The End of Roe?

F or about a half second after the leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion in the Mississippi abortion case that may throw out Roe v. Wade, people who support Roe dropped the talking points and told the truth. Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, tweeted that if men could get pregnant, of course abortion would be legal. Joe Biden talked about the right to abort a child. The dropping of the filter was a refreshing reprieve from the typical euphemisms.

For most of my adult life, we haven’t heard the a-word. The National Abortion Rights Action League became NARAL Pro-Choice America when I was in my twenties. Of late, the Left hasn’t talked about a supposed “war on women” waged by those who want to protect a mother and child. Instead, the phrase “birthing person” has been introduced, meant to include women who identify as men who get pregnant. While claiming to be inclusive, the term effectively attacks the beauty of motherhood. Faithful to this trend, a makeshift sign protesting a pro-life prayer vigil in a lower Manhattan Catholic Church recently asked us to stop harassing “abortion patients.” By “harassing,” they meant that once a month a group of us gathers for Mass at Old St. Patrick’s Cathedral Basilica and then walks about a block to pray across the street from a Planned Parenthood for the women and girls who find themselves there and for the conversion of those who work there.

That dropping of the euphemistic veil didn’t last all that long, however. According to Politico, the Pro-Choice Caucus in Congress sent House Democrats a brief list of “Abortion Messaging Do’s and Don’ts.” The previously preferred word “choice” is now out of style in favor of “decision.” I suppose that is supposed to sound more decisive. Now, the truth is that part of why we do the public prayer witness is that sometimes a woman is so moved by the fact that people are praying that she stops and talks to a pro-life sidewalk counselor — standing closer to the door of the abortion clinic — and she accepts information and asks questions. Abby Johnson, in her book Unplanned, recounts that, as a director of a Planned Parenthood in Texas, she was deeply affected by a Catholic nun who stood outside her clinic weeping one day. How could those inside not wonder what they were doing that was bringing this nun to such a display of grief?

I have had moments like that sister myself, watching boxes of “medical waste” come out of Planned Parenthood — three times a week, I would see them during a time when I went there for an hour or two every day the clinic was open. Nine boxes each time. And people just passed by and didn’t notice, as if they were just another Amazon delivery box. We do this in the United States. And we look away.

The Pro-Choice Caucus, meanwhile, wants us to move beyond Bill Clinton’s “safe, legal, and rare” description of abortion to “safe, legal, and accessible.” That language change marks a hardening of ideology in the Democratic Party, if not in the country. You see every kind of convenient poll these days, but consistent Marist polling commissioned by the Knights of Columbus for at least a dozen years has shown that people aren’t where the Democratic Party wants them to be. They are still in the abortion-should-be-rare zone. That gives me hope that a wise (and politically smart) Democrat before too long will fight against the extremism and give people more political options if they oppose most or all abortion.

Interestingly, the new Pro-Choice Caucus guidance on vocabulary recommends moving away from the word “unwanted” in describing the pregnancy of a woman seeking an abortion. Their preferred word is now “unexpected.” No doubt, that is to make sure the girl or woman is seen with sympathy. But I see that word and want her to know she has options. She didn’t plan to be pregnant, she might be without resources, so why don’t we all work to make sure there is informed consent? Why don’t offer her information about how she can get help in raising her child, or info about an adoption plan? Instead, too often, all signs in her life point to an abortion clinic.

The Pro-Choice — will they change to “Pro-Decision”? — Caucus also wants to sow hostility toward doctors who want to opt out of abortion and also toward pharmacists who don’t want to provide abortion pills. Abortion in America is increasingly by pills, sometimes by mail. Anyone who wants to opt out of facilitating that is refusing or denying care, according to the new language, never mind claims of conscience rights. The caucus also no longer wants abortion advocates to talk about the threat of back-alley abortions and coat hangers, because they know those won’t be a widespread thing. (In Texas, where many abortions have been illegal since September, pro-life ministries report relief among young women who don’t feel the pressure to have abortions they once felt.) Instead, abortion advocates want to focus on “criminalizing health care.” In fact, it is the rare person who talks about criminalizing women who seek abortions. That is not the pro-life movement. We want women to know they deserve better than abortion and point them to help, we want to walk with them.

That day in New York, the first Saturday after the Supreme Court leak, abortion enthusiasts (there’s no other way to describe the people I saw and heard) blocked our way out of the church, with typical obscenities and particularly grotesque displays. (A disturbed woman, a performance artist, simulated an abortion with dolls in front of the church.) What I want to do is find common ground — informed consent, which includes adoption information. As much as I want everyone to work to protect the innocent unborn, how about making some baby steps toward civility? Aren’t you tired of the screaming and pouring of salt into open wounds, too?

This column is based on one available through Andrews McMeel Universal’s Newspaper Enterprise Association.