March against abortion is march against judicial arrogance 

By all means, attend.

That would be the demonstration on the National Mall tomorrow, Jan. 22, 2010, the 37th anniversary of that atrocity euphemistically called the Roe v. Wade decision.

While President Barack Obama will no doubt be issuing his annual proclamation all but declaring Jan. 22 a national holiday for pro-abortionists, the country’s anti-abortionists are being urged to attend a rally protesting any coverage for abortions in proposed health care legislation.

The folks who’ve organized tomorrow’s protest belong to a group called the Stop The Abortion Mandate Coalition. Kristina Hernandez, a spokeswoman for STAM, described the organization as “a loose coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups committed to stopping the abortion mandate in health care legislation.”

I was hoping she would say STAM was committed to booting that radical feminist ensconced in the Oval Office — and yes, that would be the guy known as Barack Obama — out of his job in 2012. But hey, one obstacle at a time, right?

STAM’s more immediate goal is best expressed in the statement the organization gave on its Web site. Here it is:

“On Friday, Jan. 22, 2010, hundreds of thousands of pro-life activists will gather to memorialize the 37th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, and they must be heard with one voice, saying ‘No abortion funding in health care.’ The importance of coming to Washington, D.C., to march this year cannot be overstated enough. There has never been a more important time in history for pro-life Americans to come and flood the streets of Washington, D.C., to send a clear message to the multi-billion-dollar abortion industry, Washington bureaucrats and the national media: ‘No abortion funding in health care!’”

Here is where the STAM people may have stumbled a bit: The pro-abortionists — the “suck-’em-down-the-tube crowd,” in my somewhat indelicate terminology — Washington bureaucrats and the liberal wing of the national media, especially, are least likely to get the meaning of “clear messages.” (Why else would most liberal newspapers insist on calling the suck-’em-down-the-tube crowd “pro-choice” while labeling pro-lifers as “anti-abortion”?)

But let me get back to the remainder of STAM’s rallying cry.

“Now is the time to make your voice heard!” the Web site message reads. “If you’ve never visited your congressman’s office, now is the time. If you’ve never written a letter to your senator, now is the time. If you’ve never participated in a public rally against abortion, now is the time. This could be your last chance to take a public stand and stop the abortion mandate in health care!”

The pro-choicers — aka the pro-abortionists, aka the suck-’em-down-the-tube brigade — deny that a health care mandate exists in the current legislation. They accuse groups like STAM of putting out misleading information.

But let’s assume STAM is completely wrong about a health care abortion mandate. There are still a plethora of reasons for pro-lifers to rally tomorrow, so many that I don’t have room to list them all in my next 50 columns, much less this one.

So I’ll go with my top two. Reason numero uno would be what I referred to above, and that would be getting that radical feminist out of the White House.

Obama may deny that his position on abortion is that of the classic radical feminist, but he has, on numerous occasions, linked abortion rights to women’s rights and women’s “liberation.” When someone supports murdering innocents as a “right,” I tend to place them squarely in the “radical” category.

Reason number two — and it follows number one so closely that it’s almost a tie — is this: It’s time for average Americans to reclaim their country from the government institutions that have hijacked it. In this case, that institution would be the Supreme Court.

Robert Bork, perhaps the nation’s most famous rejected Supreme Court nominee, best expressed what’s wrong with Roe v. Wade.

“I objected to Roe v. Wade the moment it was decided,” Bork wrote in his book “Slouching Towards Gomorrah,” not because of any doubts about abortion, but because the decision was a radical deformation of the Constitution. The Constitution has nothing to say about abortion, leaving it, like most subjects, to the judgment and moral sense of the American people and their elected representatives.

“Roe and the decisions affirming it are equal in their audacity and abuse of judicial office to Dred Scott v. Sandford.”

Bork used the wrong “a” word in his passage. It’s not the audacity of the Supreme Court that should trouble Americans; it’s the Court’s arrogance.

Isn’t that the best reason for pro-lifers to rally at the National Mall tomorrow?

Examiner columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.

About The Author

Gregory Kane


Examiner columnist Gregory Kane is an award-winning journalist who lives in Baltimore.

Pin It

Speaking of...

More by Gregory Kane

Latest in Guest Columns

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation