abortion pro life essay

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Pro Life (Abortion) — A Pro-Life Perspective on Abortion

A Pro-life Perspective on Abortion

• Categories: Pro Choice (Abortion) Pro Life (Abortion)

About this sample

Words: 500 |

Published: Mar 16, 2024

Words: 500 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 938 words

3 pages / 1196 words

3 pages / 1345 words

3 pages / 1448 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Pro Life (Abortion)

Abortion is a deeply divisive issue that revolves around complex ethical considerations and questions about the beginning of human life. The pro-life argument, rooted in the belief that life begins at conception, advocates for [...]

To discuss the topic of abortion pros and cons, this essay explores the heated debate surrounding the practice of terminating a pregnancy. Abortion has always been practiced since ancient times, bringing forth the idea of [...]

“But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to desperation which impelled her to the crime ” (Susan B. Anthony, 1869). In the Scott, Foresman Advanced Dictionary, Thorndike and Barnhart defined abortion as the removal of a [...]

From the moment of conception, till the final breath is taken, there is a beautiful portion in between that we call life. Unfortunately, not all people are given the choice to personally partake in this distinctive experience. [...]

Many teenagers who seek abortion come from an abusive, single parent or a non-caring family household, in which the family does not really care what goes on in the house. But why is abortion wrong? This essay will provide the [...]

There are many controversial issues in today’s society that actually go back a lot farther than can be expected. Issues such as war, abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and the death penalty have been in the world since before [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Pro-Choice Does Not Mean Pro-Abortion: An Argument for Abortion Rights Featuring the Rev. Carlton Veazey

Since the Supreme Court’s historic 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade , the issue of a woman’s right to an abortion has fostered one of the most contentious moral and political debates in America. Opponents of abortion rights argue that life begins at conception – making abortion tantamount to homicide. Abortion rights advocates, in contrast, maintain that women have a right to decide what happens to their bodies – sometimes without any restrictions.

To explore the case for abortion rights, the Pew Forum turns to the Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, who for more than a decade has been president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Based in Washington, D.C., the coalition advocates for reproductive choice and religious freedom on behalf of about 40 religious groups and organizations. Prior to joining the coalition, Veazey spent 33 years as a pastor at Zion Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.

A counterargument explaining the case against abortion rights is made by the Rev. J. Daniel Mindling, professor of moral theology at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary.

Featuring: The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, President, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Interviewer: David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Question & Answer

Can you explain how your Christian faith informs your views in support of abortion rights?

I grew up in a Christian home. My father was a Baptist minister for many years in Memphis, Tenn. One of the things that he instilled in me – I used to hear it so much – was free will, free will, free will. It was ingrained in me that you have the ability to make choices. You have the ability to decide what you want to do. You are responsible for your decisions, but God has given you that responsibility, that option to make decisions.

I had firsthand experience of seeing black women and poor women being disproportionately impacted by the fact that they had no choices about an unintended pregnancy, even if it would damage their health or cause great hardship in their family. And I remember some of them being maimed in back-alley abortions; some of them died. There was no legal choice before Roe v. Wade .

But in this day and time, we have a clearer understanding that men and women are moral agents and equipped to make decisions about even the most difficult and complex matters. We must ensure a woman can determine when and whether to have children according to her own conscience and religious beliefs and without governmental interference or coercion. We must also ensure that women have the resources to have a healthy, safe pregnancy, if that is their decision, and that women and families have the resources to raise a child with security.

The right to choose has changed and expanded over the years since Roe v. Wade . We now speak of reproductive justice – and that includes comprehensive sex education, family planning and contraception, adequate medical care, a safe environment, the ability to continue a pregnancy and the resources that make that choice possible. That is my moral framework.

You talk about free will, and as a Christian you believe in free will. But you also said that God gave us free will and gave us the opportunity to make right and wrong choices. Why do you believe that abortion can, at least in some instances, be the right choice?

Dan Maguire, a former Jesuit priest and professor of moral theology and ethics at Marquette University, says that to have a child can be a sacred choice, but to not have a child can also be a sacred choice.

And these choices revolve around circumstances and issues – like whether a person is old enough to care for a child or whether a woman already has more children than she can care for. Also, remember that medical circumstances are the reason many women have an abortion – for example, if they are having chemotherapy for cancer or have a life-threatening chronic illness – and most later-term abortions occur because of fetal abnormalities that will result in stillbirth or the death of the child. These are difficult decisions; they’re moral decisions, sometimes requiring a woman to decide if she will risk her life for a pregnancy.

Abortion is a very serious decision and each decision depends on circumstances. That’s why I tell people: I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. And that’s an important distinction.

You’ve talked about the right of a woman to make a choice. Does the fetus have any rights?

First, let me say that the religious, pro-choice position is based on respect for human life, including potential life and existing life.

But I do not believe that life as we know it starts at conception. I am troubled by the implications of a fetus having legal rights because that could pit the fetus against the woman carrying the fetus; for example, if the woman needed a medical procedure, the law could require the fetus to be considered separately and equally.

From a religious perspective, it’s more important to consider the moral issues involved in making a decision about abortion. Also, it’s important to remember that religious traditions have very different ideas about the status of the fetus. Roman Catholic doctrine regards a fertilized egg as a human being. Judaism holds that life begins with the first breath.

What about at the very end of a woman’s pregnancy? Does a fetus acquire rights after the point of viability, when it can survive outside the womb? Or let me ask it another way: Assuming a woman is healthy and her fetus is healthy, should the woman be able to terminate her pregnancy until the end of her pregnancy?

There’s an assumption that a woman would end a viable pregnancy carelessly or without a reason. The facts don’t bear this out. Most abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Late abortions are virtually always performed for the most serious medical and health reasons, including saving the woman’s life.

But what if such a case came before you? If you were that woman’s pastor, what would you say?

I would talk to her in a helpful, positive, respectful way and help her discuss what was troubling her. I would suggest alternatives such as adoption.

Let me shift gears a little bit. Many Americans have said they favor a compromise, or reaching a middle-ground policy, on abortion. Do you sympathize with this desire and do you think that both sides should compromise to end this rancorous debate?

I have been to more middle-ground and common-ground meetings than I can remember and I’ve never been to one where we walked out with any decision.

That being said, I think that we all should agree that abortion should be rare. How do we do that? We do that by providing comprehensive sex education in schools and in religious congregations and by ensuring that there is accurate information about contraception and that contraception is available. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has not been willing to pass a bill to fund comprehensive sex education, but they are willing to put a lot of money into failed and harmful abstinence-only programs that often rely on scare tactics and inaccurate information.

Former Surgeon General David Satcher has shown that abstinence-only programs do not work and that we should provide young people with the information to protect themselves. Education that stresses abstinence and provides accurate information about contraception will reduce the abortion rate. That is the ground that I stand on. I would say that here is a way we can work together to reduce the need for abortions.

Abortion has become central to what many people call the “culture wars.” Some consider it to be the most contentious moral issue in America today. Why do many Catholics, evangelical Christians and other people of faith disagree with you?

I was raised to respect differing views so the rigid views against abortion are hard for me to understand. I will often tell someone on the other side, “I respect you. I may disagree with your theological perspective, but I respect your views. But I think it’s totally arrogant for you to tell me that I need to believe what you believe.” It’s not that I think we should not try to win each other over. But we have to respect people’s different religious beliefs.

But what about people who believe that life begins at conception and that terminating a pregnancy is murder? For them, it may not just be about respecting or tolerating each other’s viewpoints; they believe this is an issue of life or death. What do you say to people who make that kind of argument?

I would say that they have a right to their beliefs, as do I. I would try to explain that my views are grounded in my religion, as are theirs. I believe that we must ensure that women are treated with dignity and respect and that women are able to follow the dictates of their conscience – and that includes their reproductive decisions. Ultimately, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that women have the ability to make decisions of conscience and have access to reproductive health services.

Some in the anti-abortion camp contend that the existence of legalized abortion is a sign of the self-centeredness and selfishness of our age. Is there any validity to this view?

Although abortion is a very difficult decision, it can be the most responsible decision a person can make when faced with an unintended pregnancy or a pregnancy that will have serious health consequences.

Depending on the circumstances, it might be selfish to bring a child into the world. You know, a lot of people say, “You must bring this child into the world.” They are 100 percent supportive while the child is in the womb. As soon as the child is born, they abort the child in other ways. They abort a child through lack of health care, lack of education, lack of housing, and through poverty, which can drive a child into drugs or the criminal justice system.

So is it selfish to bring children into the world and not care for them? I think the other side can be very selfish by neglecting the children we have already. For all practical purposes, children whom we are neglecting are being aborted.

This transcript has been edited for clarity, spelling and grammar.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Religion & Abortion
• Religion & Social Values

Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

Support for legal abortion is widespread in many places, especially in europe, public opinion on abortion, americans overwhelmingly say access to ivf is a good thing, broad public support for legal abortion persists 2 years after dobbs, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

• Clerc Center | PK-12 & Outreach
• KDES | PK-8th Grade School (D.C. Metro Area)
• MSSD | 9th-12th Grade School (Nationwide)
• Gallaudet University Regional Centers
• Parent Advocacy App
• K-12 ASL Content Standards
• National Resources
• Youth Programs
• Academic Bowl
• Battle Of The Books
• National Literary Competition
• Youth Debate Bowl
• Youth Esports Series
• Bison Sports Camp
• Discover College and Careers (DC²)
• Financial Wizards
• Immerse Into ASL
• Alumni Relations
• Alumni Association
• Homecoming Weekend
• Class Giving
• Get Tickets / BisonPass
• Sport Calendars
• Cross Country
• Swimming & Diving
• Track & Field
• Indoor Track & Field
• Cheerleading
• Winter Cheerleading
• Human Resources
• Plan a Visit
• Request Info

• Areas of Study
• Accessible Human-Centered Computing
• American Sign Language
• Art and Media Design
• Communication Studies
• Criminal Justice
• Data Science
• Deaf Studies
• Early Intervention Studies Graduate Programs
• Educational Neuroscience
• Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences
• Information Technology
• International Development
• Interpretation and Translation
• Linguistics
• Mathematics
• Philosophy and Religion
• Physical Education & Recreation
• Public Affairs
• Public Health
• Sexuality and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Theatre and Dance
• World Languages and Cultures
• B.A. in American Sign Language
• B.A. in Biology
• B.A. in Communication Studies
• B.A. in Communication Studies for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Deaf Studies
• B.A. in Deaf Studies for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Education with a Specialization in Early Childhood Education
• B.A. in Education with a Specialization in Elementary Education
• B.A. in English
• B.A. in English for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Government
• B.A. in Government with a Specialization in Law
• B.A. in History
• B.A. in Interdisciplinary Spanish
• B.A. in International Studies
• B.A. in Mathematics
• B.A. in Philosophy
• B.A. in Psychology
• B.A. in Psychology for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.A. in Social Work (BSW)
• B.A. in Sociology with a concentration in Criminology
• B.A. in Theatre Arts: Production/Performance
• B.A. or B.S. in Education with a Specialization in Secondary Education: Science, English, Mathematics or Social Studies
• B.S. in Accounting
• B.S. in Accounting for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.S. in Biology
• B.S. in Business Administration
• B.S. in Business Administration for Online Degree Completion Program
• B.S. in Data Science
• B.S. in Information Technology
• B.S. in Mathematics
• B.S. in Physical Education and Recreation
• B.S. in Public Health
• B.S. in Risk Management and Insurance
• General Education
• Honors Program
• Peace Corps Prep program
• Self-Directed Major
• M.A. in Counseling: Clinical Mental Health Counseling
• M.A. in Counseling: School Counseling
• M.A. in Deaf Education
• M.A. in Deaf Education Studies
• M.A. in Deaf Studies: Cultural Studies
• M.A. in Deaf Studies: Language and Human Rights
• M.A. in Early Childhood Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in Early Intervention Studies
• M.A. in Elementary Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in International Development
• M.A. in Interpretation: Combined Interpreting Practice and Research
• M.A. in Interpretation: Interpreting Research
• M.A. in Linguistics
• M.A. in Secondary Education and Deaf Education
• M.A. in Sign Language Education
• M.S. in Accessible Human-Centered Computing
• M.S. in Speech-Language Pathology
• Master of Public Administration
• Master of Social Work (MSW)
• Au.D. in Audiology
• Ed.D. in Transformational Leadership and Administration in Deaf Education
• Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology
• Ph.D. in Critical Studies in the Education of Deaf Learners
• Ph.D. in Hearing, Speech, and Language Sciences
• Ph.D. in Linguistics
• Ph.D. in Translation and Interpreting Studies
• Ph.D. Program in Educational Neuroscience (PEN)
• Psy.D. in School Psychology
• Individual Courses and Training
• National Caregiver Certification Course
• CASLI Test Prep Courses
• Course Sections
• Certificates
• Certificate in Sexuality and Gender Studies
• Educating Deaf Students with Disabilities (online, post-bachelor’s)
• American Sign Language and English Bilingual Early Childhood Deaf Education: Birth to 5 (online, post-bachelor’s)
• Early Intervention Studies
• Certificate in American Sign Language and English Bilingual Early Childhood Deaf Education: Birth to 5
• Online Degree Programs
• ODCP Minor in Communication Studies
• ODCP Minor in Deaf Studies
• ODCP Minor in Psychology
• ODCP Minor in Writing
• University Capstone Honors for Online Degree Completion Program

Quick Links

• PK-12 & Outreach
• NSO Schedule

Comparison/Contrast Essays: Two Patterns

202.448-7036

First Pattern: Block-by-Block

By Rory H. Osbrink

Abortion is an example of a very controversial issue. The two opposing viewpoints surrounding abortion are like two sides of a coin. On one side, there is the pro-choice activist and on the other is the pro-life activist.

The argument is a balanced one; for every point supporting abortion there is a counter-point condemning abortion. This essay will delineate the controversy in one type of comparison/contrast essay form: the “”Argument versus Argument,”” or, “”Block-by-Block”” format. In this style of writing, first you present all the arguments surrounding one side of the issue, then you present all the arguments surrounding the other side of the issue. You are generally not expected to reach a conclusion, but simply to present the opposing sides of the argument.

Introduction: (the thesis is underlined) Explains the argument

The Abortion Issue: Compare and Contrast Block-by-Block Format

One of the most divisive issues in America is the controversy surrounding abortion. Currently, abortion is legal in America, and many people believe that it should remain legal. These people, pro-choice activists, believe that it is the women’s right to chose whether or not to give birth. However, there are many groups who are lobbying Congress to pass laws that would make abortion illegal. These people are called the pro-life activists.

Explains pro-choice

Abortion is a choice that should be decided by each individual, argues the pro-choice activist. Abortion is not murder since the fetus is not yet fully human, therefore, it is not in defiance against God. Regardless of the reason for the abortion, it should be the woman’s choice because it is her body. While adoption is an option some women chose, many women do not want to suffer the physical and emotional trauma of pregnancy and labor only to give up a child. Therefore, laws should remain in effect that protect a woman’s right to chose.

Explains pro-life

Abortion is an abomination, argues the pro-life activist. It makes no sense for a woman to murder a human being not even born. The bible says, “”Thou shalt not kill,”” and it does not discriminate between different stages of life. A fetus is the beginning of life. Therefore, abortion is murder, and is in direct defiance of God’s will. Regardless of the mother’s life situation (many women who abort are poor, young, or drug users), the value of a human life cannot be measured. Therefore, laws should be passed to outlaw abortion. After all, there are plenty of couples who are willing to adopt an unwanted child.

If we take away the woman’s right to chose, will we begin limiting her other rights also? Or, if we keep abortion legal, are we devaluing human life? There is no easy answer to these questions. Both sides present strong, logical arguments. Though it is a very personal decision, t he fate of abortion rights will have to be left for the Supreme Court to decide.

Second Pattern: Point-by-Point

This second example is also an essay about abortion. We have used the same information and line of reasoning in this essay, however, this one will be presented in the “”Point-by-Point”” style argument. The Point-by-Point style argument presents both sides of the argument at the same time. First, you would present one point on a specific topic, then you would follow that up with the opposing point on the same topic. Again, you are generally not expected to draw any conclusions, simply to fairly present both sides of the argument.

Introduction: (the thesis is underlined)

Explains the argument

The Abortion Issue: Compare and Contrast Point-by-Point Format

Point One: Pro-life and Pro-choice

Supporters of both pro-life and pro-choice refer to religion as support for their side of the argument. Pro-life supporters claim that abortion is murder, and is therefore against God’s will. However, pro-choice defenders argue that abortion is not murder since the fetus is not yet a fully formed human. Therefore, abortion would not be a defiance against God.

Point Two: Pro-life and Pro-choice

Another main point of the argument is over the woman’s personal rights, versus the rights of the unborn child. Pro-choice activists maintain that regardless of the individual circumstances, women should have the right to chose whether or not to abort. The pregnancy and labor will affect only the woman’s body, therefore it should be the woman’s decision. Pro-life supporters, on the other hand, believe that the unborn child has the right to life, and that abortion unlawfully takes away that right.

Tutorial & Instructional Programs

Gallaudet University

202-448-7036

At a Glance

• Quick Facts
• University Leadership
• History & Traditions
• Accreditation
• Consumer Information
• Our 10-Year Vision: The Gallaudet Promise
• Annual Report of Achievements (ARA)
• The Signing Ecosystem
• Not Your Average University

Our Community

• Library & Archives
• Technology Support
• Interpreting Requests
• Ombuds Support
• Health and Wellness Programs
• Profile & Web Edits

Visit Gallaudet

• Explore Our Campus
• Virtual Tour
• Maps & Directions
• Shuttle Bus Schedule
• Kellogg Conference Hotel
• Welcome Center
• National Deaf Life Museum
• Apple Guide Maps

Engage Today

• Work at Gallaudet / Clerc Center
• Social Media Channels
• University Wide Events
• Sponsorship Requests
• Data Requests
• Media Inquiries
• Gallaudet Today Magazine
• Giving at Gallaudet
• Financial Aid
• Registrar’s Office
• Residence Life & Housing
• Safety & Security
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• University Communications
• Clerc Center

Gallaudet University, chartered in 1864, is a private university for deaf and hard of hearing students.

Copyright © 2024 Gallaudet University. All rights reserved.

• Accessibility
• Cookie Consent Notice
• Privacy Policy
• File a Report

800 Florida Avenue NE, Washington, D.C. 20002

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Pro and Con: Abortion

To access extended pro and con arguments, sources, and discussion questions about whether abortion should be legal, go to ProCon.org .

The debate over whether abortion should be a legal option has long divided people around the world. Split into two groups, pro-choice and pro-life, the two sides frequently clash in protests.

A June 2, 2022 Gallup poll , 55% of Americans identified as “pro-choice,” the highest percentage since 1995. 39% identified as “pro-life,” and 5% were neither or unsure. For the first time in the history of the poll question (since 2001), 52% of Americans believe abortion is morally acceptable. 38% believed the procedure to be morally wrong, and 10% answered that it depended on the situation or they were unsure.

Surgical abortion (aka suction curettage or vacuum curettage) is the most common type of abortion procedure. It involves using a suction device to remove the contents of a pregnant woman’s uterus. Surgical abortion performed later in pregnancy (after 12-16 weeks) is called D&E (dilation and evacuation). The second most common abortion procedure, a medical abortion (aka an “abortion pill”), involves taking medications, usually mifepristone and misoprostol (aka RU-486), within the first seven to nine weeks of pregnancy to induce an abortion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 67% of abortions performed in 2014 were performed at or less than eight weeks’ gestation, and 91.5% were performed at or less than 13 weeks’ gestation. 77.3% were performed by surgical procedure, while 22.6% were medical abortions. An abortion can cost from $500 to over $1,000 depending on where it is performed and how long into the pregnancy it is.

• Abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives.
• Abortion bans endangers healthcare for those not seeking abortions.
• Abortion bans deny bodily autonomy, creating wide-ranging repercussions.
• Life begins at conception, making abortion murder.
• Legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable.
• Increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary.

This article was published on June 24, 2022, at Britannica’s ProCon.org , a nonpartisan issue-information source.

I was once adamantly pro-choice. Pro-lifers can learn from my conversion.

I grew up pro-choice. Until about two years ago, there was no question in my mind that women should have the right to abort unwanted pregnancies. This was not because of any particular belief about whether a fetus should have all the rights of a person; rather, I was pro-choice because I was a Democrat, and because the Republican Party repelled me.

I thought (and still do) that Republican policies hurt the vulnerable, and that the party’s rhetoric is often harmful to people who deserve charity and respect. I questioned the motives of pro-life activists who supported Republicans. How could someone who cares about children support the party that separates migrant children from their parents, traps so many children in poverty and refuses to enact gun control to protect them from school shooters?

But then I went to college, and I started to take my faith more seriously. When I joined campus ministry, I began to interact more frequently with pro-life people, and I was surprised to find that I liked many of them. At first, I regarded my new friends as good people with a big blind spot. But as time went on, I came to the conclusion that these students weren’t pro-life despite their kindness but because of it.

When I joined campus ministry, I began to interact far more frequently with pro-life people, and I was surprised to find that I liked many of them.

These students’ priorities extended beyond simply ending abortion. They pursued reconciliation and justice. I was impressed to see them seeking to establish common ground with pro-choice students by turning conversations to capital punishment. I was surprised to hear that they volunteer with charities that help pregnant women get the resources they need. I had not imagined that pro-lifers could be anything but sanctimonious or overzealous. But these students were neither. They were practical and kind.

While I wrestled with these realizations, I was also reading and listening to more Catholic media. I was surprised to find progressive political views in the same articles and podcasts that referred to abortion as a tragedy and a sin. I discovered that pro-lifers are often feminists , viewing abortion as one of society’s means of compelling women to behave more like men. I learned that many pro-lifers are even more outraged by poverty than I was because they recognize that an unjust economy so often pressures women into choosing abortion. I read about pro-life activists who devote their lives to helping pregnant women so they will not feel forced into having an abortion.

I was not suddenly blind to the anti-abortion activists who advocate what I consider to be extreme policies or who employ deceptive political tactics . But I saw that the pro-lifers who don’t make headlines, the ones on the ground—they serve Christ’s mission in a way I only hoped I could. They demonstrate a true allegiance to all life, and, in their devotion to the vulnerable, serve as a model for how we can live in imitation of Christ today. My pro-choice beliefs, I realized, were neither as kind nor as thoughtful.

I saw that the pro-lifers who don’t make headlines, the ones on the ground—they serve Christ’s mission in a way I only hoped I could.

As a pro-choicer, I had always treated poverty as a given and assumed that abortion was sometimes the only response to the conditions of that poverty. Pro-lifers, however, inspired me with a vision of a world in which no mother is compelled to resent or fear a pregnancy because of its material cost or inconvenience.

As a pro-choicer, I had focused on the heart-wrenching reasons women give for choosing abortion: spousal abuse, an inability to provide for children, the unequal treatment of mothers in education and business. Pro-lifers, however, convinced me to strive to relieve women of those burdens in the first place by rectifying their root causes.

As a pro-choicer, I had committed money to campaigns and organizations that worked to make abortion more easily accessible. Pro-lifers showed me that my money could be spent not on death but on life, on helping the thousands of activists and volunteers who financially and emotionally support mothers.

As a pro-choicer, I would have been indignant at the assertion that if my objectives were realized, neither the tragedy of systemic poverty nor the injustice of our culture that punishes mothers would be solved. Pro-lifers helped me understand that abortion does not liberate poor mothers but merely hides their suffering.

I am proud to leave behind those inconsistencies and identify as pro-life.

And yet…my distaste for allegiance to the Republican Party by many in the pro-life movement remains, and I am sympathetic to people who cannot stomach the idea of associating themselves with them. I retain the hope, however, that the pro-life movement can face up to its challenges. I believe that the political aspects of pro-lifeism that I so dislike—the partisanship, the draconian laws, the hostile rhetoric—are not necessary to the movement but actually hinder it.

The true heart of the pro-life movement is not political but pastoral. In personal, individual ministry, pro-lifers have made their greatest accomplishments and their most persuasive arguments. In compassion and dedicated service, they live the Christian mission.

Patrick Cullinan is an editorial intern at America.

Most popular

Your source for jobs, books, retreats, and much more.

The latest from america

Can you explain what "pro-choice" and "pro-life" means? 

May 2, 2024 2 min read

By Holly @ Planned Parenthood

Someone asked us:  Can you explain what pro-choice means and pro-life means? When my family talks about abortion I think they’re saying “pro-choice” and “pro-life” wrong, but I’m not sure. 

Many years ago, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were terms people came up with to describe themselves as being against abortion access and for abortion access. And you may hear these outdated labels still used today. But neither accurately describes those who oppose abortion, or people who believe that decisions about abortion should be made by the person who is actually pregnant — not the government.

Generally, people who identified as “pro-choice” believed that people have the right to control their own bodies, and everyone should be able to decide when and whether to have children. 

People who want abortion to be illegal and inaccessible are often called “pro-life.” The truth is, a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal and accessible, and that politicians shouldn’t make other people’s personal health care decisions. There are plenty of people in that majority who feel abortion wouldn’t be the right decision for them personally, but do not want to stop others from making a different decision.

“Pro-choice” and “pro-life” labels don’t reflect the complexity of how most people actually think and feel about abortion. Some people and organizations, including Planned Parenthood, don’t use these terms anymore.

Planned Parenthood believes that decisions about whether to choose adoption, end a pregnancy, or parent should be made by a pregnant person with the counsel of their family, their faith, and their nurse or doctor. Politicians should not be involved in anyone’s personal medical decisions about their reproductive health or pregnancy.

Tags: Abortion , Reproductive Rights , anti choice , pro-choice , pro-life

Explore more on

This website uses cookies.

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors use cookies and other tools to collect, store, monitor, and analyze information about your interaction with our site to improve performance, analyze your use of our sites and assist in our marketing efforts. You may opt out of the use of these cookies and other tools at any time by visiting Cookie Settings . By clicking “Allow All Cookies” you consent to our collection and use of such data, and our Terms of Use . For more information, see our Privacy Notice .

Cookie Settings

Planned Parenthood cares about your data privacy. We and our third-party vendors, use cookies, pixels, and other tracking technologies to collect, store, monitor, and process certain information about you when you access and use our services, read our emails, or otherwise engage with us. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences, or your device. We use that information to make the site work, analyze performance and traffic on our website, to provide a more personalized web experience, and assist in our marketing efforts. We also share information with our social media, advertising, and analytics partners. You can change your default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of required cookies when utilizing our site; this includes necessary cookies that help our site to function (such as remembering your cookie preference settings). For more information, please see our Privacy Notice .

We use online advertising to promote our mission and help constituents find our services. Marketing pixels help us measure the success of our campaigns.

Performance

We use qualitative data, including session replay, to learn about your user experience and improve our products and services.

We use web analytics to help us understand user engagement with our website, trends, and overall reach of our products.

Find anything you save across the site in your account

The Study That Debunks Most Anti-Abortion Arguments

There is a kind of social experiment you might think of as a What if? study. It would start with people who are similar in certain basic demographic ways and who are standing at the same significant fork in the road. Researchers could not assign participants to take one path or another—that would be wildly unethical. But let’s say that some more or less arbitrary rule in the world did the assigning for them. In such circumstances, researchers could follow the resulting two groups of people over time, sliding-doors style, to see how their lives panned out differently. It would be like speculative fiction, only true, and with statistical significance.

A remarkable piece of research called the Turnaway Study, which began in 2007, is essentially that sort of experiment. Over three years, a team of researchers, led by a demographer named Diana Greene Foster, at the University of California, San Francisco, recruited 1,132 women from the waiting rooms of thirty abortion clinics in twenty-one states. Some of the women would go on to have abortions, but others would be turned away, because they had missed the fetal gestational limit set by the clinic. Foster and her colleagues decided to compare the women in the two groups—those who received the abortion they sought and those who were compelled to carry their unwanted pregnancy to term—on a variety of measures over time, interviewing them twice a year for up to five years.

The study is important, in part, because of its ingenious design. It included only women whose pregnancies were unwanted enough that they were actively seeking an abortion, which meant the researchers were not making the mistake that some previous studies of unplanned conceptions had—“lumping the happy surprises in with the total disasters,” as Foster puts it. In terms of age, race, income level, and health status, the two groups of women closely resembled each other, as well as abortion patients nationwide. (Foster refers to the study’s participants as women because, to her knowledge, there were no trans men or non-binary people among them.) Seventy per cent of the women who were denied abortions at the first clinic where they sought them carried the unwanted pregnancies to term. Others miscarried or were able to obtain late abortions elsewhere, and Foster and her colleagues followed the trajectories of those in the latter group as well.

While you might guess that those who were turned away had messier lives—after all, they were getting to the clinic later than the seemingly more proactive women who made the deadline—that did not turn out to be the case. Some of the women who got their abortions (half of the total participants) did so just under the wire; among the women in the study who were denied abortions (a quarter of the total), some had missed the limit by a matter of only a few days. (The remaining quarter terminated their pregnancies in the first trimester, which is when ninety per cent of abortions in the United States occur.) The women who were denied abortions were on average more likely to live below the poverty line than the women who managed to get them. (One of the main reasons that people seek abortions later in pregnancy is the need to raise money to pay for the procedure and for travel expenses.) But, in general, Foster writes, the two groups “were remarkably similar at the first interview. Their lives diverged thereafter in ways that were directly attributable to whether they received an abortion.”

Over the past several years, findings from the Turnaway Study have come out in scholarly journals and, on a few occasions, gotten splashy media coverage. Now Foster has published a patiently expository precis of all the findings in a new book, “ The Turnaway Study: Ten Years, a Thousand Women, and the Consequences of Having—or Being Denied—an Abortion .” The over-all impression it leaves is that abortion, far from harming most women, helps them in measurable ways. Moreover, when people assess what will happen in their lives if they have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, they are quite often proven right. That might seem like an obvious point, but much of contemporary anti-abortion legislation is predicated on the idea that competent adults can’t really know what’s at stake in deciding whether to bear a child or not. Instead, they must be subjected to waiting periods to think it over (as though they can’t be trusted to have done so already), presented with (often misleading) information about the supposed medical risks and emotional fallout of the procedure, and obliged to look at ultrasounds of the embryo or fetus. And such scans are often framed, with breathtaking disingenuousness, as a right extended to people—what the legal scholar Carol Sanger calls “the right to be persuaded against exercising the right you came in with.”

Maybe the first and most fundamental question for a study like this to consider is how women feel afterward about their decisions to have an abortion. In the Turnaway Study, over ninety-five per cent of the women who received an abortion and did an interview five years out said that it had been the right choice for them. It’s possible that the women who remained in the study that long were disproportionately inclined to see things that way—maybe if you were feeling shame or remorse about an abortion you’d be less up for talking about it every six months in a phone interview with a researcher. (Foster suggests that people experiencing regrets might actually be more inclined to participate, but, to me, the first scenario makes more psychological sense.) Still, ninety-five per cent is a striking figure. And it’s especially salient, again, in light of anti-choice arguments, which often stress the notion that many of the quarter to third of all American women who have an abortion will be wracked with guilt about their decision. (That’s an awful lot of abject contrition.) You can pick at the study for its retention rate—and some critics, particularly on the anti-abortion side, have. Nine hundred and fifty-six of the original thousand-plus women who were recruited did the first interview. Fifty-eight per cent of them did the final interview. But, as Foster pointed out in an e-mail to me, on average, the women in the study completed an impressive 8.4 of the eleven interviews, and some of the data in the study—death records and credit reports—cover all 1,132 women who were originally enrolled.

To the former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, among others, it seemed “unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.” In a 2007 abortion-case ruling, he wrote that “severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.” It can , but the epidemiologists, psychologists, statisticians, and other researchers who evaluated the Turnaway Study found it was not likely. “Some events do cause lifetime damage”—childhood abuse is one of them—“but abortion is not common among these,” Foster writes. In the short term, the women who were denied abortions had worse mental health—higher anxiety and lower self-esteem. In the longer run, the researchers found “no long-term differences between women who receive and women who are denied an abortion in depression, anxiety, PTSD, self-esteem, life satisfaction, drug abuse, or alcohol abuse.” Abortion didn’t weigh heavily in determining mental health one way or the other. Foster and her co-authors note, in an earlier article, that “relief remained the most commonly felt emotion” among women who got the abortions they sought. That relief persisted, but its intensity dissipated over time.

Other positive impacts were more lasting. Women in the study who received the abortion they sought were more likely to be in a relationship they described as “very good.” (After two years, the figure was forty-seven per cent, vs. twenty-eight per cent for the women turned away.) If they had been involved with a physically abusive man at the time of the unwanted pregnancy, they were less likely to still be experiencing violence, for the simple reason that they were less likely to be in contact with him. (Several of the participants interviewed for the book talk about not wanting to be tethered to a terrible partner by having a child together.) Women who got the abortion were more likely to become pregnant intentionally in the next five years than women who did not. They were less likely to be on public assistance and to report that they did not have enough money to pay for food, housing, and transportation. When they had children at home already, those children were less likely to be living in poverty. Based on self-reports, their physical health was somewhat better. Two of the women in the study who were denied abortions died from childbirth-related complications; none of the women who received abortions died as a result. That is in keeping with other data attesting to the general safety of abortion. One of Foster’s colleagues, Ushma Upadhyay, analyzed complications after abortions in California’s state Medicaid program, for example, and found that they occurred in two per cent of the cases—a lower percentage than for wisdom-tooth extraction (seven per cent) and certainly for childbirth (twenty-nine per cent). Indeed, maternal mortality has been rising in the U.S.—it’s now more than twice as high as it was in 1987, and has risen even more steeply for Black women, due, in part, to racial disparities in prenatal care and the quality of hospitals where women deliver.

Yet, as Foster points out, many of the new state laws restricting abortion suggest that it is a uniquely dangerous procedure, one for which layers of regulation must be concocted, allegedly to protect women. The Louisiana law that the Supreme Court struck down last Monday imposed just such a rule—namely, a requirement that doctors performing abortions hold admitting privileges at a hospital no more than thirty miles away. As Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion noted, “The evidence shows, among other things, that the fact that hospital admissions for abortion are vanishingly rare means that, unless they also maintain active OB/GYN practices, abortion providers in Louisiana are unlikely to have any recent in-hospital experience.” Since hospitals often require such experience in order to issue admitting privileges, abortion providers would be caught in a Catch-22, unable to obtain the privileges because, on actual medical grounds, they didn’t need them. The result of such a law, had it gone into effect, would have been exactly what was intended: a drastic reduction in the number of doctors legally offering abortions in the state.

The Turnaway Study’s findings are welcome ones for anyone who supports reproductive justice. But they shouldn’t be necessary for it. The overwhelming majority of women who received abortions and stayed in the study for the full five years did not regret their decision. But the vast majority of women who’d been denied abortions reported that they no longer wished that they’d been able to end the pregnancy, after an actual child of four or five was in the world. And that’s good, too—you’d hope they would love that child wholeheartedly, and you’d root for their resilience and happiness.

None of that changes the fundamental principle of human autonomy: people have to be able to make their own decisions in matters that profoundly and intimately affect their own bodies and the course of their lives. Regret and ambivalence, the ways that one decision necessarily precludes others, are inextricable facts of life, and they are also fluid and personal. Guessing the extent to which individuals may feel such emotions, hypothetically, in the future, is not a basis for legislative bans and restrictions.

The Turnaway Study will be understood, criticized, and used politically, however carefully conceived and painstakingly executed the research was. Given that inevitability, it’s worth underlining the most helpful political work that the study does. In light of its findings, the rationale for so many recent abortion restrictions—namely, that abortion is uniquely harmful to the people who choose it—simply topples.

Science Is Giving the Pro-life Movement a Boost

Advocates are tracking new developments in neonatal research and technology—and transforming one of America’s most contentious debates.

Updated at 2:15 p.m. ET on August 25, 2021

The first time Ashley McGuire had a baby, she and her husband had to wait 20 weeks to learn its sex. By her third, they found out at 10 weeks with a blood test. Technology has defined her pregnancies, she told me, from the apps that track weekly development to the ultrasounds that show the growing child. “My generation has grown up under an entirely different world of science and technology than the Roe generation,” she said. “We’re in a culture that is science-obsessed.”

Activists like McGuire believe it makes perfect sense to be pro-science and pro-life. While she opposes abortion on moral grounds, she believes studies of fetal development, improved medical techniques, and other advances anchor the movement’s arguments in scientific fact. “The pro-life message has been, for the last 40-something years, that the fetus … is a life, and it is a human life worthy of all the rights the rest of us have,” she said. “That’s been more of an abstract concept until the last decade or so.” But, she added, “when you’re seeing a baby sucking its thumb at 18 weeks, smiling, clapping,” it becomes “harder to square the idea that that 20-week-old, that unborn baby or fetus, is discardable.”

Recommended Reading

The Progressive Roots of the Pro-Life Movement

These Pro-Lifers Are Headed to the Women’s March on Washington

Will the Pro-Life Movement Split With Trump on Issues Other Than Abortion?

Scientific progress is remaking the debate around abortion. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade , the case that led the way to legal abortion, it pegged most fetuses’ chance of viable life outside the womb at 28 weeks; after that point, it ruled, states could reasonably restrict women’s access to the procedure. Now, with new medical techniques, doctors are debating whether that threshold should be closer to 22 weeks. Like McGuire, today’s prospective moms and dads can learn more about their baby earlier into a pregnancy than their parents or grandparents. And like McGuire, when they see their fetus on an ultrasound, they may see humanizing qualities like smiles or claps, even if most scientists see random muscle movements.

These advances fundamentally shift the moral intuition around abortion. New technology makes it easier to apprehend the humanity of a growing child and imagine a fetus as a creature with moral status. Over the last several decades, pro-life leaders have increasingly recognized this and rallied the power of scientific evidence to promote their cause. They have built new institutions to produce, track, and distribute scientifically crafted information on abortion. They hungrily follow new research in embryology. They celebrate progress in neonatology as a means to save young lives. New science is “instilling a sense of awe that we never really had before at any point in human history,” McGuire said. “We didn’t know any of this.”

In many ways, this represents a dramatic reversal; pro-choice activists have long claimed science for their own side. The Guttmacher Institute, a research and advocacy organization that defends abortion and reproductive rights, has exercised a near-monopoly over the data of abortion, serving as a source for supporters and opponents alike. And the pro-choice movement’s rhetoric has matched its resources: Its proponents often describe themselves as the sole defenders of women’s welfare and scientific consensus. The idea that life begins at conception “goes against legal precedent, science, and public opinion,” said Ilyse Hogue, the president of the abortion-advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a recent op-ed for CNBC. Members of the pro-life movement are “not really anti-abortion,” she wrote in another piece . “They are against [a] world where women can contribute equally and chart our own destiny in ways our grandmothers never thought possible.”

In their own way, both movements have made the same play: Pro-life and pro-choice activists have come to see scientific evidence as the ultimate tool in the battle over abortion rights. But in recent years, pro-life activists have been more successful in using that tool to shift the terms of the policy debate. Advocates have introduced research on the question of fetal pain and whether abortion harms women’s health to great effect in courtrooms and legislative chambers, even when they cite studies selectively and their findings are fiercely contested by other members of the academy.

Not everyone in the pro-life movement agrees with this strategic shift. Some believe new scientific findings might work against them. Others warn that overreliance on scientific evidence could erode the strong moral logic at the center of their cause. The biggest threat of all, however, is not the potential damage to a particular movement. When scientific research becomes subordinate to political ends, facts are weaponized. Neither side trusts the information produced by their ideological enemies; reality becomes relative.

Abortion has always stood apart from other topics of political debate in American culture. It has remained morally contested in a way that other social issues have not, at least in part because it asks Americans to answer unimaginably serious questions about the nature of human life. But perhaps this ambiguity, this scrambling of traditional left-right politics, was always unsustainable. Perhaps it was inevitable that abortion would go the way of the rest of American politics, with two sides that share nothing lobbing claims of fact across a no-man’s-land of moral debate.

When Colleen Malloy, a neonatologist and faculty member at Northwestern University, discusses abortion with her colleagues, she says, “it’s kind of like the emperor is not wearing any clothes.” Medical teams spend enormous effort, time, and money to deliver babies safely and nurse premature infants back to health. Yet physicians often support abortion, even late into fetal development.

As medical techniques have become increasingly sophisticated, Malloy says, she has felt this tension acutely: A handful of medical centers in major cities can now perform surgeries on fetuses while they’re still in the womb. Many are the same age as the small number of fetuses aborted in the second or third trimesters of a mother’s pregnancy. “The more I advanced in my field of neonatology, the more it just became the logical choice to recognize the developing fetus for what it is: a fetus, instead of some sort of sub-human form,” Malloy says. “It just became so obvious that these were just developing humans.”

Malloy is one of many doctors and scientists who have gotten involved in the political debate over abortion. She has testified before legislative bodies about fetal pain—the claim that fetuses can experience physical suffering, perhaps even prior to the point of viability outside the womb—and written letters to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

Her career also shows the tight twine between the science and politics of abortion. In addition to her work at Northwestern, Malloy has produced work for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a relatively new D.C. think tank that seeks to bring “the power of science, medicine, and research to bear in life-related policymaking, media, and debates.” The organization, which employs a number of doctors and scholars on its staff, shares an office with Susan B. Anthony List, a prominent pro-life advocacy organization.

“I don’t think it compromises my objectivity, or any of our associate scholars,” says David Prentice, the institute’s vice president and research director. Prentice spent years of his career as a professor at Indiana State University and at the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group founded by James Dobson. “Any time there’s an association with an advocacy group, people are going to make assumptions,” he says. “What we have to do is make our best effort to show that we’re trying to put the objective science out here.”

This desire to harness “objective science” is at the heart of the pro-science bent in the pro-life movement: Science is a source of authority that’s often treated as unimpeachable fact. “The cultural authority of science has become so totalitarian, so imperial, that everybody has to have science on their side in order to win a debate,” says Mark Largent, a historian of science at Michigan State University.

Some pro-life advocates worry about the potential consequences of overemphasizing the authority of science in abortion debates. “The question of whether the embryo or fetus is a person … is not answerable by science,” says Daniel Sulmasy, a professor of biomedical ethics at Georgetown University and former Franciscan friar. “Both sides tend to use scientific information when it is useful towards making a point that is based on … firmly and sincerely held philosophical and religious convictions.”

For all the ways that the pro-life movement might be seen as countering today’s en vogue sexual politics, its obsession with science is squarely of the moment. “We’ve become steeped in a culture in which only the data matter, and that makes us, in some ways, philosophically illiterate,” says Sulmasy, who is also a doctor. “We really don’t have the tools anymore for thinking and arguing outside of something that can be scientifically verified.”

Sometimes, scientific discoveries have worked against the pro-life movement’s goals. Jérôme Lejeune, a French scientist and devout Catholic, helped discover the cause of Down syndrome. He was horrified that prenatal diagnosis of the disease often led women to terminate their pregnancies, however, and spent much of his career advocating against abortion. Lejeune eventually became the founding president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, established in 1994 to navigate the moral and theological questions raised by scientific advances against a “‘culture of death’ that threatens to take control.”

When scientific evidence seems to undermine pro-life positions on issues such as birth control and in vitro fertilization, pro-lifers’ enthusiasm for research sometimes wanes. For example: Some people believe emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill or Plan B, is an abortifacient, meaning it may end pregnancies. Because the pill can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus, advocates argue, it could end a human life.

Sulmasy, who openly identifies as pro-life, has argued against this view of the drug—and found it difficult to reach his peers in the movement. “It’s been very difficult to convince folks within the pro-life community that the science seems to be … suggesting that [Plan B] is not abortifacient,” he says. “They are too readily dismissing that work as being motivated by advocacy.”

And at a basic level, the argument for abortion is also framed in scientific terms: The procedures are “gynecological services, and they’re health-care services,” Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, says . This alone is enough to make even gung-ho pro-life advocates wary. “Science for science’s sake is not necessarily good,” said McGuire, who serves as a senior fellow at the Catholic Association. “If anything, that’s what gave us abortion … When the moral and human ethics are removed from it, it’s considered a medical procedure.”

Even with all these internal debates and complications, many in the pro-life movement feel optimistic that scientific advances are ultimately on their side. “Science is a practice of using systematic methods to study our world, including what human organisms are in their early states,” says Farr Curlin, a physician who holds joint appointments at Duke University’s schools of medicine and divinity. “I don’t see any way it’s not an ally to the pro-life cause.”

Pro-lifers’ enthusiasm for science isn’t always reciprocated by scientists—sometimes, quite the opposite. Last summer, Vincent Reid, a professor of psychology at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom, published a paper showing that late-development fetuses prefer to look at face-like images while they’re in the womb, just like newborn infants. As Reid told The Atlantic ’s Ed Yong , the study “tells us that the fetus isn’t a passive processor of environmental information. It’s an active responder.”

After his research was published, Reid suddenly found himself showered with praise from American pro-life advocates. “I had a few people contacting me, congratulating me on my great work, and then giving a kind of religious overtone to it,” he told me. “They’d finish off by saying, ‘Bless you,’ this sort of thing.” Pro-life advocates interpreted his findings as evidence that abortion is wrong, even though Reid was studying fetuses in their third trimester, which account for only a tiny fraction of abortions, he said. “It clearly resonated with them because they had a preconceived notion of what that science means.”

Reid found the experience perplexing. “I’m very proud of what I did … because it made genuine advances in our understanding of human development,” he said. “It’s frustrating that people take something which actually has no relevance to the position of anti-abortion or pro-abortion and try to use it … in a way that’s been pre-ordained.” He’s not going to stop doing his research on fetal development, he said. But he “will probably be a bit more heavy, perhaps, in my anticipation of how it’s going to be misused.”

This fate is nearly impossible to avoid in any field that remotely touches on abortion or origin-of-life issues. “There [are] no people who are just sitting in a lab, working on their projects,” says O. Carter Snead, a professor of law and political science at Notre Dame who served as general counsel to President George W. Bush’s Council of Bioethics. “Everybody is politicized.” This is true even of researchers like Reid, who was blindsided by the reaction to his findings. “You can’t do this and not get sucked into somebody’s orbit,” says Largent, the Michigan State professor. “Everyone’s going to take your work and use it for their ends. If you’re going to do this, you either decide who’s going to get to use your work, or it’s done to you.”

That can have a chilling effect on scientists who work in sensitive areas related to conception or death. Abortion is “the third-rail of research,” says Debra Mathews, an associate professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins who also has responsibility for science programs at the university’s bioethics institute. * “If you touch it, your research becomes associated with that debate.” Although the abortion debate is important, she says, it can be intimidating for researchers: “It tends to envelop whatever it touches.”

As often as not, scientists dive into the debate, taking funding from pro-life or pro-choice organizations or openly advancing an ideological position. This, too, has consequences: It casts doubt on the validity and integrity of any researcher in bioethics-related fields. “Anybody with money can get a scientist to say what they want them to say,” Largent says. “That’s not because scientists are whores. It’s because the world is a really complex place, and there are ways that you can craft a scientific investigation to lend credence to one side or another.”

This can have a fun-house-mirror effect on the scientific debate, with scholars on both sides constantly criticizing the methodological shortcomings of their opponents and coming to opposite conclusions. For example: Priscilla Coleman is a professor at Bowling Green State University who studies the mental-health effects of abortion. Coleman has testified before Congress, and pro-life advocates cite her as an important scholar working on this issue. At least some of her work, however, has been challenged repeatedly by others in her field : When she published a paper on the connection between abortion and anxiety, mood, and substance-abuse disorders in 2009, for instance, a number of scholars suggested her research design led her to draw false conclusions. She and her co-author claimed they had made only a weighting error and published a corrigendum, or corrected update. But ultimately, the author of the dataset Coleman used concluded that her “analysis does not support … assertions that abortions led to psychopathology.”

“If the results are questionable or not reproducible, then the study gets retracted. That’s what happens in science,” Coleman said in an interview. “The bottom line was that the pattern of the findings did not change.” She expressed frustration at media reports that questioned her work. “I’m so past trying to defend myself in these types of articles,” she said. “To me, there isn’t anything much worse than distorting science for an agenda, when the ultimate impact falls on these women who spend years and years suffering.”

At least in one respect, she is correct: Many of her opponents do have affiliations with the pro-choice movement. In this case, one of the researchers questioning her work was associated with the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization. In an email, Lawrence Finer, the co-author who serves as Guttmacher’s vice president for research, said that Coleman’s results were simply not reproducible. While Guttmacher advocates for abortion rights, the difference, Finer claimed, is that it places a priority on transparency and integrity—which, he implied, the other side does not. “It’s actually not difficult to distinguish neutral analysis from advocacy,” he wrote in an email. “The way that’s done is by making one’s analytical methods transparent and by submitting one’s analysis—‘neutral’ or not—to peer review. No researcher—no person, for that matter—is neutral; everyone has an opinion. What matters is whether the researcher’s methods are appropriate and reproducible.”

“There is a false equivalence between the science and what [Coleman] does,” added Julia Steinberg, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Health and Finer’s co-author, in an email. “It’s not a debate, the way global warming is not a debate. There are people claiming global warming is not occurring, but scientists have compelling evidence that it is occurring. Similarly, there are people like Coleman, claiming abortion harms women’s mental health, but the scientists have compelling evidence that this is not occurring.”

Yet, even the academy that establishes and promotes transparent methodologies for science research has its own institutional biases. Because support for legal abortion rights is commonly seen as a neutral position in the academy, Sulmasy says, openly pro-life scholars may have a harder time getting their colleagues to take their work seriously. “If an article is written by somebody who … is affiliated with a pro-life group or has a known pro-life stand on it, that scientific evaluation is typically dismissed as advocacy,” he said. “Prevailing prejudices within academia and media” determine “what gets considered to be advocacy and what is considered to be scientifically valid.”

Pro-life optimists believe those biases might be changing—or, at least, they hope they’ve captured the territory of scientific authority. As the former NARAL president Kate Michelman told Newsweek in 2010 , “The technology has clearly helped to define how people think about a fetus as a full, breathing human being … The other side has been able to use the technology to its own end.” In recent years, this has been the biggest change in the abortion debate, says Jeanne Mancini, the president of March for Life: Pro-choice advocates have largely given on up on the argument that fetuses are “lifeless blobs of tissue.”

“There had been, a long time ago, this mantra from our friends on the other side of this issue that, while a little one is developing in its mother’s womb, it’s not a baby,” she says. “It’s really hard to make that argument when you see and hear a heartbeat and watch little hands moving around.”

Ultimately, this is the pro-life movement’s reason for framing its cause in scientific terms: The best argument for protecting life in the womb is found in the common sense of fetal heartbeats and swelling stomachs. “The pro-life movement has always been a movement aimed at cultivating the moral imagination so people can understand why we should care about human beings in the womb,” says Snead, the Notre Dame professor. “Science has been used, for a long time, as a bridge to that moral imagination.”

Now, the pro-life movement has successfully brought their scientific rallying cry to Capitol Hill. In a recent promotional video for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, Republican legislators spoke warmly about how data help make the case for limiting abortion. “When we have very difficult topics that we need to talk about, the Charlotte Lozier Institute gives credibility to the testimony and to the information that we’re giving others,” says Tennessee Representative Diane Black. Representative Claudia Tenney of New York agreed: “We’re winning on facts, and we’re winning hearts and minds on science.”

This, above all, represents the shift in America’s abortion debate: An issue that has long been argued in normative claims about the nature of human life and women’s autonomy has shifted toward a wobbly empirical debate. As Tenney suggested, it is a move made with an eye toward winning—on policy, on public opinion, and, ultimately, in courtrooms. The side effect of this strategy, however, is ever deeper politicization and entrenchment. A deliberative democracy where even basic facts aren’t shared isn’t much of a democracy at all. It’s more of an exhausting tug-of-war, where the side with the most money and the best credentials is declared the winner.

* This article has been updated to clarify that Mathews helps run science programs at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, rather than the institute itself. This story also originally stated that doctors perform surgeries on genetically abnormal fetuses while they are in utero. Fetuses that are treated this way are not necessarily genetically abnormal, however.

About the Author

More Stories

The Massive Progressive Dark-Money Group You’ve Never Heard Of

The Christians Who Mock Wokeness for a Living

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Reproductive rights in America

The movement against abortion rights is nearing its apex. but it began way before roe.

Deepa Shivaram

Activists Lori Gordon (R) and Tammie Miller (L) of Payne, Ohio, take part in the annual "March for Life" event January 22, 2002 in Washington, D.C. Alex Wong/Getty Images hide caption

Activists Lori Gordon (R) and Tammie Miller (L) of Payne, Ohio, take part in the annual "March for Life" event January 22, 2002 in Washington, D.C.

The Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade in 1973, saying that access to abortion was protected in the United States.

The decision fueled the anti-abortion movement and congealed it, too. Prior to Roe , anti-abortion activists were operating on a state level, but the Supreme Court's ruling turned the movement into a national one.

In the decades before the decision, opposition to abortion was a fairly bipartisan issue. In fact, many Democrats in elected positions were likely to oppose unrestricting abortion access because many represented Catholics, who were largely opposed to abortion. But even then, it wasn't a politically charged topic.

Now, the Court appears to be on the verge of overturning the right to an abortion, bringing a movement that transformed American politics over the past half century to its apex.

In the past decade, Donald Trump was able to win the White House in no small part because he galvinized conservative evangelicals by pledging to appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe . It was a promise he fulfilled, even though Trump had previously supported abortion rights .

What conservative justices said — and didn't say — about Roe at their confirmations

But the history of organized opposition to abortion access started more than a century before Roe v. Wade , with roots in British common law.

Restricting abortion actually began with doctors

In the early days of the country, laws often reflected British common law, and when it came to abortion, the process was determined by quickening. Quickening meant the moment the pregnant person could feel the fetus move, which typically happened between the fourth and six month of pregnancy. At that time, it was the only way to truly confirm the pregnancy, so the thought of life beginning at conception wasn't a factor at all.

Ending the pregnancy after the quickening period was considered illegal, but was just a misdemeanor. And even then, it was hard to prosecute because it was only the pregnant person who could attest to whether or not the fetus had moved. Abortions were accessible and largely without stigma at this time.

Here's what could happen now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade

But close to the mid 1800s, some doctors, who at the time were a mostly unorganized profession, sought to separate themselves from the healers and midwives who were also performing abortions. Doctors didn't have as much medical or institutional authority as they do today, and some in the profession pushed states to pass anti-abortion laws in order to tamp down on competition. These physicians, all of whom were men and who were backed by the newly founded American Medical Association , argued that they had more knowledge on embryos and that the heightened medical knowledge was necessary to determine when life began.

It should be noted, though, that this claim of advanced knowledge didn't actually exist in the medical community. Historians note that this argument was mostly used as a way to take away women's bodily autonomy. Now, it was a doctor who could interpret their medical condition, rather than just relying on whether the pregnant individual could feel the fetus move.

Their efforts worked. By the early 1900s, every state had made abortion illegal, though there were exceptions made if the life of the pregnant person was at risk.

What happens next, in the decades leading up to Roe v. Wade?

In terms of the movement, mostly nothing.

In these decades leading up to Roe , abortion was for the most part illegal. Because of that, seeking abortions also became extremely dangerous, particularly for low-income pregnant people and people of color , especially Black women.

In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women in the United States, though there were likely many more deaths that did not get recorded. In the 1940s when antibiotics were introduced, fewer were dying from illegal abortions, but thousands were still admitted into the hospital due to medical complications.

The political consequences of the Supreme Court's leaked draft opinion on abortion

By the middle of the 1960s, some states like Colorado liberalized their abortion laws, and anti-abortion movements started to crop up on the state level. But it was still not nationally talked about, or even politicized, the way it started to become in the 1970s.

How did the movement change after Roe v. Wade in 1973?

In a short answer, it changed a lot.

"All of a sudden, it moves from a movement in the states that are liberalizing to a nationwide movement," Jennifer Holland, a professor at the University of Oklahoma and scholar on the anti-abortion movement, tells NPR.

"They are able to point to sort of an oppressive federal government... and it really feeds into the argument that the United States is on a slippery slope toward genocide and fascism," Holland said, referring to language often used by the anti-abortion movement.

Members of a Right to Life committee holding a banner reading 'Stop the slaughter now!' and a placard reading 'The Supreme Court Injustice' during a protest, location unspecified, 1974. Peter Keegan/Getty Images hide caption

Members of a Right to Life committee holding a banner reading 'Stop the slaughter now!' and a placard reading 'The Supreme Court Injustice' during a protest, location unspecified, 1974.

Holland says that at this point, the anti-abortion movement strategically cast itself as a "rights campaign" and started to compare abortion to the Holocaust and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision, which ruled that Black people in the U.S. did not have constitutional rights.

"With Roe , the movement is able to grasp on to a federal oppressor, as an entity that is... allowing genocide to be enacted," Holland said.

And then, the Republican Party gets involved

By the mid-1970s, the anti-abortion movement becomes far more partisan.

In 1976, the Republican Party added an anti-abortion stance in their party platform. And that's when they start to enlist more evangelicals into the anti-abortion movement, which was critical for the movement's expansion.

Through the 1980s, Republican leaders such as Ronald Reagan won in elections thanks to the anti-abortion movement. The Supreme Court also ruled on Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in 1992, making it easier for states to pass more restrictive abortion laws. By 1996, 86% of all counties in the U.S. did not have a known abortion provider.

The NPR Politics Podcast

The docket: after a half century, roe v. wade faces an uncertain future.

From the late 1990s into the early 2000s, socially conservative leaders like James Dobson start to become more critical of the Republican Party. For example, they didn't want Reagan to nominate Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court because she wasn't in line with the movement, but Reagan nominated her anyway.

"In the late 90s, you have all these big socially conservative leaders who say: no more... We don't agree in a big tent party," Holland said

"You really see the power of the anti-abortion movement to not only be a part of a party, but to really remake a party. And demand political uniformity on this issue," she said.

Through the end of the 20th century and the decades since, there's been a concerted effort from Republicans to prioritize abortion restrictions in legislation and judicial appointees. Conservative organizations such as the Federalist Society have heavily influenced who leaders like former President Trump nominate to the courts. Trump pledged to select nominees off a list provided by the group, which has in part led to the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court today.

Former President Donald Trump galvizined support among conservative evangelicals by pledging to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, even though he had previously supported abortion rights. OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Former President Donald Trump galvizined support among conservative evangelicals by pledging to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, even though he had previously supported abortion rights.

In the year 2022, where does the movement stand? How popular is banning abortion?

The Supreme Court's draft opinion that leaked Monday night effectively achieves what the anti-abortion movement has been aiming for for decades. But in public opinion, it's not a popular move at all.

Several polls from the last few years show that a majority of Americans do not support banning abortion. For example a recent poll from ABC/Washington Post shows that 54% think Roe v. Wade should be upheld and only 28% say it should be overturned; 18% said they had no opinion.

The unpopularity of overturning Roe isn't a new finding, either. Polling from CNN going back to 1989 shows that the percentage of Americans who support overturning Roe has never risen above 36%.

So right now, the Supreme Court is set to change a ruling that most Americans want to keep in place.

• anti abortion
• evangelical politics
• Roe v. Wade
• reproductive health

• Health care
• Environment
• Criminal Justice
• Election 2024
• Abortion access
• Abortion Policy
• Health Care

Helping a minor travel for an abortion? Some states have made it a crime.

Critics say ‘abortion trafficking’ laws violate constitutional rights to free speech and interstate travel., by: anna claire vollers - august 23, 2024 5:00 am.

An ultrasound is performed to verify a pregnancy at the Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, La. Helping a pregnant minor travel to get a legal abortion without parental consent is now a crime in two Republican-led states, and lawmakers in other states have considered similar legislation. Gerald Herbert/The Associated Press

Read more Stateline coverage on how states are either protecting or curbing access to abortions.

Helping a pregnant minor travel to get a legal abortion without parental consent is now a crime in at least two Republican-led states, prompting legal action by abortion-rights advocates and copycat legislation from conservative lawmakers in a handful of other states.

Last year, Idaho became the first state to outlaw “abortion trafficking,” which it defined as “recruiting, harboring or transporting” a pregnant minor to get an abortion or abortion medication without parental permission. In May, Tennessee enacted a similar law . And Republican lawmakers in Alabama , Mississippi and Oklahoma introduced abortion trafficking bills during their most recent legislative sessions, although those bills failed to advance before the sessions ended.

Those five states are among the 14 that enacted strict abortion bans following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 Dobbs decision , which dismantled the federal right to abortion. Now, conservative state lawmakers are pushing additional measures to try to restrict their residents from getting them in states where it remains legal.

“A lot of folks thought Dobbs was the floor and it’s really not,” said Tennessee state Rep. Aftyn Behn, a Nashville Democrat who’s challenging Tennessee’s trafficking law in court. “[Anti-abortion lawmakers] are coming for state travel and the ability to even talk about abortion.”

Abortion-rights advocates have filed lawsuits in Alabama , Idaho and Tennessee , arguing the laws are vague and violate constitutional rights to free speech and travel between states . A federal judge has temporarily blocked Idaho’s law from being enforced while the case is ongoing.

Conservatives push to declare fetuses as people, with far-reaching consequences

Proponents of the laws argue they’re needed to protect parental rights and to prevent other adults from persuading adolescents to get abortions.

“This is a parental rights piece of legislation,” Idaho Republican state Rep. Barbara Ehardt told Stateline. “We can’t control someone getting an abortion in Oregon. But you cannot take a child to get an abortion without the parent’s knowledge because, at least in the past, we would have called that kidnapping.”

But critics warn that abortion trafficking laws could have grave implications not only for interstate travel, but also for personal speech and communication between friends, or between children and adults they trust.

“If courts go down this road, it could change the scope of the First Amendment,” Mary Ziegler, a legal historian and law professor at the University of California, Davis School of Law, told Stateline. “It could have an effect on what else qualifies as crime-facilitating speech, and that could limit the kinds of things people can say and do online and in other contexts.”

Opponents also question whether states should be permitted to interfere in the business of other states. Criminalizing travel within an abortion-ban state to reach another state for a legal abortion would “allow prosecutors to project power across state lines,” said Ziegler.

“We haven’t seen states try to interfere in what’s happening in other states in quite the same way in a long time,” she said. “That’s why there is legal uncertainty — because we’re not talking about something where we have a lot of legal precedent.”

‘Parental rights’

Tennessee state Rep. Jason Zachary, a Knoxville Republican, defended Tennessee’s legislation as “a parental rights bill” that “reinforces a parent’s right to do what’s best for their child,” in remarks he made to the Tennessee General Assembly before the bill passed. Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed it into law in May.

The following month, Behn joined with Nashville attorney and longtime abortion access activist Rachel Welty to file a lawsuit challenging the new law.

Behn and Welty sued nearly a dozen district attorneys in Tennessee, alleging they ignored Welty’s requests to define what behavior would be deemed illegal under the new law. The Tennessee law says that abortion trafficking occurs when an adult “intentionally recruits, harbors, or transports” a pregnant minor within the state to get an abortion or an abortion-inducing drug without parental consent, “regardless of where the abortion is to be procured.”

A hearing to determine whether the court will grant a temporary injunction blocking the Tennessee law, which is currently in effect, is scheduled for Aug. 30.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

After Idaho passed its law in April 2023, two advocacy groups and an attorney who works with sexual assault victims sued the state attorney general. The plaintiffs claim Idaho’s law is vague and violates the First Amendment right to free speech, as well as the right to travel freely between states. The right to interstate travel isn’t spelled out in the U.S. Constitution but it’s implied , legal experts say. The Idaho law directly applies to travel within the state, but it also notes that defendants are not immune from liability if “the abortion provider or the abortion-inducing drug provider is located in another state.”

Megan Kovacs, a board member with the Northwest Abortion Access Fund, which is a plaintiff in the case along with the Indigenous Idaho Alliance, said it is “so clearly unconstitutional to disallow people from accessing health care from within or outside their state.” Kovacs added that her group also wants to protect its volunteers from legal liability.

Neither the Idaho nor the Tennessee law exempts minors who become pregnant after being raped by a parent.

“If that person had to go to a parent who didn’t believe them or wanted to defend that family member who was the abuser, that only impedes healing even more,” said Kovacs, who has spent a decade working with survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

Ehardt, who sponsored the Idaho bill, said any adult who is told by a child about an incident of incest should call authorities rather than helping the minor obtain an abortion without parental consent.

“You have to call the police and they will be the ones to help protect the child’s safety,” she said.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing in May in Seattle, and Kovacs said she expects to learn in the next few weeks whether the court will uphold the temporary injunction blocking Idaho’s law while the lawsuit rolls on.

In July 2023, a group of health care providers sued Alabama Republican Attorney General Steve Marshall and district attorneys, asking the court to prevent the state from prosecuting people who help Alabamians travel to get abortion care in states where it’s legal.

The providers filed the lawsuit in response to remarks that Marshall made on a radio show in 2022, when he suggested that some people who aid a pregnant person in planning or traveling to get an abortion in another state could be prosecuted under the state’s criminal conspiracy laws. A judge denied Marshall’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit earlier this year, and the case is ongoing.

A coordinated effort

The Tennessee and Idaho laws mirror language in model legislation that was published in 2022 by the National Right to Life Committee, which bills itself as the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization.

First State Law to Criminalize Abortion ‘Trafficking’ May Inspire Others

“With this model law, we [are] laying out a roadmap for the right-to-life movement so that, in a post-Roe society, we can protect many mothers and their children from the tragedy of abortion,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life Committee, in a June 2022 statement introducing the model anti-abortion law.

Anti-abortion-rights organizations, like other interest groups, have long coordinated strategies to promote their preferred legislation to state and federal lawmakers.

The Idaho and Tennessee laws focus specifically on minors, even though they comprise a small fraction of people who get abortions. Those under 19 accounted for 8.1% of abortions, and those under age 15 accounted for just 0.2% of abortions in 2021, the most recent year for which the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published data .

Kovacs and Ziegler say the bills zero in on minors’ access to abortion because policies that regulate children and teens tend to be more politically acceptable than broader restrictions that affect adults. Such bills also tend to be more likely to survive legal challenges in court.

A chilling effect

Nobody in Tennessee or Idaho has yet been prosecuted under the abortion trafficking laws, but an Idaho woman and her son were charged with kidnapping last fall for allegedly taking the son’s girlfriend, a minor, out of state to get an abortion.

One main goal of a law such as Tennessee’s, Behn believes, is to create a chilling effect so that average people are scared to help anyone who might need an abortion, for fear of breaking the law.

“These bills create an environment of suspicion, fear and misinformation,” said Behn. “But I do think we will see more aggressive district attorneys start to prosecute these cases. [The law] widens the permission structure to start prosecuting people.”

Laws criminalizing abortion travel and imposing other abortion restrictions may be designed to provoke a legal challenge, Ziegler said. With a 6-3 conservative majority, the U.S. Supreme Court might be inclined to support them.

Abortion-rights advocates argue that restrictive abortion laws end up harming even those people who live in states where abortion is still legal.

Oregon, for example, has some of the strongest abortion protection laws in the nation. And yet the strict abortion ban next door in Idaho has made it more difficult for Oregonians to access care, said Kovacs, who lives in Oregon.

These bills create an environment of suspicion, fear and misinformation. But I do think we will see more aggressive district attorneys start to prosecute these cases.

– Tennessee Democratic state Rep. Aftyn Behn

Before Idaho’s ban, many people in Eastern Oregon traveled to Idaho for abortion care, she said, because its clinics were closer than Oregon’s clinics, most of which are concentrated on the western side of the state. Last year, in response to increasing abortion restrictions in other states, Oregon passed a sweeping health care omnibus bill that strengthens protections for abortion providers and explicitly allows minors to seek abortions without parental consent. It was signed into law and took effect in January.

Ziegler said it’s not hard to imagine that if abortion trafficking laws are upheld in abortion-ban states, at some point prosecutors in those states could file charges against providers in “safe” states for providing abortion help, such as mailing abortion pills.

“I think it’s not intended to just stop with the people who are in the ban states,” Ziegler said.

SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.

• Mississippi

Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics.

Anna Claire Vollers

Anna Claire Vollers covers health care for Stateline. She is based in Huntsville, Alabama.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom , the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Related News

Advertisement

Free Newsletters

Sign up now

Your letters: Women deacons, pro-life Democrats, and Trump's immigration

by NCR Staff

View Author Profile

Join the Conversation

Following are NCR reader responses to recent news articles, opinion columns and theological essays with letters that have been edited for length and clarity.

Women were deacons

The most important fact missing from Elizabeth Schrader Polczer’s “In consideration of a female diaconate, look to Mary Magdalene” (ncronline.org,  July 20, 2024 ) is the history of women

sacramentally ordained as deacons, in both the East and the West. There is great danger in suggesting an unordained “female diaconate,” which seems to be what Pope Francis suggested in his CBS-TV interview with Norah O’Donnell. Women can no longer be officially second-class citizens in the Catholic Churches. One sign of  hope is the Orthodox Church in Zimbabwe recently restoring the tradition of ordained women deacons.

JAZMIN JIMENEZ Manhattan Beach, California

Pro-life women not single-issue voters

As a life-long Democrat and Catholic, I have not been a single-issue voter. I was somewhat shocked at Michael 's article on the issue of women's reproductive rights. The issue is much more complicated than abortion.

Over the years I have developed my conscience with prayer, reading and retreats. I am committed to justice, peace and freedom of choice. Implying that Catholics would leave the democratic party because of women's right to choose is ludicrous and judgmental.

I personally do not believe in abortion for the sake of abortion. But I cannot impose my Catholic belief system on other women's choices — That's what the White Nationalists are attempting to do. I reject that approach. Michael needs to listen to the women talking at the democratic convention tonight and hear their stories about the choices they were forced to make.

I usually enjoy Michael's articles from which I learn many important nuances, but his argument that Democrats are leaving the party because of abortion is presumptuous. We women are more nuanced than that.

JOYCE DUROSKO Monroe, Michigan

Trump's immigration lethal to democracy

J. Kevin Appleby’s column about Trump’s immigration plans focused on important effects on the nation and church (ncronline.org,  Aug. 12, 2024 ). But it did not show the total impact of this phase of Trump’s approach to  Gonzo Governance that attacks our basic institutions and entrenched values. He did not discuss the actual risks that Trump’s plan poses for the Latino community when police and Border Patrol agents round up people who look Hispanic. Previous mass deportations of the Hispanic community were human rights and civil rights disasters.  The Welfare Repatriation Deportation of the 1930s deported nearly two million people, half of whom were U. S. citizens. Two decades later (1954-55) the Eisenhower administration enacted  Operation Wetback and deported another million Hispanic residents that included tens of thousands of American citizens. More recently (mid 2000s) Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s deputies engaged in " immigration patrols " and arrested hundreds of Hispanic persons who were racially profiled in Phoenix, Arizona. When Arpaio refused a court order to stop the practice, he was convicted of criminal contempt, but was later pardoned by President Trump.  Donald Trump poses real risks to the Hispanic community.

DR. DAVID L. ALTHEIDE Solana Beach, California

Most Read Stories

#1 These 3 childless cat ladies will inspire you

#2 Federal judge rules Maine can exclude Catholic schools from state's school tuition grant program

#3 Biden, first Catholic president since JFK, will leave legacy shaped by his faith

#4 Is there still room for pro-life Democrats?

Latest news.

New book from Kaya Oakes explores the limits of forgiveness

'Alight Beyond the Sea' is an album for years that ask questions

Twenty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time: Are you all in?

The old man who was once a boy on the altar

Subscribe to ncr's free newsletters.

Select any of the newsletters below, then enter your email address and click "subscribe"

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

What Is the Real Meaning of ‘Pro-Life’?

More from our inbox:.

• The Texas Abortion Ruling
• The Campus Clash of Free Speech and Antisemitism
• The Undemocratic Electoral College
• Trump and NATO

To the Editor:

Re “ Republicans Are Finding Out That ‘Pro-Life’ Has Too Many Meanings ,” by Liz Mair (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 6):

Ms. Mair, a G.O.P. campaign strategist, writes about all the desperate ways Republican politicians are trying to explain their stance on abortion now that their decades-long fight to make it illegal has taken a step forward.

It seems her clients are scrambling, surprised to find that “rank-and-file G.O.P. voters are not as pro-life as we might have thought.”

The medical community is not surprised. You see, there are no party affiliation requirements for unplanned or medically doomed pregnancies. Doctors have seen staunch Republicans obtain safe and legal abortions for decades. I’m sure that every single white male Republican legislator who signs “heartbeat” laws, piously claims he is pro-life and rails against Planned Parenthood knows a woman who has had an abortion. And he may have caused one himself.

Instead of spinning the message on their terrible policies, her advice to her G.O.P. clients should be to stop blocking funding for reliable contraception, stop interfering with medical decisions between women and their doctors and start writing laws that support women who can’t afford another pregnancy because of poverty, a lack of postpartum job security or abusive partners.

You know, “pro-life” stuff.

Cheryl Bailey St. Paul, Minn. The writer is a retired gynecologic oncologist.

In recommending that Republicans finesse the abortion issue, Liz Mair doesn’t mention one point. Pro-choice advocates are not anti-life, but we disagree with those who call themselves pro-life in two fundamental ways. We do not believe that humans can claim to know what God — who certainly allows miscarriages — wants, and we do not believe that humans claiming to have this knowledge have a right to impose their religious beliefs on others.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .