NRL News

The familiar pro-abortion blame game. Attribute their behavior and attitudes to pro-lifers

by | Apr 6, 2020

By Dave Andrusko

Imagine if Carol Tobias were given the opportunity to write a column for NBC News. What would the odds be that she would not be identified as the President of National Right to Life? There are no odds, because there is zero chance her position as the leader of the largest single-issue pro-life organization in the United States would not be listed in boldface.

Danielle Campoamor cranked out another in a long stream of posts, indignantly complaining that pro-lifers are not only “exploiting” the coronavirus but (as the headline for her NBC News opinion piece blared) “using the coronavirus to oppress women.”

To be sure, Campoamor holds a far less significant position. She is (we learn elsewhere) “Romper’s Senior Identity editor and creator and author of Bustle’s Abortion AMA, the first bi-weekly column focused on answering questions about abortion. “But the point is 99.9% of the readers would not know she applauds, advocates, and advances the cause of the destruction of 900,000 unborn babies a year (more, as we shall see).

Campoamor criticizes Republican pro-lifers for a host of imaginary shortcomings, including public policies that Democrats promote and Republicans either oppose or, more often, suggest different variations. But her basic argument, drawn from the work of the omnipresent Dr. Daniel Grossman, is that there are not the kind of shortages (current or predictable) of essential medical equipment (“personal protective equipment”) and resources (such as hospital beds) that would justify Republican governors categorizing elective abortion as a non-essential medical service.

But, as is the case with kindred pro-abortion articles, Campoamor is using the COVID-19 pandemic to advance her own causes (beyond complaining about pro-life laws that long preceded the current medical crisis).

For example, pro-abortionists see a golden opportunity to persuade the FDA to relax laws on medication (chemical) abortions, which have already been loosened. As the New York Times editorialized, “Given the coronavirus pandemic, it is incumbent on the F.D.A. to relax its regulation on mifepristone, at least temporarily. Doing so would allow many women to get a prescription for abortion-inducing drugs from a doctor via telemedicine, at which point the medications could be mailed to the patient.”

Like her cohorts, Campoamor wants abortions federally funded, which is why the Hyde Amendment is  such a key target. The Hyde Amendment (a) bans federal funding of almost all elective abortions; (b) has saved over 2 million lives; and (c) reminds us that 300,000 abortions (and rising) were funded prior to the Supreme Court upholding the law in 1980.

Campoamor is quite correct—treating elective abortions as non-essential has “prompted a slew of legal battles.” What else is new? Also, not new is that pro-abortion groups in many cases were able to have their challenges heard by their favorite (and I do mean favorite) judges.

So, just for the record, next time you hear the nonsense that pro-lifers are “exploiting” a medical emergency or “oppressing women,” just remember this is coming from the usual suspects.  Same tune, different song.

As we wrote last week, “pro-lifers have—and will continue—not only to make

unassailable case that elective abortions are not “essential medical services,”  but also fight the assault launched by Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and their enablers in Congress and the states against laws that protect both mothers and unborn babies.”

Categories: pro-abortion