For more than three decades abortion has been primarily a legal
fight centered on the Supreme Court’s idiosyncratic interpretation
of the Constitution. Political action has invariably been shaped by
the prospect of judicial review. That process continues today, with
South Dakota’s recent approval of a blanket ban in response to the
changed membership of the Court.
The pro-life lobby has been forthright in its position: abortion
is wrong and should be banned. The other side, however, often has
obscured its views. Those leading the fight against abortion
regulation like to style themselves as pro-choice, but many of them
really are pro-abortion.
The essential question of government is when to toss people into
jail. Lots of human institutions attempt to mold behavior.
Families, churches, neighborhood associations, clubs, advocacy
groups, and more seek to persuade or set requirements for
membership. Only government arrests and imprisons.
There’s nothing inconsistent in arguing that abortion is an
unfortunate procedure, but one that warrants private discouragement
rather than state prohibition. The abortion lobby likes to present
this view as its public face, and some Democratic politicians have
done the same in order to improve their image among “values”
voters.
For instance, President Bill Clinton opined that abortion was
best kept legal but should be rare. Sen. Hillary Clinton has
followed her husband’s lead in attempting to triangulate the issue,
expressing concern about the procedure while defending its
legality. That’s also the position of Catholic politicians who
proclaim their personal opposition to the procedure while refusing
to vote to ban it. They might not be good Catholics — and all
might be acting out of convenience rather than conviction — but
it’s an intellectually defensible position.
Every so often the zealots come along and again remind us what
the issue is really about, however.
Ms. magazine is one of the stalwarts of the feminist
movement. Publishing its first regular issue in July 1972, the
journal pressed for legal abortion before Roe v. Wade.
Although today the magazine ranges into such curious areas as
environmental feminism (is there a difference between being an
environmental feminist or a feminist environmentalist?), abortion
remains a core issue. Now Ms. magazine is asking its
readers and others to celebrate the fact that they have had
abortions.
The editors have added a “We Had Abortions” section to their
website,
which says the magazine is pursuing “a campaign for honesty and
freedom.” Just what does it mean to be honest and free in the view
of Ms. magazine?
Explain the editors: “In its 1971 debut issue, Ms.
magazine ran a bold petition in which 53 well-known U.S. women
declared that they had undergone abortions — despite state laws
rendering the procedure illegal.” Absurd as it was then, declares
Ms., that abortion was illegal, “[i]t is even more absurd
in 2006 to learn that an abortion ban has passed into law in South
Dakota.” Other states have imposed other restrictions, so “it is
time again for women of conscience to stand up and speak truth to
power.”
Thus, the magazine is offering a new petition to “change the
public debate.” States Ms.:
It is time to speak out again—in even larger numbers
— and to make politicians face their neighbors, influential movers
and shakers, and yes, their family members. We cannot, must not —
for U.S. women and the women of the world — lose the right to
safe, legal, and accessible abortion or access to birth control.
Just as in 1972, Ms. will send the signed petitions to the
White House, members of Congress and state legislators. We will
also place the petition online. And we ask signers to make a
contribution so Ms. can promote the petition and provide
needed funds to fight abortion bans and support targeted abortion
providers, such as the sole remaining women’s clinic in
Mississippi.
Ever so helpful,
Ms. provides a form, “Women’s Petition
for Safe, Legal, and Accessible Abortion and Birth Control.” Just
check the box “I have had an abortion,” and then decide whether you
want your name in the magazine or on the website, or both. And,
yes, there’s also a line for you to make that generous donation.
In short, celebrate your decision to eliminate the life growing
within you. Don’t just celebrate it. Broadcast it to the world.
HOW LONG WILL IT BE before Ms. announces contests for the
youngest and oldest abortion recipients? The person with the most
abortions within a set period? And, of course, the most prolific
aborter?
Ms. magazine offers no Clintonesque rhetoric about
abortion being an unfortunate choice, a tragedy that should be
minimized. Let the world know what you’ve done and demand that it
stand by as others make the same decision.
Set aside the legal and political issue for a moment.
Objectively, abortion is bad. Even the would-be mother pays a
price. There’s some evidence of a higher incidence of breast cancer
among those who have an abortion. And there certainly is a
psychological cost to abortion, including post-traumatic stress
disorder.
More important, abortion kills.
We can quibble about when life begins. We can argue about the
moral status of an embryo before implantation. We can discuss
special justifications: life of the mother and rape, for instance.
And we can respond compassionately to women caught in difficult
circumstances who feel they have inadequate alternatives.
But once we’ve entered the continuum of life there’s no obvious
moral difference between a fetus at one month or eight months, or a
child at one year or eight years. Surely an abortion is not
something to celebrate. “I didn’t feel like having another child,
so I killed my baby,” seems to be what signers of the Ms.
list are saying.
Although the magazine expresses outrage that government might
ban abortion, the state’s most basic role is setting the rules for
issues of life and death. True, there are few more intimate
decisions than that to bear a child. Having government intervene is
a second best for anyone committed to individual liberty and
limited government.
But there is no liberty if the right to life is not respected.
And liberty requires accountability. You must be responsible for
the results of the free choices that you make.
Pregnancy is never a surprise. Absent rape, pregnancy cannot
result other than by choice. To have sex.
Thus, most people having an abortion are cleaning up the mess
resulting from a voluntary sexual encounter which they now regret.
Abortion is not the only option, however. One reason adoption,
foster care, and orphanages exist is because some people don’t want
to become parents. Carrying an unwanted baby to term is a
significant imposition, but still a modest burden compared to
ending a life. In this case, the law appropriately says: have sex
if you want, but be prepared to take responsibility for any life
that you create, even inadvertently.
OBVIOUSLY MS. MAGAZINE DISAGREES with this assessment.
Still, the editors could couple their plea to keep abortion legal
with advice to reduce its incidence. For instance, Ms.
magazine might run a list of the names of people warning others
against engaging in “unprotected” sex, and sex with someone other
than one’s partner. “We ignored the consequences of our actions and
made a bad choice,” they could say. Don’t follow our bad
example.
Or how about a petition signed by women who had undergone an
abortion explaining what steps the rest of us could take to best
discourage other women from undergoing the procedure? “We were
wrong and don’t want others to make the same mistake” could be the
message. They could tell us what steps might have deterred them,
and how to help reach women similarly situated today.
But Ms. magazine’s signers seem to have no regrets. “We
terminated a life, and we are proud that we did so,” is the
apparent message: “Don’t hold us accountable for our actions,
however inappropriate they might have been.”
Some 45 million babies have been aborted since Roe v.
Wade created a largely unconstrained right to an abortion.
That’s hideous number. And one that should fill all of us, whether
we’ve had an abortion or not, with regret.
Again, forget for a moment the political question whether
abortion should be prohibited. Certainly it should be lamented. And
discouraged. Honest liberals could agree on that.
But not Ms. magazine.
Although the legal fight remains important, the main battlefield
for abortion these days is moral suasion. Even if Roe v.
Wade is overturned, many states would likely keep the
procedure legal. Which means people will have to be persuaded not
to exercise their legal right. People will have to be convinced of
what Ms. magazine does not understand: every abortion is a
tragic outcome of a wrong decision.
