The abortion industry is cracking up and is scared to death over the public backlash at Planned Parenthood, and a host of proposed bills at the state and federal level assuring civil rights for the unborn. Consider their incendiary language.
Pro-abort enthusiast Amanda Marcotte said pro-lifers want to force women back to the “sadistic punishments” of the pre-Roe days. The Feminist Majority accused pro-lifers of “domestic terrorism,” and a writer for religiondispatches.org said “state-endorsed terrorism” is at work. The National Organization for Women outdid everyone by engaging in rank anti-Catholic invective: it said it would be a “dream-come-true” for the bishops if women were to lose access to pap smears and testing for sexually transmitted diseases.
A pro-life billboard was recently taken down in New York City after pro-abortion government officials objected. The same censors in the New York City Council passed a measure to punish crisis pregnancy centers for offering alternatives to abortion; deceptive advertising was the charge. Bill Donohue wrote to one of the censors, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, asking her to consider legislation that would “require Planned Parenthood to advertise that they are primarily an abortion provider, and not an adoption-referral organization,” pointing out that it performed 324,008 abortions in 2008 as opposed to only 2,405 adoption referrals. He never heard back.
Meanwhile, the New York Times recently ran an editorial condemning the crisis pregnancy centers, arguing that women considering an abortion are entitled to make “well-informed decisions about reproductive health.” Why then does it use the term “burdensome” to describe requirements that women considering an abortion first see a sonogram of their baby? Wouldn’t that help her make a “well-informed decision”? The crack-up is profound.