NRL News

Pro-abortionist tries to convince colleagues that the ugly truth about abortion really is a good thing for them

by | Nov 18, 2013

By Dave Andrusko

SadWoman654National Right to Life News Today has posted a number of stories recently growing out of a surprising development. After decades of denial, publications that are not in our corner are publishing graphic accounts of women whose abortion ordeals are far worse than any stories we have relayed about post-aborted women.

Take “Two stories from New York Magazine unintentionally reinforce the pro-life case against abortion,” Those two accounts were titled “One in three women has an abortion by the age of 45. How many ever talk about it? New laws, old stigmas. 26 stories,” introduced by Meaghan Winter; and “Why the Abortion Pill Didn’t Change Everything,” written by Ann Friedman.

The former could easily have been put together by someone whose goal it was to prove how abortion is no answer to anything, indeed creates a multiple new and worse problems. In its stated goal to “destigmatize” abortion, it failed miserably.

In fact, almost all the 26 accounts are awash in pain and hurt and regret—and often not-so-subtle pressure from boyfriends to abort.

The latter, while slowed down by some evasions and misrepresentations, is packed with a lot of truth. This is Friedman’s key paragraph:

Then there’s a general false perception among women that medication abortion will be quicker and easier than a surgical procedure. “The majority think, ‘Hey, I’m gonna pop a pill and that’ll be it,’” the receptionist at an abortion clinic in Nebraska told me. With an early surgical abortion, a woman goes into a clinic and is sure she’s no longer pregnant when she comes out a few hours later. With medication abortion, the process can take up to 48 hours. Even after counseling at a clinic, many women are unprepared for the experience. “I took one pill at home, and I remember at one point actually feeling my cervix open. It was a terrifying feeling,” says Katie, who had a medication abortion in 2004. Another woman described pain that was “so intense that it’s hard to really remember. You sort of feel like you’re tripping or something.” A nurse at an abortion clinic once told me, “Women who have done both will go back to surgical. I’ve never had anyone who’s done both go back to medical.

So….if you are a pro-abortion feminist, you have two choices. Denounce these accounts as heresy (the truth always is to the Abortion Establishment), or try to turn these damaging-to-their-cause stories into a plus, aka square the circle.

How could you possibly accomplish the latter?

L.V. Anderson did her best last week in a post on Slate titled, “FEMINISTS ARE SHARING ABORTION HORROR STORIES. AND THAT’S A GOOD THING

Anderson cites the stories we’ve already talked about plus another about birth control, which is not our issue. She notes that

“a sizeable portion of their readers and writers probably consider themselves feminists and support reproductive freedom. It may seem counterproductive for progressive publications to be sharing stories of abortion- and contraception-related woe and trauma at a time when states like Texas and Oklahoma are putting our reproductive rights at risk. In fact, it’s a great development.”

How so?

As best I can tell, when pro-lifers or “religious publications” tell the same truths, it’s not that Anderson is explicitly saying they are wrong but rather that they have the wrong agenda AND have the effect of “giving fodder to pro-lifers.”

Moreover, the “collateral damage” (my description) is that “As a result, pro-choice women have hesitated to share stories about regretted abortions.”

Anderson is conceding that such experiences exist. Alluding to the 26 abortion accounts (“a harrowing cover story”), she writes that they included “a teenager who ‘wanted to keep the baby’ but was pressured by her boyfriend to terminate, and a mother of two who says her abortion provider was ‘grotesque’ and describes overwhelming guilt and shame about her decision.”

Later Anderson concludes, “Some women are pressured into getting abortions, and not every abortion provider is skilled and compassionate” (to put it mildly), and “some experience agony during their medication abortions.”

So, from the pro-abortion perspective, how can this be a “good thing”? Because….

“To acknowledge these realities is to treat reproductive healthcare like any other kind of medical care—and isn’t that what feminists have been fighting for all along?”

Oh. Really?

Would that include systematically telling the horror stories, not just a couple of magazine articles? Would that include—since this is just like “other kind of medical care”—support for laws to ensure genuine informed consent? How about requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical facilities (strongly recommended by the Philadelphia Grand Jury that investigated abortionist Kermit Gosnell, later convicted of three counts of murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter)?

Of course not. Anderson is trying to minimize the damage to the cover story that the Abortion Industry has peddled for 50 years. Guess what?

The truth badly hurts the cause of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the rest of the Abortion Industrial Complex.

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at Send your comments to

Categories: Abortion
Tags: abortion