NRL News

The hateful language pro-abortionists use to denounce “hateful language”

by | Dec 4, 2015

By Dave Andrusko

NRLstatementcoloradoPro-abortionists aren’t big on looking in the mirror, or on noticing that they are often guilty of exactly what they falsely accuse pro-lifers of.

So, for example, there was/ is no reason to believe Robert Dear had any association with the pro-life movement, let alone pro-life presidential candidates or members of Congress. But that didn’t stop the Abortion Industry and its media acolytes from irresponsibly “linking” the man accused of killing three people and wounding nine others at a Planned Parenthood clinic to the mainstream pro-life movement and “Republicans.”

The cause-and-effect, according to those so eager to politicize the murder of innocent people? The “inflammatory” language which, we were told, “they” (the “they” varies and expands depending on whom they wish to silence) knew would lead to violence.

As Vicki Saporta of the National Abortion Federation told the Washington Post last week

“They have ignited a firestorm of hate. They knew there could be these types of consequences, and yet they ratcheted up the rhetoric and ratcheted it up and ratcheted it up,” Saporta said. “It’s not a huge surprise that somebody would take this type of action.”

After a fire and brimstone attack on pro-lifers, Jessica Valenti, acting as judge and jury, intoned in her best brook-no-disagreement tone

We can all tell the truth about this attack; we don’t need a police press conference to confirm the shooter’s motive.

Really? Verdict first, then the “evidence”?

So, should you or National Right to Life or pro-life Republicans demand that Saporta and Valenti put down their poison pens, or insist they rein in their false aspersions?

Of course not. That is what free speech is all about.

I haven’t read pro-abortion Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi for a long time. I ran across a column today she’d just penned that had plenty of chaff but a couple of very important blades of wheat.

Vennochi understands something so many others in her camp don’t. We have a First Amendment and we have it for a reason.

She begins with a good summary of the one-step-follows-another “logic” familiar to the Saportas and Valentis, the end result of which is (as Vennochi puts it) “you can’t decouple that horrific rampage from the heated rhetoric used by abortion opponents.”

Then she quotes a local PPFA type:

As a result, “This isn’t about free speech,” said Tricia Wajda, director of public affairs for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. “This is asking people to recognize that words matter. Accuracy matters.”

Vennochi, to her credit, disagrees:

But it is about free speech — and specifically about speech those of us who support abortion rights don’t like to hear. The language of abortion opponents is deliberately brutal. It is designed to strip away euphemisms like “choice.” It forces us to confront descriptions like “baby killer” and images like “baby parts.”

To be clear, Vennochi believes a lot (probably all) of what pro-lifers say is wrong, inaccurate, and misleading.

We would respond that it is absolutely accurate and fair to call an unborn child a baby rather than a “fetus”; describe what PPFA officials were talking about on the undercover videos as “intact body parts”; and label as dehumanzing the ha-ha-ha language they used in talking about their search for lungs and livers and tracheas and brains.

For 40+ years, we have been eager to debate the issue in the public square, not something our opposition is big on.

But the point for us is something Vennochi quotes from a pro-life attorney:

“The First Amendment doctrine is clear,” said Mark L. Rienzi. “You can’t simply silence speech you don’t like. The right response is to prosecute the bad guys, to attack the people who do the actual wrong thing.”

One last thought. What do you think the response would have been had pro-abortion Democrats controlled both houses of Congress as well as the presidency?

A scary thought well worth pondering.

Categories: Free Speech