The Mall Of Shame
April 26, 2004

A pro-abortion marcher in Washington on Sunday said, "I just had to be here to fight for the next generation and the generation after that." I'd like to ask her which generation aborted babies belong to.

This woman was just one of many converging on Washington's Mall to rally for "abortion rights" and "global reproductive freedom." Sadly, her statement, just like the broader "pro-choice" movement, is shrouded in deception and euphemism.

I mean no offense here, but the more you examine the pro-aborts' claims and distortions of language, the less sympathetic their cause becomes. Consider certain statements of the rally's supporters and participants.

Actress Lynda Carter said, "There is a religious and moral superiority and arrogance that so many, not all, Republicans have. It is the ultimate intrusion by government to tell a woman when she can have children, if she has them at all."

No pro-life advocates I know are trying to tell women when they can have children. They can have them anytime they want. They just shouldn't be allowed to "terminate" them in the womb.

And if the pro-life position is grounded in religious convictions, on what do pro-abortionists base their casual disregard for life? Aren't they saying the mother's "right to choose" is a moral right? If not, why all the moral outrage?

And if it is arrogant for pro-lifers to stand up for innocent life, how arrogant is it for pro-aborts to ignore the dignity, rights and even existence of the unborn? As for "ultimate intrusion," I wish Ms. Carter would tell us how she justifies intrusions on the baby's body and life.

Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, "The march is about the totality of women's lives and the right to make decisions about our lives." Other pro-aborts insist that women's health is their great concern.

But their zeal has little to do with choice or women's health. If they truly cared about choice, they wouldn't favor government-funded abortion on demand without restriction, including partial-birth abortion.

They'd want pregnant women to make informed choices. They would make sure they were aware of the latest research suggesting that large percentages of women who've had abortions experience emotional or psychological problems. They'd tell them about their babies' possible sensitivity to physical pain.

They'd tell them of the suspected linkage between abortion and breast cancer, even if the evidence is inconclusive. And they'd quit exaggerating concerns over the mother's health as a justification for partial-birth abortions.

Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America said, "Anti-choice extremists are not just against abortion -- they also oppose contraception and comprehensive medically accurate sex education." Oh? I wonder if by that she means the routine suppression of the abstinence message and facts about the failure rate of condoms for both pregnancy and HIV transmission. And they lecture us about safe sex?

Another marcher invoked the specious pro-abort battle cry "Stop the violence." What about violence toward the babies? And what about the violence of some of the marchers themselves?

I received an e-mail from a lady who went to the march as a "ProtestWarrior." She said the marchers desecrated her sign, screamed insults, and made profane gestures and that one man physically hurled her to the ground. She said, "These tolerant, inclusive, choice liberals were the most hateful 800,000 people the 12 members of PW ever encountered."

Another pro-abort said that pro-lifers have no respect for the Constitution. By "Constitution" I don't think she meant the document signed in 1787 that British Prime Minister William Gladstone described as "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man."

More likely, she was referring to the penumbra-and-emanation-laden "living document" that unelected, unaccountable, lifetime-appointed, activist judges often mold to fit their ideologies by inventing such fictions as the constitutional right to privacy.

The "pro-choice" movement is based on the lie that an unborn human being is not a human being. If pro-aborts had nothing to hide, would they use such misleadingly innocuous words as "choice," "reproductive rights" and "family planning" when they mean the act of terminating life?

If "choice" were so popular with the public, would the pro-aborts' presidential candidate of "choice," Senator Kerry, feel compelled to dissemble, saying he is personally against abortion but opposed to the government regulating it? That's like saying he's personally opposed to shoplifting but against the government interfering with the thief's choice. Actually, it's much worse than that.

As scientific and technological advances continue to shed light on the darkness of their position, pro-aborts will become increasingly desperate. The marchers treated us to just a little bitter foretaste of that Sunday.