NRL News

Which path will our nation follow?

by | Apr 12, 2016

By Carol Tobias, President

Editor’s note. NRLC President Carol Tobias’ column appears on page 3 of the April digital edition of National Right to Life News. You can read all of the issue at Please be sure to share stories with your pro-life family members and friends.

SupremeCourt30Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, recently tweeted, “43 years after Roe v. Wade, 90% of American counties have no abortion clinics at all.” #StopTheSham #WeWon’tGoBack

She was quoting from a recent article in the Huffington Post, by novelist Richard North Patterson, which began, “Whether you support Bernie or Hillary, how many of you want Republicans to abolish freedom of reproductive choice? I thought so. But here’s the kicker — in much of the country, the GOP already has. For millions of American women, freedom of choice is writ on water. And if you abandon your party’s nominee, whoever that may be, millions more may suffer.”

Patterson continued, “Put simply, the president who selects [Supreme Court Justice] Antonin Scalia’s successor will determine the future of reproductive rights. That is not hyperbole — it is already graven on the American landscape. Start with access to a safe and legal abortion. For the less privileged women in most American states, this right is close to extinction.

“Across the country abortion clinics are closing at a record pace. A little over 700 remain — 43 years after Roe v. Wade, 90 percent of American counties have no clinics at all.”

Hence, Richards’ foray onto Twitter to say, “We won’t go back” to pre-Roe laws. What do Richards’ comments tell us? How about Patterson’s? Where is the pro-abortion movement less than seven months before the presidential election?

The old guard in the abortion movement is so deathly afraid they will lose this election they are trying to scare their supporters into working harder and voting for Hillary Clinton to ensure their “right” to kill unborn children. Patterson’s point is that it doesn’t matter which candidate is nominated by the Democrats, Clinton or Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders– that candidate will be better than any Republican. (Richards would disagree; PPFA’s political action arm endorsed Clinton.)

By 2014, Planned Parenthood understood they needed to retool their “message.” PPFA announced they were no longer going to use the label “pro-choice” and would prefer people to start talking about “women’s health.” Richards told The New York Times, “I just think the ‘pro-choice’ language doesn’t really resonate particularly with a lot of young women voters.”

Earlier this year, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fl.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, told The New York Times Magazine, “Here’s what I see: a complacency among the generation of young women whose entire lives have been lived after Roe v Wade was decided.”

Wasserman Schultz took some heat from her abortion allies who were quick to insist that young women do care about keeping abortion legal and will be involved in the elections.

Are younger pro-choice women “complacent”? Does support for abortion (“choice”) no longer move the needle among the electorate?

Abortion advocates know they have a problem among young women. That’s why PPFA wants to talk about women’s “health” instead of “choice.” That’s why the president of NARAL stepped down a few years ago to make way for a younger organizational leader.

But if Richards’ comments were any indication (and they are), we would be foolish to think our opponents will be complacent in this year’s election.

They want a Democrat in the White House, of course, but more importantly, they want President Clinton as the first female president, to nominate a replacement for Justice Scalia and place pro-abortion judges at all levels of the federal judiciary.

As NRL News and NRL News Today have documented extensively, they want Clinton because they know she will defend abortion for any reason up to the day of birth.

Explaining why 90% of American counties have no abortion facilities, Patterson stated, “A principal cause is GOP-sponsored state laws which shut down clinics by imposing unnecessary and onerous requirements.”

After making his case as to why all these state laws are so terrible and why the judicial branch is so important to protecting the “right” to abortion, he added, “Thus the election of a Republican president in 2016 would erode reproductive rights and threaten Roe itself. The next president could appoint up to four new justices, transforming the law for generations to come.”

For the babies’ sake, I hope and pray he’s right!

These kinds of tweets and articles can be found all over the internet. I sense a feeling of urgency and desperation on the part of the abortion movement. They’ve controlled the Executive Branch for almost eight years, yet the Supreme Court is not yet firmly in their control.

President Obama was able to replace pro-abortion justices David Souter and John Paul Stevens with pro-abortion justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. At a minimum, pro-abortionists need to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Scalia with one of their own to preserve the abominable Roe ruling.

Cecile Richards tries to motivate abortion supporters by saying “We won’t go back.” Pro-lifers say “We will go forward.”

The election of a pro-life president would not be “turning back the clock” (as pro-abortionists like to say) to pre-Roe days but instead turning a corner to a brighter future for unborn children and their mothers. This “social experiment” of exterminating over 58 million unborn children who got in the way has failed. Our country is not better off because of it.

This is the year to chart a new path and a new course for our country. With your help, it will be a course in which unborn children are protected in law and valued in life.

Categories: Roe v. Wade