The pro-life community has long known that the "pro-choice" moniker merely serves as a handy euphemism to hide activists’ true goal: abortion on-demand, at any time, for any reason. But many politicians, judges, and everyday people likewise hide behind the label, claiming they personally oppose abortion but deem it is a decision between a woman and her doctor; or believe Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but must be followed because it remains the law of the land; or feel, in some circumstances, such as rape, incest, or fetal “defects,” that abortions are the lesser evil; or insist abortions will take place no matter what, so to safeguard women’s health, they should remain legal.
Now let’s do guns.
Unlike abortion, which finds no textual support in the Constitution, the right to bear arms does. Yet, politicians trampled Second Amendment rights until 2008, when the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed the Constitution guarantees an individual right to bear arms. But even after the high court established, in 2010's McDonald v. Chicago, that this constitutional right extends to state and local governments, liberal lawmakers continued to kick gun rights to the curb with the Supreme Courts’ acquiescence: Rather than intercede and overrule lower-court decisions that outlaw entire classes of firearms in blatant violation of Heller and McDonald, the justices ignore gun-right cases while filling their docket with challenges to state laws imposing peripheral regulations indirectly affecting abortion “rights.”
Many of the same justices who acknowledged the validity of Second Amendment rights have no desire to enforce those rights. Ditto for the lower federal courts. Why? Because they don’t like the right to bear arms. They don’t like guns. What does that say about the “right” to an abortion?
What about the gun control populace? Do those personally opposed to guns defer to the Supreme Court? Or do they claim the justices were wrong? That the law is not really settled? Or that it’s time to amend the Constitution and get rid of the Second Amendment?
Do we see people claiming to be personally opposed to guns, but hesitant to interject themselves in the individual’s decision of whether to arm herself because, after all, only a woman can decide what is best for her family?
In light of evidence explaining the advantages semi-automatic rifles provide women seeking a weapon for self-defense, do those personally opposed to guns acknowledge that sometimes an AR-15 may be needed?
And do gun control advocates believe criminalizing the sale of weapons is warranted, even though gun violence is already illegal and even though criminals will still gain access to guns?
These facts do not make gun control advocates hypocrites. They profess exactly what they believe: That guns are evil and should not be legally available in America.
The personally-opposed-to-abortion populace and politicians who hoist the banner of “pro-choice” are flying a false-flag. They aren’t personally opposed to abortion at all. If they were, they would take to the streets, pull their kids from school, demand action now, and vanquish NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood from polite society, as gun control advocates have attempted to do to the National Rifle Association.
So, if you called yourself “pro-choice,” but accept the excuses no honest gun control advocate would swallow — guess what, you’re not pro-choice, you’re pro-abortion.
Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge, and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct professor for the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.