NRL News

WaPo says pro-lifers“are on a roll right now”

by | Apr 17, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

Talking about and reporting on pro-life legislation is among the absolutely highest priorities at National Right to Life News Today. In the next two days we will discuss two analyses of pro-life legislative efforts . One today from a supposedly “objective” source, the Washington Post, another tomorrow from a blatantly pro-abortion source , Mother Jones magazine

Writing for the Post under the headline, “Antiabortion advocates are on a roll right now, and there’s less and less standing in their way,” Amber Phillips begins with this hair-on-fire lead

President Trump just scored a political base victory by signing a law that allows states to withhold federal funds from Planned Parenthood and other facilities that provide abortions. But the real movement on abortion is happening in the states. There, antiabortion advocates are on a roll, passing some of the most restrictive abortion laws ever. And with the winds shifting in Washington in favor of conservatives, some antiabortion advocates are banking that the ultimate prize — ending legal abortion — could be within reach.

Phillips is getting away ahead of herself with her conclusion. Our Movement surely has been on a “roll for six years and counting,” but “ending legal abortion” is the kind of language pro-abortion media enablers toss out to gin up abortion advocates.

But that she (deliberately) overshoots the mark doesn’t change what has been happening for the past half-decade. (We count laws differently than Phillips so the numbers are slightly different.)

For example, 16 states have passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Action which bans aborting children capable of experiencing pain–at 20 weeks, if not earlier. And “In the 2017 state legislative session (which for many states isn’t halfway over), five states have passed major abortion restriction laws, and 28 legislatures have introduced legislation banning some or all types of abortion,” according to Phillips.

Probably because to do so would be to expose how grisly they are, Phillips does not separate out bans on dismemberment abortions in which abortionists uses clamps, forceps, tongs, scissors, or similar instruments to kill a living unborn baby then extract the dismembered unborn child, piece by piece. Seven states already have this law on the books and the law has passed one house in three other states.

Phillips post is useful to the general reader because it informs him or her that other kinds of laws have passed, such as Arizona’s which requires “doctors [abortionists] to resuscitate a fetus if it’s born alive in an abortion procedure. It will also be one of the only states to require clinics have certain lifesaving equipment on hand.”

Well, yes, if a clinic is aborting babies so late in gestation they might be born alive, they ought to have “certain lifesaving equipment on hand.” More specifically (and using less loaded language), what SB 1367 requires is abortionists to use all available means and medical skills to save an abortion survivor. More specifically yet, the law spells out what being “delivered alive” means– “showing one or more of these signs of life: breathing, a heartbeat, umbilical cord pulsation or definite movement of voluntary muscles.”

There also is a veiled allusion to providing information about abortion reversal (abortion halting, is more accurate). To a woman who is undergoing a chemical abortion, should she change her mind after taking the first of the two drugs, she would know that by not taking the second drug and taking high dosages of progesterone in order to counteract the first pill, she substantially increases the odds the baby’s life can be saved.

Phillips point, of course, is that should the composition of the Supreme Court shift sufficiently, the justices might be more willing to uphold protective state laws, unlike what happened last year in Hellerstedt. Let us hope this comes to pass as soon as possible.

But pro-lifers know the happy day that Roe v. Wade is overturned is down the pike. That does not discourage us, it motivates us to pass more and more laws that challenge the underpinning of the abortion “liberty” to hasten the day Roe is pitched overboard.

When that happens, that will mean is that abortion jurisprudence would essentially return to the states, the situation before Roe nationalized abortion.

Which works in our favor. We, not the abortion lobby, have the grassroots. We, not PPFA and NARAL, are far closer to where the public is on abortion.

If you can, please come to the National Right to Life Convention on Milwaukee June 29-July 21 where this and a hundred other topics will be discussed. For information go to

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at Please send your comments to

Categories: Pro-Lifers