They’re Pro-Abortion, Not Pro-Choice
Sometimes, the mask slips off the pro-choice political movement and we can see it for what it really is: militantly pro-abortion. The Bush administration has proposed changing federal policy, allowing states to use health care money to help poor mothers care for their unborn children. The decision would always be up to the states, and nothing in the policy would restrict abortion in any way.
But most Democrats and leaders of the so-called pro-choice movement have announced their hysterical opposition. Even the slightest government recognition that a baby in the womb might be worth protecting seemed to threaten their pro-abortion ideology.
At the same time, these alleged defenders of choice denounced a program providing ultrasound equipment to Crisis Pregnancy Centers — since seeing images of unborn babies might discourage mothers from killing them. It’s amazing how the pro-choice movement actually opposes a woman’s right to choose — if she uses that right to choose life.
“I Am Sam”: Good Movie, Bad Message
Sometimes a very good movie can promote very bad ideas.
A prime example is the brilliantly-acted new tearjerker “I Am Sam.” Sean Penn plays a kind-hearted, mentally challenged single father. He fights to retain custody of his bright, precocious seven-year-old, even though she’s already passed him in mental capacity.
Michelle Pfeiffer is the stressed, yuppie lawyer who takes his case and champions his cause. The movie works on an emotional level, but its messages are dubious, even dangerous. “Love is All You Need,” say the movie’s ads — suggesting that parents just need to express unconditional affection for their kids, not provide them with the guidance and firm standards all children must get from adults.
With its wise, selfless child and challenged, immature father, “I Am Sam” amplifies one of Hollywood’s favorite fallacious conclusions: that children know best, and grown-ups are useless except for comic relief — and a few emotional moments.
Michael Medved hosts a nationally syndicated daily radio talk show on which these editorials were aired. You can visit his website at www.michaelmedved.com.
The problem is he’s a millionaire — one of the world’s most powerful dramatists, and a Pulitzer prizewinner. If Berkeley wanted to produce his latest piece of theatrical propaganda, it would have been easy to raise money from private contributions, ticket sales, or even local government.
Then why did the producers go to Washington, D.C.? Because federal money provides extra prestige, and official government sanction — exactly the kind of federal endorsement that our representatives have no business conveying. The idea of officially approved art fits right in with Stalin’s Russia, but it’s totally wrong for this great Republic.
The National Endowment is a $100 million boondoggle that deserves elimination — especially at this time of rising deficits.
