What used to be called the pro-choice movement is morphing into an agenda that is enthusiastically and unabashedly, pro-abortion. Why? As I explain in my First Things biweekly column:
Mendacity has its costs. Understanding the public’s sentimentality about babies, pro-choice apologists often falsely claimed their goal was simply to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” That worked for a time. But conceding that abortion should be “rare” implicitly accepted the pro-life movement’s fundamental premise—that the entity terminated in an abortion is far more than an inflamed appendix. Eventually, the sheer force of logic and fact helped push the country in a more pro-life direction.
This means the never-changing abortion is about to change:
I expect that in the coming years abortion rights supporters will execute a tactical retreat that admits the humanity of the unborn, conjoined with a strong counter-offensive dismissing the moral relevance of that biological fact. What matters, advocates will increasingly assert, is the state’s guarantee that women’s reproductive desires are fulfilled—with abortion viewed as a positively good way of doing so. Pro-lifers had better quickly discern how to counter the new candidly explicit pro-abortion advocacy.
“Pro-choice” is out. Roe v. Wade is to be overturned as too restrictive.
Pro-lifers take notice: That approach took a big step forward with a recent court ruling comparing abortion access to the Second Amendment. For more, hit this link.