The Other Side

The acclaimed Chinese warrior and strategist Sun Tzu advocated the importance of knowing both yourself and your enemy before going into battle. For if "you know your enemy and know yourself," he wrote, "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." But, Sun Tzu warned, "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."

Understanding our opponents is critical to success in the battle for human life. Organizations like Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and EMILY's List are fighting daily to overturn our pro-life successes. Although it may be unpleasant at times, we cannot underestimate the benefit of knowing our opponents. Only then will we truly be prepared to defeat the culture of death and those who perpetuate it.

 

 

 

NOW Abandons Younger Generations

By: Katie Koch, Spring 2009 Intern 

The National Organization for Women (NOW) narrowly elected a new president this past weekend. To many of NOW’s most ardent pro-abortion advocates, however, Terry O’Neill is nothing but a continuation of the old, radical feminist movement.

Latifa Lyles presented a formidable opponent, gaining the endorsement of outgoing NOW President Kim Gandy and prominent feminist author Nancy Redd. While the two candidates barely differed politically, their backgrounds presented a stark contrast. O’Neill is 56 years-old, while Lyles is only 33 years-old. According to the Washington Post, age proved to be a divisive factor:

Some observers said O'Neill's narrow victory over Lyles underscored a generational struggle in the 600,000-member advocacy group.

Lyles, an African American, emphasized a new image of youth and diversity that she said would appeal to younger feminists. NOW, which was founded in 1966, has a mostly white and over-40 membership. O'Neill is white.

O’Neill only garnered eight more votes than her opponent, leaving many to wonder just how unified NOW will be as it moves forward. Here is what some feminists are saying about the election:

While I would never argue that youth, diversity and technology alone make for a robust feminist movement, it seems to me that NOW is in dire need of a candidate like Lyles. 

It's very difficult for young feminists to relate to a movement that can't embrace technology. A glance at NOW's poorly designed, difficult to navigate, pink-and-purple Web site -- which doesn't even incorporate a blog, a message board or any other form of online community-building feature  -- pretty much says it all.

-    Judy Berman, a columnist with Slate Magazine in her June 15th column

 

I never paid attention to a NOW election in my life until I knew Latifa [Lyles] was running. …This could be the moment where NOW becomes super-relevant to the feminist movement again. …When you think of NOW, you think of white middle-class feminism — 70s feminism. A lot of younger women are tired of seeing the same kind of leadership over and over.

-    Jessica Valenti, co-founder and executive editor of Feministing.com in an interview with the AP

From the looks of it, NOW passed on the chance to attract the younger generation. Instead, it chose to carry on the agenda of the radical feminists of old. NOW’s inability to change its style and leadership comes amidst new polls showing support for the pro-life movement is on the rise. Membership and revenue at NOW, meanwhile is falling, according to the AP.

So much has changed since the 1970s. Ultrasound images revealed to the nation a living, unborn child and moved the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. Scientific advancements have allowed us to learn more and more about the earliest moments of life.

With NOW continuing to live in the past and abandoning younger feminists like Valenti, the future is brightening for the pro-life movement.

 

 

Abortion Industry Seeks to Silence Pro-Life Speech

By: Katie Koch, Spring 2009 Intern 

The ripple effect from the death of George Tiller continues to batter the pro-life movement. Pro-life groups condemned the murder of the late-term abortionist within hours. In the same time frame, the abortion industry swiftly began to tie prominent pro-life activists to radicalism, equating speech with guilt.

 

NARAL vice president of Communications Mary Alice Carr recently wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that she refuses to appear on The O’Reilly Factor again. Why? Because according to Carr, Bill O’Reilly somehow shares the blame in the death of George Tiller. Here is a taste of her shocking opinion (shared by many in the abortion industry):

O'Reilly is being incredibly disingenuous when he claims that he bears no responsibility for others' actions in the killing of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday. When you tell an audience of millions over and over again that someone is an executioner, you cannot feign surprise when someone executes that person.

You cannot claim to hold no responsibility for what other people do when you call for people to besiege Tiller's clinic, as O'Reilly did in January 2008. And this was after Tiller had been shot in both arms and after his clinic had been bombed.

O'Reilly knew that people wanted Tiller dead, and he knew full well that many of those people were avid viewers of his show. Still, he fanned the flames.

The abortion industry needs to stop declaring that speaking out against abortion somehow makes you an accomplice to murder. These are two completely different things.

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC makes the same harmful insinuation. Last week he named Jill Stanek the “Worst Person in the World.” Jill Stanek has never called for the murder of anyone. She bravely testified in the Illinois state senate on the barbaric practices of infanticide that led to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Now, she dedicates her time to writing about the latest news concerning abortion. So what was her offense, according to Olbermann?

You can be complicit in such a crime [as the death of George Tiller] even if you never met the man nor his assassin…Miss Stanek, you’ll never understand, that in a just world, to tell a bunch of crazy people like your readers, where they can find somebody and abuse, threaten, or kill them, that that should be enough of a crime to put you in jail for the rest of your life.

Stanek responded by first clarifying that the only pictures she put on her blog of the clinics were found in the L.A. Times and the Associated Press. Stanek was in no way advocating violence. She simply added the pictures to a story highlighting the less than ideal standards at the clinics. Even Google will provide you with the addresses of the clinics.

So what are Olbermann and Carr so opposed to? What is it that they find so abhorring?

Free speech.

It is irresponsible and dangerous to point the finger at individuals who are brave enough to stand-up to the abortion industry’s PR machine and the media. For too long, messages of “choice” and “reproductive freedom” went unchecked. Now, however, the pro-life movement has thrown the cloak off of the veiled language of the abortion industry. The truth they speak is dangerous to their million dollar profits and the abortion industry will go to any lengths to stop it.

The death of George Tiller provided the abortion industry with the opportunity it desperately wanted to shut down pro-life speech. Abusing the heightened sense of fear, NARAL and friends sought to paint anyone who criticizes abortion as a terrorist, accomplice to murder, and propagator of hate speech.

Bonnie Erbe, longtime pro-abortion advocate, wrote in her U.S. News and World Report blog that “Isn't it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?” Erbe wrote the column after the tragic death of a security guard at the Holocaust Museum. She included, George Tiller’s death, however, in what she called the “clarion call for banning hate speech.”

When the abortion industry and the media paint pro-life Americans as propagators of hate speech and violence and then in the same breath call for the banning of hate speech, every American should be alarmed. George Tiller’s death was tragic, yes, but it can never be used as justification for silencing a growing opposition to abortion.

Bill O’Reilly and Jill Stanek are not responsible for the death of George Tiller. They have every right to criticize his actions and are constitutionally protected in doing so. The abortion industry is trying to paint them as part of the problem in order to silence them. Because by silencing them, they hope to regain what was once theirs – the support of the majority of the American population.

 

Pro-Abortion Women's Groups Already Upset at Obama White House

By: Katie Koch, Spring 2009 Intern

President Barack Obama has been in office less than two weeks and already radical women's groups are fuming at his refusal to comply with their every command. President Obama spent much of his first two weeks working with Congress to pass the nearly $900 billion economic stimulus package. As always, however, the devil lay in the details.

The lesser known aspects of the package began to immerge, including a provision for almost $200 million in funding for "family planning services." According to the Associated Press,

"Under the provision, states would no longer have to seek permission from the federal government to provide family planning services including contraceptives as part of the Medicaid program for the low-income."

The funds, however, could also be used to help women whose income is 200 percent over the poverty line, according to Fox News.

Obama then did what many women's groups considered the unthinkable: he called the Democratic Leadership and requested that they take the family planning funding out of the stimulus package. Immediately the National Organization of Women, Planned Parenthood, and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) spread the message they were NOT happy.

Planned Parenthood sent out a vicious email, asking members to call the White House and ask why the funds had been taken out. Interestingly enough, the letter did not recommend that supporters to call their Congressmen, the people who actually removed the funding from the bill.

The Politico quoted Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, who wrote in the email,

"[It is a] betrayal of millions of low-income women, and it will place an even greater burden on state budgets that are already strained to the breaking point."

The pro-abortion women rattled off adjectives to describe how they felt:

         "Stunned" said Richards

         "Devastated" said Mary Jane Gallagher of the NFPRHA

The fighting between these groups and the White House teaches us a valuable lesson about the abortion industry. In reality, every dime groups like Planned Parenthood receive from the federal government for "family planning," is a dime they don't have to use from supporters' donations. And each dime that is saved from supporters' donations can then be used to fund the killing of an unborn child.

The abortion industry wants money and they want it now. President Obama might not have the friends he thinks he does. Rather, he has powerful abortion groups interested in dictating policy when and how they want it.

 

Pro-Abortion Student Group Protests Mexico City Policy

By: Julia Polese, Fall 2008 Intern

A group called the Feminist Organization Reclaiming Consciousness and Equality, or “FORCE,” is holding what they call a “Die-In” at Cal State University Long Beach to protest the Mexico City Policy. This policy, championed by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 and restored by President Bush on his first day in office in 2001, “requires nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations.” In short, the policy keeps taxpaer dollars away from international abortion providers.

FORCE, however, finds this policy an affront to “human rights” and is organizing the “Die-In” to represent the supposed millions of women who have died as a result of the Mexico City Policy, what they call the “Global Gag Rule.”

The Daily 49er reports:

“The Die-In itself stems from the idea of sit-ins, where people sit and occupy space in order to call attention to an issue,” [Justine] Schneeweis, [co-chair of FORCE] said. “Instead of just ‘sitting,’ we’re ‘playing dead’ in order to call attention to this issue by representing the thousands of women whose lives have been lost or damaged as a result of the gag rule.”

The organization hopes that President-Elect Obama, who has pledged to pass the Freedom of Choice Act eliminating all restrictions to abortion, will also repeal the Mexico City Policy once he takes office in January.

“It should impact us through means of anger to ignite people to do what we can as privileged, as a lot of us are living in the U.S., to fight for the rights of humans who are affected by harmful policies such as these.”

It’s interesting that pro-abortion activists claim to care so much about women’s health and “human rights” when they are unwilling to acknowledge the terrible psychological effects and loss of innocent human life that results from an abortion. The Mexico City Policy is not about stripping women of their “reproductive rights,” but rather about responsibly handling taxpayer funds. It does not limit an NGO’s ability to talk about contraception and holds an exception for life-threatening cases. The reality is that the majority of Americans oppose abortion without restrictions and using their taxpayer money to advocate such policies is irresponsible.

 Since many of us who live in the United States are privileged, maybe we should use our advantages for something more productive and beneficial for women in need than playing dead in a classroom.

 

National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) Launches New Youth Effort

 By: Teresa Blazewicz, Fall 2008 Intern

NARAL has launched a new website in an effort to engage young Americans in their fight to protect “reproductive rights.”  The colorful MyFreeWillPower.com encourages young people across America to actively promote NARAL’s pro-abortion agenda in their towns and schools. They congratulate the youth on their record-breaking participation in this past election and encourage them to continue to be involved in the political process, especially when it comes to matters concerning reproductive freedom.

The motto of the site is Free.Will.Power. I am free to make my own decisions. I believe that my will can create progress and push. I believe that choice is power. And while the site is decked out in bright and cheery colors, its overall tone is vaguely foreboding. They warn of devious lawmakers and right-wing conservatives who are tirelessly working to take away reproductive freedom: 

Across the country, lawmakers are attacking our rights one-by-one. Their actions affect all of us, our friends and family, our mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers. Do your part to ensure that reproductive rights will not become a thing of the past.

Under the Will to learn section of the website, NARAL paints abortions as a personal issue that will affect each individual:  

It’s about your access to affordable birth control and your right to medically accurate sex education. It’s about your ability to make private personal decisions with your doctor and your family. And it’s about protecting these rights for yourself and your community.

It is absurd for NARAL and every other pro-abortion advocate to make this claim that they stand for “medically accurate sex education.” There are devastating physical and mental health problems associated with abortions, but do you think these risks are relayed in “medically accurate sex education?” The fact is abortions result in numerous physical health problems including ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and even sterility.   The psychological effects are equally unsettling, and there is no doubt that these very real consequences are utterly overlooked by NARAL.

The website is another attempt to camouflage the real atrocity of abortion by using words such as “freedom” and “private personal decisions.” In doing so, they glide over what lies at the heart of the abortion issue: the physical and mental well-being of the mother and the life of her unborn child.

Discuss the campaign on the SuzyB Blog!

 

National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) Releases Pro-Abortion Polling

By: Jesse Magallon, Summer 2008 Intern

On June 16, 2008, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a series of polling estimations that shows abortion to be an issue of steep contrast between Senators John McCain & Barack Obama. According to Democratic pollster Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR), abortion is a key issue for women swing voters. To that end, GQR believes that women will vote for Obama because he is less restrictive on Roe v. Wade than McCain. GQR claims that Obama is more or less tied to the status quo while John McCain will actively attempt to undermine the 1973 Court decision.

According to Al Quinlan, (president of GQR), “The data shows that choice is an important issue that can move key voting blocs of pro-choice Republican and Independent women who can play an important role in building Obama’s winning coalition. Because NARAL Pro-Choice Americas communicates extensively with this unique swing constituency, NARAL’s efforts in 2008 can help Barack Obama win what may be a close election.”

Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America agrees. “This poll confirms what we’ve known for a long time now. NARAL Pro-Choice America is uniquely positioned to help pro-choice candidates win elections from the White House to the state house. We will be working tirelessly over the next five months to ensure NARAL Pro-Choice America’s endorsed candidate, Sen. Obama, becomes president-elect Obama on November 4, 2008.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is up to us, the ethical majority of Americans to prove NARAL wrong. Their radical agenda is so far from the mainstream of our nation’s plurality that it would be comical were it not so critical. Our contrast is clear; NARAL and other pro-abortion groups believe in a surgical procedure that suppresses human life. We are for saving these innocents. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “We confide in our strength, without boasting of it; we respect that of others, without fearing it.” With that axiom as our maxim, let us look forward to our future frontier without sacrificing the human life that has made us the confident and composed country we are.

 

National Organization for Women fears for their “reproductive liberty”

By: Margaret Martin, Spring 2008 Intern

With the commemoration of the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on January 22nd, 2008, The National Organization for Women is faced with the reality that pro-life advocacy is spreading far and wide, and Roe is losing its security in the Supreme Court’s support. Sadly, any movement on the pro-life front toward state government collaboration is regarded by NOW as harassment to women’s rights. The increasing success of the pro-life movement from state to state is causing anxiety on the pro-abortion front that their “right to safe and legal abortion is slipping away.”

NOW President Kim Gandy, in a recent petition calling for monthly contributions to fund their 2008 “Campaign to Save Women’s Lives”, stressed their need for committed funding in order to “combat the constant stream of anti-abortion legislation.” With two recent articles on the NOW website referring to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Gandy refers to their “tenuous” position and “the need now, more than ever, to fight to keep Roe alive.”

The website also features urgent rhetoric about increasing threats to women and abortionists:

"In this time of many challenges to our liberty, preserving women's reproductive freedom calls for constant vigilance and concerted action," said Gandy. "Abortion opponents are attempting to eliminate access to abortion in many states -- by passing TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws to put clinics out of business, passing waiting periods and notice requirements that cut access to rural women, poor women and young women, and by enacting outright abortion bans that would jail doctors and revoke their medical licenses."

This challenge to preserve women’s liberty is not about an attempt from the pro-life standpoint to destroy the reproductive freedom of women, but rather to enhance the awareness of her own health and well-being and the life of the baby otherwise being thwarted by abortion. Thankfully, these fears on the part of NOW show the success of the pro-life movement in overturning abortion and call for a redoubling of efforts on the part a women’s true freedom in choosing Life.