Even by New York Times’ Standards, a Strange Critique

I welcome your thoughts at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.

“A Featured Spot for Rove Raises at Least One Eyebrow”

Headline for a June 21 New York Times op ed

         Careful as I try to be, a lot of stuff simply gets by me. Here we are on the eve of National Right to Life’s July 3–5 national convention in Crystal City, Virginia, and until yesterday I had missed a June 21 column in the New York Times by a respected writer politely lambasting NRLC for inviting Bush confidante and strategist Karl Rove to be the featured speaker at a general session titled “Renewing Life in America—An Old-Fashioned Political Rally.”

        Peter Steinfels touches so many bases it would take just slightly less than forever to address and refute all of them. So let me cover just a few of them.

        He seems to acknowledge that one party—Republican—has been instrumental in furthering the cause of unborn babies while the other—Democrat—has never met an abortion it would oppose or miss an opportunity to multiply the incidence of what we believe is the most hideous form of child abuse imaginable. But, as the headline suggests, having Mr. Rove address the convention July 4 raises “at least one eyebrow.” Let’s see how he reaches this curious conclusion.

        Steinfels says that pro-lifers see Roe closely resembling the 1857 Dred Scott decision, “a Supreme Court ruling that history has condemned for putting some human lives at the disposal of others.” By contrast “a lot of people” (pro-abortionists) believe (here Steinfels borrows from the language of the Casey decision) that “abortion has facilitated ‘the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation.’”

    His conclusion is that most Americans fall “betwixt and between” these two positions. “It has often been said that the debate over abortion is a struggle to win the hearts and minds of this group,” Steinfels concludes, a group often called the “mushy middle.”

        But “Karl Rove has never been identified with the betwixt and between,” Steinfels writes. “And apparently that is not a problem for the National Right to Life Committee.”

        Hmmm. Let me see if I get this right. We have a convention that will attract roughly a thousand grassroots activists for whom Roe v. Wade is the contemporary equivalent of the Dred Scott decision of 1857. But to invite to speak to attendees a man who has helped President Bush establish a firmer toehold for the culture of life is somehow a puzzler?

        Should we have invited someone who is a “on the one hand this and the other hand that” on abortion to a convention where all hands are on deck to save unborn babies?

        Steinfels reflects the media consensus on public opinion that is extremely misleading.

        Our position is anything but mushy, true. But it is equally true that the middle segment of public opinion is much closer to where we are at than to pro-abortionists in general, and certainly militant extraordinaire Sen. Barack Obama, in particular. As we have detailed a hundred times, a solid majority of Americans oppose the reasons for which 90–93% of all abortions are performed.

        Every so often a truth needs to be recalled. “Reagan Democrats” voted for the Republican Ronald Reagan for many reasons, but near the top was that they shared his opposition to abortion. They might well have remained Democrats if that party were pro-life. I grew up in a household that revered Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Our party left us, not the other way round.

        Just one other point but a very important one. Steinfels uses the last part of his column to disagree with single-issue pro-life voters. For example, in the interview with Steinfels Dr. O’Steen made the hardly controversial point that there will be registered Democrats at the NRL Convention but they won’t be the kind of Democrats who will vote for the most anti-life nominee ever to win the presidential nomination of a major political party. These people have asked themselves whether they are more pro-life or more Democrat and have chosen the former, Dr. O’Steen said.

        Steinfels tells us many Americans who will not be at the NRL Convention are not single-issue voters; they are “weighing in the balance” other issues. So? Saving unborn babies is our priority issue, the issue that overrides all others for us.

        As the column races to its conclusion, Steinfels questions whether either party can rid the nation of the plague of abortion (my words); whether that would be a good thing; and “whether pressing for legal restrictions on abortions is really the most realistic way to reduce their numbers.”

        And I would respond by saying if there is going to be a political party instrumental in helping us out of the ditch of abortion on demand it will be the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party (unless there is a seismic shift in the leadership, which we would welcome with open arms); that, yes, indeed, it will be good thing when it is no longer open season on the littlest Americans; and, yes, you betcha, protective laws have and will continue to reduce the number of dead babies.

        So, if you haven’t already registered for the convention, there is still time. (Go to http://nrlcconvention.blogspot.com.)

        If you can’t make it for all the events, try to come the morning of the 4th of July to hear Mr. Rove speak. A funny, witty, insightful speaker, he will inspire you to take up the battle we will wage over the next four months.

Please send your thoughts and comments to daveandrusko@hotmail.com.