Is Challenging What it Means to be Pro-Life a Winning Pro-Abortion Strategy?

Opinion   |   Jill Stanek   |   Jul 23, 2013   |   1:30PM   |   Washington, DC

In the wake of the huge pro-life victory in Texas, Think Progress has posted five ways abortion proponents are “fighting back.”

imageMost were all predictable: Challenge pro-life laws in court, continue protests in Texas and spread them to other states, and register pro-abortion voters.

But one was not: “Challeng[e] ideas about what it means to be ‘pro-life.’” Examples given were to push comprehensive sex ed and promote opposition to the death penalty as a pro-life issue.

Now, I know the other side has been attempting to muddy the lines between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” terminology, in part to explain away the strengthening pro-life polls.

But this as a strategy struck me as playing into pro-life hands. It is the equivalent of our side trying to widen the definition of “pro-choice,” which in theory would seem to me to potentially bring more into the “pro-choice” fold.



But perhaps I’m not getting it? Your thoughts? Note: Jill Stanek fought to stop “live birth abortions” after witnessing one as an RN at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois. That led to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation, signed by President Bush, that would ensure that proper medical care be given to unborn children who survive botched abortion attempts.