NRL News

Deconstructing another pro-abortion media attack

by | Feb 11, 2021

By Laura Echevarria, Director of Communications and Press Secretary 

Editor’s note. This appeared in the February edition of National Right to Life News. Please share with all your pro-life family and friends. Also send any comments to

In a piece published in the January 31st Los Angeles Times Sunday edition, columnist Robin Abcarian proved that neither she, nor the establishment media, has any understanding of the pro-life movement—or shows any interest in a fair representation.  

Writing under the headline, “Why we might soon see a surge in antiabortion violence,” Abcarian pronounced that the Biden-Harris Administration’s pro-abortion shift in abortion policy could be met with violence by the pro-life movement, although the implication is such behavior is inevitable.

Unfortunately, this was not the first time we had seen this idea floated in the press in recent days, but it was the first time we had seen it show up in a mainstream publication.

If we were to talk one on one with Ms. Abcarian, what would we say? That the pro-life movement is not a movement of violence and mainstream organizations such as National Right to Life have denounced violence for decades: you don’t meet violence with violence.

If Ms. Abcarian had done any research, she would have discovered that those who have engaged in violence against abortionists and abortion facilities in the past were not part of the mainstream pro-life movement and, in fact, were found to be disturbed individuals.

Undeterred by fact, she warns the reader that she has “always believed” that there is a connection between violence against abortionists and when pro-abortion Democrats win the presidency. To add insult to injury, she quotes a Black pro-abortionist to present the argument that the Hyde Amendment itself—and by extension, the pro-life movement which supports it—is racist. Here’s how it works.

In her column, Ms. Abcarian quoted a press release issued by National Right to Life that praised the Hyde Amendment—which prevents the use of federal funds to pay for almost all abortions—and labels the amendment which has saved over two million lives as “dystopian.”

She could have (but of course wouldn’t) tell us where the public comes down on taxpayer funding of abortion. A Knights of Columbus/Marist poll released on January 27th, found that out of 1,173 respondents, overall 58% “oppose using tax dollars to pay for a woman’s abortion.” Sixty-five percent of Independents opposed public funding as did even 31% of Democrats.

An even larger majority of respondents—77% —oppose “using tax dollars to support abortion in other countries,” including more than six in ten (64%) of those who identify as pro-choice.

Saying that there may be violence or implying pro-lifers are racist is part of what appears to be a new variation on an old public relations campaign by pro-abortion groups. The goal? To undermine the credibility of the pro-life movement.  

The facts, as always, are stubborn and demonstrate how wrong Ms. Abcarian is on both counts.

If she had done any research at all, she would have learned that while Black Americans make up approximately 13.4% of the population (according to the Census Bureau), they comprise approximately one-third of all abortions (according to the CDC’s 2018 numbers). 

Who is it that seeks to prevent the killing of Black babies by abortion? Not Planned Parenthood. It is pro-lifers. 

The abortion industry is led by Planned Parenthood whose founder was enmeshed in eugenic and racist ideologies. In fact, only in this last year, did the New York affiliate of Planned Parenthood finally acknowledge that Margaret Sanger’s name should be removed from their offices because of her background and beliefs.

By contrast, the pro-life movement believes in the right to life—regardless of background, race, gender, orientation, religion, or creed. It is a fundamental human right that transcends cultures and politics. National Right to Life and its millions of supporters also oppose any use of violence as a means of stopping the violence that has killed more than 62 million unborn children since 1973.

Ms. Abcarian has the right to disagree with the pro-life movement’s goals as much as she wants. However, she does not have the right to imply that the movement will use violence to achieve those goals or that our motives are tinged with racism: that’s Planned Parenthood’s history, not ours.

Pro-life Americans are committed to peacefully achieving a world where all innocent human life is respected by our society and protected by our laws.

Categories: Media Bias