Hidden motives of the anti-abortion movement

In her Mother’s Day column on the “prospect of Roe reversal,” Mary Mitchell stated, “Still, I don’t believe even the most diehard “right-to-life” supporters want to see women and girls putting their lives at risk trying to end an expected pregnancy.”

I don’t believe that for a second. To some, a pregnancy, however unwanted, is the result of “sin,” and the sinner should bear the consequences of her action, whether that merely ruins her life (depriving her of opportunities for education or career, etc.) or causes her physical injury or death.

One proof is that stringent antiabortion laws do not permit the termination of a pregnancy even in cases of rape or incest. In that context, it should be remembered that a standard defense in many rape trials is that the victim “wanted” or somehow “invited” the sexual encounter.

It is also worth remembering that some of the staunchest anti-abortionists are also opposed to sex education in schools and opposed to permitting the distribution of contraceptives. The bottom line is to deny women access to education and reproductive medical care, then punish them if they should become pregnant.

I do not mean to trivialize the moral aspects of this debate. But I do not believe the “sanctity of life” is protected by the bombing of Planned Parenthood clinics or the murder of doctors who perform abortions, both of which have happened.

Too many devout “pro-life” supporters smear all “pro-choice” supporters as “pro-abortion,” which is simply not true. Some of us believe that “freedom” does not mean the freedom to impose your values on everyone else.

Mitchell wrote that the difficult matter of abortion was something “we don’t talk about.” It is now time that some of the more unfortunate aspects of the anti-abortion movement are discussed.