|
NRL News
Hardly Irresistible Many of our readers know Cokie Roberts, ABC News pundit and author. Somewhat fewer probably know her husband, Steven Roberts, a journalist, author, and once upon a time a seemingly omnipresent fixture on television news programs. Together they write a syndicated newspaper column. The headline on a recent collaboration was “Nation’s abortion debate finally cooling off.” They used the absence of a specific abortion-related reference in President Bush’s State of the Union address to launch a column, the gist of which is, whew, glad that’s over! As they put it, “The abortion issue has taken up far more time and energy than it deserves.” This is silly, of course, but as the column unfolds, the reader comes to see the agenda their column is actively at work to further. Having read the 2004 electoral tea leaves, the pro-abortion side began trying to offer what it called a “Third Way” (the name of an actual, recently created group) that they believe will prove irresistible to most Americans who are not “purists” on the abortion issue. In truth, “Third Way”—which the Robertses mysteriously describe as “a moderate democratic group”—is an entity created to generate smokescreens for pro-abortion Democratic politicians, staffed by veteran pro-abortion activists from such decidedly One Way groups as Planned Parenthood and the Women’s Law Project. Pro-lifers already know abortion polling data like the back of their hand—know it better than it is presented in the Robertses’ column. They quote from a January CBS News poll and after parsing the numbers conclude, “more than half [of the respondents are] in the gray category.” Yes and no. If you combine categories in that poll you find that nearly half [47%] would either not allow abortion at all [5%] or permit it only to save the mother’s life [12%] or only in cases or rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life [30%]. But there is good reason to believe the real level of opposition is far wider. What do you do with the 16% who said abortion “should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now”? The Robertses’ column is full of statements that are half-truths, quarter-truths, gross distortions, or flat-out falsehoods. Take this whopper. While both parties, the Robertses write, have been “whipsawed by activist pressure groups,” it is Republicans who “have been particularly determined to play to their anti-abortion base.” Both Robertses have worked in Washington, D.C., or New York for decades. They know perfectly well that pro-abortion Democrats have ruled their party with an iron fist. But grasping that there were parts of the country where only a pro-lifer could win, the Democratic leadership backed a handful of candidates in 2006 who told voters they were pro-life, in order to win back control of the House and Senate. But their election will change nothing. Pro-abortionists hold every command post, although the Robertses attempt to prove otherwise by citing the election of Harry Reid (D-Nv.) as Senate Majority Leader. The truth is, while billing himself as “pro-life” when it suits his purposes, Reid has for years used his top Senate Democratic leadership posts to actively obstruct key pro-life legislation. He supported unsuccessful efforts to kill the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and helped lead efforts to block confirmation of many of President Bush’s judicial nominees. He has played a key role in blocking the proposed ban on human cloning. Reid is the consummate behind-the-scenes player who has played a crucial role in hampering or killing pro-life initiatives. Pro-life? Hardly. Near the end of their column, the Robertses switch gears. They warn that “the purists have only receded, not disappeared, and several developments could bring them back to center stage.” (As you knew it would, during the course of the column, the “purists” have been redefined to mean only pro-lifers.) We will leave our caves, they warn, to oppose openly pro-abortion candidates running for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. But how exactly does that make us “purists”? Consider: there are no pro-life candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, so pro-abortionists can cherry-pick to their heart’s delight. If there were pro-life alternatives, and abortion advocates campaigned for pro-abortion candidates who agreed with them, does anyone seriously believe the Robertses would dub them “purists”? But the Robertses come 360 degrees by the end. “But for now, the abortion rhetoric has cooled, on both sides,” they write with satisfaction. “That’s a very welcome change.” Two quick points. #1. We are a couple of months into the new Congress, controlled in both houses by pro-abortionists. It is not “rhetoric” but fights over substance that will heat up when pro-abortionists—contrary to the Robertses’ portrait of them as “problem-solvers”—attempt to overturn protective pro-life policies and, for example, wheedle mandatory coverage of abortion into health insurance company policies. #2. Far from being “silent” [as the Robertses claim], President Bush has already vowed to veto anti-life proposals, including one that would mandate federal funding of the type of stem cell research that requires the killing of human embryos. He remains rock solid. We will hear endlessly how pro-abortionists are seeking “common ground” or “common-sense” legislation. It is a mantra that must be challenged each and every time they—or their apologists in the media—chant it. |