It’s enough to give cynicism a bad name

By Dave Andrusko

All in all, it may be one of the strangest “studies” from a pro-abortion source that I have ever read. But, no sooner do I write this sentence, when it occurs to me that (from the anti-life perspective), it makes perfect sense.

What do I mean? We’ve all read or heard ad nauseam that abortion “helps” women. In fact, those who of us who oppose abortion are supposed to understand it’s a kind of (sick) rite of passage, as normal as puberty and getting a driver’s license.

What about men (and boys)? Their “role” is, at a minimum, to shut up, better yet facilitate the death of their child.

Now, we’re told, there is room for #MenForChoice which ought to flourish because abortion benefits men as well.

I give you “Male Abortion Beneficiaries: Exploring the Long-Term Educational and Economic Associations of Abortion Among Men Who Report Teen Pregnancy” which appeared in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

Conclusion? “Women’s use of abortion services were associated with educational benefits for men who report teen pregnancies.”

At first glance, you wouldn’t think this would be a big selling point among self-avowed “feminists.” But any port in a storm, right?

The abortion industry and its legion of media enablers will never cease to tout the power of #ShoutYourAbortion. But they also know if they can persuade more men to tout the advantages—to them—of abandoning the pregnant women in their lives, it helps shape a different narrative: EVERYBODY benefits, except for the kid, but they don’t put up hashtags.

The political agenda of the whole enterprise is absurdly, even embarrassingly self-evident. So we are not the least bit surprised when lead author Bethany Everett of the University of Utah in Salt Lake tells Reuters Health by email, “We are seeing an influx of laws being passed that criminalize women who have abortions and abortion providers, and yet we never discuss male partners and how they may benefit from access to abortion.” (Not said explicitly but could be, “Hey this is one time we need the guys.”)

So the study interviewed “nearly 600 young men, interviewed when they were in their late 20s and early 30s, who reported involvement in a pregnancy before age 20,” according to Carolyn Crist.

Conditions in every which way but perhaps the guys’ bowling scores improved if the young girls aborted.

Otherwise…doomed! You have to say this for pro-abortionists, they don’t bother with subtleties.

One ray of hope is extended in the last paragraph.

Said Luciana Assini-Meytin of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the study,

“Not all adolescents who experience teen parenting are doomed to a life of poor outcomes. Some do well, despite an early childbirth; others don’t,” she said in an email to Crist. “We need to better understand the mechanisms by which teen fathers are able to succeed

In the very last paragraph of the actual study–in one of those embarrassing comments that are needed to negate the obvious implications of their results–the authors reassure us, “The results should not be provided as motivation for men to coerce a woman into having an abortion.”

What then? “[R]ather, they highlight that restricting access to abortion may have negative consequences for men whose partners desire abortion but are unable to access services.”

Get it? Guys, you shouldn’t coerce women (actually girls) into aborting even if you’re persuaded you’d get a better job and make more money if she does. Just know that if your “partner” should “desire abortion but [is] unable to access services,” all these benefits could be lost.

So? Lobby for laws allowing unrestricted abortion, the conclusion that is so obvious the study authors don’t even have to write it.

It’s enough to give cynicism a bad name.