Pulling punches with abortion addict

impossmotherGird your loins. This one is going to get ugly.

It’s starts with a book editor and literary agent, Irene Villar, making a personal contribution to the world of book publishing:

Her nightmare is part of an awful secret, and the real story is shrouded in shame, colonialism, self-mutilation, and a family legacy that features a heroic grandmother, a suicidal mother, and two heroin-addicted brothers. Hers is a story that touches on American exploitation and reproductive repression in Puerto Rico. It is a story that looks back on her traumatic childhood growing up in the shadow of her mother’s death and the footsteps of her famed grandmother, the political activist Lolita Lebron.

That sounds like typical book promotion boilerplate and, in fact, it comes from Vilar’s Website for her memoir. But what is her nightmare? I might be society’s scorn, but I guess it’s that she had 15 abortions in 16 years. Read that again. I have friends who spend two or three years and tens of thousands of dollars trying to get pregnant. Villar, apparently, had no problem with that part. It was what came next that she couldn’t follow through on and that she writes about in “Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict.”

Shocking as Vilar’s admissions are — and, for the incredulous, the Los Angeles Times confirmed the number — her story has become even more disturbing as she’s done the media rounds. Why? Take a look at these closing quotes from a hollow ABC News puff piece:

Vilar blames much of her poor choices on a hypersexualized society that at once values the perfect mother, but also expects women to be sexually attractive to men and to achieve professionally.

“Women have a deep need for agency, for purpose and direction and society is not providing natural and healthy channels for creative action,” she said.

“In school and on TV, every message I get is what I am doing as a mother or wife is wrong,” said Vilar. “I should be thinking about a profession and not mothering. Everyone is having babies, and yet they don’t want to care for them.

“Are many of the repeat abortions in part an embodiment of this mixed message? A lost, ambivalent attempt at an act of agency that cannot find its proper vessel?”

In other words: Is there someone or something else I can blame for my decisions because I really don’t feel like baring the responsibility.

I’m not doubting that Vilar has had a tough life, that the actions of those close to her impaired the decisions she made and forced her to face demons that most people never see. And Vilar has the right to focus on those factors as being the cause of her life choices. But they were still her choices, and it’s a reporter’s duty to question such deflections and deferrals.

Let’s see if LA Times did any better in its feature about Vilar:

Even before it was published last week, Vilar’s story unleashed a wave of emotion in the anti-abortion community. Reactions have included pity and — at least in one blogger’s case — a call to put her behind bars.

On the abortion rights side, reaction has been muted.

“The majority of pro-choicers — and I don’t blame them — are somewhat confused,” said Vilar. Vilar believes that access to legal abortion saved her life because she would have found a way to end her pregnancies no matter what.

(skip)

In 2008, the manuscript found its way to Judith Gurewich, a Lacanian psychoanalyst who taught at Harvard and runs the publishing house Other Press.

“As a publisher, I need a good story, and the fact that it’s quite intellectual and well written is what attracted me to it,” said Gurewich.

In the wake of scandals involving embellished or fabricated memoirs, Gurewich hired (“for the price of a small house,” as she put it) an attorney to vet Vilar’s claims. The attorney confirmed to The Times that Vilar produced medical records proving most of the procedures. (Some clinics do not keep records for longer than seven years.)

Vilar, for her part, was stunned to learn while gathering her medical records that she had forgotten about one abortion.

Nominally.

The Times‘ story paints a picture of Vilar’s kids playing in the yard of their Denver home, discusses some of the difficult Vilar had in getting the book published and talks about why Vilar said she had more abortions than FDR had years in office.

Certainly, Vilar’s published accounting of her “abortion addiction” leave even pro-choice advocates squirming for wiggle room. The LA Times discusses the reactions, at length; this is briefly touched on in the ABC News piece. But, again, no real hard questions for Vilar or anyone who would defend her behavior. Though, that person would likely be difficult to find — and I’m not sure Vilar would accept that it was her behavior that led to these outcomes.

There are many, many difficult questions to be asked here. But it seems everyone wants to use the kid gloves with such a fragile soul.

Print Friendly

  • Martha

    From the little I’ve read, I actually have a shred of sympathy for the woman.

    This first husband of hers seems to have been in total control: he didn’t want kids, so she couldn’t have them. End of story. He was much older than her, in a position of authority (her college professor) and she had no family support, to put it mildly; he was all she had, emotionally and financially. So what he wanted, he got – or else.

    Her act of rebellion seems to have been getting pregnant – and then the abortions afterwards, because she couldn’t go through with the pregnancies. I’m not excusing her, but no-one seems to be discussing the notion that maybe it’s natural for a young married woman to want to have children, and forcing her to be sterile against her will is going to have repercussions?

    God have mercy on us all and our screwed-up world.

  • Jerry

    Brad, I found your comments missed the boat.

    Vilar’s story raises uncomfortable, and perhaps unanswerable, questions about the use of abortion as a first-line tool of birth control.

    If there was an award for a stupid comment, that would be a finalist. One incident is sufficient to refute a bucket of statistics? Heaven help us when such junk passes for facts. That is a classic illustration why a dear friend advised me to not pay much attention to what is called “news” these days based on the extremely low quality level of so much of what finds its way into print, on the air or online.

    Martha, your post makes perfect sense to me. I found Brad’s snarky approach ignored the real psychological bind she found herself in. And I think the historical context that the story mentioned is also key:

    “If there is something that is intersecting across generations — my grandmother, my mother and me — it’s the issue of control,” said Vilar. “I chose a very private drama to show my problem of control, my mother chose a personal one, not as intimate as mine, and with my grandmother, it was the ultimate political control.”

  • Dave

    Pro-choice or pro-life, one’s first response to Vilar’s story (if one has a heart) has to be pained empathy. Concocting a criticism that negotiations between political consistency and not crushing someone this frail, is secondary.

  • Martha

    Jerry, the interesting point to me (and the one that no-one seems to be raising) is the whole thing about “no kids in this marriage.”

    Everyone seems to be comfortable (or at least, there seems to be no questioning about) the notion of using birth control to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place. If her husband had asked her to have a tubal ligation, would there be anything about it? I hope there would.

    There is also the fact that pregnancy is a two-person affair; he seems to have left all the responsibility up to her not to get pregnant.

    I don’t think these are accessory questions, I think they’re very important. The whole attitude to children, childbirth, pregnancy, family planning – there’s a hell of a lot more going on here besides “how many abortions are too many?”

  • hoosier

    Where, exactly, is the failure to get religion here? I understand that abortion issues are often a shorthand for religion/culture war issues in the press, but are you suggesting that any discussion of abortion, no matter in what context, has to have a religion angle? That seems extreme to me. If religion is implicated in every story having to do with abortion, which seems to be the implicit connection that this post has to do with the subject matter of this blog (and there is no explicit connection) it would seem that you are stepping into a line drawing trap, for in that case, were does the implication of religion coverage ever end?

    You complain that the press didn’t ask the right questions about Vilar’s culpability for her actions. That sounds like a failure to get personal responsibility, not religion. If personal responsibility, like abortion, also always impplicates religion, the line-drawing problem appears again.

    Also, I’m not saying there’s no religion angle to this story, I’m just saying you haven’t made it explicit. From this post, I don’t see anything about religion in this story, only abortion and personal responsibility which, last I checked, did not equal religion.

  • michael

    Jerry,

    I would think that if you were going to appoint yourself the Donald Trump of ‘stupid comment contests’, you might make an extra special effort to be cogent when passing out the prizes.

    What bucket of self-evident statistics are you assuming we all know and accept?

  • Brad A. Greenberg

    While I don’t think I was being snarky, Hoosier nailed me: I completely failed to spell out any religion ghost here, and I’m not a believer in the position that every abortion story is religion related. Certainly, personal responsibility and healthy relationships are not religion dependant.

  • Brad A. Greenberg

    In hindsight, I had a non-missional approach to this story. Another GetReligionista probably could have found a more on-target approach.

  • Martha

    There is a religion ghost here, in that religion is never mentioned at all (apart from a throwaway phrase about “fundamentalism” in the ABC report: “No book like this has ever been written,” she told ABCNews.com. “I just imagine the ‘baby killer’ and I could be a poster child for that kind of fundamentalism. And there are my little kids in all of that.”)

    And yet – this woman is Puerto Rican, her family was involved in Puerto Rican politics we’re told (her grandmother being imprisoned for nationalist political activity). Puerto Rico is nominally Catholic – did that have no effect on her? Is she lapsed Catholic, non-Catholic, never was Catholic, agnostic, atheist, what? Not a dickybird on that, yet surely it has some bearing?

  • Brad A. Greenberg

    I thought about the Puerto Rican Catholic angle, and you might have something there. Then again, my name is Greenberg, I live in LA and worked for the Jewish Jounal, and yet I am a Christian.

  • Jerry

    What bucket of self-evident statistics are you assuming we all know and accept?

    I said did not say that the statistics were self-evident and that everyone accepted them. I said that One incident is sufficient to refute a bucket of statistics?

    There were two reasons I made that comment.

    The primary reason was that the reporters sentence contained all-too-typical logical fallacies. In this case the ones that seem to fit bast are logical fallacy of misleading vividness and hasty generalization. Dismissing an idea due to one counter-example is an egregious error.

    The statistics that I alluded to were discussed here a number of times such as from two years ago href=”http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2767. I also referred a recent study just a bit ago http://www.getreligion.org/?p=19521 where I asked So is anyone else doing actual research at this level that would support or refute the Guttmacher findings?.

    It’s one thing to have methodology concerns or mention lack of replication of the Guttmacher studies. It’s another thing to be ignorant of them or to ignore them. A reporter worth his or her salt should take the time to become a wee bit informed and reflect that knowledge in a story.

  • Bern

    Possibly the most pitiful story I’ve ever heard. Here’s a close from the excerpt on the author’s website:

    Halfway through working on this book I got pregnant for the sixteenth time. I don’t think I would have been able to give birth without the call to accountability and self-reflection writing this story down demanded. My daughter became the coherence emerging from the shameful mass of thirty-five years.

    Yes, I was an abortion addict and I do not wish for a scapegoat. Everything can be explained, justified, our last century tells us. Everything except for the burden of life interrupted that shall die with me

  • http://www.mh53.net Tom

    “I set before you here this day, a blessing and a curse: a blessing for obeying the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin on you today; a curse if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD, your God.”

    “The fifth of these is Thou shall not kill”

  • Brad A. Greenberg

    True, but not relevant. This forum is for discussing how the media covers religion, not whether media subjects are following God’s law.

  • Lymis

    Certainly, Vilar’s published accounting of her “abortion addiction” leave even pro-choice advocates squirming for wiggle room.

    I have a problem with this statement, unless you have some sort of reference for it. The implication appears to be that anyone with a pro-choice stand is theoretically bound to approve (or even celebrate) the results of every specific choice, which is not what the pro-choice movement claims.

    That’s a lot like saying that everyone who supports “traditional marriage” is by definition approving of the way people like Elizabeth Taylor or Britney Spears made their choices around that issue.

    Just like free speech, one can vehemently support one’s right to make a choice without feeling compelled to agree with the choice actually made.

    I doubt you will find any significant number of pro-choice people seeing this as a triumph for abortion rather than a failure for contraception.

  • MichaelV

    Jerry, I join the other posters in not getting your point. Here is the statement you say is stupid:

    “Vilar’s story raises uncomfortable, and perhaps unanswerable, questions about the use of abortion as a first-line tool of birth control.”

    But I’m not sure what you think it stupid about it. What idea do you think the reporter is dismissing due to this one counter-example? My impression is that you’ve taken the reporter’s statement to conflict with your belief that abortion should remain legal and could be reduced by the promotion of contraception. I don’t think it does. In my intrepretation the reporter was not (in the statement you quoted anyway) saying there are questions raised here about whether contraception should be used to prevent abortions. It seems to me the reporter was saying there are questions here about situations where contraception is not used since abortion is available as a backup.

  • Pingback: Steynian 391 « Free Canuckistan!

  • http://www.ecben.net Will

    This first husband of hers seems to have been in total control: he didn’t want kids, so she couldn’t have them. End of story. He was much older than her, in a position of authority (her college professor) and she had no family support, to put it mildly; he was all she had, emotionally and financially. So what he wanted, he got – or else.

    So where is the “pro-choice” concern with THIS woman’s “right to choose”? Nowhere to be heard.

    “Pro-choice” is camouflage for pro-abortion. Period.

  • Dave

    Will, I don’t understand your question. How was the pro-choice movement even supposed to know about this woman’s situation with her first husband, let alone intervene? And how does that pertain to journalist coverage?