Category Archives: healthcare

Encouraging news on the prolife front…

The New Pro-Life Surge
Political gains by U.S. conservatives unleash waves of
anti-abortion legislation.
Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra | posted
6/10/2011 09:24AM

The summer before Katey Tryon’s senior year of high school, she
got pregnant. Recently split from her boyfriend, she was sad and vulnerable when
she hooked up with her older brother’s friend. They had sex once. Six weeks
later, she was tired and her period was late.

“It was terrifying,” Tryon said. “I’m from a small town in Oregon.
My parents are pillars in the community. I was born and raised here, fourth
generation. So my sin was very apparent.” Tryon’s parents, both believers,
rallied around her. Abortion was out of the question. Two days before high
school graduation, Tryon gave birth to a girl and gave her up for adoption.

Tryon enrolled in a Christian college in Portland, determined to
turn her life around, but still felt vulnerable. “I started dating a guy who
embraced me for what I had just gone through, who understood that I didn’t want
to have sex until I got married,” she said.

But they started sleeping together, and one night the condom
didn’t work. Over spring break, at an intercollegiate softball tournament, Tryon
found out she was pregnant again. Her daughter was nine months old. “My world
came crashing down tenfold from the first time,” she said.

Abortion was never a serious option, she said, although “trust me,
it went through my mind. I recognize why other women go there. You want to get
away from your situation. We want to cover up our mistakes and have them all go
away.”

Tryon found support at a local pregnancy center, which sparked in
her a fresh sense of purpose. She gave birth to a boy and gave him up for
adoption. She went back to college, double majoring in social work and
sociology. Eventually she became the development director at Lane Pregnancy
Support Center in Eugene, Oregon.

In April, Tryon testified before the Oregon State Legislature
about how a pregnancy center changed her life for the better. A Senate committee
was considering a bill to force pregnancy centers to publicly post on doors, in
waiting areas, and in brochures that they are not abortion providers. If centers
did not post these notices in five days, they could be fined up to $1,000, up to
$5,000 if not posted in two weeks.

This is one of many new legislative initiatives on abortion, but
the majority of them are working in the other direction.

Flood of LegislationThe Oregon bill is one of 576 measures related to abortion that
have been introduced so far in 2011 in 48 states, according to Elizabeth Nash,
public policy associate for the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute.

Like the Oregon bill, many of them will never pass committee. Yet
by early April, 142 abortion-related provisions had passed at least one chamber
of a state legislature, compared with 67 in 2009. More than half of the 142
bills (57 percent) introduced this year seek to restrict abortion access,
compared with 38 percent in 2010.

About 40 new anti-abortion laws were on the books by mid-April.
They include:

  • expanding the waiting period requirement in South Dakota from 24
    hours to 72 hours, and requiring women to visit a crisis pregnancy center in the
    interim.
  • requiring a physician who performs an abortion in South Dakota to
    provide counseling on all risk factors related to abortion.
  • allowing any hospital employee in Utah to refuse to “participate
    in any way” in an abortion.
  • making it a felony in Arizona to perform or provide money for
    abortions sought because of a baby’s race or sex.
  • prohibiting insurance plans that participate in the state
    insurance exchange from including abortion coverage in Virginia, Arizona, Idaho,
    Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
  • prohibiting the abortion of a fetus capable of feeling pain in
    Nebraska, Kansas, Idaho, and Oklahoma. The organization National Right to Life
    has drafted a model bill for pro-life lawmakers to use.

Republican victories in the 2010 mid-term elections account for
much of the legislative surge. Republicans won control of the House of
Representatives and made gains in the Senate. But their success at the state
level was more significant. They took 29 governorships and 680 seats in state
legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

It’s the largest gain in modern history. The previous record was
held by Democrats in the post-Watergate 1974 election, in which they picked up
628 seats. Republicans now control the governor’s office and both legislative
chambers of 21 states, according to the National Conference of State
Legislatures.

“The November elections brought huge change in the state houses,”
said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life. “But we’ve been
tilling this ground for a while.”

The forward momentum began, Yoest said, when the Supreme Court
upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion in 2007.

‘My life and the life of my unborn baby were forever
changed the minute I called for help.’—Katey Tyron, a director at Lane Pregnancy
Support Center

“They chipped away at the absolute right to abortion,” Yoest said.
“The Supreme Court said that states do have the right to limit abortion. That
was a seismic shift.” Pro-life advocates began to see how far they could get
with restrictions, such as parental notification and informed consent laws, she
said.

The legislation has been snowballing since the Republican sweep:
“Just in the first three months of this year, we’ve provided testimony on 17
life-related legislative matters,” she said. In previous years, the average
number of testimonies provided was two or three for the entire year.

Public Opinion ChangesRestricting abortion through new state laws seems to be highly
effective in reducing abortion rates.

“We see that the number of abortions has gone down by 22 percent
between 1990 and 2005,” said Michael New, political science professor at the
University of Alabama. “An important reason is the restrictions that more and
more states are passing.”

New examined the effects of three laws on abortion rates. Opting
not to fund abortions through Medicaid was most significant, dropping state
abortion rates by about 9 percent, he said.

“That’s a strong consistent finding,” he said, pointing to a
Guttmacher report that 20 of 24 peer-reviewed studies found that public funding
restrictions reduced the number of abortions. The second is informed-consent
laws, which require abortion providers to inform a woman about the potential
risks to her health, fetal development, and available assistance before an
abortion is performed. Those laws were connected with in-state abortion
reductions of 5 to 7 percent, he said.

New also analyzed parental involvement laws, which require minors
to either tell or get permission from their parents before having an abortion.
While these laws don’t have a large impact on the overall abortion rate, they
correlate with a 15 percent decline in in-state abortions obtained by
minors.

Recent pro-life legislation is changing gears, pushing for laws
that give women the opportunity to view an ultrasound before an abortion or
banning abortion after the fetus can feel pain. Fetal-pain laws have been a big
goal of National Right to Life. Director of state legislation Mary Spaulding
Balch told Christianity Today, “The Pain-Capable
Unborn Child Protection Act very clearly talks about the humanity of the unborn
child.” So far, abortion supporters have not initiated court challenges to the
new fetal-pain laws.

The effect on the abortion rate from pain-related or ultrasound
laws may not be dramatic, New said. Requiring ultrasounds can be tricky because
abortion providers have to self-enforce, and relatively few abortions are
performed after the second trimester, when the fetus begins to feel pain, he
said.

But those laws are still important, New said. “You have to make
progress incrementally. We have made more progress than we think. We’ve
convinced a lot of people that abortion is wrong. Most doctors and hospitals
want nothing to do with it.”

Indeed, public opinion now lines up against abortion for the first
time since Gallup began asking the question in 1995. In 2010, 47 percent of
Americans called themselves pro-life, while 45 percent identified as
pro-choice.

The pro-life advantage held through three surveys, prompting
Gallup to label it a “real change in public opinion,” one that’s showing itself
at the polls.

Last year’s health care debate put abortion back on the national
stage, and President Obama had to issue an executive order strengthening the
limits on abortion to get the health care reform bill passed.

In addition, the House of Representatives passed a bill this
spring that would defund Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in
the country. The bill failed in the Senate, but the victory in the House was
historic, Yoest said.

‘We see that the number of abortions has gone down by 22
percent between 1990 and 2005. An important reason is the restrictions more and
more states are passing.’—Michael New, political science professor at the
University of Alabama

“I absolutely think this is a swelling tide, regardless of what
happens in this particular skirmish. There is very much a future in terms of
bringing more and more attention to the massive federal subsidy of the abortion
industry.”

CounteroffensiveAll this leaves the pro-choice movement “definitely defensive,”
said Nash of the Guttmacher Institute. “We need to make the case for why these
services are important.”

The public questioning of Planned Parenthood is “a major shift,”
said Melinda Delahoyde, president of Care Net, a network of more than 1,000
pregnancy centers.

Care Net’s pregnancy centers are among the targets of the
pro-choice counteroffensive. New York City’s new disclosure law is “the most
difficult thing we’re facing,” she said. The law, like the one Tryon testified
against in Oregon, requires all pregnancy centers to post in waiting rooms and
in all literature whether they offer or make referrals for abortions,
contraception, and prenatal care. The American Center for Law and Justice is
challenging the constitutionality of the law in federal court.

In January, a federal judge struck down a similar disclosure law
in Baltimore, calling it an unconstitutional violation of free speech and
“viewpoint-based discrimination.”

“It puts onerous regulations on pregnancy centers,” Delahoyde
said. “It opens centers up to costly lawsuits—a right to action by aggrieved
persons. There are very harsh restrictions put up all over against pregnancy
centers, and we know their goal is to shut us down.”

But most of the bills targeting pregnancy centers fail to pass.
Two bills in Virginia—one that proposed to limit the revenue pregnancy centers
receive from license plates, the other to require disclosure that abortions are
not offered at the centers—were withdrawn in March. A resolution praising the
work of pregnancy centers was passed instead. Another disclosure bill in
Washington made it out of committee but failed in the House of
Representatives.

When pro-choice groups can’t get bills passed at the state level,
they look for local municipalities where they can get propositions passed,
Delahoyde said.

Care Net prepares their centers for the legislation, she said. “We
send our public relations and legal people on the road. We provide a united
front at the state house, and that’s very effective.”

Alliance Defense Fund also provides legal help through hundreds of
attorneys connected to local pregnancy centers, she said.

“We train extensively,” Delahoyde said. “We are pressing forward.
Look, there are so many encouraging signs. The pro-choice brand is
eroding.”

Pendulum SwingsWhen Tryon gave birth to her second baby in December 1992, she was
part of a trend. U.S. teen pregnancy rates had swelled to their all-time
high—almost 12 percent of teenage girls—in 1990, according to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Abortion rates peaked at the same time, with 1.4 million abortions
performed in 1990, according to the CDC. Public support of abortion was also
high, with 56 percent of Americans labeling themselves pro-choice, according to
Gallup. Just 33 percent self-identified as pro-life.

Some 20 years after Tryon was a pregnant teenager, the pendulum is
swinging the other way. She is now an articulate leader at a pregnancy center,
wife of a worship pastor, and mother of three school-age children.

“As a teenager, finding myself in an unplanned pregnancy was scary
at best. Thankfully, I turned to a pregnancy resource center that provided not
only free and confidential services to me, but treated me in a fair and
professional manner, provided me life-giving options when I needed them most,
and eased my fears,” she testified before an Oregon Senate committee.

“My life and the life of my unborn baby were forever changed the
minute I called on them for help. After being educated about all of my options,
I chose an adoption plan that not only gave my baby a hope and a future, but it
also gave it to me.

“It is devastating to think that the vital services I received so
many years ago could be torn from those that so desperately need them today. I
urge you to vote ‘No’ on this bill.”

That bill in Oregon never came to a vote. But neither did another
bill calling for a ban on abortions after 19 weeks.

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra is a journalist based in the Chicago
area.

Copyright © 2011 Christianity Today. Click
for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:Previous coverage related to abortion legislation and life
ethics
includes:

State Laws That Lower Abortions | Examining legal measures
enacted to lower abortion rates. (April 4, 2011)

Live Action, Planned Parenthood, and a Year of Change|
Surveying two months of dramatic news on the abortion front in the U.S.
(February 24, 2011)

Abortion Case: Womb vs. Egg | Ethical issues abound in case of
British Columbia couple who wanted surrogate mom to terminate pregnancy after
baby was found to have Down Syndrome. (October 15, 2010)

CT covers more political developments on the politics blog.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, anti-abortion, conservative, Family, fetal development, healthcare, Parenting, personhood, Pregnancy, pro-choice, Sanctity of Life, sex, sex selection

Michelle Bachman: 100% Prolife

Republican
Candidate Michelle Bachmann: “I am 100% pro-life.”

jillstanek.com

I am 100 percent pro-life.
I’ve given birth to five babies, and I’ve taken 23 foster children into my
home. I believe in the dignity of life from conception until natural death. I
believe in the sanctity of human life…

And I think the most eloquent words ever written were those in our
Declaration of Independence that said it’s a creator who endowed us with
inalienable rights given to us from God, not from government. And the beauty of
that is that government cannot take those rights away. Only God can give, and
only God can take…

And the first of those rights is life. And I stand for that right. I
stand for the right to life.
The very few cases that deal with those
exceptions are the very tiniest of fraction of cases, and yet they get
all the attention
. Where all of the firepower is and where the real
battle is, is on the general — genuine issue of taking an innocent human life.
I stand for life from conception until natural death.

~ Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-Minnesota) stating
her pro-life position during the GOP 2012 debate hosted by CNN
as quoted by LifeNews,
June 14

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, adoption, anti-abortion, euthanasia, healthcare, personhood, Pregnancy, pro-choice, Quality of Life, Rape, Sanctity of Life, Social Issues

SB 210 Passes in Senate; Goes to House

Atlanta, GA. –  Georgia Right to Life celebrates the passage of SB 210 Wednesday from the Senate to the House for further consideration.  Entitled The Women’s Private Right of Action Bill, it provides a woman access to financial recovery for illegal abortions and improves compliance with existing abortion laws, among other things.  Authored by Senator Barry Loudermilk, (52), it is considered to be among the first of its kind in the nation.  Georgia Right to Life commends Senator Loudermilk and the Georgia Senate for its continued efforts to further the protection of the citizens of Georgia.

There has been a lot of controversy over the failure of abortion clinics to faithfully carry out existing abortion laws. The Women’s Right to Know Act and The Full Disclosure Ultrasound Act, enacted in 2005 and 2008,  granted women information regarding the abortion procedure and its risks, information regarding the development of the fetus and fetal pain, the probable age of the fetus, and an ultrasound exam among other things.  SB 210 does not restrict or even change existing Georgia laws.  It will, however, give abortion providers extra motivation to uphold the laws that the citizens of Georgia expect them to keep.  Dan Becker, President of Georgia Right to Life, said, “It is encouraging to know that a woman who has been harmed by an abortionist, who has acted in violation of the law, can now recover for the wrongful death of her child.”   The Women’s Private Right of Action Bill passed the Senate 36 – 16 after over 90 minutes of debate.

Georgia Right to Life looks forward to working with the House to help ensure the intent of The Women’s Private Right of Action Bill.

 

Do you want more information?  Email suzanneward@grtl.org

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, anti-abortion, conservative, Family, georgia, Georgia Right to Life, healthcare, Legislation, Parenting, personhood, planned parenthood, Political Action, Pregnancy, Sanctity of Life, Social Issues

Election Fights: The Pill, Abortion, & Religion?

Religious opposition to contraception such as “the pill” and abortion for any reason is a simmering issue as health reform rules for insurance coverage are set and the mid-term elections loom.

Read article here.

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, anti-abortion, Birth Control, breast cancer, catholic, conservative, elections, Family, Feminist, georgia, healthcare, Parenting, personhood, Pregnancy, sex, Social Issues

March of Dimes: Friend or Foe to the Babies?

For years, Georgia Right to Life has held a no-support policy of the March of Dimes (MOD). One of the most frequent questions we are asked is if there is any new information on MOD, or is our boycott is based on old information.

After some recent study, there is new information. However, it does not bode well for the March of Dimes.

Just to refresh you, the MOD boycott began in 1972, because they sponsored and pushed the technique of amniocentesis in order to diagnose handicapped children in the womb, and then 90% to 95% of them were killed. (At that rate, we will not have “Special Olympics” for very much longer.)

We also knew that Henry Foster, who served on the March of Dimes’ Medical Service Advisory committee, admitted doing nearly 700 abortions following the results of amniocentesis.

Amniocentesis is no longer an experimental technique – doctors seem to use this test on nearly every pregnant woman, so the reasons for the MOD boycott have slowly changed.

In 1995, the MOD sent records of all the grants they made for research in the previous two years to Rev. Robert Fleischmann, the national director of WELS Lutherans for Life, hoping that the boycott would be lifted. After they were evaluated, it was discovered that several projects apparently used fetal tissue from aborted babies.

Rev. Fleischmann’s requested that the MOD add an official policy that they would refuse grants for research projects involving the use of tissue from aborted babies – the MOD refused. The MOD lobbies Congress for federal funds (your tax dollars) to use human embryo stem cells in research. To be an organization that claims to have the best interest of children in mind, the MOD doesn’t seem to be protecting the interests of the unborn at all. The MOD is also involved with Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD).

Before human embryos are implanted into the womb by in-vitro fertilization, they are first screened for genetic imperfections or diseases. The human embryos that don’t meet their standards are instead destroyed. During the March of Dimes 2002 Annual Clinical Genetics meeting, they taught a workshop on how to use PGD to identify more genetic diseases. This is truly a “search and destroy” mission.

Another startling discovery is that the MOD is involved with Planned Parenthood.  According to a letter that MOD sent to Tennessee Right to Life, MOD staff and volunteers participate in coalitions along with Planned Parenthood, and some MOD chapters give community grants to the pro-abortion group. In 2006, the MOD released their Global Report on Birth Defects, The Hidden Toll of Dying and Disabled Children. One of strategies it encourages is called “secondary prevention,” which “aims to reduce the number of children born with birth defects.”

Although rarely stated explicitly, one potential ’treatment’ at this stage is frequently implied: abortion. We recognize that some of the things MOD has done are great, but their support of embryonic stem cell research, fetal tissue research, and abortion as an alternative to prenatal abnormalities is as anti-life as you can get.

There is an alternative to the March of Dimes. The Michael Fund is dedicated to intertwining scientific research for the prevention of genetic defects and the pro-life philosophy: Their website is http://www.michaelfund.org/ where you can access more information about what they do to help children in the womb and outside the womb.

There are many non-profits such as the United Way and the Susan G. Komen foundation that donate to Planned Parenthood. If you ever want information on a more complete list of which non-profits support Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry, please visit Life Decisions International’s website www.fightpp.org. Life Decisions International does a great job of keeping an updated list on the various organizations that directly support the abortion industry.

5 Comments

Filed under abortion, eugenics, Georgia Right to Life, healthcare, Parenting, personhood, Sanctity of Life

Georgia Senate Passes SB 529, Coercion and Prenatal Non-Discrimination Ban

March 26,2010
Contact: Catherine Davis 770-339-6880

Lawrenceville, GA – Today the Georgia Senate passed SB 529, a bill which would ban abortion in cases where the woman was coerced against her will into aborting her child. It would also ban abortion for gender selection, as well racially discriminatory abortion. It passed by a vote of 33 yeas and 14 nays. Senator Chip Pearson was the sponsor of SB 529 which is the Senate version of House Bill 1155.

Besides seeking to address the issues of coerced abortions and abortions performed because of the race, gender, or color of the child, the bill provides enforcement of the existing law regarding the Women’s Right to Know. The bill also gives the women who have been coerced the opportunity to bring suit against abortionists who violate Georgia Law.

“According to the CDC, of the 38 states that report, Georgia is currently leading the nation in abortions in the black community. African-Americans make up 30% of the population and 59% of the abortions. In 2008, according to the Georgia Division of Health, 18,901 abortions were performed on black women. SB 529 seeks to protect these women and their children, from making decisions they did not want to make,” said Catherine Davis, Director of Minority Outreach at Georgia Right to Life.

“No child should be aborted because of his or her race, sex, or color. If it’s wrong to discriminate in the workplace, in housing and in education because of race or sex, it should be wrong to discriminate against a child because she was born the wrong sex,” noted Dan Becker, President of Georgia Right to Life.  “It would appear that even pro-abortion advocates share this perspective” said Becker, “Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, recently stated, ‘Unfortunately with technology, parents are able to use sonograms to determine the sex of a baby, and to abort girl children simply because they’d rather have a boy.’”

The timeliness of this policy debate is evidenced by last week’s edition of The Economist magazine and its featured cover story, “Gendercide: What Happened to 100 Million Baby Girls?” No less than four articles address the issue of gender selection abortions.  They noted, “For those who oppose abortion, this is mass murder. For those such as this newspaper, who think abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”, a lot depends on the circumstances, but the cumulative consequence for societies of such individual actions is catastrophic.” “We agree.” said Becker.

This bill now moves to the Georgia House.

Georgia Right to Life (www.grtl.org) promotes respect and effective legal protection for all human life from its earliest biological beginning through natural death. GRTL is one of the numbers of organizations that have adopted Personhood (www.personhood.net) as the most effective pro-life strategy for the 21st century.

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, African American, Birth Control, discrimination, eugenics, Family, georgia, Georgia Right to Life, healthcare, Parenting, personhood, planned parenthood, Pregnancy, pro-choice, Quality of Life, Rape, Sanctity of Life, sex

The Two Lists: When It’s “Okay” to Have a Baby

by Jennifer Fulwiler
 
Of all the things I remember about the Texas March for Life in Austin last January, the memory that stands out the most is the look on the faces of the counter-protesters who followed us along Congress Avenue and down to the capitol that frosty morning. When I glanced over to see the source of the epithets that were being screamed at us, I met the eyes of one young woman wearing a black bandana over the bottom half of her face. She happened to look over and meet my gaze, and in her eyes I saw one thing: hatred.
 
I was caught off guard when my gut response to her rage-filled glare was one of sympathy. In fact, I realized as she turned away to continue yelling angry pro-choice slogans that I knew the source of the rage behind her eyes and had even felt it recently.
 
Until a couple of years ago, I was militantly pro-choice. When I heard people make anti-abortion statements, it filled me with a white-hot anger that I could barely contain. Behind my views was a buried but unspoken sense that there was something inherently unfair about being a woman, and abortion was a key to maintaining any semblance of a level playing field in the world.
 
My peers and I were taught not that sex creates babies, but that unprotected sex creates babies. We absorbed through cultural osmosis the idea that every normal person will have sex at some point in his or her life, and that the sexual act, by default, has no significance outside the relationship between the two people involved. In this worldview, when unexpected pregnancies came up, it was seen as a sort of betrayal by the woman’s body. My friends and I lamented the awful position every woman was in: Unexpected pregnancies were like lightning strikes, and when one of these unpredictable events did occur, there were no good options for dealing with them. Abortion wasn’t ideal — even we acknowledged that it was a violating procedure that was hard on a woman’s body — but what choice did anyone have? To not have the option of terminating surprise pregnancies when they came up out of nowhere would mean being a slave to one’s biology.
 
My staunch support of these views did not soften until a few years ago, when a religious conversion after a life of atheism led me to the Catholic Church. I began researching the ancient Judeo-Christian understanding of human sexuality, in which the sexual act is seen as being inextricably entwined with its potential for creating new human life. The more I considered this point of view, the more I questioned my long-held views. In fact, I started to see the catastrophic mistake our society had made when we started believing that the life-giving potential of the sexual act could be safely forgotten about as long as people use contraception. It would be like saying that guns could be used as toys as long as long as there are blanks in the chamber. Teaching people to use something with tremendous power nonchalantly, as a casual plaything, had set women up for disaster.
 
The gravity of this error became clear to me when I came across research that Time magazine published in 2007, citing data from the Guttmacher Institute that showed the most common reasons women have abortions. It immediately struck me that none of the factors on the list — not feeling capable of parenting, not being able to afford a baby, not being in a relationship stable enough to raise a child — were conditions that we encourage women to consider before engaging in sexual activity.
 
 
It was then that I could finally articulate the source of the anger I’d felt all these years. In every society, there are two critical lists: acceptable conditions for having a baby, and acceptable conditions for having sex. From time immemorial, the one thing that almost every society had in common is that their two lists matched up. It was only with the widespread acceptance of contraception in the middle of the 20th century, creating an upheaval in the public psyche in which sex and babies no longer went hand-in-hand, that the two lists began to diverge. And now, in 21st-century America, they look something like this:
 
Conditions under which it is acceptable to have sex:
  • If you’re in a stable relationship
  • If you feel emotionally ready
  • If you’re free of sexually transmitted diseases
  • If you have access to contraception
Conditions under which it is acceptable to have a baby:
  • If you can afford it
  • If you’ve finished your education
  • If you feel emotionally ready to parent a child
  • If your partner would make a good parent
  • If you’re ready for all the lifestyle changes that would be involved with parenthood
As long as those two lists do not match, we will live in a culture where abortion is common and where women are at war with their own bodies.
 
Considering the disparity between the two lists made me begin to see the level of damage that contraception and the mentality it produces have done to women as individuals and as a group. I thought of the several friends whom I’d helped procure abortions, how each was scared and caught off guard, overwhelmed with a feeling of “I never signed up for a pregnancy,” angry at a faceless enemy. They had followed all of society’s rules, yet still ended up in a gut-wrenching position. We hated the anti-abortion zealots because we thought they tried to take away women’s freedom; what we didn’t understand is that women’s freedom had already been taken, when society bought the lie that sex is primarily about bonding and pleasure, and that its life-giving potential is tangential and optional.
 
In an article published by the Guttmacher Institute’s Family Planning Perspectives, John A. Ross estimates that a woman using contraception with a 1 percent risk of failure has a 70 percent chance of experiencing an unwanted pregnancy over the course of 10 years. Guttmacher also reports that more than half of women seeking abortions were using a contraceptive method when they got pregnant. As soon as we as a society accepted contraception, a large-scale game of Russian roulette began, with women and their unexpected children as the players with the guns to their heads.
 
Austin’s March for Life was this past Saturday; I wonder if the girl with the black bandana was there again this year. I wish I could offer to buy her a cup of coffee and tell her that I think she’s right to sense that something deeply unfair is afoot in our society, and that nothing less than women’s freedom is at stake.
 


This article was reprinted with permission from InsideCatholic.com. The original article can be found by clicking here.  Jennifer Fulwiler is the author of
ConversionDiary.com, where she writes about her experiences with Catholicism after a life of atheism.

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, anti-abortion, Birth Control, healthcare, Parenting, Pregnancy, pro-choice, sex