NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

The real meaning behind the brief submitted by 113 pro-abortion female lawyers

by | Jan 25, 2016

By Dave Andrusko

gavellaw4We’ve written twice and probably should have posted at least one more story about the friend of the court brief submitted by 113 female lawyers who’d had abortions. Their message to the Supreme Court considering portions of Texas’s 2013 law? “To the world, I am an attorney who had an abortion, and, to myself, I am an attorney because I had an abortion.”

That’s the takeaway from Janice MacAvoy, who was one of the 113 signees. As she explained, although this lead from the brief were not her words, they could have been. Without the abortion 35 years ago, all the success she has since attained would have been impossible.

Thus, “It is critical that the court hear the voices of women like me whose access to safe and legal abortion allowed us to take control of our destinies and decide for ourselves when or if we would start our families.”

There are many messages embedded in the brief and in MacAvoy’s op-ed. And because the attorneys are arguing that abortion was the pivotal decision in their lives, many inconvenient truths must, at all costs, be avoided.

For example, she never pauses for a moment to reflect on how she became pregnant even though as she was about to graduate from high school, MacAvoy “was determined to break a cycle of poverty and teenage pregnancy that had shaped the lives of the previous three generations of women in my family — all mothers by age 18.”

Nor is there a nanosecond’s worth of reflection on the one whose extinction she credits with her success. All we’re told is that virtually no woman regrets her abortion, which is sheer nonsense, as Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, NRLC’s director of education, demonstrated when he dug beneath the surface of the reassuring pro-abortion studies.

Thus it is not surprising that having written “The brief represented 113 different stories, and every woman’s story is unique,” it does not occur to MacAvoy that her child—as were the other 112 children—was also unique.

For me, having read the same party line over and over, the most interesting line in her piece is her assurances that she had inter- and intragenerational support.

I discussed my decision to publicly tell the Supreme Court about my abortion with my family. They uniformly expressed support — from my 17-year-old daughter, who said she would be disappointed in me if I didn’t, to my 83-year-old mother-in-law, who exclaimed with dismay, “I can’t believe we’re still having this fight! I thought my generation had won this right for you!” to my mother, who wished that she had had the choices that were available to me.

Her own daughter was that blasé? Really? MacAvoy’s own mother wished for the same “choices.” Meaning she wished she could have aborted one or more of MacAvoy’s siblings? I wonder what MacAvoy’s attitude would have been had her mother told her she was the one on whom her mother wished she could have exercised her “choice”?

We’ve talked about this before, but just consider. Which women are getting all the ink?

Professionals, especially lawyers. Their abortions, we can assume, would have special appeal to other successful middle and upper class lawyers—like those on the Supreme Court!—not to mention reporters. A kind of solidarity of the elite.

The briefs in support of the Texas law, HB2, are to come in this week. I can’t wait to see how many fawning stories we read about those amicus curiae.

Categories: Judicial