NRL News

Abortion on demand and without apology

by | Jan 23, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

Anna North

Anna North

It’s hardly a revolutionary thought–that pro-lifers and pro-abortionists look at the same situation, the same set of facts,  and draw diametrically opposed conclusions. That’s obvious and reflects hugely different understandings of love, responsibility, justice, mercy, and moral obligations

But you would THINK there could some items that both sides could agree to. For example, that we have abysmal abortion statistics and it is in everyone’s interest to improve them.

You would think that, but you would be wrong.’s Anna North asked around and found that “abortion providers” are not concerned that there be an accurate count of the number of abortions or know the reasons for them. ‘”The number of abortions needed are the number that women want,’ abortion provider Dr. Curtis Boyd told North last week.

There are a couple of very unpersuasive explanations for this resistance before we begin to hear the real reasons for the opposition: the “broader issue at play,” North writes, which is that “Most calls for stricter abortion reporting have come from the anti-abortion side.”

This is followed by a couple of potential horror stories if we know (without getting anyone’s name or private information) who is getting abortions, at what stage, and for what reason. But this is just rhetorical filler. If there were zero chances any individual data would leak out, they would still resist drawing a fuller and more accurate portrait of abortion in America.

The divide is truly fundamental and North is to be congratulated for cutting to the chase. There is an assumption pro-lifers have, shared by I would assume almost all Americans, but not by “abortion-rights advocates”: that “the total number of abortions is important and should be reduced,” as North explains. In other words, “rare.”

However the only way “Many abortion-rights advocates” want abortion rates to go down, North says, is as a “result of better access to contraception.” Anything else “can seem like an effort to limit women’s options.”

The “anything else” is…..anything and everything else. Which is why pro-abortionists work to keep women ignorant of every alternative to abortion, in the guise of maintaining “women’s options.” Every scrap of information that might make for a genuine informed choice—which would include knowledge about their unborn child–must be kept hidden from women under the banner of “choice.” Talk about censorship!

One other thought for which I am indebted to North’s reporting.

When Planned Parenthood was rolling out its makeover (out with “pro-choice,” in with  “personal decision,” AKA “Not in her shoes”), they offered as an explanation the result of focus groups. What I had overlooked, according to North, was that PPFA says “that in their polling of women around the country, ‘rare’ was actually an unpopular term.”

Does anyone not working for Planned Parenthood or an ideological bedfellow of PPFA believe that nonsense for one second? That striving to make abortion “rare” is unpopular with the population at large, women in particular?

We’ve come a long ways from former President Clinton’s “safe, legal and rare,” (not that he meant for a second that reducing the number of abortions was important to him), haven’t we? The mindset of the Abortion Establishment and its many fellow travelers is caught in the sign reproduced on this page: “Abortion on demand and without apology.”

Categories: Abortion