Monday, October 24, 2016

The Journey and Launch of Pro-Life Future of San Francisco

[Today's guest post is by Terrisa Bukovinac.]

When I first set out to launch a Pro-Life Future chapter in San Francisco, I was at the Life/Peace/Justice 2016 Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Traveling to the city of Philadelphia for the first time, I was overwhelmed by the history of our (well I think great) nation. I was so inspired by the story of our forefathers, their desire to create a nation where all were treated equally and where the idea of basic human rights was put into law. We may take these rights for granted from time to time, but the influence the “right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” has had on my life is undeniable. And although tragically not all persons have had access to these rights throughout our history, I pretty much live by a code of constantly treating myself to whatever I like, whenever I want it (as long as i'm not hurting anyone!). It’s amazing. Thanks, America.

Anyway, so I’m in this moment. I’m inspired. I want to make a difference. I’m pro-life. And along comes C.J Williams of Pro-Life Future. For those of you who may not be aware, Pro-Life Future is an offshoot of Students For Life of America. It is a way for young professionals to come together and make a difference in their local communities. I made a promise to her shortly after the conference (like maybe a day later) that I would start a chapter in SF.  

For those of you who are not totally familiar with SF, you may not quite understand just how vehemently pro-choice the city really is. For example, two of my closest friends (I’m quite social) have held full time positions with NARAL Pro-Choice America, and most of the women I know have done at least some volunteer work with Planned Parenthood. The marriage between being a true progressive liberal, and holding a pro-choice position is prevalent to say the least. And basically everyone here would say they are a progressive. Including myself really. In many ways I am a textbook San Franciscan. I’ve lived in SF almost a decade, and I adore it.

But obviously, I’m pro-life. And I’m an atheist. So the struggle of making any pro-life connections in SF was real. C.J. assured me that I would only need two others to launch my group. That seemed reasonable at first. But after months and months of attempting to reach out to church groups and other local pro-life groups, I was at a complete loss. I had met and spoken with dozens of people, yet not one was willing to commit to a leadership position. I knew I had a more leftist vision for the group, likely more liberal and secular than most of the religious people I'd encountered were really comfortable with. And then one day, CJ sent me the facebook event invitation to my launch party. I thought there wasn’t a hope in the world that we would have more than just me showing up. But then the tide turned. I met a wonderful writer for Live Action, Laura Peredo. She was totally on board with my message, and gave me the hope that I needed that we could recruit and bring a group together to make a difference in our local community.

Long story short(er), the group launched on Oct. 18th, and we had over 25 attendees! I almost couldn’t believe it. And what a good looking group too! I mean, let’s face it, we can’t sell the pro-life cause unless it’s cute.  

On that night, I delivered a three page speech, but I’ll include just a sample of those remarks.

The intention of this group is to magnify a pro-life voice in San Francisco, which I think is not only a tall order, but is desperately needed… It is crucial to understand that this is not as simple as democrat vs. republican, or Christianity v. secularism... as champions of the right to life for all persons, it is essential that we address all life issues. In addition to helping under-served communities, and making our city a better place to live, we seek to make it harder for the pro-choice constituency to dismiss our position on abortion. When we have demonstrated that we stand by what we proclaim, that all human life is valuable and worthy of protection, we will gain credibility. We will stand with secularists, with the needs of women, with LGBTQ people, and with black and brown lives. We are here to introduce, and explore for ourselves, what it means to adhere to a consistent life ethic. We meet to bring peace to our community and peace will not be achieved without acknowledging the grievances of those most severely impacted by violence and discrimination. Our value as humans is not based on our circumstances, our religion, our political affiliations, our cultural backgrounds, the color of our skin, our sexuality, our gender, our gender preference, our level of development, or our abilities.  Our value is grounded in our shared humanity.
So many told me they felt inspired by the message and were excited to be part of something new, something that maybe hasn’t been done before.  A pro-life group of young professionals, dedicated to reaching progressive liberals, would you ever think it possible? We were even covered by the SF Newsfeed. I think it’s safe to say that that night, we all felt energized, and ready to do the necessary work to bring the pro-life message to San Francisco. There’s so much more to come.  

I encourage you to follow our progress on our facebook page. We’re ready to make a difference here in SF, and if we can do it here, we can do it everywhere.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

No, most late-term abortions are not medically necessary.

[Editor's note: This post was originally published on July 13, 2016 and has recently been updated.]

When it comes to The Abortion Debate, both sides often try to focus on facets which make the opposition look worst. For example, pro-lifers like to talk about late-term abortions. Pro-choicers like to talk about rape and medically necessary abortions. Both of these are small fractions of all abortions. Nevertheless, they all warrant thoughtful responses.

It's not uncommon for pro-choicers to sincerely believe that most late-term abortions are done for medically necessary reasons. After all, 97% of pro-choicers and 69% of pro-lifers support the legal option of abortion when the woman's life is in danger. Likewise 96% and 68% support it when "the woman's physical health is endangered" (2011 Gallup).

Claiming late-term abortion is usually done out of medical necessity may help counter the public’s overwhelming disapproval of the practice: 64% of all US citizens believe abortion should be illegal in the 2nd trimester, 80% in the third trimester (2013 Gallup). Note that second trimester is week 13 to 26; definitions of "late term" vary, most I've seen include anywhere from 16 to 20 weeks and onward.

Yet, to the best of our knowledge, most late-term abortions are not done for medical reasons.

This 1988 study surveyed 399 women seeking abortion at 16+ weeks. The study found women were obtaining late-term abortions instead of earlier-term abortions (i.e. reasons for delaying) because:

  • 71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
  • 48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
  • 33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
  • 24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
  • 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
  • 8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
  • 6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
  • 6% Woman didn't know timing is important
  • 5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
  • 2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
  • 11% Other
But, again, these are reasons for delaying abortion, not necessarily reasons for seeking abortion. This is an important distinction because, for example, a woman may have delayed her abortion because it was hard to make arrangements for it, but she may be getting the abortion due to medical necessity. If we want to know why women getting late-term abortions seek abortion in the first place, we need to look elsewhere. Unfortunately, sources discussing this seem to be very hard to come by.
(If you know of any statistics looking only at late-term abortions and women's reasons for obtaining abortion in that time-frame -- NOT reasons for delaying -- please email it to or message us on the Facebook page.)

According a 2004 study by Guttmacher, 1,160 women seeking abortion (not just late-term) gave overall reasons for obtaining an abortion at all stages (may list more than one):
  • 74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
  • 73% Can't afford a baby now 
  • 48% Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
  • 38% Have completed my childbearing
  • 32% Not ready for a(nother) child
  • 25% Don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
  • 22% Don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
  • 14% Husband or partner wants woman to have abortion
  • 13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
  • 12% Physical problem with my health
  • 6% Parents want me to have an abortion
  • 1% Woman was victim of rape 
  • <0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest
The same Guttmacher study has statistics for later term abortion (13+ weeks gestation). According to Guttmacher, 21% of women who had abortion at or past 13 weeks were doing so for fetal health concerns, and 10% for personal health concerns. This would mean, at most, 31% of these later term abortions were for health reasons.

But in fact it’s even less than that, because in some cases the same woman who had personal health concerns also cited fetal health concerns, meaning there is overlap between these two groups. According to the study: "A woman’s concerns for her health or possible fetal health problems were cited as reasons to end her pregnancy by one-fourth of the qualitative sample."  In other words:

About 75%of 13+ week abortions are not for fetal or maternal health concerns.

Furthermore the 25% figure relies on a heavily generous interpretation: We must assume health concerns always equal medically necessary abortions. As the study explains:

Women who felt that their fetus’s health had been compromised cited concerns such as a lack of prenatal care, the risk of birth defects due to advanced maternal age, a history of miscarriages, maternal cocaine use and fetal exposure to prescription medications. Concerns about personal health included chronic and life-threatening conditions such as depression, advanced maternal age and toxemia. More commonly, however, women cited feeling too ill during the pregnancy to work or take care of their children.

A risk—not even a certainty--of a birth defect could include something as minor as a cleft lip. A risk of cleft lip gets included in the “medically necessary” category. In other words, many health problems are not serious enough to warrant the phrase "medically necessary abortion" yet are still included here. Pro-choicers often use the phrase “medically necessary” to conjure up images of things like ectopic pregnancies, but the reality is many of the abortions categorized as “medically necessary” are not nearly so impactful, much less fatal. 

Examples of common birth defects

Some people say “late-term” abortion should only include abortions at or after 16 weeks gestation. I’ve only been able to find reasons for abortions at or after 13 weeks data, which is slightly different. One could argue that the proportion of medically necessary abortions after 16 weeks would be higher.

And it probably would be. However there’s no indication it would be so high as to constitute even a majority of late-term abortions, much less “nearly all” late-term abortions. The data available suggests that (a) it’s true women seeking late-term abortions are more likely to be doing it for medical reasons than women seeking earlier term abortions and (b) it’s also true that most late-term abortions are not done for medical reasons.

Remember that at 13+ weeks, 25% of women were seeking abortion for medical reasons. Let’s be generous and guess that at 16+ weeks, it’s exactly half of women that seek abortion for medical reasons. According to Guttmacher, about 1,000,000 abortions are done every year, and 4.8% of those are done at 16+ weeks gestation ( = 48,000 abortions). Even if a full half of those are for medical reasons (very unlikely), that means 24,000 late-term abortions done annually for non-medical reasons. So: At least 65 late-term abortions are done every day in the U.S. for non-medical reasons. That is worth our attention, and if as many people are as opposed to late-term abortions as Gallup reveals, then it's worth everyone's attention! 

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Big plans

Secular Pro-Life is riding high.

On September 30, our #HelloHyde campaign celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, which has saved the lives of over 2 million children born through the Medicaid program. We educated tens of thousands of people about the life-saving power of the Hyde Amendment and highlighted the faces and stories of Medicaid kids. We built an alliance of pro-life organizations that will continue to put Medicaid kids first as the Hyde Amendment comes under attack by the radical abortion lobby.

Last week, we caught the attention of the left-leaning news outlet Slate, which featured Secular Pro-Life in a fantastic article about the Millennial generation of pro-life advocates. We are building on the work of pro-life pioneers, incorporating new ideas, and busting stereotypes. Young people are increasingly liberal on "social issues" like marriage, but we aren't budging on abortion. We recognize that the right to life for all ages is a fundamental human rights issue, and we're not going anywhere.

And this weekend, we're off to Austin for the Life/Peace/Justice conference, where pro-life advocates focused on abortion, the death penalty, suicide prevention, etc. will network and learn from one another.

Our busy schedule doesn't end there. January's anniversary of Roe v. Wade is just around the corner. As always, we will be at the March for Life in D.C., the Walk for Life West Coast in San Francisco, and speak at the west coast and east coast Students for Life of America conferences corresponding to each. And in 2017, for the first time, we will be at the March for Life expo, which is attended by pro-lifers of all ages, from all over the country. We're so excited to help them make the secular case for life in their communities!

All of this costs money. The #HelloHyde campaign in particular was expensive, as we used paid advertising to reach people with our campaign videos. That was 100% worth it, but our bank account needs to be replenished as we gear up for January.

If you're able, please donate to Secular Pro-Life. We greatly appreciate your generosity.

Thank you for your continued support of our life-saving mission. Together, we will change hearts and minds until the day abortion is unthinkable for all.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Chilean survivors of mine collapse speak out for the preborn

Pro-life, pro-woman advocates have long cited Chile as a model country. Since 1989, Chilean babies have been protected by law from conception. Instead of treating abortion as synonymous with women's rights, Chile invested in women's access to education and health care. As a result, Chile's restoration of the right to life corresponded with significant improvements in maternal health outcomes. In fact, pro-life Chile has the lowest maternal mortality rate in all of Latin America.

The international abortion lobby can't stand that fly in its crystal chardonnay of a narrative, so it has put pressure on Chile to weaken its pro-life laws. Like pro-lifers in the United States, they have adopted an incremental strategy. Their current proposal seeks to legalize abortion for babies with serious disabilities and babies conceived in rape, as a stepping stone to eventual abortion on demand.

But abortion advocates are swimming against a strong cultural current. 

Few people understand the inestimable value of human life better than those who have come close to losing their own lives. The Chilean miners whose dramatic rescue from a collapsed mine captivated the world in 2010 know a thing or two about "hopeless cases." They have taken the sixth anniversary of their rescue as an opportunity to promote the pro-life cause, in an editorial published in the major Chilean newspaper El Murcurio:

Click to enlarge

My Spanish is more than a little rusty, but even I can tell you the meaning of "no aceptamos leyes que no respeten la vida humana"—we do not accept laws that do not respect human life.

Well done, sirs.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Study: "Extra" Embryos Do Not Aid Infertility Treatment Compared To eSET

CORRECTION 10/17/16: The study we referenced below is specifically comparing elective single embryo transfer (eSET) to transfer of multiple embryos. eSET involves creating multiple embryos, using certain criteria to choose the embryo most likely to be viable, and transferring just that embryo to the mother. This process is in contrast with non-elective single embryo transfer, when only one embryo is created and so that specific embryo must be the one transferred to the mother. The study referenced below did not examine the live birth rates and multiple birth rates for non-elective single embryo transfer, but it is unlikely that creating and transferring a single embryo would be as effective as creating multiple embryos and transferring either the most promising embryo or more than one embryo.

A storage tank containing frozen embryos

Religious authorities widely oppose in vitro fertilization (IVF)—that is, fertilization outside a woman's body—as being unnatural or against the will of a god. From a secular point of view, IVF is not necessarily unethical... but often is in practice. There is nothing inherently good or bad about where conception takes place. The critical question is: how is the resulting embryonic human treated?

From the early days of IVF, fertility clinics have made a habit of creating far more embryos than the parents actually intend to raise. The idea is that by creating and implanting "extra" embryos, you can offset any embryos who might die naturally from miscarriage and therefore increase the odds of at least one baby being carried to term.

In practice, however, many of these "extra" embryos are not introduced to the womb with their siblings. Instead, they are kept frozen for subsequent IVF attempts. And if a baby is born on the first try and the subsequent attempt at pregnancy never comes? Some of the "extra" embryos are adopted by other infertility patients. Others are killed, sometimes for research. Over half a million remain in a frozen limbo.

Ethicists have written mountains of articles about the conundrum posed by frozen embryos. No one can seem to agree on a good solution. But it has to start with stemming the tide of all these "extra" embryos. As it turns out, creating and implanting "extra" embryos doesn't actually aid fertility treatment.

A new study destroys the underlying premise that implanting multiple embryos increases the odds of a healthy birth. Researchers found that an infertility patient is just as likely to give birth if only one embryo is implanted. "Extra" embryos aren't offsetting miscarriages, resulting in one healthy newborn. The real effect of implanting those "extra" embryos? Twins and triplets, of course:
The study, published in this month’s issue of Fertility and Sterility, analyzed data collected in 2013 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 467 of the country’s fertility clinics. Researchers took into account the age of each patient, the stage at which each embryo was transferred, and the number of embryos each patient had available. Still, they found no significant difference in birth rates as the number of embryos transferred increased, though rates of multiples increased.
Most parents pursuing fertility treatment welcome multiples, but sadly, not all; the abortion of one twin or two triplets in a "selective reduction" after IVF is not unheard of.

Why create "extra" embryos, and cause such an ethical dilemma, when it doesn't actually benefit infertility patients? Fertility clinics should scale back and create only the number of embryos that the parents are prepared to raise or place for adoption.

Friday, October 14, 2016

In one week: Life/Peace/Justice Con in Austin!

Awesome people at the last Life/Peace/Justice Conference

It's not too late to sign up for the Life/Peace/Justice Conference next weekend (Friday October 21 and Saturday October 22) at the University of Texas at Austin. Tickets are just $45 for adults and $35 students. Children under 12 attending with a parent/guardian are free!

Life/Peace/Justice is organized by our dear friends at the Life Matters Journal, and they never fail to put together an incredible speaker list. Secular Pro-Life is proud to co-sponsor. We will have a table, and SPL president Kelsey Hazzard will speak on Saturday afternoon. Other participating organizations include New Wave Feminists, the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, and Consistent Life Network.

Hope you can make it!

P.S.—Many thanks to Texas Students for Life for hosting us! Here's a little video promo I did for them:


Wednesday, October 12, 2016

October is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month

I usually despise "awareness" campaigns. Like, we all know that breast cancer exists by now. I'm all for breast cancer research, but "awareness" is a waste of everybody's time.

I'll make an exception for Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month, because miscarriages and stillbirths are astoundingly under-discussed in proportion to how common they are. Many people don't have the first idea how to respond to the news that someone they know has lost their baby. Awareness is actually needed.

Pro-life President Ronald Reagan was the first to declare October Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month. He said:
When a child loses his parent, they are called an orphan. When a spouse loses his or her partner, they are called a widow or widower. When parents lose their child, there isn't a word to describe them. This month recognizes the loss so many parents experience across the United States and around the world. It is also meant to inform and provide resources for parents who have lost their children due to miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, stillbirths, birth defects, SIDS, and other causes.
The lack of language to talk about the deaths of very young people is made even worse by abortion advocates, who (intentionally or not) harm grieving parents by using dehumanizing phrases like "clump of cells" and "tissue" to describe unborn children. As Constance T. Hull put it recently in The Federalist:
It is a lie that my grief is unwarranted. The world’s greatest deception today is the dehumanization of the unborn. Of course they are human. That is scientific fact, but even beyond the science, mothers and fathers know they have lost a child when there is a miscarriage. The grief is just as powerful and intense as the loss of any child born full-term.
Miscarriage has been largely shut out of public discussion, because our experiences betray the lies of the abortion lobby. We know the loss of a child or children. No level of cognitive dissonance can take away the truth. Mothers who have bled out their own child know better.
We need to stop grieving silently. We need to stop letting people tell us that we did not lose a child. We did lose a child, and our grief is real. No rational human being would grieve over tissue, but a mother who was united in love to her child knows the great loss that has been suffered.
Unlike abortion advocates, pro-lifers do not carry ideological baggage that prevents us from acknowledging parents' pain after the loss of a child before (or shortly after) birth. Accordingly, we have a responsibility to take the lead on raising awareness.

Secular Pro-Life has had guest authors write in memory of their miscarried children on a number of occasions, and we welcome similar guest posts in the future. Learn more about becoming a guest writer here. And as long as we're sharing stories, I should share mine. About 25 years ago, I lost a sibling to ectopic pregnancy. I'm beyond grateful that my mom came out of that harrowing experience with no ill health effects. Sadly, doctors could not save the baby. I do sometimes wonder what it would have been like to grow up with two younger siblings instead of just one. I know my parents wish they could have had a larger family. But there was nothing that could have been done differently.

If someone in your life has lost a baby, consider purchasing a card here; the creator of those cards is a psychologist and has had a miscarriage herself, so she knows a thing or two about saying the right thing. Do not say "God has a plan," "Everything happens for a reason," etc. These sentiments are particularly offensive to non-religious parents, although my Christian friends have expressed annoyance with them too.

Finally, as the daughter of a Southerner, my go-to response when someone loses a loved one (of any age) is to bring over food. They have enough on their minds as it is, without worrying about how to feed everyone.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

The future of the pro-life movement

Today's cover story in Slate is about the future of the pro-life movement, and Secular Pro-Life is prominently featured. Although the author is pro-choice, she is incredibly fair and the reporting is stellar. Check it out!

Monday, October 10, 2016

What You Can Do on Planned Parenthood's 100th Anniversary

This Sunday, October 16, marks the 100th anniversary of Planned Parenthood. It's a sordid history. Planned Parenthood began as a contraceptive provider... but for all the wrong reasons. In the words of its founder, Margaret Sanger:
It has been conservatively estimated that no less than one quarter of the gross incomes of our states is expended upon the upkeep of asylums for the feeble-minded and insane, the mentally defective, the criminal, the congenitally defective, the delinquent and the dependent. We are spending billions, literally billions, keeping alive thousands who never, in all human compassion, should have been brought into this world. We are spending more in maintaining morons than in developing the inherent talents of gifted children. We are coddling the incurably defective and neglecting potential geniuses.
We have not chosen this Sisyphean task; it has been forced on us because we have left the production of American children to chance, instead of bringing this most important of all human functions within the sphere of choice.
Until the leaders of American business decide to cooperate in this analysis of our biological and racial problems we shall be at a loss to answer such critics as Luther Burbank, to whom American civilization is deeply indebted. In a recent interview he is quoted as asserting:
"America . . . is like a garden in which the gardener pays no attention to the weeds. Our criminals are our weeds, and weeds breed fast and are intensely hardy. They must be eliminated. Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce. All over the country to-day we have enormous insane asylums and similar institutions where we nourish the unfit and criminal instead of exterminating them. Nature eliminates the weeds, but we turn them into parasites and allow them to reproduce."  
Today, Planned Parenthood's racist and ableist roots, and its hatred of the "weak," are on display in its vehement promotion of abortion. Millions of preborn children have lost their lives in Planned Parenthood facilities. In recent years, Planned Parenthood has ruthlessly expanded its share of the abortion market, while reducing its provision of legitimate healthcare.

Pro-life advocates can respond in a number of ways:
  • Protest your local Planned Parenthood celebration. Planned Parenthood affiliates are throwing parties and other events throughout the month of October. We hope to see a peaceful pro-life presence outside every one of them. Wealthy donors should be reminded of the horror their funds support. A map of celebrations can be found here. Note that some locations require you to sign up before revealing the address, like that's going to stop us. Some are also holding their events in the middle of the work day.
  • Protest at your local Planned Parenthood facility this Saturday, October 15. #ProtestPP, which organized the nationwide protests in the wake of the "baby parts" videos last year, is back to organize protests of Planned Parenthood's 100th anniversary. Hundreds of locations are registered. Unfortunately, the event appears to be much more prayer-based this time around. We encourage secular participants to bring their own signs. 
  • Submit a video. Rock for Life and Students for Life of America are teaming up to give Planned Parenthood a 100th "birthday present"—a video compilation of young people speaking out against Planned Parenthood. Want to be part of the campaign? Record a short video that begins "I am offended that Planned Parenthood..." or "Planned Parenthood offends me because..." and submit it to or use the hashtag #rflstreetteam.
Here's my video submission (which is loosely based on this blog post):

Friday, October 7, 2016

Ableism, False Compassion, and Abortion

The author at the March for Life

[Today's guest post is by Rebecca Stapleford.]

A common trope of the pseudo-progressive idealization of late term abortion performed on disabled fetuses is this notion that it is a loving choice, the best choice for the child, who would assuredly be born into unimaginable suffering otherwise. Writer Miranda Sanchez, in her piece for the website Narratively, affirms this trope with a sickening vengeance when talking about the late term 20 week abortion she had performed on her son, because she felt like his life would not be worth living. Her doctors told her that “Their consensus is that he will probably live, but he will need spinal surgery every six months until he’s fully grown, and there are likely other complications unseen” and that “he may never walk or move his limbs outside of the womb.” On account of this, Miranda and her husband, because they, in her words “value the quality of life, not the length of it” decide to abort her son. Sanchez and her husband never sought the advice of people who were born and living with her son’s condition. She never considered stepping outside of her position of able-bodied privilege and contemplating the fact that “quality of life” is relative and often based on ableist constructs and able-bodied privilege.

Worse still, Narratively’s largely progressive readers apparently saw nothing wrong with this mindset, congratulating the writer on her alleged “compassion” for her son and scolding a commenter who was born with a birth defect and was horrified by Sanchez’s ableism. The reality is, ableist narratives that privilege the opinions and beliefs of non-disabled parents and doctors above the disabled person's own opinions about their quality of life are not progressive, they are regressive. Just because Sanchez, a relatively able-bodied person, would not find a life like her son's to be worth living does not mean that he would share that opinion.

As a woman living with both developmental and physical disabilities, as a woman who was hospitalized for almost a year in high school, as a sister to a woman in a wheelchair, as a sister to another woman who is intellectually and physically disabled, as a friend to many other disabled people, some of whom suffer from chronic excruciating pain, narratives like the ones promoted with Sanchez fill me with rage. Yes, I am pro-life. Sanchez’s narcissistic little rant about doing whatever she wants with her body, which does nothing at all to explain why she should have the right to have her son’s body poisoned and dismembered like she did, is something that I obviously philosophically disagree with. However, if I were a die-hard pro-choicer, I would still find Sanchez’s ableism disturbing and her narrative oppressive. Judging from the number of disabled pro-choicers who have written about the underlying attitude of ableism in the pro-choice movement and how it contributes to the oppression of disabled people, I’m not alone.