BreakPoint: NARAL’s Tell-Tale Heart

Those “Insidious” Pro-Lifers!

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.

Before I leave you today, let me remind you to get involved in our national prayer movement for life. Come to BreakPoint.org/21days to download your free prayer guide and app for your smart phone.

 

NARAL’s Tell-Tale Heart: Those “Insidious” Pro-Lifers!

Let’s continue to be dedicated to the cause of the sanctity of all human life, born and pre-born. One important way to stay on the front lines in this battle is to pray. Download the “21 Days of Prayer for Life” prayer guide here to receive daily devotions and prayer suggestions. It’s free to download, and you can also install the free app on your phone.

 


Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • Scott

    A pro-choice advocate told me John Stonestreet’s article “1.77 Kids aren’t Enough” was “fear mongering?”

    Considering both the title of NARAL’s article “The Insidious Power of the Anti-Choice Movement” and the content of each, I would ask which one better fits the phase “fear mongering?”

    • gladys1071

      It is fear mongering, trying to manipulate or guilt people into having kids they don’t desire is a form of manipulation, i don’t know what else to call it?

      It is the pro-lifers that want people to have children, it is the pro-lifers that are against contraception (some of them), what other reason could their be except that they want everyone that has sex to procreate?

      Pro-life for the most part is a pro-natalist ideology.

      • jason taylor

        Who says we want everyone who has sex to procreate? That is biologically impossible. We mainly want people to take responsibility for it having sex. Just like having a fondness for the horses is not a particularly great evil but neither is it an excuse for committing a crime because you got yourself in hock to the mob.

      • Tyler

        What else could it be? Pretty simple answer actually: Abortion is the purposeful termination of a developing human life. You can’t just toss out an intentionally worded question with a pre-determined answer and call it a rational argument.

  • urbanvrwcmom

    If it wasn’t for tell-tale hearts, NARAL would have no hearts at all.

  • Timothy D Padgett

    Thanks to you all for your contributions to this important conversation. However, as this discussion seems to have come to an impasse, we will be shutting down the comments from here on.

    Timothy D Padgett
    Managing Editor, BreakPoint.org.