Monday, May 10, 2021

How Baby Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Survived Planned Parenthood

At a recent Congressional hearing on the Black maternal health crisis, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) stated that her mother obtained prenatal care from Planned Parenthood and called herself a "Planned Parenthood baby." AOC was quoted as saying: "If we want to talk about Planned Parenthood let's talk about how many lives Planned Parenthood has saved. And how many babies have been born because of the prenatal care provided by Planned Parenthood."

Those remarks were roundly mocked in pro-life and conservative spaces. Fox News' coverage of AOC's comments noted, correctly, that Planned Parenthood's most recent annual report shows 354,871 abortions versus only 8,626 prenatal services — a tragic ratio of 41 to 1. 

So what's going on here? Did an unborn AOC narrowly survive 41-to-1 odds at Planned Parenthood, only to perversely grow up to be an abortion advocate?

Planned Parenthood's ratio of abortions to prenatal care has changed over time, and so has the way Planned Parenthood measures prenatal care. Representative Ocasio-Cortez lived in the womb in 1989. That year, according to Planned Parenthood's annual report, AOC's mother was one of only 3,400 women to obtain prenatal care from Planned Parenthood, versus 111,000 women who obtained abortions. The ratio of babies killed to babies receiving prenatal care was 32 to 1.

In AOC's youth, Planned Parenthood reported the number of patients to whom it provided prenatal care. That practice continued through 2008, when Planned Parenthood performed abortions on 342,008 pregnant mothers and gave prenatal care to 9,433, a ratio of 36 to 1. But the following year, Planned Parenthood started reporting the number of prenatal services provided, allowing the same mother to be counted more than once if she had multiple prenatal appointments. This caused an illusory high point in 2009, when Planned Parenthood committed 331,796 abortions and provided 40,489 prenatal care services — a ratio of 8 to 1. 

And yet despite the rosier prenatal care metric, Planned Parenthood went from 8:1 in 2009 to 41:1 today! (Imagine how much worse today's ratio would look if the 1989 metric of number of women served had been maintained!) Why the jump? The best available explanation is a major policy shift in 2010. Planned Parenthood operates on a franchise model. In 2010, Planned Parenthood's national office required all of its regional affiliates to offer abortions or lose the right to the Planned Parenthood name. Prenatal care was not similarly mandated. So much for "choice."

To be clear, I am not arguing that Planned Parenthood was a virtuous organization once upon a time, or that its good at any point outweighed its bad. Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist for racist purposes. It has covered up statutory rape. It has participated in gruesome organ-harvesting schemes. It has a long history of discrimination against its own employees. And it has killed millions of unborn babies since the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973.

My argument is much narrower: women who went to Planned Parenthood in decades past may have encountered an organization that did not have as strong an "abortion-first" orientation as it does today. Many of these women are no longer of reproductive age and have not set foot in a Planned Parenthood in years; they have no reason to know that Planned Parenthood now kills 41 babies for every one prenatal service. Outdated memories may guide their policy positions and votes. And in some cases, evidently, they have passed their gauzy misconceptions of Planned Parenthood along to their children. We have our educational work cut out for us.  

None of this excuses Rep. Ocasio-Cortez's false claim that Planned Parenthood saves lives. She is an elected official with staffers employed to conduct research for her; she should know better. And whether the odds were 41 to 1 or 36 to 1 or 8 to 1, AOC is lucky to have left Planned Parenthood alive. It's a shame she doesn't want her youngest constituents to get the same chance.

[Photo credit: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Facebook page. Special thanks to Jim Sedlak for his archival research assistance.]

Friday, May 7, 2021

The Ableism of Abortion

Two men smiling; the man on the right has facial features consistent with Down Syndrome

Merriam-Webster defines ableism as "discrimination or prejudice against individuals with disabilities." It's a term that gets thrown around as our society becomes increasingly aware of the ways that disabled people have historically been discriminated against. This includes everything from a lack of accessibility for those in wheelchairs to excluding those who look or act differently. I'm glad to see a growing awareness of the harms of ableism and the celebration of all people, regardless of their abilities. However, this understanding has unfortunately not been applied to babies with disabilities. Many people continue to view abortions based on prenatal screening tests as completely moral. How is this not also ableism?

Abortions of babies with Down Syndrome, according to prenatal tests, is on the rise in America along with other locations. The most extreme example is found in Iceland, where people with Down Syndrome are all but disappearing due to the practice of aborting babies with Down Syndrome. According to this 2017 CBS article, close to 100% of women who "who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy." This overemphasis on the health of children and choosing whether or not to keep a child has long been a concern, both inside and outside of pro-life circles. If parents are permitted to abort their less-than-"perfect" children, what does that say about the ableism prevalent in our society despite our efforts to remove it? If we are to truly make an equitable world that is inclusive of those with differing abilities, it must start with banning the abortion of babies due to their medical conditions. 

Down Syndrome is only one example, of course; however, it is one of the most powerful. It is not life-threatening and there are a multitude of examples of men and women with Down Syndrome living healthy, fulfilling lives. Just this past year, Ellie Goldstein, a model with Down Syndrome, was featured on Vogue’s Italia website. However, a person should not have to prove their worth to society in order to earn the right to life. One does not have to be a "contributing member of society" in order to be alive. There are many ways to live a fulfilling life and impact others and they do not all involve the same thing. You would think that the current emphasis on stamping out ableism would put to rest some of these fallacies, but it has yet to do so definitively. Our society emphasizes accepting people for who they are but apparently only once they are considered worthy of being born. 

However, there is hope on the horizon. A law has been upheld in Ohio prohibiting abortions based on a Down Syndrome diagnosis. Arizona recently followed suit with a law banning abortions based on a genetic abnormality, including Down Syndrome. However, legislation alone will not fix the problem. We need a culture shift. The current wave of accommodations and acknowledgement of the struggles of those with disabilities must extend to those in the womb to protect the most important right: life. 

[Today's guest article is by Laura Wallace. Learn more about becoming a guest author here. Photo credit: Nathan Anderson on Unsplash.]

Wednesday, May 5, 2021

Reflections on National Foster Care Awareness Month

Silhouette of adult and child playing at a beach

May is National Foster Care Awareness Month. Although foster care is not an abortion alternative (for reasons discussed at length here), the pro-life and foster care communities significantly overlap, united by a common concern for vulnerable children. People who grow up in foster care have been especially vocal about the harms of pro-choice rhetoric suggesting they should have been aborted. Foster children deserve caregivers who will affirm their humanity and dignity.

In January — coincidentally, right around the time of the canceled March for Life — I became a licensed foster parent and welcomed a teenager into my home. The friends I have cultivated over my dozen years of pro-life advocacy (give or take) have been tremendously supportive, and I thank you all from the bottom of my heart.

Without oversharing any personal details about my foster daughter, I'd like to offer some general thoughts and encouragement for pro-life readers who may be thinking about becoming a foster parent.

The licensing process

The process of becoming a foster parent varies by jurisdiction. In my case, I contacted the agency in September and obtained my license four months later. The process included two home inspections, various safety purchases to come into compliance (e.g. a refrigerator thermometer, fire extinguishers, and cabinet locks), a background check and fingerprinting, and weekly Zoom classes and homework assignments to become educated about childhood trauma.

The training involved many difficult, heartbreaking topics. To get a flavor, I highly recommend the Removed series of short films, available on YouTube (part 1, part 2, part 3).

I am single and I work full time. I do not have medical training. My home has stairs and cannot accommodate a wheelchair user. All of these things have been taken into account. My license is only for children between the ages of 6 and 17 who do not have serious medical needs. My agency is careful to match children with suitable homes, and I was always encouraged to speak up about what I could and could not offer. 

Expect the unexpected

If you are devoted to a strict routine and react poorly to deviations, foster parenting probably is not for you. My foster daughter was originally placed in my home "just for the weekend," but when Monday rolled around, she wanted to stay with me and the only other option was a group home. A consensus quickly emerged that my home was indeed in her best interest. 

Here are just a few of the issues we encountered: not having her medications; not having her glasses; a week-long administrative delay getting her enrolled in school; her prescriptions being sent to a pharmacy that didn't take her insurance; delays in setting up her therapy appointments; and, not two weeks into the placement, an urgent care visit because she took a bad step and injured her foot. (Don't worry, she's fine. Toenails grow back.)

These situations were all quite stressful, but I am gradually learning, as she'd say, to "take a chill pill." It's all worth it to give her a safe environment that meets her needs.

A team effort

If you're thinking "I could never handle all that," remember that you won't be going it alone. The adage that it takes a village to raise a child is especially true for foster parenting. I have support from many quarters, including my family, friends, neighbors, Secular Pro-Life co-leaders, a therapist, a doctor, case managers, school staff, and licensing supervisors. I'm especially fortunate to have a good relationship with my foster daughter's mother, who is working to regain custody.

This is not a solo endeavor. Coming up for air every now and then is crucial. Don't be afraid to ask for help!

"You don't have to be perfect, to be a perfect parent."

Remember these public service announcements? I've been thinking about them a lot lately. I am far from perfect. Sometimes I say the wrong thing. I often fall behind on chores and errands. I take misbehavior too personally. I waste time comparing myself to imaginary, impossible standards. 

But every Friday at 8:00 p.m., my foster daughter and I celebrate another week together — and that's enough. Getting to know her and care for her has been a privilege. Whatever happens, we will always have a bond.

There is a tremendous need for loving foster homes. The opioid addiction epidemic has shattered countless families and overwhelmed child welfare programs. If any part of you is drawn to the idea of becoming a foster parent, you owe it to both the children and yourself to contact a local agency and learn more. You don't know what you're missing!

[Photo credit: Lauren Lulu Taylor on Unsplash]

Monday, May 3, 2021

April Recap

 (Click here to sign up for these email updates.)

April Recap

This month we launched, a website Monica created to encourage people against abortion to get involved. There are ideas for introverts, busy people, broke people, and even pro-choicers who want to decrease abortion. We launched the website with enough suggestions to feature one idea per week for a year, but we plan to expand the list substantially over time. Follow the project on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, and share your ideas with us about how people can do pro-life work.

On April 24, both Kelsey and Terrisa presented at the 2021 Consistent Life Virtual Conference, where they spoke about being bold and sharing personal, relatable stories in our pro-life messaging.

And on April  9 & 10 we participated in the Save Hyde National Day of Action (created by Democrats for Life). Terrisa spoke at the National Press Club to condemn the Democratic Party's plans to introduce the first budget in 40 years that would include taxpayer funding for abortion. The next day Terrisa protested in Washington DC, and on the opposite coast Monica (and her daughters) protested in Sacramento.

We gained 351 new followers, bringing us to 13,521 total. We sent 241 tweets, which were viewed 647,000 times, including this tweet, viewed over 30,000 times, in which we tried to explain (again) the distinction between being "life" and being living human organisms.

See our collection of biology books here.

We are at 35,196 followers on Facebook. Our content was viewed 319,377 times, including 19,101 views of  this post (one of Monica's "red pen" meme corrections):

See more corrected memes here.

Our three most-read blog posts for April, in increasing order: Like what we do and have something to contribute? Consider writing a guest post. Guest posts help us cover a more diverse range of perspectives, topics, and experiences. If you have an idea for a piece you'd like to submit, please email us at

Thank you to our supporters
Thank you to those of you who donate to help support our work. SPL is run by dedicated volunteers, and we would not be able to devote the time and energy without the help of donors like you.

If you like our work, please consider donating: 

If you don't use Paypal, you can also go to our Facebook page and click the blue "Donate" button under our cover photo on the right.

Friday, April 30, 2021

Investigating miscarriages would be cruel, wasteful, and destructive.

Sometimes pro-choice people claim that outlawing abortion would mean the state will investigate every miscarriage as potential murder. Pro-lifers counter that natural death (miscarriage) is not equivalent to purposeful killing (abortion). This reply is obviously true, but it doesn't really address the concern. At minimum, early miscarriage and medication-induced abortion look physiologically the same. If the latter is illegal, would the authorities need to investigate both to try to determine whether the law was broken?

The answer would depend on the details of legislation outlawing abortion. Laws that assign penalties to abortion providers but not abortion seekers—and particularly laws that explicitly exempt women seeking abortion from criminal and civil liability—would not require authorities to investigate women, whether they miscarried or aborted. But laws that penalize women seeking abortion might be a different story. 

Photo credit Matt Popovich from Unsplash

Most pro-lifers—including the women who run Secular Pro-Life—don't believe penalties for abortions should focus on the women seeking them. There are some pro-lifers who disagree, however, and argue that if abortion is illegal each woman who obtains one should be investigated, receive due process, and be charged if applicable. There are several reasons I disagree with this approach. Such a legal structure ignores pervasive cultural miseducation that leads many people to believe falsehoods about the nature of the entity they're aborting. It also downplays significant pressures that push many women to seek abortion in the first place. And the setup would make it much more difficult to identify and prosecute abortion providers. (I go into a lot more detail about these ideas in this post.) And none of that even gets into strategic questions about whether proposals that would penalize providers versus those that would penalize women have a better chance of actually becoming law.

In addition to these problems, laws that penalize women are more likely to be used to investigate miscarriages. Women who miscarry are already inclined to incorrectly believe the miscarriage is somehow their fault and to struggle with guilt on top of grief. Investigating miscarriage would add fear and false legitimacy to their guilt. I've written before about the trauma miscarriage can cause, and to compound that trauma with police investigations would be unbelievably cruel and destructive. It would likely also have a chilling effect on women seeking help with managing miscarriage or even managing pregnancy, since only miscarriages of known pregnancies could reasonably be investigated.

Investigating miscarriage would also waste a breathtaking level of resources. Numbers will vary depending on what year you examine, but here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation:

  1. According to the US Census, in 2010 there were approximately 62.4 million women of childbearing age (defined as age 15-44). 
  2. According to Guttmacher, in 2011 there were 98 pregnancies for every 1,000 women of childbearing age. 
  3. According to Mayo Clinic, about 10-20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. I'll take the midpoint of 15% for the calculation. 
  4. According to the CDC, in 2019 there were 19,141 homicides, 47,511 suicides, and 173,040 unintentional injury deaths. If law enforcement investigated every one of these instances, that would be 239,692 investigations. 

62.4M women * 98/1000 pregnancies = 6.1M pregnancies in a year

6.1M pregnancies * 15% = 915,000 miscarriages (of known pregnancies) in a year

915,000 new investigations/239,692 typical investigations = 382% increase in investigations

That statistic doesn't include investigating actual abortions. Some may argue that there would be relatively few abortions to investigate because data show when abortion is outlawed, abortion rates go down. But even if you believed outlawing abortion would stop abortion entirely, there's no reason to believe outlawing abortion would decrease rates of miscarriage.

And even if the miscarriage investigations were simplified to cursory surveys of what happened, the sheer number of instances would require exorbitant time and resources to investigate and clear hundreds of thousands of innocent women. And because, like any system, the judicial system has an error rate, some nonzero number of women who miscarry would be not only investigated but jailed and/or charged with crimes. There are already recent examples in the U.S. of misapplying laws to prosecute women who have just experienced pregnancy loss.

Elective abortion kills innocent humans, and it should be illegal. But the laws against abortion should focus on people providing, not seeking, abortion, and the problems of investigating miscarriage are another reason why.

Wednesday, April 28, 2021

Book Review: "I Can Hear Music"

We seem to be at the start of a welcome trend of pro-life picture books for children. Although the canon is still in its infancy (pun absolutely intended), we've previously reviewed Pro-Life Kids and When You Became You. Now I Can Hear Music, written by Brendan Lyons and illustrated by Missy Johnson, joins the list.

I Can Hear Music is a rhyming book with a simple theme: children in the womb can hear. They can hear their mother's heartbeats, speaking voices, and the sounds of a marching band. "And when I am born, you might be surprised, the voice that you sing with is one I recognize." Although this is not an explicitly anti-abortion message, the preborn child is humanized inherently. 

The text and illustrations are much simpler than those in Pro-Life Kids or When You Became You, making I Can Hear Music a good introduction for toddlers. I can see it being a particularly good fit for young ones who are awaiting the birth of a younger sibling and want to know more about what's going on in there! It's a fine option for secular families as well; other than a brief reference to a church choir singing, there is no religious content or anything that could be construed as proselytizing.

I Can Hear Music is available for purchase on Amazon.

Monday, April 26, 2021

Two Pro-Life Laws Upheld by Appellate Court

The Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse in Cincinnati, OH,
home to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals

The federal circuit courts of appeals play an incredibly important role in the United States judicial system. They are just one step below the Supreme Court — and since the Supreme Court only accepts a small fraction of the cases appealed to it, the circuit courts of appeals usually have the final word.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee, has recently delivered two victories for unborn children. 

Preterm-Cleveland et al. v. McCloud et al. concerns an Ohio law which states:

No person shall purposely perform or induce or attempt to perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the person has knowledge that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion, in whole or in part, because of any of the following: 

(1) A test result indicating Down syndrome in an unborn child; 

(2) A prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome in an unborn child; 

(3) Any other reason to believe that an unborn child has Down syndrome.   

Abortion businesses sued, arguing that the law constituted a ban on abortion prior to viability and that Roe v. Wade invalidates all pre-viability bans. The state countered that the "undue burden" test set forth in later Supreme Court abortion cases was the more appropriate analytical framework. 

The Sixth Circuit agreed with Ohio and, applying the undue burden test, ruled that the law could go into effect while the lawsuit is pending. Encouragingly, it found that the law advances strong societal interests in preventing discrimination against the Down Syndrome community and protecting the ethics and integrity of the medical profession; these interests are valid "throughout pregnancy, from the first day to the last." Less encouragingly, the Sixth Circuit noted that women could still legally kill their unborn children with Down Syndrome under this law by simply staying silent about their eugenicist motivations. 

In Bristol Regional Women's Center et al. v. Slatery et al., the Sixth Circuit reinstated Tennessee's 48-hour abortion waiting period while the abortion industry's legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Many courts have upheld waiting periods, including the Supreme Court, which found Pennsylvania's 24-hour waiting period constitutional in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Both Preterm and Bristol are in the preliminary stages of litigation. The abortion industry failed to stop pro-life laws from going into effect while the lawsuits are pending, but it could be years before either case is fully resolved.

Friday, April 23, 2021

TOMORROW: "Creating a Culture of Life in a Divided Country"

State Senator Jackson
Consistent Life's 2021 virtual conference will take place tomorrow (Saturday, April 23) from 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern time. The theme is "Creating a Culture of Life in a Divided Country." Secular Pro-Life is thrilled to co-sponsor this event. 

You'll find Secular Pro-Life leaders Kelsey Hazzard and Terrisa Bukovinac at the 1:50 p.m. workshop on messaging. Other pro-life atheist speakers include Sarah Terzo and Herb Geraghty. And you definitely won't want to miss the keynote from Lousiana State Senator Katrina Jackson! 

Get the full speaker list and schedule here. Tickets are the excellent price of pay-what-you-can, so register today

Wednesday, April 21, 2021

New Project: How To Be Pro-Life

Person holding a sign: "Protect the Preborn"
Secular Pro-Life is excited to launch How To Be Pro-Life, a guide to advocating for preborn children in your community! Whether you're brand-new to the cause or have been actively anti-abortion for decades, we hope this will inspire you. 

This project seeks to answer the common question "But what can I do?" So far, we have 52 answers — one for every week of the year — and counting. You can search by categories like introverted or extroverted, educational or legislative, and donations of money or time. We even have a few ideas for our friends of faith to promote pro-life values in their places of worship (although, as you would expect, secular items dominate the list). Got something to add? We'd love to hear it!

You can find How To Be Pro-Life on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and our website. Your first task: follow and invite a friend! Remember: No one can do everything, but everyone can do something. 

[Photo credit: Maria Oswalt on Unsplash]

Monday, April 19, 2021

Book Review: "Random Family" Teaches Valuable Lessons About Pregnancy and Poverty

I recently read Adrian Nicole LeBlanc's 2003 masterpiece Random Family: Love, Drugs, Trouble, and Coming of Age in the Bronx. LeBlanc spent over a decade chronicling the lives of people in some of New York's poorest neighborhoods at the height of the crack epidemic. As so often happens when I read to try to take a break from pro-life advocacy, it turned out that Random Family has a lot to say about abortion.

The subculture Random Family explores has a reputation for treating human life as cheap. In some ways, that checks out: drug cartels run the streets, boys join violent gangs, and domestic and sexual abuse are rampant. And yet...

You could hate a rival all you wanted to, but pregnancy merited respect. There were girls so hard that they paid no mind to a belly, but Coco wasn't one of them. After all, the unborn baby was innocent.

Typical pro-choice euphemisms are completely absent from the protagonists' language. Teen and unplanned pregnancies are common, but abortion is rarely on the table. When it is, everyone recognizes the reality that abortion kills a baby. 

Coco considers abortion twice. First, she becomes pregnant while her true love, Cesar, is incarcerated, and Cesar breaks up with her:

Coco reasoned that since the baby made her lose Cesar, the loss of the baby might bring him back. She made an appointment for an abortion. She went to the clinic but forgot her Medicaid card. She rescheduled and missed the second appointment. She finally went for a third, but she'd lost heart. Coco's sister, Iris, remembered Coco punching herself in the stomach and throwing herself against the wall. "She did everything to try and get rid of that baby," Iris said. But the baby survived all of it, so Coco reckoned it was fate.

That baby is Nikki, Coco's second daughter. Two more daughters follow. Coco then attempts to obtain birth control, prompting the sole appearance of Planned Parenthood in the narrative. Planned Parenthood does not come off well:

Coco kept her appointment at Planned Parenthood and decided on the Depo-Provera shot, but she didn't react well to it. She bled heavily for a solid week; when she reported to Planned Parenthood again, she was instructed to continue taking Motrin. Coco asked if she could get her tubes tied and was told she had to make several appointments, including one for an hour of counseling. Between her chronic problems with Frankie and with Pearl, she never made it back.

Yes, you read that right: Planned Parenthood, which regularly battles against basic informed consent laws for abortion, required a mother of four to have an hour-long counseling session and jump through hoops before she could get a tubal ligation! Perhaps they were hoping to have her back as an abortion customer. Little surprise that Coco becomes pregnant with a fifth child. She feels overwhelmed and ambivalent — but her oldest daughter, eight-year-old Mercedes, intervenes:

Coco considered getting an abortion, but then she thought about what people would think of her for murdering an unborn child. One night, she polled her daughters on the way to the dollar store. "Mommy might take out the baby. I went through the same thing with the four of ya'aw, but I thought I could do it, and there's so much I want to do for you — you know how Mommy wants to go to Great Escapes? And I swear, I'll get you there this summer if I have to rent the damn van myself. But I can't do this."

"Mommy, that ain't right," Mercedes said.

"I know, Mercy, but Mommy can't do it. You see the problems I got with Frankie now?"

"But Mommy, it ain't right," Mercedes said again.

"We'll help you, Mommy," Nikki said. "We can make the bottle." 

With her daughters' encouragement, Coco chooses life for their little brother La-Monté.

Another close call occurs when Cesar's sister, Jessica, is in prison and begins a sexual relationship with a guard named Torres:

The prison authorities had given Jessica a pregnancy test that August, which was negative; but by October, the blood test came back positive. Jessica asked for an abortion but said the prison refused to give her one unless she paid for it. She didn't have the money. She called her former pro-bono attorney, but by the time he had intervened and the abortion was scheduled, Jessica had spoken with Torres and changed her mind.

The officials' refusal to pay for an abortion with taxpayer funds saved two lives; Jessica was carrying twins. LeBlanc writes:

Babies were about hoping and growing, not just surviving. They pulled you into the future, even if you were literally imprisoned by your past. Any belly — inside or outside of prison — required at least the perfunctory gestures of optimism. . . . Ida was the cook of the bunch, and she made it her business to keep Jessica full of food. Ida had been pregnant when she was arrested and still regretted her abortion; Jessica's pregnancy offered her a second chance to do right.

Random Family is anecdotal and several years old, but more recent data agree: low-income, marginalized communities tend to hold anti-abortion values. A 2019 Gallup poll found that a strong majority of Americans with household incomes under $40,000 took pro-life positions, saying that abortion should be illegal in all (30%) or few (40%) circumstances. Among those with incomes over $100,000, the pro-choice position prevails. The abortion industry cynically casts itself as the voice of low-income people, but that's a lie. If elites actually listened to the poor, they would learn that abortion is not an acceptable solution to the problems of poverty.