A former late-term abortion nurse speaks out

Warren Hern is one of the few people in the United States who openly performs abortions even after 24 weeks gestation. He performs abortions in Colorado, one of a handful of states that have no gestational limits on abortion — that is, it is legal to perform abortion for any reason at any point in the pregnancy. (Pro-life advocates on the ground are working to change that.)

3D image of a 28-week-old baby in the womb

Hern has gone on record explaining that the later abortions he performs are not always for women facing any grave medical outcome. He has also published work exploring how abortion workers (both doctors and nurses) are emotionally and psychologically impacted by late-term abortion. His work has been incredibly frank, providing a sharp contrast to the strident euphemisms of many pro-choice advocates.

Julie Wilkinson worked as a nurse in Hern's clinic for years, but she is now passionately pro-life and works in a NICU instead. I recently read a piece in New American about her conversion. Here are a few random thoughts a bit too long for a FB post:

Though an abortion was not something I ever planned to have, I rationalized the deaths of the infants: All the abused babies and children were better off going to heaven than being born and suffering if they were unwanted.

Several notes about this mentality:

1. Usually religiosity correlates with being anti-abortion. Still it's interesting (and disheartening) to see how belief in an afterlife can help people feel complacent about taking lives. This is in line with what we've previously written about the "Abortion Religion," in which abortion supporters appropriate supernatural concepts like reincarnation to justify violence against children in the womb.
2. The idea that children born of unintended pregnancies will be unwanted is largely a myth. Research has found that the vast majority of women who sought but were denied abortion and went on to birth their children raised their children themselves and bonded to their children just fine.
3. Notice that very few (if any) people take the above mentality and apply it to born children. We don't argue that the solution to child abuse is to euthanize the children being abused, so they can be better off in heaven.

Continuing...

I was raised a Christian and still considered myself one, mind you, but I attended church rarely.

This makes sense. Being pro-choice is inversely correlated with church attendance.

After a few weeks, I was taught how to assist with late cases, 13-24 weeks. … I would hand sterile instruments to the doctor so that he could withdraw amniotic fluid from the uterus and replace it with a concentrated urea (salt) solution, which I was responsible to mix. He said that the solution caused the placenta to separate from the uterus, resulting in the fetus dying. The truth was, the babies likely suffered terribly in the salt solution, their fragile skin and lungs being burned.

Good time to suggest everyone read the January 2020 Journal of Medical Ethics article "Reconsidering Fetal Pain," which argues the fetus may feel pain as early as 13 weeks.

An early troubling situation occurred when a married, successful couple came to visit the clinic. They wanted a child, but they found out at 16 weeks that she was carrying twins and were not sure if twins would fit into their lifestyle. That visit bothered most of the workers, but it was no trouble for the doctor, who aborted the couple's healthy babies a couple weeks later.

Another example of how later abortions are not exclusively done for medical reasons. On the contrary, based on what information we can find, it appears later abortions are usually not for medical reasons. In fact, Hern himself has published research saying only 30% of his patients seek second and third trimester abortions for reasons of fetal abnormality.

After a couple years, I believe the Holy Spirit began to nudge me.

I feel conflicted about this idea. On the one hand, I'm grateful for every person who moves from a pro-choice to a pro-life position, and I recognize that faith plays a role in those conversions for some people. On the other hand, if it's the Holy Spirit doing this work, why the subtlety? Why a "nudge"? Why not a massive shove in the other direction, similar to Saul on the road to Damascus?

But I'm an atheist, so for me these questions are really just rhetorical. Whatever her reasons, I'm glad Julie changed her mind.

However, my heart didn’t change overnight. Time was necessary to change my years-long belief in a woman’s "right to choose."

She's not alone here. A lot of conversions are stories of a slow process, often over years. Please remember that factor when you're talking about abortion with people who disagree. Be patient as you plant ideas, and don't worry if you don't see any major changes immediately. Just keep going.

After I left Boulder, I never told people what I had done there. I got married, and we had three beautiful daughters. I did not tell them my story either; I just made sure they were raised to be pro-life. It felt very lonely to keep that dreadful secret.

Julie's reaction demonstrates why it's so tricky to conduct accurate research regarding people's feelings about their own choices — people who feel shame, regret, guilt, deep sorrow, or other negative emotions are less likely to speak up than people who are satisfied with their decisions. This problem is one of the major limitations of the recent highly touted study claiming 95% of women do not regret their abortions. Read more here.

Then a few years ago, another person told me I should reach out to Abby Johnson, who was a former abortion clinic director who held retreats for ex-abortion workers. So I did. I found a small, generally invisible group of people who are passionately pro-life. We have seen abortion from the inside, and we know the truth.

Abby Johnson's pro-life work is unique and so needed. I'm glad she has created this space for former abortion workers.

How many Democrats are pro-life?

Recently, Democrats for Life President Kristen Day questioned Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg about whether the Democratic Party welcomes pro-life Democrats. She said, in part,

I am a proud pro-life Democrat. Do you want the support of pro-life Democratic voters? There are about 21 million of us.

NARAL President Ilyse Hogue objected to that stat, pointing to a Kaiser poll that found 94% of Democrats think decisions about abortion should be made by women in consultation with their doctors (as opposed to by lawmakers). Hogue said Day's claim of 21M pro-life Dems is "impossible to defend."

It's not really, though.

As has always been the case, polling results regarding abortion heavily depend on the wording of the questions, and no doubt there's room to debate which polls are the most accurate and why. But Day's number isn't pulled from thin air. Dr. Michael New explained succinctly:

• There are 245 million eligible voters according to the U.S. Census Bureau (see Table 1 here).
• 33% of voters are Democrats, according to Pew Research Center (number reported as of 1/28/20).
• 29% of Democrats refer to themselves as "pro-life" according to Gallup.
• 245,000,000 x 0.33 x 0.29 = 23,446,500 self-identified pro-life Democrats

Still you could reasonably argue that there's a lot of difference between identifying as "pro-life" and wanting abortion to be outlawed. (To think more about what it means to be "pro-life," check out our thought experiment/poll "Who are pro-lifers?" here). How many pro-life Democrats actually want to outlaw abortion?

Well the same Gallup link above found that 14% of Democrats say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (compared to 39% who say it should be legal under any circumstance). Reworking the math above would get us 11,319,000 Democrats who think abortion should be illegal all the time, making Day's stat seem pretty exaggerated.

But really that number is likely a lower limit, because the vast majority of pro-life people think abortion should be legal "under certain circumstances," e.g. when a woman's life is in danger. Gallup finds that 45% of Democrats take this view and, as has always been the problem with Gallup's wording here, it's difficult to gauge what percent of the legal "under certain circumstances" crowd would be typically considered pro-choice or pro-life. 

In any case more granular polls can give us more info. This poll from The Hill found that 12% of Democrats thought "abortion should be illegal under all circumstances" and another 32% thought "abortion should be legal in limited circumstances such as rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother," giving a total of 45% of Democrats who took pretty strong anti-abortion positions. Working the math above again, that would give us 36,382,500 Democrats who think abortion should be illegal all or almost all the time, making Day's stat seem awfully modest.

We've talked before about how different polls make it seem like the American public takes contradictory stances on abortion, and the same issues apply when we look at Democrats specifically. Even so, we get a range of somewhere between 1 out of 7 and almost 1 out of 2 Democrats who think abortion should be generally illegal. Democrats for Life of America is representing a large portion of the Democratic Party as they face off against increasingly dismissive and hostile party leadership.

Image taken from DFLA FB page.

The Comfortable Pro-Choice People

Last year before the San Francisco Walk for Life, Monica (SPL co-leader) gave a brief speech about "comfortable" pro-choice people, essentially outlining the most ubiquitous myths that allow people to be comfortable with the pro-choice political position. [And she did this speech before pro-choice people started insisting embryos don't have hearts.] You can watch the video here and/or read the transcript below. Sources are linked in the transcript.

My name is Monica Snyder, I’m an atheist, and I work with Secular Pro-Life. And normally I do discussions about diversity and inclusivity and fact-based research, but that’s not what I want to talk about today. I have been thinking a lot about—I’m pretty fed up, actually. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

I’ve worked with Secular Pro-Life for 10 years. I’ve had many, many conversations about abortion—some of them have been very good. I’m always happy to have thoughtful dialogue with people who are interested in exploring each other’s views. Even if we’re not going to change minds, I’m happy to have thoughtful dialogue.

Kinda over the other kind of conversation though—and by that I mean conversations with who I’ve started to think of as the casual, comfortable pro-choice person. And by that I mean people who—this isn’t a top political topic for them; it’s not something that they know a lot about or dig into a lot, but they still identify as pro-choice because they’ve picked up on the idea that that is the right side to be. The right side of history, the side of progress and freedom of religion and equality. And so even though they don’t know a lot about the situation, it doesn’t stop them from being kind of scandalized that I think…whatever it is I think, they don’t actually have any idea, but it probably involves hating women or something. And so they sort of clutch their pearls at the fact that I’m against abortion. They talk to me as if I owe them an apology or an explanation, even as they say many nonsensical things that they can’t back up in any way.

So, for example, many people have no understanding of American abortion law. I can’t tell you how many people have told me that abortion is illegal after the first trimester. That’s not true literally anywhere in the country. Even in the most restrictive state—Mississippi—you can get a non-medical abortion until the 5th month, okay? They think that anti-choice forces are bringing us into the dark ages. They don’t realize we have some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. We are 1 out of only 7 countries where it’s legal to get a non-medical abortion after 20 weeks—right there with North Korea and China. They don’t realize that Roe v. Wade makes us this way. They think that all Roe v. Wade did was made abortion a legal option. Actually what it did was make it almost impossible to have any kind of restrictions before viability, which is about 6 months into the pregnancy.

And even if they believe me when I tell them that, it doesn’t shock them because they don’t know anything about fetal development at 6 months into the pregnancy! These are the same people who will tell me that biology—not philosophy—biology doesn’t tell us when life begins, which is complete anti-science nonsense. They’ll use the phrase “clumps of cells” as if we’re aborting amorphous spheres of genetic material instead of small humans with heartbeats and brain waves and organ systems. And if you show them video footage of Planned Parenthood harvesting those organs, they’ll just say “Heavily edited! Heavily edited!” over and over again, even though there’s no evidence that part was heavily edited. They don’t know what they mean when they say that. There’s no evidence of audio manipulation, and Planned Parenthood itself doesn’t even deny that they take organs from late-term fetuses. But sure, they’re taking brains and livers from “clumps of cells.”

And if they believe that part, they still think that it’s only because late-term abortions are done for severe medical reasons. So even if, yes, they take those, it’s from a tragic situation that had to happen anyway so at least it’s useful, right? Unfortunately, the research actually shows that even at 21 weeks or later, 80% of these abortions are not done for health-related reasons. It is a pleasant fiction to think that we are tearing children apart limb from limb only in the most tragic and dire situations. The reality is far less…comfortable. We even have abortion providers—and they’ll talk openly, in interviews, publicly, about how in third trimester they will abort healthy, viable babies. But the comfortable pro-choice people don’t want to talk about that, or hear it at all.

And even if they believe me when I point out that we’re killing small humans, that are abortion laws are insane, and that late-term abortion is not usually for health reasons, what is the comfortable pro-choice person supposed to do? They can’t be on our side! We’re the side of the old, rich, white conservative Christian men, right? Unfortunately that’s not really real either. Actually young people are just as likely to be against abortion as our parents and our grandparents. Poor people are more likely to be against abortion than rich people. Latinos are more likely to be against abortion than white people. And it’s true that we skew conservative and Christian, but 1 out of 5 Democrats is against abortion. 1 out of 5 non-religious people is against abortion. And what about the men thing? Everyone’s heard the “war on women” trope, right? All of the highly educated empowered women are fighting to control their bodies while regressive religious men are trying to stop them, right? Right? NO! Actually women are just as likely as men to be against abortion. There are literally tens of MILLIONS of American women against abortion! And when I point this out you see their true feminist colors, because then the answer is it must be that I am an internalized misogynist! I couldn’t possibly be against abortion because it’s destroying millions of humans! It must be because I hate myself. What a convenient, comfortable theory so that you don’t have to think too much about this. Everyone who disagrees with you is just deep-seated prejudice, right?

The reality is that I am a young, atheist, pretty broke, Millennial woman who is strongly against abortion, and I am standing right HERE! So stop acting like I don’t exist!

So all I ask is that if you’re going to defend our insane abortion laws, at least own what you’re defending. The inconvenient truth is that we’re killing small humans, our laws are insane, and we do late-term abortions even for non-medical reasons. And if you own that in your position, you’re not the one I have a problem with, because you’re doing it with eyes wide open. But if you are comfortable being pro-choice because you bury yourself in euphemisms and nonsense, then I ask you to step up. If you really want to defend this, do it with eyes wide open. That’s all I’m asking, thank you.

SPL banner at the Walk. Click to enlarge.

Recap: SPL at the Democrats for Life of America Conference

Many of our followers know by now that SPL is run by three atheist women: Monica the conservative, Kelsey the independent, and me (Terrisa), the flaming liberal. Naturally, when Democrats for Life of America cleverly sought out a secular speaker for their national conference in Lansing, Michigan, I was happy to fulfill the role!

I work full-time in the pro-life movement and have been to countless pro-life conferences. The first thing that is noticeably different about the DFLA National Conference is just how much resistance it inspires from pro-choice groups. This year, a local groups took out three (yes three!) expensive billboards with the MSU specific message “Go Green, Go White, Go Home Dems for Life!'' Little did they know that DFLA Executive Director, Kristen Day, is MSU alumna! In addition, they dropped off flyers at the conference venue in the days leading up to the event. Similarly, last year at the 2018 conference in Denver, Colorado, a billboard was taken out exalting that “Abortion access is a Progressive Value” and NARAL hosted a press conference outside the venue to address the event!

I find these efforts kind of shocking considering what a relatively small pro-life effort we are. I’ve rarely if ever encountered anything similar at a more traditionally conservative event. Pro-life Dems are often referred to as unicorns, like we’re so rare were a myth. But it’s this effort to counter us that reminds me: Democrats who want to see abortion more restricted than it is today-contrary to the party platform-are actually in the majority. The abortion industry almost exclusively maintains political power through the financial relationship they have with our party. Pro-life Dems pose a unique threat to the future of that relationship.

The conference was lively, fun, diverse, and welcoming. Sure, it skewed a little older and more religious, but the topics and speakers were timely and engaged with topics relevant to us left-leaning types like protecting the life and dignity of immigrants, those who are incarcerated, death row inmates, the LGBT community, enemy combatants, and so much more. It’s pretty cool to be in a room full of people who align so closely in ideology to your own. Especially since being a pro-life activist alone can be so isolating. I presented a talk that Kelsey, Monica, and I developed together earlier this year, discussing the relationship between millennials, secularists, and leftists, why it matters, and what we can do about it to effectively win hearts and minds for life! Due to the nature of the conference it has a bit more of a left take on the concept but be assured, SPL is nonpartisan and welcome to all! Check it out here.

Then on Tuesday, DFLA hosted a press conference outside the Democratic Presidential debate in nearby Detroit, Michigan. They have created a political action committee to compel a qualified pro-life Democratic candidate to come forward and run for President of the United States in 2020! I spoke about the need for someone to represent the majority of Democrats and even Millennials by supporting abortion restrictions. Kristen Day urged the party not to ignore the 1 in 3 Democrats who are pro-life.

It’s an interesting time for being a pro-life Dem. Our party platform is as extreme as it gets, even calling for an end to the Hyde Amendment, which has saved more than 2 million lives. If you’re left-leaning and pro-life, now’s the time to be heard! Pro-life Dems are uniquely equipped to reach the next generation and replace the abortion influence with a culture of life. And together with our right leaning pro-life fam, we can end the abortion regime in America forever.

The religious diversity of the pro-life movement

Last week, we posted the above graphic to our social media pages with the caption "In the United States, 23% of abortion opponents are Catholic and 12% have no religious affiliation. We are proud to stand with our pro-life brothers and sisters of all faith backgrounds to end the violence of abortion!"

We got a ton of likes and shares, and also questions. Mostly, "Wait, what about the other 65%?" and "Where are all the Protestants?"

We did not, of course, mean to suggest that pro-life movement is made up entirely of Catholics and secular people. It's far more diverse than that. We simply found the two-to-one statistic interesting, in contrast to the oversized role that Catholicism has played in the pro-choice imagination (e.g. "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!").

Our source is the Pew Research Center Forum on Religion and Public Life, and if you're as nerdy as I am, you could get lost in that data set for hours. But I won't keep you in suspense. The religious makeup of Americans who say abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances* is:

• 38% Evangelical Protestant
• 23% Catholic
• 12% Unaffiliated
• 12% Mainline Protestant
• 6% Historically Black Protestant
• 3% Mormon
• 1% Jewish
• 1% Muslim
• 1% Orthodox Christian
• 1% Jehovah's Witness
• 1% Other Faiths

It's not surprising that, in a largely Protestant nation, the pro-life movement is also largely Protestant. However, no one Protestant tradition commands a clear majority. Evangelical and Mainline Protestants would add up to exactly 50%, but speaking as someone who grew up in a mainline denomination (the United Methodist Church, which is officially pro-choice), Pew is right not to group those two together. And as for how Protestant denominations and Catholicism can clash... literal volumes have been written.

Ironically, the godless approach may offer the best chance to unite these disparate factions into a cohesive movement for the human rights of the smallest and most vulnerable humans among us.


*Note: These figures add up to only 99% due to rounding.

Walk for Life West Coast 2019 Recap

As has become tradition, we kicked off the Walk for Life with our own meet-up before the rally before the Walk itself. The past several years we’ve partnered with Rehumanize International, Pro-Life San Francisco, and other non-traditional pro-life organizations to host a meet-up in front of the Asian Art Museum typically highlighting the diversity in the pro-life movement, the different ways we’ve each come into antiabortion advocacy, and the many reasons we’re pro-life.

This year was no different. The meet-up, largely organized by our beloved Terrisa Bukovinac (both SPL co-leader and President of PLSF), included many excellent speeches.

SPL co-leader Monica Snyder gave a brief speech about the “comfortable pro-choice person,” that is the pro-choice person who is comfortable with his or her stance largely due to reassuring falsehoods (e.g. abortion is illegal after the first trimester, Roe v. Wade did no more than make legal abortion an option, biology doesn’t tell us when life begins, women only abort mere clumps of cells, the CMP videos were entirely faked, late-term abortions are only ever done for dire medical necessity, and the pro-life movement is just a bunch of old rich white conservative Christian men). She concluded that she doesn’t take as much issue with the pro-choice person who is aware of the truth regarding all these ideas and defends the pro-choice position in context of the facts, but she is very tired of pro-choice people who can’t seem to hold their position with eyes wide open. You can see the full video of the speech (including sources) here.

Other speakers discussed pro-life feminism, the consistent life ethic, the parallels between animal rights advocacy and pro-life advocacy, personal stories about the effects of abortion, and rousing calls to continue marching beyond the walk today and into our towns, school houses, and court houses. And while no doubt not everyone there agreed with every view of everyone else, we did all agree that we’re prepared to set aside differences and work together to fight abortion. Among the attendees and speakers were Christians, atheists, conservatives, liberals, straight, queer, Latino, white, women, men, young and old, and more. Berkeley Students for Life President Tamika Bassman spoke about how inspired she was by the diversity and harmony of last year’s Let There Be Life conference in Berkeley (sponsored by Pro-Life San Francisco); she explained that the conference really emphasized for her how people from all different walks for life can come together on this very important issue. This meet-up highlighted the same unity through our differences. It was wonderful to witness.

The rally before the Walk included speakers Abby Johnson and Patricia Sandoval, both former abortion clinic workers now in pro-life advocacy. At one point both they and several other women, all of whom are pregnant, used megaphones to allow the crowd to hear their children’s heartbeats.

After speeches, the mass of tens of thousands of marchers moved from the plaza onto Market Street, a major thoroughfare through downtown San Francisco. They walked past the downtown skyscrapers and past several dozen counter-protesters to the Justin Herman Plaza and the clock tower at Fisherman’s Wharf. This year marked the 15th Walk for Life, which started with only about 7,000 people in 2004. It’s now the second largest pro-life event after the D.C. March, and gives people who can’t haul all the way to East Coast an opportunity to mark the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

I Am a Pro-Life Progressive. Don't Shun Me.

[Today's opinion piece by Christopher Dale is part of our paid blogging program.]

On most issues, I am a reliable progressive. I believe in a strong social safety net, universal healthcare, gender equality in the workplace and elsewhere, and same-sex marriage and adoption rights. I supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries and, like the Vermont Senator, describe myself as a Democratic Socialist.

But there is one issue on which I break from the vast majority of liberals. I am a pro-life progressive.

From a policy or legislative standpoint, I am nothing to fear. My liberal leanings on every other important issue are in lockstep with the Left, and the race-baiting, anti-science Republican Party—especially in its current Trumpist horror show—repulses me as much as the next Progressive.

My political affiliation is firmly with the Progressive movement and larger Democratic Party. I simply happen to hold a higher bar for ending a life in the making than most liberals. Specifically, I feel that rape, incest or threat to the mother’s health are legitimate reasons, but past that I value life over the broad array of other situations comprising choice.

I realize that this position has zero chance of becoming an official platform of the party I persistently support. My fellow Progressives should realize that as well. However, far too many in a movement that espouses widespread tolerance can’t seem to tolerate views that, for honest reasons, differ from their own orthodoxy.

I write this knowing full well that most so-called progressive outlets would never publish this piece, fearing reader backlash on their websites and social media platforms. This sort of cowardly self-censorship is one of many ways interactive and social media have siloed society into rigid tribes, from which any ideological deviation whatsoever is deemed treasonous.

Strangling counterpoints in their cradles isn’t political journalism, it’s just political hackery. It is also the polar opposite of true progressivism.

This inclination to suppress or shout down pro-life liberals is grandstanding overkill. Pro-choice is so synonymous with Progressive that the occasional discordant voice, like mine, is barely audible background buzz. So why the need to drown us out?

The proof is in the political campaigns: Democrats are completely purging themselves of pro-life candidates. As reported by Vice News, in 2009, 64 Congressional Democrats in the House of Representatives expressed concerns over the Affordable Care Act because they wanted more restrictions on abortion. Just 12 of these 64 remain in Congress today and, by the beginning of this year, exactly zero of the 91 House seats Democrats deemed flippable were being sought by pro-life candidates. Ditto for Democratic challengers in competitive Senate races: none.

This reflects solidifying sentiments among self-identified progressives. Last summer, FiveThirtyEight reported that 88 percent of “ideological liberals”—I would place myself in this category—were pro-choice, outpacing the broader Democratic Party by 13 percentage points. Ironically, the less-than-prescient title of that piece was “Democrats Aren’t In Lockstep Over Abortion—That’s Why They’re Fighting.” The 91-0 pro-choice tilt in House candidates says otherwise and, besides, 88% and 75% are both overwhelming majorities. It’s a pro-choice Party, period.

As both Progressive orthodoxy and Democratic Party policy, then, abortion is a settled issue. We’re not running pro-life candidates, and are exceedingly pro-choice as a voting bloc.

Considering this, subjecting pro-life Progressives to social media trolling and editorial censorship is pathetic, paranoid and puerile. It is also potentially self-defeating. Though not unique to the Left, the stifling, dismissive notion that everyone must completely agree with the predominant positions on each and every issue has limited the Progressive movement, and with it the Democratic Party.

On the other side, Republicans have a tent big enough for extreme fiscal conservatives like Rand Paul, extreme cultural conservatives like the Freedom Caucus, and extreme-everything Trumpists. To counter this, Progressives need as welcoming a home as we can build.

To that I say this: We’re here. We’re pro-life. Get over it already.

"The people want Roe to stay."

Polls asking about support for Roe v. Wade

Polls about Roe v. Wade consistently find that a strong majority of Americans don't want Roe overturned. Examples:

About seven-in-ten Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, Pew Research, January 3, 2017. "Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe v. Wade decision, or not?" 69% answered "No, do not overturn."

Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Want Roe v. Wade to Stand, Gallup, July 12, 2018. "Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?" 64% answered "No, not overturn."

Support for Roe v. Wade hits new high, NBC, July 23, 2018. "Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?" 71% answered "No, do not overturn."


Polls asking about the time frame in which abortion should be legal.

Polls that ask about when abortion should be legal (e.g. by trimester or more specific gestational age) find that most Americans--including most people who call themselves pro-choice--increasingly oppose abortion as the pregnancy goes on. Examples:

Americans' Opinion on Abortion, Marist, January 2018

"Which comes closest to your opinion on abortion: (1) Available to a woman any time during her entire pregnancy, (2) only during the first six months of pregnancy, (3) only during the first three months of pregnancy, (4) only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, (5) only to save the life of the mother, (6) should never be permitted under any circumstances."

• 11% of Americans said abortion should be available only during the first six months of pregnancy (including 19% of people who identified as pro-choice)
• 12% of Americans said abortion should be available anytime during the pregnancy (including 21% of people who identified as pro-choice)
• In other words, only 23% of Americans (including 40% of pro-choice people) chose options that allowed abortion after the first trimester.

Millennials have a surprising view on later-term abortions, Washington Post, January 31, 2018

"If a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy were enacted in the state in which you live, would you support or oppose that policy?"

• Americans were exactly split, with 46% saying they'd oppose and 46% saying they'd support.
• 36% of Democrats, 45% of Independents, and 56% of Republicans said they'd support the ban.
• Strangely, every age demographic was more likely to support than oppose the ban except those aged 65 and older.

Americans' Support For Abortion Rights Wanes As Pregnancy Progresses, NPR, June 13, 2018

"Gallup finds that 60 percent of Americans believe abortion generally should be legal during the first three months of pregnancy, known as the first trimester. That support drops by more than half, to 28 percent, once a pregnancy reaches the second trimester; it falls to 13 percent in the third trimester, at which point the fetus is often viable with medical support."

Polls asking about the circumstances under which abortion should be legal.

And polls that ask about why abortion should be legal (e.g. for rape, life of the mother, fetal abnormalities, socioeconomic reasons) find that most Americans think abortion should be legal only for the most dire of reasons, i.e. if the woman was raped or if the pregnancy threatens her life. But those situations constitute less than 5% of all abortions, meaning people think nearly all instances of abortion today should be illegal.

The State of Abortion in the United States, National Right to Life, January 2014

“Which of the following statements most closely describes your own position on the issue of abortion: (1) Abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances; (2) Abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother; (3) Abortion should be legal only in cases of rape or incest, and to save the life of the mother; (4) Abortion should be legal for any reason, but not after the first three months of pregnancy; (5) Abortion should be legal for any reason, but not after the first six months of pregnancy; or (6) Abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during a woman’s pregnancy.”

• 53% said abortion should be illegal either (a) in all circumstances, (b) all circumstances except to save the life of the mother, or (c) all circumstances except cases of rape and to save the life of the mother
• 42% said abortion should be legal for any reason either (a) any time during a woman's pregnancy, (b) only in the first six months, or (c) only in the first three months (only 22% of Americans thought abortion should be legal for any reason after the first three months.)

Americans' Opinion on Abortion, Marist, January 2018

"Which comes closest to your opinion on abortion: (1) Available to a woman any time during her entire pregnancy, (2) only during the first six months of pregnancy, (3) only during the first three months of pregnancy, (4) only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, (5) only to save the life of the mother, (6) should never be permitted under any circumstances."

• 50% of Americans said abortion should either (a) never be permitted, (b) be permitted only to save the life of the mother, or (c) be permitted only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.
• When broken down by "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" labels, the same poll found 88% of pro-life people and 19% of pro-choice people held those more restrictive views.

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views, Gallup, June 13, 2018

• 83% of Americans think abortion should be legal in the 1st trimester if the woman's life is endangers; 75% say the same for 3rd trimester
• 77% think abortion should be legal in the 1st trimester if the pregnancy was caused by rape; 52% say the same for 3rd trimester
• Only 45% think abortion should be legal in the 1st trimester for any reason; 20% say the same for 3rd trimester

Republicans divided over abortion, The Hill, September 6, 2018

"Which comes closest to your views: (1) Abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, (2) abortion should be legal in limited circumstances such as rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother, (3) abortion should be legal under most circumstances until the point of viability (start of the 3rd trimester), or (4) abortion should be legal under all circumstances."

• 55% of Americans said abortion should be either illegal in all circumstances or legal in limited circumstances such as rape and to save the life of the mother.
• When broken down by demographics, the poll found that 44% of Democrats, 51% of Independents, 57% of Millennials, and 71% of Republicans held those more restrictive views.

These poll results are incompatible.

When asked about trimesters, most Americans think abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, which ends at about 13 weeks gestation. Yet when asked about a ban on abortion at 20 weeks (almost 2 months into the 2nd trimester), Americans are evenly split on whether they'd support or oppose such a ban. This implies a large group of Americans think abortion should be illegal after 13 weeks but also oppose a ban at 20 weeks.

More importantly, when asked about Roe v. Wade most Americans want the case upheld. Yet simultaneously most Americans think abortion should be illegal after the first trimester and about half think it should be illegal outside of the hard cases of rape or life of the mother. This implies many Americans want Roe v. Wade upheld but also want abortion restrictions that Roe v. Wade makes impossible.

Roe means abortion can't be restricted to the first trimester (through the first 13 weeks). It enforces the right to elective abortion until at least viability--that is, Roe protects abortions for non-medical reasons until at least 23 weeks into the pregnancy. Read for yourself:

For the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State. 

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

That last line is crucial because of the way the Supreme Court defined "health of the mother." On the same day Roe v. Wade was decided, SCOTUS also ruled in Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton. In Doe, SCOTUS defined health as:

All factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

This broad definition of "health" means post-viability abortion is legal even when both mother and fetus are physically healthy, as long as the physician asserts the abortion is necessary for the woman's emotional or psychological wellbeing. Such a wide loophole explains why most late-term abortions are elective. In other words, Roe makes it impossible to restrict abortion to only the limited circumstances of rape, incest, or life of the mother.

Americans want Roe upheld because they don't know what Roe is.

Polls asking about Roe v. Wade either don't describe the decision at all or describe it vaguely as "relating to abortion" or "establishing a right to an abortion." But Roe goes far beyond establishing a right to an abortion to establishing a right to non-medically necessary abortion at least through 5 1/2 months of pregnancy and in many cases even later.

Given roughly a third of Americans don't even know Roe relates to abortion at all, it's unlikely most people polled realize the extent to which Roe enforces extremely permissive abortion law. If people mistakenly believe overturning Roe would mean outlawing abortion in all circumstances, it makes sense that the same people who think abortion should be permitted in only the first trimester or only very limited circumstances would also answer that Roe should be upheld. It would be interesting to see a poll on Roe that described the decision as "establishing the right to elective abortion up to 5 1/2 months gestation." I doubt 7 in 10 Americans would support it.

Do you support bans on sex-selective abortions? Or bans on abortions for non-fatal conditions such as Down syndrome? Do you think selective reduction abortions (when a woman is pregnant with multiples but wants only one child) should be outlawed? Are you against the idea of the same women getting repeat abortions? Do you have a problem with elective abortion in the 3rd trimester? Then you should have a problem with Roe v. Wade.

1/29/21 Update: A Marist poll finds 48% of Americans say the Supreme Court should revisit Roe v. Wade and choose to allow certain restrictions on abortion as determined by each state (31% said SCOTUS should make abortion legal without restrictions and 17% said SCOTUS should make abortion illegal).

Further reading:

What Do Americans Think About Abortion? Difficult Run, February 26, 2014
Nathaniel Givens explains the drawbacks of polls that ask only whether abortion should be legal, legal most of the time, illegal most of the time, or illegal; Givens further explains why polls are more informative when they ask under what circumstances abortion should be legal.

The Worst Poll Ever on the Roe v. Wade Decision, Townhall, August 14, 2018
Michael New explains why polling on Roe v. Wade is usually flawed because the polls fail to explain (1) the policy implications of Roe v. Wade and (2) the implications of reversing Roe v. Wade. In general people seem to think (1) Roe v. Wade merely establishes a right to abortion, rather than legalizing abortion-on-demand and making it difficult to restrict even late-term abortions and (2) if Roe v. Wade were overturned abortion would be banned, rather than abortion policy being left up to each state.

Hill.TV Conducts a Useful Survey on Americans' Abortion Views, National Review, September 14, 2018
Michael New goes over the results of The Hill poll (linked above) but also notes the bizarre way The Hill chose to frame those results.

Recap: Let There Be Life Conference 2018 at UC Berkeley

The Let There Be Life Conference co-hosted by Berkeley Students for Life and Pro-Life San Francisco was a smashing success. Not only did each speaker cover very different content, but the style of each speech was entirely different. There were speeches in the style of spoken word poetry, rigorous academic discussion, sermon*, humorous dialogue, rousing call to action, and many others. It was engaging and inspiring to see so many different types of people uniting to educate and empower one another to work against abortion.

But let me back up. Fellow SPL co-leader Ellen and I arrived at UC Berkeley around 7:30 am and set up the Secular Pro-Life table. I was impressed at how many pro-life groups tabled for this event. We were right next to the table for Abide Women’s Health and across from our buds Rehumanize International and of course Josh Brahm’s Equal Rights Institute, but there were many great groups all around. People came up to chat with us about SPL and grab a brochure, and we got to say hi to many pro-life friends from around the state and country who I rarely get to see in person. That’s always one of the best parts of making it to a pro-life conference.

After about an hour of breakfast and chatting, Terrisa used her iconic bullhorn to get the conference underway. Pro-Life San Francisco very thoughtfully had staff to keep an eye on the tables so the tabling people could go inside and watch all the talks. The morning speeches went like this:

A Unified, Diverse Pro-Life Movement

Elijah Thompson

Dank Pro-Life Memes & The Fetal Position Podcast

Elijah started off the conference with a talk about “blooming where you’re planted” i.e. focusing on your strengths and your natural circles of influence.

Building a Pro-Life California

Terrisa Bukvinac & Karen Rose

Pro-Life San Francisco

Terrisa & Karen outlined a strategy for persuading more pro-choice Californians to consider the pro-life position. They especially emphasized unifying the diverse pro-life groups around our similarities and de-emphasizing our (many) differences.

The Most Persuasive Pro-Life Argument

Josh Brahm

Equal Rights Institute

Josh, in usual comedic style, illustrated how to engage pro-choice people in a non-threatening, convincing way through open-mindedness, clarifying questions, and respectful dialogue. He finished his talk by outlining the Equal Rights Argument, which his team has found very effective at helping people see the pro-life view.

Deconstructing Three Pro-Choice Myths

Monica Snyder

Secular Pro-Life

Speaking probably a bit too quickly, I gave an overview of the data surrounding three commonly perpetrated pro-choice myths: (1) we don’t know when human life begins, (2) most late-term abortions are for medical reasons, and (3) pro-life laws don’t decrease abortions. (You can see the sources for the presentation here.)

Bad Words: How Our Words Dehumanize

Herb Geraghty

Rehumanize International

Herb gave a passionate, honest talk about the language society has historically used (and continues to use) to dehumanize and marginalize vulnerable groups before oppressing and often killing people in those groups. Sadly, even pro-lifers sometimes use dehumanizing language regarding certain topics, which can undermine our credibility when we say all humans have equal value. "Whether it’s the violence of war, torture, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, human trafficking -- all of these acts are perpetuated by dehumanizing language that makes the victim seem somehow 'subhuman.'" Check out this excellent graphic Rehumanize International created to illustrate the point.

Or The Culture Will Decline

Walter Hoye

Issues4Life

In a talk almost like a sermon*, Walter cut deep to the truth with facts about the rapidly declining fertility rate of black Americans which threatens to eliminate black culture. He specifically addressed the staggering abortion rates among the black population, and the targeting of black people by the abortion industry.

*The content here was not that of a sermon; it was not about religion at all. But the style very much reminded me of a sermon with the speaker’s variable pace and the way he engaged the attendees.

After Walter's talk the conference stopped for lunch. Everyone stretched their legs and walked out to a beautiful warm day. We grabbed our sunglasses and sandwiches, chips, and cookies (included with the conference tickets) and Ellen and I continued tabling for Secular Pro-Life. Many attendees came up to congratulate us on SPL's talk, which they enjoyed very much, and to get copies of our 5 page source list. Several of the attendees said they appreciated the analytical approach, and shared that they too had backgrounds in STEM and so were partial to a more data-centered discussion. I'm always pretty happy to meet other STEM pro-lifers. It may be the first conference Ellen or I have attended where we talked a lot more about the research and not as much about religious diversity, although there were several of those discussions too. Either way everyone was friendly and encouraging, and we ended up giving away all but one of our copies of the source list. There was a lot of interest, which was pretty great.

In what seemed like no time, lunch was over and we were ready for the second half, which included the following talks:

Pro-Life When It Counts

Marie Stettler

Marie shared her story about her unexpected pregnancy, in which she made a hesitant decision to abort, tried to use abortion pill reversal to undo it, but ultimately lost her child. She has since become a nurse with Culture of Life Family Services, the same organization that had tried to help with the reversal. You can read more about her journey here.

Pro-Life and the Church

Amy Ford

Embrace Grace

Amy shared her own experiences with an unplanned teen pregnancy and emphasized the importance of the church being a safe place for pregnant women and girls.

Strange Fruit

Cessilye Smith

Abide Women’s Health Services

Cessilye opened by darkening the room and showing Billie Holiday singing Strange Fruit. Cessilye then spoke softly but poetically and movingly about the disproportionate struggles black women face with pregnancy and childbearing, all while a silent array of powerful photos of black women faded in and out to a darkened room.

Accelerating the End of Abortion

David Bereit

40 Days for Life

David gave a rousing speech about how even one person can make a huge difference in creating a culture of life and called on all of us to work together and coordinate our efforts.

Bringing Life to the Golden State

Catherine Glenn Foster

Americans United for Life

Catherine discussed the importance of voter education in California. She also talked about the need for unity amidst diversity in the movement (a recurring and excellent theme for the conference).

Don’t be an A**hole

Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa

New Wave Feminists

Destiny talked about building bridges with pro-choice feminists, explaining how treating people respectfully and being approachable makes it easier to work together, whereas being more aggressive and assertive has the opposite effect.

The Wild West Coast: PP Sells Baby Parts

David Daleiden

Center for Medical Progress

David showed us (1) the CMP video he took of Dr. Deborah Nucatola detailing how she surgically obtains and sells fetal organs for money, (2) documents explicitly listing prices for fetal organ costs separate from the already-listed cost reimbursements, and (3) advertisements from procurement companies explicitly highlighting the financial gains abortion clinics may realize if they sell late-term fetal organs and other tissues.

Despite David's dispassionate and informative demeanor, the presentation was horrifying and infuriating. It was interesting that the conference organizers chose to end on this note, as I think it left attendees feeling a strong sense of urgency to continue and expand their pro-life efforts.

Overall it was a phenomenal conference. It seemed like there were speakers to represent such a wide variety of pro-life people and I think a lot of people left feeling we are united, so I guess the conference organizers really hit the target theme. If you are able to go to a Pro-Life San Francisco event in the future, we recommend it. You can see more pics from this year's conference here.

Non-religious pro-life population grows to 12.8 million

There are 12.8 million non-religious pro-lifers in the United States. That's equal to the population of Illinois! And it's a huge jump from just five years ago, when you may remember that Secular Pro-Life ran a visibility campaign touting 6 million non-religious pro-life Americans.

How did this happen?

First, let's show our work. As of 2017, there were 55.8 million Americans with no religious affiliation. The Pew Research Center Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that among the unaffiliated, 23% say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. 55.8 million times 0.23 is 12.8 million.

The growth in the secular pro-life population is due to at least three factors:

1. More people are leaving religion. In 2012, there were approximately 46 million Americans who answered religion surveys as atheist, agnostic, or "nothing in particular." That number has continued to rise. As there are more secular people, there are naturally bound to be more pro-life secular people. That would be true even if the percentage of "nones" opposed to abortion remained unchanged. But in fact...

2. More non-religious people are taking a pro-life stance. Back when we ran the "6 million" campaign, we pointed to Gallup polls showing that between 15% and 19% of non-religious Americans were pro-life. We're now up to 23%, a gain of 4 to 8 percentage points. Don't get us wrong: we still have a long way to go. But to make that gain despite extremely limited funds and media attention is definitely something to celebrate. (Want to keep the momentum going? Please donate!) 

3. Non-religious pro-lifers were previously under-counted. At the time of the "6 million" campaign, the data suggested a true number of between 6.9 and 8.7 million. We rounded down in an abundance of caution because at the time we were a young organization and lacked the know-how to fend off pro-choice P.R. attacks. 

The next time you hear someone equate opposition to abortion with religious dogmatism; the next time a national commentator erases your existence; the next time a group that claims to speak for all secular people advocates for abortion on demand; remember that you have backup. We are 12.8 million strong. The abortion industry ignores us at its peril.

The Democratic Party Needs Pro-Lifers

In the 45 years since Roe v. Wade, the Democratic Party has never had less control in Washington D.C. than it does now. Interestingly, the Democratic Party has also never had a more radical position on abortion. The official Democratic Party platform states:

Every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion... We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

In short, the platform advocates for taxpayer-funded abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever. The policy could not be more extreme than that. Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) believes the DNC’s radical position on abortion is largely responsible for the recent decline of the Democratic Party.

In DFLA’s position paper titled, “Open the Big Tent,” they note that 25 state legislatures are currently under complete GOP control, but only six are under complete Democrat control. The DFLA report also notes that the Democrats do not control a single legislative chamber in the South.

However, there is a lone bright spot for southern Democrats. John Bel Edwards, the governor of Louisiana, is a pro-life Democrat who recently signed a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks gestational age. As DFLA notes, Democrats have completely lost control of the South, but pro-life Democrats like Edwards prove this does not have to be the case. Democrats could win more elections in the South, but they need pro-life candidates to appeal to the South’s pro-life voters. The success of Governor Edwards and the failure of pro-choice Democrats in the rest of the South confirms this. 

Furthermore, the DNC’s position on abortion fails to reflect the views of their own voters. According to the Washington Times, 61 percent of Democrats support limiting legal abortion to the first three months of pregnancy. The New York Times “Abortion Memo” from February notes that only 24 percent of young voters support abortion under all circumstances. And earlier this month, the Washington Post stated Democrats must change to appeal to the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose late-term abortion, noting that “armies don’t shrink their way to victory.” 

The DNC party platform is terribly out of touch with American beliefs on abortion, and Democrats have suffered massive losses because of this. If the Democratic Party wants to gain political power, they must appeal to more voters by “opening the big tent” and welcoming pro-life candidates

[Today's guest post by Pat Thomas is part of our paid blogging program.]

Secular Pro-Life at the DFLA Conference!

This weekend I had the honor of attending and speaking at the Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) Conference in Denver, Colorado. I myself am a registered Democrat and pro-life activist operating in San Francisco, one of the most left-leaning of America’s progressive cities.

A progressive local group in Colorado had purchased a billboard sign attached to a truck that read “Hey, DFLA Attendees! Abortion Access is a progressive value” and hosted a press conference to denounce DFLA with speakers from NARAL as well as local Democratic leaders. Their protest was met with members of DFLA holding signs that read “Planned Parenthood is Anti Union” and “Pro-Life For the Whole Life”. We outnumbered them and chanted “Love Both”. A few of us interrupted the press conference with slogans like “You can’t achieve equality by killing people” and “Stop killing the poor”. We also ensured that there were pro-life signs visible throughout the speeches.

The conference itself was well organized and featured a diverse set of speakers with a range of subjects. Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa and I first did a panel on pro-life feminism where we discussed the relationship between feminism, pro-life values, and progressive thought (video here). I covered some dos and don’ts when communicating with feminists and left-leaning people like myself. I also spoke on a second panel about cultivating the whole life movement through secular and Millennial outreach. The message, while controversial for many audiences, was very well received by the democratic participants.

It’s no mystery that the Democratic Party has actively been silencing pro-life leadership and while still a significant minority, pro-life Dems are losing ground. But yet we are hopeful. The statistics show Millennials, although very left-leaning, are still undecided on abortion. Democrats cannot likely win elections in key areas without the support of pro-life Democrats. Based on my first-hand experience in San Francisco, there is reason to hope that the anti-capitalist and socialist movements will recognize the immense political and financial greed emanating from Planned Parenthood and the monstrous profit margins from the destruction of innocent human lives. Ending Planned Parenthood’s influence the democratic party must remain a top priority and with a pending FBI investigation as we speak, it’s all hands on deck. And when we make democrats pro-life we will achieve cultural victory.