Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 25, 1990 TAG: 9003222550
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F3 EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE: MEMPHIS LENGTH: Medium
In recent weeks the legislatures of Maryland, Minnesota, Indiana and Virginia have debated the abortion issue. And in Guam, the unicameral legislature passed the toughest pro-life bill in the nation that specifically challenges Roe. Janet Benshoof, director of the Reproductive Rights Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, said of the Guam measure, "It's Pearl Harbor for women." Though her geography is a little off, it might as easily be said that this bill could be "VJ Day" for babies.
But these reports continue to focus on abortion as a political power game, ignoring the human dimension, particularly if it involves a story that might bolster the pro-life perspective.
That was the case the other day in Memphis when more than 500 people came to a fund-raising banquet for Life Choices, a local crisis-pregnancy center that cares for women and their unborn children, before and after birth. The crowd was more than twice the size of last year's event, and several thousand dollars were raised. I was the featured speaker.
There was no local press, television or radio coverage - which is too bad. The stories told by several women and a doctor who delivers many of their babies for free (how many abortion doctors donate their "services"?) was a moving and powerful argument for curtailing abortion on demand.
Twenty-five-year-old Marsha Anderson told the crowd she has had two abortions, her first when she was only 14.
"I didn't know what abortion was," she said. "I went to Planned Parenthood and they explained it in a deceiving way. They didn't tell me I was killing a baby. They said I would be `terminating a pregnancy.' They were harsh and pushy."
She was 21 when she had her second abortion. "I was ashamed, stubborn and selfish with my life and thinking only of myself and of my baby as a burden. It was a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Your child is dead and you carry the scar for life. I'll never stop regretting it."
There were biracial babies who had been saved through Life Choices. There were adoptive couples whose lives have been made complete because women chose not to be selfish but to allow their babies to live and to be adopted into a stable home.
These are great human-interest stories, and excellent television and newspaper copy. But no one was there to record it. Why? Perhaps it's because surveys have shown that most journalists favor abortion on demand. They regularly report the rantings of the pro-abortion side. Rarely do they report on events, such as the Life Choices banquet, that would counter those reports.
There are more than 1,000 crisis-pregnancy centers around the country. New ones open every month. Studies indicate that most women seek abortions for economic reasons and are not fully informed before exercising this "choice." The pro-abortionists consistently oppose legislation that would allow women to receive more information about what abortion is and how it affects their unborn child, their body and emotions. They apparently suspect that with more complete information, the chances are good that the choice would be life and not death for the baby.
Much of the press is a co-conspirator in this censorship. It seems to pretend that organizations like Life Choices do not exist, and therefore the only alternative for women is to be allowed abortion on demand.
More thorough reporting of fund-raising events, the testimonies of those exploited by abortion and those fulfilled by adoption, along with the work of crisis pregnancy centers in cities across America, might increase pressure on state legislatures to tighten restrictions on abortion.
If the public could only see more about organizations like Life Choices, the babies would have more of a fighting chance. Los Angeles Times Syndicate
by CNB