“The GOP’s Abortion Problem is Only Getting Worse,” so said the headline of a story by Alex Shephard that The New Republic posted on April 6.
“The party has been losing elections ever since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade — and there’s no end in sight,” said the subhead.
“Republicans’ longtime opposition to abortion is coming back to haunt them.” That was the headline for Eugene Robinson’s column that The Washington Post published on April 10. “Be careful what you wish for,” Robinson said. “Republican zealots spent decades trying to erase the constitutional right to abortion. Last year, they finally succeeded — and now they are reaping the whirlwind.”
“The Abortion Ban Backlash Is Starting to Freak Out Republicans,” said the headline for an April 7 column in The New York Times written by Michelle Goldberg.
Pro-abortion liberals have adopted a party-line position on the political ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — which overturned Roe v. Wade and sent the issue of abortion back to the states. They argue that advocating for abortion on demand is a winning issue for liberal politicians, while defending the right to life of an unborn child is a losing issue for conservatives.
Time will prove them wrong just as it proved them wrong on Roe.
Why?
Imagine you are in a third-grade classroom — even in one of the worst public schools in California. The teacher, who earns a salary of $90,000 (the average teacher’s salary in that state), tells her students: “The grass growing in front of this school is red.”
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
A student raises her hand. The teacher calls on her.
“Teacher,” she says, “I just walked past it on the way into this class and the grass was green.”
“No,” says the teacher, “it was red.”
The second-grader replies: ‘No, it was green.”
Other students nod their heads. They agree with their classmate, not their teacher. They know the grass is green.
Now, this may seem like a particularly far-fetched hypothetical — almost as far-fetched as, say, declaring in a public school that a biological boy is a girl.
But it is even more far-fetched to declare that an unborn child is not a human being and that a parent, therefore, has a right to deliberately kill that unborn child.
In the long run, lies will lose in a democratic society when they are forced to compete with the truth.
The only way lies can win is if those who hold some form of power over the people threaten them with retaliation for standing by the truth — and the people cower.
That can happen in a classroom when a teacher tries to instill her students with a lie and can give them a bad grade if they do not adopt that lie — or if they do not at least pay obeisance to it in the context of the classroom and the tests that teacher administers.
In the broader society, we call it political correctness: Some people decide to accept a position that is demonstrably wrong because the people who have some form of power over them want them to take that position.
As the headlines cited above demonstrate, the politically correct position in the liberal media is to advocate for the legalized killing of unborn children.
But, ultimately, political correctness cannot advance a policy based on lies if the other side declares the demonstrable truth with unwavering commitment. This is what happened in the debate over Roe: Just as the grass in front of the school is not red, there is no constitutional right to kill an unborn child. Because pro-lifers never backed away from advocating that truth, they eventually won.
Now the truth can win on the state level in the fight to prohibit abortion: If those working to protect the right to life do not back down, they will win just as they won in the struggle to reverse Roe.
We can see the underlying current in this debate even in some of the rhetoric the Biden administration uses to discuss the deliberate killing of an unborn child.
Sometimes, they will use the word “abortion” in their official declarations. But they frequently use the euphemism “reproductive rights” instead.
In the month of April, the White House has posted three sets of remarks and one statement made by Vice President Kamala Harris that carry headlines that use the euphemisms “reproductive rights” or “reproductive healthcare” to describe abortion.
On April 6, the White House posted an item with this headline: “Statement by Vice President Kamala Harris on Americans’ Continued Rebuke of Attacks on Reproductive Rights.”
On April 13, it posted an item with this headline: “Remarks by Vice President Harris at the Interagency Task Force on Reproductive Healthcare Access.”
On April 16, it posted an item with this headline: “Remarks by Vice President Harris at a March for Reproductive Rights.”
On April 19, it posted yet another item with this headline: “Remarks by Vice President Harris in a Moderated Conversation on Reproductive Rights.”
Even the Biden White House understands that if it was candid about what it is advocating — the deliberate killing of an unborn child — it would inevitably lose.
And if those seeking to stop the deliberate killing of unborn children keep speaking the truth, they will ultimately win.
LifeNews Note: Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSnews.com.
