The Anti-Choice Left

The pro-choice left needs to rename itself what it really is, the “anti-choice left.” The term “pro-choice” is a misnomer, a farce. A cover for people hiding behind a name that misrepresents their true beliefs. With each passing day it becomes more apparent that those calling themselves pro-choice are not in favor of “choice” at all. For is not having the baby one of the choices? Of course it is.

But the anti-choice movement in America refuses to recognize this particular choice and since there are only two -- have the baby or terminate it -- what we have in America today is people who want to see pregnancies terminated via abortion. Why? Why do people actually want lives ended in mother’s wombs?

On its surface the tenet of pro-choice does seem noble. It’s an idea initially presented under the banner of “protecting women’s rights.” (Of the three parties to every pregnancy why only the woman is entitled to any rights is another curious discussion.) The ideal has its appeal. Protecting or ensuring “rights” is effective packaging. No one wants to be seen as taking away “rights.” But careful listening to the rhetoric from the anti-choice left reveals an agenda that’s anything but “pro-choice.”

If it is a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy then it’s similarly a woman’s right to give birth. Yet the anti-choice left in America fights tooth, skin, and nail against any measures that may in any way encourage the choice they don’t like. Be it legislative measures or efforts by private parties, typically (Christian) ministries and/or charities seeking to protect the lives of the unborn. For instance;

In December of 2009, CBS Sports announced that pro-life ministry “Focus on the Family”, an organization that routinely draws the ire of the left, had purchased a 30-second commercial slot for the Super Bowl and that it intended to air a decidedly pro-baby, anti-abortion advertisement featuring American favorite son Tim Tebow. The anti-choice left lost its collective mind.

Tebow’s parents, who are devout Christians, conceived Tim while doing missionary work in the Phillipines. His mother, Pam, had been told by doctors her pregnancy was imperiled due to her contracting amoebic dysentery and falling into a coma. Pam received strong drugs to combat the infection and the drugs caused the placenta to detach from the uterine wall, depriving Tim of oxygen. She was told that Tim was likely to be stillborn or if born alive would be malformed and handicapped with severe mental or physical issues, or both. She was told the baby was in such bad shape he would be doomed to a subhuman life and the merciful thing to do was to terminate him.

Because of faith and devotion to life, the Tebows defied doctor’s advice and guess what? Out popped Superman. Graduating in four years with a Bachelor’s degree and carrying a 3.66 grade point average in the process, the six foot three, muscular two hundred forty pound two-time BCS National Champion quarterback and 2007 Heisman Trophy winner didn’t seem to have all that many defects.

Super Bowl 44 was to be played February 7, 2010. Upon learning of the impending commercial so-called “women’s groups” were outraged by the mere idea of the Tebow ad, which turned out to be quite tame. Press conferences were immediately called and before even having seen the ad Erin Maston of the National Organization for Women proclaimed, "This ad is frankly offensive. It is hate masquerading as love.” Other “women’s groups” said the ad is “sending the wrong message.”

Having the baby is the wrong message? And much to the chagrin of Maston and others the ad had precisely that effect on at least one mother-to-be, Susan Wood. Susan was being pressured by her boyfriend to use the abortion escape clause in 2010. Invited to a friend’s Super Bowl party, she saw the FotF spot and decided to choose life. She now is the mother of a beautiful four-year-old daughter, Avita Grace. She actually gave the baby life. Amazingly, N.O.W. hasn’t sued FotF, the Super Bowl, CBS Sports and the Tebow’s personally over such a dastardly outcome. Not yet anyway.

Remember, N.O.W. and other’s hysterics were before anyone had seen the ad! All that was known was FotF had purchased air time and was planning on running an ad promoting one of the choices. Logically, if someone were truly pro-choice they’d have been supportive of Focus on the Family’s effort. Maybe even chipped in a few dollars to help cover expenses associated with promoting one of the choices. Didn’t happen. Why not? Because the left is anti-, not pro-choice.

Upon learning of the CBS plan to air an ad discussing one of the choices, the option of having the baby, the anti-choice crowd sprang into action, noisily protested not only FotF but CBS itself collectively screaming, “How DARE you run an ad promoting the idea of having the baby rather than destroying it! We can’t allow people to see that!!”

Studies have found that when it comes to the life/death decision one of the more powerful influencers on mothers-to-be is viewing of ultrasound images of the forming baby in their wombs. A sizeable percentage of women, in some studies as many as 90%, make the decision to give birth rather than abort after having seen the ultrasound image of their infant. The anti-choice crowd hates this with a passion burning hotter than Hades itself.

NARAL Pro-Choice America and other anti-choice groups and legislators actively fight in courts of law and do everything in their power to prevent mothers-to-be from seeing those ten tiny fingers and ten tiny toes, from hearing the heartbeat, from seeing the pee-pee or absence thereof. Why? Because they know that if a mom-in-waiting experiences seeing and hearing her baby she’s more likely to decide to exercise the choice they despise. They don’t want to see women choose birth, they want the other. 

America’s anti-choice aren’t satisfied seeing as many babies as possible are aborted within our borders, they also champion anti-choice laws and funding in other nations. So determined is this crowd to see en utero life ended that they actually put time, effort, and treasure into assuring U.S. taxpayer dollars are sent overseas to eliminate the choice of birth in other countries too.

Political ping-pong ball that it is, the Mexico City Policy was enacted in 1984 by Ronald Reagan (in Mexico City, hence the name). The policy eliminated U.S. taxpayer funding for the performing of abortions in other countries. The Bush presidents upheld it, Clinton and Obama naturally overturned it. Why would people in America want to see babies aborted in other nations and force fellow Americans to pay for it? Because they are anti-choice. They want to see babies aborted here, aborted there, aborted everywhere, and as often as possible.

In his 1996 campaign to retain the presidency, Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party platform contained the following wording under its plank labeled “Choice”, “Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare…” That same “Choice” plank was similarly used in both of Barack Obama’s platforms of 2008 and 2012 but in both instances the word “rare” was removed. As close as the wording came in 2012, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

Aside from adding abortions to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as constitutionally granted rights, why would anyone remove the word “rare?” There’s only one explanation -- because he or she doesn’t desire them to be rare. Why are abortions the only such “right?” Why no other medical procedures? Why do they not advocate for the “right” to free and safe colonoscopies or dental cleanings? Simple. Because they want abortions performed, couldn’t care less about your molars.

The Welland Port Colborne Pro-Life Association has its offices adjacent to St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Welland, Ontario. On October 29th ministry and church workers came to work to find that pro-abortion vandals had spray painted the words “HAPPY ABORTIONS” in large white letters onto their building. How revolting. Defacing a church by painting “Go Team!” on it would be vile enough, but the message within the message here was clear. It’s one the entire anti-choice left seems in agreement with, “Don’t you dare encourage women not to abort!!  We want those infants dead.” Some choice.

The pro-choice left needs to rename itself what it really is, the “anti-choice left.” The term “pro-choice” is a misnomer, a farce. A cover for people hiding behind a name that misrepresents their true beliefs. With each passing day it becomes more apparent that those calling themselves pro-choice are not in favor of “choice” at all. For is not having the baby one of the choices? Of course it is.

But the anti-choice movement in America refuses to recognize this particular choice and since there are only two -- have the baby or terminate it -- what we have in America today is people who want to see pregnancies terminated via abortion. Why? Why do people actually want lives ended in mother’s wombs?

On its surface the tenet of pro-choice does seem noble. It’s an idea initially presented under the banner of “protecting women’s rights.” (Of the three parties to every pregnancy why only the woman is entitled to any rights is another curious discussion.) The ideal has its appeal. Protecting or ensuring “rights” is effective packaging. No one wants to be seen as taking away “rights.” But careful listening to the rhetoric from the anti-choice left reveals an agenda that’s anything but “pro-choice.”

If it is a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy then it’s similarly a woman’s right to give birth. Yet the anti-choice left in America fights tooth, skin, and nail against any measures that may in any way encourage the choice they don’t like. Be it legislative measures or efforts by private parties, typically (Christian) ministries and/or charities seeking to protect the lives of the unborn. For instance;

In December of 2009, CBS Sports announced that pro-life ministry “Focus on the Family”, an organization that routinely draws the ire of the left, had purchased a 30-second commercial slot for the Super Bowl and that it intended to air a decidedly pro-baby, anti-abortion advertisement featuring American favorite son Tim Tebow. The anti-choice left lost its collective mind.

Tebow’s parents, who are devout Christians, conceived Tim while doing missionary work in the Phillipines. His mother, Pam, had been told by doctors her pregnancy was imperiled due to her contracting amoebic dysentery and falling into a coma. Pam received strong drugs to combat the infection and the drugs caused the placenta to detach from the uterine wall, depriving Tim of oxygen. She was told that Tim was likely to be stillborn or if born alive would be malformed and handicapped with severe mental or physical issues, or both. She was told the baby was in such bad shape he would be doomed to a subhuman life and the merciful thing to do was to terminate him.

Because of faith and devotion to life, the Tebows defied doctor’s advice and guess what? Out popped Superman. Graduating in four years with a Bachelor’s degree and carrying a 3.66 grade point average in the process, the six foot three, muscular two hundred forty pound two-time BCS National Champion quarterback and 2007 Heisman Trophy winner didn’t seem to have all that many defects.

Super Bowl 44 was to be played February 7, 2010. Upon learning of the impending commercial so-called “women’s groups” were outraged by the mere idea of the Tebow ad, which turned out to be quite tame. Press conferences were immediately called and before even having seen the ad Erin Maston of the National Organization for Women proclaimed, "This ad is frankly offensive. It is hate masquerading as love.” Other “women’s groups” said the ad is “sending the wrong message.”

Having the baby is the wrong message? And much to the chagrin of Maston and others the ad had precisely that effect on at least one mother-to-be, Susan Wood. Susan was being pressured by her boyfriend to use the abortion escape clause in 2010. Invited to a friend’s Super Bowl party, she saw the FotF spot and decided to choose life. She now is the mother of a beautiful four-year-old daughter, Avita Grace. She actually gave the baby life. Amazingly, N.O.W. hasn’t sued FotF, the Super Bowl, CBS Sports and the Tebow’s personally over such a dastardly outcome. Not yet anyway.

Remember, N.O.W. and other’s hysterics were before anyone had seen the ad! All that was known was FotF had purchased air time and was planning on running an ad promoting one of the choices. Logically, if someone were truly pro-choice they’d have been supportive of Focus on the Family’s effort. Maybe even chipped in a few dollars to help cover expenses associated with promoting one of the choices. Didn’t happen. Why not? Because the left is anti-, not pro-choice.

Upon learning of the CBS plan to air an ad discussing one of the choices, the option of having the baby, the anti-choice crowd sprang into action, noisily protested not only FotF but CBS itself collectively screaming, “How DARE you run an ad promoting the idea of having the baby rather than destroying it! We can’t allow people to see that!!”

Studies have found that when it comes to the life/death decision one of the more powerful influencers on mothers-to-be is viewing of ultrasound images of the forming baby in their wombs. A sizeable percentage of women, in some studies as many as 90%, make the decision to give birth rather than abort after having seen the ultrasound image of their infant. The anti-choice crowd hates this with a passion burning hotter than Hades itself.

NARAL Pro-Choice America and other anti-choice groups and legislators actively fight in courts of law and do everything in their power to prevent mothers-to-be from seeing those ten tiny fingers and ten tiny toes, from hearing the heartbeat, from seeing the pee-pee or absence thereof. Why? Because they know that if a mom-in-waiting experiences seeing and hearing her baby she’s more likely to decide to exercise the choice they despise. They don’t want to see women choose birth, they want the other. 

America’s anti-choice aren’t satisfied seeing as many babies as possible are aborted within our borders, they also champion anti-choice laws and funding in other nations. So determined is this crowd to see en utero life ended that they actually put time, effort, and treasure into assuring U.S. taxpayer dollars are sent overseas to eliminate the choice of birth in other countries too.

Political ping-pong ball that it is, the Mexico City Policy was enacted in 1984 by Ronald Reagan (in Mexico City, hence the name). The policy eliminated U.S. taxpayer funding for the performing of abortions in other countries. The Bush presidents upheld it, Clinton and Obama naturally overturned it. Why would people in America want to see babies aborted in other nations and force fellow Americans to pay for it? Because they are anti-choice. They want to see babies aborted here, aborted there, aborted everywhere, and as often as possible.

In his 1996 campaign to retain the presidency, Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party platform contained the following wording under its plank labeled “Choice”, “Our goal is to make abortion less necessary and more rare…” That same “Choice” plank was similarly used in both of Barack Obama’s platforms of 2008 and 2012 but in both instances the word “rare” was removed. As close as the wording came in 2012, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

Aside from adding abortions to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as constitutionally granted rights, why would anyone remove the word “rare?” There’s only one explanation -- because he or she doesn’t desire them to be rare. Why are abortions the only such “right?” Why no other medical procedures? Why do they not advocate for the “right” to free and safe colonoscopies or dental cleanings? Simple. Because they want abortions performed, couldn’t care less about your molars.

The Welland Port Colborne Pro-Life Association has its offices adjacent to St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Welland, Ontario. On October 29th ministry and church workers came to work to find that pro-abortion vandals had spray painted the words “HAPPY ABORTIONS” in large white letters onto their building. How revolting. Defacing a church by painting “Go Team!” on it would be vile enough, but the message within the message here was clear. It’s one the entire anti-choice left seems in agreement with, “Don’t you dare encourage women not to abort!!  We want those infants dead.” Some choice.