What was missing in virtually all of the media tributes on the death of Eunice Kennedy Shriver is that she was a pro-life activist. LifeNews gives the rest of the story:
Although other members of the Kennedy family abandoned their pro-life beliefs as their political stock rose, Eunice Kennedy Shriver never did. And for that, pro-life advocates are mourning the passing of the woman who founded Special Olympics.
Shriver died this morning [August 11] at the age of 88 surrounded by her family and she is survived by her husband Sargent Shriver, a former Vice Presidential nominee.
Together the Shrivers had five children and twenty-one grandchildren.
Shriver, a lifelong pro-life Democrat, was the sister of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert Kennedy, and Senator Edward Kennedy. . . .
Shriver was a mamber of the advisory committee of the Susan B. Anthony List, a women’s group dedicated to electing pro-life women to Congress.
In 1992, Eunice and Sargent Shriver joined Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey many other influential pro-life leaders in signing a full-page ad in the New York Times protesting the Democratic Party’s embrace of the pro-abortion agenda.
This raises again the question, as we thank God for the life and work of Mrs. Shriver, why are the Democratic party and liberals in general so wedded to being pro-abortion? Or, to use their language “pro-choice”? They aren’t particularly pro-choice or libertarian in other areas. They claim to be for the poor, the disadvantaged, the discriminated against, the little-guy. So how to explain their instance that the most vulnerable lives of all should have no protection and should be forfeit at the choice of the one who has power over them? How does that fit in with their professed ideology?
As Mrs. Shriver shows, it was not always this way with Democrats and political liberals. That it is today–with a few exceptions including some of the readers of this blog, whose pro-life convictions, however, have little influence in the Democratic party–shows why I cannot take seriously all of their altruistic rhetoric, including what we are hearing in the health care debate. A philosophy of medicine and health “care” that has no problem with abortion is not one that should be given the authority and the power to determine how medicine will be practiced for all Americans.
HT: Terry Mattingly. (Click the link for his coverage of the media treatments that left out Mrs. Shriver’s pro-life activism.)