The hidden epidemic of abortion coercion is larger than you can imagine.
The hidden epidemic of abortion coercion is larger than you can imagine.
C oerced abortions have been a poorly kept secret of the entertainment industry for ages. Vanity Fair has listed nearly a dozen major actresses of Old Hollywood, from Judy Garland to Ava Gardner to Jean Harlow, who were pushed to have abortions at the behest of studio bosses.
Such pressures continue today. For example, Cheryl James — one-third of Salt-N-Pepa’s platinum-album hip-hop group — spoke out in a recent interview about facing pressure to abort from record-label execs. James resisted that pressure, to the joy of herself and her daughter. But not all women are so successful.
Anecdotes such as these are confirmed by data in our own latest peer-reviewed study in which nearly 70 percent of women with a history of abortion described their abortions as inconsistent with their own values and preferences, including one in four who indicated that their abortions were “unwanted” or “coerced.”
This was the second study from our Unwanted Abortion Surveys. In our first analysis, we found that over 60 percent of women who aborted reported high levels of pressure due to finances, circumstances, or other people. The more intensely women felt pressured to have an abortion, the more likely they were to blame their abortions as a direct cause for a decline in their mental health.
Often, the pressure to abort comes from male partners or parents, but it can often come from health-care providers, too.
For example, Lorraine, mother of Jaxon, told the BBC that when she turned down amniocentesis for her son, who has Down syndrome, the sonographer became “very aggressive and said ‘women like you make me sick. Why bother having a screening at all if you’re not going to do anything about it?’”
Emma reported a similar experience with daughter Jaimie: “In all honesty we were offered 15 terminations, even though we made it really clear that it wasn’t an option for us.” This badgering continued even into the last month of her pregnancy, with doctors reminding her she could abort right up until birth.
Poignantly, Cheryl James, Lorraine, and Emma are happy that they were able to resist the pressure to abort. But far too many women cannot say the same.
In our national survey of 1,000 women ages 41-45, fully 60 percent of the women who had abortions said they would have preferred to give birth to their children if they had received either more emotional support or had more financial security. These women underwent unwanted abortions because friends, family, and society failed to support their preferred option: welcoming the birth of children who would have been embraced and loved, even if they were unplanned.
In short, there is a national, hidden epidemic of unwanted abortions.
The good news is that there are more than 3,000 pregnancy centers and maternity homes nationwide, serving close to 2 million clients a year and offering everything from pregnancy tests, clothing, supplies, support, and friendship to those seeking escape from unwanted abortions.
The bad news is the near-total silence surrounding unwanted abortions. As the late pro-choice ethicist Daniel Callahan of the Hastings Center lamented, there is “an embarrassed, sheepish silence on what would seem to be a matter of obvious concern for those committed to choice. . . . That men have long coerced women into abortion when it suits their purposes is well known, but rarely mentioned.”
Where are the public-education campaigns from Planned Parenthood warning against the dangers of coercion and pressure?
Nowhere.
Instead, abortion advocates promote a misleading study based on a non-random and non-representative sample of women to assert that 99 percent of all women who get an abortion are happy and satisfied with it. With a straight face, the abortion industry expects the public to believe that only 1 percent of women are unhappy or even ambivalent about their abortions.
Notably, only 31 percent of the women invited to participate in that “landmark” study completed the survey, compared to the 91 percent completion rate of women in our study. Clearly, women who are undergoing unwanted abortions are routinely being excluded from pro-abortion studies.
One might be excused for wondering if abortion advocates are not exactly that: advocates for more abortions, even when they are not consistent with an individual woman’s own values and preferences. Perhaps this advocacy is driven by a population-control mentality, or by some other ideological considerations, or even simple annual revenue targets.
The bottom line: Where is the concern for ensuring that every abortion is truly and freely wanted? Where are the safeguards for preventing unwanted abortions?
Where is the outcry? Even after Missouri Democrat Cori Bush described having an abortion forced on her at the age of 19, the political world ignored her and preferred to return to silence.
Where are the bipartisan congressional hearings to address the crisis of unwanted abortions in America? Where are the legislative initiatives?
If there is one space for common ground on the abortion issue, it should surely be this: No woman should ever be pressured or coerced into undergoing an abortion that is contrary to her own personal values and preferences.
If the goal of pro-abortion activists is truly that of simply empowering women’s autonomy, surely they should be spending an equal amount of energy and resources on efforts to prevent unwanted abortions.
Women deserve better. Abortion is not a panacea, especially when it is the result of pressure, abandonment, or negligent pre-abortion screening.
When will abortion advocates boldly and loudly acknowledge this fact?
David Reardon, a Lozier Institute associate scholar and director of the Elliot Institute, is the lead author of Lozier’s Unwanted Abortion Studies. Tessa Longbons is Lozier’s senior research associate and a co-author of the new study.