Abby Johnson said in a recent interview that organizations like ERI (and like most other pro-life organizations) that do want to prosecute doctors who perform abortions but do not want to prosecute women who have abortions must not really want to end abortion. Her exact words were, “I just find it hard anymore to pretend that these groups actually are interested in ending abortion.” She’s wrong. Let’s talk about it.
Pro-choice people: “You pro-lifers don’t actually want to help women and babies, you just want to take away abortion rights.”
Pregnancy centers: *exist*
Pro-choice people: “You’re manipulating women!”
On the one hand, that’s a little bit of a caricature—I’ve never seen a conversation quite that blatant. But on the other hand, I do see pro-choice people make both of those comments online a lot, and I get why that’s frustrating to pro-lifers: Pro-choice people say we don’t want to help women, we point out the many, many volunteered hours and donated dollars the pro-life movement pours into helping women, and then pro-choice people reject that obvious proof that we want to help women by saying our help is actually just a guise for manipulation. It can come across as frustrating, ad hoc, or even duplicitous.
Last week, I wrote an article about the election (always a fraught thing to do). I argued that who pro-lifers should vote for is an important question and that not all answers are equally correct, but I also argued that how we think of and treat fellow pro-lifers who vote differently from us is even more important.
The responses I got were pretty much exactly what I expected. Some people loved the article, some people engaged thoughtfully with particular claims it made, and some people I lost completely as soon as I said that it’s possible to both be pro-life and vote for Harris.
If that’s you, I have immense empathy with where you’re coming from. I think Harris is very, very terrible—both her personal character and her policies, especially her policy goals on abortion, which are to make it federally illegal for states to impose restrictions on abortion at any time, for any reason. If she’s elected and she gets the congressional support she needs to succeed at passing that law, it will cost the lives of thousands and thousands of babies, including babies late enough in pregnancy that they can certainly feel pain and will die in agony. I’m not voting for Harris, and I think voting for Harris is the wrong choice.
If you don’t vote for THIS CANDIDATE, you’re not really pro-life.
Just kidding.
I have good friends whom I know to be thoughtful, intelligent, caring, and passionately pro-life people who have all of the following plans in November. In random order (I literally used a list randomizer):
Sidenote: Regardless of who you vote for, you should check out Sonski’s fantastic work winsomely advocating for pro-life policies. He’s taken ERI’s Equipped for Life course and sought us out for individual advanced messaging consulting, and he’s one of the most intentional, clear, and effective pro-life politicians out there at communicating about abortion. We at ERI have diverse views about who to vote for, but we’re unanimous that Sonski is awesome.¹
Last week, I wrote an article responding to ProPublica’s deceptive, manipulative, and in places straight-up lying piece about Amber Thurman. Amber died of sepsis, a complication of her medication abortion, after doctors waited more than 20 hours to perform the D&C she needed to remove the parts of her dead twins’ bodies that were still in her uterus. ProPublica heavily implied that the reason for the delay that caused Amber’s death was that doctors were worried they might be prosecuted under Georgia’s abortion law for treating her, when in fact 1) ProPublica itself admitted (buried deep in the article) that they could find zero evidence that doctors were thinking about that at all, and 2) Georgia’s law is stunningly clear that Amber’s D&C was legal.
This week, CNN managed to write an even more egregiously deceptive article about Amari Marsh.
