Well, this is interesting!
In the past 30 years, I don’t ever recall reading any articles in mainstream magazines or newspapers saying that pro-life groups were having trouble recruiting for activism, especially marches. But that’s what we’re seeing on the pro-abortion side! According to "Generation Ambivalent": "An intern at a nearby law office, the Antioch College freshman acknowledges that not all of her peers find abortion rights an easy sell."
The title of the article implies that the entire 20-40 year-old demographic is ambivalent. However, after perusing the entire article, no mention is made of the pro-life movement having difficulty getting people to march or protest. (The reason being that pro-lifers aren’t having difficulty recruiting. As Laura Kopp said in the article, "We’re the first generation to be more pro-life than our parents," and Laura is not pro-life!) Other articles tend to paint the pro-life movement as small or undermanned, but the results are showing that Roe-v.-Wade may end up the same as David-v.-Goliath – the mighty, well-funded, "establishment" giant being taken down by the small underdog with the backing of God. These are all attempts to try to paint the American public as being pro-choice or indifferent. Therefore, the premise is that, since supposedly so few are anti-abortion we shouldn’t change anything about abortion laws in this county.
The problem for the mainstream media is: we are not a pro-abortion populace. Although the country’s laws may be locked in as pro-abortion, the laws are changing, because the "culture of death" generation is fading out of relevance by their own devices – they have marginalized the elderly through euthanasia (while they have themselves become elderly – see this post about a retiring pro-abort professor) without replenishing their ranks, because they have killed their offspring (who would potentially be their replacements). Hence this quote from the "Generation Ambivalent" article: "Organizers hope to convince the post-Roe crowd this isn’t their mothers’ abortion march." Of course not! Those mothers aborted their babies, so there’s no one to march!
Meanwhile, the pro-life movement has continued to reproduce, honor their elders (they love their parents, because they chose life in an era of death), and broadened their techniques for proselytizing, while also become more informed, more scientific, and more vocal, and more aware of the absence of others of their generation. Blogs and other internet information sources are explaining the horrible effects of abortion, especially forced abortion, like in China. (Gotta love the irony of this line from the "Generation Ambivalent" article: "forget stodgy T shirts: how about a temporary tattoo with a pro-choice message in Chinese?") At the same time, people are generally seeking to be more spiritual and less materialistic than the previous generation. This adds up to today’s youth potentially being the most ready, willing, and intellectually and spiritually able to change this country for the better, with a turn-around back to morality.
All of this really does mean that all could be lost for the pro-abortion crowd. (What a shame that would be!) The downside is that, without a powerful, strong adversary, the pro-life movement could become as complacent as they were in the 50s and 60, when abortion gained its foothold in (or stranglehold on) society. Hence, the call to all Christians to be ever-vigilant, for we know not when the thief will strike.
That said, the money and time and manpower that has been spent by the pro-life movement in legal expenses, protests, information publishing, etc. could be turned to helping those that have unintended (by whom? man or God?) pregnancies. Places like the JMJ Life Center, would get more of the funding they need to help unwed mothers get food, clothing, supplies, etc. for their baby, as well as education and counseling for themselves.
Unfortunately, these pro-abortion people will persist in the myth that the Supreme Court-given right to abortion is not to be denied them, no matter how much charitable donation it diverts away from unwed mothers and others in need of assistance for their children. Therefore (in levity, not in truth), I recommend the following solution that every politician can embrace: an excise tax on abortion.
Think about it: adoptions currently cost at least $10,000 (and that’s from China!); giving birth to a child costs at least $2000 (actually, closer to $4000); but an abortion is about $250. If we truly find abortions to be reprehensible or objectionable (or as the Catholic Democrats in Congress say "undesirable"), but not enough so that we want to outlaw it, we can treat it like alcohol and tobacco: slap a "sin tax" on it! I think an "abortion tax" should be high enough to make people really think about getting an abortion and consider taking more responsibility for their sexual behavior. Putting it at the same level as giving birth (much like a tariff that makes import cars cost the same as domestic cars) would be a good benchmark for being a deterrent to behavior that causes abortions. Therefore, a $250 abortion, plus the abortion tax, should be cost a total of $5000. If this doesn’t reduce the 1.2 million abortions/year in the U.S., it would at least raise $5.7 billion/year in taxes that could go to unwed mothers, underprivileged children, and aid to those seeking to adopt.
I do not mean to make light of the abortion holocaust, but those that think that not having enough protesters to march for abortion "rights" are just as insensitive as an abortion tax.