PRO-LIFE WORKERS IN THE VINEYARD

As they have been so often in the 28 years since Roe v. Wade, abortion rights supporters are once again on the defensive. Says Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women [a project of the pro-abortion Women's Law Center], "There's no radical left anymore screaming, 'Free abortions on demand!'" The anti-abortion right scored its first public-opinion grab in 1995, with the bold war over so-called " partial-birth abortion."

Sharon Lerner ("A New Kind of Abortion War"), The Village Voice (12/26/2001)

[CGE] received support from more than 600 individuals, 12 major corporations and 29 foundations.

From a fundraising brochure of the Center for Gender Equality,
headed by Faye Wattleton, ex-president of Planned Parenthood

[Presidential advisor] Karl Rove says Bush lost popular majority in 2000 presidential race because as many as 4 million conservative Christians didn't vote.

Item in "For the Record," National Review (12/31/2001)

The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into the vineyard. Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and said to them, "You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just." So they went off. He went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise. Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, "Why do you stand here idle all day?" They answered, "Because no one has hired us." He said to them, "You too go into my vineyard."

Mt 20: 1-7

It is now 29 years since an arrogant and overreaching Supreme Court handed the pro-abortionists a victory with Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton--an unearned victory, through the constitutional back door, so to speak. This, of course, was more than ill- intentioned judicial referees throwing a legal game: It was a frontal assault on life itself.

From the point of view of the pro-abortionists, the only thing missing in 1973 was the "mainstreaming" of abortion on demand as part of routine, mandated health care. It wasn't until the Clinton presidency that pro-abortionists thought they were going to succeed on that point with Hillary Clinton's infamous health care plan. The attempt to "mainstream" abortion on demand ("no questions asked," as columnist David Gergen put it) and ration lifesaving health care gave pro-lifers a strong reason to help defeat the plan.

The frustrating paradox for the pro-abortionists is this: Since Roe v. Wade they have slowly won over the leadership of the Democratic Party and seen the election of the nation's first abortion president, Bill Clinton. Yet, as Sharon Lerner laments in the above-quoted Village Voice article, they are on the defensive, and "there's no radical left anymore screaming, 'Free abortions on demand.'"

The plain fact, of course, is that the vast majority of the people never demanded "free abortion on demand" in the first place. In the abortion debate, it is the pro-lifers who have deep grassroots support. (Moreover, in the partial-birth abortion debate pro-lifers had, as usual, the truth on their side--which Sharon Lerner still does not admit.)

My point here is that support for the extreme free-abortion-on- demand position is limited to a small minority. Look at the quote from the mass-mailed fundraising brochure for the Center for Gender Equality, run by Faye Wattleton, ex-president of Planned Parenthood. Her center received "support from more than 600 individuals." This is no grassroots organization.

For pro-lifers, the worrisome part is that what pro-abortion organizations lack in grassroots support they can often compensate for in financial support. Support from "12 major corporations and 29 foundations" to this organization alone is just an example of millions of dollars flowing into the coffers of the pro-abortionists. In the 2000 election, pro-abortionists outspent the National Right to Life PAC many times over. Had it not been for the hard work of grassroots pro-life workers throughout the country, the election outcome could have been disastrous for us.

Yet even that intense effort was incomplete--"as many as 4 million conservative Christians didn't vote," according to the third quote above. They were "idle" even at a late hour when there was work to be done in the vineyard, "because no one has hired us." (I do not mean to be presumptuous and equate the work to be done in the vineyard of the kingdom of heaven with pro-life work. But I do believe that thoughtful and proper pro-life work is in the service of the kingdom of heaven.)

We all know that the parable of the vineyard ends with all workers getting the same wage, regardless of how long they had labored. Theologically, of course, that is the important point, and it applies to pro-life work, too. We better not be in this struggle for personal glory; our reward will be same for all: securing the right to life for all members of the human family.

In this context, however, I want to draw your attention to other aspects of the parable. Even late in the day--29 years after Roe v. Wade--millions of pro-lifers are "idle" and need to be asked to work in the vineyard. The landowner does not declare those who have been "idle all day" unsuitable for work. He is not demanding that they be saints first before he lets them work in the vineyard. He only asks them to get to work. And he is not criticizing their work over this or that detail once they are in the vineyard.

Likewise, if we demand that people be perfect pro-lifers before they can work in our chapters or before we vote for them in an election, we shall have very few people in the pro-life vineyard. By all means, let our work be productive and strategically sound, but first we must get many more willing workers into our chapters. That's what being a grassroots organization demands.