RALEIGH — As we wait for the official hearings over the
worthiness of Judge John Roberts for the Supreme Court, and woman
Democrats in the Senate demand a vow from him to uphold the 1973
Roe v. Wade decision if appointed, it’s a good time to
examine some rhetoric and reasoning of abortion rights
advocates.
If you read enough of their literature you will find that
so-called “family planning” organizations, which back full abortion
protections, believe that high numbers of “unintended” pregnancies
represent a health crisis.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which studies
abortion, reproductive, and sexual health statistics, roughly 50
percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unintentional.
Forty-seven percent of those “accidents” end in abortion, and the
institute sees a cause-and-effect.
“The relatively high rate of unintended pregnancy in the United
States has received increasing attention as the immediate cause of
both abortion and unplanned birth,” Stanley K. Henshaw, a former
senior fellow at Guttmacher, wrote a few years ago.
This is common alarmist rhetoric among pro-choice advocates. But
does it make sense?
Take my wife and me, for example. We have four children that
neither of us intended, which represented 100 percent of our
pregnancies. By Guttmacher’s reasoning, we were lucky that those
pregnancies didn’t cause abortions instead of children, and we were
also fortunate that we had eight months each (or so) to plan for
the births. I guess we really bucked the odds.
My wife’s pregnancies were caused by our intentional sex, yet
somehow we knew the possible consequences of our actions, despite
our lack of planning. Maybe we were the lucky ones. But are we in
the minority? Do most people have their sexual encounters without
understanding that it can cause reproduction?
“Family planners” seem to think so, and they believe it’s
causing a crisis of accidental conceptions that’s got to be
stemmed.
“Unintended pregnancy is an issue that affects public health,
our economy, and our society, because one way or another, we are
all affected by its impact,” said Dr. Kimberlydawn Wisdom,
Michigan’s surgeon general, about a month ago. “Working together,
we can ensure that every pregnancy is an intended pregnancy.”
Further developing their illogic, family planners and public
health officials conclude that while it’s impossible to stop sexual
activity, it’s possible to “make every child born in America a
planned, wanted child,” as former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn
Elders famously said. Sexual intercourse can’t be stopped, but any
resultant pregnancies can. That’s why kids in school need to be
given contraceptives and be educated about them. The family
planning mission must be to make all sex conception-proof, with no
slip-ups that turn into undesired fetuses.
The abortion option has to remain as the last line of defense in
order for this philosophy to survive, to rescue inadvertently
conceiving couples from their predicaments. Abortion simultaneously
protects sexual freedom and relieves personal responsibility. The
“every child a planned, wanted child” ideology can’t be sustained
without it as a fallback, at the minimum.
The family planners’ way to promote their ideology is through
“sexual health” education. This emphasizes the discussion of birth
control, of which both abortion and abstinence are included on a
veritable menu of options. Identify your craving, choose your
partner, pick your protection.
But in reality, the necessary educational message is quite
simple: If you know that sex produces babies, then you are
informed, and you will be responsible for a pregnancy.
The way to end the “unwanted pregnancy” burden on society is for
government to stop rewarding — or at least trying to fix — the
poor decisions that lead to those conceptions. Political leaders
should say, “We’re not going to bail you out of your sexual
behavior by paying for contraception, by paying for your abortion,
by subsidizing your unwanted child, or by putting you on welfare.
You and your family will be responsible for the results of your
choices.” Isn’t this principle supposed to be working for welfare
reform?
Instead, government sends the message that if you and your
partner end up with a conception you don’t want, taxpayers and
lawmakers will bail you out — either with money or with a
pregnancy termination, or both.
For that, abortion advocates want a guarantee from John
Roberts.
Paul Chesser is an associate editor for the John Locke
Foundation. Contact him at
pchesser@carolinajournal.com.
