Pro Lifers won a huge victory last year, when President Bush placed his signature on legislation outlawing Partial Birth Abortion. Passed by large majorities of both House and Senate for the third time in less than a decade (Bill Clinton vetoed the Bill twice, and was sustained by a mere three Senate votes from being over-ridden), the ban finally became law, just as George W. Bush had promised in the 2000 Campaign, proving the wisdom of Pro Life voters' support for Bush at the polls.
Furthermore, the long-term effectiveness of the Pro Life side in winning the battle for hearts and minds was illustrated by this comical phrase widely adopted by Big Media: "the procedure opponents call `partial birth abortion.'" Try to imagine Dan Rather or Katie Couric saying, "the procedure opponents call `lynching,'" or "the agenda proponents call `Gay Rights.'" Such euphemizing reveals not only a transparent taking of sides by the "objective" Media, but also a tacit admission that the Pro Life side is getting through in the communication war, and a lack of confidence in substantive counter-arguments.
Bravo for our victory in the Partial Birth Abortion battle, but while we are riding high, I want to propose a change of Pro Life strategy.
The efforts of Pro Life Conservatives have for years been focused on restoring the Constitutional function of elected representative lawmaking bodies, which was usurped by the Federal Courts through Roe v. Wade, and it's various "offspring."
The fight against abortion has been a long, hard struggle, and a noble one, fought against a multi-billion dollar abortion industry, the overwhelming bias of cultural, academic and media elites, and the muscle of ever more assertive judicial tyranny by Federal and State Courts. It has often been a heartbreaking battle of one step forward, three steps back.
But, could this battle also be an unnecessary one? I think we've been fighting the hard way! It's time for Conseratives to combine what we know about economics with what Liberals fancy about government, to make abortions scarce. It's time to think outside the box. It's time to Nationalize abortion.
This approach would offer so many things Liberals love: taxpayer funding, price controls, Labor Unions. After all, didn't you feel much safer after Daschle's Senate Democrats succeeded in making all airport security workers unionized Federal Government employees? So too with Nationalized Abortion. Women who want their unborn offspring eliminated will feel much more confident with a unionized government employee doing the killing, rather than some profit-driven private practitioner. And with Nationalized Abortion will come the efficiency of the Post Office, the compassion of the IRS, the results of the Public Schools, and the cost-effectiveness of Medicare. What more could Liberals want? It will be easy to get them on board.
Ronald Reagan once observed, "if Socialism came to the Sahara, it wouldn't be long before they had a shortage of sand." Likewise, if we turned abortion into a government program, intended to provide the most abortions, at the lowest price, to the greatest number of people, we could count on socialism to do what socialism does best: screw things up. Which, in the case of abortion, would be the ideal oucome.
Keep in mind that the clock would always be ticking against the inevitable shortage of supply that attends a socialist "market." Young women queing-up for their turn at the Government Abortion Mill would have lots more time to consider the little human being alive inside their womb, and might even reach full term and give birth while waiting for some shiftless civil servant to call their number. The potential for saving millions of babies' lives is staggering; so I say to Nationalization: bring it on.