Blogs

March 1, 2013, (JillStanek.com) – Planned Parenthood triggered a massive identity crisis in the pro-abortion world when it announced on February 9 it was abandoning the term “pro-choice.”

mentioned at the time Planned Parenthood must certainly not have conferred with such groups as NARAL Pro-Choice America before dropping its bombshell.

Image

I don’t think abortion advocacy groups appreciate the fact that Planned Parenthood is a billion dollar business. So its decisions will be primarily market-driven, which may or may not coincide with the best interest of ideological groups – one of the hard truths about the 1%.

Thus, Planned Parenthood basically hung NARAL, et al, out to dry, forcing them to defend their commitment to the word “choice.”

In an interview with Politico today, new NARAL president Ilyse Hogue said her group is doubling down…

… to redefine “choice.” It’s the right to end a pregnancy – and the right to start one, including access to pricey fertility treatment. Once a baby is born, parents should have paid family leave to take care of them.

I asked several pro-life leaders for their insights about the other side’s growing schizophrenia over the word “choice.”  Eric Scheidler of Pro-Life Action League wrote:

As Planned Parenthood backs away from the language of “choice,” NARAL is trying to expand it. These contradictory strategies show how effectively the pro-life movement has rammed home the message that “choice” means abortion – any time, for any reason or no reason at all. That’s what Planned Parenthood and NARAL stand for, no matter what new slogans they come up with or old ones they try to dust off.

Jim Sedlak of American Life League added:

Both Planned Parenthood and NARAL are having problems with the word “choice.” PP is running away from it and NARAL is trying to redefine it.

Their basic problem is that they are not able to relate to the younger generation. NARAL’s former president admitted that is why she left. For 40 years pro-lifers have been telling people that we will eventually win because we are having children while the other side is not. All those children of pro-life families now make-up the majority of the younger generation. They are rejecting the “pro-choice” lies. PP and NARAL don’t know what to do about it.

From a public relations standpoint, Kristina Hernandez, Senior Account Manager for CRC Public Relations, noted:

NARAL is actually following PP’s lead. Abortion is a losing issue. They need something else to reel in the masses, so they are trying to figure out what works.

How does endorsing fertility treatments and parental leave play with the younger generation? I doubt they care about such things until later in life. If NARAL is so keen on being hip and young, why choose those issues?

Speaking for the youth, Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America suggested the appeal might be to appear as a more well-rounded social justice movement:

Hogue’s statements are reflective of the general census in the U.S. that abortions are wrong. Instead of focusing on abortion, the other side wants to move beyond it, as they know its a loser for them.

This is new redefining campaign targeted at this generation, who knows the tired arguments of “it’s just a blob of tissue” are scientifically wrong.

Abortion proponents are hoping their “holistic” approach will help bring in more of the mushy-middle young women out there who don’t like abortion but also want to make sure help is always available for women.

It kinda sounds like they are trying to do what the pro-life movement has done in some ways – moving beyond just focusing on the baby but now being sure to always include the women when we talk about the effect of abortion.

I see this as a challenge for the pro-life movement.

Reprinted with permission from JillStanek.com.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.

10 Comments

    Loading...