So who really cares about “protecting women”?


By Dave Andrusko

Let’s be honest, is there one among us that believes abortion supporters will ever—could ever—give us even a smidgeon of credit for proposing laws that increase what women know about their unborn child; ensure that if an abortionist botches an abortion he has admitting privileges in a nearby hospital; set parameters around the use of chemical abortifacients; or demand minimal standards for abortion clinics?

Of course not. “Pretty much no one actually thinks anti-choice activists care one way or another about protecting women,” writes pro-abortionist Amanda Marcotte at, in a typical rant, to which she adds (bitterly) “but pretending you care for legal purposes may very well be an effective political strategy.”

Here’s the double standard how it works. When the state of California, which can never run out of new ways to increase the number of abortions, enacts two new laws, it’s democracy in action. To the pro-abortionist the rationale for AB 154 –that there is not enough “access” to abortion—is perfect because it is limitless. There is NEVER enough access to abortion.

Forget as well that while California makes up 12% of the nation’s population, 29% of all abortions already take place here! And never mind that AB 154 allows an ever-expanding range of non-physicians to perform aspiration abortions, a certain kind of first-trimester abortion, increasing the danger to women. Advocates have already conjured up one of their on-demand “studies” said to “prove” that performing abortions is as easy as falling off a log. But that doesn’t change the grim truth

As Anissa Smith, spokeswoman for the California Pro-Life Council, NRLC’s state affiliate, has observed, the California Business and Professions Code prohibits abortions being done on animals unless the abortionist is a trained and certified veterinary surgeon. “As of today, a mother dog will have more dignity in the eyes of California law than a vulnerable young mother talked into an abortion by a Planned Parenthood staffer,” Smith said.

And this doesn’t even address the shenanigans in a separate bill (AB 980). Having decreed in AB 154 that aspiration abortions are “non-surgical,” that greased the skids to pass AB 980 which ensures that clinics performing these ‘nonsurgical’ abortions are exempted from the more stringent building code standards for surgery.

Pro-abortionists have one goal—MORE ABORTIONS, which includes not only more “early” abortions, but abortions later, and later, and later in pregnancy. Nothing—repeat NOTHING–else matters. And, oh by the way, if they just happen to make a pile of money, so much the better.

The flipside of the assurance that pro-abortion laws are the embodiment of goodness and light is Marcotte’s portrait of pro-life laws which she informs us care not a twit about women, which is all the worse because the pose those evil pro-lifers strike enables them to hide their evil, dark, real agenda. ”While striking mawkish poses of concern for fetal life is still a popular rhetorical strategy on the right,” she intones, “in 2013, the main strategy for scraping away at women’s rights was to claim that it was being done for women’s own good.”

So, for example, if you pass a law to require that abortion clinics meet some minimal standards, that can’t be because the abortion industry has more than its fair share of crummy, dangerous, filthy “facilities.” Opponents can trivialize the need for such laws by insisting Kermit Gosnell is an “outlier”; never mentioning abortion clinics in states around the nation with lengthy track records of neglect; and, of course, pretending that the two-drug RU-486 abortion technique is not incredibly painful, psychologically demanding (as even proponents concede), and dangerous.

So, I ask you, who really cares about “protecting women”?

Please join those who are following me on Twitter at Send your comments to