|Two anniversaries that occurred in late January provided ample cause for pro-lifers to reflect on where we sit in the battle to protect unborn children.
The 25th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision in the United States, and the 10th anniversary of the Canadian Supreme Court’s overturning of the former abortion law, have produced a tremendous amount of commentary in the mainstream media about the contemporary situation. Much has been said about how little has changed since the two decisions, how passions on both sides of the issue remain intense, how access to abortion remains a problem.
Consider for a moment the provocative remarks of Kate Michelman, the head of the National Abortion Rights Action League in the U.S. Speaking in San Francisco Jan. 15, Michelman parroted the usual obfuscation about pro-life objectives and tactics.
“Twenty-five years later, we’re still up against the same zealous forces that denied us liberty for so long,” Michelman said. “We are up against the same intolerance and arrogance that drive forward their cause to take back a woman’s freedom to choice.”
Note here that according to Michelman, the entire pro-life movement is predicated not on protecting unborn children and upholding the sanctity of all human life, but is simply an assault on women’s rights.
But she goes on: “Our struggle today is about much more than keeping abortion legal. It’s about protecting a right that is so fundamental to us as a people — a woman’s complete freedom to measure and decide when the circumstances are right to bring a child into the world, and when they are not. (This right) is central to all rights that express the integrity of personal and individual choice.”
It’s typical of pro-abortion supporters to couch their arguments in individual-rights language. It is basically a rhetorical device that allows weak or unsupportable arguments to sound plausible — even noble. Further, it is part of the misuse of language to rationalize the unimaginable — the deliberate destruction of innocent life.
Amid all of the commentary stemming from the Roe vs. Wade decision and the Canadian Supreme Court ruling of 1988, little has been said about the dramatic conversions of Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano. These two women, the plaintiffs in the U.S. court cases that led to abortion on demand, have both recognized the truth of abortion and are now active spokespersons for the right-to-life cause.
Both women speak of being exploited in the early 1970s by manipulative agents eager to promote the legal right to abortion. Neither woman supported abortion, but both were coerced into becoming figureheads in this sad, sorry objective.
As McCorvey told the large gathering at the annual March for Life in Washington, “I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to each and every one of you here today. I lied and I’m sorry. I’ve repented and asked Jesus into my heart.” McCorvey also offered a concise but telling metaphor by describing Roe vs. Wade as a decision “conceived in deceit.”
Cano was equally frank in her recollections: “For over 20 years now, my name has been synonymous with abortion. I was against abortion then. I am against abortion now. I never sought an abortion. I have never had an abortion. Abortion is murder.”
It is no surprise that both McCorvey and Cano speak of lies and deception as part of pro-abortionists’ strategy. It is becoming more and more apparent that many, if not all, of the major underpinnings of the push for unrestricted access to abortion rest on falsehood. From the number of “back alley” abortions in the old days, to the frequency of the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure, it has been demonstrated that “the big lie” is a big piece of the pro-abortion arsenal.
Perhaps, then, we can take some comfort in the messages voiced at the Jan. 25 rally in Washington. Despite the shrill voices of the Kate Michelmans and the Michelle Landsbergs, North American society is beginning to reject abortion. Pro-choice activists have more than likely noticed the trend and will turn up the volume in an effort to protect their past victories. They will push for new abortion procedures, new chemicals to destroy developing life and preserve reproductive choice.
But as the pro-abortion name-calling and hysteria intensify, it would be well to remember that success comes in small doses.
Let’s bear in mind the words of some pro-life leaders who believe that future generations will look back on the post-Roe vs. Wade years as a period of shame and embarrassment in North America.