NRL News

Stacey Abrams is the perfect candidate for pro-abortionists. She once opposed abortion and now supports abortion with “the zeal of the converted”

by | Jun 8, 2022

By Dave Andrusko

Stacey Abrams
Photo: Gage Skidmore
(CC BY-SA 2.0)

Pro-abortion Stacey Abrams is best known for her race for governor of Georgia which she narrowly lost to pro-life Brian Kemp in 2018. There will be a rematch come November.

So why does the Washington Post run a story today under the headline “Stacey Abrams, a prominent champion of choice, once opposed abortion”?

The most obvious reason–beyond giving Ms. Abrams a boost–is to demonstrate that once “educated,” Abrams moved past her childish opposition to the killing of unborn children. That, reporter Vanessa Williams tells us, was the product of “Growing up in a religious community in the South.” 

Interestingly enough, the graphic that accompanied the story was when Stacey Abrams visited Ebenezer Missionary Baptist Church in Macon, Ga., in 2018. Why is that included?

To buttress polling data that supposedly showed the Black community’s strong support for abortion—or at least “the necessity of the choice and the right to make that decision.”  Abrams’ position, we are led to believe, is in tune with that of the Black church.

A key juncture in her conversion was a college conversation with a close friend who worked for Planned Parenthood. This “prompted her to reconsider her beliefs,” Williams writes. When she decided to run for political office in 2006, “I wrote myself an essay. I wanted to know what was my belief system and how was I going to answer these questions. … What am I willing to do as someone who is making the laws of the land and the laws that would govern somebody’s body?”

This, we’re told, “was the first time that Abrams articulated to herself that she supported abortion rights — an experience she has since recounted in interviews and in speeches, to convey that she gets why people struggle with the issue.” 

Her conversion journey, according to Williams, is now “unequivocal.”

 “I come to this with the zeal of the converted,” Abrams said. “You cannot take equivocal positions on issues of moral certainty.”

Finally, “For me, the conversion was slow, but it was true and it remained,” Abrams told Williams. “Because fundamentally, the answer is that this is a medical decision and it is a personal decision. And in neither of those two instances should there be any intervention by a politician.”

Need I say that she’s “forgetting someone”? That her “zeal” culminates in the standard Democrat position of abortion-on-demand? That there are many millions of Americans who also “take equivocal positions on issues of moral certainty” and come down on the side of life?

Categories: Politics