The year's top stories

Without further ado, the most-read stories on our blog in 2014 were...

#10: Watch out for this disingenuous "pro-choice" tactic: The "pro-choice" movement no longer wants to be called that. Their next move? To ride on the coattails of genuine good causes by stealing the language of "economic security," a "safe and healthy environment" for children, and of course, "women's health."

#9: The feminist movement cannot afford to ignore pro-life concerns: Emma Watson seriously undermined her UN "HeForShe" speech by alluding to support for abortion without any mention of the damage caused by sex-selective abortions. Sadly, gender inequity begins in the womb.

#8: Abortion, Sex Positivity, and the Non-Aggression Principle: Guest blogger Kris Skul argues that pro-lifers need not take an abstinence-first approach.

Above: the greying abortionists
of "After Tiller"

#7: The Imago Dei, or "Why should secularists care about human life?": If you're new here, this article is an excellent introduction to what Secular Pro-Life is all about.

#6: 8 Things "After Tiller" Left Out: This biased documentary about late-term abortionists omitted its protagonists' unsavory histories.

#5: No, I am not interested in "punishing" women for having sex: This was published back in April. The conversation in the comments kept going strong through September.

#4: Debating abortion with other secularists: Highlights from the reactions to Kristine Kruzselnicki's pro-life piece on the Friendly Atheist blog.

#3: Confronting the Gruesome Reality of Abortion: This is why we fight.

#2: A letter from your president: I'm not linking to this because it was the announcement of last year's SPL schedule for the March for Life and Walk for Life West Coast. For our upcoming Roe anniversary plans (less than a month away!), click here.

And finally, the most-read post of the year,
with over 200,000 views, is...

#1: Child Support: Monica explains the contradiction in how our legal system treats women and men:

When arguing about abortion, I’ve seen a lot of people claim "sex isn’t a contract." Other variations of this idea include:

• Consent to A doesn't mean consent to B (that is, consent to sex doesn't mean consent to reproduction).

• You clearly don't consent to reproduce if you use birth control.

• Sex is not a crime and shouldn’t be punished / Rights cannot be restricted unless there is a crime.

The problem is, when it comes to reproduction, these arguments only apply to women.

If a man gets a woman pregnant--be it his wife, girlfriend, affair, or one night stand--he is legally bound to provide support for that child. In other words, because the man participated in the child’s conception (because the man had sex), his rights are altered. It doesn't matter if the man was only consenting to sex, and not to reproduction. It doesn't matter if he used birth control. It doesn’t matter that sex isn’t a crime. He fathered the kid, so the law considers him responsible for the kid. 

Thank you for your loyal readership, and we'll see you next year!

The year's top graphics

It's hard to believe that 2014 is coming to an end. What a year it's been for the pro-life movement! As we've done for the past few years, we review 2014 with the year's most liked and shared graphics (today) and most-read blog articles (tomorrow).

#10: Who are you calling a prude?

I'm so glad this made the cut, because it's a personal favorite.

#9: This ridiculous argument needs to die.

#8: Welcome home, Deanna.

Promoting this article

#7: Abortion advocates don't own feminism.

Related to this article

#6: The fact that something rhymes does not make it a strong argument.

Why yes, you can purchase this bumper sticker, with proceeds benefiting SPL.

#5: Good ol' Hitch.

No, he was not consistently pro-life on all issues, or even for all unborn
children. But he challenged orthodoxy and acknowledged the possibility
of a secular pro-life ethic, and that means a lot to us.

#4: Hooray science!

Sources? Of course.

#3: And more science!

#2: So. Effing. Frustrating.

And our #1 graphic of the year, posted on the third anniversary of Dr. Bernard Nathanson's death:

If you aren't familiar with Dr. Nathanson, take the time to do some research. A former abortionist turned pro-life leader, he was a pro-life atheist before it was cool. I deeply regret that I never got to meet him.

Racism, reproductive justice, and the right to life

Indeed it shouldn't.

Nearly a month ago, Reuters published "Racism is also a reproductive rights issue" by Chloe Angyal. I just came across it recently, and feel that it's important enough to merit a response despite the passage of time.

The article is worth reading in its entirety, but the thesis is:

Where black children are denied the right to a childhood, it stands to reason that black parents are denied the right to parenthood. Indeed, many in the reproductive rights community have begun to talk about police brutality as a reproductive rights issue.

The argument is a compelling one: that all of us have the right to bring children into the world, and to raise them, without fear that they are disproportionately likely to be killed by the police, or by vigilantes, or by strangers when they’re asking for help. That parents shouldn’t have to worry that their children will be stopped and frisked on the street, or kicked out of school for minor offenses, or harassed while they’re trying to learn. 

In short, proponents of this view argue that parents should be allowed to bring children into the world worrying that their children will be denied a childhood – or being forced to watch as it happens before their very eyes.

She notes that major abortion advocacy groups such as NARAL have taken this position, but that the argument "has been denied the mainstream attention it deserves."

The reproductive rights framing isn't necessarily wrong. When (disproportionately black, male, and young) people are killed by police, and the police are never held accountable, the victims' parents are horribly violated. Families' suffering is too often drowned out by louder, larger debates about race and police brutality, so I'm glad Ms. Angyal raised it.

That said, a right to life framing is far, far more intuitive. Black lives matter. Period, end of sentence. Black children have the right to a childhood. There is no need for further justification.

Ms. Angyal's reproductive rights framing requires a focus on the victims' parents as the primary victims.* But of course, the primary victims are the young black men whose lives were ended by police bullets, in violation of the right to life. Making this about the victims' parents' reproductive rights, when the right to life framing is so obvious, just comes across as a desperate attempt to reimagine "reproductive rights" as anything other than the latest in the long line of euphemisms for abortion.

Is Ms. Angyal merely being cynical? Is she trying to "ride on the coattails of genuine good causes," as I predicted the abortion movement would do? Does she consciously want to avoid any mention of a right to life, for fear that someone will demand to know when that right begins?

I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say no.** I think it's more likely that she's already embedded in the world of abortion advocacy, and so naturally her perspective on current events is colored by her worldview. Pro-life activists are guilty of this too; Josh Brahm put it better than I can when he coined the phrase "fetus tunnel vision," which he defines as "the inability to see and/or acknowledge human rights injustices without equating or comparing them to abortion." Ms. Angyal is suffering from a case of reproduction tunnel vision.

That is why "racism as a reproductive rights issue" isn't taking off. Most people, whether pro-life or pro-choice, don't think that way. They aren't seeking out connections to abortion. They simply see yet another young black man whose life was ripped away from him.


*Alternatively, you could make a reproductive rights argument based on the fact that (to take but one example) Tamir Rice will never have the opportunity to become an adult and father children. Notably, however, he also lost the opportunity to vote, to practice a religion or reject religion, and so on. This is because the right to life is fundamental; without it, all other rights are lost. Thus a victim-focused reproductive rights framing would ultimately collapse on itself and become the right-to-life argument. 

**I am not extending that benefit to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the other abortion-supporting organizations that have grabbed hold of this talking point. They are absolutely being cynical.

Holiday Hiatus

Christmas is fast approaching, and much of our audience—yes, including secular folks—will be busy traveling to see family, shopping for gifts, etc. this week. Accordingly the blog is going on a hiatus. Have a very happy holiday, and we'll see you back on December 29.

March with us in January

'Tis the season for March for Life/Walk for Life planning! If you're going to be in D.C. or San Francisco next month, be sure to meet up with Secular Pro-Life in person.

Washington, D.C.

The March for Life takes place on Thursday, January 22, 2015. Meet us in front of the Smithsonian "Castle" on the National Mall between 11:00 a.m. and 11:50 a.m. The Castle is a landmark, but if you have trouble finding us, just look for the 14-foot-tall, bright blue, can't-miss teardrop banner! We'll be marching together with such awesome youth-led, forward-thinking groups as the Life Matters Journal, New Wave Feminists, Feminists for Nonviolent Choices, and more. All the details you need are in this facebook event. 

There are no concrete plans for after the March, but more than likely we will end up going to a restaurant. (You should definitely eat beforehand, though; there's nothing worse than being cold and hungry.)

The next day, Friday the 23rd, is the Students for Life of America East Coast National Conference. Secular Pro-Life will have an exhibition booth, where you can pick up a FREE secular outreach kit for your school! Registration is required, and the conference is known to sell out, so go to sflalive.org for all the details and to sign up.

San Francisco

It's deja vu all over again: a march and an SFLA conference, this time on the west coast!

The West Coast Walk for Life is on Saturday, January 24th, and the gathering of awesome groups (technically it's called the #LifeMatters Meetup) will begin at 11:30 a.m. in front of the Asian Art Museum. Here's the facebook event. Our West Coast coordinator, Monica, will be there carrying 1) her preborn daughter Clara, and 2) everybody's favorite banner message:

The next day, Sunday, January 25th, is the Students for Life of America West Coast National Conference. Again, use sflalive.org to register, and visit our table to get in-person tips from real live non-religious pro-lifers. (We exist!) 

Can't make it?

You can still help make this commemoration of Roe v. Wade count. This is the most expensive time of the year for SPL, as the costs of purchasing booth space and educational materials for thousands of pro-life campus advocates add up quickly. Please consider donating to Secular Pro-Life. We really appreciate it.

What to do if you face pregnancy discrimination at work

[Today's guest post is by Chris Perez.]

Working women of childbearing age and the public at large have taken quite an interest in the recent story of Peggy Young, a former UPS employee who alleges that she was discriminated against for being pregnant. This case has gone all the way to the Supreme Court and has inspired strong feelings on both sides.

If you are pregnant and believe that you have been fired, demoted, or otherwise mistreated by your employer because of it, there are several steps you can take to protect your rights.

Don't settle immediately: Your employer may assure you that "cuts were coming anyway," to avoid the appearance of discrimination. Your employer may even offer a severance package. And maybe cuts were coming anyway. But you need time to evaluate the situation fully. Don't simply to take an offered severance package and disappear into the night. Don't allow yourself to be pressured; tell your employer you need time to weigh the offer. Not jumping all over a severance offer will enable you to be the one in control. More important, it will give you the opportunity to...

Consult a lawyer: Gather any relevant memos, emails, and other paperwork and then get to an attorney who deals in employment issues. It's important to get a lawyer's outside perspective; he or she can give a realistic assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of your case, and offer valuable advice. Many attorneys offer free initial consultations. If you are unable to afford a lawyer, and the lawyer believes that you have a strong case, you may be able to make a contingent fee arrangement.

Keep your cool: It's understandable to feel rage toward your former employer if you have experienced discrimination. That can be a good thing; it can motivate you as you navigate the slow, frustrating aspects of the legal process. But be careful about directing your vitriol toward specific people, like a former supervisor or co-worker. You may never know who is just towing the company line and who really believes the things that they are saying. You need to keep your emotions out of the equation and focus on getting the greatest possible recovery from the company.

Pregnancy discrimination is illegal, and women have every right to be both mothers and wage earners. Procreation is a natural part of life, and no mom should have to give up her job simply because she conceived a child.

Attention students: "Pregnant on Campus" initiative needs your help!

When I first became involved in the pro-life movement, as a student at the University of Miami, our Respect Life club created UMiamiPregnancy.org. At the time, it was a pretty basic site (it looks much better now, thanks to a new class of students), but we were proud of it because we knew that it would help women in need. We were also proud because our organization was one of the first students for life groups in the country to start such a project.

Today I'm 26 years old, practically a dinosaur in pro-life years, and such websites are commonplace. I felt really old when I learned that students at the University of New Mexico had opened a pregnancy resource center on their campus. It just gets better and better!

But of course, these resources are useless if they aren't advertised properly. That's why Students for Life of America (SFLA), building upon these student initiatives, launched PregnantOnCampus.org. The aim of the site is to provide local, campus-specific information for students at hundreds of schools across the nation. It will also allow for a greater degree of continuity, so that students don't have to worry about website maintenance after they graduate.

SFLA is counting on pro-life students to crowdsource the information. Right now, because the site is brand new, most of the campus pages contain only generic information about nationwide resources (e.g., the WIC program). To really make PregnantOnCampus shine, SFLA needs you to step up and submit information about local resources that can help mothers at your school.*

Many students for life groups already have this information, from having done projects like UMiamiPregnancy.org, from sidewalk counseling, or from participating in Feminists for Life's "Perception is Reality" audit. This is entirely doable.

And it's incredibly necessary:

“Becoming unexpectedly pregnant while in college can be a scary situation for so many women. Over half of abortions are done on women under the age of 25 and many of these students have no idea about the resources available to them on their college campuses to help them stay in school and parent their children, which is why this website is so unique and needed,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA. “Instead of running to the nearest Planned Parenthood, this website will help pregnant women find resources that are available on their campus right now.” ...

“SFLA’s own research shows that nearly 80% of Planned Parenthood facilities are located within five miles of a college or university. College students are prime targets for the largest abortion provider in the country,” said Hawkins. “No woman should have to choose between continuing her education or having a child, even it was unplanned and unexpected. SFLA has worked with universities across the country to help provide pregnant students on campus a one-stop-shop with all the information they need to keep their child and continue their education.”

*Trolls, the information is screened before it's added, so don't bother. Desperate women are going to rely on this site and SFLA won't tolerate your shenanigans.

The "abortions" that weren't

By now, you've probably heard about the arrest of Oklahoma abortionist Nareshkumar Patel. He "is being accused of fraud, telling women they were pregnant when they weren’t and then giving them abortion-inducing drugs."

Nothing about the abortion industry truly surprises me anymore, but this did strike me as a little odd. Are there not enough real crisis pregnancies to keep all the abortion centers in business? Or did he just get greedy?

Interestingly, Patel isn't the first to pad his clientele this way. In fact, his scam is over three decades old.

In 1978, Chicago Sun-Times reporters went undercover and got enough dirt for a twelve-part series, The Abortion Profiteers. They found that "abortions" on women who weren't pregnant were a regular occurrence. Mind you, that was long before the era of RU-486; they were doing surgical procedures on women who weren't pregnant. Patel merely updated the practice.

Without regular undercover investigations, it's impossible to say how common this is. It certainly raises some questions:

• Activists on both sides of the aisle generally treat the Guttmacher Institute's abortion statistics as the most reliable, but those figures originate with reports from the abortionists themselves. Are non-lethal "abortions" being counted? 
• Have any women been injured or killed by complications from fake abortions? 
• And how many women are beating themselves up for having killed their children... who didn't?

I don't have any answers to those questions, but I hope to see more undercover investigations of this nature.

A salute to the pro-lifers of the internet

[Today's guest writer is anonymous.]

It’s easy to dismiss online pro-life work as slacktivism. Sure, you might say, sharing your opinion on the internet will expose you to ad hominem attacks and insults—but if you really want to make a difference, go volunteer in the real world, reaching out to abortion-minded women. And of course reaching out to families in need is a great thing. But I want to challenge the assumption that internet activism is solely about the realm of ideas, while real-life activism is about actually helping people. It’s entirely possible for pro-lifers to assist pregnant mothers in need, without even leaving their homes.

There are numerous websites out there which (inadvertently) provide pro-lifers with the ability to dissuade individuals from seeking abortions. Simply Googling such sites (including forums, message boards, and blogs) will return a litany of locations where people are asking for advice about whether or not they should make a destructive, tragic decision about their unborn child. Yahoo! Answers often features such sad questions in sections regarding Women's Health, Pregnancy, and Adolescent. If people are directly asking for internet opinions about whether their unborn children should live or die, pro-lifers have a duty to speak up—and to go further by sharing local resources that can provide material assistance.

Yahoo! Answers is uncensored. Other forums are unfortunately run by administrators who want to prevent women from hearing the pro-life perspective. Ironically, one of the worst offenders is BabyCenter.com. You’d think that a site called BabyCenter would have no involvement in the end of babies’ lives, but you’d be wrong. On that site, there are two forums dedicated to encouraging abortions: one for abortions for socioeconomic reasons, and one for abortions done because the baby has been diagnosed with a disability, such as Down Syndrome. BabyCenter.com actually does provide extensive information about prenatal development, revealing the humanity of the unborn child—but keeps that information segregated from the forums where they are most desperately needed. The admins block pro-lifers on both of the abortion boards; abortion is never discussed in less-than-positive terms, and the unborn child is dehumanized to the point of obscurity. It's truly troubling and deeply depressing stuff, especially when one considers how many lives those two forums have taken in the span of roughly six years.

And yet, despite this, the censors haven’t won: BabyCenter’s direct messaging system remains available for pro-lifers to share the truth to women considering abortion. On BabyCenter, Yahoo! Answers, and a plethora of other sites, a compassionate, understanding pro-life advocate—taking a religiously neutral position, of course—can indeed provide a lifeline to women who are struggling.

I understand people feeling discouraged. Some days you look at the internet and see little more than pro-abortion trolling. But the internet is an incredibly valuable asset to the pro-life movement. It provides pro-life individuals with practical outlets to make their visions of peace and nonviolence into a reality. So hook up your laptop and get to it!

What's up with the pro-choice anger over abortion pill reversal?

I'd like to think that if I were pro-choice, I wouldn't be freaking out about abortion pill reversal. In a nutshell: a mother who takes the first pill (mifepristone) of the chemical abortion, then regrets it, is prescribed the pregnancy hormone progesterone to prevent the embryo's death. While nobody's suggesting it will work 100% of the time—obviously if the mifepristone has already killed the embryo, there's nothing you can do—early intervention could provide women with the ability to affect their choice for life. That's both pro-life and pro-choice, right?

Of course, Amanda Marcotte begs to differ. And she really ties herself in knots doing it.

First there's the issue of whether mifepristone is actually effective. She initially says that it's an important component of the two-pill procedure:

Misoprostol can work on its own—many black-market abortion pills are just misoprostol—but, according to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, taking the mifepristone improves the likelihood of a safe, complete abortion.

Then Marcotte quotes Dr. Daniel Grossman from Ibis Reproductive Health (which supports abortion). In his account, the second pill (misoprostol) is the key and mifepristone alone does basically nothing,* to the point that an abortion pill reversal amounts to a placebo:

Mifepristone "by itself is not an effective abortion regimen," he said, and so many women who just take the first pill will not miscarry if they simply don't take the second. If he had a patient who changed her mind halfway through, he explained, he would recommend doing nothing and monitoring the pregnancy to make sure it's continuing normally.

Marcotte also can't decide where she stands on the safety of the progesterone injections. In one breath, she denounces it as a dangerous "experiment."** (Of course, when abortionists deviate from the FDA protocol for the abortion pills themselves, killing eight women in the process, the correct term is "making it easier on the patient.") In the next, she returns to Dr. Grossman, who "says that the progesterone probably won't hurt a woman if she’s under medical supervision." Which she would be, because shockingly, pro-life doctors are doctors too.

With all these contradictions it's hard to figure out what Marcotte's really getting at... until the piece's final quote. Dr. Grossman is

concerned that the advertising of this procedure could mislead the public about the prevalence of abortion regret. "In my experience caring for women seeking abortion, they don’t go into this lightly. They’re very clear about their decision..."

Can't have women running wild through your carefully manicured narrative.

*EDIT, 9:20 AM EST: Dr. Grossman's characterization of mifepristone's role contradicts Planned Parenthood's educational materials, which state that mifepristone "works by blocking the hormone progesterone. Without progesterone, the lining of the uterus breaks down, and pregnancy cannot continue." 

**The reversal protocol is only two years old, so published research is scant. I'd certainly like to see more. So far, though, there's nothing to suggest that progesterone is harmful to pregnant women who have taken mifepristone. That's unsurprising, since progesterone is naturally present in a pregnant woman's body.