An Open Heart (Part 2): The Topic Of Abortion From The Perspective Of A Pro-Life Democratic Woman
By Corey Thompson, filed in Abigail Adams, Guest Features on Dec.11, 2008
***(Editor’s Note: Abigail Adams is a Guest Columnist for “The Thirsty Quill,” and works outside Washington, D.C. in the non-profit sector. She has a degree in Public Policy Analysis, and has worked in both Democratic politics and the Pro-Life movement for five years. She is a self-proclaimed “Liberal Democrat Feminist,” yet she is also a champion for multiple Pro-Life causes and organizations. And while ‘The Quill’ recognizes some stark differences in political opinion with Abigail, we stand with her in this arena (anti-abortion), and we look forward to publishing more of her editorials in the future.***
“An Open Heart (Part 2): The Topic Of Abortion From The Perspective Of A Pro-Life Democratic Woman”
By: Abigail Adams, Guest Columnist
It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel…hopeful…
Many of us Pro-Lifers recoiled in fear last month as the Presidential Election results rolled across our television screens. Barack Obama, a Democratic Senator with what Congressional Quarterly called “the most liberal voting record in the Senate,” had been elected to the nation’s highest office.
The apprehension of that moment had been building for months. The Pro-Life movement had mobilized to prevent it. James Dobson, head of the evangelical organization, Focus on the Family, had even issued an apocalyptic prophecy of what would come to pass if Obama was elected: abortion access would immediately be broadened to include late-term abortions, and physicians and nurses who refused to participate in an abortion procedure would lose their jobs. The picture darkened with every imagined possibility.
While the Pro-Life movement does have cause to be concerned and more active than ever under an Obama administration, the doomsday scenarios depicted by those in political opposition to the President-elect are unlikely to transpire. Though many of us are fearful in this time of transition, I, Abby Adams, am not.
The biggest threat to the Pro-Life cause that an Obama administration (and a Democratic majority in Congress) poses is the potential passage of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). While the bill would expand abortion access, overturning state and federal regulations that restrict or inhibit the procedure, to become law, it first must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Given the current state of affairs, it’s improbable that this will be the President-elect’s first priority. The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the domestic economic crisis are likely to overshadow any attempt to implement “liberal” social policy.
The second great concern of those in the Pro-Life movement has historically been the appointment of judges that will potentially swing the Supreme Court toward an overturn of Roe vs. Wade. While a reversal of Roe would be a welcome decision for the Pro-Life movement, it would be far from an end to abortion in the United States. Abortion regulation would simply return to a pre-Roe framework in which states would decide their own limits on abortion. States like New York and California, and the District of Columbia, would expand abortion options beyond the limits that Roe, along with subsequent legislation and Supreme Court decisions, imposed. This is why organizations like Americans United for Life [link to: www.aul.org] have worked tirelessly to set up “trigger laws” in states that will protect women and children from abortion the day Roe is overturned.
Pro-Lifers have banked on the Court issue for three decades, and yet, even with repeated elections of Republican Presidents (and their subsequent appointments to the Court), Roe is still the law of the land. In fact, a majority of the current Court sits as Republican-appointed, “strict-constructionist” Justices…and still, the precedent remains unmoved. In the event that a Justice should retire during the next President’s term of office, it’s more probable that the retiree will be either Justice Ginsburg or Justice Stevens (the second oldest and oldest Court member, respectively). Both are firm supporters of abortion. In either case, Obama can only hope to replace an abortion supporter with another abortion supporter. Note that in either scenario, there is no ‘balance shift’ on the issue.
Unlike most Pro-Lifers, I am not afraid to see Barack Obama take office. Yet, as a Pro-Life activist, I am aware of the potential setbacks we face if even one of the Right’s predictions (about Obama’s administration) come to fruition. Still, I hold out hope that our work can not only continue, but potentially gain more ground in the coming years.
Undoubtedly, the largest impact on the abortion rate has been made by those on the ‘front lines’ in our crisis pregnancy centers. Those working tirelessly to provide support for women facing unplanned pregnancy are the ones directly saving lives. The Guttmacher Institute (formerly the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider), reports that over 90% of the women who seek abortion do so because they believe they don’t have adequate economic, social, and practical resources to carry the pregnancy to term. Pregnancy centers have spent decades providing services for women so that they don’t feel that abortion is the only way out. However, they can’t do the work alone.
While I readily support lawmakers (including those unsung Pro-Life Democrats who increased in elected number this past November) on making abortion illegal, in the meantime, we have to do the life-saving work that will make abortion unthinkable. We need policymakers to take up the cause of pregnant women and parents. Affordable health care, child care, better options for housing, gainful employment and education, are all necessary parts of making abortion a less accessible option.
We also have to change the way society views pregnancy. During his run for office, Barack Obama spoke at Messiah College at a forum on faith and public policy. His response on abortion was very troubling to Pro-Lifers when he defended his Pro-Choice views by stating that he wouldn’t want his daughters “burdened with an unplanned pregnancy” as teenagers. Yet there are Pro-Lifers on the Conservative side (many of whom are appalled by what Obama said), that oppose public resources for pregnant women on the basis that girls who get pregnant unexpectedly should have to “live with the consequences.” In these two opposing opinions, both view pregnancy as something punitive: the Pro-Choicer wants to free women from the burden, while the Pro-Lifer thinks they should have to shoulder it.
We have to change the belief that pregnancy is a burden by providing resources and support so that women are empowered, and pregnancy isn’t a “punishment.” As a movement we cannot argue that children are a gift from God, a blessing, or a sacred life…and in the same breath suggest that they are a mistake, a consequence, or a punishment for bad behavior. As Pro-Woman and Pro-Life leader Serrin Foster says, “women deserve better.” [link to www.womendeservebetter.com]
There are Pro-Life groups serving women and unborn children in this way. Most notably are two that would be perceived as “Leftist” organizations: Feminists for Life [link to: www.feministsforlife.org], and Democrats for Life [link to www.democratsforlife.org] (even though the former is non-partisan). Both are actively promoting legislation that creates support for pregnant women and parents. Both oppose the family cap that would limit the number of children that women in poverty can receive benefits for when they are granted public assistance (a measure instituted time and again by Conservatives). Both support funding for programs like SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), whose funding reauthorization was recently vetoed by our sitting President.
The solution to the abortion problem in this country will have to come from both the Right and the Left through legal protections for women and their unborn children, and through creative policy solutions that support parenthood, even when pregnancy is unexpected. President-elect Obama claims to believe in the audacity of hope. I do, too. Even though he and I are in opposition on this issue, I will hold out hope that we can find some way to work together to reduce abortion. And I will yet hope that if Pro-Lifers can come together and invite the opposition in every now and again, that we will see an end to this tragedy in our lifetime.
***(Editor’s Note: Abigail Adams is a Guest Columnist for “The Thirsty Quill,” and works outside Washington, D.C. in the non-profit sector. She has a degree in Public Policy Analysis, and has worked in both Democratic politics and the Pro-Life movement for five years. She is a self-proclaimed “Liberal Democrat Feminist,” yet she is also a champion for multiple Pro-Life causes and organizations. And while ‘The Quill’ recognizes some stark differences in political opinion with Abigail, we stand with her in this arena (anti-abortion), and we look forward to publishing more of her editorials in the future.***
December 19th, 2008 on 11:07 am
Wow Abigail…. talk about downplaying the negative.
You indicate that the “biggest threat to the Pro-Life cause that an Obama administration (and a Democratic majority in Congress) poses is the potential passage of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA).” This is a VERY BIG threat which cannot be overstated. This bill would expand abortion access by serving to overturn most, if not all, state and federal regulations that restrict or inhibit this procedure. You are banking on the fact that 1) Obama has bigger issues to deal with and as a consequence will probably not take action on this in the near future and that 2) in order for the Freedom of Choice Act to become law, it first must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. As you are aware the majority of democratic liberals are not prolife. Fundamentally our new president and the majority democratic congress are socially liberal and as a consequence their agenda will be to implement processes that will increase, rather than decrease opportunities for abortion. We can think happy thoughts but, a wait and see mindset can be costly in terms of babies’ lives. Now is not the time to become complacent. Prolifers need to educate the public about the seriousness of this issue so that we can assure that our government representatives know where we stand. President elect Obama promoted himself as an instrument for change. Not all change is good! We have come too far in our efforts to save the lives of babies to sit back and count on circumstances which may distract from this issue (for a time at best).
December 19th, 2008 on 11:31 am
Sorry Abigail but I have one more issue that I would like to address from your position statement representing a liberal democrat feminist point of view. I would like to comment on your allegation that “there are Pro-Lifers on the Conservative side” (many of whom are appalled by what Obama said about supporting the choice of abortion so that his children are not “burdened with an unplanned pregnancy”), that oppose public resources for pregnant women on the basis that girls who get pregnant unexpectedly should have to “live with the consequences”.
I would argue that it is actually democrats that have taken the lead in opposing the provision of valuable public resources designed to support women who are pregnant. This is through their attack on crisis pregnancy centers (cpcs). The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (an agency for which President elect Obama is a huge supporter) and National Abortion Federation (NAF) leaders have publicly claimed that CPCs (also known as “pregnancy help centers,” “pregnancy care centers,” “problem pregnancy centers,” etc.) are in reality dangerous “fake abortion clinics” that exist with the purpose of luring unsuspecting and vulnerable women into a system providing “anti-abortion propaganda”, lies and misleading promises.
With democratic leadership this effort to destroy and discredit CPCs has intensified. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., introduced the “Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act,”. This act would require the Federal Trade Commission to apply “truth-in-advertising” standards to what she refers to as “fake abortion clinics.” With the Democrats winning control of the House of Representatives, a congressional hearing on the bill is assured. CPCs, along with their dedicated employees and volunteers, will again be publicly attacked and vilified.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has published what he refers to as a “study” of CPCs. This report was quickly embraced by pro-abortion activists. This report claims that 87 percent of centers give misleading and medically inaccurate information about abortion. It also alleges that these centers purposely withhold necessary and accurate reproductive health information from women who believe that they are visiting a neutral and objective medical facility.
I have worked closely with Crisis Pregnancy Centers throughout Charlotte and the country and have personal knowledge regarding the integrity of these organizations and the people behind them. These programs exist to provide women with accurate information about pregnancy, fetal development, lifestyle issues, and related concerns. They also provide free pregnancy tests and discuss all options, including adoption, abortion and parenthood. Unlike abortion providers who often who refer to unborn babies as “uterine material,” crisis-pregnancy counselors are upfront about the potential physical and psychological consequences of an abortion decision. The centers also help expectant mothers of all races, religions and income levels with a wide range of free services - from shelter, nutritional guidance, and parenting classes, to drug abuse, AIDS, and domestic violence counseling, legal assistance, adoption, and post-abortion therapy. An increasing number of crisis-pregnancy centers are converting to licensed medical clinics, which offer ultrasound and Doppler screenings, and other health services.
I take issue with the fact that you have accused conservative profilers of opposing public resources to assist pregnant women. Many conservative profilers work or volunteer with organizations such as crisis pregnancy centers. They seek to do more than discourage abortion. It is their desire to provide women with practical assistance so that they do not feel that abortion is their only option. I applaud the wonderful work done by CPCs and their contribution to the pro-life cause. Pro-lifers need to open the eyes of the public to the agenda of Planned Parenthood. An agenda that is also promoted by many liberal democrats that support that organization (which receives a significant amount of government funding). Our new democratic president and democratic majority in congress can set the pro-life movement back decades. Let’s make sure that we are not naïve and that we seek to assure that abortion is not seen as the only choice that a woman has when experiencing an unplanned pregnancy.
January 5th, 2009 on 8:59 pm
Thanks for your comments, Debbie, and for taking the time to read my article! I apologize for the delay in responding, but after a week or so I have up hope that I’d get any comments!
While I appreciate your perspective, and agree with you on some points, we still approach the questions surrounding abortion very differently.
Let me say first that I do agree that we have to be vigilant under the incoming administration and Congress. There will be many opportunities for the pro-choice crowd to push through “health” legislation that has subtle language or riders that will expand abortion access, may be even to the point of funding such services. In no sense did I mean to downplay the severity of that possibility; I only meant to say that it is not as much of a priority for the President-Elect at this point. Given some of the early efforts Obama has made toward bipartisanship and reconciliation (even down to Rick Warren being selected as the pastor leading the invocation of his inauguration), I still hold out hope that we may not see abortion advocates running the show this legislative session. Even die-hard Republicans like Pat Robertson have recently commented that they are hopeful about the new administration.
I also agree that we should work to stop the assault on CPCs around the country. I have been to your center and it is a professional, honest, and safe refuge for women seeking help with an unplanned pregnancy. CPCs have been the primary instrument of change on this issue and have given the pro-life movement compassion and credibility with even the hardest skeptics. It is shameful that Planned Parenthood and the like have targeted CPCs in their attacks, but it’s not surprising given the success that CPCs have had in slowing the abortion rate over the years. What is equally appalling to me, though, are those few (and I mean, very few) so-called pregnancy centers that have been established by zealots who only seek to scare women.
I have seen some of these places up close, with their handbills full of photos of dead unborn children (many of whom are far past the legal limits on late-term abortions) and brochures that claim birth control causes cancer. These groups also give women false information about fetal development, ignoring the true facts that are equally, if not more compelling a case against abortion. Those with a pro-choice agenda have managed to portray these few bad apples as representatives of the whole group and they are by no means the reputable pregnancy centers I have worked with over the years. It’s important that we show legislators that attempts to curb the work of CPCs wholesale will cripple those centers like Lois’ Lodge that sincerely and effectively help women and save unborn lives. We can’t let these few nutjobs (for lack of a better term) stain the integrity of our movement.
That said, I still believe that Republicans have not been wholly pro-life over the years. This is why committed pro-choice legislators like Barney Franks can generally and safely say that pro-lifers are only so from conception to birth. Republicans have voted down (even recently) reauthorization of SCHIP (State Childrens Health Insurance Program), which provides healthcare and maternity coverage to pregnant women and children in poverty. Republicans were responsible for imposing a family cap in welfare reform in an effort to stop women from allegedly having babies to stay on the dole.
This effort in particular has caused abortions to rise in the states where it has been passed, driving women without resources to continue a pregnancy to the abortion clinic. Republicans have cut WIC, a program that provides nutrition information and food vouchers for women and children in need. I know of a young woman who became pregnant in college and without public supports like Medicaid and WIC, would not have been able to successfully complete college and have her baby. Women below the federal poverty level have abortion rates four times that of women at higher income levels, and yet time and again, in slashing at these programs, Republicans expect these women to carry their unborn children without the financial and practical support they need to do so. While it’s laudable that so many conservatives are volunteering and donating to CPCs, it would be nice if the consistency of their pro-life ethics extended to the voting floor.
Other supports like family leave, a higher minimum wage and equal pay for women have historically been opposed or at the very least, criticized and doggedly challenged by conservatives. While the latter two policies may be tangential to the abortion question, they are still economic factors that can influence a working woman’s decision about her pregnancy. Until women themselves are fully respected, their capacity for carrying and nurturing an unborn life will not truly be protected.
As Frederica Matthewes-Green wrote, “It seems clear that no woman would have an abortion if her alternatives did not appear even more forbidding. Like an animal caught in a trap, trying to gnaw off its own leg, the aborting woman can see no other escape except this route of violence and despair.” As you said, Debbie, we have gained so much ground in convincing the world of the truth that a fetus is a person (though ultrasounds, etc.) We have won the battle for the baby; now we have to win the fight for the woman.
I do believe that the Obama administration will continue to expand some of the essential programs, while preserving equally vital legislation like the Violence Against Women Act (which Joe Biden initiated and protects women against sexual assault), adoption tax credits, child care grants, child support enforcement (as some women are coerced into abortion by the father’s threat to withhold financial support), paid maternity leave, etc. On these issues, we can and should work together.
I think at this point, the pro-life movement should engage the new administration, but with some caution. As Christ said, we should be “wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”