scientific accuracy, patient health, or constitutional rights than they are with scoring cheap political points.

Among many other bills, CRR is alluding to laws (which are not “new”) that require abortionists to have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles for the inevitable complications. Pro-abortionists deride and mock and trivialize the importance of continuity of care. I would hope they would read Judge Daniel Manion’s brilliant dissent in a case that overturned Wisconsin’s admitting privileges requirement [].

We wrote about his dissent at length.

CRR is likely also hinting at laws that require abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers. Again, to these people, such requirements are always redundant, unnecessary, or foolish. Why? Because if you believe their “studies,” only swallowing an aspirin is less dangerous than ripping your unborn child apart, limb by limb. “Safer,” obviously, not for the child.

But without using the words “dismemberment abortion,” CRR is plenty worked up about laws in Kansas and Oklahoma which ban a horrific abortion method that uses sharp metal clamps and scissors to tear apart, piece by piece, a well-formed, living unborn child.

One other quote–and this is from their optimistic conclusion:

Increased awareness surrounding the cost and regulation of reproductive health care services, coupled with an unparalleled energy around the importance of sharing the stories of the estimated one in three women who will receive abortion care, is mounting momentum to reverse the trend in the states.

It is an article of their secular gospel that if enough women talk about their abortions, the public’s discomfort with abortion will melt away. That’s the “soft power” version, so to speak, of this mythology, which combines the triumph of hope over experience with self-delusion.

The “hard power” is the specter of more and more women self-aborting. This is supposed to “empower” women (that is how the abortion militants reason) and (I’m guessing) persuade legislatures to stop passing safety requirements– that there must be qualified abortionists working in half-way adequate facilities with the abortionist having admitting privileges at a local hospitals when he inevitably botches an abortion.

The report is worth reading. It is always helpful to watch the abortion mind at work.

Categories: Legislation