Growing Up Pro-Life: Talking About Abortion

Jos Truitt

Yes, anti-choice ideology is fundamentally sexist. But I didn't know this when I was a pro-lifer, and I do not believe hatred of women is an intentional part of the belief system of most people in that movement.

For too long the two sides in the mainstream
debate over abortion have been talking past each other,
speaking completely different languages and approaching the issue with
radically different perspectives. I was reminded of this last month
when, in one of his final acts as president, Bush issued
a proclamation making
January 18 "National Sanctity of Human Life Day." The language used was overtly religious and unapologetically pro-life: 

"All human life is a gift
from our creator that is sacred, unique and worthy of protection. On
National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each
person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place
and purpose in this world." 

The proclamation goes on to
outline accomplishments of the Bush White House: 

"My administration has been
committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption
and parental notification laws, opposing federal funding for abortions
overseas, encouraging teen abstinence and funding crisis pregnancy programs." 

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

To anyone in the reproductive
justice movement this is a list of horribly sexist anti-choice
legislation that we have been organizing against for at least the last
eight years. Parental
notification laws

are an extra barrier that can prevent young women from being able to access abortion
services in a timely manner, causing them to wait until it is too late
for a legal abortion. The global
gag rule
, which
President Obama lifted, tied the hands of healthcare
providers all over the world, keeping contraception and other reproductive
health services out of the hands of women outside the U.S. Abstinence-only
programs
don’t
stop young people from having sex, but they do keep them from learning
how to have safe sex. Crisis
Pregnancy Centers

mislead women, doing whatever they can to stop people from obtaining
abortions. The cumulative effect of presidential support for these policies
and programs has been devastating. 

But reading the language of
Bush’s proclamation I was reminded of a time, not all that long ago,
when that sort of rhetoric spoke to me. I grew up in a Christian fundamentalist
family and community, and was raised vehemently pro-life. Now I look
at this proclamation and shudder, aware of what these policies have
meant and continue to mean in the lives of real people the world over.
Back then, I heard this same sort of language about a "culture of
life" and my mind turned to the souls of unborn babies murdered in
cold blood before they even had a chance to experience the world, before
they could defend themselves. 

I say this not because I think
this ideology is anywhere close to right, but because it is a mindset
I believe we must come to understand if our movement is to succeed.
Growing up surrounded by Focus
on the Family
language,
announcements for Sanctity of Life rallies and marches, stories about
the "silent scream," I never really thought about the effects of
all of this on actual living women. To me, it was all about the innocent
lives I believed were being destroyed. My father’s stories about praying
at women outside abortion clinics with Operation
Rescue
sparked my first thoughts about what those women
must be experiencing. But it wasn’t until a radical change of community,
until I was surrounded by pro-choice organizers and was presented with an
alternative logic, that my worldview changed. I came to recognize the
narrow and deeply religious ideology that led me to focus on the unborn
and ignore the lives of women. I came to to see abortion as about saving
lives or making more fulfilling lives possible, about recognizing the
humanity of all people. 

From this perspective Bush’s
proclamation is an insult, a proud affront to human dignity and self-determination,
and a direct attack against women. Thinking back to my younger pro-life
self, though, I know others read this proclamation as a gift, a recognition
of the valuable humanitarian work they are doing. 

Yes, anti-choice ideology is
fundamentally sexist. I didn’t know this when I was a pro-lifer, though,
and I do not believe hatred of women is an intentional part of the belief
system of most people in that movement. It’s easy to paint pro-lifers
with one simplistic stroke as misogynist bigots bent on maintaining
patriarchal power, and this may be true of much of the movement’s
leadership. But I do not believe the average pro-life person is coming
from a place of hate. Most of these people believe they are doing good,
compassionate, life-saving work. Our movements simply cut the issue
in radically different ways. To a person whose religious beliefs are
a central part of their identity, being told that abortion is about
a human soul connects the issue to their most deeply held convictions,
making it an unquestionable moral good to work against access to abortion.
Women’s lives barely enter the picture. 

As a pro-lifer I didn’t understand
the likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy: I didn’t appreciate the
ways having a child can limit a woman’s opportunities, didn’t hear
stories about dangerous illegal abortions or understand why someone
would swallow poisonous chemicals because they couldn’t access an
abortion clinic and absolutely could not carry a pregnancy to term.
It was easy to focus on the unborn child when I wasn’t thinking about
the many different things getting pregnant and having a child can mean. 

It is vital in our work for
reproductive justice that we do not oversimplify and underestimate those
working to restrict reproductive rights. Our opponents are not Disney
villains bent on doing evil; they are good, well meaning people who
believe wholeheartedly that they are doing the right thing. We have
to understand where these people are coming from so that we can look
for connections, find the beliefs we share, and then find ways to present
a different perspective on these issues. It took cutting the issue differently
for me to change sides; I know I am not the only person out there susceptible
to a compassionate argument in favor of abortion. But that conversation
starts with respect and understanding for the beliefs of pro-lifers.

The more we frame the conversation as being about the lived experience
of real people the harder it becomes to argue that restricting abortion
is about caring for human life. If someone in the pro-life movement
is really motivated by a desire to save lives this humanizing of abortion
can speak to them, as it did to me.  

Bush has proclaimed eight "National
Sanctity of Human Life Days," each one a gift to pro-lifers and an
insult to the reproductive justice movement. But I choose to look back
on the past eight years as an opportunity to examine the state of the
abortion debate, to charitably contemplate the ideology behind Bush’s
rhetoric, and to recognize the vital work of changing hearts and minds
that must be done if we are ever to achieve reproductive freedom for
all. As we move forward with a pro-choice administration let’s work
to reframe the issue so we do not continue swinging back and forth between
administrations that focus on the rights of the unborn or the rights
of women. We need to connect abortion to people’s daily lives and
create a conversation that is relatable instead of rehashing abstract
political arguments. Someone had the conversation with me once, so I
know it can happen again.

News Politics

Clinton Campaign Announces Tim Kaine as Pick for Vice President

Ally Boguhn

The prospect of Kaine’s selection has been criticized by some progressives due to his stances on issues including abortion as well as bank and trade regulation.

The Clinton campaign announced Friday that Sen. Tim Kaine (R-VA) has been selected to join Hillary Clinton’s ticket as her vice presidential candidate.

“I’m thrilled to announce my running mate, @TimKaine, a man who’s devoted his life to fighting for others,” said Clinton in a tweet.

“.@TimKaine is a relentless optimist who believes no problem is unsolvable if you put in the work to solve it,” she added.

The prospect of Kaine’s selection has been criticized by some progressives due to his stances on issues including abortion as well as bank and trade regulation.

Kaine signed two letters this week calling for the regulations on banks to be eased, according to a Wednesday report published by the Huffington Post, thereby ”setting himself up as a figure willing to do battle with the progressive wing of the party.”

Charles Chamberlain, executive director of the progressive political action committee Democracy for America, told the New York Times that Kaine’s selection “could be disastrous for our efforts to defeat Donald Trump in the fall” given the senator’s apparent support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Just before Clinton’s campaign made the official announcement that Kaine had been selected, the senator praised the TPP during an interview with the Intercept, though he signaled he had ultimately not decided how he would vote on the matter.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Kaine’s record on reproductive rights has also generated controversy as news began to circulate that he was being considered to join Clinton’s ticket. Though Kaine recently argued in favor of providing Planned Parenthood with access to funding to fight the Zika virus and signed on as a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act—which would prohibit states and the federal government from enacting restrictions on abortion that aren’t applied to comparable medical services—he has also been vocal about his personal opposition to abortion.

In a June interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Kaine told host Chuck Todd he was “personally” opposed to abortion. He went on, however, to affirm that he still believed “not just as a matter of politics, but even as a matter of morality, that matters about reproduction and intimacy and relationships and contraception are in the personal realm. They’re moral decisions for individuals to make for themselves. And the last thing we need is government intruding into those personal decisions.”

As Rewire has previously reported, though Kaine may have a 100 percent rating for his time in the Senate from Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the campaign website for his 2005 run for governor of Virginia promised he would “work in good faith to reduce abortions” by enforcing Virginia’s “restrictions on abortion and passing an enforceable ban on partial birth abortion that protects the life and health of the mother.”

As governor, Kaine did support some existing restrictions on abortion, including Virginia’s parental consent law and a so-called informed consent law. He also signed a 2009 measure that created “Choose Life” license plates in the state, and gave a percentage of the proceeds to a crisis pregnancy network.

Regardless of Clinton’s vice president pick, the “center of gravity in the Democratic Party has shifted in a bold, populist, progressive direction,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, in an emailed statement. “It’s now more important than ever that Hillary Clinton run an aggressive campaign on core economic ideas like expanding Social Security, debt-free college, Wall Street reform, and yes, stopping the TPP. It’s the best way to unite the Democratic Party, and stop Republicans from winning over swing voters on bread-and-butter issues.”

Analysis Politics

The 2016 Republican Platform Is Riddled With Conservative Abortion Myths

Ally Boguhn

Anti-choice activists and leaders have embraced the Republican platform, which relies on a series of falsehoods about reproductive health care.

Republicans voted to ratify their 2016 platform this week, codifying what many deem one of the most extreme platforms ever accepted by the party.

“Platforms are traditionally written by and for the party faithful and largely ignored by everyone else,” wrote the New York Times‘ editorial board Monday. “But this year, the Republicans are putting out an agenda that demands notice.”

“It is as though, rather than trying to reconcile Mr. Trump’s heretical views with conservative orthodoxy, the writers of the platform simply opted to go with the most extreme version of every position,” it continued. “Tailored to Mr. Trump’s impulsive bluster, this document lays bare just how much the G.O.P. is driven by a regressive, extremist inner core.”

Tucked away in the 66-page document accepted by Republicans as their official guide to “the Party’s principles and policies” are countless resolutions that seem to back up the Times‘ assertion that the platform is “the most extreme” ever put forth by the party, including: rolling back marriage equalitydeclaring pornography a “public health crisis”; and codifying the Hyde Amendment to permanently block federal funding for abortion.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Anti-choice activists and leaders have embraced the platform, which the Susan B. Anthony List deemed the “Most Pro-life Platform Ever” in a press release upon the GOP’s Monday vote at the convention. “The Republican platform has always been strong when it comes to protecting unborn children, their mothers, and the conscience rights of pro-life Americans,” said the organization’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, in a statement. “The platform ratified today takes that stand from good to great.”  

Operation Rescue, an organization known for its radical tactics and links to violence, similarly declared the platform a “victory,” noting its inclusion of so-called personhood language, which could ban abortion and many forms of contraception. “We are celebrating today on the streets of Cleveland. We got everything we have asked for in the party platform,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, in a statement posted to the group’s website.

But what stands out most in the Republicans’ document is the series of falsehoods and myths relied upon to push their conservative agenda. Here are just a few of the most egregious pieces of misinformation about abortion to be found within the pages of the 2016 platform:

Myth #1: Planned Parenthood Profits From Fetal Tissue Donations

Featured in multiple sections of the Republican platform is the tired and repeatedly debunked claim that Planned Parenthood profits from fetal tissue donations. In the subsection on “protecting human life,” the platform says:

We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage.

Later in the document, under a section titled “Preserving Medicare and Medicaid,” the platform again asserts that abortion providers are selling “the body parts of aborted children”—presumably again referring to the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood:

We respect the states’ authority and flexibility to exclude abortion providers from federal programs such as Medicaid and other healthcare and family planning programs so long as they continue to perform or refer for elective abortions or sell the body parts of aborted children.

The platform appears to reference the widely discredited videos produced by anti-choice organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP) as part of its smear campaign against Planned Parenthood. The videos were deceptively edited, as Rewire has extensively reported. CMP’s leader David Daleiden is currently under federal indictment for tampering with government documents in connection with obtaining the footage. Republicans have nonetheless steadfastly clung to the group’s claims in an effort to block access to reproductive health care.

Since CMP began releasing its videos last year, 13 state and three congressional inquiries into allegations based on the videos have turned up no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of Planned Parenthood.

Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund—which has endorsed Hillary Clinton—called the Republicans’ inclusion of CMP’s allegation in their platform “despicable” in a statement to the Huffington Post. “This isn’t just an attack on Planned Parenthood health centers,” said Laguens. “It’s an attack on the millions of patients who rely on Planned Parenthood each year for basic health care. It’s an attack on the brave doctors and nurses who have been facing down violent rhetoric and threats just to provide people with cancer screenings, birth control, and well-woman exams.”

Myth #2: The Supreme Court Struck Down “Commonsense” Laws About “Basic Health and Safety” in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

In the section focusing on the party’s opposition to abortion, the GOP’s platform also reaffirms their commitment to targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws. According to the platform:

We salute the many states that now protect women and girls through laws requiring informed consent, parental consent, waiting periods, and clinic regulation. We condemn the Supreme Court’s activist decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down commonsense Texas laws providing for basic health and safety standards in abortion clinics.

The idea that TRAP laws, such as those struck down by the recent Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman’s Health, are solely for protecting women and keeping them safe is just as common among conservatives as it is false. However, as Rewire explained when Paul Ryan agreed with a nearly identical claim last week about Texas’ clinic regulations, “the provisions of the law in question were not about keeping anybody safe”:

As Justice Stephen Breyer noted in the opinion declaring them unconstitutional, “When directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case.”

All the provisions actually did, according to Breyer on behalf of the Court majority, was put “a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion,” and “constitute an undue burden on abortion access.”

Myth #3: 20-Week Abortion Bans Are Justified By “Current Medical Research” Suggesting That Is When a Fetus Can Feel Pain

The platform went on to point to Republicans’ Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a piece of anti-choice legislation already passed in several states that, if approved in Congress, would create a federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks based on junk science claiming fetuses can feel pain at that point in pregnancy:

Over a dozen states have passed Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts prohibiting abortion after twenty weeks, the point at which current medical research shows that unborn babies can feel excruciating pain during abortions, and we call on Congress to enact the federal version.

Major medical groups and experts, however, agree that a fetus has not developed to the point where it can feel pain until the third trimester. According to a 2013 letter from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “A rigorous 2005 scientific review of evidence published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester,” which begins around the 28th week of pregnancy. A 2010 review of the scientific evidence on the issue conducted by the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists similarly found “that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior” to 24 weeks’ gestation.

Doctors who testify otherwise often have a history of anti-choice activism. For example, a letter read aloud during a debate over West Virginia’s ultimately failed 20-week abortion ban was drafted by Dr. Byron Calhoun, who was caught lying about the number of abortion-related complications he saw in Charleston.

Myth #4: Abortion “Endangers the Health and Well-being of Women”

In an apparent effort to criticize the Affordable Care Act for promoting “the notion of abortion as healthcare,” the platform baselessly claimed that abortion “endangers the health and well-being” of those who receive care:

Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.

Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that abortion is safe. Research shows that a first-trimester abortion carries less than 0.05 percent risk of major complications, according to the Guttmacher Institute, and “pose[s] virtually no long-term risk of problems such as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries.”

There is similarly no evidence to back up the GOP’s claim that abortion endangers the well-being of women. A 2008 study from the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion, an expansive analysis on current research regarding the issue, found that while those who have an abortion may experience a variety of feelings, “no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.”

As is the case for many of the anti-abortion myths perpetuated within the platform, many of the so-called experts who claim there is a link between abortion and mental illness are discredited anti-choice activists.

Myth #5: Mifepristone, a Drug Used for Medical Abortions, Is “Dangerous”

Both anti-choice activists and conservative Republicans have been vocal opponents of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA’s) March update to the regulations for mifepristone, a drug also known as Mifeprex and RU-486 that is used in medication abortions. However, in this year’s platform, the GOP goes a step further to claim that both the drug and its general approval by the FDA are “dangerous”:

We believe the FDA’s approval of Mifeprex, a dangerous abortifacient formerly known as RU-486, threatens women’s health, as does the agency’s endorsement of over-the-counter sales of powerful contraceptives without a physician’s recommendation. We support cutting federal and state funding for entities that endanger women’s health by performing abortions in a manner inconsistent with federal or state law.

Studies, however, have overwhelmingly found mifepristone to be safe. In fact, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals says mifepristone “is safer than acetaminophen,” aspirin, and Viagra. When the FDA conducted a 2011 post-market study of those who have used the drug since it was approved by the agency, they found that more than 1.5 million women in the U.S. had used it to end a pregnancy, only 2,200 of whom had experienced an “adverse event” after.

The platform also appears to reference the FDA’s approval of making emergency contraception such as Plan B available over the counter, claiming that it too is a threat to women’s health. However, studies show that emergency contraception is safe and effective at preventing pregnancy. According to the World Health Organization, side effects are “uncommon and generally mild.”