The Deafening Silence
It's been a week since The Lancet published the comprehensive Guttmacher Institute study which found that bans on abortion fail to reduce abortion rates. The researchers of the study also discovered that countries where abortion is legal (and the emphasis is on prevention rather than prosecution) experience the most dramatic declines in abortion.
Such news should undoubtedly give pro-lifers reason for pause. What with the endless railing about the immorality of abortion, and now it turns out their way of thinking does nothing to actually reduce abortions. It's only fair to give them a minute to collect themselves. Perhaps some careful (re)consideration is in order.
But there has been nothing but silence from the "anti-abortion" movement. There have been no press releases admitting the (now scientifically proven) error of their ways. Nor have we heard that anti-abortion groups are excited to discover that at least there is an approach that succeeds in reducing the need for abortion. (Doesn't that deserve a 'hallelujah' from the religious right?) Instead, the "anti-abortion" movement is silent about the newly revealed "pro-abortion" effects of their efforts.
I came across a blog about the Guttmacher study on a site called Mirror of Justice (it's "dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory"). It was posted the day the report was released and was written by Professor Eduardo Penalver of Cornell University. He wrote,
"Here's my question. If this study were true, and if it were the case that making abortion illegal would most likely only drive it underground, without having much effect on its actual incidence but making it far more dangerous for women to have an abortion, would that be a reason to rethink the Church's teachings, not on the morality of abortion, but on the tight connection between abortion's (im)morality and its legality? I've tried to get this conversation off the ground a few times at MOJ, but I feel like we often get side-tracked onto the question of abortion's morality or into the empirical question whether studies like this one are actually correct."
Pro-lifers clearly delight in discussing the morality abortion -- all merrily participating in the forced march to the same answer -- but when the discussion turns to prevention they're flat out of ideas. Those who can't do, preach. I wrote to Professor Penalver this morning inquiring about the responses he's so far received on this anti-abortion friendly site. He emailed back promptly to report his "disappointment" over "the general lack of a response." And so the silence increases in volume.
Now, to be fair, some spokespeople have spun. These few brave enough to go public with a reaction to this devastating study are engaged in this strategy: kill the messenger.
Randall O'Bannon, saddled with the oxymoronic title "director of education and research" at National Right to Life, said, "These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data." No doubt Mr. O'Bannon understands how Lancet editors let the researchers' agenda trump their science. After O'Bannon is done questioning the validity of studies published by one of the world's renowned scientific journals he can explain why 5 of 15 "fact sheets" on his organization's website offer no citations and 6 of the remaining 10 use the Guttmacher Institute, the very organization he claims has an "agenda", as a source. (Apparently a source can be both trustworthy and untrustworthy depending on the reader's agenda!)
You'd think genuine pro-lifers would be interested in knowing what results in low abortion rates. The fact that the only reaction that has come from the pro-life establishment is one of disbelief, cynicism and silence indicates that's not the case. Indeed, as we've known for a while, this whole ugly conflict isn't really even about abortion. For the anti-abortionists, the goal is to re-introduce the preventable consequences to sex as a way to scare people into abstinence. If that isn't the point, then why aren't National Right to Life staffers on a plane right now heading to the Netherlands to learn how that country managed to achieve the lowest abortion rates on earth? (Because it's free birth control, comprehensive sex ed, and a universal acceptance of sex for pleasure that did it. All solutions they appear to oppose more than abortion.)
It's worth offering up a comparison. What if a whole movement devoted to curing cancer insisted on only supporting techniques shown time and again to fail? What if they supported the ones that result in the highest cancer rates? Would it even be considered an anti-cancer movement? It's time to clean up the semantics: Is it possible that the "anti-abortion" is really a pro-abortion movement in disguise? (That disguise being obstinacy.)
For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org
Follow Cristina Page on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cristinapage
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Nicely done...
Conservatives don't want solutions, they want to be "right" about their delusions, and dominate and control others....
It's all about pious, self-righteous, arrogance. Nothing more.
interesting that you compare this issue to curing cancer, as i recently read that it had been determined that the majority of research had skewed towards the extremely expensive "treatment" of cancer rather than the healthier, affordable "prevention" of cancer. just like HIV/AIDS. because there is a profit to be made in treatments, but far less in prevention.
perhaps the anti-abortion lobby sees the profitability of a slave-class of citizens who will do any work for any price because they have 6 kids? we all know that was the practice of the catholic church (and the practice of many muslims) before people woke up.
that way they can despise and imprison immigrants and still get their little squares of lawn mowed for $5, and still have 4 kids left over to be used as cannon fodder in wars for oil...
methinks it's more about being self-righteous to them than anything else.
Pro-Life if the baby is white....
I'd be very interested in studies on abortion if the race of the baby is considered, given the broad mindedness of the other occupants of the vast right wing machine...
And I accusing them of being racist? I'd need some data. Do I suspect them? Yes.
This makes perfect sense, and has perfect timing.
A few weeks ago I took a young, very scared young friend to one of those "free pregnancy test" centers where they show the video of the fetus growing in the womb, show pictures of ultrasounds, etc., trying to prevent young scared women from having abortions.
The young lady in question was disgusted. Mind you, this person likes to watch movies like "Saw" and "Hills Have Eyes," but the pictures and video "Make me want to have an abortion," she said.
And she did.
When we arrived at the clinic, there was the usual clot of protesters with signs. She rode past them with the windows cracked and crashing heavy metal music at high volume.
http://www
Dear Ms. Page,
Eloquently expressed, eloquently expressed indeed. Blessings on ya! Agape.
Stop calling the anti-abortion people pro-life. Reframe the argument to reflect what they really are, that is, anti-abortion. Everyone in this debate is PRO-LIFE. Everyone in this debate wants to reduce the number of abortions. And how do we do that? By encouraging the use of reliable contraceptives. Everyone in this debate should be Pro-Contraception in order to achieve the goal of reduced abortion numbers. And those who do not believe in contraception can practice their personal morality in their personal lives.
Note: I believe the statistics will show that there are very few trimester abortions.
"Everyone in this debate is PRO-LIFE."
You are so right about this. We need to say we are pro-life, life of the woman. No one is pro-abortion, which is what the loonies try to paint us as. But they are definitely anti-woman. I tell them, when men can have babies, we'll talk.
I say, if you are against abortion don't get one. Leave the rest of us alone. I guess that definitely leaves the men out of the debate, where they have no business in the first place.
Good frame.
"We are all anti-abortion. The question is, are you pro-contra
Deafening silence, all right.
How can you possibly call yourself pro life and a christian to boot when members of your own moovement carry out acts of violence many resulting in death against the health care proffesionals who work in abortion clinics.
Excellent editorial, and right on the money. Unfortunatey, the overwhelming majority of comments will miss your point entirely and argue about abortion..
One response I get quite often from Pro Lifers is that there is no need for a woman to get an abortion when she can just give the child up for adoption. I find this interesting for a couple reasons, first, I believe there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.2 million abortions a year in the U.S. lets just say that tomorrow you made abortion illegal and that conservatively 500K of the unwanted babies are put up for adoption, with another 100K or so put up after the children over the age of two. That brings me to this. There are already thousands of children that are waiting for adoptions in this country. Every time someone mentions adoption as a choice for mothers, I ask them how many children they have adopted to put a dent in the already large backlog of children waiting for parents. Obviously the answer is always none. Its very easy to mention adoption as a cure but a little harder to run down and get yourself a 10 year old that needs a home now.
Secondly, the other issue that you hear very little about is how its been proven that Roe v Wade has dramatically reduced crime in our nation due to the unforeseen consequences of not giving birth to children that are unwanted and that unwanted children are the ones most apt to grow up to be criminals.
The organizations which discourage pregnant teens from getting abortions are commonly affiliated with adoption agencies. Those agencies have their financial costs paid by the adoptive parents. Thus they have a financial interest in discouraging abortion, encouraging adoption, and not encouraging mothers to keep their babies. I am not saying they get rich doing this, but they make a living.
Healthy white babies do not languish in foster care. The kids in foster care were removed from negligent or abusive parents after infancy, and may have health or behavioral issues. It may take years to terminate parental rights, so the kid loses the cuteness and desirability of an infant.
A sad fact is that not all adoptions turn out perfectly. Adoptive parents get divorces just like biological parents do.
your cornell prof misses the legal point entirely. if you're against abortion, don't have one - the US isn't a theocracy & your religious beliefs about "life" doesn't give you the right to dictate to the whole. that's why they aren't interested in reducing abortions - they're only interested in judging others behaviors and pointing out what they see as "wrong". what would jesus do if he read the study?
This Jesus, where the hell is he?
He needs to get down here and knock "his people" in line.
Invoking Jesus (or god) is invoking a straw man.
"The US isn't a theocracy"
There is no such thing as "pro-life". Who isn't "pro-life"? Is there some group out there I haven't heard about that claims to be "pro-death"?
Anti-abortionists aren't even really anti-abortion; they're just pro-force. They've somehow gotten the idea they have the right to tell a woman she HAS TO have a baby, even if it might kill her, even if it's going to be born addicted to drugs, even if it means financial disaster for her, even if it means that baby will remind her of the man who raped her.
These are the same people who claim to believe in a God who gave every human free will, and the right to choose. But they've decided they should have the power to take that God-given right away from women! Just how hypocritical can they be?
"Is there some group out there I haven't heard about that claims to be "pro-death"?"
The Bush administration?
Blackwater?
Emos?
As a Catholic, I have to say I am against abortions. I do not feel it is my job as a Catholic to become the "Moral Police". What people do in the privacy of their home or their conscience is their business.
A woman that chooses abortion will likely answer to a higher power not to the earthly "Morals Police". Its not my job to make a moral judgement. As far as I am concerned, the "Christian Right" has already prostituted themselves with ID, political interference and moral superiority. I do not give them any credibility in any issue.
One more factoid that would need a bit further research: Its shown that states with the most restrictive laws concerning reproduction rights are also the "cheapest" when it comes to chid care funding.
gardengoddess,
They are all about hypocrisy, which results from pious arrogance and self-agrandizement. That is how their religion serves them. It's their marijuana. Nothing more.
Don't hold your breath. These are the same people that think Intelligent Design is a scientific theory.
You know, I never thought they believed that. I think they know that ID is bullshit. I think they are trying to convince the rest of us that it's "science" or at least couched in scientific theory and method enough to get relgion into science class.
What they think is that we are dumb enough to buy it.
Are they referring to God as intelligent? How insulting! God is at least a genius.
How about 'pro-choicers' talking about infection rates, deaths, and physical and psychological trauma in the clinics!
Well, who ISN'T aware than ANY surgical procedure carries health risks?
Is that really unique to abortion? Should we scare people out of vasectomies or any other elective procedure? It's not like doctors hide those risks.
As for the psychological trauma, sure, that's possible. But I have two thoughts on that.
1)-I can only imagine that a good chunk of the guilt, shame and general trauma experienced by *some* women that choose to abort is greatly enhanced (if not directly caused) by family/societal pressure regarding the "evils of abortion", etc.
In other words, people MAKE them feel like $%^@ fow what they've done (or again, at the very least cause much more stress than might not exist otherwise).
Do you really think the woman from the original Roe Vs Wade case would've done a 180 (she's staunchly pro-life now) on the issue had she not been pressued for YEARS by religious zealots blaming her for MURDER (!) of countless children?
2)-Why do pro-lifers ignore the psychological (and financial) trauma for those that HAVE kids they aren't prepared to care for (emotionally or financially)?
People say "but why punish the child" and I say that is EXACTLY what you're doing when you force a child into the world that won't be properly cared for.
I went into detail on this issue in a previous post lower down on this thread (read it before responding).
Average brings up a real issue, not uniquely relevent to abortions. Those problems (which can be kept secret in many states like Calif. that lack consumer disclosure laws) are what everyone faces who seeks medical treatment in any hospital or clinic, but are far more prevalent in illegal abortion mills. Nevertheless, abortion need to be minimized as being basically an undesirable solution to a preventable problem. The use of the police power of the state to force my behavior to conform with that of others is unacceptable.
I disagree with most of the posts on here regarding the nature of those who oppose abortion. I know lots of Catholics who are pro-life - that is, they don't believe in abortion, war, or capital punishment. They would all support any effort to curb the number of abortions, and most of them eschew the Catholic Church's antiquated teachings on birth control.
I'm pro-choice, vehemently. But I don't think we get anywhere in this debate by villifying those who want abortion to be illegal.
They're wrong, very wrong. They're not evil.
Clearly, some among them are evil. I once heard a radio program on which a couple of "prolifers" were arguing against a 12-year olds' right to an abortion after being molested, because the girl shared partial guilt by the physical result (pregnancy) of the sexual act. The fact that she accomodated penetration enough to get pregnant apparently meant that she "wanted" it. That is the logic of a child molester. And, it is evil.
Most of these people don't give a shit about the "preborn." They just hate uppidy women.
Perhaps they might just be evil afterall. Please explain to me why the leadership of the anti-abortion movement are overwhelmingly male and white. Might it not be that they see the US population becoming darker, and view the cessation of abortion as a means to bring more white babies into the world and into their male-dominated households? If most of the women who sought abortions were women of color, you wouldn't hear any thing from these men, whose fundamental motivations include racism, a commitment to patriarchy and white supremacy. Not mention homophobia, another threat to patriarchy.
"But I don't think we get anywhere in this debate by villifying those who want abortion to be illegal.
They're wrong, very wrong. They're not evil."
Actually, some of them, even by the definition of their own faith, are (evil).
Sorry, I vote that they're evil. They have caused others pain, suffering, and anguish just to elevate their pious, arrogant, religious agenda. They're hypocrits, which is evil.
I dont think saving the unborn was the actual goal of many prolife advocates. Rather it was about the prolife advocate being right on the issue whether that meant more deaths or no change at all. I think many prolifers imagine judgment day and scoring points for having been on the right side of the issue. a fetus is neither a full blown person nor just part of the mother's body. If we tried to base our discussions on the reality I think we would arrive at a better state of affairs or at least a more enlightening discussion.
Excellent points laocoon.
I think this propensity is often dismissed or neglected.
Cogito Ergo Sum.
An entity unaware of it's existence cannot be treated as a human being.
Produce one person who remembers life as a zygote, and I will happily recant.
If your assertion is correct, then this is the most extreme evil I can imagine. Being in the business of scoring points for judgement day is basically saving their own ass at the expense of others. Such evil hypocrits partner with other religious hypocrits to further an agenda that effects the rights and freedoms of others. It has no place in a democracy.
The basic issue is that this whole business of religion is a myth that is constantly shoved down the throats of those who choose to live by logic, morals, and decency - but not by fairy tales.
I dont think it is a totally conscious thought process. It is the insidious effects of ego. I do not think it is the motivation of every one who wants to make abortion illegal. But if you listen carefully you will often hear that in what they say and do. I think this is generally true of much of what traditional christianity has become on many issues. I do not condemn people for that but I think they ought to reevaluate and pray or meditate on the question. Jesus said to save yourself you had to sacrifice yourself. I think now people so focus on being saved they risk losing their souls as a result. Save me. Am I saved? I also do not think religion is a myth, rather religion is often the institutio
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
