|
Where
Is the Abortion Movement Today?
By Mona Charen
Jewish World
Review,
1/10/00
AS THE GRIM ANNIVERSARY
of Roe vs. Wade approaches, it seems a good time to ask where the "abortion
rights" movement (as the press usually characterizes it) is today.
The last decade of the 20th century was not kind to abortion-on-demand.
The Supreme Court upheld limits on abortions in Planned Parenthood vs.
Casey.
The Congress changed hands, going from majority pro-choice to majority
pro-life. And, but for two presidential vetoes, a ban on partial-birth
abortions would have become the law of the land.
Since Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973, there have been more than 35
million abortions in the United States, though the rate declined 16 percent
during the 1990s. The number of doctors willing to do abortions also
declined during the 1990s by 14 percent.
The response of the abortion movement to all this -- and to the existence
of an articulate and committed pro-life movement -- has been close to
hysterical. Though there is virtually no chance that the United
States will return to the legal regime in place pre-Roe (few states would
reinstate the strict limits then in place), you would never be able to
tell that by listening to the abortion advocates.
Shrill doesn't begin to capture it. Consider this fund-raising letter
from Planned Parenthood. "For years Planned Parenthood has fought
off constant attacks from the politically powerful Christian Coalition
and the violently radical Operation Rescue. Now, we also battle newly
formed groups with misleading names like the Family Research Council
and Focus on the Family.
All of these groups are politically astute, extremely well-funded and
have a fanatical - - often militant -- approach to achieving their goals.
... To some of these groups, this might mean bombing a clinic ... blockading
a door ... harassing a patient ... stalking a doctor."
Notice the sly insertion of the words "some of" and "might
mean." That's how they can wriggle out of a libel suit. But it's
a libel just the same. The overall impression left by the repetition
of the names Focus on the Family and Family Research Council alongside
descriptions of violence leaves the clear impression that the named groups
go in for that stuff.
The Family Research Council has never engaged in violence of any kind.
(The same cannot be said for Planned Parenthood, which engages in violence
against the unborn for a fee.) Nor has the FRC ever given aid or comfort
to violence. As Chuck Donovan of the Family Research Council put it in
a letter to Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt, "FRC has
never condoned the bombing of an abortion clinic, never advocated stalking
abortionists, never tried to block clinic doors, never sought to harass
patients -- never. ...When abortionists have been shot, we have been
among the first to denounce the killings."
The pro-abortion movement resorts to lies on a regular basis. There is
simply no other conclusion. During the debate over partial-birth abortion,
spokesmen for the pro-abortion cause first adamantly denied that the
procedure even existed, then asserted that the baby was already dead
(killed by the anesthesia administered to the mother) before the operation
began, then argued that it was so rare as to be negligible, and finally
argued that it was necessary to protect the lives and future fertility
of women.
Each and every one of those assertions was false and was known to be
false, as Ron Fitzsimmons, a spokesman for the abortion cause, admitted
months later.
Why this hysteria? Why the need to smear every opponent as violent, extreme
or crazy? Perhaps it's because demonization is much easier than debate.
When your case is weak, avoid debate at all costs.
But the lies have taken their toll on the movement. Polls show more conservatism
on abortion than was seen a decade ago. The National Abortion Rights
Action League is sponsoring TV ads this campaign year, but not, reports
the National Journal, aimed at voters. No, NARAL president Kate Michelman
says, "Our target audience ... is the media."
That is the one group on whom the abortion movement can still rely. But
will it be enough to blunt the consciences of the rest of the nation?
|
|