Last week, after Hoos for Life hosted an event called “The Planned Parenthood Project” on Grounds, my fellow columnist Alyssa Imam suggested the pro-life movement should “shift its narrative away from Planned Parenthood and restricting access to abortions.” Instead, Imam argued, pro-life advocates should “acknowledge and focus on other factors that lead to increases and declines in abortion rates while fostering a more welcoming atmosphere.” On the latter point, Imam is surely right. To garner more support for its cause and reduce the amount of abortions, the pro-life movement should focus less on publicly shaming individuals considering abortion — i.e., stop plastering the infamous photos of aborted fetuses everywhere — and devote more energy to reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. But this does not mean the pro-life movement should stop educating the public about Planned Parenthood. On the contrary, as the largest abortion provider in the country and annual recipient of 500 million taxpayer dollars, Planned Parenthood should remain in the forefront of the abortion debate.
Planned Parenthood does a lot of good, and there is no point in even the most ardently pro-life individual denying that fact. However, even the most ardently pro-choice individual must acknowledge that Planned Parenthood is not as wonderful as its supporters claim. There are two common misconceptions that Hoos for Life should address. First, the claim that only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services are abortions is, as Slate Senior Editor Rachael Larimore calls it, “the most meaningless statistic ever.” The claim’s purpose is to obfuscate the importance of abortion to Planned Parenthood’s business model by pretending that a $5 pregnancy test is identical to a $1,500 abortion. Rich Lowry, a fellow Wahoo and editor of the National Review, highlighted the absurdity of this claim by placing it in the context of other industries: “Major League Baseball teams could say that they sell about 20 million hot dogs and play 2,430 games in a season, so baseball is only .012 percent of what they do.” Regardless of the convoluted method used to arrive at the 3 percent statistic, abortion is an integral part of Planned Parenthood’s revenue stream, accounting for at least a third of its clinic income, and even its supporters must recognize this fact.
Another oft-stated defense is that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. This is categorically false. While they do offer referrals to other sites that provide mammograms, this is not a strong argument in favor of Planned Parenthood receiving tax subsidies. The mammogram argument is used to further the narrative that pro-life congressmen are waging a war on women by seeking to deny them cancer screenings, but in fact recent pro-life bills propose maintaining current funding levels for women’s health; they would merely reallocate funds from Planned Parenthood to other women’s health providers that do not perform abortions. But as the old adage goes, lies repeated often enough eventually become the truth. Thus, if the pro-life movement wants to reduce the over 300,000 abortions Planned Parenthood performs each year, they should start by eroding Planned Parenthood’s popular support by loudly and consistently rebuking the 3 percent and mammogram myths.
However, Imam is right to argue that focusing exclusively on Planned Parenthood and abortion restrictions is not the best way to reduce overall abortions. There are certain political realities — such as Roe v. Wade, or Democratic filibusters — that will prevent even the most fervently pro-life politicians from enacting their agendas. Pro-life advocates recently learned this lesson when Senate Democrats blocked a bill seeking to ban abortion after 20 weeks (except in cases of rape, incest or health of the mother), despite only six other countries in the world allowing elective abortions after that point. Clearly, the pro-life movement must rely on other methods to lessen the number of abortions per year.
One strategy for doing so is replacing abstinence-only policies in public schools with comprehensive sex education. While many social conservatives are weary of such an approach, evidence has shown that a more comprehensive approach to sex education does reduce teenage pregnancies. If the pro-life movement is serious about reducing abortions, they must attack the problem at the root, even if it makes their more socially conservative allies uncomfortable.
Another tactic is to allow birth control to be sold over the counter. When paired with the current contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, such a law could cause unwanted pregnancies to plummet by up to 25 percent. Many pro-life politicians are pushing for over the counter birth control right now, from presidential candidate Carly Fiorina to Sen. Cory Gardner, R-CO. Interestingly enough, the stiffest opposition to this recent push comes from none other than Planned Parenthood, likely because of its major financial stake in birth control sales.
Thus, the pro-life focus on Planned Parenthood is not counterproductive to the greater goal of reducing abortions. Many people are simply unaware of Planned Parenthood’s reliance on abortion revenue and believe the tropes that their supporters spout. Spreading awareness that erodes Planned Parenthood’s popular support will lessen its influence, increasing the likelihood that popular measures like over the counter birth control will pass, and Hoos for Life would be wise to continue “Planned Parenthood Project”-like events. However, the CIO should also follow Imam’s advice and seek to broaden its appeal by moving beyond simply advocating abortion restrictions. Even those who don’t consider themselves pro-life can likely agree that all else being equal, less abortion is better than more abortion. Thus, to include more individuals under the pro-life tent, and to truly show their commitment to reducing abortion, pro-life advocates should also push policies that will decrease unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Matt Winesett is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.winesett@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
ONIBUDO: Give us back our Hill
By Nathan Onibudo | YesterdayIt’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.
