And here I thought Team Obama couldn’t out-do it’s absurd performance comparing a vote for the president to virgin sex. But they can. The proof is courtesy of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who argues here that liberals must claim the term “pro-life.”
Reading between the lines, the reason for this is obvious. Those who believe that life should be protected in the womb increasingly have been winning hearts and minds, while the historical “pro-choice” movement is becoming a 20th century relic. So, what to do about it? Lie, of course. Give up on the pro-choice misnomar and attempt to beat pro-lifers at their own game by adopting their labels.
And somehow, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is example No. 1.
Writes Mr. Friedman (emphasis mine):
Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected — not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life. That’s why, for me, the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to his support for early childhood education, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change.
Now that is what I call “pro-life.”
The cognitive dissonance is astounding. Friedman criticizes pro-lifers for supposedly controlling a woman’s body through force of law. In the same breath, he praises Bloomberg for banning, through force of law, what we’re allowed to put into our bodies. Huh?
Even if you accept the premise that life begins at birth rather than conception, most would agree that moral questions surrounding pregnancy are far weightier than those surrounding soda consumption or calorie counts on menus. That Mr. Friedman doesn’t shows the thickness of his New York City bubble.
In September, Newt Gingrich appeared with Friedman on Meet the Press and cornered him on the question of the Democrats’ radical platform on abortion. The meat begins around the 1:45 mark:
Even if we accept Friedman’s premise that “pro-life” means exclusively focusing on the plight of those already born, what could be more pro-life than providing jobs? The Obama economy hasn’t, instead creating more dependency. So even by Friedman’s own measure, liberal are anything but “pro-life.”