Jewish World Review March 14, 2002 / Rosh Chodesh Nisan, 5762
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | In a despicable display of affection for degeneracy, Sunday, March 10th was the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers, where demonstrators held up signs declaring, "Abortion Providers are Heroes," and activists nationwide were asked to "take out ads in local newspapers." Such a tasteless spectacle shows the depths of the depravity of the abortion movement.
Perhaps this grotesque celebration would be easier to comprehend if it were organized by fringe leftist organizations that have no real influence in our political process, but it wasn't. The lead sponsor was the American Civil Liberties Union, and it was also backed by the inappropriately-named Catholics for a Free Choice and National Organization for Women, among others. And their stomach-turning efforts were underwritten by billionaires such as Warren Buffett, George Soros, and anti-Catholic bigot Ted Turner.
Establishing a day to praise the virtues of abortionists belies the assertions by self-proclaimed pro-choicers that they want, in Bill Clinton's words, abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare." For the abortion lobby, their political struggle isn't about "choice," it's about abortion.
In the hippies' heyday, the movement may have been wrapped up in women's lib efforts, with control over one's body-and the baby inside-becoming symbolic of the overall campaign. But now, with the original mission fulfilled, the abortion lobby has spiraled to the radical fringes in a bid for continued relevancy, and the supposed abortionist holiday is indicative of the excesses of the abortion movement.
As they have moved further away from their original purpose, abortion activists have become more strident in their support for the procedure itself. No longer is abortion a necessary evil, but an act of bravery to be celebrated with a national holiday.
This fanaticism has influenced the movement's policy positions in recent years, including opposing a ban on killing babies who miraculously survive abortion procedures. If a baby has staved off the abortionist's murderous attempts, what "choice" does a woman need to exercise? A baby outside the womb poses no inconvenience to a mother, so why would abortion rights groups oppose efforts to protect born-alive infants?
In revealing their true colors by endorsing the killing of born-alive infants and partial-birth abortions, the abortion lobby has alienated those outside its direct core constituency, minimizing support for the abortion-on-demand views they espouse. In the early 1990's, public backing for liberal abortion policies-abortion at any time, for any reason-peaked at 34%, according to Gallup. In the five years since the advent of the debate over partial-birth abortion, however, support for both late-term procedures and abortion overall has plummeted.
In a recent poll tied to the 29th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Gallup found that support for third-trimester abortions was a miniscule 7%. Polling Company president Kellyanne Conway attributes this change to the graphic nature of the discussions about partial-birth abortion. Most self-identified pro-choicers had relied on not religion or morality, but science and medicine in favoring abortion rights. After the realization that there was in fact a living baby in the womb, at least in the later stages of pregnancy, Conway explains that many could no longer support second- or third-trimester abortions.
The Polling Company found last summer that a mere 16% of those polled backed legal abortion after the first trimester. When presented with six different policy options, three pro-life and three pro-choice, a plurality of 48% supported pro-life positions, with 42% backing pro-choice stances, although most in the latter category only supported abortion during the first trimester. More significantly, in a widely ignored poll last August, Gallup found that, for the first time since it asked the question, as many Americans identified themselves as pro-life as pro-choice, at 46% each, a 21-point swing in just five years.
Not coincidentally, the "Day of Appreciation" was born the year after partial-birth abortion became a hot-button issue. With callous disregard for how people with even an ounce of sensitivity or compassion might view such a celebration, the abortion lobby cluelessly calculated that it could rustle up political support by lauding those who commit unspeakable acts against innocent infants. These radical activists have become so ensconced within their own rhetorical nonsense that they fail to gauge the reactions of those who don't view abortion as an ideological ideal.
As disgusting as the "Day of Appreciation" is, widespread publicity of the
indefensible holiday would wreak havoc on the abortion lobby, giving lie to
myth that its leaders are fighting for