Plenty of Willing Hands
BY Dave Andrusko
It was entirely my fault, but I didn't realize the location of the March for Life had changed until I got to 15th and Constitution and saw a steady stream of marchers heading in the direction of the Washington Mall. By the time I reached 7th and Independence I knew two things.
First, this might well be the largest of the 25 Marches I have been a part of. (That proved to be true.) Second, although the number of high school and college-age young people has been building for a decade, a tipping point of some sort clearly had been reached. Young faces were everywhere, as clear and as visible a testimony to the changing demography of the abortion battle as ever you could ask for.
Since January 22 occurred on a Sunday, the March for Life itself took place January 23. The days leading up to and following the March were rich in symbolism.
As suggested by the change in locales, the March began eight blocks closer to the Supreme Court. I don't know how many people, but it was plenty, whom I overheard say this told us we were closer than ever to the day Roe v. Wade joins Dred Scott and other abominable Supreme Court decisions in the junk bin of history.
Prior to the March, in conjunction with National Teens for Life, NRLC held its first annual National Youth Leadership Summit. (See story, page 24.) Very solid, very serious young men and women listened carefully to what amounted to a three-day teach-in.
And as Holly Smith explains on page 12, on the Saturday before the March American Collegians for Life hosted its 19th annual conference, which drew over 500 college students representing more than 90 colleges. In addition to presenting a workshop, National Right to Life hosted an information table at the conference where we were able to collect hundreds of signatures for our petition drive to end human cloning.
Then, on January 25, NRLC's Dorothy Timbs debated Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the pro-abortion National Women's Law Center, on Diane Rehm's nationally syndicated public radio program. Greenberger's mantra was as old as the hills, while Timbs talked about "my generation" increasingly embracing the pro-life position and the energy she had sensed at the March.
I listened to the debate with a smile. Dorothy cleaned Greenberger's clock. It brought back fond memories of 1982 when my wife, Lisa, a Baby Boomer, went on the Rehm program and calmly took the measure of two pro-abortionists.
Note the symbolism here: 24 years later, the pro-abortion side still turns to the Baby Boomer generation to find a voice. The pro-life side had Timbs, representing Generation Y, those born between 1980 and 1996.
Let me offer two more illustrations of the reasons we look at the future and smile. If you get a chance, go to www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/January06/nv012606Part2.html. It's part two of the "Today's News & Views" for January 26.
Hamilton College polled 1,000 high school seniors and found that the majority "regards abortion as morally wrong and would not concede a woman's legal right to abortion except in extreme circumstances, such as rape or significant threat to the health of the mother."
But for my money by far the most significant result dealt with their response when these adolescents were "[a]sked whether a high school senior who becomes pregnant should keep the baby, give it up for adoption or have an abortion"? The poll revealed that "26 percent suggested the first [keep the baby] and 54 percent the second alternative [adoption]. Only 13 percent proposed abortion."
Why? Probably the best explanation was the simplest: "Many high school students are not strangers to this issue," we're told. "Half the females and 36 percent of the males polled say they know someone who has had an abortion."
And on page 23, you'll find a review of the new book Standup Girl. The book is an extension of the wildly popular web site of the same name which offers practical, non-judgmental advice to pregnant teens looking for help. The book and the review are very, very much worth reading.
In the other editorial that begins on page two, I talk about the dilemma pro-abortion Democrats find themselves in. If I were kinder, I would say that since looking at the truth directly is too painful, they look at the truth indirectly, as if looking at an eclipse.
But that would imply that they at least have a sense of the direction from which the truth is coming. Alas, their self-delusion is so far advanced, they can't separate the mythology they have erected from even the most self-evident truths.
The history buffs among us might recall that in his first inaugural address, President Thomas Jefferson uttered these famous words: "But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists."
Jefferson's motives were sincere. That is not the least bit true of a crop of crafty pro-abortionists who are now insisting we are all "pro-life."
If you would believe these pro-abortionists (who insist that, properly understood, they are "pro-life"), it is like taking different roads to the same destination. They have their own view about which route will work, we embrace a different path. But our "difference of opinion" is not a "difference of principle" and we all have the same end point.
Two quick points and I'll be done. First, there is not a single abortion these "pro-life" pro-abortionists would prohibit. They are adamant that the decision to abort must reside where it lives currently--with the pregnant woman--and only she can decide if there are any conditions under which it would be inappropriate to take the child's life.
Second, it's all bunk. Ever since pro-life President George W. Bush was re-elected, they've laid down various lines of rhetoric, like fishermen trolling for gullible voters. If you are not willing to put an end to the annihilation of more than one-quarter of all unborn babies, you are not a pro-lifer. You can say otherwise until the end of time, but that won't change the truth.
Prior to Roe, the anti-life set told the American people we could navigate uncharted waters without a moral rudder. No big deal, just toss those protective laws overboard and everything will be hunky dory, they breezily assure us.
Well, we now have 33 years of experience and we know every inch of the backwater swamp that is abortion on demand. It is time to drain that swamp, and as I looked out over the tens of thousands of young people assembled in Washington, D.C., I knew we had plenty of willing hands.
Dave Andrusko can be reached at email@example.com.