By Dave Andrusko
In less than two days, a crowd of at least 100,000–and more likely several multiples of 100,000–will arrive in our nation’s capital for the annual March for Life. As a grassroots type, I put equal stock in the valiant work of all those brave souls, whether they travel to Washington, DC, or attend their state and local rallies.
A perennial question is will the media notice that we are even here? There is reason to believe that contrary to the pitiful network coverage of the 2016 March for Life, this year’s annual pilgrimage from the Mall to the Supreme Court will garner appreciably more attention. Here’s why.
Starting with the most obvious, the March is a not-so-silent protest of the 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that ignited a firestorm of resistance. Pro-life President Donald Trump, more than any of his pro-life predecessors, has flatly stated his nominees to the Supreme Court will be pro-life.
Roe and Doe were absurdly reasoned. They were grounded in non-sense, “penumbras” and “emanations” which Justice Harry Blackmun convinced himself were lurking unbeknownst somewhere in the interstices of Constitution.
But justices less wedded to results-oriented jurisprudence–finding what you want to find to justify the outcome you want to deliver all along–will look with less favor. On Tuesday, Mr. Trump said he would announce his nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia next week.
What else? No one over the age of 5 believes you can shame the “legacy media” (primarily the heavyweight newspapers and ABC/NBC/CBS) into fair coverage. But because they paid such massive (and uncritical) attention to last Saturday’s pro-abortion, anti-Trump “Women’s March,” perhaps lurking in the back of their minds is the thought they should do something more than the absolute minimum.
Moreover, because they paid some attention to pro-life feminists who were rejected by the organizers of the Women’s March, newspapers and networks might use that as a hook to write (as they always do, but more) about the handful of pro-abortionists who will greet the March for Life on the steps of the Supreme Court.
Also, there are more disparate groups than ever who are part of the March for Life. The coalition has always been broader than the media acknowledges, but that is truer than ever in 2017.
And nothing is more certain to interest reporters than (a) pro-lifers who tell them they did not vote for pro-life Donald Trump, which gives them an excuse to run still another story bashing the 45th President; and (b)the reemergence of the “seamless garment” argument that weaves the thread of opposition to abortion into a much, much larger fabric of issues.
Any other reasons? To return to what is on the national political agenda, the March for Life takes places just a few days after the House passed the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” and President Trump issued a Memorandum restoring the Mexico City policy. Intended to turn off the federal spigot, these are key moves early in his administration to stop public funding of abortion.
I hope that many of you reading NRL News Today will be in Washington, DC this Friday. If not, I hope you’ve been able to attend your local commemorative activities.
It is a wonderful time to be a champion of unborn children.
Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha. Please send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.