the new pro life movement replies to austin ruse

the new pro life movement replies to austin ruse December 2, 2016

We at the New Pro Life Movement have gotten a lot of support from great people and groups, in the past few weeks. We’ve also gotten a good bit of criticism. Some of it is just ridiculous: that we’re a Podesta plant or Soros operation (still waiting on my hefty check from shadowy leftist operatives!); that we just want an excuse to vote Democrat; that we actually LIKE abortion. Other criticisms we have received deserve an answer: such as, “are you not aware of the many crisis pregnancy centers already doing this?” (answer: yes, we are, and we applaud their work; we just think that we need a far larger social safety net) – or “why are you only focusing on decreasing abortion demand?” (several reasons, among which is: if we reduce demand, reduction of supply will far more easily follow).

Austin Ruse’s has made the accusation is that we are out to destroy the pro-life movement. Since this accusation made the rounds in Crisis, a publication popular with certain Catholics, we thought it might be a good idea to respond and dispel the illusions.

Ruse didn’t bother to interview us, or use any quotations from any of our writings. Here’s what he has to say:

But, as I see it, the New Pro-Live Movement is not really interested in establishing a new pro-life movement. Read their overheated rhetoric and you will see their real interest is in destroying the pro-life movement that has brought us closer and closer to ending abortion in America.

This is simply false. Fellow NPLM founder Matthew Tyson and I respond:

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?

Ruse is correct, at least, in that we are critical of political movement leadership, especially the alliance with the Republican Party:

…we do take issue with those who vote against abortion, but then vote against government policies that would provide these supports to women and families. We think that “social justice” and “pro-life” can not be separated from each other. And indeed, in earlier times, being a pro-life Catholic also meant being a social-justice Catholic. This recent divide is artificial, and harmful. Thus, we dispute Ruse’s second point: that “[o]ne must be pro-abortion in the Democrat Party. Pro-lifers have no home there even if they are “better” on the minimum wage.”

While we applaud the good work of pro-life workers in the trenches, we are very critical of where movement leadership has headed. Consideration of abortion outside a consistent life ethic leads to the absurdity of granting the label “pro-life” to political leaders who give lip service to opposing abortion, while at the same time advocating unjust war, torture, capital punishment, and deportation of refugees. We think that being truly pro-life means not just saying “no abortions!” — but creating social frameworks in which choosing life is a truly realistic option. Under Republican leadership, it is very unlikely that abortion will become illegal, and very likely that policies would be enacted that actually lead to an increase of abortion rates. Moreover, making abortion illegal will not necessarily reduce abortion rates significantly, unless we also remove the causes that drive women to choose abortion. Eliminate these — and many of the arguments against making it illegal will disappear.

So, why DID we found the New Pro Life Movement?

 not to “destroy” anyone, but to distance ourselves from a trend in which the pro-life cause has been appropriated by political leaders who do not care about life, or by zealots who have reduced activism to performance art. We want to create a more inclusive movement that believes protection of the unborn and social justice are not separate issues, that seeks to eliminate the social ills that drive women to abort in the first place, and that is dedicated to protecting, supporting, and sustaining all life from conception to natural death.

Because we reject the culture war approach, we are not interested in turning this into a battle over branding, or a slanging contest. We hope that all people who uphold life and oppose injustice can work together.


Browse Our Archives