Back on January 4, we wrote about the beginning of what the New York Times promised to be an eight-part series which would culminate January 20. It provided to be as robust a defense of abortion on demand as you could imagine. Why bother? “Abortion rights” are in perilous straits, that’s why.
What irony. This is the same New York Times which editorialized two days following the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that it was time for “anti-abortionists” to douse the campfire and pull up stakes. On January 24, 1973, the Times synopsized its smug take in the first three sentences:
“The Supreme Court has made a major contribution to the preservation of individual liberties and of free decision-making by its invalidation of state laws inhibiting a woman’s right to obtain an abortion in its first three months of pregnancy.
“The Courts seven-to-two ruling could bring to an end the emotional and divisive public argument over what always should have been an intensely private and personal matter. It will end the argument if those who are now inveighing against the decision as a threat to civilization’s survival will pause long enough to recognize the limits of what the Court has done.”
“End the argument,” mind you.
And as part of its self-assigned role as cultural arbiter, the Times announced that it was time to “bring to an end the emotional and divisive public argument over what always should have been an intensely private and personal matter.” Indeed, the editorial came full circle in its final paragraph:
“The Court’s verdict on abortion provides a sound foundation for final and reasonable resolution of a debate that has divided America too long.”
No doubt there was much of the wish- being-father-to-the-thought in the Times’ imperious pronouncement. But that sounds almost sounds quaint now, especially in light of the most recent series which ended with an editorial headlined, “Roe v. Wade Is at Risk. Here’s How to Prepare.”
Anything noteworthy for us? One obvious piece of advice from the editorial writers is to pass legislation in states where they have strong support to “protect Roe,” by, for example, passing legislation and/or an amendment to the state constitution. Par for the course, this is breathtakingly dishonest. New York is a prime example where the so-called “Reproductive Health Act” (RHA) goes far beyond what even Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton made possible. What else?
“The anti-abortion movement has also spent those decades building a vast fund-raising and organizing network, with the goals of securing an anti-abortion voting bloc and getting more like-minded judges, at every level, and lawmakers — and presidents — into power,” the Times intones. Of course, our Movement has a tiny fraction of the resources available to the pro-abortion Movement, which also enjoys the support of virtually all the Media Establishment, academia, and the philanthropic community. Not to mention hundreds of millions of federal and state funding which powers the Planned Parenthood killing machine.
But the Times is correct that our Movement, led by National Right to Life, has built up a vast “organizing network.” And, to be sure, our supporters do vote single-issue. This is why pro-abortion publication such as the Times and the Washington Post ceaselessly promote organizations which may include abortion as an issue but only as one of a package of issues and certainly not as the issue upon which to base one’s vote.
One other thing. In states where pro-abortionists are vastly outnumbered, the Times counsels introducing legislation anyway. “There can be a fine line between gimmicks and strategy,” they concede. “But abortion rights supporters have spent too long on the defensive, while anti-abortion forces have put substantial pressure on all three branches of government. It isn’t too late to wipe outdated laws off the books and make the procedure more accessible to low-income women and more available to everyone. And it is certainly high time to make abortion rights a voting issue in elections.”
We disagree that the citizenry should pay for elective abortions. In that we are with a large majority of Americans and the Supreme Court. Laws are not “outdated” because they were passed many years ago. In fact, they may well reflect a more humane and sensible understanding of the relationship between mother and unborn child than, say, the RHA.
We would, however, agree that it is “high time” for more Americans to make their vote dependent on whether a legislator is pro-or anti-life.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in his National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.