Yes, it's true. The primary job of the Christian New Prolife Movement is to run right tackle for the Left's vaunted Culture of Death. The Left, in desperation after a series of political setbacks, has kicked its push for state mandated extermination and euthanasia, along with late term abortion, post-term abortion, and a suicide culture, into high gear. In addition to sifting through those faithful who might not be fully committed to the cause, it continues to maintain that promise that human life is only sacred when convenient for me.
The New Pro-Life Movement, which is merely a euphemism for Christians committed to the Political Left, is in a bind. New Pro-Life Christians are not liberal Christians. Liberal Christians were never hard to recognize. Doggedly devoted to following the myth of infallible progress, wherever the secular Left went, liberal Christians were sure to tag along. If it meant denying the divinity of Christ, the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the existence of a personal God - it mattered not. Christian liberalism would jettison anything it took in order to keep up with the Jones's latest.
But New Pro-Life Christians are often doctrinally traditional, sometimes from the evaporating Christian conservatism, sometimes they are simply those who wish to avoid the Religious Right. They confess a bodily Resurrection, believe in the Trinitarian God, and if Catholic, the Real Presence. They officially reject gay marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, and of course anything that denies the belief in God as revealed by Jesus Christ.
And yet, they have aligned with a movement founded on the idea that religion is above all things inspired, not revealed. That is, religion is mostly - if not entirely - an invention of human imagination. If God exists at all, it's nothing but an abstract concept by which we measure our pain (St. John Lennon 3:16). The majority of stories, doctrines, teachings are nothing but human constructs.
From there, that movement reduces humans to their lowest animal denominator. It dangles promises of hedonism, narcissism, debauchery and decadence in return for enslavement to those who have deemed themselves worthy of controlling our lives. It assures us that it will use the crushing gauntlet of the government to eradicate them - whoever them is - but never us. It gave us trophies when we lost and let us retake exams until we passed because we're awesome. It will never be us. We're awesome and we come first. And it does all this while promoting heresies, allowing blasphemies, and legalizing sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance.
This is the side that the New Prolife Movement has chosen to ally with. Because, unlike liberal Christians, they still hold against many things advocated by this partner in crime, they do the only thing they can do - and that's ignore. Sometimes it's deflection. Sometimes attack. Not attack those on their own team advocating the evils, but attack those who refuse to join the team. But never will they make opposition to the cherished sins of the Left their main focus. That is why abortion now barely ranks as an issue worth mentioning much, if it's mentioned at all.
NOTE: I have no links, because I have found no proud 'New Prolife Movement' advocates who have mentioned the vote. I'm sure they're out there, but the ones I'm aware of have been, as I said, awfully silent.
UPDATE: Mark Shea has jumped on board with a typical post-war liberal interpretation of the Irish Vote. The abortion vote happened because socioeconomic forces made it possible for women to have no other choice but use what little power they had to attack the weakest of those that the socioeconomic forces of Ireland had deemed unworthy. In Mark's, as in the modern Left's, appraisal, it is all about the Bourgeoisie vs. the Proletariat. Those can be different groups of course: native born vs. immigrants, white vs. black, gay vs. straight, religious vs. secular, right vs. left, red vs. blue, male vs. female, young vs. old, rich vs. poor and on and on. But the important thing is that it is always about one group giving another group no choice but to do what the Church calls sin. That group must then, logically, be eliminated.
Ireland's vote, in Mark's appraisal, has nothing to do with it abandoning the Gospel for the gospel of the Secular Left (which is has done). No, it's the economy stupid. And in this case, Ireland did the right thing by ending laws that discriminated against women (whatever they were), while not doing the same for the children. Women being victimized by whatever Bourgeois forces were out there then did the logical, albeit sad, thing and turned to aborting those even weaker than them.
This is how Marxism, not how Christianity, appraises the sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance. In the modern Left, heavily Marxist influenced, there is no sin, only corrupt and unjust systems and oppressors who force people into unfortunate positions of breaking laws imposed upon them by the wealthy and the powerful. While the Scriptural witness was never kind to those who wielded the power and wealth, it never let those off the hook who nonetheless had nothing yet turned their backs on God.
Yes, Mark mentions that the Gospel could have helped, but it was the priest abuse scandal and corruption that made it difficult for the good people of Ireland to find the Gospel. Nonetheless, that Gospel sounds awfully dependent, not on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the guidance of the Church toward all Truth, as much as dependent on popular economic and political policies as enunciated by the modern Left. I'm afraid that won't help, since it's the purveyors of those same policies who also insist that religion is fraud, humans are animals, and only our narcissism and hedonism matter. Per my friends from Ireland, it's a message that the good people of Ireland have been following for many years now. Long before there was a Trump or a neo-conservative movement. This is merely the same logical step that has been taken by other formerly Christian societies who have embraced the doctrine of the Left, rather than the doctrine of the Least of These.