New pro-abortion book “likely to horrify and alienate everyone who isn’t already initiated into her death cult”

By Dave Andrusko

proabortionrightsWe’ve posted several times on Katha Pollitt’s new book. We’ve done so not because of its originality (pro-abortionists are the ultimate “Greens”; they recycle the same nonsense over and over), but because her fans have convinced themselves that Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights will restart a movement which is stuck in place and down to one gear.

But the book is worth revisiting again because of a typically brilliant review by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway which appeared today at National Review Online [www.nationalreview.com/article/391288/shiny-empty-uteruses-mollie-ziegler-hemingway].

I just purchased Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights on Kindle and have skimmed some of the book. From what I can tell, Hemingway (as you would expect) does an excellent job boring in on Pollitt’s inconsistencies, her habit of substituting wishes for evidence, her raging hostility toward the maternal side of motherhood [Hemingway’s review is aptly headlined, “Shiny, Empty Uteruses”], and her thirst for a dystopian, technological future where all women are freed of the “burden” of bearing children.

For example, as Hemingway perceptively notes, Pollitt begins by stating as fact that her mother had an abortion in 1960. But there is no direct evidence. When Pollitt subsequently learned her late mother had been in the care of a physician for “gynecological problems,” she assumed that must be code for abortion, even though her father never knew about the abortion. Here’s Hemingway:

It’s unclear why she is convinced that unspecified “gynecological problems” meant her mother had an abortion instead of all the thousands of other things it could mean, but it’s an early indication of the way the book will jump to conclusions, focus on abortion as a moral good, and make claims that seem more fantasy than reality. A few pages later, Pollitt says she daydreams about “shiny and empty uteruses,” where clearing the womb is just another form of housekeeping. Her very last paragraph finds her dreaming of a future feminist heaven where “there will be abortion.”

Judging by Hemingway’s review, the book is consistent with Pollitt’s writings elsewhere. Pollitt is an exceedingly sloppy writer who is convinced that if she trivializes the significance of the unborn child and slanders pro-lifers, that substitutes for a reasoned argument. In other words, this book is for not just the true believer, but the true-true believer.

Did I mention Pollitt (whom her admirers insist has revitalized their movement’s fortunes with this stem-winder) recycles? There is the obligatory “clump of cells” label and comparison to “pea-sized shrimp-like embryos.” Such originality.
But it gets worse. Consider: We now have incredibly detailed, 4-color, real-time ultrasounds.

Not for Pollitt, as Hemingway writes: “Ultrasound images of children in the womb are ‘really just a gray blur’ and ‘fuzzy, high-tech smudges’ that she compares to photos of the Loch Ness Monster.” Get it? Loch Ness Monster.

Final thought. As pro-abortionists do routinely, Pollitt attributes attitudes and values to pro-lifers which make you and I scratch our heads. We don’t know anybody like that, and Pollitt doesn’t bother to actually quote any pro-lifer saying the things she says we are motivated by.

That the usual suspects have treated Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights as some sort of turning point in the abortion debate tell you all you need to know about the desperation they feel. Pollitt’s view of life is simply warped by an embrace of abortion as a positive good. It’s all very strange.

Hemingway ends her review with the keen observation that Pollitt’s “odd view of motherhood” will be “a very tough sell, even with the pliant media.”

“In fact, pro-lifers should welcome Pollitt’s contribution to the debate. Pro is likely to horrify and alienate everyone who isn’t already initiated into her death cult.”