Why I March

If I were to set up a strawman to attack the argument that pro-lifers like myself should not be so focused on abortion, I'd offer Elizabeth Hansen's much-discussed essay last November over at Crux. Hansen's argument, in short, is that the "old guard" of the pro-life movement "has lost its way" and "must now step aside."

At Raleigh's March for Life last Saturday

The problem is that Hansen sets up a strawman of her own to knock down in the person of Father Frank Pavone, who back in November livestreamed an endorsement of Trump with the naked body of an aborted child before him on an altar. I will not provide a link to that video here. Despite Father Pavone's sincere pro-life convictions, despite his right to endorse Trump, the video is indefensible on too many counts to enumerate here. Despite Father Pavone's association with the pro-life movement for so many years, making him the strawman-representative of the "old guard" is disingenuous.  

Hansen, though, is part of the self-styled New Pro-life Movement, a group of bloggers whose stated mission is to "reexamine what it means to be pro-life in the 21st century." The NPLM's "new" moniker aside, their position statement looks an awful lot like Cardinal Joseph Bernardin's 1980s-era "seamless garment," the notion that a "consistent ethic of life" focuses on ending the death penalty and human trafficking, on defending the the rights of workers, on improving access to healthcare, etc., not just on ending abortion.

With regard specifically to abortion, their goal is "lessening the demand rather than the supply" through "greater access to healthcare, pre and post-natal care, mandatory paid leave, job protection, equal wages, sexual education, and stronger comprehensive support systems." In short, they are rejecting the pro-life movement's focus on Roe v. Wade. Their idea is that if we're serious about lessening the number of babies who are being killed by abortion, we need to alleviate the conditions that lead women to consider the option in the first place.

It's not that "old-guard" pro-lifers like me--goodness, I hadn't considered myself old enough to be old-guard anything--aren't similarly concerned with "demand." Why do these things have to be either/or? Look around your parish, and many of the same people who are concerned about Roe v. Wade are also counseling women outside of abortion clinics, supporting adoption, working in soup kitchens, staffing free medical clinics, teaching English to farmworkers, etc. Democrats and Republicans all want a stronger economy so that women don't feel pressured to kill their unborn babies. Democrats and Republicans are equally convinced that their respective policy platforms are a means to this end.

Which brings me to the purpose of tomorrow's March for Life, with its origins dating back to an October 1973 gathering of 30 pro-life activists in the home of the late Nellie Gray to discuss how to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the infamous Roe v. Wade court decision. Every year since Roe v. Wade, the march has been held on or around the date of the Jan. 22 decision. The march ends at the steps of the Supreme Court, and to this day the march's stated purpose is to "witness to the truth concerning the greatest human rights violation of our time, legalized abortion."

The March for Life is inextricably tied up with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, that is, with ending the "supply" of abortion. Again, we "old guard" pro-lifers, who attend these marches yearly in the hundreds of thousands, are very much about ending the "demand" as well, and if marching reinvigorates us in that regard, then all the better. Please, let's have it both ways.

Why in the world would we cease to concern ourselves with Roe v. Wade just as a president comes into office with the ability to nominate at least one pro-life justice to the high court, perhaps several? Why would we abandon the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade, or even lessen our focus on it, when we have the best chance to do so in decades?

I don't condone the reprehensible decision of Father Pavone to place the body of an aborted baby on an altar as a means to get pro-lifers to vote for Trump. Father Pavone certainly didn't convince me. I didn't believe that the formerly vigorously pro-choice television mogul meant much of what he said to placate pro-lifers during his campaign. Nonetheless, President Trump reinstated the "Mexico City" policy banning aid to foreign NGOs that support abortion in his second day in office. Tomorrow he is sending top advisor Kellyanne Conway as the first White House official ever to speak at the march in person.

There are so many "seamless garment" issues that Trump gets so tragically wrong. Need I mention his executive order yesterday to start construction on the border wall? But please, tomorrow let's show unity in marching for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. I'll march with Elizabeth Hansen, I'll march with Father Pavone. Goodness, I would march with Donald Trump himself in order to bring an end to the tragedy of the legalized mass killing of the unborn.

UPDATE (1/26, 12 p.m.): Minutes after publishing this post, I learned that Vice President Pence will also address marchers in person.