What
Happens
When
a "Pro-Choicer" Faces the Gruesome Truth about Abortion?
Please send your much-appreciated thoughts and comments to
daveandrusko@gmail.com
"Even the most radically pro-choice will tell you that the political
discourse they hear about the subject, with its easy dichotomies and
bumper-sticker boilerplate, has little correspondence to the messy,
intricate stories of her patients.
They hear about peace and guilt, relief and sin. And it is they who
will acknowledge, whether we like it or not, that the rhetoric and
imagery of the pro-life movement can touch on some basic emotional
truths. Peg Johnston, who manages Access for Women in upstate New York,
remembers the first time her patients unconsciously began to co-opt the
language of the protesters outside.
'And it wasn't that these protesters were brainwashing them,' she says.
'It's that they were tapping into things we all have some discomfort
about.'"
-- From "Just How Pro-Choice is America,
Really?" by Jennifer Singer, New York magazine,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Every few years, an unabashedly self-described "pro-choicer" will pen a
piece that practically knocks your socks off, so brutally honest and
candid that you have to ask yourself how he (more typically she)
retains their "pro-choice" credentials. Doubtless this compliment will
be ill-received by Jennifer Senior, but her "Just How Pro-Choice is
America, Really?" is the kind of
pull-back-the-covers-and-reveal-the-truth-about-abortion article that
were it to come from the word processor of a pro-lifer would be
instantly trashed.
[Before you even read my comments, I strongly encourage you to read
Senior's piece for yourself. It ran in New York magazine and can be
found at http://nymag.com/news/features/62379.]
On those rare occasions when pro-abortion authors are telling tales out
of school, it's a pretty clear sign they are grappling with more
important issues if they devote little time to caricaturing pro-lifers.
And aside from an occasional nod to pro-forma by-the-number
denunciations, Senior's essay is remarkably free of snide asides.
What it is replete with, however, is candid admissions that the
pro-abortion creed is wearing thin, outpaced by technology, outflanked
by the consciousness-raising impact of the debate over partial-birth
abortion, and a mystery to many young people who find NARAL's
the-sky-is-falling clichés outlandish.
The best debunking typically begins by critiquing whatever reassuring
blather it is that helps someone feel at peace. For pro-abortionists it
is the assurance that they are in the majority. Senior provides a quote
from two pro-abortion names from yesteryear who wrote an op-ed for the
New York Times bashing Democrats for allowing the Stupak-Pitts
amendment to pass.
Kate Michelman, NARAL's former head, and Frances Kissling, once the
head of Catholics for Choice, insisted, "The House Democrats reinforced
the principle that a minority view on the morality of abortion can
determine reproductive-health policy for American women."
Senior's bold question: "But is that actually right? Was Stupak's truly
the minority view?" Her analysis is unflinchingly honest and no doubt
deeply unsettling to her colleagues.
Senior paraphrases a conclusion from a very interesting three-year-old
essay that makes all pro-abortionists squirm, then and now: "Roe v.
Wade was one of the few Supreme Court decisions that was out of step
with mainstream public opinion." She goes through the poll numbers
which, on first blush, do not seem to have changed all that much, but
when examined more closely reveal a ticking time bomb.
"If forced to choose, Americans today are far more eager to label
themselves 'pro-life' than they were a dozen years ago. The youngest
generation of voters--those between the ages of 18 and 29, and
therefore most likely to need an abortion--is the most pro-life to come
along since the generation born during the Great Depression, according
to Michael D. Hais and Morley Winograd, authors of Millennial Makeover,
who got granular data on the subject from Pew Research Center. Crisis
Pregnancy Centers, dedicated to persuading women to continue their
pregnancies, now outnumber the country's abortion providers, who
themselves are a rapidly aging group (two-thirds are over 50, according
to a National Abortion Federation study from 2002)."
Not to be overly obvious, but an aging cadre of abortionists, at one
end, and a growing pro-life sentiment among young people, at the other
end--not hard to figure out that the demographic trends are trending
well for us.
There are 20 different points that could be developed at length.
Let me summarize four and develop only one.
#1. The stigma surrounding abortion is alive and growing.
#2. Roe's out-of-control approval of abortion for any reason or no
reason never enjoyed majority support. Nearly 37 years later, there is
more popular support for limitations than ever before.
#3. What was once a kind of abstraction was personalized in a
terrain-shifting manner by the enormously important debate over
partial-birth abortion. Even though the simple line drawings showing
what these abortions actually are were quite mild and meek, "The
procedure was extremely upsetting to behold," Senior writes. "In it,
the fetus--or is it a baby?--is removed from the uterus and stabbed in
the back of the head with surgical scissors. It's a revolting image,
one to which the public was ritualistically subjected on the evening
news as the debate raged on the House and Senate floors." She adds,
unnecessarily, "Defending it was a pro-choice person's nightmare."
#4. An awful lot of women had (and have) difficulties with their
decision to abort. The impact of the pressure boyfriends exert to abort
cannot be exaggerated. (Any relationship between the two?) Often it is
a sick joke to say that a woman--and particularly a girl--has exercised
her "choice" to abort.
Let me offer a long quote from "Just How Pro-Choice is America,
Really?" It encapsulates a lot of what is going on, not just in this
essay, but in the larger culture.
NARAL's Nancy Keenan likes to say that abortion's biggest defenders
right now are a "menopausal militia"--a rueful, inspired little joke.
These baby-boomers, whose young adulthoods were defined by the fight
over the right to choose, will soon be numerically overtaken by a
generation of twentysomethings who is more pro-life than any but our
senior citizens. As GOP strategists Christopher Blunt and Fred Steeper
have pointed out, this group came of age during the partial-birth
debate and was the first to grow up with pictures of sonograms on their
refrigerators. The major development in reproductive technology during
their lifetimes wasn't something that prevented pregnancies but
something that created them: IVF. These kids have no idea--none--what
it was like to live in a world without abortion rights. ("This
generation's knowledge of Roe is like, 'Roe vs. what?'" says Keenan.)
And they feel much more strongly about personal responsibility than the
generations preceding them: Didn't use birth control? The burden's on
you.
Abortion is (as one former abortion clinic owner once confessed) "a
kind of killing." And although Senior does not recite the actual words,
in 1993 Michelman admitted to the Philadelphia Inquirer, "We think
abortion is a bad thing." (Michelman soon backtracked, but the
interview had been taped which left her flailing for a way to explain
the discrepancy.)
Why is this important? Because at least some pro-abortionists (for
whatever amalgam of psychological reasons) have grown perilously close
to being almost casual about abortion's soul-numbing brutality. In one
of her few missteps, Senior approvingly cites what she describes as "an
incredibly powerful essay" written by abortionist Lisa Harris for
Reproductive Health Matters.
Senior describes Harris's attempt as "trying to come to terms with the
goriness of second-trimester abortions while simultaneously recognizing
their validity." Senior then quotes from the essay:
"What do we do when caught between pro-choice discourse that, while it
reflects our values, does not accurately reflect the full extent of our
experience of abortion and in fact contradicts an enormous part of it,
and the anti-abortion discourse and imagery that may actually be more
closely aligned to our experience but is based in values we do not
share?"
But if you read the essay, Harris is writing about how when she herself
was a little over 18 weeks pregnant she performed an abortion on a
woman who was ... a little over 18 weeks pregnant! She remembers "tears
streaming from my eyes"--a "brutally visceral response"--that was
"heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice
politics."
Yet within a few paragraphs, Harris is clearly encouraging
pro-abortionists to "own" the "violence and, frankly, the gruesomeness
of abortion." Why? Because it is currently "owned only by those who
would like to see abortion (at any time in pregnancy) disappear." (See
my take on Harris's essay at
www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Oct09/nv102009.html.)
My concluding point is as simple as this edition of TN&V is long.
At the same time that people like Jennifer Senior see the corner into
which pro-abortionists have been painted, others like Lisa Harris see
this as an opportunity to get off of the defensive. I would summarize
Harris's counsel as, "Embrace the inner abortionist within."
With allies like this, no wonder Senior is forced to conclude, "it's
hard for a pro-choice person like myself to see how the ball rolls
forward."
Contact: Dave
Andrusko
Source:
NRLC
Publish
Date:
December 16, 2009
Link
to
this
article.
Send
this
article
to
a friend.
The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in
Illinois. A non-profit organization, that serves as the state
coordinating body for local pro-life chapters representing thousands of
Illinois citizens working to restore respect for all human life in our
society. The IFRL is composed of people of different political
persuasions, various faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic
backgrounds. Since 1973 the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has
been working to end abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the
human family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that
every human being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be protected. IFRL is
dedicated to restoring the right to life to the unborn, and protection
for the disabled and the elderly. Click here to learn more about the IFRL.