A Fine Response from the New Pro-Life Movement

A Fine Response from the New Pro-Life Movement December 2, 2016

hands-722452_640

I am not, myself, directly involved with the New Pro-Life Movement at this time, but I’ve yet to read anything from them I didn’t think was good sense.

Most of my readers are probably aware that recently, the New Pro-Life Movement was the subject of a stream of consciousness published in Crisis Magazine by none other than the inimitable Austin Ruse.  Ruse seems confident that the New Pro-Life Movement is out to poison and destroy the mainstream Pro-life Movement out of malice. He sees nothing of value in their approach or their concerns. He’s inexplicably left cold by the fascinating topic of intersectional feminism; doesn’t even want to know what it is. He uses the phrase “chaps their keisters” at one point, which phrase I had to research to find out what it meant. Apparently it’s a censored form of the slang term “to chap (one’s) a**,” which I’d never heard either; Urban Dictionary says it’s “An expression used to indicate strong annoyance at someone or something, a stronger expression than “frosts my balls.”  Austin Ruse has a far keener grasp of the argot of the streets than I do, that’s for certain.

In any case, the New Pro-Life movement has released a very calm and courteous response to the attack. This is penned by my friends Rebecca Bratten Weiss of Suspended in her Jar, and Matthew Tyson of Mackerel Snapper. I encourage you to read the whole thing; you will not find the word “keister” anywhere in it. Here’s my favorite bit:

Ruse rests his odd conclusion on two basic assumptions: first, that the steady decline in abortion rates is due wholly to the tactics of the mainstream pro-life movement; secondly, that opposition to abortion inevitably resides with a Republican party-line.

To the first of these, let me say: yes, the pro-life movement has done much great work. Since a number of us in the NPLM have been involved in pro-life work our entire adult lives, we know this to be true. But we also know that much of the decline of the abortion rate is due to social causes as well: greater access to health care; a removal of the stigma on single mothers; more reliable social safety nets.

Our option to focus on eliminating demand for abortion arises out of our rejection of the culture-war paradigm, and our belief that simply ending abortion will not end injustice. The majority of abortions happen due to economic distress. And abortion is not pleasant, not pretty. It’s not something women want. Most pro-choice advocates recognize this, also. So when we see poor working women, many of whom have children already, choosing this very unpleasant and often traumatizing procedure, we can’t assume that they’re driven by hedonism or hatred of babies. We need to ask: what is driving her to make this choice? And how can we eliminate these pressures of injustice?

I’ve been saying this very thing, poorly, for a long time.

Bravo to the NPLM for their words and for putting up with this so gracefully.

(image via pixabay)


Browse Our Archives