NOW makes a bad choice in the abortion debate

TownHall.com ^ | 4/23/03 | Kathleen Parker

[kattracks]

Future public-relations students someday will study what may become known as "The Mavra Stark Mistake." Not since Goliath smirked at David has a battle's likely outcome been so miscalculated.

Stark, if that apt name doesn't quite ring a bell, is the president of the National Organization for Women's Morris County, N.J., chapter who is protesting the double-murder charge in the Laci Peterson case.

Her protest was prompted by California prosecutors' decision to charge Scott Peterson with murdering both his wife, Laci, and their unborn baby, Conner -a move that the rabidly pro-choice contingent fears could potentially impact women's "right" to late-term abortions.

In a statement that wowed the "Doh" crowd, Stark said: "If this is murder, well, then any time a late-term fetus is aborted, they could call it murder."

Why, yes, they could. And some already do.

You don't even have to visit the farthest reaches of the anti-abortion fringe to find people who are appalled at the idea of aborting a healthy eight-month fetus. Third-trimester abortions are relatively rare -only 1 percent of all abortions are performed after the 21st week -for the simple reason that most people wouldn't consider it.

Since I'd rather hitch a ride on a bunker buster than debate fetal viability, suffice it to say that as technological advances make it possible to sustain life outside the womb, the thresholds for fetal viability and public tolerance for abortion will continue being pushed back toward conception.

What's interesting about Stark's starkly self-defeating blurt isn't just the display of insensitivity, but the hint of a movement's death rattle, so to speak. These are desperate times for radical pro-choicers who refuse to see what most moderate Americans have settled on, at least for now: There is a difference between a zygote and a third-trimester baby.

Such that Stark, progressively tone-deaf, said the following: "There's something about this that bothers me a little bit. Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging (Peterson) with a double-murder."

It. "Its" name was to be Conner. "It" was a boy scheduled to arrive Feb. 10. He, which is how most expectant mothers refer to their unborn sons, was fully formed and still had his umbilical cord attached when found floating a mile or so from where his mother's body was discovered.

Few could have failed to feel sorrow upon hearing the news. This was one of those stories that the American Street had followed closely, hoping the perky pregnant wife with deep dimples and her baby son would be found alive.

So that the question, was it born or unborn, seems grossly inappropriate.

We'll probably know the answer, whether we want to or not, in time. But in the context of the pro-choice movement's need to cultivate public support for abortion rights, the question is both irrelevant and obscene.

Put it this way: If you want to advance a cause by wrestling a good legal point, it's a good idea to avoid involving the infant son of an all-American murder victim.

It's called inattention to the weather, like telling a raunchy joke at a toddler's party or peddling pornography in the intensive care unit. You don't raise issues of "born-ness" and abortion rights at the funeral of a nationally beloved baby, nor do you call him "it." Not if you want people to see you as anything but inhuman.

You might decide instead that this is a no-win battle that will only help the opposition. Indeed, what a gift to the other side. No doubt pro-lifers have already rented tents and a caterer for the party they'll be throwing after a proper period of mourning. For Conner Peterson is, in fact, an argument against late-term abortions.

He is not, however, the first unborn baby to be regarded as a human being deserving of state protection. More than two dozen states have fetal homicide laws. A quick Google search produced two recent stories of convictions -one murder and one manslaughter -in cases where an eight-month fetus died as a result of its mother's murder.

By Stark's casting a rude light on a sad time, she has positioned NOW at the defense table of an accused killer, while reminding Americans of the ineluctable truth that late-term abortions and dead babies are one and the same.

©2003 Tribune Media Services

Contact Kathleen Parker | Read her biography

[Libloather]

When was the last time NOW made a good choice?

[bigghurtt]

this is absolutely unbelieveable.

I made an off-color joke on the way to work the other night about "how long you think it will be, before someone from the pro-choice crowd claims he was carrying out his constitutional right to abort an unwanted child?"

even I didn't think it would actually happen.

[moodyskeptic]

Wow. ProChoice sides with the Indefensable Murderer of the Year. I must admit I didn't see THIS coming. I was uncomfortable with amount of lamestream press this Laci murder was attracting, and then this twist shows up. People, this is a strange year, one in which the Radical Left keeps committing PR suicide.

[lawgirl]

It would be a wonderful thing if Connor's death was not in vain, and it ended up sealing the book on late term abortions. We can only hope- I hope Fox News and the rest jump on this idiot woman's words and uses them for all it's worth.

[Gunder]

The funny (or I guess sad) thing is that over the weekend I was watching some coverage of the Peterson trial. I thought to myself, "I'll bet the pro-abortion crowd absolutely cringes at all this talk of charging Scott with a double murder." But never in a million years did I think the NAG crowd would actually be stupid and opportunistic enough to try using this gruesome tragedy to further their radical agenda. It's a good time to be RIGHT in America.

[jcperson]

I agree with lawgirl, this should shut the case on the debate of whether third trimester abortions are legal...THEY'RE NOT!

[Terridan]

Laci Peterson, RIP, wanted this baby by her own choice...
her choice was to eagerly, happily, await the birth of her son...
NOW doesn't have a right to say that baby Conner wasn't a viable "fetus", as it wasn't born alive. Point is, Conner would have been alive, if his dad hadn't planted cement on his mother. The point should also be to the courts, that this baby could have survived on his own at eight months of gestation! His human right to live will be defended.
I think that NOW will be disbanded... their sick days are over. Oh they make me sick.

[shekkian]

Why is the NOW chapter in New Jersey stepping in on a case in California?

Oh wait, yeah. I forgot.

[ODDITHER]

The Nag Gang has turned into the pre-natal-nazis.

What happened to the womans right to choose? As usual, they just raised the bar again. I am sure this mother didn't choose for her child to be killed in the womb.

I just realized that in order to be a liberal, especially a feminazi liberal, one must believe in the law of no opposites. The opposite of life is death - except in the case of a baby who has not taken it's breath. That is different.

In the case where both mother and unborn baby are murdered - they want a TWOFER.

What once was an organization devoted to ensuring womens rights, has become an organization dedicated to ensuring that babies can be killed under all circumstances and womens rights aree discussed only in the context of supporting the homosexual agenda.

The shame of this organization is that it will now be known as the one free grope and one free murder gang.

[ought-six]

"The shame of this organization is that it will now be known as the one free grope and one free murder gang."

You need to clarify that. The "one free grope" rule only applies to liberals (see: Bill Clinton) and other such fellow travelers. Republicans and conservatives are not allowed a "free grope." Same goes for "free murder" (see: Ted Kennedy of Chappaquidick fame).

[mabelkitty]

They need to be FORCED to defend their partial birth abortion stance - even if they don't want to.

[fporretto]

If memory serves, NOW raised money for the defense of Susan Smith and Andrea Yates, so at least they're consistent about their hostility to children. Of course, whether you think that's a virtue or not is up to you.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

[wayoverontheright]

The NOW gang backtracked only when they realized that Scott Petersen had committed for them the more egregious act of depriving Laci of her right to choose, a crime certainly worthy of capital punishment.

[The FRugitive]

bttt

[Gamecock]

I am glad NOW took the stand that they did. I am glad they screamed and pouted. I actually encourage them to protest this case

That is the only way the American public will see what kind of monsters they really are.

[The FRugitive]

BTW, even the DUers pointed out the stupidity of this tactic when this story first hit the wire.

Some even suggested that Stark must be a right wing anti-abortion plant.

[votelife]

Here is a recent email I sent to W.

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.