- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Electing Roy Moore Will Be the Doom of the Pro-Life Movement

What’s the goal of the pro-life movement?

Most would say its primary objective is to overturn Roe v. Wade. The court case has inspired and motivated pro-lifers for decades, urging them on into battle against Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other organizations that fight for abortion.

I’ve been part of the pro-life movement since childhood: participating in Walks for Life, helping with bake sales, sorting baby clothing donations, and volunteering weekly at a local pregnancy resource center. During that time, I came to know the many faces of the pro-life movement: women with regrets over their past abortions, families who adopted and fostered children in need of homes, ladies who spent their days counseling and caring for moms and potential moms-to-be. The pro-lifers that pro-choicers hate—vehement and angry protesters at Planned Parenthood clinics, radicals who threaten or shoot abortion doctors—were never a part of this world. It was a deeply Christian, pacifist, and local cause, animated by compassion, not belligerence.

Nevertheless, the pro-life movement of my childhood was also deeply political. On a state and national level, pro-lifers always voted for pro-life candidates. Most described themselves as “one-issue voters,” for whom the sanctity of human life was and always would be their primary motivating force. If asked why, I’m guessing they would have responded in unison: they wanted these politicians to overturn Roe v. Wade.

change_me

Much, however, has changed this year. Pro-lifers have been forced to confront a deeply concerning dilemma within their cause. They’ve been forced to ask themselves: can they vote for a “pro-life” candidate who lacks chivalry and common decency? Can they vote for a politician whose record is pro-life, but whose personal life is characterized by corruption, harassment, and hypocrisy?

Roy Moore [1] has made this question a particularly sharp and relevant topic for pro-lifers. Despite the “fake news” protests of some within the conservative movement, the evidence against Moore [2]—evidence of child molestation and sexual misconduct—is strong. Many within the political, journalistic, and religious worlds have urged pro-lifers not to vote for Moore. Yet despite this, recent polls [3] show him leading Democrat Doug Jones by five to six percentage points.

Why are so many Alabamans determined to vote for a man who allegedly harassed a 14-year-old girl? The simple—yet frightening—answer is this: Roy Moore votes pro-life. And if Moore were elected, as Pat Buchanan recently pointed out [4], there’s a chance (slim at best) that Roe v. Wade could be overturned. Other Republicans have urged [5] conservatives not to let Moore’s bad character prevent them from voting—he’s not a moral leader, they argue, just a political pawn. To them, the ends justify the means.

But in this battle for an illusory Supreme Court victory, other vital components of our political and cultural moment are being set by the wayside. From a political perspective, as Georgi Boorman recently pointed out [6], voting for loathsome politicians will distance swing voters from the GOP—and, more importantly, from the pro-life cause most often associated with it.

“Independent voters hate hypocrisy a lot more than they hate abortion,” Boorman writes. “Conservatives of the party of ‘family values’ fall harder and farther when they sin than liberal Democrats do.” Roy Moore may win Alabama, but his unpopularity (as well as the widespread disapproval of Donald Trump) could result in a momentous swing to the left in future months and years, thus erasing any possibility of congressional victory for the pro-life cause.

But the problem with Moore is also cultural and social. It lies in the distrust and suspicion of pro-lifers that is likely to result from his election. Leaders in the pro-choice movement—particularly Planned Parenthood—have successfully billed themselves as the pro-woman side in the abortion fight. Imagine how much more clout and power their argument will have if men like Moore dominate the “pro-life” side. How can pro-lifers say they care more about women and their welfare when they vote for child molesters and sexual harassers?

Roy Moore isn’t the first of his kind, after all. There’s a very strong argument that Donald Trump—a man with a rather sketchy and offensive past when it comes to women—was supported by Christian conservatives primarily because his rival, Hillary Clinton, was vehemently pro-choice (even to the point of supporting [7] legal late-term abortions). For most pro-lifers, backing such a candidate would be unconscionable.

But in practice, we’re seeing the impact a candidate like Trump has on the pro-life cause. Neil Gorsuch’s nomination was a considerable win for conservative and pro-life voters. But Trump himself is so odious to the left, and to many young people, that the possibility of conversion to their cause wanes with every month of his presidency. The image he paints—of a boorish, misogynistic party that wants to control women’s lives and futures—becomes more and more palatable to the left, as well as to swing voters on the abortion issue.

In October, we discovered that the supposedly pro-life Congressman Tim Murphy had tried to convince his girlfriend (with whom he was having an affair) to get an abortion [8]. Yet despite the hypocrisy of this, many within the pro-life movement were reluctant to condemn his behavior outright—because of his on-the-record statements against abortion. One pro-life advocate called Murphy an “honorable” person, and said she was “not ready to cast a stone at him.” And as one can imagine, the hypocrisy of Murphy cast a shadow on the entire pro-life movement:

What happens when the faces of the pro-life movement are hypocritical congressmen, sexual harassers, and men who brag about grabbing women’s bodies without permission? The recent spate of Handmaid’s Tale-inspired protests [11] is one indication that the pro-choice movement can and will adopt increasingly passionate, morally superior language and rhetoric in response, gathering voters to their cause. Congress’s inability to defund Planned Parenthood—despite Republican majorities in the House and Senate—is another indication that, despite supposed political advances, conservatives are still losing the battle on a popular cultural level. And if pro-lifers lose there, political victory is impossible.

With men like Trump, Moore, and Murphy standing for the pro-life movement, it’s nearly impossible to overcome the loathsome picture pro-life adherents have painted for themselves. As David French recently put it [12] at National Review, “‘Child-abusing senators against Roe’ strikes me as perhaps the worst possible message to a culture in desperate need of persuasion.”

What would happen if GOP congressmen were somehow able to nominate more conservative Supreme Court judges in the next few years, stating as their goal the overturning of Roe v. Wade? It’s not difficult to imagine the political uproar and fervor the left would conjure up—the anti-woman rhetoric they’d employ, the nightmarishly dictatorial and patriarchal picture they would paint of the pro-life movement. Pro-lifers’ political “win” would result in wholehearted animosity across the nation. The abortion-industrial complex is not going disappear overnight, after all, and the massive clout of Planned Parenthood—especially in Hollywood and the Democratic party—will not be easily dissolved.

In short, we cannot force a judicial, political victory that the country is not ready for culturally. Fighting abortion is more complex. It must involve local ministry and assistance, cultural persuasion, and social winsomeness. Political battles must be secondary to all this—not because they aren’t important, but because the deep polarization of our political parties is ill-suited to the complexity and potential bipartisanship of the pro-life cause. The pro-life movement has never belonged to the GOP. Its underlying motivations are spiritual, personal, and philosophical—and thus transcend politics and politicians. It’s inspired by compassion, a zeal for life, and a passion for the oppressed and vulnerable. Many progressives might understand and support the pro-life cause, were it not so often couched in specific political and partisan terms.

To overturn Roe v. Wade requires much more than a set number of conservative Supreme Court judges, or a majority of “pro-life” congressmen in the House and Senate. It requires pro-lifers to change the hearts and minds of voters—especially the nation’s young people. Because so long as there is demand and widespread support for Planned Parenthood and its ilk, illegalizing abortion will be next to impossible.

Of course, this does not readily answer the question of who pro-lifers should vote for. But supporting an oppressive and abusive politician contradicts the heart of the pro-life philosophy. Voting for Roy Moore shouldn’t even be an option.

There are some more progressive pro-lifers who have argued [13] that until the movement begins supporting a more vigorous pro-family policy (with generous paid parental leave, support for poor single moms, etc.), it will gain little to no ground. For these pro-life advocates, a Democratic candidate with vigorous support for welfare and relief is more pro-life than a callously pro-big business Republican candidate.

It’s an interesting and worthwhile argument. But even this should be secondary to a resurgence and reinvigoration of the local sphere of the pro-life cause: supporting and volunteering at PRCs that help single moms, donating to local organizations that assist the poor and vulnerable, seeking ways to help and protect women within one’s community and neighborhood.

The politicization of the religious right has led to a dangerous cultural blindness, in which Christian conservatives often ignore societal and even moral warning signs in order to make tiny political gains. Many seem completely oblivious to the long-term ramifications of their actions. Unless and until pro-lifers realize their battle is first and foremost a cultural one, they will turn the entire nation against their cause—and likely lead to its doom, for at least the next few generations.

Gracy Olmstead is a writer and journalist located outside Washington, D.C. She’s written for The American Conservative, The Week, National Review, The Federalist, and The Washington Times, among others.

132 Comments (Open | Close)

132 Comments To "Electing Roy Moore Will Be the Doom of the Pro-Life Movement"

#1 Comment By JeffK On December 5, 2017 @ 4:02 pm

Gus Nelson says:
December 4, 2017 at 10:57 pm

JeffK: It’s not that pro-life Republican voters don’t realize the Republicans are using them, it’s that they have long had nowhere else to turn. Democrats and others to the left offer only abortion whenever and wherever to whomever, which violates the conscience of many pro-life voters.

Gus,
You seem like a conscientious and reasonable person. But let me call you out on ‘Democrats and others to the left offer only abortion whenever and wherever to whomever…’.

Let me ask you this:

Are you as determined to make contraception readily available to any man or woman that needs it? Including making it a part of insurance. Are you for reasonably priced insurance available for all, for that matter?

Are you for providing science-based sex education available at the appropriate age?

Are you for programs that assist women (and men) the means to cover the expenses and effort required to raise a child?

Do you support the CHIPS program that provides quality medical care to people that don’t have the means to afford insurance?

Do you support after-school programs so that working parents can work without fear their children are going to roam the streets and be at risk of associating with undesirable people?

If I had the time I could come up with a dozen things that would make it much easier to raise a child if you don’t have a lot of money. I believe all of the above would materially lower the number of abortions.

When I see the ‘pro-life’ Republican crowd ante-up the money required to fund programs that support people of modest means to raise children, then I won’t view you all as hypocrites. Until then, it’s all hot air as far as I’m concerned. Or do you think only the well-to-do should have children? If so, who is going to fight the fire in your house, take you to the hospital when you have your heart attack, and fight your useless middle east wars?

We are a very wealthy country. If we can afford the $1.5 TRILLION F-Whatever airplane program, 10 aircraft carriers, tax cuts that benefit the top 2% of the country, and programs that look to send people to Mars, we can afford programs that help people of modest means afford be able to raise children.

BTW. I am no ‘taker’, as I am sure many ‘conservatives’ would label me based upon my political views. I estimate I will pay about $25K in federal taxes this year. And no, I do not want Trump’s tax cut, if it means we are going to go further into debt, and allow billionaires to pay less of a percentage of their income in taxes than I do. And the ability to pass on $Billions to ones heirs, without paying any federal tax, is an abomination.

One last thing. My grandmother used to watch the evangelical TV programs back in the 60’s (Katheryn Kuhlman and her ilk). She enjoyed the hypocrisy and used to say ‘Hell is full of such Christians’.

I live by the golden rule. Treat others…. What percentage of ‘conservative Christians’ do the same?

#2 Comment By Optatus Cleary On December 5, 2017 @ 4:27 pm

That said, I think the pro-life movement needs to be very cautious when it comes to endorsing, or even receiving help from, people like Trump and Moore. The pro-life movement is obviously held accountable for the behavior of its members and for the behavior of those perceived to be members.

Personally, I am unwilling to do evil that good may result: I would never vote for Roy Moore and I would encourage anyone I knew who lives in Alabama not to vote for him. I think the pro-life cause is right enough to stand on its own, and needs no help from corrupt politicians.

#3 Comment By Clyde Schechter On December 5, 2017 @ 4:39 pm

The article, and the comments so far, combine many different issues. For my comment, I would like to ignore most of those, and just focus on what, I think, the impact of electing Roy Moore or not would be on the pro-life movement.

I think it will be minimal.

1. For all the sturm und drang that Roe v Wade has provoked over its 40 year history, public opinion about abortion has not budged. Take a look at [14]. It’s astonishing how unchanging the numbers are. Even in an era when popular support for gay marriage went from non-existent to clear majority, the numbers on abortion have not changed at all. There is no reason to think that anything will change them in the foreseeable future.

2. If Roe v Wade were overturned, that would lead not the universal prohibition of abortion but to state-by-state decisions. As it already stands, many states have effectively made it all but impossible to get an abortion even when it is technically legal to do so. Those states will stop the pretense and outlaw it. Those that currently pose few or no restrictions on abortions are unlikely to change those laws. Little or nothing will change.

3. A constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion passing is pure delusion. Look at those Gallup numbers. It could never be passed.

4. The pro-life movement is already regarded by most of its opponents as ugly, bigoted, misogynistic and hypocritical. As Ms. Olmstead points out, those terms are truly applicable to segments of the movement, and truly slanderous to those who are not. But the image will not change even if Roy Moore is defeated: his defeat will be attributed to enhanced turnout by his energized opponents, and the southern evangelicals will still be viewed largely with disdain, as they will have been his key support in any case.

In short, I really see no reason that anyone should vote for or against Moore on the basis of the impact of his election or defeat on abortion itself or the pro-life movement. Those consequences will be somewhere in the negligible to non-existent range.

#4 Comment By paradoctor On December 5, 2017 @ 5:18 pm

Roy Moore’s candidacy does not ‘cast a shadow’ on the anti-abortion movement. It ‘shines a light’.

#5 Comment By Hyperion On December 5, 2017 @ 7:05 pm

Several commenters here make this point:

If the right were sincerely anti-abortion, rather than anti-choice, or anti-sex, then support for banning abortion would go hand in hand with support for expanding contraception access…

Why does no pro-life person here address that fundamental contradiction in their position?

All I’m hearing is crickets!

#6 Comment By kSW On December 5, 2017 @ 7:27 pm

Abortion should be a choice made by a woman after consulting her partner, her doctor and her religion. The government has no business being in the mix in any way. It remarkable to me that the party that claims to be for individual liberty wants to use the government as a club to enforce their narrow view of what is acceptable.

#7 Comment By LT On December 5, 2017 @ 9:19 pm

>>>If the right were sincerely anti-abortion, rather than anti-choice, or anti-sex, then support for banning abortion would go hand in hand with support for expanding contraception access…

Why does no pro-life person here address that fundamental contradiction in their position?<<<

It isn't a contradiction at all. Most prolife people I know both use and encourage contraception. They are all for expanding access to it.

However, what you mean is forcing someone else to pay for contraception, and that is what is objected to. If you want contraception, then go buy it. I don't think any prolife person will object to that.

As a staunch prolifer who refused abortion when fetal tests came back at dangerous levels, I have no problem with using contraception. I do have a problem with forcing someone else to pay for it. If you can't see this basic distinction, then you don't deserve a voice in this conversation

#8 Comment By LT On December 5, 2017 @ 9:24 pm

>>>Abortion should be a choice made by a woman after consulting her partner, her doctor and her religion. <<<

Since when has the government left the life of a child up to a woman, her partner, and her doctor? The government is to protect life, particularly that of children. In fact, the whole objection to Roy Moore is about the protection of children and people are claiming he should be prosecuted for it. By who? By the government.

You can't have it both ways. If you want the government out of it, then you can't also want the government in it. You gotta choose.

#9 Comment By Richard M On December 5, 2017 @ 10:28 pm

kSW:

It remarkable to me that the party that claims to be for individual liberty wants to use the government as a club to enforce their narrow view of what is acceptable.

That’s because it’s a party dominated by conservatives, not libertarians. And these are not the same thing. (And this magazine is a conservative magazine, not a libertarian one.)

The point is that abortion takes an innocent human life. That it is human and a life is beyond biological dispute; the debate is whether or when this entity deserves the protections conferred on rights bearing human beings. Drawing that line at the point of birth creates at least a serious discomfort level among many voters who might favor abortion rights in theory – aborting a healthy nine month old fetus (which happens rarely, but it does happen, and is legal in at least a few state regimes, and fairly permitted under the ruling of Doe v Bolton) raises that question in a serious way. But if not at birth, when to draw the line? “Viability” is a moving target. At the least, confront the serious arguments being made here.

#10 Comment By KLynch On December 5, 2017 @ 10:35 pm

I am a progressive who is interested in conservative viewpoints. I think the left and the right need each other to curb our excesses and believe in that rare creature compromise. I believe that people with divergent opinions can work together on overlapping goals. For example, I am an atheist, yet I am politically active and work with faith groups on issues like healthcare access and homelessness, we don’t discuss religion. Just because I am ‘pro-choice’ does not mean that I like abortion or am opposed to all ideas that would encourage alternatives. There is a lot of common ground that gets ignored when we demonize each other. Great article Gracy Olmstead.

#11 Comment By Optatus Cleary On December 6, 2017 @ 1:16 am

“Several commenters here make this point:

If the right were sincerely anti-abortion, rather than anti-choice, or anti-sex, then support for banning abortion would go hand in hand with support for expanding contraception access…

Why does no pro-life person here address that fundamental contradiction in their position?

All I’m hearing is crickets!”

I will adresss this. It isn’t a contradiction. In my experience, the bulk of the pro-life movement is Catholic. The Church doesn’t believe in contraception, and also strongly teaches that we may not do evil that good may result.

Now, a huge number of pro-lifers disagree, including some who call themselves Catholics. But here’s what happens if “greater distribution of contraception” becomes integral to the pro-life movement: the movement becomes split and thus less effective.

At present, pro-life is a huge umbrella. It includes religious people, non religious people, economic liberals, economic conservatives, etc. All they all have in common is opposing abortion. I know countless pro-lifers who are also deeply dedicated to issues like anti-death penalty advocacy, immigration reform, and other issues. But these are separate issues from the issue of abortion.

The pro-life cause strikes me as terribly misunderstood: it is one single issue. Pro-life people consider abortion to be wrong, and we oppose it. You shouldn’t hold us responsible for everything any politician who agrees with us on that one issue does. If you voted for Obama because you liked his stance on healthcare, but you don’t want to be personally blamed for his actions in the Middle East, you can understand how pro-lifers often feel about “our” candidates.

#12 Comment By Lee Amon On December 6, 2017 @ 3:09 am

I am going to start off by saying that I am firmly pro-choice. I am not “pro-abortion” I want to see abortions reduced if not eliminated.

But I also ask what is the most effective way to do that? The answer is not in prohibition – Colorado reduced abortions dramatically by improving sex education and distributing birth control.

You stated that “The pro-life movement has never belonged to the GOP” but the truth is that the GOP has conned and co-opted the pro life movement to push through a radical economic agenda

#13 Comment By Rhys On December 6, 2017 @ 9:29 am

Hyperion and others hit the nail on the head. The pro-life movement would have much more credibility in my book if they aggressively promoted access to contraceptives and sex education programs that don’t include abstinence. Until they do that, I have no choice but to conclude that opposition to abortion derives from a desire to exert indirect control of people’s sex lives.

#14 Comment By JeffK On December 6, 2017 @ 9:59 am

One last comment on this article. Using logic (and not emotions), I propose: If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions in the US, then the best action to take is to elect Democrats. Democrats push for programs that help the middle and lower class raise healthy children. These programs tend to discourage abortion, since expectant mothers see motherhood as viable and not a sentence to 18 years of economic challenges and uncertainty.

But that’s just my logic. No emotional hysteria. Just logic.

#15 Comment By Benjamin McLean On December 6, 2017 @ 12:31 pm

As far as I can tell, you have no evidence against Moore. The Washington Post article cited just uses the two words “she says” repeatedly, but there are no photographs, no letters, no police reports, no court case, no nothing. Just an absolute denial from Roy Moore with no apology because he’s protesting his complete innocence of the charges. These people want to get rid of Roy Moore because he’s the Ten Commandments Judge and until/unless there’s some actual evidence, that’s all this is.

#16 Comment By Jonathan Campbell On December 6, 2017 @ 1:24 pm

Gracy,

I am so inspired by this article…THANK YOU for being an AUTHENTIC Pro-Life witness.

#17 Comment By GM On December 6, 2017 @ 1:36 pm

It is already nearly scientifically possible to turn any body cell into a stem cell, that could then be turned into a clone fetus. There are already 2.7 billion too many people to feed without the Haber Bosch process to make ammonia for fertilizer. Without easy and very cheap contraceptives available to all we will drown the world in humanity to the severe detriment of us all. If you really want to end abortion you need to end unwanted insemination. If that takes taxpayer dollars I am all for it, especially if the money comes out of the military budget. Currently it seems that abortion is morally horrible, but warfare and mass killing of foreigners is honorable. What hypocrites.

#18 Comment By Hyperion On December 6, 2017 @ 1:57 pm

re: I do have a problem with forcing someone else to pay for it.

I was forced to pay (and continue to be forced to pay) for GWB’s stupid war in Iraq. When you live in a democracy, you sometimes have to put up with your government spending money on things you personally find abhorrent. Maybe you feel the same about GWB’s stupid war in Iraq as I do. Yet somehow you continue to pay your taxes, no?

#19 Comment By BadReligion On December 6, 2017 @ 2:57 pm

LT- The protocol mentioned here to crash the abortion rate also pays for itself, and then some.

#20 Comment By Concerned Citizen On December 6, 2017 @ 3:35 pm

@LT says:
December 5, 2017 at 9:19 pm

“Most prolife people I know both use and encourage contraception. They are all for expanding access to it.

“However, what you mean is forcing someone else to pay for contraception, and that is what is objected to. If you want contraception, then go buy it. I don’t think any prolife person will object to that.

“As a staunch prolifer who refused abortion when fetal tests came back at dangerous levels, I have no problem with using contraception. I do have a problem with forcing someone else to pay for it. If you can’t see this basic distinction, then you don’t deserve a voice in this conversation.”
********************

I’m tired of the argument that women want someone else to pay for their contraceptives.

First of all, they pay premiums for their insurance plan that covers contraceptives, plus more than likely some amount of a copay.

Second, I would be amenable to women having to pay for their contraceptives as long as men would have to pay for their own erectile dysfunction drugs.

#21 Comment By Peggy On December 6, 2017 @ 3:47 pm

Murder is murder, and I don’t see any proof that Moore is a child abuser….The left make up the news…..Abortion and free birth control have nothing to do with each other. Abortion is murder. No excuses. Any other discussion is a distraction.

#22 Comment By Hyperion On December 6, 2017 @ 6:49 pm

Peggy says: Abortion is murder. No excuses. Any other discussion is a distraction.

Then arrest and prosecute women who solicit an abortion. That is the only logical conclusion.

Trump suggested this. Why aren’t all pro-lifers demanding this change in the law?

#23 Comment By Rick On December 7, 2017 @ 2:22 am

Our country is on the verge of collapsing.

If Roy Moore wins in Alabama and/or Roe vs. Wade is repealed it’s game over. With the latter it will be all out civil war.

It really will be, so talking about the pro-life movement is myopic.

It’s like pointing out a mustard stain on your shirt when the fabric is on fire.

If Moore wins Alabama, I’m immediately supporting and volunteering for Cascadia secessionist efforts.

I don’t want a penny of my money going to a State that stupid.

#24 Comment By KSW On December 7, 2017 @ 12:01 pm

It is incredibly clear from the multiple voices accusing Moore that he was a pedifile as that term is defined by the law. If Alabama votes him in, it will confirm that the evangelical/GOP stance on family values is beyond hipocritical, and has become a true danger to our country.

#25 Comment By paradoctor On December 7, 2017 @ 4:33 pm

Pedophile for Senate. That’s a stain that won’t wash out.

#26 Comment By JL On December 7, 2017 @ 6:53 pm

Perhaps we should go back to the why of legalizing abortion. In the good old days prior to roe and wade, in the midst even of the halycon times of happy family life with all of its mysteriously identified values (pater familias at the head of the groaning table presiding over the blessed meal, mother with cherubic children surrounding the hearth…) were there in fact fewer abortions then now? No, probably not less, certainly not much less. They did however take place in dismal dens in back alley’s, surreptitiously and after hours in the private office’s independent practitioners risking their livelhodd and freedom (the kind that have long been absorbed into HMO’s with the demise of doctoring as an independent profession) or at home with the aid of coat hangers, bathroom plungers, caustic and dubious chemicals from who know where, etc….. at the cost of many women’s health or even life and certainly with a much higher emotional toll then that of a supportive, sanitary and regularized clinic. Not to mention often too, at the cost of their freedom. Very few women approach an abortion lightly or flippantly. It is almost always done through a heavily conflicted process in which the decision to proceed is based on real, material and situational circumstances. Banning abortion will not end it, it will only drive it underground again.

#27 Comment By Gary Brown On December 8, 2017 @ 12:45 pm

The fatal flaw of Gracy Olmstead’s argument is that the evidence against Roy Moore is “strong”. From this supposedly “strong” evidence, she builds her entire apocalyptic case, calling him a “child molester” who “lacks chivalry and common decency”. Really now? That’s been characteristic of Moore’s life?

About that “evidence” – something new: [15].

What do you know to be true about Roy Moore’s past? Me thinks you hate Moore (using this convenient left wing political smear job) precisely because he embarrasses you by actually stating his opposition to social issues like gay marriage and transgenderism clearly and loudly.

#28 Comment By Kurt On December 9, 2017 @ 4:03 pm

Sadly, I think the author is 100% on target. The Democrats will make Trump and Moore the face of the GOP (some will say the GOP did it to itself). Throw in Tim Murphy and some others and it is going to be very hard to win new converts to the pro-life movement. We will have lost an entire generation.

It is really quite depressing.

#29 Comment By Kurt On December 9, 2017 @ 6:00 pm

And then I found this:

“George Weigel at the National Review: “One hates to say it, but the Graham/Falwell bromance with Donald Trump, and now with Roy Moore, has done a far better job of reinforcing every Elmer Gantry stereotype about Evangelicals than the New Atheists could have managed doing overtime shifts at CNN”

#30 Comment By Paul Russell On December 10, 2017 @ 2:16 pm

We’ve tried, out of necessity, the “nice” way for 45 years now, with little to show for it. Maybe it’s time to get more bold. We’re not winning over many “pro-choice” folks with our current strategy, and the babies continue to die.

#31 Comment By Paul Russell On December 10, 2017 @ 2:18 pm

BTW, did the author ever answer the question with which she opened her article?

#32 Comment By Kari Kling On December 12, 2017 @ 2:28 am

As a pro-life progressive, I wish we were the loudest voices in the pro-life movement, but we seem to be outnumbered by people who are at the very least willing to overlook sexism, racism, and classism. All of these issues they overlook lead to diminished value and quality of life, and they sometimes lead to death. The pro-life movement would gain a lot more credibility if as a whole we actively pursued the quality and dignity of life at every stage of life.