Editor’s Note: This piece was originally composed some time ago and was well received. I am confident that it will maintain your interest.
“These sorts of falsehoods from the pro-abortion side are perhaps the best proof of the strength of the pro-life argument. It is far easier to spread myths and lies about pro-lifers and dismiss us as crazy religious zealots than to face the possibility that our argument is true and that abortion is an unjust killing” – Alexandra DeSanctis, National Review Online.
It is intriguing to observe how reading two articles in succession (one from a pro-lifer and the other from a veteran pro-abortion writer) can provide insights that reinforce one another.
The above quotation is taken from a post written by the accomplished Ms. DeSanctis. She is considerably more polite than I am in critiquing the Instagram musings of New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz, whose beat is “Internet culture.”
DeSanctis presents a few examples of Ms. Lorenz’s recent pro-abortion rhetoric. DeSanctis states that Lorenz shared several posts from pro-abortion feminist Liz Plank, which contained inaccurate and intentionally vague assertions about the pro-life movement.
A review of the available evidence suggests that Plank’s assertions are, at best, incomplete and, at worst, demonstrably false. This is consistent with the typical approach of pro-abortionists, who often portray the pro-life movement as an illegitimate and malevolent phenomenon. I am exaggerating, but only slightly.
There are scholars who espouse pro-abortion views whose interpretations and conclusions I find to be erroneous, yet whose research is nevertheless worthy of consideration. It is evident that Plank does not fall into the latter category.
DeSanctis’ argument, as evidenced by the opening quotation and subsequently elucidated in the following passage, is
Outright falsehoods such as those created by Plank and promoted by Lorenz serve a key pro-abortion purpose: to ignore or deny the sincerity of the pro-life movement by any means necessary, so as to avoid having to address the heart of our argument.
In considering the core of our argument, it would be beneficial to ascertain what further evidence might be presented. The study that refutes the most common arguments against abortion. The article, written for the New Yorker by Margaret Talbot, is a wholly uncritical and even celebratory piece on the so-called “Turnaway Study.”
We, particularly Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, NRL Director of Education & Research, have repeatedly critiqued this study. The study will continue to be cited and referenced. The research team at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), which initially assembled the data and published the results in 2007, has been recycling the same misleading data year after year.
The text purports to present the contrasting experiences of women who had abortions and those who were denied the procedure most often because the pregnancy was advanced.
As Dr. O’Bannon originally stated, the study was designed to determine the social, psychological, and economic consequences of having an abortion versus being “denied” an abortion in some cases due to the advanced stage of the pregnancy.
The most recent iteration was released in February of last year. In contrast to Ms. Talbot, Dr. O’Bannon conducted a meticulous examination of the study’s shortcomings, identifying them in nearly every aspect. To illustrate, in some earlier published studies, the authors did inform us of the outcomes for women who proceeded to give birth. However, in the study published earlier this year, these women were conspicuously absent.
The following is a lengthy excerpt from Dr. O’Bannon’s February analysis, which serves to illustrate the numerous shortcomings that are inherent to the aforementioned approach.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
