<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1906385056278061&ev=PageView&noscript=1" />
Skip to main content Accessibility feedback

Save the Baby Humans

Readers always ask writers, “Where do you get your ideas?” And it is not an easy question to answer. Sometimes a thought association sparks an idea. Other times I might read an opinion piece that gets me thinking about a subject. Common questions apologists are asked might provide a springboard. When I can think of nothing else, I rummage through old Q&As I have published on other cyber platforms and re-work them into a new blog post.

Then there are the times I glance at my calendar.

Today is the forty-first anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down state laws that illegalized abortion. To date, more than 55 million children have been legally aborted in the United States alone. Worldwide, since 1980, the number is over one billion. Yes, that is billion with a capital B, and is roughly equivalent to the current population of China.

I had to write about abortion today.

Trying to find an angle on the topic that I had not yet covered (you can find my previous blog posts here and here), I did some Googling. Up popped an article on Care2.com, which proclaims itself to be the “largest online community for healthy and green living, human rights and animal welfare.”

Titled “Protective” States? How Anti-Abortion Organizations Patronize and Infantilize Women, the article reads like an opinion piece, although it is not clearly labeled to be an op-ed. The gist of the piece is the author’s outrage that pro-life organizations have the gall to seek protection for women from abuses by the abortion industry:

What is very different, and what should strike any person who believes that women, especially adult women, are capable of rational thought and their own decision making, is the different frames used depending on who wrote the report [on the state of abortion throughout the U.S.]. NARAL [Pro-Choice America]’s report is called “Who Decides,” implying that it is up to the pregnant person—not a lawmaker, an anti-choice activist, or anyone else—to understand and obtain the best medical care to fit her situation.

AUL [Americans United for Life]? They call their report “Ranking the 50 States Based on How Well Women are Protected from Abortion Industry Abuses.”

Protected? Really?

Calling women who terminate pregnancies “mothers” and declaring their bills “protections for both mother and child, the victims of an avaricious abortion industry,” AUL makes it clear that, to them, a pregnant person cannot make a decision on her own. If she chooses an abortion, it was because she was taken advantage of, either by a greedy provider, a coercive partner, an overbearing parent or guardian.

Of course, it has been well-documented that women have been pressured, threatened with, and forced to have abortions. It very often seems that a woman’s free choice when it comes to abortion is much the same as the choice in car color offered to Henry Ford‘s customers: “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.”
As annoying as the essay was, I did not think it blog-worthy in itself—that is until I scrolled to the bottom of the piece and found “Recommendations from Care2.com” for similar pages visitors might like to view. There we find (as of the date and time I viewed the article) a logo for the wildlife protection charity Defenders of Wildlife, known primarily for its commitment to the protection of wolves, and the heart-rending plea that all who pass by this page “Click to Protect Threatened Wolves.”


Enjoying this content?  Please support our mission! Donate