Every occasionally, an article in a pro-abortion publication will fill in particulars on developments that occurred a way back which may also help pro-lifers perceive the technique of our benighted opposition, notably Planned Parenthood.
I refer you to “Why Planned Parenthood Is Ditching The ‘Pro-Choice’ Label, According to Cecile Richards,” which appeared this week in a publication referred to as Bustle.
Just to be clear–which the headline isn’t–Richards and her group “ditched” the “pro-choice” label a number of years in the past. In the interview with Chris Tognotti, Richards (PPFA’s CEO) goes into some element why the pro-choice canard bit the mud, beginning in 2013. Richards’ rationalization is completely fascinating and massively revealing.
Tognotti first paraphrases Richards to the impact that “Planned Parenthood has been evolving its expression of long-standing ideals on reproductive rights to suit the times, in part because of young peoples’ resistance to such black-and-white labels.”
“I think the language is completely outdated, and in fact, we found by talking to younger people that they are so against being labeled in any way,” Richards says. “And I think in some ways the ‘pro-choice versus pro-life’ labels miss the point here. Because abortion and pregnancy — these are deeply personal issues that most women will have to think about or deal with in their lifetime, and what the vast majority of people in this country believe is, women need to be able to make their own decisions about their pregnancy without the interference of politicians … [or] members of Congress who aren’t in their situation and can’t appreciate what they’re dealing with.”
Okay, I get that pro-choice is “outdated” and that youthful individuals are not huge on “labels,” however the remainder of her quote is gobbledygook. “Pro-choice” was all the time outdated; it was meant to keep away from discussing what the “choice” consisted of. In at present’s world of Four-color ultrasounds and omnipresent picture of unborn infants, it’s awfully troublesome to speak about one thing as meaningless as “choice.”
SUPPORT PRO-LIFE NEWS! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation
Richards’ subsequent response is much more illuminating–once more not for she says however for what’s tucked in between the gibberish;
“We really think it’s important that women have all their health care options, and that they have a trusted provider to talk to about those options,” Richards says. “And that’s why we’ve really quit using political labels that are really frankly very binary, in which most people don’t feel like they reflect how important and personal these decisions are.”
“Binary”? That was the entire premise of the “pro-choice” mantra. You have been both pro-choice or a loopy pro-lifer.
But in case you are Planned Parenthood and also you learn the identical knowledge factors we do, you’re absolutely conscious that “pro-choice” has come to be (precisely) understood as pro-abortion for any purpose or no cause, as late in being pregnant as a lady needs, and paid for with taxpayer dollars.
So in pitching “pro-choice” overboard, has Planned Parenthood trimmed its sails? Are you kidding? Of course not. PPFA is simply as excessive, simply out of the mainstream of public opinion on abortion because it has all the time been and all the time shall be.
Tognotti concludes by telling us
Planned Parenthood determined to shift the language years in the past due to how private emotions surrounding being pregnant and abortion are and located that ditching the label was the easiest way to articulate these emotions. Obviously, your personal choice of whether or not or not to make use of the label of “pro-choice” is a matter of private choice. But probably the most outstanding women’s health care supplier within the United States was open to adapting, all whereas nonetheless upholding its primary beliefs.
Translation? Pro-choice’s shelf-life has lengthy since expired. If even Planned Parenthood understands it’s time to “ditch the label,” all pro-abortionists ought to get the message: they want new language to cloak, conceal and camouflage their radical agenda.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an writer and editor of a number of books on abortion subjects. This submit initially appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- a web-based column on pro-life issues.