NRL News

As the midterms approach, a different strategy to try to dampen pro-life enthusiasm

by | Nov 2, 2018

By Dave Andrusko

 As we near the crucial midterm elections—they take place next Tuesday!—we could have anticipated a spate of articles telling us we mustn’t vote “traditionally” pro-life.

Masquerading  (as they always do) as honest seekers looking for “new ways” to approach the abortion issue, they inform (actually chide us) that if we are really, truly, honestly, sincerely, no-fingers-crossed-behind-our-backs-pro-life, we will vote for pro-abortion Democrats who take the “correct” position on other issues. Sometimes the latter conclusion is by process of elimination: you can’t vote for Republicans who happen to be the only party interested in overturning Roe v. Wade.

Which brings us to a post at written by Rebecca Weiss, who once modestly started her own pro-life movement.

Weiss begins, “When I first started writing here, I began teasing out the idea that we need to alter the way we approach the abortion issue, politically.” It would take us waaaay too far afield to go into the specifics, some of which are unobjectionable. But as you might expect, the dividing line are the good people, like Weiss, and the rest of us, who don’t really care about “the common good.”

For our purposes here, the takeaway from her post is (surprise) she hates Donald Trump with such ferocity I’m surprised she has the strength to even write his name.  The strategy Weiss employs is a common one with certain kind of Democrats who insist they hold the keys to the pro-life kingdom, or ought to be given them. It is…

(1)Hate on Trump and by implication (or directly), those who support him because of his pro-life policies; (2) insist that everything he has done, including appointing two strict constructionists to the Supreme Court,  was all for show and means nothing; and (3) shift into rhetorical hyper-overdrive to inform us that “The idea that pro-life really translates into anti-choice – a male supremacist ideology that is all about denying women agency – suddenly seems quite accurate.”


It’s a variation of what you see in courts. The judge—Ms. Weiss—rules everything that makes pro-lifers appreciate Mr. Trump inadmissible as evidence. Or wholly fictitious.

In either case, she doesn’t want President Trump, and presumably “traditional” pro-life Republicans running for office, to receive an ounce of credit for what the President and the pro-life congressional congressional leadership have accomplished both substantially and symbolically.

By the way when those in Ms. Weiss’s camp zealously rip into pro-life Republicans for not doing enough, note they never, ever mention that legislation must pass both houses of Congress. And that the procedural gauntlet in the Senate is strewn with obstacles, meaning in most cases a minority of pro-abortion Democrats can stop pro-life bills that have passed the House and have majority support from Republicans in the Senate.

But we’ve heard proposals to “alter the way we approach the abortion issue, politically” many times before. They always comes and they always pass. Why?

Because in the pantheon of disparate issues these Democrats support, abortion is just one among many.


Categories: Politics Pro-Lifers