I wrote a book a few years ago entitled, Media Revolution: A Battle Plan to Defeat Mass Deception in America.
An entire chapter is devoted to the Name Game – a tactic used by media outlets to systematically change public opinion about an issue or term. The original topic or term is negative, but the Name Game makes it acceptable or truthful over time.
A popular example is the phrase “separation of church and state.” The phrase (which does not appear in any founding document) was originally coined to articulate the need for the state to stay out of the business of the church. This is quite understandable, considering a primary reason America was formed was to escape English government intrusion into the church.
Today, the phrase has successfully been incorporated into judicial practice in a manner it was never intended and now means that the state must, in many cases, be protected from the church.
The most heinous example of the Name Game is the term “pro-choice.” And this article provides a perfect example of how it has been successfully used for decades to convince the American public of a deadly lie.
A judge in North Carolina ruled that “Choose Life” license plates are unconstitutional because the state did not offer pro-abortion plates as well.
Abortion proponents praised the decision noting, “These license plates are specialty plates that bear an anti-choice message.”
“This is a great victory for the free speech rights of all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on reproductive freedom,” said Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU-NCLF.
Here are just a few serious flaws in the judicial conclusion:
1. To declare something unconstitutional and a breach of free speech simply because the supposed opposing viewpoint is not available is an unsustainable argument. In that case, “Save the Whales” license plates should be declared unconstitutional because the American public can’t seem to find “Kill the Whales” plates.
2. The judge said that, because the state didn’t offer pro-choice plates, the state was practicing “viewpoint discrimination.” Apart from having no idea what that is, the underlying assumption is that “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are opposite viewpoints and thus equal.
Is pro-choice really the opposite of pro-life?
No. The opposite of pro-life is pro-death, not pro-choice.
Most pro-life people are actually very pro-choice. They believe women should have the choice to vote, to marry who they please, get an education, enter a career that interests them, worship as they feel led, etc. In fact, women should have every choice that men have.
There is only one choice that pro-life people don’t think women (and men) should have, and that is the choice to willingly take the life of another innocent human being.
The abortion factions are becoming consistent in their usage of the term “anti-choice” to describe the pro-life movement. They continually attempt to deflect the issue away from the killing of a human life and instead focus on the supposed “choice” of the women (though research has indicated the majority of abortions are coerced, in many cases by a man).
Pro-life people are obviously not anti-choice. We are anti-killing-an-innocent-voiceless-human-being.
However, it is truthful and accurate to call an abortion proponent “anti-life.”
See how the Name Game works? The term “pro-choice” has successfully been drilled into the American mind as a celebration of our freedom of speech and reproduction, instead of the willful taking of a human life. They have done an incredible job of duping many Americans into lauding the option to kill another human being.
3. The article says we should celebrate the decision as a victory for free speech, regardless of our views on reproductive freedom. We have a tendency to believe anything if we hear it enough times, and many Americans now think “reproductive freedom” is an actual constitutional right.
This decision is actually a discrimination against pro-life people. The state legislature approved the pro-life plates and denied the pro-abortion plates. The legislature is elected by the people and, thus, the decision arguably reflects the will of the people. Now pro-life Carolinians are denied their right to express their pro-life views on the plates in accordance with their elected officials.
Why should North Carolina be allowed to have their pro-life plates? Because the opposite of pro-life is not pro-choice. It is pro-death or pro-abortion. And chances are there aren’t many Carolinians who want that term on the back of their cars.
For Life!
Brian