NRLC 2010: About as Good
as it Gets
BY Dave Andrusko
Early and often, throughout
the three-day NRLC 2010 convention held in Pittsburgh, I heard some
of the same words and descriptors: “amazing,” “one of the best
ever,” “buzz,” and “where is the convention next year?” [Hint:
Jacksonville, Florida. See page 14.]
What explains what was
clearly one of the best-received conventions in recent memory? For
starters, the location. Pennsylvania is pro-life country.
And then there was the
quality of the general sessions, both in the sense of topics that
people thirsted to learn more about and quality speakers who could
deliver information in a way that the audience could quickly
assimilate, profit from, and be able to share with folks back home.
To name just a few: Dr.
Steve Zelinski on “The Pain of the Unborn”; Steven Mosher on
sex-selection abortions; Dr. Angela Franks on Margaret Sanger’s
eugenic legacy; the 25th anniversary of National Teens for Life; a
riveting account of a much-regretted abortion by Mark and LaRee
Pickup; a crystal-clear explanation of ObamaCare presented by NRLC’s
Douglas Johnson and Burke Balch; a leadership award given to
pro-life House Republican Leader John Boehner; and the immensely
inspirational Monsignor James Lisante, whose speech closed the
convention at the Saturday night banquet.
There were several
narratives running throughout our time together.
First and foremost, in spite
of Barack Obama and the pro-abortion Democratic majorities in both
houses of Congress, there is real reason for optimism. NRLC
Executive Director David N. O’Steen, Ph.D., used a portion of the
Saturday morning general session to make three points:
1. “Today in America, the
normal is to be pro-life. More people identify as pro-life than
pro-choice,” he said.
2. 61% of the public does
not want government health care providing any funding for abortion.
3. “To answer a question
from 2008, yes, we have hope,” O’Steen said. “And we will remember
Second, the fractures in the
wall that has separated Americans from their consciences grow more
pronounced almost daily. Once almost invisible, images of the unborn
child can be found attached to refrigerators all over the country.
It’s impossible to square four-color real-time ultrasounds of
squirming unborn babies with nonsense about “blobs of tissue.”
In the same vein, if a
pro-abortionist had snuck in while Steven Mosher talked about the
horrific practice of sex-selection abortion, how would she/he merge
support for “women’s rights” with the systematic annihilation of
unborn baby girls?
Adding to the cognitive
dissonance, even for the hardest-hearted pro-abortionist, can they
really accept that it okay to tear apart unborn children who are
capable of experiencing pain? That is the challenge posed by
Nebraska’s “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”
Pro-abortionists no doubt
felt better when a working group of the Royal College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists ponied up a bogus study purporting
to prove that the unborn child can’t experience pain at even at 24
weeks, let alone at 20 weeks, and perhaps not until considerably
further along. (For the definitive rebuttal, see pages 12-13.)
But I strongly suspect that
they fear if the Supreme Court hears the evidence, the justices will
uphold Nebraska’s landmark legislation.
A tremendous convention,
from start to finish. Please be sure to order CDs from the
convention. They are as inexpensive as they are comprehensive. (See
See you in Jacksonville,
Florida, next year.