“No Surrender” for Hardline Abortion Foes

While the “March for Life — held annually on Jan. 22, memorialising the United States Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision — has always been one of the high points of the year for anti-abortion organisations and activists, next month’s 36th annual gathering may be a much more somber affair.

Nevertheless, two days after the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th president, thousands of anti-abortion supporters will gather in the nation’s capital.

Despite the bad news on Election Day, two deeply disappointed anti-abortion devotees are dead set on fighting against what they call the most pro-choice presidency in history. While the election saw a net gain in both the House and Senate for pro-choice forces, and some in the “pro-life” community may be weighing a change in their approach as a result of the election of Obama — labeled by some pro-life critics during the campaign as a “baby killer” — don’t count Jill Stanek or Marjorie Dannenfelser to be amongst the re-thinking crowd.

Stanek, the head of BornAliveTruth, an organisation that ran some of the most vicious and effective television advertisements against Obama in a handful of swing states during the campaign, will apparently have nothing to do with either Obama’s cadre of “counterfeit” pro-lifers or any compromises on abortion.

In an interview with National Review Online‘s Kathryn Jean Lopez, Dannenfelser, the president and chairman of the board of the Susan B. Anthony List, described by Lopez as “a nationwide network of over 145,000 Americans dedicated to advancing, mobilising and representing pro-life women in the political process”, said that while the “pro-life” movement took a hit, it was “certainly not something we won’t recover from”.

The good news, according to Dannenfelser, was the re-election of Minnesota’s Michele Bachman, the controversial congresswoman who, in a pre-election interview on MSNBC, advocated the investigation of members of Congress that might not be “pro-American” enough for her liking.

The biggest setback Dannenfelser said was the fact that the pro-life movement “will be bereft of the pro-life, pro-woman perspective when and if the first Supreme Court President Obama nominee arises. This is an important and necessary perspective to counter the Boxer/Feinsten/Mikulski feminist axis who no doubt will work very closely again with Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW on the next nomination process.”

NARAL is the National Abortion Rights Action League, and NOW is the National Organisation for Women, the largest organisation of feminist activists in the United States.

Dannenfelser maintained that despite the election results, “The pro-life movement will grow much stronger now. If the movement does its job, we can gain great ground in this climate. With our backs up against the wall because of FOCA [the Freedom of Choice Act], and all three branches of government under pro-abortion control, the movement will retrench, reorganise and re-energise as it did after Clinton came into office.”

In a WorldNetDaily column titled “Counterfeit pro-lifers: A case of mistaken identity,” Stanek responded to a recent USA Today editorial that declared “After 35 years of trying to outlaw the procedure nationally while chipping away at abortion rights state by state, they have decided to add a new and sensible initiative…[and] [t]hey’ll work with the other side to reduce the number of abortions.”

For Stanek, who in January 2003, was named by World Magazine as one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years, the “authentic pro-life position is” that “preborn humans are persons to be constitutionally protected” and “abortion is therefore murder and to be remade illegal.”

In a story titled “The tidal wave of death” — posted at JillStanek.com — Stanek wrote that she hadn’t “written on Barack Obama’s cabinet appointments because frankly I found it too depressing. This is like watching a Culture of Death tsunami. Nothing we can do to stop it….”

There’s Tom Daschle, secretary of Health and Human Services, who is “a rabid pro-abort who also hates abstinence education and supports nationalised healthcare (taxpayer funded abortions)”; former NARAL legal director Dawn Johnson “who will serve on Obama’s Department of Justice review team”; and Obama recently named Melody Barnes, who “previously served on the boards of both Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List,” to head his Domestic Policy Council.

In addition, Ellen Moran, Obama’s new communications director, will “be leaving her job as executive director of EMILY’S List, a group that raises money to elect pro-abort Democrat women.”

Stanek also had some advice for Pastor Joel Hunter, who prays with Obama and gave the closing benediction at the Democrat National Convention, and who has “lamented all the ‘fighting and… hostility of the culture wars” — labelled by Stanek as “a pro-life fraud… [that] has no stomach”.

She writes: “There is only one way to end this war. Tell your friends to repent or surrender. And you, too.”

Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. Read other articles by Bill.

20 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Tree said on December 6th, 2008 at 12:19pm #

    Let’s hope the anti-choice activists have been set back and let’s hope they keep getting set back.

  2. John Hatch said on December 6th, 2008 at 1:39pm #

    Maybe it’s time for these anti-sanity nut cases to finally just shut up. Enough!

  3. DMo said on December 6th, 2008 at 6:18pm #

    The only “nut cases” here are the people who somehow think killing an innocent unborn baby should be a woman’s protected right. I can’t ignore the fact that those who think this way may have their way today (and maybe tomorrow), but one day they will surely burn in hell. Here’s a hint: Read your Bible! You might be surprised what you find. And even if you don’t care what it says, that doesn’t make it any less true or any less ominous for you. God is not mocked and He will surely punish the evil doers.

  4. joed said on December 6th, 2008 at 8:08pm #

    how old is your pretend “innocent unborn baby” and when did this pretend baby become a human? actually, the become human part is the real question. you see, what you call a baby is nothing more than a mass of cells untill a certain amount of guestation. so, sorry to disapoint you but abortion is a fact of life. and your “soul” is a pretend part of life very much like your imaginary friends—god and jebus! your secret is out DMo–you think the human soul “life” enters the egg along with the sperm. but you be wrong ’cause there ain’t no soul. there is just this–now.

  5. Tree said on December 7th, 2008 at 6:19am #

    DMo, I understand home schooling can be limiting, but have you read an anatomy or biology book lately? I mean, one not written by a fundamentalist who believes dinosaurs wore saddles?

  6. DMo said on December 7th, 2008 at 9:49am #

    What does home schooling have to do with anything? And what does “lately” have to do with anything? God’s truth is eternal–it never changes. What was true before is still true now: sin is still sin and God still punishes sin.

    There’s no such thing as a “pretend baby”: from the moment of conception it is intended for life.

  7. bozh said on December 7th, 2008 at 1:32pm #

    i have posted here today but i don’t see it.
    i believe that clero-patrician’ lying/deceiving/cheating predates prostitution and abortion by at least a few cent’s or even millennia.
    even today, ‘education’ ( advertising, entertainment, schooling, clero-political ‘teachings’) was designed not raise lambs but pigs.
    judging by enormous of amount nonprovable and non seeable entities they worship, they had to be ‘educated’ so as to turn into mad people.
    more cld be said. thnx

  8. John Hatch said on December 7th, 2008 at 2:02pm #

    I guess you believe that an idiot God told Abraham to kill his son as a ‘joke’?

    Or what about all those Godly exhortations in the Old Testamant to burn and rape and kill even children and animals? Do you believe that shit too?

    It always amazes me how little it takes for some people to sell their supposedly immortal souls for a little false security. You say people like me are going to hell. I think you’re already there, and it’s of your own making. If God existed, why would he want man to be so voluntarily stupid? Aren’t you supposed to be in His image? So what would that make him?

    Believe what you want, but please spare us your infantile nonsense.

  9. joed said on December 7th, 2008 at 3:12pm #

    too bad you can’t use your ability to be reasonable. check out the phylosophical dicipline called “critical thinking” i swear to buddha you will see the world as you were meant to see it–as a rational being(there ain’t too many of these in the entire universe.)
    anyway, try overcoming your beliefs and open up to the universe. your fear of imaginary punishers will be tough to overcome but it can be done. check it out dude–critical thinking.

  10. bozh said on December 7th, 2008 at 3:41pm #

    to deceive, priestly class simply relabeled person’s natural or ‘god-given’ shortcomings as “sin”.
    thus, having ‘created’ sin and convinced many that they r sinful (instead of not being perfect) priests by the help of another invention, (god), established selves go-between and thus were needed to look after such people.
    it turned out that nearly every priest and pious person has just one cheek; never having turned the other.
    certainly not to pals, muslims, other impious people.
    of course, jesus was just joking or had a stupidity attack when he said to turn the other cheek.
    remember, even he upturned tables and called people “hypocrits”. he also called people who refused to follow him “swine”.
    i wonder what jesus wld have called me? thnx

  11. joed said on December 7th, 2008 at 3:55pm #

    i meant to spell “philosophical” not “phylosophical” ramtha must have snuck in to my soul for a moment and made me a “bad speller”, he sure didn’t make me a smart feller.

  12. DMo said on December 7th, 2008 at 6:38pm #

    You all are a bunch of ‘intellectual fools”. You may think you’re smarter than God, but you’ll find out one day what your “open mindedness” and “critical thinking” are really good for…nothing!

  13. Danny Ray said on December 7th, 2008 at 8:02pm #

    DMo, In my book you are welcome to believe what you choose. You will not convert any here so why try.

    For every one else. you want to believe in freedom you sure don’t show it here.

    Tolerance is a hall mark of freedom.

  14. DMo said on December 7th, 2008 at 9:35pm #

    Thank you, Danny Ray. We are all welcome to beileve what we believe. But we all must also be aware that what we believe is not without consequence. It is not “whatever we each believe” is okay. If I want to believe I can jump off a 100-story building and not get hurt, I can–but it doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences to carrying out my belief. I am just sounding a warning about consequences–you all are certainly welcome to believe what you choose to believe. Unfortunately, the unborn child is sometimes not given the same freedom.

  15. DavidG. said on December 7th, 2008 at 11:56pm #

    Look, I just posted an article called: Reclaiming Your Brain!

    I think some folk here might gain something by reading it. Feel free.


  16. bozh said on December 8th, 2008 at 7:02am #

    christians, judaists, and muslims love to speak for god(s). yet all assert there is their allmighty respective god.
    so, if s/he/it is almighty, why do they speak for it? is it deaf, dumb, and numb to speak for self?
    this proves that these believers only defend their beliefs. but in an inapropriate way: by stifling free speech; issuing threats, vain predictions.
    in other words, they repeat verbatim what as children they have been told.
    and because it worked for children they hope it wld work for adults? thnx

  17. joed said on December 8th, 2008 at 9:55am #

    “it is WRONG always and for anyone, to believe anything without sufficient proof.” the article in this link talks about the moral consequences of our beliefs. and we really do not have the moral right to believe anything we want. and belief in imaginary beings like god and jebus is morally wrong ’cause it fucks up the society.

  18. Danny Ray said on December 8th, 2008 at 12:53pm #

    joed, I can hear the christians on this site ( yes both of them) saying “and we really do not have the moral right to believe anything we want. and disbelief in imaginary beings like God and Jesus is morally wrong ’cause it f’s up the society.”

    If you don’t want to believe thats fine, if others want to believe thats fine also.

    There is no true freedom unless you are willing to tolerate the beliefs of others.

    And before you ask I am a Christian and a Republican, But I will ever tell anyone that there belief is wrong.

  19. joed said on December 8th, 2008 at 4:19pm #

    Danny Ray, the article i linked is very clear about the moral problems of believing anything you want to believe. i guess a person has to be a true critical thinker for the concept to mean anything. this is not relativism. this is not about a certain subject. this is a method of thinking, a method of understanding. thinking and understanding about any subject. have you looked at the c k clifford article?

  20. joed said on December 8th, 2008 at 4:22pm #

    that is w k clifford article, ethic of belief