NRL News

”Rebranding” and “The Woes of Roe”

by | Jan 10, 2019

By Dave Andrusko

Editor’s note. As we’ve noted, we’ve been posting new stories and reposting previously run stories as we approach the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The following first ran in 2013.

“Forty years ago this month, the Supreme Court handed down the great abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade. To be honest, you’re not going to be seeing a whole lot of cake and Champagne. Time magazine recognized the occasion with a downbeat cover story. (‘They’ve Been Losing Ever Since.’) Gallup polls suggest support for abortion rights is fading, particularly among young Americans, and that more people now regard themselves as ‘pro-life’ than ‘pro-choice.’”

— From “The Woes of Roe,” by Gail Collins which ran in Wednesday’s New York Times.

Although Collins is your typical New York Times pro-abortion columnist, this is a genuinely interesting piece. Please take the time to read it here.

To take the edge off, in the very next sentence Collins reassures her readers that public opinion is all about how the question is asked. “According to the Quinnipiac poll, if you ask Americans whether they agree with the Roe decision, nearly two-thirds say yes,” she writes hopefully.

I couldn’t for the life of me find the original poll, but a friend did. The actual question is, “In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion?” 64% said yes.

But this is so vague (“in general”), so qualified (“established a right”) as to be essentially meaningless. The only ruse missing was to pretend Roe legalized abortion only in the first three months, a staple of pro-abortion misdirection.

What if Quinnipiac got down to brass tacks and explained that Roe effectively legalized abortion on demand for any reason or no reason for all nine months?

Or what if you gave respondents more nuanced options? As we have explained countless times, when Gallup began to get very specific, it found that a majority of the population opposes the reasons almost all abortions are performed!

Back to Collins, who then immediately shifts gears. The problem for pro-abortionists may simply be “branding.” That is, the shelf-life of “pro-choice” has likely expired. On to something else (“reproductive justice” is the new moniker favored by the younger set) and everything will be right as rain.

Next Collins reverses course. She bemoans all those “crazy rules” that make it difficult for women to abort. Such as? Actually requiring that abortion clinics be inspected!

If you’ve read our stories about the recently closed abortion clinic in Muskegon, Michigan, you know that the place was a bloody pit. And nobody knew until the owner, thinking someone had broken into the Woman’s Medical Services abortion clinic, shot himself in the foot by calling in the police!

Another “crazy rule” is requiring that women have a chance to look at their baby before he or she is permanently and unjustly dispatched. It is a measure of how frivolous pro-abortionist truly are that even the slightest speed bump on the highway to death is turned into “unnecessary trauma,” as Collins dramatically put it. Or worse. Remember requiring the use of ultrasounds (which almost all abortionists already used) was described as nothing short of “rape by instrument.”

As I say, please read Collins’s opinion piece. It is an important reminder that much of what matters takes place in the state legislatures, where pro-lifers remain strong and steadfastly determined.

Categories: Roe v. Wade