Online at: http://politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/3065/1/159/

Sanctified or Sanctimonious: Hypocrisy and the Anti-Choice Movement

By Anna Bates

Archives - Dates and Topics

2006 – print

April click here for related stories: human rights

3-28-06, 1:00 pm

Defenders of women’s rights to reproductive health care options have long been aware of the far right’s opposition to women’s reproductive freedom. A major problem in recent years has been a growing number of so-called pro-life feminists who use increasingly persuasive moral arguments to gain support for the restriction of women’s access to reproductive health care and control over their bodies.

Historically, the anti-abortion movement sprang up almost immediately following the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which effectively legalized abortion by striking down state-level restrictions on reproductive choice.

After Roe v. Wade, the number of abortions increased dramatically. In response, “pro-life” forces mobilized. In January 1974, Nellie Gray organized a march on Washington to call attention to the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. “It’s murder, pure and simple,” she said.
Opponents of abortion lobbied to cut off federal funds that allowed the poor to obtain abortions. They insisted that abortion should be performed in hospitals and not less expensive clinics, and they worked to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Although the Supreme Court, which included Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman in its history, reaffirmed its judgment in 1983, the pro-life movement marched on, gaining steam.

In 1989, a solidifying conservative majority on the court ruled in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that while women’s right to abortion remained intact, state legislatures could impose limitations if they chose. With that judgment, a major legislative debate over the issue began, and numerous states began to mandate restrictions. In response, the courts heard still further cases to determine what should remain legal.

In its 1992 decision in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what it termed the “essence” of the right to abortion, while permitting further state restrictions. By a narrow 5-4 margin, it upheld most provisions of a Pennsylvania law that established a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion and required teenage girls to secure the permission of a parent or a judge before ending pregnancy.

Although the court struck down as an undue burden a provision requiring a woman to notify her husband of her plan to have an abortion, the ruling clearly gave states greater latitude in the overall restrictive effort. It also made an abortion harder to obtain, particularly for poor women and young women. With both proponents and opponents of abortion unhappy with the decision, the issue remained very much alive.

These and other more recent attacks on legal abortions have diminished Roe v. Wade significantly.

What are the arguments against abortion, and why are they so persuasive? According to Randall A. Lake, in his article “The Metaethical Framework of Anti-Abortion Rhetoric,” the intransigence of anti-choice forces is the product of a system of absolute moral assumptions underlying the right-to-life position that renders compromise unnecessary, unthinkable and unethical.

From its inception, the anti-choice position showed a clear preference for what it calls “deontological” (ethics of duty) arguments, based on duty and moral obligation. The anti-abortion position relies on a single moral rule: do not kill. Although obscured somewhat by the terminology “right to life,” the primary objection to abortion depends on a rule that prohibits murder. In anti-abortion rhetoric, this rule is represented as a universal moral law that, because of the fetus’s alleged human status, necessarily forbids abortion.

The anti-choice view conceives of ethics as a set of universal and immutable moral rules that distinguishes right from wrong. Classes of action that violate these rules are intrinsically and always wrong.

Anti-abortionists view humans as weak, selfish and basically immoral. They see the choice to abort as motivated by sheer convenience. They claim that concern for the mother’s welfare is often a mask for a deeply rooted urge to kill, and the abortion decision manifests a murderous intent. They claim that pro-choice people are deeply suicidal, and that doctors force women to have abortions to make money.

The anti-abortion position is also conceived on a legalistic model. The fetus, they claim, is a person with a right to life guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They believe that once society abandons a strict prohibition of killing and abortion becomes morally acceptable, infanticide, euthanasia and genocide against the unfit will follow. They use the example of Nazi Germany to support their claim. They argue that abortion, euthanasia and genocide are all equally wrong and basically indistinct.

Abortion would lead to death camps because certain malevolent individuals would use the case as a precedent to convince misguided individuals that incursions on the right to life are going to happen.

Defenders of a woman’s right to choose are basically evil, they think. They are accused of bad faith. All persons have a right to life. The fetus is a person. Therefore, abortion is murder and hence always wrong.

There can be no dispute because, to these people, freedom of choice cannot include the freedom to choose immorality. They use the guilty feelings of women who have had abortions as ammunition for their argument. We are supposed to “know” that abortion is wrong.

Recently, opposition to abortion has grown in liberal circles. The organization “Democrats for Life” has a huge following. This unfortunately viable pressure group appeals to the fundamental conviction that human life is “sacred.”

Their reasoning goes like this: many Christians, especially Catholics and evangelicals, abandoned the Democratic Party in recent years because of its support for reproductive freedom. Therefore, to win back the support of the moral sector of liberals in America, the Democratic Party must adopt a platform that respects life, “from the beginning of life to natural death.” This would include opposition to abortion, capital punishment and euthanasia.

Women’s groups, including one called “Feminists for Life,” point to “the strength of women and the potential of every human life,” arguing essentially that abortion has abused women by implicitly forcing them to murder their children. At the heart of their argument is the supposed immorality of choosing between women and children.

Says Carolyn Gargaro,

Pro-life feminists respect ALL human life, and they do not place their morality on people – including the unborn – by deciding who should live and who should die. Some people call pro-life feminists “anti-choice” – well, pro-life feminists are anti-choice, when it comes to abortion. They are also anti-choice when it comes to rape or the abuse of women. No one should have the “choice” to rape or abuse women either. No one should have the “choice” to beat a woman or not.

There are even gay and lesbian organizations aimed at restricting abortion. In 2002, leaders of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (Plagal) were arrested at the 29th annual March for Life. The arrests were conducted by direct orders of Miss Nellie Gray, the March for Life leader. Though interesting, this apparent lack of solidarity among pro-life forces does not diminish their potential power.

Defenders of women’s reproductive choice are facing dire times. The appointment of pro-life justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is the tip of the iceberg. All people who recognize these threats must mobilize now. The question is not about right to life. The question is about the spread of a movement waging war on women.

The religious argument is absurd. When a woman conceives after violent rape, or a young girl by the father who’s abused her for years, this is not the work of a gracious God.

And this is not to mention the economic issues surrounding reproductive choice and access to reproductive health care.

My purpose here is not to list pro-choice arguments, but to mobilize proponents of women’s reproductive freedom. Get up to date information and easy ways to make a difference on the local, state and national levels at prochoiceamerica.org. Write to your senators and representatives. Insist on the protection of reproductive choice.

--Anna Bates teaches college history in New York State. Send your letters to the editor to pa-letters@politicalaffairs.net