NRL News

“Grandmothers for Reproductive Rights” a gimmick to get you to read tedious pro-abortion propaganda

by | Jan 13, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

The article appearing in the Free Press newspaper is almost 2,700 words long, so long that the initial emphasis on “Grandmothers for Reproductive Rights” was clearly a gimmick to get readers to plow through a tedious hodgepodge of pro-abortion lament from A-Z.

But the story by Christine Parrish for a newspaper that covers midcoast Maine does remind us that just like the oxymoron “Catholics for Choice,” a group of grandmothers pitching the case to eliminate grandchildren is so counter-intuitive, you almost have to read the opening paragraphs. Which, of course, was the point with starting the story with “Grandmothers for Reproductive Rights” (GRR!).

GRR! first drew attention in May of 2013, according to Parrish, when “the group of grandmothers set up an information table at the capitol in Augusta. They all wore bright yellow T-shirts with GRR! on the front. Curious passersby stopped to ask what it meant. ‘We were so new at it then that we barely knew what to say,’ said [Judy] Kahrl.”

And judging by the story, they still don’t. The excuse for their existence?

“Nobody seems to want to talk about abortion,” said Kahrl, 82, the founder of GRR!, Grandmothers for Reproductive Rights. Kahrl and a couple dozen other midcoast women have set out to change that.

Kahrl tells Parrish that opponents of abortion “based on religious belief had successfully created a culture of shame and silence that has become mainstream.” Browbeaten, pro-abortionists “shied away from the topic.”

“Abortion is a sticking point for many because it has become connected to religion,” she said. “It’s not a religious issue. It’s not a Republican or Democratic issue. Reproductive freedom is a human rights issue.”

Etc., etc. ,etc.

There may be places where espousing the decimation of the next generation is difficult. But for every one of those situations, pro-lifers will tell you (from experience) there are 20 instances where standing up for unborn babies can get you ostracized.

But I would partially agree with Kahrl. Abortion is not only a religious issue, which is why people of no faith continue to join our Movement. But it is not true that “religion” has nothing to say about the fate of the next generation, any more than “religion” had “nothing to say” about ending slavery and unequal treatment of women.

And I would entirely agree with Ms. Kahrl that “reproductive freedom”–abortion”– is a “human rights issue.” Indeed, for over 40 years, pro-lifers have patiently made the case that defending the defenseless unborn child is the human rights issue of our era.

Pro-abortionists evade this obvious conclusion by either defining the unborn baby out of existence or reducing her right to legal protection to such insignificance it need not even be discussed.

But those days are rapidly receding.

In seven days we will inaugurate a pro-life President who has promised to nominate only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court. Obamacare, with abortion and rationing-enhancing provisions, will be repealed and replaced. Money currently going to Planned Parenthood could be distributed to full service medical facilities.

And all this because of the faithfulness, the dedication, the energy of pro-life people just like the thousands of you reading this post.

Thank you.

Categories: Abortion