The Winds of Change are Blowing
Operation Rescue’s impact is felt nationwide as America’s views on abortion begin to shift.
Early in the year, Operation Rescue made an important tactical decision that may have helped influence the course of history and shift the cultural status quo away from the radical pro-death mentality that has held America captive since the infamous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 that decriminalized abortion in the United States. It was decided to use the Truth Trucks, a fleet of large panel trucks that are outfitted with graphic images of aborted babies, at key political events and in critical swing states to expose the Democratic ticket’s support for the most radical abortion policies in the history of our nation. Little did they know that this decision would unleash a whirlwind that would herald changes in the way Americans act toward abortion.
The Truth Truck Fleet was unveiled a the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts, where restrictive protest zones made the mobile billboards the most effective means of communicating with the thousands of delegates and media.
The Truth Trucks’ panels were emblazoned with the text “Kerry’s Choice” and “Kerry/Edwards: A Bloody Team for a Bloody America” on top of grisly images of aborted babies. The Truth Trucks, for the first time, successfully connected the dots for the American people between the Democrats’ “Choice” and the horrific reality of abortion.
After the convention, the Truth Trucks dogged the Kerry/Edwards campaign trail, following them throughout the east and Midwest. Then, two weeks before the election, Operation Rescue joined with a coalition of pro-life, pro-family groups on the Prayer for Life Tour of 2004 through the desperately important swing states of Pennsylvania and Ohio, stopping in cities and towns to pray for the nation and the election outcome. Wherever Kerry and Edwards appeared, the Truth Trucks were there associating the Kerry/Edwards “Pro-Choice” ticket with the bloody consequences of that choice.
And it worked!
Although Bush narrowly lost Pennsylvania by only two percentage points, he won Ohio and that turned out to be the decisive state that denied the White House to the radical pro-aborts.
Immediately after the election, Operation Rescue released a statement to the media that was quoted across the nation and sent reverberations throughout the abortion industry and the political world.
“Today, the president owes the pro-life movement a huge debt,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “Mr. President, you have been given a mandate to end abortion in our nation by the American people who cast their votes for you. Please move forward aggressively to appoint pro-life federal judges, and when the time comes, appoint Supreme Court justices that will strike down the scourge of Roe v. Wade.”
Almost in response, pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter, in line for the chairmanship of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that he would block any pro-life judicial nominations sent to his committee for confirmation.
Operation Rescue led the outcry against Specter’s arrogance. The Senate was flooded with calls and letters as other pro-life groups picked up the story and alerted their supporters to act. It was the largest response to a Senate chairmanship nomination in the history of our nation. In an unprecedented act of capitulation, Specter issued a written statement promising to support the President’s judicial nominees. This was a stunning victory for the pro-life forces, proving that the muscles flexed in the November election were only gaining strength with use.
A new poll indicates that Newman was correct in his assertion that the pro-life vote had been the key to the president’s re-election. Fifty-nine percent of Bush voters cited moral values as their top concern and abortion as the number one issue. Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk-show guru stated that when the media talks about “moral issues” swaying the election, they are referring to the abortion issue. “Make no mistake about it,” he said.
So enraged were the pro-death advocates that Catholics for Free Choice filed a complaint against Operation Rescue for violating their tax-exempt status, hoping to make them pay for denying the White House to their lackeys.
Now, the Democratic Party is scrambling to redefine their stand on abortion. Recently, John Kerry acknowledged the effectiveness of the Truth Truck campaign at a closed-door meeting of Democratic Party loyalists gathered at AFL-CIO headquarters. The group was analyzing what went wrong with the November the election when Kerry told the Dems that they “needed new ways to make people understand we didn’t like abortion.” Seeing his name so graphically associated with the images of dead children apparently had a profound impact on the failed presidential candidate.
Even the leftist San Francisco Congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi, is indicating that she would support the pro-life former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer as the new Democratic Party Chairman. “She is pro-choice and very staunchly pro-choice,” an aide recently said of Pelosi. But at the same time, the aide said, “She supports showing that this is a big-tent party.”
And the Democrats are not alone in questioning their unequivocal support for all abortion at any time for any reason. Even the full-time, pro-death crowd realizes that their extremist abortion agenda is no longer defensible to a nation that is being exposed like never before to the Truth behind the pro-death euphemisms.
We may have “gone too far when [we] defend such gruesome procedures,” said the radical pro-abort Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice, referring to their crusade in defense of grisly partial-birth abortions.
Such a statement is an indication that the pro-abortion forces are reeling. They spent much of their time, effort, and resources over the past year and a half in mobilizing their troops for a large pro-choice voter turnout. All their efforts have been a dismal failure. The March for Women’s Lives held in Washington D.C. in April did not stir the enthusiasm for abortion that they had hoped, and that failure was evident at the voting booth. (Operation Rescue was there with the Truth Truck Fleet and staff members calling the “Death March” organizers to repentance.) The pro-abortion Hollywood crowd faired no better. Efforts such as MTV’s Rock the Vote, the Hip Hop Get Out the Vote campaign, and the pro-abortion concert tour failed to deliver while the pro-life Prayer for Life Tour, which ran on a small fraction of the Hollywood budget, helped re-elect the most pro-life president in a generation.
But the battle for legal protection for the pre-born is far from over. In the next few years, the true test of this new-found power will come when Supreme Court justices begin to retire. There could be as many as three or four openings in the nation’s highest court in the next four years, swaying the balance of the court from pro-death to pro-life, and the leading to the eventual death of “Roe.” Operation Rescue is already making preparations to meet these challenges head-on and continue to expose the reality of abortion to a nation beginning to shake off the deep denial that has heretofore kept her silent on the most important moral issue of our time.
The winds of change are blowing. Polls indicate that, for the first time in three decades, the majority of Americans describe themselves as “Pro-life.” Now, we are slowly seeing them begin to act on their convictions and those actions are influencing elections and changing our culture. We are finally on the path to delivering our nation from the scourge of abortion. And Operation Rescue is leading the way.
December 30th, 2004 at 10:30 am
Yes, I must concur with you - and with the impassioned statements expressed elsewhere by Father Frank Pavone - that the abortion issue is the pivotal social issue of our time. If we cannot define the beginning of life; if we cannot adhere to the sanctity ALL life is due, then myriad other values are imperiled as a result (and as we have seen).
My own beliefs attendant to this difficult issue have not simplified my life - certainly not during this year, a year of roiling emotionality and emerging clarity.
There is no doubt: John Kerry’s dual personas concerning abortion were defining (and disillusioning) moments for me. I do not seek to demonize this man, and I still believe he is a very good man in many ways. As a former Catholic, I agonized with him regarding this difficult dilemma. But his speech to a cheering NARAL throng - and his (separate) evocations of his own religious beliefs - were dichotomous and ultimately troubling to this voter.
Yes, I have compromised. The Democratic party needs to do so as well. I’ve accepted that the depictions and attestations of the realities of abortion need to be made public. But let us have compassion and concern for others!
Two months ago, I spoke with a fellow post-abortive woman (who directs a prominent anti-abortion group) about the agony these images inflict on women like us. She allayed any doubts I may harbored that I was the only woman to realize this pain. And yet……
I understand the larger issue here. Today, for the first time, I was able to view that “Munchian scream” photo without devastation. Without callous, to be sure - but without the debility of old.
It’s time for the Democratic party to take stock of its failings. Just like so many of us have done - just like so many more need to do.
December 31st, 2004 at 11:59 pm
songbird - i appreciate your comments and the hope you have for the democratic party. let me explain why i think you’ll be waiting a long, long time to see that happen.
for one thing, john kerry has never agonized over abortion. he has a voting record going back about 20 years that is intensely proabortion. that is a matter of record. his speeches during the last year mean little in comparison with the actual votes on life related matters, over a period of many years. as zell miller, a fellow democrat with demonstrably more class than kerry, has said, campaign speeches don’t define the man - but a 20 year voting record does.
secondly, the democratic party is so intertwined with and indebted to the hard-core proabortion lobby, that there is very little chance of them ever coming out with prolife candidates on a national level. in 1992, bob casey, former pennsylvania governor, a prominent democrat, was scheduled to speak at the democrat national convention. his speech was cancelled by the party leadership and he was not allowed to say one word to the delegates. why? because he was prolife, and intended to speak on the issue. they silenced him, rather than allow any prolife sentiment to be expressed.
this year, a group called ‘democrats for life’ was shut out of the democrat convention - not allowed to speak, have a say in the platform, or any influence whatsoever on anything relating to the party or the convention. they were banned from the floor and were forced to set up outside down the street.
this type of thing has been common procedure for many years. the democrats do not want to embrace a prolife position or a prolife candidate on the national level. their platform is radically proabortion, with language indicating that all abortions should be paid for with tax dollars, etc….
it would be great if the democrats would embrace the prolife position, because it would literally make them relevant again nationally, as far as the electorate goes, and definitely give republicans a run for their money on many key races, if both candidates were prolife. it would also force the radical proabortion element of the democrat party to the fringe, where they belong, and marginalize them. that would be wonderful, and i applaud you for expressing the hope that we might see that happen someday.
but based on the extensive voting records of many senators and congressman (such as kerry), and based on the incestuous relationship between the proabortion lobby and the democrat leadership, and the money that exchanges hands every four years from proaborts to the democrat candidates in support of child killing, i would not look for the demonsration of any such conviction on their parts any time soon.
regrettably, there are some republicans who have been bought and paid for by the abortion lobby, and vote accordingly, but thankfully, they are in the extreme minority. still, it goes to show that moral bankruptcy is not exclusive to one party. that being said, the democrats are highly unlikely to embrace any sort of genuine prolife legislation or candidates anytime soon, because they will run the risk of angering their proabortion base, and splitting the coalition of radical groups that deliver the vote for them every four years.
in contrast, the republicans have a strong prolife plank in their platform, and since reagan, have not nominated anyone for the presidency or vice presidency that is not prolife. during the same period of history, the democrats have yet to nominate anyone for the presidency or vice presidency who is not firmly committed to the proabortion point of view. and so the lines are drawn, and it would take a huge shake up for democrats to reject the proabortion position. any candidate from the democratic side who expresses prolife sentiment is immediately disgarded as national material, though he or she is sometimes able to do well on a statewide or local level, because a prolife democrat running against a prolife republican makes for an interesting race, with other issues coming to the forefront and helping to define each candidate. also, despite the conventional wisdom, most americans are prolife, and vote accordingly, if they are sufficiently informed.
but nationally, the democrats, i regret to say, have sold their collective souls to the prodeath side.
January 1st, 2005 at 8:51 am
Happy New Year, Tony:
I can’t refute the facts you’ve thoroughly documented - and they are regrettable, to be sure. However, let’s not forget: politics is a cut-throat business. And nothing cuts to the quick like defeat - nothing.
The Democrats are smarting - they’re smarting seismically.
Something must be done - and soon. We MUST have a presidential commission regarding the sanctity of life and its inception. We cannot isolate this critical issue to the realm of religion; as we know, there are many conflicting schools of thought at the present time, even from theologians and seminarians. We need to realize a national consensus, and we need to effect this understanding sooner rather than later.
I’m angry, though, at the knowledge that a “Democrats For Life” contingent was excised from this year’s Convention. That was rather Stalin-istic of the party, was it not?
Yes, I’ve tried to refrain from overt criticism here: After all, it was only until recently that I, too, was spewing mewley crap such as this: “I cannot force my religious views on others…….yet, to have another abortion would be tantamount to plunging a knife in my own heart.” In time, I found such paradox to be untenable.
The Democratic party had better clarify its own murky morality - and soon - lest they lose more former patrons like myself. And, as Mr. Newman has stated, President Bush owes a sizeable debt of loyalty to the voters who re-elected him.
Finally, we need more clarity and moral guidance on this deeply divisive issue. My own (current) physician could likely provide invaluable insights - for reasons probably not unrelated to my own.
January 2nd, 2005 at 11:06 am
The pro-life constitutency must promote Article 3
http://www.sierratimes.com/04/12/31/current123105.htm
Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides the means for Congress to overthrow the law-breaking branch of the federal government and allow states to mend their broken laws. In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
We the People Act (HR 3893 IH) was only supported by two members of the U.S. House, and virtually unheard of, or promoted by the pro-life constituency.
Text of and link to We the People Act(HR 3893 IH)
http://lawsforlife.blogspot.com/ explains and justifies the use of Article 3 to save lives.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/June2004/0604Quirk.html
William J. Quirk is a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM
Prepared Statement of Professor Charles E. Rice, Professor Emeritus of Law, Notre Dame Law School, submitted by Rep. Steve Chabot
Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, Founder and President, Eagle Forum
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. Martin H. Redish, Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy, Northwestern Law School
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
The Honorable William E. Dannemeyer, former U.S. Representative
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress From the State of Indiana
January 2nd, 2005 at 9:24 pm
songbird - here’s an interesting link for you:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat1077.html
January 3rd, 2005 at 4:18 am
Tony:
I read the article you cited, and it’s disspiriting, to say the least.
As I’ve said earlier, it’s one thing for a candidate (any candidate, Republican or Democrat) to declare with heartfelt conviction: “I have given this matter much thought….I’ve convened a panel of experts…..and my position is ________”. It’s quite another to cheerlead for a delirious NARAL crowd, with the only discernible morality a somewhat impotent statement that “we are not going to turn back the clock.”
I don’t want to “turn back the clock,” either.
Rather, I want our leaders to move the pendulum forward - with new knowledge, insights….and the attestations of people like myself, other post-abortive women…… and my own physician. As I’ve stated previously, we must champion the rights and dignity of every human person - abandoning the principle that either gender has the right to squander much of its moral capital upon the altar of individual liberty.
Recently, I listened to a recording of a 1995 debate between two men of faith: one a Catholic priest and the other a Protestant minister. Their individual speeches (and their respectful disagreements) conveyed an enduring paradox of the human condition: The priest, to be sure, adhered to the Roman Catholic position on abortion, a teaching for which I hold obvious respect. His personality, though, was rather austere and stiff; in some ways, he didn’t “speak to me” and my life experiences. The minister, on the other hand, was convivial, witty, charming………
and he made several statements on abortion that nearly stopped my heart.
I “liked” this minister very much - just as I “liked” John Kerry’s personality. But sometimes affection isn’t enough - not when it comes to critical moral issues such as this. I must agree with the priest: one person should not be allowed to decide who shall live and who shall not. We must adhere to and respect a greater morality than our own, especially when difficult circumstances engulf us.
Thirty years ago next month, a very young, very (emotionally) ill person (me) was allowed to make that “choice.” And it was the wrong decision, obviously. I deserved compassion. I deserved guidance. I deserved kindness, to be sure. (I probably also deserved a lobotomist, but that’s another issue.)
I did not, however, deserve the right to make life-or-death decisions such as this.
The Democratic party will sweep this issue under the rug at its own peril. And they will risk the disillusion of others like myself: idealists and forward thinking individuals - yes. Fools - no.
January 12th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
You are deceived (self-deluded).
The win was partly a result of Bush compromising to gain the support of pro-abort politicians such as Schwarzenegger and Giulianni. He will continue to compromise, as shown by his recent selection for attorney general, whom you refuse to condemn. How mild mannered you become at times.
The shift is temporary. Any gains will be lost when a Pete Wilson type Republican is elected as president, which is inevitable because people, such as yourself, are willing to choose the lesser of evils. Being from California, you should know this.
We’re merely on the slow road to hell.
January 12th, 2005 at 2:10 pm
Frank:
I’m not sure if you were addressing me (as my previous post was the latest entry before your own):
I’m not from California - I’m from Hays, Kansas (originally). Although I did live in Los Angeles briefly during the winter of 1982. Alas, the high cost of housing, the low salaries of administrative employees (at that time, at least) and the lifestyle of my none-too-rich-and-famous roommate (an actress) drove me back to the heartland.
Whom do you believe we should have elected? I believe Mr. Bush is a very good and decent man who believes in the sanctity of life as devoutly as he loves his Creator. It was this very conviction which compelled my (agonizing) defection from John Kerry - a decision which seared my soul quite badly.
Let us give ORW and like-minded groups credit where it is abundantly due. Respect for life (and lack thereof) played a significant role in last year’s election - as the Democratic party is surely beginning to realize.
Oh, well - you likely weren’t addressing me, anyway. I am only a woman…..with all the vices, attendant evil and implicit moral turpitude attached therein.
January 12th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
frank
i’m sorry you feel as if you are on the slow road to hell.
one of the sayings of the salvation army is “better to light a candle than curse the darkness”.
i suggest you join hands with people who are trying to light candles rather than standing on the sidelines complaining about the darkness. evils such as abortion are not eradicated overnight - you have to be persistent over years and years.
just ask william wilberforce.
January 15th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
frank
you seem extraordinarily self-absorbed, and if i may, prone to whining.
this post is about the democratic party and the miserable failure of its proabortion advocacy and aversion to any and all prolife sentiments.
it’s also about how ORW and others have slowly but oh so surely helped to change the perception people have of abortion as a ‘good’ thing, to what it really is, which is murder of the smallest members of the human family.
yet, in your rambling posts, you go on and on about president bush. you make zero sense, since president bush has strong prolife sentiments and has supported every piece of prolife legislation that has been proposed, and signed every one that came to his desk.
it’s clear that, among other things, you’re a pessimist, finding only things to whine about, while ignoring the “winds of change” that are blowing all around you.
again, i say - stop complaining and light some candles, or in the words of the old gospel song “don’t point a finger, lend a hand”.
January 16th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
Will someone please delete my first post and not just these continuing posts. That’s all you have to do to get rid of me for now and possibly forever. It seems you like to have one opposing post so people can come to your defense.
Oh well, conflict inspires creativity, even if I am just talking to Jerry and the web guy, who could be one and the same. Check this out before you delete it:
“The Hand on the Noose”
The noose is tightening, the hangman’s hand is on his own noose.
“You must tighten the noose,” the lawman says to the hangman.
The choices are two, to live or to die or to most surely die.
The hand on the noose tightens the rope, the hangman prays to God.
“Tighten the noose or you will die!” the lawman implores the hangman.
The hangman wants to live, not die, to live long, not die young.
The grip loosens, the lawman bares down, the grip tightens.
The hand on the noose tightens the rope, the hangman prays to God.
The hangman’s vision is blurry, more and more and more lawmen.
He screams, “I would struggle, I know I would struggle to win,
but the noose will let me live, to struggle would be to die!”
The hand on the noose tightens the rope, the hangman prays to God.
“The noose is tight enough now,” the lawman consoles the hangman.
The hangman’s eyelids droop, his weak hand pulls at the noose.
“I am dying,” whispers the hangman, “but I have lived longer this way.”
The hand on the noose falls from the rope, the hangman dies to God.
Jerry, you’re having trouble connecting the dots, and your standards are low. You don’t want to look a little deeper to see the real picture; you prefer your fantasy world. Your outlook that people consider abortion murder is a little too rosy, particularly in Bush’s case.
Yes, yes, the rambling bit. You’ve taken a lesson from the media, who try and discredit the opposition by accusing them of rambling. What would you like, a completely well thought out and organized dissertation?
You keep telling me to do something, Jerry, so maybe you should post your resume. You probably do lots of stuff, but maybe not.
January 18th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
frank
when and if you say something intelligible, and lay out an actual coherent thought, then perhaps those who read your rambling posts will be able to ‘connect the dots’.
until then, all you’re doing is your wasting time and energy typing, and wasting the time and energy of the rest of us who have the misfortune of trying to make some sense out of your incoherence.
as far as “doing something”, prolifers work tirelessly to save lives, elect prolife legislators and presidents like president bush,
and donate countless hours towards these ends.
that type of thing doesn’t appear on a resume, but then, if you were truly prolife, you would know that….
January 22nd, 2005 at 3:23 pm
Unfortunately, this issue is just used as fodder by Republicans for political posturing and vote-getting. If Bush doesn’t put people in place to overturn RvW this term, will people THEN finally see, that their morals and religious beliefs are just being used for political gain?
A reversal of RvW NEVER going to happen unless globally, we face an extinction issue due to disease or other factors. Further, with a global overpopulation problem and the US’s rises in immigration, poverty, and overall populace, accompanied with the ferver of the left constituency, you will not see this ruling changed, period.
January 25th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
chris
you and the truth need to become better acquainted. you entire post lacked credulity, to say the least.
first of all, have you been asleep for four years? president bush put forth SEVERAL prolife nominees for high court positions, but the democrats bottled them up in committee and wouldn’t even allow floor vote. how convenient of you to blame one man for the lack of progress in this area, when we in america have three branches of government - it’s not a dictatorship.
next, your comment about “global overpopulation” is pure nonsense. chilren in nearly every country on earth are being born at below the minimal replacement rate, and in this country you can see that by virtue of social security, where a large part of an entire generation that would’ve been earning wages now and paying into the system has been aborted - hence, there is less and less money to pay benefits.
as far as “fervor” from the left is concerned, i’ll grant you that the left is as wacky and nutty as ever, but that’s nothing new. the point is - are court rulings contingent upon the “fervor” of the populace, or are they contingent upon constitutional law and facts? one would hope, the latter.
america never voted to legalize abortion - it was thrust upon us. and i believe, just as dred scott was eventually overturned, so will roe. because it’s horrible law and a twisted, bizarre ruling that has no real constitutional support whatsoever.
what it will take is more and more senators and congressmen and women with prolife values being elected, coupled with prolife governors and presidents, and over the long haul, we will see victory. besides, even if roe is not overturned, we can still pass a human life amendment with the aforementioned prolife majorities in congress, and that will effectively gut roe.
instead of being a naysayer, what are you doing to help bring these things about, minister to post-abortive people, get the word out about what abortion is and what it does, try to persuade people one on one about this matter, and/or help women in crisis pregnancies? don’t curse the darkness, light a candle.