There are a few things the editorial brings up that I would like to address, because it is obviously important to the writer that these things are brought up.
The writer shows a graph and describes that the graph shows “five most harmful restrictions” that have been made to abortion so far (I do not consider these things to be as “harmful” to the pro-choice movement as the writer believes, but that is for another debate). One is “mandatory waiting periods.” The writer does not go into why this is bad, but I would imagine she believes it is bad because it forces a woman to have to endure a pregnancy for longer than she would otherwise have to. However, it is quite well known that women who become unexpectedly pregnant go in for an abortion, often coerced by others, with little or no knowledge of what the abortion procedure truly is and what one is truly aborting. Thus, these waiting periods give the women more of a chance to better understand what they are getting into instead of rushing into something not truly understood.
The second restriction is “demeaning ‘counseling’ sessions lacking a real medical justification.” I don’t see how discussing the “surgical procedure,” as the pro-choice movement refers to it, is in any way demeaning. It shows that the woman will be truly getting a well-rounded view of what can be done in relation to her pregnancy. And in terms of it lacking a medical justification, I don’t see how this is a medical issue. This is more of a response to a lack of abortion “counselors” not giving a truly well-rounded list of options for women outside of abortion.
The third restriction is “parental consent or notification laws that pose a particular hardship for teenagers from troubled homes, including incest victims.” The writer essentially says that because some people will experience hardships with it that means that we should not implement the law. However, there are significantly more people that will be hurt if there are no parental consent or notification laws, such as rape victims. It also goes without saying that there are ways in which such teenagers from troubled homes and incest victims can be helped even with such laws in place (that’s what social service agencies are there for). Lastly, the condemnation of such laws only works if the unborn is not truly a human being with the right to life.
The fourth restriction is “needlessly onerous clinic ‘safety’ rules governing such things as the width of hallways and the amount of storage space for janitorial supplies.” For one, the writer does not address the fact that there are less “onerous” rules proposed, such as emergency doors to be implemented and certain equipment to be provided for in the abortion clinics. Not only that, but she assumes that these rules are onerous by simply implying that such rules are not needed, but if these clinics provide a “medical procedure” like abortion as often as they do then they should be forced to meet hospital requirements, for they must meet these requirements because they provide medical procedures as well.
The fifth and final restriction is “prohibitions on abortion coverage in insurance policies.” She does not suggest what exactly is wrong with it, so there’s nothing for me to say other than that I understand why a pro-choice believer should be afraid of such a restriction. It would cost agencies like Planned Parenthood quite a number of clients if abortion was not provided within insurance coverage.
The writer goes on to say that the graph does not depict other “bad” aspects of abortion, such as the decrease of abortion providers. This, of course, is based on perspective. I consider this to be a marvelous development.
The most disappointing statement made in this article, though, was when the writer said that the most powerful strategy of pro-lifers is “to portray abortion as outside the mainstream and to cast women who have abortions as immoral outliers.” For one, I do not know any pro-lifers who consider abortion as outside the mainstream. If anything, many pro-lifers recognize all too well how common abortion is; it is why many are so driven to stop it. Also, the implication that it is wrong that pro-lifers view women who have abortions as acting immorally assumes that they are not. But if abortion is the murder of an unborn child then they are acting immorally. (Of course, it should be said that moral culpability is lessened if the woman is unaware of how immoral her actions truly are)
I wish and pray that the New York Times would recognize how downright wrong abortion truly is. They truly need to receive that message.