Feminist Says Abortion is ‘Pro-Child’ 

By Matt Philbin 

Laura Hermer inhabits a strange universe, one in which establishing an absolute right to an abortion is somehow “a clear legal solution that should satisfy all sides” in the abortion debate. Worse, in her world, killing a child is “pro-child.” 

Hermer, a Minnesota law professor, wrote in MinnPost that:

Pro-life advocates presumably want viable pregnancies to yield babies who are loved and given the best start possible. Pro-choice advocates do, too. What sense does it make to knowingly doom babies to a life of poverty and neglect in the absence of effective programs to support mothers and infants?

Doom them? This side of the pro-abortion argument really hasn’t advanced since the days of Margaret Sanger. It’s still about eugenics, in this case a social eugenics. Imperfect family and social arrangements, just like imperfect genetic development, can and should be headed off with abortion. 

Hermer cited the Turnaway Study, “which compares long-term outcomes in families with babies born to women who were denied an abortion versus those who were able to obtain one.” It found “poor maternal bonding” financial hardship and other problems for unwanted babies. But, as Micaiah Bilger pointed out, it also found that [after five years] “96 percent of women who were denied abortions later no longer wished that they had had one.” 

That’s inconvenient, but Hermer doesn’t mention that part of the study. It would complicate her rush to the real point of her argument:

The only person who should be permitted to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy is the person who will bear primary responsibility to love, raise, and care for the resulting child. That is the pregnant person. No activist, religious institution, court, or state can make such a consequential decision for a competent adult.

That, Hermer says, and a raft of government programs, is the best way to “ensure that babies have loving homes and do not suffer from undue emotional or economic deprivation.” She doesn’t mention adoption. It’s got to be all one thing or all another. A child is either “wanted” or he or she is better off dead. 

Someone who was really “pro-child” would find another way.

Editor’s note. This appeared at MRCTV and is reposted with permission.

Recent Posts

National Right to Life commends and thanks our affiliate, SC Citizens for Life (SCCL)

National Right to Life commends and thanks our affiliate, SC Citizens for Life (SCCL) for their hard… Read More

3 days ago

66 percent of respondents described would-be Biden reelection as either a “setback” or a “disaster”

Numbers “horrible” says CNN’s Jake Tapper By Dave Andrusko This week’sdevastating CNN poll gauging how the America… Read More

3 days ago

NRL Convention 2023 schedules are out now!

Check out the full convention schedule with speakers, dozens of workshops AND the Teens for… Read More

3 days ago

MCCL GO again highlights first 1,000 days of life at 76th World Health Assembly

GENEVA, Switzerland — The first 1,000 days in the life of human being—from conception… Read More

3 days ago

Most women facing unplanned pregnancy prefer not to abort, study reveals

By Gayle Irwin A recent peer-reviewed study indicates most women who experience abortion do so… Read More

3 days ago

Judge Enjoins Fetal Heartbeat Protection Law, Sends Case to the S.C. Supreme Court

By Holly Gatling, Executive Director, South Carolina Citizens for Life COLUMBIA, S.C. (Friday, May 26,… Read More

3 days ago