March for Life's Strong Numbers Make it Clear: Pro-Life Advocates Don't Quit

Life News ^ | 1/23/09 | Dave Andrusko

[wagglebee]

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. He writes Today's News and Views -- an online editorial column on pro-life issues.

 

There were a number of new wrinkles in the 36th annual March for Life, some of which I caught and others I'm sure I missed. This included everything from the exact starting point to the route walked to the time at which the police cleared the street of traffic. What didn't change were the numbers: they were huge.

Most news accounts will take the safe route: the description will be of "thousands" or "tens of thousands" of pro-life marchers. But writing on USA Today's "Faith and Reason" blog, Cathy Lynn Grossman casually mentions, "Still, anyone can see hundreds of thousands of marchers pulling into town."

Breaking with my own tradition (I've covered 27), after grabbing my final photos in front of the Supreme Court, instead of hightailing it back to the office, I backtracked all the way to its tail end. It stretched a long, long way.

Obviously, no matter how much I much I read or skim, I see only a tiny, tiny portion of all the news coverage that relates to abortion. Ditto for what pro-abortions are saying on their web pages and in their comments to reporters.

But my strong sense is that with few exceptions, everyone who covers the Movement--or opposes it--grasps what the March today illustrated. Whatever the results last November, it is not in the DNA of pro-lifers to quit.

That is a major reason (the other is to keep up the illusion of "moderation") that pro-abortions and the mainstream media haven't written the usual "good, they are dead, and good riddance" stories by the bushel full. They know we are already coming back stronger than ever. (See virtually the entire January issue of NRL News devoted to "Stopping Obama's Abortion Agenda.") Still and all it was odd not to hear the President's voice congratulating us for assembling from all over the country in the nation's capital. Only silence from the White House and pro-abortion President Barack Obama.

Let me revise that statement. We are hearing a lot about Obama ending the pro-life Mexico City Policy as early as sometime today--the first volley in what will doubtless be a cascade of anti-life initiatives.

Without retracing this at any great length, the long and the short of the policy is that it denies U.S. population-control funding to organizations that "perform or actively promote abortion" in foreign countries. There are plenty of agencies willing to abide by that restriction.

When Obama nullifies that policy the result will be to re-direct a substantial amount of the pool of U.S. "population assistance" funds away from overseas groups that avoid involvement in abortion, and into the hands of groups that are ideologically committed to expanding access to abortion.

So much for "reducing" the number of abortions.

Each year, whether the weather is frigid, wet, or (as was the case today) sunny and mild, I come away from the rally with renewed vigor and pep. It's almost impossible not to be, so enthusiastic are the tens of thousands of young people and so inspired are the speeches from elected officials.

Several alluded to various sections of President Obama's inaugural address. While he had not intended to include the unborn within their sweep, Obama's remarks spoke eloquently to the reason why the little ones SHOULD be included. I wrote about a couple of them yesterday but missed the most important one of all:

"The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God- given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to purse their full measure of happiness."

Indeed, all are equal, including the most vulnerable among us, the unborn child.

[wagglebee]

But my strong sense is that with few exceptions, everyone who covers the Movement--or opposes it--grasps what the March today illustrated. Whatever the results last November, it is not in the DNA of pro-lifers to quit.

And we WILL NOT quit while innocent humans are still being slaughtered.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[Guenevere]

bttt

[cripplecreek]

Giving up = giving a go ahead.

This is something that should be impressed on all FReepers about all conservative issues. Like it or not we’re still constituents of the democrats even though we didn’t vote for them.

[Parmy]

But, we who are Catholics have a problem. 56% of so-called Catholics voted for this. That might also mean that 56% of the Catholic marchers are duplicitous.

[wagglebee]

And I question how many Catholics would not have voted for Zero if McLame had actually made abortion an issue and not focused on “earmarks.” Face it, the GOP managed to find the only Republican in America who could manage to lose the tax cut vote to an avowed socialist, it was hardly a surprise that he lost a portion of the pro-life vote when he didn’t even make it an issue.

[manc]

my mother in law goes to Church and is a Catholic and no matter how many times I point out that she cannot be Catholic on a Sunday and a Dem on Monday she still doesn’t get it.

i have asked her these questions and she doesn’t agree with abortion or homo marriage and yet she votes for the Dems.

I don’t know if it is the MA water she is drinking up there but it’s like talking to a brick wall talking to her on politics

[JimRed]

But, we who are Catholics have a problem. 56% of so-called Catholics voted for this.

I'd like to know how many (if any) Catholics confessed to their misguided vote. If voting for the death of innocents is not a sin, what is?

[ArrogantBustard]

But, we who are Catholics have a problem. 56% of so-called Catholics voted for this.

Really?

That's the highest number I've seen yet. I've seen as low as 48% ... still outrageous, but NOT a majority.

[wagglebee]

It is beginning to change, but too many Catholics took Vatican II as “permission” to embrace secularism at least in political matters.

When the American Bishops make it clear that it is morally wrong for Catholics to accept abortion, euthanasia and non-celibate homosexuality in ANY WAY and this includes voting for politicians who support these things, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey and probably New York and Pennsylvania will become solidly GOP and will likely remain that way forever. All of these states have significant Catholic populations and they WILL vote against sin if they are instructed to do so.

[Darren McCarty]

I was there. There was at least 200,000, and I'm being conservative in my estimate.

[manc]

I hope it does change and those get past their ignorance to the religion they say they follow.
I remember a bumper sticker I saw once saying you cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat
HOW TRUE

You’re right that the north east should be solidly red and if the GOP pushed more on the abortion , homo, etc issues along with the priests and bishops actually stating this every week then a change would happen in those states.

the homo’s and the left went after the church after the scandel in MA and they never let up. The lawsuit s came and the church had to close some churches. The homo’s and the left knew that the church was their biggest opposition and wanted it out the way so they could push their own agenda.

It is no coincidence that once the church was in trouble after the scandal the left and homo’s made a move to get the homo marriage done in MA.

I wish the pope would get to Boston and the New England area more and point out in his speech that the church does not advocate the killing of babies and homo’s to get married so when they vote they can remember this .

[Parmy]

That's the highest number I've seen yet. I've seen as low as 48% ... still outrageous, but NOT a majority.

Majority or a minority, how is that relavent? The problem is that a substantial number of Catholics voted for Obama. There is a disconnect here.

Although in some places there is some reason occurring. In one Seattle parish, for instance.

My wife has a cousin who represents the 1st District of King County. Church going, every Sunday. Sings in the choir and is a Eucharistic minister. Recently some of the parishoners and the Parish Council conferred with the Pastor. It was determined that his pro-abortion votes and civil union votes in Olympia were in contrast to his 'church life'. It was suggested that he stop being a Eucharistic minister.

He was so offended because he could not see anything wrong with his actions that he left that Parish to begin attending one operated by Jesuits. Jesuits will accept anything.

[ArrogantBustard]

Majority or a minority, how is that relavent?

The truth is always relevant.

The problem is that a substantial number of Catholics voted for Obama. There is a disconnect here.

Certainly ... Even 48% is outrageously high.

It was suggested that he stop being a Eucharistic minister.

Kudos to your pastor ... raspberries to the Jesuits.

[Antoninus]

Quit? Instead, we will redouble our efforts.

Yesterday was the first day my wife, kids and I were all out in front of the local baby-dismemberment factory. It won't be the last. In fact, it may become a monthly, or even weekly event.

And again, in this white neighborhood, 100% of the people going into the 'clinic' were members of the "rainbow" coalition--either black or brown.

It's truly scary to me know utterly brainwashed these people are.

[Antoninus]

But, we who are Catholics have a problem. 56% of so-called Catholics voted for this. That might also mean that 56% of the Catholic marchers are duplicitous.

It might, but it doesn't. I think you could count the number of marchers who voted for Obama on one hand, Catholic or otherwise.

The duplicitous ones are those who call themselves Catholic but follow the teachings of the prince of this world. They may call themselves Catholics, but in truth, they are materialists or worse.

As a logic exercise, I'm not going to change my beliefs one bit, but start calling myself a Democrat and try to join a local party here in NJ. Just watch and see how fast I get thrown out.

[Dajjal]

March-For-Life bump