Stirring a New Generation of Pro-Life Activists -- Part One of Two
 
Editor's note. I'd love to hear your thoughts at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

I am embarrassed to say that not until I heard President Bush's deeply moving remarks to the March for Life did it dawn on me that this would be the last time Mr. Bush would address this annual throng from the White House. As I write these remarks, the speech has not yet been posted on the White House webpage, so I will hold off reprinting the President's gracious words of encouragement to the gigantic crowd until tomorrow.

Let me just say this before moving on to talk about the amazing turnout today in Washington, D.C. commemorating the 35th anniversary of the ghastly Roe v. Wade decision. There was something in Mr. Bush's tone and delivery that was signaling his genuine solidarity with the crowd and his gratitude for their support these past seven years.

He has been a tower of strength since replacing Clinton One, but it would have been for naught had not you reminded your elected officials of the urgency to protect unborn babies and the medically dependent.

The forecast was for temperatures not much above freezing and at least some rain after noon. But it was actually unseasonably warm today with only a tiny bit of  precipitation.

I always wander around the crowd, looking for good photo opportunities and to try to get a sense of the mood. Again, oblivious as ever, it wasn't until I had circled the massive, celebratory crowd several times over the course of two hours that I began to get a feel of the size of the attendance.

For the last few years the March for Life has no longer begun at the Ellipse near the White House. The starting point is much closer to the Supreme Court, the end point for the March and rally.

For this and other logistical reasons, people are simply everywhere. I ran into a member of the NRLC board who observed that you could be blocks away from the gathering point and encounter a group of anywhere from 15 to 200 pro-lifers.

Estimating crowds has become such a political hot potato that no official authority will hazard a guess. I can just tell you that the March went on and on and on. Attendance was enormous.

A number of years ago when I first started writing about the overwhelming number of young people, some people, for the best of motives, suggested I was either slightly exaggerating or placing too much emphasis on something that might be cyclical.

But there are no ups and downs when it comes to the mark made on the March (and everything else) by high school and college-age students. It seems as if their numbers grow each and every year.

It is no accident that the Los Angeles Times ran a fascinating piece this morning about the next generation. Under the less-than-stirring headline, "Antiabortion cause stirs new generation," the Times offered a thoughtful overview of the growing importance of the "new generation."

It was not just, as NRLC's Derrick Jones told the Times, "You look at pictures of marches [over the years] and the crowds just keep getting younger and younger and younger."  That is quite true. But the story goes on to cite examples of how younger pro-lifers are active in educating not only their peers but also the larger public and in bringing suits when their free speech rights are infringed.

Proving yet again that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, our benighted opposition has belatedly tried to replenish their aging ranks. "Abortion-rights supporters are also reaching beyond the old guard of leaders," the Times writes this morning, "which veteran activist Nancy Keenan refers to as 'the menopausal militia.'"

They say they understand that they blew it. At one level their comments appear to be sincere.

"In a speech last week, Keenan, president of NARAL, acknowledged as much," the story continues. "'Our reluctance to address the moral complexity of this debate is no longer serving our cause -- or our country -- well,' she said."

But a little further in the story you see they've learned nothing except to try (as they habitually do) to hide abortion advocacy in some other issue that doesn't generate the same backlash. Same-old, same-old. Mouth words about "moral complexity" and then change the subject.

In Part Two you'll find the inspirational remarks of pro-life champion Cong. Chris Smith (R-NJ). He reminds us of the comments made Sunday by pro-abortion Senator Barack Obama (D-Il.). Obama, Smith said, "criticized Americans for both our moral deficit and empathy deficit and called on us to be our brothers' and sisters' keepers."

Smith asked, "Can Senator Obama not see, appreciate, or understand that the abortion culture that he and others so assiduously promote lacks all empathy for unborn children--be they Black, White, Latino or Asian--and is at best, profoundly misguided when it comes to mothers?

Smith then offered this powerful indictment: "Why does dismembering a child with sharp knives, pulverizing a child with powerful suction devices or chemically poisoning a baby with any number of toxic chemicals, fail to elicit so much as a scintilla of empathy, moral outrage, mercy or compassion by America's liberal elite?"

We will have complete coverage of the March in the February issue of National Right to Life News. If you are not a subscriber, call us today at 202-626-8828, and we will have you on our mailing list by tomorrow morning.

Thank you for all you are doing for the littlest Americans.

Please send your comments to Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.