The Fault Line hasn't changed for abortion

Willian Saletan declares there’s a fault line among pro-lifers, whom he divides between militants, defined as the folks “shooting doctors” – a rather small group – and pragmatists, the folks supporting President Obama’s efforts at abortion reduction. Not much room for nuance there.

The latter group, says Saletan, are the one behind the proposed Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act. “Among other things,” Saletan writes, “pro-choicers got money for contraception and sex education. Pro-lifers,” not the militant but the pragmatic sort, “got abstinence-friendly curriculum, a bigger adoption tax credit, and financial support for women who continue their pregnancies.” [William Saletan, “Culture of Death: The right-wing assault on abortion reduction,” Slate Magazine, July 27, 2009]

Cristina Page has similar rhetoric but a different fault line. She believes that Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH), a co-sponsor of the bill, is “in many ways, a typical pro-life American. He opposes abortion and, because of that, supports every effort to prevent the need for it. Just like most pro-life Americans, Ryan supports contraception – primarily because it is the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and thereby abortion.”

Ryan, she says, has discovered a “new fault line” in the pro-life community, between those who are “pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or …pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people’s lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.”[Cristina Page, “The Splintering of the Pro-Life Movement,” OnCommonGround, blog of RH Reality Check (website project of the United Nations Foundation for advancing sexual and reproductive rights), July 28, 2009]

Whichever fault line you fault, however, the rift appears to be wistful thinking. Pro-lifers – who, in this context, I will define as anyone opposed to legalized fetal killing – are remarkably unified against the proposed legislation. The Democrats for Life of America (DFLA), for instance, was so disturbed by Congressman Tim Ryan’s introduction of the legislation that they have removed him from their board. “DFLA gave Congressman Ryan ample opportunities to prove he’s committed to protecting life, but he has turned his back on the community at every turn,” said Kristen Day, DFLA’s executive director.

American Life League’s Judie Brown writes, “[T]his legislative proposal is somewhat appealing to those who might claim they are pro-life for political purposes, but are not truly dedicated to protecting preborn children as persons. …the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops [as pragmatic a bunch of pro-lifers there ever was] is opposing it.”

Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee, pointed out that “the actual provisions of the bill – once you get past the label – would provide additional federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood, the nation's major abortion-provider. So in summary, this is really a bill intended to provide political cover for pro-abortion politicians and financial gains for the abortion industry.”

The folks stumping for the bill, on the other hand, are consistently pro-abortion – not defined as people who like abortions but as people who are supportive of legalized fetal killing whenever a pregnant woman choices to do so. Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice – a pro-abortion group by this definition – says he “is delighted to give our backing to the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act. …that will help to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and support women and men who want to have children.” Yeah, sure it will.

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) is also highly enthusiastic, describing the bill as “reaching across the divide to find common-ground solutions to prevent unintended pregnancy.” Planned Parenthood Federation of America and SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, founded in 1964 to promote sexuality education, agree.

The pro-lifers are still pro-life and the pro-aborts, clearly, are still demanding “reproductive rights.” The only thing that’s changed is that the pro-abortion camp thinks by sounding a more “pro-life” and using the lovely title of “abortion reduction” they’ll catch less flack from the other side.

The rift lies in the hearts of those who, having no respect for the pro-life movement, are really, really, really uncomfortable with being called “pro-abortion.” That’s not a new fault-line but one that’s been around for far too long.

Stephanie Block is the editor of Los Pequenos, a newspaper based in New Mexico, and a founder of the Catholic Media Coalition.