NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Roe at 40: Retrofitting “pro-choice”

Jan 22, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

Katha Pollitt

Katha Pollitt

Less than two weeks out from the 40th anniversary of Roe, Planned Parenthood announced that it was retrofitting its aging “pro-choice” slogan. (See “Pro-Choice” Passé? Much more than that behind PPFA’s shift in language”)

That decision was not greeted with open arms. The fault lines included age, ideology, and debate over what would best resonate with younger more-or-less “pro-choice” women.

In some ways, the controversy was/is much ado about nothing. PPFA will not totally replace “pro-choice” with “personal decision,” also known as “Not in her shoes.” 

On the other hand, the decision to perform a facelift on the image of the pro-abortion movement does signal that PPFA understands that the times they are a-Changing.

I just ran across a piece written by veteran pro-abortionist Katha Pollitt on the webpage of The Nation. I was surprised, both by the candor and the level of insight and honesty.

As I understand PPFA’s public relations line, the makeover was necessary because in a world of virtually limitless choices “choice” now sounds almost “frivolous.” (What an incredible admission, by the way.)

More important to PPFA, they believe while many people self-identify as “pro-choice,” operationally there are lots more; they are just uncomfortable with the term. In other words, some who identify as “pro-life” are closer to the pro-choice camp (or so the argument goes) than they realize. You can reel them in with a variation of the old “Who Decides? slogan”—it’s a “Personal Decision.”

Finally (and more important to us) women in focus groups told PPFA they wanted more nuanced language; if it “all depends,” you can’t make the decision to abort appear”black and white.” Put another way pro-choice “over-simplifies” a decision with many moving parts.

Pollitt is less than persuaded. To her the “moderate” position [in terms of picking out a label) is “pro-choice.” That means the decision is up to the woman, plain and simple.

She insists there is no” extreme pro-choice” position. That “would be the one pro-lifers falsely claim Roe protects: it would permit abortion on demand up until the day before birth. No pro-choice organization calls for that.”

Notice she doesn’t deny that Roe allows abortion on demand, only that “No pro-choice organization calls for that.” But if you resist ANY and ALL limitations on abortion—which is exactly what “pro-choice organizations” do—then the outcome of a restriction free America is abortion up until the day before birth. And, as we see elsewhere today, pro-abortionists have a soft spot (so to speak) in their hearts for those abortionists who can find an excuse to abort a baby almost up until the day of birth.

There is a lot more to her essay, but let me end with this fascinating admission from Pollitt.

“According to one poll PP handed out, 40 percent say their personal view of abortion ‘depends on the situation.’ Polls show a large majority support a woman’s right to abortion in cases of rape or risk to her life or health, and about half would permit it when the fetus is mentally or physically impaired. But a majority oppose abortion when the woman is poor, young, wants to finish school or keep a job, has all the kids she can handle, doesn’t feel ready to be a mother—in other words, they disapprove of about 90 percent of the abortions women actually have. Does that mean people who say abortion is a ‘gray area’ would support more restrictions if they were tailored to those preferences? Or do they just want to feel they have the right to judge?”

Put another way, many whom the polls insist are “pro-choice” are much, much closer to the pro-life position. Also, I don’t think for a second that the majorities that oppose the reasons 90% [or more] or abortions are performed do so just to pass judgment.

They are making a judgment—a moral calculus–and have concluded that the gravity of these reasons offered is insufficient to warrant the death of an unborn baby. They are, in a word, exercising their ‘choice’ to say abortion is wrong in these situations.

Pollitt takes comfort from the response to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s proposal to gut any and every limitation on abortion in a state where abortion flourishes. He was wildly applauded when he thundered, “It’s her body! It’s her choice!” There’s still some tread on the old idioms, Pollitt concludes.

Remember what we discussed a few paragraphs back? Pollitt’s insistence that there is no such thing as a “radical” “pro-choice” position?

As I wrote previously,

“The pro-abortion mindset is stepped in certain “givens,” many of which are on display in [Cuomo’s] proposed legislation. To name just a few, they include paying for as many abortions as humanly possible, using taxpayer money; making sure that when even wanted children are killed by criminals, there cannot be a separate, additional penalty for taking the child’s life; and co-opting and conscripting everyone into this grisly business, regardless of their personal moral, ethical, and/or religious objections.”

Ms. Pollitt, let me introduce you to a “pro-choice” law that appalls all but the most hardened, militant pro-abortionist.

If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com

Categories: PPFA