Abortion matriarchs Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling ceded quite a few points to pro-lifers in a Los Angeles Times op-ed marking the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Actually, “matriarchs” isn’t quite right since Michelman and Kissling have helped facilitate the killing of their movement’s progeny.
The only recruits they can now entice are young women they convince that whores are happier and that those aren’t really babies despite the overwhelming evidence – in other words, stupidos.
Or those they pay handsomely for their souls – political prostitutes, sell-sex traffickers and bottom-feeding abortion mill workers who can’t get work anywhere else.
Not much to work with.
But I digress.
In a nutshell the barrennesses admitted in their column that pro-aborts are losing the battle thanks to:
- decreased public support for willy-nilly abortions
- increased personal responsibility
- “science,” which I take in part to mean in vitro fertilization and visibility of embryos
- advancements in fetal surgery
- increased survival of preemies
- our improved debate skills
- our increased ability to elect pro-life candidates
- advanced empathy for minority rights, including those of the preborn
- the animal rights movement
- “to end violence at all levels,” which I take to mean in part opposition to the death penalty
- the phrase, “culture of life”
- “hard questions about why women get pregnant when they don’t want to have babies,” in other words, how could any woman let this happen with the widespread availability of contraceptives?
- graphic photos of aborted babies
- their side’s refusal to acknowledge morality in the abortion debate
- “We haven’t convinced people that we are the ones actually doing things to make it possible for women to avoid needing abortions,” in other words, public skepticism that their side may not be the solution but rather the problem
- “The choice movement seems to defend every individual abortion decision,” in other words, their adamant opposition to any common-sense restriction on abortion whatsoever
Yes, they really said all that, in so many words. If I were a pro-abort I’d be suicidal after reading the piece, but then again they’re all so narcissistic or secretly afraid they really are going to hell I doubt that will happen.
The problem is Michelman and Kissling are schizophrenic. Their logical Spock side correctly deciphered the facts, but their rabid Amanda Marcotte side twisted them back into pretzels.
So while they said on one hand, “We support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion,” they said on the other, “Pro-choice forces must adjust to regain the moral high ground.” If they agree some part of abortion is morally problematic, how can it be morally superior?
And how could they call for fresh ideas when they regurgitated tired old lines such as this one in their very opening paragraph: “The Supreme Court affirmed in Roe vs. Wade that women have a fundamental right to choose abortion without government interference”?
Please. It’s 35 years after the fact, and everyone, even pro-aborts, recognize the Supreme Court displayed government interference on steroids by yanking abortion decision-making power from all 50 states in its Roe decision.
Don’t call your pals on the blood-stained carpet to have honest dialogue when you won’t.
I am concerned that some on our side see Michelman and Kissling’s piece as some sort of mea culpa, and pro-lifers should stand ready to hold hands with them singing “Kumbaya.” Wrote Steve at the Stand to Reason blog:
It appears from their article that Kissling and Michelman are calling for an internal discussion of the effective pro-life challenges they’ve highlighted, but I would encourage them to go further. Talk to pro-life advocates about them. We’re ready to listen, understand and build common ground first in order to really hear your concerns and perspective.
I for one will never try to “build common ground” with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.
I do stand ready to dialogue with those in the mushy middle who don’t understand the abortion cartel’s agenda. But we will never have a meeting of the minds on abortion.
Why did Kissling and Michelman write their piece? To shake up pro-aborts to undergo “a serious reassessment” of strategy, not to say pro-lifers were right.
Related special offers: