(LifeSiteNews) — The primary success of the American pro-life movement over the past half-century is the stigmatization of abortion against all cultural odds. Despite ongoing attempts by abortion activists to “shout their abortions”; to insist on “abortion on demand and without apology”; and to characterize abortion as “jut healthcare,” it hasn’t worked.
When pro-life activists debate about choice, abortion activists win. People love choices. But when pro-life activists focus the debate on what is being chosen, they often win—because the reality that abortion kills a baby is incontrovertible.
Some abortion advocates have realized this. After Dr. Christina Francis, an anti-abortion OB-GYN testified about abortion on July 19 during the U.S. House Energy and Commerce hearing on the impact of the Dobbs decision, Congresswoman Kathleen Rice of New York’s 4th District weighed in—to object to the word ‘abortion.’
“I would suggest you stop throwing the word ‘abortion’ around because you think it’s one that is going to raise emotions about having reasonable conversation,” she stated. “[The] word has been weaponized, in my opinion, by certain people in this country because if we’re going to have a real conversation about this, we have to stop using language that is going to prevent an actual meaningful conversation from happening.”
To sum up: Congresswoman Rice wants to have a meaningful conversation about abortion without using the word abortion because that word conjures up certain connotations in people’s minds.
30+ powerful big-box, Big Tech, and mainstream media companies are targeting their young female employees by offering abortion travel “benefits” to new mothers — to kill their children for the sake of corporate profit and productivity!
THIS PRO-DEATH CORPORATE CULTURE WILL DESTROY LIVES AND VILLIFY BIG FAMILIES AND PRO-LIFE VALUES IF WE DON’T ACT NOW!
***WE CANNOT LOSE THE PRO-LIFE VICTORY AFTER ROE V. WADE TO ANTI-FAMILY COMPANIES! SEND A MESSAGE TO POWERFUL CEOs TODAY THAT YOU SUPPORT OUR CHILDREN’S RIGHTS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!***
SIGN THE PETITION NOW TO WIN THE CORPORATE PRO-LIFE BATTLE!
Starbucks said it would reimburse travel expenses for employees who need abortions and cannot get them within 100 miles of their homes. In a memo on Monday, the company said it wanted to ensure that its employees had “access to quality health care.” https://t.co/PI1Yg2xKTx— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 16, 2022
Amazon says it will pay up to $4,000 in travel expenses annually for non-life threatening medical treatments including abortions, according to a message seen by Reuters. https://t.co/9M4Dtdzb4X— NBC News (@NBCNews) May 3, 2022
The pro-life movement has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to send a pro-family message to millions of citizens for generations to come — but we cannot LOSE OUT on this moment by caving to corporations and their cheap and disgusting “abortion” benefits!
CONSUMERS MUST SEND A RESOUNDING MESSAGE TO ALL CORPORATE LEADERS THAT WE WILL NOT TOLERATE EMPLOYEE ABORTION PRESSURE!
SIGN TODAY and demand the following company CEOs SUPPORT WOMEN AND CHILDREN NOW!
***WE ARE DELIVERING THIS LETTER TO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM!***
Jeff Bezos – Amazon
Brian Moynihan – Bank of America
Whitney Wolfe Herd – Bumble
BuzzFeed – Jonah Peretti
Cigna Health Insurance – David Cordani
Citigroup – Jane Fraser
CNN – Chris Licht
Comcast – Brian Roberts
Condé Nast – Roger Lynch
CVS Health – Karen Lynch
Dick’s Sporting Goods – Lauren Hobart
Goldman Sachs – David Solomon
Hewlett-Packard – Enrique Lores
JPMorgan Chase – Jamie Dimon
Kroger – Rodney McMullen
New York Times – Meredith Kopit Levien
Lyft – Logan Green
MasterCard – Michael Miebach
Meta/Facebook - Mark Zuckerberg
Microsoft – Satya Nadella
Paramount – Brian Robbins
Patagonia – Jenna Johnson
PayPal – Dan Schulman
Procter & Gamble – Jon Moeller
Salesforce – Marc Benioff
Starbucks – Kevin Johnson
Target – Brian Cornell
Tesla, Inc. – Elon Musk
Uber – Dara Khosrowshahi
Vox Media – Jim Bankoff
Disney – Bob Chapek
Yelp – Jeremy Stoppelman
Zillow – Rich Barton
*** SIGN NOW AND MAKE YOUR PRO-LIFE AND PRO-FAMILY VOICE HEARD AT THE WORLD'S LARGEST CORPORATIONS! TELL THESE CEOs TO STOP SUPPORTING ABORTION TODAY! ***
Image Logos: Wikipedia
Rice is correct that despite every attempt by the abortion industry and their activist allies to destigmatize abortion, Americans do not view abortion positively—even those who think it should be legal in some circumstances. But much of the movement she is a part of is taking a different tactic.
There’s been two children’s books in the last few years using the word, What’s an Abortion Anyway? and Maybe A Baby. An abortion doctor penned an article for Slate explaining how she talked about the issue with her kids, and noting that she didn’t have a problem using the word “baby” even though she prefers “embryo” or “fetus.”
While Democratic politicians want to fixate on abortion as fundamental healthcare (preferring phrases like “reproductive healthcare,” which avoids the word abortion and, they hope, a discussion about what abortion actually is) abortion activists are moving towards an unapologetic defence of abortion as killing. Thus far, this is not the central position of the movement—the mainstream media is too uncomfortable covering such statements.
But plenty of abortionists have admitted candidly that they are killing, but that this killing is justified. Two days before Roe v. Wade was overturned Sophie Lewis penned a manifesto for The Nation titled “Abortion Involves Killing—and That’s Ok!” An excerpt:
There is something infantilizing about denying the fact that embryos die when we scrape them out of the bodies of which they are a part. It sentimentalizes pregnant or potentially pregnant humans as fundamentally nonviolent creatures to imply that we can’t handle the truth about what we are up to when we opt out. And it patronizes abortion-getters to insist that we are only making a health care choice, rather than (also) extinguishing a future child. In my view, recognizing that gestating manufactures a proto-person requires acknowledging that abortion kills a proto-person. A baby is completely dependent on human care in order to stay alive, but its needs could be filled by any person—whereas a fetus, a proto-person, is ineluctably dependent on specific person.
It is time to acknowledge, Lewis writes, that “fetuses are killable” and that women have the right to kill them because pro-lifers have been winning the battle of rhetoric:
But what’s the point of acknowledging this now, at a time when abortion rights are so imperiled? For one thing, it would seem hard to deny that the euphemistic, apologetic, placatory “pro-choice” strategy hasn’t worked out thus far. So, why not risk coming out for what we actually want, namely, abortion—a clearly documented public good? The pending Supreme Court leak thrusts us into a situation in which we have little left to lose. Rather than cleave in desperation to the rearguard missions of defending the rights (to privacy, rather than abortion) enshrined in Roe v. Wade, we could consider this moment a chance to reset the terms on which abortion is fought.
The first stage of the propaganda battle—“choice” versus “abortion”—is coming to an end. The second stage—in which abortion activists admit they relied on convenient lies for years and come out to brazenly defend killing babies—will soon begin.