Washington Post Insists: To Be Pro-Life You Must Ban Guns

Opinion   |   Raimundo Rojas   |   Jan 21, 2013   |   11:31AM   |   Washington, DC

“There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous.”  Napoleon Bonaparte

In a week that has seen liberals in general and pro-abortionists, and anti-gun zealots in particular try to change the language of their respective debates to better suit their fantastical arguments, The Washington Post has attempted to link the pro-life movement to anti 2nd Amendment fanaticism. The Post took that Napoleonic step from sublime to ridiculous at about the same time as the prop-children used by President Obama for his Maoesque self-aggrandizing anti-gun posturing kabuki theater were being jettisoned off of his stage on Wednesday.

Post op-ed contributor Robert P. Jones writes:

“The idea of gun control as a “pro-life” issue is a more natural one for Catholics thanks to a history of extending the concept’s reach from abortion to a variety of issues, such as the death penalty, euthanasia, economic policies that threaten the livelihood of the poor, and gun violence.”

A newspaper whose editorial board has spent the last forty years maligning the pro-life movement and has never used the term “pro-life” in anything but a pejorative light, is now trying to turn the tables on people of faith by intimating that in order to be a good pro-lifer you must turn away from the Constitution.

They lack the basic understanding that for 40 years the pro-life movement has been trying to right a Constitutional wrong.  There is no right to abortion guaranteed in the Constitution and we know it – the pro-aborts know it too and it’s why they collectively sweat every challenge to Roe v Wade – it’s that weak a decision.   And yet proponents of abortion over at the Post would like us to embrace yet another belief (gun control) that is equally unconstitutional – ridiculous.

This needling from the Post isn’t that surprising when it’s seen through the prism of the decrees coming out from the gals over at Planned Parenthood.  Seems the disciples of the racist Margaret Sanger have decided that calling themselves “pro-choice” is, at long last, both outdated and confusing.

As the unapologetically pro-abortion mavens over at Jezebel reported last week:

“[A]fter exhaustive research, Planned Parenthood is abandoning the limiting and confusing terms ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice.’”

Have they no decency?  They’re abandoning the term “pro-life?”  Seriously? When have they ever used it? For decades the best Planned Parenthood has been able to call us is “anti-choice,” (whatever the hell that means) because “pro-life” was too confusing for the poor dears.  The gall.

They see that support for their abortion-without-limits policy is waning and they’re scrambling to re-market and rebrand.  But I don’t think it much matters what label a social movement that advocates for the insertion of a double-edged, razor-sharp curette into a woman’s womb in order to dismember her child before suctioning it out in pieces gives it self – they’re going to have great difficulties in selling something so barbaric as charitable..

And God knows they try.

To think of all the transmogrifications NARAL Pro-Choice America (yes that’s actually what they call themselves now) has put itself through over the years to better market what they sell is exhausting.

In the late 60s, at about the same time that the largest pro-life organization in the country was being founded (National Right to Life), NARAL stood for the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws.

After 1973 they changed the meaning of their acronym to National Abortion Rights Action League (National Right to Life maintained their name.) Then in 2003 they dropped the long-form altogether and became NARAL Pro-Choice America (National Right to Life was still called National Right to Life.)  Now it seems Pro-Choice is confusing to the poor dears and they may change their name yet again – what to is anyone’s guess, but I can bet that National Right to Life will still be called, well, you know.

The cultural elites should really take a lesson from one of their pop icons – Judge Judy who once (and quite famously) scolded a defendant in her courtroom who was peaking idiocy by saying, “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.



Pro-aborts failing to see that abortion is a bloody, nasty, life-ending, life-altering mess that can’t possibly be made palpable no matter the packaging, and the Washington Post espousing that being pro-life may now be a good thing if it includes a zeal for banning guns may not feel like someone peeing on my leg, but it most definitely seems like the sublime stepping into the utterly ridiculous.

LifeNews.com Note: Raimundo Rojas is the director of Hispanic outreach for the National Right to Life Committee. He is a former president of Florida Right to Life and has presented the pro-life message to millions in Spanish-language media outlets. He represents NRLC at the United Nations as an NGO. Rojas was born in Santiago de las Vegas, Havana, Cuba and he and his family escaped to the United States in 1968.