Hoos for Life, a pro-life student group at the University, hosted an all-day event called “The Planned Parenthood Project” in the amphitheater a couple of weeks ago. Such student involvement should be encouraged, as all members of the community should feel welcome to voice their beliefs, wherever those beliefs may lie on the political spectrum. But the nature of the event, which campaigned to defund Planned Parenthood, points to a problem with the pro-life movement’s narrative that renders it ineffective. This problem does not simply lie in its focus, but, more importantly, in its tone and modes of protest, which often estrange people from the conversation the movement aims to facilitate.
Focusing on Planned Parenthood seems to be a fruitless way to spread awareness about abortions (so that fewer people view them as acceptable) since performing abortions is not the organization’s focus, and often involves presenting misleading data as a result. During its event, Hoos for Life laid out crosses to represent the approximate 897 of abortions Planned Parenthood carries out each day, which may have been an effective emotional appeal for some people. More importantly, that number matches data published by the organization itself, helping to legitimize the group’s argument.
This is not the case for all of the facts pro-life groups seeking to defund Planned Parenthood often share, however. Informational cards the group passed out stated that 92 percent of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services in 2011 were abortions, despite the fact that in that year, the organization performed 1,150,589 pregnancy tests, compared to 333,964 abortions. Attacking Planned Parenthood as a means to raise awareness about abortions makes even less sense considering that abortions account for only 3 percent of its services, a rate that has kept steady since 2009. If the pro-life movement as a whole truly wishes to eliminate abortion, focusing on Planned Parenthood — as opposed to the issue as a whole — makes little sense.
Even if advocates of the movement were to focus more on anti-abortion laws and successfully push for more restrictive laws, it would make little to no difference in abortion rates. This is evident in recent figures: while several of the states that have been most aggressive in passing anti-abortion laws have seen their abortion numbers drop by more than 15 percent since 2010, numerous states that have maintained unrestricted access to abortion have also seen abortion rate declines of the same magnitude. In fact, the only states with significant increases in abortion (Louisiana and Michigan) passed laws intending to restrict it.
Clearly, attempting to restrict access to abortion is not the answer to limiting its presence. This means that in order for the pro-life movement to see true success in its efforts, it must somehow shift its focus to other factors contributing to abortions.
The movement could also be much more effective if it shifted the tone of its rhetoric and created a more welcoming space for discussion. This is especially so given the highly emotional quality of the debate. For instance, a woman experiencing an inner moral conflict in her efforts to determine where she falls on the subject should feel welcome to voice her concerns to both sides. Otherwise, either side could not hope to convince her of its stance.
Specifically, the practice of protesting outside Planned Parenthood locations makes those using their services feel ashamed and concerned for their own safety to the point that the organization even addresses the issue on the “Security Information” section of their website. In this way, the pro-life movement turns away both those entering the centers for abortions and for other services from participating in the conversation it aims to facilitate. Whether this is due to a belief that this is the only way to reduce abortions due to the lack of meaningful legislative measures, intimidating or guilting someone away from a practice is not the same as truly convincing that person of a belief. How can a movement expect to be successful if it does not make a concerted effort to make those it most needs (women considering getting an abortion) and others who may not already agree feel welcome?
One way to do so would be to start the conversation from a place of understanding. Rather than constantly making the initial focus its moral high ground, the movement should instead acknowledge why someone may consider abortion, and then move forward to explain why it is still wrong. This is not to say the moral aspect should not be the focus, just that it would be more effective, especially to those on the fence, if presented in a manner freer of shame, guilt or intimidation.
The pro-life movement would be more effective in its efforts to educate the public about the immorality of abortion and eliminate it if it were to shift its narrative away from Planned Parenthood and restricting access to abortions. Instead, it should acknowledge and focus on other factors that lead to increases and declines in abortion rates while fostering a more welcoming atmosphere. It should also start its arguments against the practice from a place more understanding of and compassionate toward those considering abortion.
Alyssa Imam is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at a.imam@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
ONIBUDO: Give us back our Hill
By Nathan Onibudo | 2 days agoIt’s a shame that our administration seems willing to sacrifice authenticity for ease.
GOLDBLATT, LEVY, MILOV: Israeli flag vandalism is political, not antisemitic
By Melissa Levy , Sarah Milov and Laura Goldblatt | 2 days agoVandalism is not a protected form of political protest, but the University’s response erroneously classifies a political act as a statement of ethnic enmity.
EDITORIAL: City Council — learn from past mistakes on ranked choice voting
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoGiven the success of ranked choice voting elsewhere in America and abroad, ranked choice voting will likely animate Charlottesville voters and improve our elections.
