‘Anti Abortion’ vs. ‘Pro Choice’
Vol: 40 Issue: 26 Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Ted Turner stood before the National Association for Television Programming Executives’s opening session in Las Vegas and denounced Fox News as an arm of the Bush administration, comparing the network to Adolf Hitler’s propaganda machine.
I have to agree with the Fox spokesperson who responded, “Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind — we wish him well.”
The other day, CNN’s news crawl informed viewers that President Bush was, at that hour, addressing a “group of anti-abortion activists.”
Curious, I shifted to Fox News, where I was informed that Bush was actually addressing a group of ‘pro-life conservatives’ who rallied in Washington on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
From the difference in the way each network described the makeup of the rally, can YOU tell where each network stands on the question of abortion?
Let’s look closely at the semantics involved.
First, Fox. It described the group opposing abortion ‘rights’ as ‘pro-life conservatives’. Since that is what they call THEMSELVES, and since Fox News doesn’t call pro-choice groups ‘anti-life activists’ it would seem that Fox News is NOT taking sides either way on the issue.
Now, CNN. To them, a ‘pro-life conservative movement’ is really made up of ‘anti-abortion activists.’
First, being part of a larger movement does not necessarily make one an ‘activist’. Suppose I donated money to the ACLU and then attended one ACLU rally. Does that make me an ACLU ‘activist’?
The ACLU gets donations from individuals all the time. Are they ALL activists? Then what do you call the ones who really ARE activists? Extremists? Hardly. (‘Extremist’ is a phrase reserved only for those who think killing babies is a crime).
I have yet to hear any ACLU member referred to as an ‘extremist’ — I don’t even recall the word ‘activist’ often being attached to the ACLU or its supporters — although it is difficult to imagine a group with more extremist tendencies than one dedicated to the destruction of the Boy Scouts for not letting homosexuals take young boys out into the woods for overnight camping trips.
Now, to return to the ‘anti-abortion activists’ who made their way to the nation’s capital to voice their opposition to Roe v. Wade.
Contrary to the spin applied by the propagandists at CNN, overturning Roe v. Wade would NOT immediately put a stop to abortions in America. Opposing Roe v. Wade does’t make one an ‘anti abortion activist’ — it makes one a supporter of the American democratic system.
All overturning Roe v. Wade would do is take the question away from the federal government and the federal courts and return it to the control of the individual states, which is the ONLY constitutional issue involved.
The Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion. The closest you can come to finding abortion in America’s founding documents is in the Declaration of Independence which, in its preamble, clearly forbids abortion, saying Americans have a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It does not differentiate between the born and the unborn, since they understood that the unborn will, without any help or interference from the government, be born with those rights intact.
Out of those documents, a group of judicial activists on the Supreme Court in 1973 found a ‘right’ to deny unwanted babies the right to life, not to mention the liberty and pursuit of happiness stolen from them at the same instant.
Activists like to call the Constitution a ‘living document’ arguing that it was designed to change as the times change. What they really mean is that, as a living document, it can be tortured until it says whatever its torturer wants it to.
Roe v. Wade didn’t legalize abortion. Instead, it struck down every existing state law forbidding abortion. It was done without consulting with the states, by judicial fiat, without any national debate, referendum or input from those who disagree.
The current practice of judicial activist rule subverts the democratic process in ways so profound that it is breathtaking to contemplate.
Decisions made by the majority in America have enormous weight in terms of credibility. When the election was decided in 2000 by the Supreme Court, half the country dedicated itself to hating George Bush as a usurper who was ‘selected, not elected’ by the Supreme Court.
The venomous hatred the administration has endured over the past four years has been palpable and undeniable. The resulting devisiveness created four years of government stagnation as both sides fought over every issue.
But I submit to you that, had the Supremes ruled in favor of Al Gore, the OTHER half would have reacted in a similar fashion. The reason is because either side would see its defeat as an overturning of the democratic process by unelected judges.
Contrast that to Election 2004 in which Bush was handed a clear win by the voters. Suddenly the Democrats have decided they need to become more ‘in tune’ with American values.
They are talking more about faith, and have even gone so far as to suggest the party reinvent itself to more accurately reflect the majority. Hillary Clinton made headlines yesterday for praising religious groups for running chastity campaigns as an alternative to abortion.
[The liberal London News-Telegraph headlined its story “Gasps as Hillary Woos the Anti-Abortion Vote”].
That is the power of consensus. Unlike Election 2000, Election 2004 is forcing the Democrats to rethink their core values if they want to win next time.
Roe v. Wade is similarly devisive, for the same reason. For thirty years, there has been discord on the issue of abortion, because consensus is irrelevant.
The devisiveness will continue until the issue has been returned to the democratic process, something that can only take place if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
As I said earlier, overturning Roe v. Wade won’t immediately outlaw abortion. Instead, the question will be returned to the jurisdiction of the individual states for resolution.
That is the way America was set up from the beginning. It is implicitly recognized that each state is unique, has its own values and its own priorities.
Overturning Roe v. Wade will mean red states like Utah or North Carolina would likely either outlaw or heavily restrict abortion, but blue states like California or Massachusetts would be free to allow unrestricted abortion on demand, based on the wishes of the majority in each state.
According to all the polls, America at the national level, is divided roughly fifty-fifty on abortion. Similarly, at the national level, America was divided roughly fifty-fifty over George Bush. But at the state level, it is something altogether different, which is why Bush won by only a few percentage points nationally, but carried an overwhelming majority of individual states.
By allowing the states to regulate this issue — as intended — we achieve the impossible: an equally divided nation in which most people live under the law of their choice. People who live in a state where they disagree with its laws can move to a state where the laws are more in keeping with their consciences.
In a vote in which one side loses, it will know that it lost because most people disagreed, not because a handful of elite disenfranchised everyone.
But abortion is big business for the elitists who fear losing a billion dollar a year business. Planned Parenthood reported that in 2002, 227,375 abortions were performed at their clinics.
That figure represents only 17% of all abortions performed in America that year, giving some sense of the size of the abortion ‘industry’.
Far from being ‘pro-choice’ only 6.5% of clients seeking pregnancy related services from Planned Parenthood in 2002 actually received prenatal care. The rest got abortions. They issued only 1,963 adoption referrals in 2002 and not a single actual adoption.
So for every adoption ‘referral’ made by Planned Parenthood, there were 116 babies aborted. But CNN and the liberal mainstream label Planned Parenthood a ‘pro-choice’ group.
Those who oppose it are ‘anti-abortion.’ A look at Planned Parenthood’s origins makes the love affair it enjoys with liberal groups even more bizarre.
Planned Parenthood itself was founded by a eugenisist named Margaret Sanger, who strongly believed in the superiority of the white race and started the organization with the expressed aim of doing to American blacks what Hitler was attempting to do with German Jews.
Sanger proposed, in a paper defending Planned Parenthood’s ‘Negro Project’, that;
[the] “most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the [religious] minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
One third of Planned Parenthood’s income ($750 MILLION dollars) comes from GOVERNMENT GRANTS.
That’s right, the Boy Scouts can’t have federal funds because they oppose gay rights and advance a belief in God, but a group formed for the express purpose of aborting the black race got $254 million in federal tax dollars in 2002.
“These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and HANDS THAT SHED INNOCENT BLOOD, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” (Proverbs 6:19)
That pretty well sums up what the liberals like to call the ‘pro-choice movement’ in a nutshell.