Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 6, 1994 TAG: 9403080019
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By DAVID NOVA
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The editorial provides the following example to bolster its argument: ``Surely, if someone believes homicide is OK, he ought to be constrained by other people's attempts to impose their morality on him.'' And who believes homicide is OK? Well, that man on trial in Florida, for one. Apparently, the editorial staff overlooked the irony of its own example.
Yet, ironies and inconsistencies abound in this newspaper's abortion-related opinions. Following the murder of Dr. Gunn last year, it denounced any assertion that abortion and murder are somehow ``equivalent.'' Now, an editorial uses the example of homicide to rationalize actions and attitudes of abortion opponents. The editorial staff laments clinic violence; yet it opposed all three Supreme Court cases that have attempted to curb such violence. The staff has been a frequent supporter of the f+iconcepto of reproductive freedom, but is critical of efforts (such as our workshop) to preserve such freedoms. It maintains lofty ideals, but often rejects grass-roots efforts required to attain those ideals. In short, it plays it safe.
At our next staff meeting, Planned Parenthood will also be playing it safe. We'll be in our parking lot to practice putting out fires - necessary precautions for the increased number of arson attacks directed at Planned Parenthood clinics. Yes, we f+iareo concerned that some people wish to ``impose their moral beliefs on us.''
Our workshop isn't an attempt to stifle democracy, as this newspaper implied. To the contrary, the democratic process has been Planned Parenthood's greatest ally for more than 75 years. Our overarching objective for conducting the workshop is to ``develop mechanisms and strategies for increasing mainstream voter participation'' - a goal that's been championed by this newspaper's editorial staff in recent weeks. Had the newspaper attempted to contact us, we'd have gladly provided them with this information. On the flyer, with the exception of the workshop title, no information was given regarding the nature of the workshop itself.
Planned Parenthood is clearly concerned about the religious right in general, and Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition in particular. Our concern has been heightened by the prospect of school-board elections in Virginia. In other states, the Christian Coalition has used the low voter turnout common in school-board elections to quietly elect candidates the coalition endorses. In 1992, the Christian Coalition fielded more than 600 candidates, primarily for elected school boards. Robertson's group spent $13 million on telephone banks, church-based voter-registration drives and distribution of 40 million voters guides. None of these 600 candidates supported abortion rights, comprehensive sexuality education and funding for family-planning services.
Polls taken before the elections showed that many of these candidates had little public support. Some were virtual unknowns, dismissed by more mainstream candidates. Yet, on Election Day, more than 40 percent of them won their elections. Ralph Reed, executive director of the Christian Coalition, has described their campaign tactics this way: ``I want to be invisible. I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night.''
This type of mentality, which relies heavily on voter apathy and stealth campaigning, isn't shared by the majority of Americans, nor the majority of religious conservatives. For that reason, we made a point to clarify and define the religious right as ``groups working to alter state and federal law to conform to their narrow set of religious beliefs. It is not meant to connote all religious conservatives.''
The editorial staff dismisses our clarification as politically correct public-relations. Hardly. A devotee of political correctness might use the term ``liberally and secularly challenged'' or some equally bizarre phrase. Planned Parenthood neither coined nor popularized the term ``religious right.'' It's a term that's been frequently used by political analysts and the media, including reporters and editorial staff members of the Roanoke Times & World-News.
This newspaper may not have a problem with the term. We, on the other hand, are somewhat uncomfortable using a phrase that has been ill-defined and frequently misused. As long as religious right continues to be the prevailing term, we'll continue to use it, and we'll continue to clarify its meaning.
The most disappointing aspect of the editorial was the context in which it was written. Our workshop flyer appeared in Reproductive Rights, our public-affairs newsletter, along with an article on our teen-pregnancy-prevention petition drive. The editorial appeared on a Sunday. The very next day, this newspaper published another editorial siding with the ``thousands of Virginians who have signed petitions of support'' for teen-pregnancy prevention, yet made no indication that Planned Parenthood initiated and conducted the petition drive as part of an eight-month lobbying effort. Planned Parenthood's name was never mentioned.
Our opponents have always tried to make it is easier to criticize than to recognize Planned Parenthood. It isn't always politic to give credit where credit is due. We call that playing it safe.
David Novaf is public-affairs director for Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge, Inc.
Editor's note: A Jan. 16 editorial credited Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge, by name, for its petition drive supporting teen-pregnancy prevention efforts.
by CNB