Pro-Life Reform Efforts . . . Make Abortion Backers Squirm Like Unborn Baby Headed Into Abortuary
By DEXTER DUGGAN
Imagine that you went to a rally of new-car salespeople urging themselves on to market their merchandise. You stood nearby and held up your irrelevant poster of a 50-year-old junker labeled “Our latest model.” The poster was so pointless that no salesperson paid any attention, and you drifted away.
Now imagine that your placard showed as nifty a model as anything they had in stock, but yours was labeled, “$12,000 lower-priced if you come to my showroom.” Now you’re threatening their business, and they couldn’t block your message fast enough.
The conservative PJ Media website (pjmedia.com) posted a video longer than an hour on May 21 showing courageous pro-life “Activist Mommy” Elizabeth Johnston (see her on Facebook) taking a factual poster of a dismembered baby’s body to a pro-abortion rally.
The abortion fans, needless to say, went creepy crazy at seeing the reality of what they cheered. Boosting abortion is their big biz.
They quickly rushed to hide Johnston’s poster behind a forest of their own placards including mandatory vasectomy and not regretting abortion. As usual, they believed that the competition of ideas means silencing the other side. They loudly chastised her, “Abortion is health care! Abortion is medical care! Abortion is normal!”
These days we hear that state legislatures are passing pro-life measures in hopes that the legal question of their acceptability will reach the U.S. Supreme Court and allow it to reconsider its baseless 1973 monstrosities Roe and Doe.
Any way that the court can be persuaded to back away from its deadly, illogical, and unconstitutional caprice of 46 years ago is welcome. But expect a pro-abortion media hurricane at a level of such fury, hatred, and deceit as never seen before in order to try to protect their most holy sacrament of infant slaughter.
In 2012, when Obamacare was up for review by the High Court, dominant media launched a sustained propaganda campaign upon the justices, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, to push them into upholding this unconstitutional leftist imposition. That worked, and Roberts engaged in word-twisting to create a narrow majority with court liberals, saving Obamacare for the moment.
The Activist Mommy Johnston had to urge some unenthusiastic police officers to do their job in order to keep her from being swept away by the pro-abortionists. Their hands on her sign would have been followed by their ripping it to shreds without the police there.
But who will protect the so-called conservative majority on the High Court now from being rhetorically stomped to pieces if they don’t obey dominant media who’ve never loved an abomination as much as they love endless massive abortion?
Someone — I don’t recall who — probably nailed it by saying the left-wing New York Democrats in their legislature were so delirious with delight last January at expanding permissive abortion still further because they saw this as a strong slap against the conservatives they detest. The babies pay the fatal price for the leftists’ political gratification.
Fox News contributor Larry Taunton reached the same conclusion when he noted the fierce reaction by pro-aborter elitists against states’ new laws restricting abortion.
Taunton wrote, “I remind you that these are people who posture as holding the moral high ground. Do they give even a moment’s thought to what abortion really is? Other than (entertainer Jim) Carrey, who clearly has and doesn’t care, the answer seems to be no….
“Implicit in each of these attacks is the left’s abject hatred for their pro-life opponents and the demographic and states they represent — ‘flyover country’,” Taunton wrote. “And let’s be clear: it is hatred, delivered with a breathtaking venom. It is not civil disagreement that is prepared to give way to the lawful political process. . . .
“It is about taking the sanctity of life — the centerpiece of an American conservatism which has at its core Christianity — and rubbing it in the faces of people they hate,” he wrote.
There’s always the possibility for their conversion from the misery so evident in their antics, and our need to pray and act for that to occur. These are grim times indeed as decades of moral decline imposed from the top — and too much passively accepted by those below — inflict their results.
It’s disappointing to see how quickly some top Republicans, including President Trump, flinched under media pressure. With legislatures having acted, it was time to let the appeals process more forward.
But rather than stand behind courageous legislators who reflected their constituents’ wishes and needed public support against a raving media, some GOP leaders voiced their disagreement with the new laws. This was hardly the way to strengthen some potentially weak spines at the Supreme Court.
Dominant media that had put no pressure on leading Democrats by asking whether they supported the pro-abortion radicalism surging in their party became very inquisitive about where GOP figures stood on pro-life reform efforts.
Devising proposals for “rape and incest” exceptions for abortion began in the late 1950s as a wedge to move the issue away from strict medical indications to ones of social considerations, with eugenics and racism as motivations instead of only saving the mother’s life. The American Law Institute (ALI) championed this loosening.
With some Southern states tightening abortion laws now, it’s worth recalling that some in their region had been among the first to legalize it for rape.
Of course pro-abortion media helped abort the truth these days, even spreading declarations that pregnant women would be jailed for having abortions. In response, the Daily Wire conservative site posted a column by commentator Erick Erickson on May 18 that observed:
“Those who think the media should have some level of honesty in how they report these issues are going to again be disappointed. The supposed champions of truth in the press have embraced a party line that is wholly dishonest.”
Abortion, Erickson said, “is taking a human life at its most vulnerable stage of development. Working to make adoption easier and less expensive is also necessary. Providing support and safety for pregnant women is also necessary. The pro-life cause has science on its side. It also needs to make sure pregnant moms know the pro-life movement is on their side.”
The Washington Examiner posted a column May 21 by national conservative writer Quin Hillyer noting how carefully taxpayer-funded National Public Radio was urging its workers to slant their wording in favor of abortion.
Said Hillyer: “Every single word-usage option is resolved in favor of language preferred by those who support liberal, widespread access to legalized abortion, against those who would further restrict the practice. Throughout the notice, the tone drips with contempt for pro-lifers.”
Hillyer went on to quote NPR fantastically insisting that abortion doesn’t involve babies: “The term ‘unborn’ implies that there is a baby inside a pregnant woman, not a fetus. Babies are not babies until they are born. They’re fetuses. Incorrectly calling a fetus a ‘baby’ or ‘the unborn’ is part of the strategy used by anti-abortion groups to shift language/legality/public opinion.”
Using language to shift public opinion about abortion? Having done that for half a century in the service of abortionists, dominant media seem jealous that anyone else would want to get in on the action.
Noting that plainspoken journalism would never refer to gallbladder surgery as “laparoscopic cholecystectomy,” Hillyer wrote: “It is only when speaking of abortion, when plain English lays bare the reality of the procedure, that opaque technical medical terms are suddenly preferable.”
The Wanderer asked conservative GOP political consultant Constantin Querard about prospects for law reform through the Supreme Court. Querard replied:
“There is what is morally best and what is politically feasible, and this is a case where they are running into conflict with each other. We likely have a solid pro-life majority on the Supreme Court, but I doubt there are five votes for simply repealing Roe outright. It would be the morally best thing to do, but for a large portion of the country, what are essentially life sentences for doctors who perform a single abortion will be viewed as too harsh.
“For a large portion of the country, not allowing exceptions for rape/incest will be viewed as going too far,” Querard said. “I do not imagine the Alabama law will ever reach the Supreme Court, as much as its sponsors wrote it for expressly that purpose. Rather, it will be struck down by the lower courts as required by Roe, then the Supreme Court will simply not take it on appeal.
“Where you are likely to see progress in more incremental fashion (which is clearly favored by at least Roberts and possibly Kavanaugh — we don’t have enough track record for him to know) are laws like heartbeat bills, which will be challenged and could be upheld,” he said.
“That would leave Roe in place but block abortions after somewhere in the 5-to-8 week range, which would substantially reduce the number of abortions.
“You may see court victories for informed consent, waiting periods, and more. There are three solid votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, but I’m not sure if there are more than that at this point. Still, a large shift towards the pro-life culture might finally be reflected in our laws if we can get those other victories to start,” Querard said.
The Final Word
Northern California conservative commentator Barbara Simpson, a veteran Golden State news reporter, told The Wanderer that media coverage has been “hysterical.”
“The media are in a whirl over the new anti-abortion/pro-life law in Alabama. They don’t know how to handle it,” she said. “Imagine — an anti-abortion law proposed by men and signed by a woman governor! To the media, it’s not just an anti-abortion law, it’s about the most strict such law in the country, and media are determined to badmouth it until it wends its way to the Supreme Court and can be determined unconstitutional.
“Their hysterical coverage of the issue is determined to have all such laws declared unconstitutional, and they want Roe v. Wade declared the final word on the issue,” Simpson said. “In their view and of the liberals on their side politically, the United States must protect ‘women’s rights,’ and to them that means the right to kill their babies or have them killed on demand.
“Their efforts say that what is growing in a pregnant woman is not a baby but part of her body, and she has the right to dispose of it,” she said.
“The extreme media opposition to the law might just come back to smack them — even at the Supreme Court level. There may be a majority of men on that bench, but I don’t believe they’re that stupid,” Simpson said.