|
NRL News
Pro-Abortionists Struggle to “Regain the Moral High Ground” Most often—I mean like 99% of the time—when you know the source of the abortion commentary you could almost write it yourself. Take the New York Times editorial page—on most issues shrill and sophomoric anyway—which goes off the deep end when the topic is abortion. What could be more predictable than its by-the-numbers editorial take on the 8% reduction in the number of abortions: it’s all about “prevention.” Equally unsurprising, the Times hammered NRLC in a January 22 editorial, writing, “Abortion opponents like the National Right to Life Committee seized upon the numbers as vindication for their strategy of demonizing abortion and making it harder for women to obtain one.” Since they didn’t actually call us devil worshippers, this was quite mild by the Times’s rip-their-throats-out standard. Likewise, who wouldn’t be able to compose right down to the last slur anything written by Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, and Kate Michelman, the former president of NARAL? “Anti-choicers” are stuck in the 13th century while “pro-choicers” represent the cutting edge of societal progress. Except that it is not what they wrote in a January 26 op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. As I’ve mentioned to any number of people, “Abortion’s battle of messages: It’s not 1973. Pro-choice forces must adjust to regain the moral high ground” is one of the most remarkable opinion pieces from the other side I’ve ever read. To be sure the opening paragraphs are the usual drivel whining about all the “restrictions” and the unwillingness of the government (which is reflecting popular opinion) to directly subsidize the slaughter of the unborn. And as they turn the corner on their op-ed, their courage fails them. They smuggle in, almost as an aside, their real explanation for the Abortion Establishment’s decline which is not any of the substantive factors they’ve cited. The real reason, we read, is that “Disapproval of women’s sexuality is a historical constant.” And in the very end, they hide their embrace of more-of-the-same in the garb of supposedly acknowledging the need for “a serious reassessment.” But in between the silly beginning and less-than-honest conclusion, there are blunt admissions conceding that pro-lifers are leaps and bounds ahead of their pro-abortion opponents. Kissling and Michelman correctly point out that their heyday was when, for a season, they were able to shift the conversation to a discussion of “Who Decides?” rather than what is decided. “Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé” is a bit of a stretch on their part, just as “Now it is a respectable point of view” minimizes the growing willingness of the American public to rethink its attitude. So what happened, according to these Abortion Establishment icons? “Did the pro-choice movement fail? Or did those opposed to abortion simply respond more effectively to the changing science as well as the social shift from the rights rage of the ’60s to the responsibility culture of the ’90s?” We certainly agree that the impact of ultrasounds and of more and more premature babies surviving earlier and earlier represented a frontal assault on the flimsy rhetorical cover of “Who Decides?” But to their credit Kissling and Michelman understand something that few of their comrades grasp, a development that both incorporates and goes beyond the increased visibility of the littlest Americans: “These trends gave antiabortionists an advantage, and they made the best of it. Now, we rarely hear them talk about murdering babies. Instead, they present a sophisticated philosophical and political challenge. Caring societies, they say, seek to expand inclusion into ‘the human community.’ Those once excluded, such as women and minorities, are now equal. Why not welcome the fetus (who, after all, is us) into our community?” Why not, indeed? The communitarian challenge—we are all in this together—is extremely difficult for the Abortion Lobby to parry. (As Kissling and Michelman observe, pro-choicers have plenty of sympathy for whales, but not for unborn babies.) They do not give Pope John Paul the kind of credit he deserves for the late Pontiff’s emphasis on the “culture of life.” But at least they understand that “President Bush adopted it, and the slogan, as much as it pains us to admit it, moved some hearts and minds.” They add, unnecessarily, “Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package.” But their conclusion, which at first blush combines a candid appraisal of their dilemma with the fuzzy rhetoric that Sen. Obama so adeptly employs when he is asked about abortion, circles back on itself. “If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground, genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement,” they tell us. “It is inadequate to try to message our way out of this problem. Our vigorous defense of the right to choose needs to be accompanied by greater openness regarding the real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility. It is time for a serious reassessment of how to think about abortion in a world that is radically changed from 1973.” But what does that mean? It means that if pro-abortionists furrow their brows, pledge to recognize that there is “complexity” to the abortion decision that will be enough of a concession to allow them to weather the gathering storm. How truly and typically pro-abortion. Far from not trying to “message” their way out of the corner into which their beliefs have painted them, this is just their latest update. Message: “we understand (and pretty please don’t bring up what we used to say or what we actually mean now).” It combines Obama’s soaring flight of rhetorical fancy with the Clintons’ more mundane patent insincerity. Kissling and Michelman should be given one thumb up for admitting that the Abortion Establishment has been lapped by a resurgent Pro-Life Movement. But their feigned willingness to take a second look deserves a vigorous thumbs down. |