|
NRL News
Do You
Know the Way to the Moral High Ground? On January 22, the retired leaders of two abortion industry organizations offered strategic advice to pro-choice forces in the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times on how to “regain the moral high ground.” Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, and Kate Michelman, former NARAL head, scan the 40-year “war” between “choice” and “life,” identifying the tactical mistakes of the movement they helped lead. The candor is refreshing, but they rehash discredited abortion myths and remain oblivious to why the pro-choice side can never prevail, much less capture “the moral high ground.” Choice can never defeat life. Killing one’s children to indulge in a commitment-free lifestyle, or for financial reasons, or career advancement, or other pretexts, is too heavy a price for parents to bear. “Choice” is fundamentally opposed to human nature and dignity. It is a betrayal of one’s child and one’s humanity, as grieving mothers and fathers have discovered. Thankfully, healing and peace are possible after abortion. Project Rachel and similar ministries help thousands annually. Let’s take a look at the myths Mses. Kissling and Michelman continue to spin. Mythperception 1: “The United States has some of the most restrictive policies on abortion in the developed world. In contrast to Europe … the Supreme Court has upheld state laws that require parental consent or notification, mandatory waiting periods and antiabortion counseling.” The facts: European abortion laws are typically far more restrictive than U.S. laws. Only Canada (with no federal law) and a few communist states have abortion laws more permissive than our own. Ireland, Poland, Spain, and Malta ban or restrict abortion to a few narrow categories. Most European countries limit abortion access to the early months of pregnancy: Portugal (10 weeks); Italy (90 days); Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Norway, and Switzerland (12 weeks); and Austria, Belgium, France, and Germany (14 weeks). The Netherlands and Great Britain are the exceptions at 22 and 24 weeks, respectively. Thereafter, abortion is typically allowed only with the permission of a medical board and only under narrow circumstances—serious risk to the mother’s life or physical health or serious fetal anomalies—unlike the U.S. where abortion remains essentially legal for all 40 weeks for any reason. Parental authorization for a minor’s abortion is the norm, required in 14 countries in western and central Europe. Compulsory “anti-abortion counseling” and mandatory waiting periods are typically only 24 hours under U.S. state laws. Waiting periods range from 3 days (Germany) to 5–7 days in other Western European countries. Mythperception 2: “The court’s 2007 decision on so-called partial-birth abortions was an unprecedented infringement on physician autonomy.” The facts: This concern rings hollow: Both ladies oppose a physician’s conscience right to refuse to perform, and refer for, abortions; they even sought mandatory abortion training in medical school as a condition of accreditation. Mythperception 3: “We are the ones actually doing things to make it possible for women to avoid needing abortions.” The facts: What, like urging Congress to subsidize Planned Parenthood’s billion-dollar business and fighting every type of state and federal regulation that does reduce abortions? Let’s turn now to what Mses. Kissling and Michelman have to say about cultural and strategic developments in the past 35 years. Public opinion, they claim, shifted from “broad support for legal abortion to strong support for restricting access.” Here is what they offer as proof: “Twenty years ago, being pro-life was déclassé. Now it is a respectable point of view.” Funny, I always thought this struggle was about protecting vulnerable lives. Apparently it’s really about looking “respectable.” I, for one, will sleep much better knowing that I’ve shed my déclassé image. The authors continue: Did abortion opponents “simply respond more effectively to the changing science … ?” Changing science? The pro-life movement didn’t need to “respond” to “changing science.” The essentials haven’t changed. Science established that human life begins at conception almost 200 years ago. Well before 1973, science showed the unborn child as a developing human being, with a beating heart (at 22 days) and recordable brain waves (at 42 days). The only relevant scientific advance was that ultrasound imaging allowed millions more people to see through the abortion industry’s lies and discover the child’s humanness. Thoughtful messaging? Mses. Kissling and Michelman claim that pro-life strategy has shifted from the language of “murdering babies” to noting that “caring societies … seek to expand inclusion into ‘the human community.’ … Why not welcome the fetus (who, after all, is us) into our community?” Now that is an excellent question, which, regrettably, they choose not to answer. But pro-life rhetoric has not “shifted.” Pro-lifers have always used a broad array of arguments, from the blunt to the philosophical, to win over pro-choice people. Slogan or way of life? Mses. Kissling and Michelman see John Paul’s exhortation to build a “culture of life” as a successful “slogan.” It’s far more than that. It’s a way of ordering human society based on mutual respect and concern for others, especially those whose need and vulnerability should elicit our loving response. Now for their advice to abortion supporters: 1. Convince “America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimension of abortion.” Great. Pro-lifers win when we dialogue, because the truth eventually wins out. 2. Convince “people that we are the ones actually doing things to make it possible for women to avoid needing abortions.” 3. Instead of defending “every individual abortion decision,” defend the woman’s “right to make the decision,” because “women can be trusted.” We ask: Why should any woman or man ever be entrusted with the power to decide whether to kill an innocent child? 4. “If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground, genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement. … [Our pro-choice defense needs] greater openness regarding the real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility.” My advice for Mses. Kissling and Michelman: When you’re done examining the “real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility,” if you’re still having trouble finding the moral high ground, follow the signpost up ahead—the one that reads “Choose Life.” The road isn’t always easy, but once there you’ll rediscover life, joy, justice and mercy, hope, love, and lasting peace in your souls and with others. Let’s pray for, and be ready to welcome, our pro-choice friends into a true Culture of Life. Susan Wills is assistant director of education and outreach for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities. |