►
Strategy for success evades pro-lifers
by Judie Brown
Released November 2, 2007
Commentary by Judie Brown
When I saw a column written
by pro-life activist Jane Frantz in the Appleton
Post-Crescent, it really took the wind out of my sails. She wrote about her
epiphany in the pro-life movement following her own abortion, but she pointed
out something that reminded me of the reasons why pro-lifers continue to tread
water politically.
Frantz opined,
"After three and a half decades, I wonder how much longer we can afford to
do the same things, expecting different results."
Her observations about
pro-lifers “authoring and defending woefully inadequate legislation" is
but one of the problems we face on the political front, but I happen to think
that it is precisely the politics of abortion that has drummed our message into
oblivion.
As one evangelical
preacher told the New York Times
recently, “They said they were tired of hearing about abortion 52 weeks a year,
hearing about all this political stuff!” He was speaking about the deacons of his
own church.
This minister is
saying that the trained leaders of his congregation do not want to hear about
or talk about the political aspects of abortion. How tragic; but at the same
time, how revealing. It means there is something terribly wrong within the
movement.
This troubles me a
great deal. What this comment reveals is that in the 34 years since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the act of abortion has become the “abortion issue”
in the minds of many Americans. From that mindset, it follows that the manner
of fighting direct, cold-blooded murder-which is precisely what an act of
procured abortion is-has become a question of party, compromise and
incrementalism.
In other words, the
"politics of abortion" has robbed the person who dies during an
abortion of his identity as a human being.
One pro-life web site
asked visitors: "Are you in favor of states introducing legislation to ban
all abortions, even if legal advisors recommend waiting until there are more justices
on the Supreme Court who will uphold such a ban?"
Though the vast
majority of those who responded said "yes," one has to wonder why
such a question would be asked in the first place. It is the goal of the
pro-life movement is to end the slaughter, not regulate it. Why, then, isn't the
pro-life movement waging battle in every state in America to end this scourge?
Why isn’t the pro-life movement striking at the heart of the abortion beast
with proposed state constitutional amendments that would protect every preborn
child? Isn’t personhood our goal, after all?
And what of the
pro-life legal “experts" who would tell us “the timing is not right?"
What could this ridiculous statement possibly mean when we face a slaughter
with numbers so mind numbing that nobody can even begin to imagine the piles of
dead bodies about which we speak.
Jim Bopp, general counsel
of the National Right to Life Committee, told Frank Pastore in a Townhall.com interview that proposing a total abortion
ban-and losing-could be “devastating” to the pro-life movement. That statement
pinpoints precisely what I find so unbelievable. He is clearly satisfied for
the moment. Bopp believes that because more Americans are pro-life today and
regulations on abortion are said to be working, we should be celebrating.
But such thinking
leaves out the most critical point: abortion is an act of murder.
Bopp opines, “There
have been many battles lost, wars lost, countries lost, because battles have
been fought prematurely and imprudently. Our job for the unborn is to use
judgment and prudence to do what is possible, not to risk it all on some risky
strategy in which the only prospect for success is for divine intervention.”
Such comments smack of
political posturing which has been the problem within the politically inspired
pro-life movement for years. Of course the strategy we pursue requires divine
intervention, as well as divine inspiration and perhaps most important, total
trust in God’s will.
If we were talking
about any other class of citizens and the violent act of murder being
perpetrated against them daily, would the public be happy with regulating how
or when the murders took place? Would we merely want to make sure someone gave
their permission before the murders took place?
Would Americans
approve of the continued murders if they were assured that the government was
not paying for them? Of course not! So what is so very different about the
murder of the innocent preborn children? Why is the scenario for saving them so
pragmatic? Where is the outrage?
Because so many have
been busy politicizing the act of abortion, the vast majority of Americans no
longer understand that abortion is an act that results in death. It seems
that many prefer to accept the "political reality" of the situation
and continue on their merry way, regulating here, defunding there, and
politicking on the way towards a loft goal that never really appears on the
horizon.
Perhaps that satisfies
the politically correct, but it disgusts me.
The Thomas More Law
Center's Robert Muise wrote, “After 34 years of abortion on demand through all
nine months of pregnancy, it is time to rethink pro-life strategy.” He added, “It
would be a tragic mistake to be content with a strategy that makes ending
abortion secondary to other regulatory efforts or worse yet, a strategy that
avoids it altogether.”
My view of this
ongoing struggle between political experts and those of us who understand the
tragic price being paid by dead babies is that it is time to develop a
different pro-life strategy-one that places the personhood of the child at the
front of the struggle and builds toward that goal by taking solid steps that do
not appear to approve the very act we know is murder. Avoiding personhood by suggesting
that the time is not right or the number of justices on the Supreme Court is
not yet sufficient is to repeat the arguments of the past 34 years.
I’ve heard it all
before and the stench of compromise is incredible.
A new strategy is
called for; and to my mind, those who resist talking about it are the root
cause of the problem. To them I would say: Get off the fence and join the
battle to end the murder of America's future. The troops are moving out-with
you, or without you.
Release issued: 2 Nov 07
|
