NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

The many reasons for cheer and optimism in 2017

by | Jan 6, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

The headline ought to make your chest swell with pride: “New year, same dedication — 2017 is bright for the pro-life movement,” by Ashley McGuire.

Writing for The Hill, Ms. McGuire offers a checklist of reasons for optimism in 2017. All are helpful and thoughtful.

We’d use her piece, which I encourage you to read, as a jumping off point.

While pro-lifers knew otherwise, it would be fair to say that at many in the Establishment Media saw last summer’s Supreme Court’s Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt as a kind of death knell for the pro-life Movement.

In truth, while very discouraging, what the decision said was as currently constituted, the Supreme Court would strike down state provisions that require abortion clinics to meet more than the absolute, bare minimum safety requirements. A more balanced High Court, one that does not swoon when pro-abortionists make their case, will easily see the importance of these common sense requirements.

McGuire talks about what I would call the two worldviews on display, which were on display throughout the presidential campaign but most particularly in the third and final debate between pro-life President-elect Donald Trump and pro-abortion Hillary Clinton.

As always, most media outlets missed the forest for the trees.

What the American public saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears was as straightforward a pro-life/pro-abortion contrast as ever witnessed in a presidential debate.

Clinton would bar no abortion; it’s all a woman’s decision–whenever, wherever, however. Case closed.

By contrast Mr. Trump composed a vivid word picture of what late term abortions really consist of. Not the tepid, watercolor version provided by the Washington Post and the New York Times but a bold portrait painted in dramatic brush strokes which vividly explained the sheer horror of late abortion.

What Trump was asking was as simple as it was monumental: do you want to be a party to ripping unborn babies out of their mother’s womb? Does that not trouble your soul?

Trump’s accomplishment was to contrast his own position on abortion with Clinton’s and in the process showed just how far from the mainstream the Hillary Clintons of this world are in guaranteeing abortion on demand until birth–and paid for with your tax dollars.

McGuire offers other examples of why pro-lifers should be optimistic in 2017, including Mr. Trump’s promise to nominate only pro-life jurists to the Supreme Court. Let me offer one more of my own.

Pro-abortionists have bitterly complained that there wasn’t enough talk about abortion in 2016. What they mean, of course, there wasn’t enough of the right kind of spin in which every moral and ethical component is obliterated simply by invoking the incantation, “It’s a woman’s choice.”

In fact, as NRLC’s executive director, Dr. David N. O’Steen wrote, the public knew precisely where the candidates stood, which is why the 2016 elections were a referendum on abortion:

A national poll of voters taken on election day, November 8, by the polling company Inc./Woman Trend found that essentially half of all voters (49%) said that abortion affected their vote. How did they vote – 31% said they voted for candidates who opposed abortion while only 18% said they voted for candidates who favored abortion – a 13% advantage for the pro-life side. When you think how close the vote was in Pennsylvania and other states which determined the election, it is clear that abortion made a clear difference in the election.

The poll results also clearly reflected the heavy involvement of National Right to Life and its political action committees, the National Right to Life PAC and the National Right to Life Victory Fund. Fully 29% of voters recalled hearing, seeing or receiving information from National Right to Life and 17% recalled hearing, seeing or receiving information from a state right to life group such as an NRLC affiliate.

National Right to Life and its political action committees mailed 3.3 million pieces of literature, made 5 million phone calls, sent 3 million e-mails and reached 9.2 million through social media, many of whom undoubtedly shared, reposted and retweeted National Right to Life’s information.

All in all National Right to Life’s PACs were actively involved in 58 federal campaigns, winning 48 (83%) of them.

Yes, there was a referendum on abortion on November 8. Hillary Clinton lost and Donald Trump won – but unborn children won also.

Yes, there are many, many reasons for us to be upbeat about 2017. And all of those reasons, directly or indirectly, are a reflection of your faithfulness, your hard work, and your commitment to the cause of unborn children.

Categories: Pro-Lifers