Over the years, many people, including me, have been on the receiving end of intense, emotionally-charged denunciations for our alleged failure to be "truly" pro-life. Before I go one sentence further, let me be clear that, overwhelmingly, those who bother to call, write, and e-mail are utterly sincere. While there are some who hope to blow on the embers of disagreement in the hope that the Movement will go up in flames, they represent a tiny minority.
The last call I received before I went on vacation and the first call I received when I came back were from women who about took my head off. In a nutshell, what they said (through increasingly clenched teeth, I suspect) was how "dare I" [meaning NRLC] "confine" or "reduce" being pro-life to opposing abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.
Judging by their comments and the people whom they criticized by name, I believe they could fairly be described as "liberals." But I've been on the receiving end of withering criticism from people who would, I believe, readily accept the label "conservative."
Obviously, the two camps differ on what concerns they raise, but they have in common the idea that if NRLC were "truly pro-life," it would (a) add additional issues to our roster of concerns, which, oh by the way, often would mean (b) that candidate "X" flunks the "truly pro-life" test.
Here, in a nutshell, was what I said, plus a couple of things I should have said.
There are a million, mostly negative, stereotypes about pro-lifers, but the one that perhaps is both the most off-base and the most helpful to the pigeon-holing-happy media is that pro-lifers are about as diverse as the population of Greenland. But this is simply not true.
That there are more of one category of people [take your pick] than others--well, duh, of course. But that's about as far as the generalizations work.
Our Movement is comprised of far more women than men, and that most certainly includes leadership positions. It is much younger--and I do mean MUCH younger--than, say, PPFA or NARAL, which has admitted as much, sometimes quite publicly.
There is a tremendous diversity of opinion on collateral issues which really shows up when you talk with or read interviews with campus pro-lifers. When reporters press for background details, these students offer up a wide range of views on a whole spectrum of issues, from the war on terrorism, to the economy, to the best way to fight poverty, to education--you name it. The difference is--as opposed to the two women who chastised me up one side and down the other—that they prioritized opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.
Understand, that they (and we) never say there ARE no other important issues. Of course there are.
What we do say as a single-issue, non-denominational Movement comprised of disparate individuals and groups is that these are the MOST important issues, so important/crucial/pivotal that our consciences dictate that they constitute the matrix for deciding whom to vote for.
Some people who sincerely oppose these evils subsume them in a wider net of issues. Where we differ is not on whether these are significant issues but in the greater moral weight we assign to opposing abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.
I am trying neither to trivialize the objections of those who read us the riot act or unfairly simplify the debate when I say that without the right to life, no other rights are possible. This is the bottom line for single-issue pro-life voters.
Put another way, the Pro-Life Movement is a coalition of people of widely varying views. Move the discussion off onto any other issue and you will find opinions that run the gamut from A to Z. That has been the case since NRLC was incorporated in 1973. My guess is that as our Movement increasingly is blessed by the infusion of young people, those differences will only grow in a culture that grows less homogenous every year.
My telephone correspondents came into our discussion with different assumptions. Alas, they left the discussion with them intact. And for some people, so will it be always.
But by maintaining with laser-like intensity our single-issue focus, NRLC has been able to accomplish what is, when you think about the array of forces aligned against us, nothing short of amazing.
Our Political Action Committee had tremendous success in both 2000 and 2002. We have a burgeoning network of grassroots organizations from Alaska to Florida, Maine to California.
All public opinion polls show a decided shift in the direction of opposition to abortion on demand. Young people are flocking to our side.
All in all, I think it is absolutely true to say that we are (to borrow an observation from another setting) "the unfiltered voice of democracy."
And we are able to fight against media orthodoxy in a far more effective way than we were able to only a decade ago. To be sure, the jury is still out on whether we win the battle against lethal embryonic stem cell research and cloning that requires the destruction of human embryous, but without our Movement's growth in sophistication, we wouldn't have a prayer.
Were we to listen to the siren call of changing/enlarging/alteri ng our mission statement, all we have worked for for three decades would be lost in a heartbeat.
Over the years, many people, including me, have been on the receiving end of intense, emotionally-charged denunciations for our alleged failure to be "truly" pro-life. Before I go one sentence further, let me be clear that, overwhelmingly, those who bother to call, write, and e-mail are utterly sincere. While there are some who hope to blow on the embers of disagreement in the hope that the Movement will go up in flames, they represent a tiny minority.