The Planned Parenthood Media Machine

We found out yesterday that the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation had plans to cease funding Planned Parenthood grants. We also found out that Planned Parenthood has the media wrapped around its little finger. We heard how "thousands of women... [may] pay the biggest price" for Komen's decision. We heard about all those poor women who will no longer have access to breast cancer screenings. We heard how Komen was giving into right-wing propaganda.

On facebook, faithful (read: brainless) supporters of Planned Parenthood posted pictures like this to express their disdain for pro-lifers:

And Planned Parenthood made the controversy into a fundraiser.

Here are some facts:

1. Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms. This fact doesn't prevent people in the media from mindlessly repeating that "37 million poor women may not be able to get mammography."
2. Planned Parenthood does sell abortions. Why, they even sell gift cards!
3. Planned Parenthood is under federal investigation for offenses ranging from misallocation of funds to covering up statutory rape and sex trafficking.

Now let's process these facts. Does a person who supports health care for women have to support Planned Parenthood? No. Should a responsible person be concerned about the ethical implications of Planned Parenthood's business practices? Yes.

Today, however, SGK announced that they are reversing their decision. Jill Stanek thinks this isn't quite what it seems. She says, "This is Komen’s attempt to get the abortion mafia off their backs."

And there you have it. "The abortion mafia." That is exactly what PP is running, and has been for years.

A lot of us (including myself) spend a lot of time worrying about all the special interest groups that run our country, including the big businesses that get a lot of money funneled into their bank accounts. Why is Planned Parenthood considered angelic by so many people on the left? As if they are any more than an ideological organization bent on promoting their agenda of greater tolerance for irresponsible sexual behavior and, of course, abortion.

Poor women can get health care through numerous channels. If PP is their only recourse for sexual health, then friends, we call that a monopoly. And no one likes government funded monopolies, do they? Especially when such a monopoly is explicitly ideologically driven.

So when do we get to call PP exactly what it is? It's a big, evil, scary corporation. And it wants your undying loyalty, so that you can never imagine how we would ever live without them.

Abortion advocates target "false advertising"

Every once in a while, I see things happening on the abortion issue that I can oppose both on pro-life and libertarian grounds. For example, as this article explains,

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have reintroduced a bill (first introduced in 2007) that would require the Federal Trade Commission to “promulgate rules to prohibit, as an unfair and deceptive act or practice, any person from advertising with the intent to deceptively create the impression that such person is a provider of abortion services if such person does not provide abortion services.”

Exactly what kind of deception in advertising have crisis pregnancy centers ever committed?

NARAL’s website, for example, says that crisis pregnancy centers “often mislead women into believing that they provide a full range of reproductive-health services. They do so by using questionable advertising tactics and providing dishonest or evasive answers when women call to inquire about their services.”

"Questionable advertising tactics"? "Evasive answers"? Oh, the injustice!

There is simply no hard evidence of pregnancy centers directly misrepresenting themselves. It is simple enough to ask, "Do you perform abortions?" and there is not one instance of a pregnancy center claiming, "Yes, we do." It is extremely hypocritical to ask that crisis pregnancy centers should be any more up front about what they are than abortion clinics, which often have names like "Charlottesville Medical Center For Women" or "Annandale Women and Family Center." Funny how they generally avoid the word "abortion" in their names.

Why exactly do we need government intervention in this matter? I think the answer is quite simple, really: money. Some might speculate that here is another example of abortion advocates militantly trying to suppress their ideological opponents. That may be true, but I would venture to say that it probably just comes down to business trying to protect its own interest. Clear the competition when it comes to advertising, and you can more effectively attract customers.

In general, we don't need government regulations helping businesses gain bigger profits. In particular, we certainly don't need government regulations protecting the abortion industry from competition in advertising. It would appear that the pro-"choice" movement is really quite the opposite of what the name suggests. Not only do they want the government to protect their businesses from free competition, they also believe that we're too dumb to choose what kind of "family planning" services we actually want.

An unbridgeable divide

Last night I had what was to me a pretty bizarre experience. Google alerts included a link to a question on fluther.com, a totally general web forum which I had never heard of before. This question came from a 24 year-old grad student who is scheduled to have an abortion.

A 24 year-old grad student. Second year of a PhD program. Maybe that's why I bothered to read this; this very easily could be one of my classmates.

What she wanted to know was what having an abortion was like from other people who'd had abortions. The truly bizarre thing was her tone. Here is what she wrote:

So, what can I expect during and after all of this? How long will it be until I am back to “normal”? What kind of pain can I expect during and after? Is it likely my boyfriend and I will be able to go out to lunch on the ride home, or will I be completely out of commission? How can I expect to feel Saturday afternoon? Will I be ready to go out and enjoy Saturday evening? What will Sunday be like? Will I be ready to return to work on Monday? Also, Is there anything I should do in advance (eating / not eating)?

Thanks in advance for sharing your stories! <3

I read through literally all the comments on this post, and I was truly fascinated to see the conversation unfold. This girl confessed in her comments that this decision to have an abortion was not hard at all. She'd thought it out completely in advance, and knew that if she got pregnant she would have an abortion. Simple as that.

There was quite a range of responses to this, of course. Most of the commenters were pro-choice, but that didn't keep some of them from being bewildered by the seeming ease with which this girl came to such a decision. That led to some interesting and sometimes heart-wrenching stories being exchanged.

One story in particular was from a woman who truly regretted her abortion, and shared that experience of regret. She did not indicate that she was pro-life; her initial comment was,

I support your right to choose too, but it’s certainly not something I, personally, would be running around telling people everybody and their brother with the same attitude of “How do you make chocolate chip cookies?”

Then in her next comment she shared what life after the abortion was like for her, which was so poignant.

I was rather taken aback at how many people dismissed this as unhelpful, and even chastised the woman for being judgmental. It could just be the pure insanity that grips most people who post on web forums, but something was seriously distorting the way these people viewed this conversation.

From reading other comments on this post, I realized that there is a fundamental divide in our country on this question: what is this creature?

At first it would appear to be a totally empirical question, but it ends up being a democratic one. It is really only if the strong majority of Americans can agree that the creature is human that we will work to protect it. (Or am I being too speciesist?)

I suppose the reason I think about and blog on abortion so much is that this really is a fundamental question. Yes, or no. Human, or not human. Live, or die. There is no in between. The law of the excluded middle could not be so painfully clear.

People on both sides of this question seem to wonder how on earth those on the opposite side could be such terrible people. Sometimes I have a hard time figuring out which side feels stronger. My first thought would be the pro-life side, but sometimes I'm not so sure.

Pro-lifers often don't understand that pro-choicers can seriously feel violated by what is perceived to be an invasive demand made by pro-lifers. A woman's fundamental human dignity at stake. Without her right to her own body, what dignity does she have?

Pro-choicers, on the other hand, don't appear to understand that pro-lifers seriously believe humans are being killed by these personal choices. If you believe fellow humans are being killed by something, is it a virtue to keep silent, to leave it all up to personal choice?

With so much at stake on both sides, what middle ground can we possibly hope for? If the unborn truly possesses basic human dignity, then how can there possibly be justification for abortion? But if the unborn is purely property of the woman, then how can there possibly be justification for taking away her right to choose?

There are a couple of temptations for humans faced with this extreme dilemma. One is the "deep down" hypothesis. This is the belief that "deep down" people on the other side know they're wrong, and for one reason or another are clinging to something they know is wrong.

Sometimes this temptation causes us to go on crusades to try to convert people, which isn't so bad, really, except that we fail to realize the huge divide we're trying to cross. Other times the "deep down" hypothesis leads us to make moral attacks on each other, as when pro-choicers attack pro-lifers for being crazy and judgmental, and pro-lifers attack pro-choicers for being selfish and callous.

Another temptation is to write off people on the other side as hopeless. The end result is both sides viewing each other as strategic targets that need to be eliminated in the war for America's conscience.

At this point many piously open-minded intellectuals would want to step back and search for common ground, as if to defy the law of the excluded middle. I am afraid, however, that despite my ability to view the issue from the other side, reality doesn't afford me the luxury of actually supporting both sides at once.

This is why it doesn't surprise me when even groups like Feminists for Life are treated as extremists pushing a dangerous agenda. There can be no compromise. Even seemingly friendly organizations are suspect.

The soul that longs to cultivate love for all humanity is heart-broken by realizations like these. The temptation arises to simply avoid controversial issues like this, to refuse to pick a side. But I find that ultimately such a choice cannot be the loving one. Can either side possibly view that as genuine love for human beings?

Thus I find it positively draining on my soul to be passionate about this issue. Yet I persist, possibly in the tradition of Martin Luther, that "it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience." But how can anyone who stops to reflect not wonder, is my conscience so much better than theirs?

As much as I wish answers to these questions would fall out of the sky, I can't hold my breath. If there is any value in personal integrity, then I have to act on the personal conviction that it simply makes no sense to kill something before it "becomes" human. What makes sense to me is that scientifically speaking the unborn is human, and morally speaking every human is a person.

I can, in theory, imagine believing that such is not the case, but I can't live in such thought experiments. All I can do, I suppose, is take away a certain amount of empathy from hearing various opinions, and try to translate that empathy into acts of love.

Beyond this, there is nothing I can do to bridge this wretched divide.

True Pro-Choice Response to Tebow's Ad

Google alerts fills me in daily on what's going around the web related to abortion and other political issues. Lately it seems half the articles tagged "abortion" are articles criticizing the decision to have Tim Tebow's story appear in a 30-second ad during the Super Bowl. There's been quite a lot of backlash from pro-choicers, including some who go so far as to imply Tebow's story isn't true.

But there has been some very reasonable response from the pro-choice camp. A New York Times editorial entitled "Super Bowl Censorship" argues that it was a good thing that CBS allowed the ad.

The would-be censors are on the wrong track. Instead of trying to silence an opponent, advocates for allowing women to make their own decisions about whether to have a child should be using the Super Bowl spotlight to convey what their movement is all about: protecting the right of women like Pam Tebow to make their private reproductive choices.

CBS was right to change its policy of rejecting paid advocacy commercials from groups other than political candidates. After the network screens ads for accuracy and taste, viewers can watch and judge for themselves. Or they can get up from the couch and get a sandwich.

Can't say it any better than those last two sentences, you know?

Another article from the Washington Post, written by the former president of NARAL Pro-choice America and the former president of Catholics for Choice, argues that the pro-choice movement needs to stop whining about the ad and adopt a similar strategy.

Women's and choice groups responding to the Tebow ad should take a page from the Focus on the Family playbook. Erin Matson, the National Organization for Women's new vice president, called the Tebow spot "hate masquerading as love." That kind of comment may play well in the choice choir, but to others, it makes no sense, at best; at worst, it's seen as the kind of stridency that reinforces the view that pro-choice simply means pro-abortion.

For me, Erin Matson's comment fits both of those descriptions: it makes no sense, and it reinforces my view that pro-choice often simply means pro-abortion. But I'm glad to see pro-choicers arguing for a more reasonable stance.

The other nice thing about the Post article is how in-depth it goes talking about the recent history of attitudes toward abortion. For one thing, they admit that science has taught us a lot about the abortion issue:

Today, the first picture in most baby books is the 12-week 3D ultrasound, and Grandma and Grandpa have that photo posted on the fridge. We read about successful fetal surgery; we don't read about women dying in pools of blood on their bathroom floors after botched abortions, as we did when the procedure was illegal.

And for another thing, they give a nice free shout-out to Feminists for Life:

Groups such as Feminists for Life started out relatively small but invested heavily in reaching out to college students, talking not about making abortion illegal but about helping college women keep their babies. Their pro-life message wasn't exclusively anti-abortion; it was anti-capital-punishment, antiwar, for saving the whales, for not eating meat and for supporting mothers.

Advances in science and the development of a coherent, progressive pro-life ethic are two things that get me excited about the pro-life movement. It makes me happy that folks on the other side are noticing those things, too.

As I read these articles I began to think, as I often do, about the issue of common ground between pro-lifers and pro-choicers. Ultimately, I know that I can't compromise my views on abortion, mainly because of the nature of the act. One decision can end the life of a human being in the womb; once that's done, that human being will never live again.

But there is certainly common ground on this issue. Common ground doesn't mean compromise. It just means there are certain things that people on both sides understand. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers can both see how beautiful it is for a child to be raised in a loving family. Both can see how hard pregnancy is. Both can see how heart-wrenching it can be when the issue of fetal deformities comes up. Both can understand "that life without tough choices doesn't exist."

Sure, it's hard to know what to do with that common ground, since fundamentally there is no compromise on this issue. But coming from a pro-life perspective, I know it's important to recognize this common ground because we need to continually set before our eyes the humanity of our opponents.

We are pro-life; we respect the true dignity of all human beings. This can't just be an abstract principle. It has to be put into practice through civility in our public discourse, and through genuine understanding of the struggles that lead to abortion. The goal is not simply to prevent one act of violence, but to promote human flourishing more generally.

I sure hope that's something we can all agree on. Anyway, try not to let all the controversy ruin the Super Bowl for you.

Young pro-life activists

As if to clarify my point from earlier, a pro-choice opinion column from the Washington Post just came out reflecting on the high number of young people at the March for Life on Friday. It's not hard to see why this would be scary for pro-choicers. Yes, young pro-lifers are excited and adamant about the issue of abortion.

It's encouraging to see the mainstream media get nervous about this issue. Finally, someone is listening. I guess that means I might as well keep blogging, letting all of you out there know, this movement is here to stay.

My hope is that as pro-choicers encounter young pro-life activists, they'll begin to realize that our reasons for being pro-life have nothing to do with maintaining traditional gender roles, trying to attack feminism, or trying to convert the nation to our religion. Once all these false stereotypes are cleared away, and people start hearing the real message, I feel confident that one day, we pro-lifers will have the victory.

Pro-lifers gain a slight majority

Gallup has released a poll showing that a slight majority of Americans now self-identify as "pro-life." This has never happened since Gallup started polling this issue back in 1995.

I was curious about why this happened, and Gallup has some interesting theories. They point out that over the past year the number of Republicans self-identifying as "pro-life" has increased by 10%, whereas Democrats haven't shifted much on the issue. They offer this explanation:

"With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans -- and, in particular, Republicans -- seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.

It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction."

It's an interesting short-run analysis, but what I'm interested in is the long-run. The fact is, Gallup polling shows that there has been a roughly steady shift over the past 14 years toward the pro-life side. What does this mean?

One thing that makes these data complicated to analyze is that political orientation also changes over time, just as views on specific issues do. So it's not really sound to say, "Liberals didn't change their views on this." Maybe there are people out there who used to identify as liberal, but then changed their position on abortion, and so now they guess they're politically moderate, even though their basic outlook has remained the same in a lot of ways. You get the idea.

In any case, even if liberals really haven't budged on this issue (20% of them still identify as pro-life, by the way), moderates surely have (45% pro-life, up from 38% last year), and it really doesn't make sense to me to explain this using Barack Obama. For whatever reason (I can think of a couple), Obama is attractive to a lot of moderates (even Republicans), and I just don't see them becoming more pro-life because they're turned off by his political agenda.

What's most significant, in my opinion, is the shift in views on the actual question of when abortion should be legal. Some people have strange definitions of "pro-life" and "pro-choice," but there's no denying what these data mean:

• Last year, 28% of Americans said abortion should be legal in all circumstances. This year, only 22% said so.
• Last year, only 17% of Americans said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. This year, 23% said so.

This represents a clear shift in actual opinion among Americans, not just a shift in self-labeling. In order to explain this, I just don't think you can deny the power of peaceful vigils like 40 Days for Life, the passionate presence of Students for Life of America, or the compassionate work of Feminists for Life.

I think the bottom line is, pro-lifers on the ground are getting it done, changing opinions with facts, with passion, and with compassion. Folks like Planned Parenthood are getting so desperate as to call for days of protest against charitable organizations that give women free resources for pregnancy and parenting. It's kind of sad.

Ideally, people would stop seeing this as a war between pro-life and pro-choice. But, as Barack Obama so tactfully pointed out at his Notre Dame graduation speech, "at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable." Maybe pro-lifers really do just have to keep fighting to make themselves heard. The evidence shows it's working.