In a rather odd piece of propaganda published on March 6, 2017, a Socialist group sang the praises of America’s biggest abortion business and promoted the silencing of opposing views, namely pro-life views. Not exactly surprising, but revealing.
Socialist Worker, a publication of the International Socialist Organization – a group which openly identifies with Lenin, Trotsky, and Marx – reports that prior to the kickoff of this year’s 40 Days for Life, the International Socialist Organization called for a pro-abortion counter-protest outside a San Francisco Planned Parenthood.
In the Socialist Worker article, authors Emma Wilde Botta and Bruno Ruviaro attempt to discredit 40 Days for Life on religious grounds, referring to it as a “national campaign of religious anti-choice activists.” Apparently, they are not aware (or more likely, not willing to admit to readers) that despite 40 Days for Life’s faith-based aspects such as joining in prayer, some secular pro-lifers participate in 40 Days for Life in their own way. The authors are also apparently not aware that even if 40 Days for Life were 100% religious, slamming the religious orientation of the pro-lifer is not a quality argument against the science and logic behind his or her position on abortion. But as usual, the pro-abortion side would rather argue about non-issues than address the real problems.
“Anti-choice protests like these have helped create a climate that puts women’s fundamental right to choose what she does with her body into question,” argue Botta and Ruviaro. Marxists/Leninists standing up for individual “rights.” How refreshing. Of course, in keeping with the traditions of their beloved Lenin, select “rights” are demanded, while truly fundamental rights such as the right to life go largely ignored.
Botta and Ruviaro go on to boast about pro-abortion protesters outnumbering pro-lifers outside the Planned Parenthood in San Francisco, claiming that abortion activists demoralized pro-lifers through counter-protesting. If Botta and Ruviaro think pro-lifers are demoralized by being outnumbered, clearly they don’t possess the slightest familiarity with the movement. But as usual, propaganda writers prefer bold language to actual fact.
Towards the end of the piece, Botta and Ruviaro brag about shutting out the voices of pro-lifers:
The counterprotest successfully blocked the anti-choicers in sight and sound. At the protest, some 30 people signed up for a reproductive rights rapid response network, which will alert people of upcoming actions to defend women’s right to choose.
The anti-choice group was forced to end its action an hour earlier than advertised.
Whether or not these boasts are accurate is one matter. Perhaps a more important matter is the obvious concern that those who refuse to allow the other side to speak are usually the ones losing the argument. The pro-life community seeks open dialogue and civil debate, as we are confident that the facts, science, and logic are on our side. Sadly, the same can often not be said for supporters of Planned Parenthood.
40 Days for Life is an international joining of pro-lifers of various cultures to unite in support of life. The movement began at the grassroots level in Bryan/College Station, Texas, and has since spread primarily throughout the United States, but also to many other countries. 40 Days for Life has achieved significant results, including reportedly seeing 12,712 preborn lives saved, 143 abortion workers quit, and 83 abortion clinics close. This year’s 40 Days for Life is underway, and eight days in, 44 lives have reportedly been saved.
