HomeoldPPFA’s Richards completes Trifecta of non-confessionals

PPFA’s Richards completes Trifecta of non-confessionals

Published on

In October, we discussed the decision of Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards to publicly discuss her abortion in the Elle magazine. The question thus arises: why then?

We offered some speculation regarding the motivation behind Richards’ decision to share her abortion story in Elle magazine. However, only Richards herself knows the true reason behind her actions. It is possible that she was feeling the pressure from the Abortion Movement wing that is adamant about the importance of sharing abortion stories, or that her decision was driven by more personal reasons.

Four days ago, Richards published a one-minute, nineteen-second video on behalf of the “1 in 3 Campaign,” a project of Advocates for Youth. The organization’s self-description is as a “grassroots movement to start a new conversation about abortion that highlights storytelling to end the stigma around abortion care in America and to ensure that abortion remains safe, legal, and affordable.”

Her abortion was a decision that was “right for me and my husband” and was not a difficult one to make. Bam, just like that, she states, “I had an abortion,” and, as Ms. Richards asserts, it was no—repeat no—big deal.

“No woman should ever be forced to justify her reason for having an abortion,” she adds. “The decision is hers alone.” One reason that abortion “stigma” exists is that women have not been telling their abortion stories.

Furthermore, her account in Cosmopolitan this week represents the epitome of non-confessional narratives. Jill Filipovic initiates the interview with a relatively straightforward question: what were the pro-choice “accomplishments” and what could they have done better (in order to avoid being marginalized in the off-year elections)? Richards responds with a defiant assertion.

We want to make it completely unacceptable to run for office as someone who opposes women’s rights or wants to take us backward.

The interview then transitions to a more personal topic: Filipovic inquires about the response to her revelation about her abortion in the October issue of Elle.
The response was overwhelmingly positive. Interestingly, I recently discussed the matter with my children, who were aware of my abortion.

They expressed that it was not a significant event, yet I could discern that it was important for them that we openly discussed it. I consider the positive response from Planned Parenthood employees.
I will now return to the initial portion of the response. I can comprehend Richards’ assertion that having an abortion was inconsequential, both for herself and for the world at large. She may even genuinely believe this to be the case. However, her children?

Such a claim is simply absurd. It is implausible that any child, regardless of age, would believe that the death of a sibling is a trivial matter.

(“Awesome”? “Interesting”? Richards’s tone suggests a certain immaturity.)

One might inquire of a child whose mother miscarried a baby through circumstances beyond her control. Such children experience the loss of their sibling and often inquire about the fate of the deceased. They may also develop a different perspective on their birth order.

One must consider the number of children who are deeply upset by a decision to deliberately take a sibling’s life. This number can be multiplied by a hundredfold to gain an understanding of the extent of the emotional distress experienced by these children.

However, it would be almost as problematic if they had been so indoctrinated by their mother’s rhetoric that they genuinely believed that the loss of a life was of no consequence.

The issue of abortion is of significant consequence. It is ironic that those who are in favor of abortion attempt to trivialize the decision, yet the reality of the situation becomes increasingly apparent to those who are not in favor of abortion. The death of a child is a life-and-death decision that cannot be trivialized.


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.

Order Now!


Latest articles

The EU’s plans for the abolition of the secrecy of digital letters

Surveillance of private chats without suspicion could soon become mandatory in the EU. This...

Lloyd’s: Government behind Nord Stream sabotage

About a month ago, Zug-based Nord Stream AG filed a lawsuit against its insurers....

More like this

Biden urges hostage deal

US President Biden has called on Qatar and Egypt to do everything possible to...

Trump trial: ex-president rushes from court to campaign trail

Update, 11:00 a.m.: In the U.S., experts are surprised that Judge Juan Merchan has...

Donald Trump Ignores Court Gag Order

Trump can't talk about those involved in the New York trial. The ex-president can,...