Pro-abortionists critique turning abortion into an “economic issue,” their alternative just as evasive

By Dave Andrusko

Anat Shenker-Osorio

Anat Shenker-Osorio

These are dark and confusing and confounding days for pro-abortionists who are floundering [struggling] as they try to avoid foundering [sinking]. That is why we see them repacking (yet again!) the decision to take the life of an unborn child in a mantra they hope will attract a wider audience.

Out, for example, with “pro-choice,” which was, is, and always will be as vacuous as it is meaningless. In with….what?

One new stratagem (as two pro-abortion critics describe it) is “Advocating for access to abortion through an economic frame”–in English, “abortion is an economic issue.”

Writing at the abortion-forever-and-beyond site rewire news, Anat Shenker-Osorio and Sharon Rose Goldtzvik outline the failures (and they are multiple) of the “dead-end narrative of ‘abortion as economic issue.’”

Some of it need not detain us. It is the usual tedious character assassination/old white men plot nonsense.

Other arguments are more interesting. They give evidence of having thought through the [il]logic of turning the purposeful execution of defenseless babies into just another example of “monetizing things core to human existence” which in the past, they tell their readers, “loses key debates.”

So what is the answer, according to Shenker-Osorio and Goldtzvik? Out with “attempting to evade the moral questions at the heart of abortion with economic terms; it’s inherent in the very label ‘pro-choice.’” In with “engag[ing] on an emotional level, not a practical one.”

This is not as insipid (or evasive) as it might sound at first blush. Let’s back up a step because the confusion is just starting.

Our authors tell us

[A]s is often the case with polarizing issues, progressives default to avoiding naming what they believe and what kind of society they seek to create. Abortion opponents, then, seize on it as proof positive of some latent discomfort that advocates use euphemism and deflection to obscure.

So we can assume Shenker-Osorio and Goldtzvik are not victims of “latent discomfort,” evidenced by the use of “euphemism and deflection to obscure.” Let’s see if that holds true.

Later in their post they tell us they’ve found the keys to the secular, pro-abortion kingdom:

Messages that acknowledge the complexities inherent to abortion, that model what it means to suspend judgment of people acting in ways we do not endorse, have yielded the best results in public opinion research.

In other words…what? They offer several sample sounds bites. The first is, “Abortion is a deeply personal and often complex decision, and I don’t believe you can make that decision for someone else.”

Sharon Rose Goldtzvik

Sharon Rose Goldtzvik

The common denominator of the three examples is easily summarized: “Who are you to decide for someone else?”

That’s certainly “naming what they believe,” does not avoid “naming what they believe,” and is free of euphemisms, correct? Of course not.

If turning abortion into an economic issue “makes supporters of reproductive freedom sound out of touch with the majority of humans who have strong feelings and moral convictions about abortion, children, and parenting,” their elusive answer is to convince people to pitch their moral convictions overboard and dismantle their moral antennae.

“Pro-choice” is replaced by “Who are you to….?”

“I will kill my unborn child because that is my choice” takes a back seat to “I will kill my unborn child because the decision to slice off her arms and crush her head is sooooooo complex.”

What better evidence could you need that Shenker-Osorio and Goldtzvik are just as “out of touch with the majority of humans who have strong feelings and moral convictions about abortion, children, and parenting” as those who want to cloak abortion as an “economic issue.”

Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, go directly to and/or follow me on Twitter at Please send your comments to