I went to the March for Life rally Friday on the Mall expecting to write about its irrelevance. Isn’t it quaint, I thought, that these abortion protesters show up each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, even though the decision still stands after 37 years. What’s more, with a Democrat in the White House likely to appoint justices who support abortion rights, surely the Supreme Court isn’t going to overturn Roe in the foreseeable future.
How wrong I was. The antiabortion movement feels it’s gaining strength, even if it’s not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous.
Surprise -Surprise–the W. Post sends a pro-abortion reporter (instead of a neutral observor) to cover pro-life demonstrations.
And just maybe so many young are pro-life (I noticed this in the public high school I recently taught in) is because the children of those who support abortion-on-demand have been exterminated by their parents
The media should also consider Scott Brown’s victory in Ma. a pro-life victory. As a saint senator he has supported just about every pro-life initiative including the banning of partial-birth abortion, banning public funds for abortion, supported parental rights for minors seeking abortions, and tried to get protection for pro-life health workers. This in a state where virtually every state-wide candidate (except Romney) for the past 4 decades have been 100% in the hip pocket of the abortion industry.
From the article:
[blockquote]Matson criticized President Obama and Democrats in Congress for having “put forth the most punitive proposed restrictions on abortion in my lifetime.” She referred to the provision in the House bill sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), which would prevent women who receive federal insurance subsidies from buying insurance that pays for abortions.[/blockquote]
This is, of course, a misrepresentation, albeit minor. The provision would have prevented women receiving federal insurance subsidies from using those subsidies to buy insurance which included abortion coverage. It would not have prevented them from using their own (or a voluntary pool of) funds to buy abortion coverage separately.
there are a lot of people who claim pro life, but a lot of them support abortion rights in certain circumstances; this is by no means a black or white issue with the general public or independent voters.
Hmmm, Revealing, but Robert McCartney of the Post isn’t as nervous yet as he ought to be. Fine, let them be complacent. It makes our task a little easier.
Someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, Roe vs. Wade will be seen as similar to the infamous Dredd Scott case in the 19th century, i.e., as one of the absolute worst miscarriages of justice in the history of the Supreme Court.
David Handy+
Veteran of several March For Life events in DC.