Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Quote of the Day

. . . Obamacare stands to cut abortion rates by 75%. And yet, the pro-life movement has been leveraged in opposition to Obamacare, and most especially in opposition to the birth control mandate. They don’t believe women should be guaranteed access to free contraception even though this access is the number one proven best way to decrease the number of abortions. That access would, to use the rhetoric of the pro-life movement, prevent the murders of 900,000 unborn babies every year. [This according to a study just released by Wash U Med School.]

The reality is that so-called pro-life movement is not about saving babies. It’s about regulating sex. That’s why they oppose birth control [and] want to ban abortion even though doing so will simply drive women to have dangerous back alley abortions. . . . It’s not about babies. If it were about babies, they would be making access to birth control widespread and free and creating a comprehensive social safety net so that no woman finds herself with a pregnancy she can’t afford. . . .

– Libby Anne
"How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement
October 29, 2012


  1. If abortion were simply because women did not have access to affordable health care then this argument might be compelling. But since many women make this decision on all sorts of other grounds, it is not compelling.

    Moreover, I am not sure that an argument that essentially argues that we should support laws that result in the murder 25% of babies instead of 100% is a good argument. Would we listen to Libby Abbey if she suggested we should support laws that only resulted in the death of 25% of Jews instead of 100%. Sure 25% is better than 100% but I do not think that a Catholic could support that law either.

  2. Abortifacients--drugs that are designed to induce a chemical abortion--are a part of the HHS mandate. "Ordinary" oral and trans-dermal contraceptives can also have an abortifacient effect. The destruction of innocent human life is a moral evil, no matter how many individuals we have in view--imagine having your mother or brother among the 25% that Libby Abbey has suggested we sacrifice for the material prosperity of the rest of us. The argument that contraception reduces the number of abortions is a specious concept, because with many drugs on the market today, contraception often is a chemically-induced abortion.

  3. The root issue in the politics of the abortion debate always comes back to whether or not a person believes that the fetus is a human person or not. If s/he thinks it is, then that person person would publicly advocate that it should be legalized. If s/he thinks it is not a human person, then that person considers making it legal for all kinds of reasons (population control, equal rights for women, reduction of poverty, etc.) Isn't this what it all comes down to?

  4. I meant to say "If s/he thinks it is, then that person would NEVER publicly advocate that it should be legalized."