NARAL’s Tell-Tale Heart
So how’s the pro-life movement doing these days? Gauging by the hysteria of one pro-abortion group, I’d say pretty well. There’s a new volume out that has some grown women across the country in absolute terror. One reader said that it made her keep the lights on in her bedroom and check her doors every few minutes. What is this tale of horror? A new novella by Stephen King? A previously undiscovered tale by H.P. Lovecraft? No, it’s far worse. It’s a new report from NARAL Pro-Choice America entitled “The Insidious Power of the Anti-Choice Movement.” “Insidious.” Doesn’t it just make you shiver? While the above was tongue-in-cheek, there’s a serious lesson to be taken from NARAL’s over-the-top attempt to frighten American women. The report begins by telling readers that “The anti-choice movement has spent decades finding new ways to insinuate themselves into our government, our policies, and our politics.” “Insidious,” “insinuate.” Besides beginning with “in,” both words carry the connotation that something underhanded and even nefarious is going on. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “insidious” means “proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with very harmful effects,” while “insinuate” is defined as “[Maneuvering] oneself into (a favorable position) by subtle manipulation.” It sounds terrible, doesn’t it? It would be if it were true, which it isn’t. That becomes clear when you look at NARAL’s specific examples of our insidious insinuation. What NARAL makes sound like the plot of a John Le Carre spy novel is nothing more than—wait for it—democracy in action. Not surprisingly, the first example of this insidious insinuation concerns the courts. In NARAL’s words, we have created “a pipeline for conservative legal minds from law school to the courthouse.” We pro-lifers are guilty of “strategically curating and nurturing judges” that will “rule in [our] favor–all the way up to the Supreme Court.” Seriously, what they’re describing is a group of people who share a common vision of what the Constitution means and would like to see that vision reflected in our jurisprudence. Both sides have lists of people they would like to see appointed if they get a chance to do so. Then there’s the mandatory attack on crisis pregnancy centers like the one my wife runs. Or as NARAL calls them “fake health clinics,” which it describes in terms reminiscent of traveling medicine shows in the old west. Worst of all, NARAL says we pro-lifers “craft model anti-choice legislation with the goal of provoking a challenge to the foundation of Roe v. Wade.” The only reason the hundreds of laws NARAL is referring to “provoke a challenge” to Roe is that even before the law takes effect, NARAL and its allies seek to overturn it in court! None of these would “challenge” the “foundation” of Roe if NARAL and its ilk would accept any limits to the practice of abortion. Instead, defending the indefensible has pro-abortion activists being put to flight by the sound of fallen leaves. It has them seeing “insidious insinuation,” complete with a Snopes-worthy conspiracy chart, when all that other people see is the normal practice of politics by people dedicated to a cause. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, NARAL’s report is a close second. It’s an unintended acknowledgment that our efforts on behalf of the sanctity of life are bearing enough fruit to make the other side very nervous.