Abortions in 2015

The first ultrasound in this collection, which I finished compiling last night, is of a baby (or, if you prefer, "fetus") at 9 weeks' gestation. Over a third of all reported abortions in 2015 ended the lives of babies at this minimum level of fetal development (the number of babies aborted in this particular subset exceeded the entire population of Savannah, GA; as for the total number aborted that year, the figure is a few thousand babies short of the entire population of Minneapolis). I break the data down further in the remaining images. 

Data: CDC. "Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015.

Ultrasound images: The Bump

Do Men have the Right to an Opinion on Abortion?

An irate (former?) friend recently told me that I, a man, am too "damn opinionated" on abortion. This ridiculous claim that men, as such, have no right to an opinion on abortion (unless it's the "right" one, of course) rests on the following premise:

You have no right to advocate for something or someone over whom another person has (or is believed to have) exclusive control or responsibility.

Although this premise may seem reasonable in the abstract, the obvious problem with this logic is that it implies that you also have no right to an opinion on how an exploitative boss treats his workers, on how repressive foreign governments treat their citizens, on how abusive parents treat their post-birth children, and so on. Although there's certainly a place for business rights, national sovereignty, and parental rights, among other things, it's clear enough that they're based on the same premise and aren't absolute. Unless you're some sort of libertarian (in which I case I'd still disagree with you, but that's for another post), you'll find that it's very difficult to argue consistently from this premise.

How to Respond to Pro-Choice Friends

Here are some brief responses to some of the more common questions you’ll hear from pro-choice friends. You’ll quickly notice a pattern here, and this is because most answers to questions put forward by abortion rights advocates can be deduced from a simple premise: Life begins at conception. Some don't fully appreciate the implications that this familiar proposition carries for the abortion debate. If the premise is true, then, unless you support infanticide (and, unfortunately, there appears to be a growing number of people who do), then you're bound to agree that almost any circumstance legitimating abortion also legitimates the killing of newborns.

Debating the Life of Pete Seeger

From the Associated Press

A priest friend of mine used the occasion of legendary folk singer, Pete Seeger's, recent passing to tie him to the "100 million victims of the communism he advocated."

In response to his Facebook post, I wrote the following:

Fr. --: Whatever his professed ideology, Pete Seeger left the CPUSA around 1950 (about 65 years ago) and denounced the party afterwards.  In 1982, he [supported] Poland's Solidarity movement.  He apologized for “thinking that Stalin was simply a 'hard-driver' and not a supremely cruel misleader” (such humility is rare these days).  He even wrote a song entitled “Big Joe Blues”, which blasted Joseph Stalin.

Please don’t let his past affiliations - many people with a conscience had such affiliations back then – distract you from the good that he had done.  

A friend of the priest joined in the discussion and wrote that Seeger "never gave up his support for Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry."

Now that , in my view, does tarnish Seeger's legacy.  Of course, I am admittedly ignorant of the nature and extent of his (supposed?) support for Planned Parenthood, but I do know that he had supported abortion rights (I haven't seen evidence suggesting that he ever disavowed his pro-choice stance). For those who, like myself, are pro-life, this fact should temper - though not necessarily erase - our praise of him.  Here's the second half of my response:

Like Archbishop Iakovos, Seeger stood side-by-side with MLK, advocating for civil rights.  He was recognized for his dedication to the fight against hunger and poverty, and was involved in other praiseworthy causes (such as the cleanup of the highly-polluted Hudson River).  

He preached justice, peace, dialogue, and interracial harmony.  He helped to revive America’s beautiful folk music.  I’m sorry, Fr., but you’re trampling on a patriot’s grave.  

Perhaps I'm naive in hoping that he was merely confused in his support of abortion rights - not recognizing that abortion results in the death of an actual human being, not simply the destruction of a clump of cells.  I would like to think that he would have repented of his stance on abortion, much like how he eventually turned away from his support of the Soviet Union.  Only God knows what was in his heart.  Abortion views aside, I cannot help but admire the more praiseworthy aspects of his life.  Rest in peace, Pete Seeger.

"I Love Abortion"

This article literally made me sick.  For crying out loud, people, if you're going to support abortion rights, PLEASE, at the very least, do not take pride in your abortion or your willingness to get one.  Randi Newton's sign is especially saddening.

Why Isn’t it Liberal to be Pro-Life?

How policy issues are framed can profoundly shape how one views them, and this is no less true when it comes to abortion. In our political culture, we normally treat pro-life views as “conservative”, even though it’s not evident why they wouldn't be better described as “liberal”. Among the most fundamental principles of liberal thought is that one should be free to live as ou pleases as along as ou does not violate another’s rights, one of the most basic of which is the right to life. The right-holders referred to in this statement are normally understood to be humans (although many, like me, are guided by this principle in our dealings with the entire animal kingdom). This is why the question of when personhood begins is so crucial to the issue of whether the unborn deserve legal protection. 

Now, if we take conception as the starting point of personhood, then the pro-lifer is being no less “liberal” in advocating for the rights of the unborn than one seeking to prevent a mother from ending her newborn’s life. It’s not neutral, therefore, to call the pro-life position conservative, for doing so presupposes an answer to the question that lies at the heart of the abortion debate. Further, it reinforces the impression that abortion is merely a "moral issue" (similar to pornography or adultery) - a practice that many find objectionable, but otherwise violates no one's rights. This prevents us from recognizing how such pro choice slogans as "My body, my right", or "If you don't like abortion, don't get one" are based on the mistaken assumption that those who oppose abortion rights must necessarily be authoritarian social conservatives (whose ideology arguably doesn't comport well with our  individualistic political culture), and should therefore be disregarded.  

Is There Anything New about the DHHS's Final Rule?

The pro-life media is incensed by a final rule, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, regarding the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) - or, as its detractors normally call it, "Obamacare". It is argued that the final rule:

“'...provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion' and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today."

Is this claim correct? It appears that this government document is the source of the controversy. While 99.99% of this document is difficult to decipher, it clearly calls for the "segregation of funds for abortion services" (p. 627), and speaks of "abortions for which public funds are allowed" (p. 628). However, this particular document fails to specify which abortions are covered (someone please correct me if I'm mistaken). Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council, concludes that "almost two years after [former congressman, Bart Stupak] agreed to an executive order "banning" abortion funding in ObamaCare, the President finally proved how useless it was."

Of course, the fact that PPACA funds abortion has long been understood (what may or may not be new is information on the specific manner in which abortion services are funded). Factcheck.org noted nearly two years ago that "the new law does not provide direct federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother" (emphasis added]. See, also, President Obama's Executive Order 13535, which similarly states that federal funds will be used in these exceptional circumstances.

So, PPACA does fund abortion (however much it pains me to agree with those who seem especially excited to blow my country of ancestry to smithereens). However, whether it broadens the circumstances in which public funding for abortion is permitted is another matter (again, I'm not yet quite sure). Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it does not. In that case, whether or not PPACA constitutes a change to "long-standing law" depends on which version of the Hyde Amendment (a "rider" that is appended to annual appropriations bills) we're speaking of. For instance, while the original version permitted public funding for abortion only in cases where a mother's life was threatened, the circumstances in which funding was permissible expanded during the 1977-1979 fiscal period to include cases of rape and incest (only to be restricted, once again, to the life-of-the-mother exception).