Twittering About Having a Miscarriage? You've Got to be Kidding, Right?
Part Two of Three

By Dave Andrusko

I've been writing and blogging about the life issues so long that I am rarely surprised by anything. But I'm beginning to realize that I've either led a very sheltered life or there more people howling at the moon than I ever thought. Yet it is also true that I continue to learn that even the most callous sounding remarks may be disguising a profound ambivalence.

That latter possibility, however, does not apply to a letter to the editor of the Washington Post Saturday . He congratulated a woman, a serial aborter about whom the Post had done a long profile, for making the right choice.

Irene Vilar might have "traumatized herself" along the way by what Vilar herself has called her abortion "addiction," but (the letter writer contends) "Even if she had had only several of those 15 aborted children, what are the odds that they, too, would have been traumatized by having a mother who was not only not ready to be a parent but was herself traumatized?" Pardon? 

Penelope Trunk

The writer ends, "In my view, the story was not nauseating. Rather, it was uplifting: Someone who was damaged had the resources to recognize that, because she was not ready to be a parent, she should not turn her mistakes into traumatized children."

I tried re-reading this, but it made no more sense--let alone ethical sense--the fourth time through. Then there is Penelope Trunk.

Vilar is telling us her story via her new book and pr-publication interviews, such as the one she gave to Manuel Roig-Franzia of the Post (about which we will talk further tomorrow). Trunk is  CEO of the Internet career advice firm Brazen Careerist, and someone who has 20,000 Twitter followers.

Her 15 minutes of fame began when she sent out a foul-mouthed Tweet announcing : "I'm in a board meeting. Having a miscarriage. Thank goodness, because there's a f*****-up 3-week hoop-jump to have an abortion in Wisconsin.

Most of the controversy has revolved around the wisdom/taste/propriety of using a social networking forum limited to 140 characters to talk about something as profoundly personal and deeply private as the loss of a baby. Our concern here, however, is what she said in her defense, and what may lie beneath her cavalier remarks.

Trunk starts from the premise that language is liberating, especially for women.

"Throughout history, the way women have gained control of the female experience is to talk about what is happening, and what it's like," she subsequently wrote for the Telegraph. "We see that women's lives are more enjoyable, more full, and women are more able to summon resilience when women talk openly about their lives."

Besides, most miscarriages will happen at work anyway and talking about career and family is what she does. So, there, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Of course, this omits the larger context into which she places her decision. Divorced with two children, she's had a couple of abortions already, and was ready to go to Chicago (because of the "hoop-jump" in Wisconsin) to have a third.
Her argument is then everyone should be happy. "It seems like everyone in the whole world would prefer a miscarriage over an abortion--even the Pope," she told CNN. Besides, "It's no different to me saying what I had for lunch."

Her breeziness (it was a "public service announcement," she quipped) upset some pro-abortion feminists not known for their squeamishness, but other feminists (or sometimes the same feminist at different times) are conflicted.

This "matter-of-fact way of talking about abortion is so unheard of that it's jarring even to the ears of a die-hard pro-choicer," wrote one. But "I've heard women talk about abortions this way with their friends, of course, but never on national television," and, besides, "honestly, it's refreshing."

Conclusion? Reducing the [male] CNN interviewer to "basically throw[ing] up his hands in defeat here" is just too good to let go.

However, at other times, Trunk takes a much different tone, although never strictly an apologetic one. She tells us one of her young children has autism. At her age (42) the likelihood of the next baby having autism is 90%--and the odds have having a baby with Down is much higher than if Trunk were younger.

And, for whatever reason, Trunk tells us that her boyfriend cried. "He doesn't believe in abortion."

She also tells us that between the births of her two children, she had a miscarriage, "and I thought I was never going to recover. I remember the ultrasound technician's face when she saw the baby was dead. I knew before she told me: I screamed and had to be put in a separate room at the doctor's office because I had a panic attack and nearly fainted. I was inconsolable for days. I was scared I'd never have another child. I hated myself for not trying to have children sooner."

I have no great conclusion, except the obvious one: there is a great deal more going on in her heart and her head than she lets on. My guess is that while supposedly reducing the CNN host to the status of a blithering idiot may make pro-abortion feminists coo with delight, it masks a deep ambivalence in Trunk's soul.

Please send your thoughts to daveandrusko@gmail.com. 

Part Three
Part One