c2006autumn_shouldabortionbeprevented

Action Alerts Support Us Contact Us Site Map

Search
Search

About Us
Issues

Subscribe
Advertising

Conscience Magazine

Letters to the Editor

Current Issue

Masthead

Archives
Search Conscience
Letters to the Editor

Should Abortion Be Prevented?

The president of CFFC questions whether we should do more to prevent
the need for abortion.

Subscribe
Masthead
Advertising
Articles & Publications

By Frances Kissling
Winter 2006/07

News & Media

If abortion is a morally neutral act and does not endanger womens health, why bother to prevent the need for it?

Campaigns

After all, the cost of a first-trimesterbabortion is comparable to the cost of a years supply of birth control pillsand

Action Center

abortion has fewer complications and less medical risk for women than some of the most effective methods of
contraception. This question has plagued advocates of choice since abortion was legalized. It has intensified in the

Add RSS Feeds

face of antiabortion moralism about sex and responsibility, in the continued stigmatization of women who have
abortions and in the increasingly expressed mantra that there are simply too many abortions in the U.S. Frustration
has led some advocates of legal abortion to dig in their heels and insist that any talk about preventing abortions

denigrates women as moral decision-makers, misunderstands the reasons women have abortions, retreats from
principled support for the right of women to choose abortion without government interference and tacitly lends
credence to the contention that abortion is almost always morally wrong. At the evidence level, some worry that the
emphasis on prevention as a solution violates a core belief that good facts make good ethics. Demographers and
social scientists are more than skeptical of claims by the group Democrats for Life (DFL) that we can reduce abortions
by 95 percent in 10 years if we modestly increase economic support for women who face unintended pregnancies. The
critics note that the level of increased support suggested by this interest group compares unfavorably with the level of
support currently afforded to women in European countriesand the rate of abortions in those countries, while lower
than that in the US, comes nowhere near the 95/10 goal DFL espouses.
Tactically, there is concern that an explicit goal of working to prevent the need for abortions or to reduce the
incidence of abortion undermines efforts to demonstrate that those opposed to abortion are extremists. Are we buying
into the antichoice movements framing of the issue? Ellie Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, noted that while
were talking about all this, we could be putting the right wing on the defensive. We have to put the dying and
suffering of women who dont have access to safe abortion onto the table.
Further exasperation ensues when efforts to prevent unintended pregnancy, and thus also reduce the abortion rate,
are cast as a common-ground approach with both sides in agreement. In reality,
the organizations most identified with opposition to legal abortion are at best only marginally interested in reducing
unintended pregnancy through contraceptive use; they are focused instead on
abstinence for those who are unmarried and are divided on contraception in marriage. Many legislators who are
opposed to legal abortion have discovered the hard way that embracing contraception diminishes their support from
hardline antiabortion groups. A case in point is Robert Casey, the prolife Democrat running for Republican U.S. senator
Rick Santorums seat in Pennsylvania. Casey has attempted to temper his antiabortion position by supporting a wide
range of
measures that would reduce the need for abortion. A progressive Democrat, he supports more economic support for
lowincome and poor women who become pregnant and for children and families. He also supports contraception,
including emergency contraception for adults over the counter. As a result, Casey has gone from prolife Catholic
poster boy to the whipping boy of antiabortion groups.
Prolife Democratic congressman Tim Ryan, who has led the effort for recognition of prolife Democrats in the party,
was dealt a blow when the group he is most closely associated with, DFL, refused to endorse his Reducing the Need
for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act. The groups executive director, Kristen Day, said the bill had become a

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/current/c2006winter_shouldabortionbeprevented.asp[6/7/2009 20:16:59]

c2006autumn_shouldabortionbeprevented
problem for them because when you start talking about contraception, people are very committed to one side or the
other. Day noted that her group was concerned only with helping women who had already become pregnant avoid
abortion. Perhaps most sadly, the bill was introduced at a press conference at which the only
antiabortion group willing to stand beside the prolife Ryan and prochoice Rosa DeLauro was the Catholic Alliance,
which claims to be a progressive Catholic group challenging right-wing Catholicism.
The Catholic Alliance was represented by Sister Sharon Dillon, who distanced herself from the bill by saying that as a
Catholic group, her organization could not support the measures in the bill that provided support for contraception.
There is, of course, widespread support among abortion-rights advocates for
contraception. Indeed, the countrys Planned Parenthood affiliates have

Our commitment is not with

prevented more abortions by providing family planning than have groups like

antichoice leaders and

Priests for Life and the American Life League, who remain adamantly opposed

groups. Our commitment is

to abortion and refuse to support contraception, the best hope for reducing the

to

need for abortion. Why should prochoice groups accept the rhetoric of common

women and to the vision of a

ground on preventing the need for abortion, when the facts show that their
counterparts in the antiabortion movement are unwilling to support

just society that motivates

our work.

contraception? Why should they, like Hillary Clinton, express respect for those
in the antiabortion movement who actually are part of the problem?
Frankly, we shouldnt. But our commitment is not with antichoice leaders and groups. Our commitment is to women
and to the vision of a just society that motivates our work. Our allies are those legislators who share substantially in
that vision, including those who are far less accepting of a moral view that is broad enough to encompass the decision
to have an abortion. Our link is to the vast majority of Americans who want abortion to be legal, but find it morally,
not just practically
preferable to work to avoid its need.
So we definitely should not let any one or all of the above obstacles keep us from strongly supporting efforts to reduce
the need for abortion. And we should not have an ounce of ambivalence about publicly declaring ourselves to be
committed to ensuring that public policy include a focus on lowering abortion rates without restricting womens
freedom.
This takes us back to the very first sentence of this essay. Is abortion a morally neutral act? Is it, as some have said,
an unambiguous moral good? This is where we go limp and get tongue-tied. Why, people ask usif abortion is such a
good thing; if it results in women coming to terms with their moral autonomy, making good choices for their lives,
acting in the interests of society and their existing and future childrendo we want to reduce the need for it? Simply
put, the movement as a whole and most of our leaders find it difficult to acknowledge publicly that we have spent our
lives, our passion, fighting for something that both is central to human freedom and autonomy and ends a form of
human life.
We cannot imagine coercing a woman to continue a pregnancy that is unsupportable. At the same time, there is
something valuable about encouraging public policy and personal decision-making that
start from a presumption in favor of life. We interpret life broadly. We say we are in favor of legal abortion because it
protects womens lives. We do not mean just their physical lives; we mean their
capacity to live full, free and happy lives. Why, then, should we think that a presumption in favor of life is
inappropriately applied to fetal life? Why do we insist that because the fetus is not a person in any theological,
scientific, legal or sociological sense, it does not deserve our consideration? Do not people want to know if those of us
who advocate a moral right to choose an abortion also approach
all aspects of life with wonder and awe? Can we totally separate our attitude toward the justifiable taking of nonpersonal life in abortion from the other principles of protecting life that have become crucial to our survival as civilized
human beings?
A modern sensibility about an expanded definition of respect for persons and life became common in the last part of
the 20th century. The war in Vietnam was almost over, and we thought we had learned a lesson about peace and
justice. Women and racial minorities had their rights recognized.
These advances now seem illusory as we see the way in which our country and other countries have morally distanced
themselves from massive slaughter in war and in tribal and ethnic conflict. We see
the continuing disregard for the lives and aspirations of the poor and marginalized people among us. We are not just
committed to the lives of persons; we are committed to being persons who respect
many forms of life. We want to behave in ways that honor even non-human lifeanimals and plants included. We
respect the environment, which is essential to our survival. We seek laws that ensure that human tissue and body
parts are treated respectfully even as they are used to further the health and well-being of all. We insist that human
subjects not be experimented upon. We speak out against the torture of one person, even if it would save the lives of
many others, and we are horrified that
this principle is not universally accepted. It is foolish to think that these sentiments and values do not or should not
affect the way in which we and the American people think about the fact that abortion necessarily results in the
ending of potential human life. To think that we should remain inured to these instincts would tragically diminish our

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/current/c2006winter_shouldabortionbeprevented.asp[6/7/2009 20:16:59]

c2006autumn_shouldabortionbeprevented
humanity and make us less worthy public leaders.
Although it would be unjust to place on womens reproductive decisions the moral burden of upholding absolutely a
presumption in favor of life, it is important that we express our belief that the ability to create and nurture and bring
into the world new people should be exercised carefully, consciously, responsibly and with awe for our capacity to
create life. That is one reason why we must commit ourselves to working to make abortion unnecessary, and be
willing to use those words. We must not flinch when Hillary Clinton says abortion should be safe, legal and rare. We
must applaud prochoice members of congress like Rosa DeLauro, who says: We must create an environment that
encourages pregnancies that can be carried to term. Such statements are not made in a vacuum; they are not the
idiosyncratic thoughts of Catholics who have some creepy obsession with fetuses. They are part of thoughtful
attempts to balance respect for a womans right to make the choice about when to bring a new child into the world
with a deep presumption that life, even the life of non-persons, is worthy of respect. And they should be based on our
values, on the desire not to better message abortion rights, but to respect the moral sensibilities of American
women.
We have been on the defensive so long that we are like lionesses ready to rip out the throat of anyone who attacks
our cubsand women are our cubs! Yet the vast majority of American women act as if they do not want to need
abortions. How many times have we heard a woman say, I missed my period; I hope I am not pregnant; I dont
want to have to have an abortion? According to the latest figures, 89 percent of women who are at risk of
unintended pregnancy use contraception. They represent 48 percent of the 3.1 million women annually who have
unintended pregnancies. The 11 percent of women at risk for pregnancy who are not using contraception account for
the remaining 52 percent of unintended pregnancies.
They know there is no fully satisfying outcome to undesired pregnancy. The choice to have a child one is not prepared
to parent or cannot afford, give a child up for adoption or have an abortion is a grim one. Women are strong and they
cope well with these lousy choices. An unwanted child can become loved and cared for; an adoption, although painful,
can be viewed as a generous gift; an abortion today may enable better parenting or a more fulfilled life without
children in the future. Unwanted children can also remain unwanted and uncared for, though, and both adoption and
abortion can result in lifelong sadness. For those who are prochoice, this second set of outcomes of unintended
pregnancies is inconsistent with our vision of a just and caring society. Women should not end up having children they
do not want and cannot care for, nor should they end up having abortions they would have preferred not to have.
Why then do we get so caught up, so tongue-tied when we are asked if we want to prevent abortion? We spend
countless hours trying to find the most nuanced way of answering this question. We worry
that some woman will be hurt if we acknowledge the moral ambiguity of abortion. Yes, words are important, but so is
vision. Should we say there are too many abortions in the US? I doubt it. Which abortion tipped the balance from just
enough to too many? Its a little bit like Goldilocks and the Three Bears: too hot, too cold, just right. Which woman
should not have had an abortion? What
reason was frivolous? Our heads spin! We believe we are on thin ice if we say we want to reduce the number of
abortions. Is there an ideal number of abortions? An arbitrary rate that is acceptable? Are some women irresponsible?
Should we set an annual number and then stop performing abortions once we have hit that number? Does every
woman who reaches puberty get an abortion chit which can only be redeemed once in a lifetime?
There is nothing unusual about moral complexity. Womenand menlive with it every day. It is what it means to be
a human person. We are in favor of a womans right to decide when she will give
the gift of life; after all, gifts must be freely given. We love life and want to act in its interest, and so we are in favor
of supporting womens own desire not to become pregnant when they do not wish to bring a child into the world, we
strongly support the right of every woman to continue a difficult but wanted pregnancy, and we will do everything we
can to support her economically and emotionally.
The reality is that we could use a lot of government involvement in supporting womens moral agency. One of the
most touching phrases in the Roe v. Wade decision was the recognition that women should not be isolated in their
pregnancies. Government has washed its hands of pregnancyit will not pay for abortion, it provides inadequately for
contraception and sexuality education, and it certainly does not provide for women, children and families. It is time to
change that. A moral discourse that calls on individuals to act toward the creation of life responsibly cannot be
separated from a call of social justice for measures, like those included in the Ryan-DeLauro bill, that contribute to a
sense that it is not women alone who are responsible for respecting life, but government as well.
Frances Kissling is the president of Catholics for a Free Choice.
back to top

AboutUs Issues ConscienceMagazine Articles&Publications News&Media Campaigns ActionCenter Action Alerts Support Us Contact Us Site Map
Copyright 2005-2009, Catholics For Choice. All rights reserved.

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/current/c2006winter_shouldabortionbeprevented.asp[6/7/2009 20:16:59]

c2006autumn_shouldabortionbeprevented

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/current/c2006winter_shouldabortionbeprevented.asp[6/7/2009 20:16:59]