NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Pro-abortionists spin furiously but “Life is winning again in America”

by | Jun 9, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

Having written my share of book reviews, I know the added blessing that comes along when you are evaluating/critiquing multiple books on the same topic. You can go hither and yon and correct/deepen the arguments made.

Which brings us to a review (under the headline, “The Abortion Battlefield”) of two new pro-abortion books by a fellow pro-abortionist, Marcia Angell.

For those with good memories, you will recall that at one time Angell was the Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. We have written about her several times, plus including a post by Wesley J. Smith in which Wesley took her to task for her outright embrace not of abortion (in this instance) but of euthanasia—“even for those who can’t ask for it themselves.”

In 2012 I wrote about a hysterical opinion piece she co-authored for USA Today in which the authors harshly critiqued “an unprecedented and sweeping legal assault on women’s reproductive rights” and called on “Physicians, both as individuals and as a profession” to “stand with their patients,” including by acts of civil disobedience!

In other words, the New York Review of Books was not asking an impartial observer to review two books, but a passionate pro-abortion partisan.

Her review is interesting, not for the pro-abortion sound bites or the warmed-over anti-male “feminism,” but what she concedes or misses. For example, immediately after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, “Legal abortions rapidly became common.” Or “antiabortion organizations were formed, such as the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), which had millions of members and chapters in every state by the late 1970.” So, Roe meant a proliferation of abortions and the impetus for grassroots pro-life resistance.

There immediately followed this odd sentence: “Like the Catholic Church, [NRLC’s] focus was on protecting the embryo (defined as less than eight weeks’ gestation) or fetus—both usually referred to as the “unborn child”—through legal and legislative strategies.” Actually, from the get-go NRLC opposed all abortions at all stages. Nowhere in Angell’s review is there a hint at the atrocities performed experimentally on often very mature unborn children which were grotesque even by pro-abortion standards.

While Angell is incorrect about when crisis pregnancy centers started (much earlier than she suggests), she is correct when she quotes one of the authors that CPCs “were a uniquely woman-dominated sector of the antiabortion movement.” In her own words, Angell observes “instead of providing abortions, CPCs offered free pregnancy tests, then tried to dissuade pregnant women from obtaining abortions. They rapidly became the major form of activism, writes [Karissa] Haugeberg, and by 2009, there were 3,200 of these facilities, with a combined staff of 40,000, and they saw about one million pregnant women each year.”

Referring to what followed the 1992 Casey decision, Angell lambastes pro-life legislative initiatives. “Since then, and particularly since Republicans have gained control of most state governments, states have rushed to pass new laws that treat pregnant women like errant children.”

The Abortion Industry and its vast horde of supporters in academia, Hollywood, and the Establishment media fiercely opposes: any opportunity for an abortion-minded woman to think about her life-and-death decision; any parental involvement in the abortion decision of their minor daughter; any limitation on when a woman may abort what even pro-abortionists might concede are pain-capable unborn children, and any restriction on the method with which the abortionist kills unborn children (such as by a partial-birth abortion) so matter how grotesque.

Enacting any of these commonsense measures doesn’t treat women as “errant children.” Insisting that they abort with assembly-like efficiency is. Pro-abortionists not only want no “obstacles” on the road to abortion, they also want the path greased with your tax dollars and mine.

One more comment. Angell writes, “A Pew poll in October 2016 showed that 59 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37 percent think it should be illegal in all or most cases.”

We critiqued that poll at length, concluding, “First Pew feeds its respondents a drastically untrue portrait of the breadth, depth, and width of Roe’s license to kill. Then it mangles (yet again) a truth that is crystal clear in Gallup’s more recent polling. That when you ask a follow up question to generalized responses, you find that in a typical Gallup poll, there will be a total of 55% who say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (19%) or only a few circumstances (36%).”

Angell is a member in good standing with the hard-core anti-life brigade. That’s why her review of two pro-abortion books is long on hyperbole and short (essentially non-existent) on criticism. Abortion is wonderful. Abortion was/is essential to women “mak[ing] giant strides toward equality.”

It is nothing of the sort, which is why so many younger women are baffled by the likes of Angell who consider the right to kill unborn babies as a kind of secular sacrament.

The times they are achangin’—changing the direction of life. Or, as pro-life Vice President Mike Pence put it last January, “Life is winning again in America.”

Categories: Life