Letters to the Editor

Working to make abortion illegal: Responding to those who favor legal abortion who say, "If abortions are harder to obtain in this state, women will just travel to other states to have them." Pro-abortion people argue, "Outlawing abortion will not end it." Responding to the argument that "stopping abortion will not happen through changing laws--it will come from changing hearts--so therefore we shouldn't work to make it illegal."

Back

Letter Number: 33 Pro-abortion people often object to being called pro-abortion. They say that the proper term is "pro-choice." What is it about abortion that makes the people who support it not want to be associated with it? Why are abortion advocates ashamed of the very thing they fight to protect? To appear less radical, some abortion advocates say they don't support abortion in all circumstances, and therefore should be called "pro-choice." But home-school advocates don't insist that all people pull their children out of public school. They just want the option available for themselves and others. They are pro-choice on school options. But they are not ashamed of what they stand for. They are pro-homeschooling. People who want to see drugs legalized don't want to make everyone take drugs. They just want them to be legally available to those who want them. They are pro-choice on drugs. But again, they are not ashamed of what they stand for. They are pro-drug legalization, and they will say it. Of all social movements, only abortion advocates are ashamed of what they stand for. I'm not sure if this is good or bad. It may just be garden-variety hypocrisy. Or it may be a sign that they know they are doing wrong and might someday stop.
Letter Number: 34 Many pro-abortion people object to being called pro-abortion. They even go so far as to say that no one is pro-abortion. However, the truth is that, in order to survive, organizations that support abortion need money. To keep the money flowing in, they need to maintain the myth that abortion is necessary. To maintain this myth, they have to maintain a high abortion rate. To maintain the high abortion rate, they have to promote abortion. If fewer women have abortions, the perception of abortion as a "need" will wane. What major corporate donors would be interested in giving their money to a group that maintains the availability of something only a few hundred women a year resort to? The big money donors will decide that small donations from interested citizens can take care of the demand. Every woman who gets through her childbearing years without having at least one abortion is a defeat to abortion advocates. She is living proof that abortion is not necessary. Their own studies show that pro-abortionists advocate things they know increase the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions: casual sex, use of unreliable contraceptives, and cheap, easy abortion. Do we need more evidence of their real agenda? Their only goal is, and has always been, promoting abortions, even if they have to create the pregnancies by their own policies. You can call this a lot of things, but "pro-choice" isn't one of them.
Letter Number: 35 Many pro-abortion activist groups object to being called pro-abortion. The proper term is "pro-choice," they say. Often, these groups lobby against informed consent, parental involvement, safety standards for abortion clinics, and waiting periods that give women time between listening to a sales pitch and going through with an abortion. Not a single one of these provisions would deprive a woman of an abortion if she wants one. All they would do is make it harder to sell abortions to ambivalent women and to those women for whom abortion may not be the right choice. The truth is, abortion enthusiasts oppose even the most insignificant and reasonable limits on abortion, not because limits would reduce choices, but because they might reduce abortions. To see how phony their concern is, imagine a different law. Imagine that encyclopedia salesmen had to tell customers that they can call the local library and have a librarian look up just about anything they want to know. We'd be suspicious if encyclopedia companies started saying things like, "This is insulting--people know how to use a library. This is just a thinly-veiled attempt to deny people access to encyclopedias." We should suspect the same of abortion salespeople. The very fact that they oppose these measures is evidence that the measures are necessary. Their opposition proves that they are in fact pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
Letter Number: 36 Abortion advocates--led by Planned Parenthood--routinely chant the mantra, "We are not pro-abortion; we are pro-choice." Isn't it interesting that when people are for the death penalty being legal, they don't get upset at being labeled pro-death penalty. When people are for federal child care, they don't mind being called pro-child care. When people are for the ERA, they don't mind being called pro-ERA. When most people take on a cause, they don't usually mind being associated with the motivation for that cause. Abortion advocates seem to be the only exception. I think it speaks volumes that while these people are so viciously defending abortion's legality, they get hysterical at being identified with abortion. It seems pretty obvious that they don't want the image of their movement soiled by being linked to the very activity the movement was started to protect! In short, their goal is to protect the legality of something even they know is reprehensible. It's a crying shame that for over 20 years, this country has let organizations like Planned Parenthood hide the killing of children and the butchering of women under the rock of "choice." Obviously, freedom of speech allows abortion advocates to call themselves "pro-choice" if they like. But sooner or later, the American people are going to wake up and realize what their real agenda is, and they'll be rightly angry at having been deceived. And when that day comes, we'll defund this despicable and dishonest organization.
Letter Number: 37 Many pro-abortion people object to being called pro-abortion. They say that the proper term is "pro-choice." I find this odd. Most people recognize that the prefix "pro" means that you support something, and "anti" means that you are against it. To just use the word "choice" is meaningless. What choice? There is school choice, or choice of neighbors, choosing to own or to rent, choosing paper or plastic bags at the grocery store, and so on. The choice that pro-abortion people are supporting is abortion, not sending your kids to a private school. I certainly don't mind being called anti-abortion because that's what I am. If those who support abortion object to being called pro-abortion, perhaps their consciences are trying to tell them something.
Letter Number: 38 My last letter to your paper was rejected because I used the term "pro-abortion" when you say I should have said "pro-choice." The fact is, there are many reasons why the proper term is "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice." The first one is that "pro-choice" is factually inaccurate! No so-called "pro-choice" organization has ever had as part of their agenda concern for choice of any kind except abortion. They say they think a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her own body, but we don't see them lobbying for women to have the right to be prostitutes. We don't hear them chanting for women to have the right to use crack cocaine. Yet these laws, and thousands of others, restrict the right of women to choose what to do with their bodies just as much as laws limiting abortion. What happened to their dedication to choice in those cases? The Constitution protects free speech. As a result, the pro-abortion movement is legally free to lie and call themselves "pro-choice." But I have a constitutional right--indeed a civic responsibility--to tell the truth. Whether your editors like it or not is beside the point.
Letter Number: 399 In her letter on Thursday, a pro-abortion fanatic insisted that she is not pro-abortion, but pro-choice. Abortion advocates always say that the issue is not abortion, but choice. Is this dedication to choice universal? I mean, do they think people should be allowed to choose to do absolutely anything they want to do? Should people be allowed to choose to marry animals? To drive drunk? To dance nude in public parks? If not, what is their yardstick for deciding which activities an individual should be allowed to choose, and which ones they shouldn't? If you talk much with abortion advocates, you will find that they all agree that all women should be allowed to freely choose abortion. But many disagree on whether all women should be allowed to freely choose to have children! Some advocate mandatory Norplant or sterilization for women they disapprove of. Some go as far as to advocate mandatory abortions in select cases--with their political faction, of course, doing the selecting. Obviously the whole "pro-choice" thing is just a facade. The real issue is that all these people approve of just one common thing: abortion.

Letter Number: 33

Pro-abortion people often object to being called pro-abortion. They say that the proper term is "pro-choice."

What is it about abortion that makes the people who support it not want to be associated with it? Why are abortion advocates ashamed of the very thing they fight to protect?

To appear less radical, some abortion advocates say they don't support abortion in all circumstances, and therefore should be called "pro-choice." But home-school advocates don't insist that all people pull their children out of public school. They just want the option available for themselves and others. They are pro-choice on school options. But they are not ashamed of what they stand for. They are pro-homeschooling.

People who want to see drugs legalized don't want to make everyone take drugs. They just want them to be legally available to those who want them. They are pro-choice on drugs. But again, they are not ashamed of what they stand for. They are pro-drug legalization, and they will say it.

Of all social movements, only abortion advocates are ashamed of what they stand for.

I'm not sure if this is good or bad. It may just be garden-variety hypocrisy. Or it may be a sign that they know they are doing wrong and might someday stop.

Letter Number: 34

Many pro-abortion people object to being called pro-abortion. They even go so far as to say that no one is pro-abortion. However, the truth is that, in order to survive, organizations that support abortion need money. To keep the money flowing in, they need to maintain the myth that abortion is necessary. To maintain this myth, they have to maintain a high abortion rate. To maintain the high abortion rate, they have to promote abortion.

If fewer women have abortions, the perception of abortion as a "need" will wane. What major corporate donors would be interested in giving their money to a group that maintains the availability of something only a few hundred women a year resort to? The big money donors will decide that small donations from interested citizens can take care of the demand.

Every woman who gets through her childbearing years without having at least one abortion is a defeat to abortion advocates. She is living proof that abortion is not necessary. Their own studies show that pro-abortionists advocate things they know increase the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions: casual sex, use of unreliable contraceptives, and cheap, easy abortion. Do we need more evidence of their real agenda? Their only goal is, and has always been, promoting abortions, even if they have to create the pregnancies by their own policies.

You can call this a lot of things, but "pro-choice" isn't one of them.

Letter Number: 35

Many pro-abortion activist groups object to being called pro-abortion. The proper term is "pro-choice," they say.

Often, these groups lobby against informed consent, parental involvement, safety standards for abortion clinics, and waiting periods that give women time between listening to a sales pitch and going through with an abortion.

Not a single one of these provisions would deprive a woman of an abortion if she wants one. All they would do is make it harder to sell abortions to ambivalent women and to those women for whom abortion may not be the right choice.

The truth is, abortion enthusiasts oppose even the most insignificant and reasonable limits on abortion, not because limits would reduce choices, but because they might reduce abortions.

To see how phony their concern is, imagine a different law. Imagine that encyclopedia salesmen had to tell customers that they can call the local library and have a librarian look up just about anything they want to know. We'd be suspicious if encyclopedia companies started saying things like, "This is insulting--people know how to use a library. This is just a thinly-veiled attempt to deny people access to encyclopedias."

We should suspect the same of abortion salespeople. The very fact that they oppose these measures is evidence that the measures are necessary. Their opposition proves that they are in fact pro-abortion, not pro-choice.

Letter Number: 36

Abortion advocates--led by Planned Parenthood--routinely chant the mantra, "We are not pro-abortion; we are pro-choice."

Isn't it interesting that when people are for the death penalty being legal, they don't get upset at being labeled pro-death penalty. When people are for federal child care, they don't mind being called pro-child care. When people are for the ERA, they don't mind being called pro-ERA. When most people take on a cause, they don't usually mind being associated with the motivation for that cause. Abortion advocates seem to be the only exception. I think it speaks volumes that while these people are so viciously defending abortion's legality, they get hysterical at being identified with abortion. It seems pretty obvious that they don't want the image of their movement soiled by being linked to the very activity the movement was started to protect! In short, their goal is to protect the legality of something even they know is reprehensible.

It's a crying shame that for over 20 years, this country has let organizations like Planned Parenthood hide the killing of children and the butchering of women under the rock of "choice." Obviously, freedom of speech allows abortion advocates to call themselves "pro-choice" if they like. But sooner or later, the American people are going to wake up and realize what their real agenda is, and they'll be rightly angry at having been deceived. And when that day comes, we'll defund this despicable and dishonest organization.

Letter Number: 37

Many pro-abortion people object to being called pro-abortion. They say that the proper term is "pro-choice."

I find this odd. Most people recognize that the prefix "pro" means that you support something, and "anti" means that you are against it. To just use the word "choice" is meaningless. What choice? There is school choice, or choice of neighbors, choosing to own or to rent, choosing paper or plastic bags at the grocery store, and so on. The choice that pro-abortion people are supporting is abortion, not sending your kids to a private school.

I certainly don't mind being called anti-abortion because that's what I am. If those who support abortion object to being called pro-abortion, perhaps their consciences are trying to tell them something.

Letter Number: 38

My last letter to your paper was rejected because I used the term "pro-abortion" when you say I should have said "pro-choice."

The fact is, there are many reasons why the proper term is "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice." The first one is that "pro-choice" is factually inaccurate! No so-called "pro-choice" organization has ever had as part of their agenda concern for choice of any kind except abortion. They say they think a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her own body, but we don't see them lobbying for women to have the right to be prostitutes. We don't hear them chanting for women to have the right to use crack cocaine. Yet these laws, and thousands of others, restrict the right of women to choose what to do with their bodies just as much as laws limiting abortion. What happened to their dedication to choice in those cases?

The Constitution protects free speech. As a result, the pro-abortion movement is legally free to lie and call themselves "pro-choice." But I have a constitutional right--indeed a civic responsibility--to tell the truth. Whether your editors like it or not is beside the point.

Letter Number: 399

In her letter on Thursday, a pro-abortion fanatic insisted that she is not pro-abortion, but pro-choice.

Abortion advocates always say that the issue is not abortion, but choice. Is this dedication to choice universal? I mean, do they think people should be allowed to choose to do absolutely anything they want to do? Should people be allowed to choose to marry animals? To drive drunk? To dance nude in public parks? If not, what is their yardstick for deciding which activities an individual should be allowed to choose, and which ones they shouldn't?

If you talk much with abortion advocates, you will find that they all agree that all women should be allowed to freely choose abortion. But many disagree on whether all women should be allowed to freely choose to have children! Some advocate mandatory Norplant or sterilization for women they disapprove of. Some go as far as to advocate mandatory abortions in select cases--with their political faction, of course, doing the selecting.

Obviously the whole "pro-choice" thing is just a facade. The real issue is that all these people approve of just one common thing: abortion.