The abortion industry is a house of lies, prominent among which is the proposition that when a woman has an abortion, she is always making a “choice.”
In Texas, two lawmakers want to help women who have been told that they must have abortions – or else. They have introduced the Coerced Abortion Prevention Bill.
According to the House sponsor, Representative Molly White, the measure would require an abortionist and his or her staff to talk with women and assess whether they are being forced into an abortion. The bill would also have clinics post signs stating that coercing someone to have an abortion is illegal. Finally, if a girl or woman were being coerced into terminating her child, the abortionist would have to provide her with a private room and secure phone line so she could call authorities or counselors for help.
In other words, it would try to ensure that an abortion really was a woman’s choice and not someone else’s.
Sounds like a proposal that “pro-choicers” would rally behind, doesn’t it? But they’re fighting it tooth and nail.
That’s because the abortion industry is not “pro-choice.” It’s pro-abortion. Anything that might cause a woman not to have an abortion, even one she never sought in the first place, must be opposed because every abortion that doesn’t happen is money out of an abortionist’s pocket.
But what possible pretense could be given as a reason to fight a bill designed to help women who are literally being forced to kill children they desperately want?
Well, Susan Hayes of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas offers one. She says that Representative White is just “creating a problem where none exist [sic] to push yet more abortion legislation in Texas that is not needed.” She claims there’s no problem because abortion clinics already screen women for coercion.
Really? If that’s true, why object to something that you already claim to do? And if abortionists have always screened women for duress, why do studies not conducted by the abortion industry indicate that women who have abortions feel coerced into doing so from 33 to 60 percent of the time?
Perhaps Ms. Hayes’s additional objection sheds more light on abortion supporters’ actual agenda. She doesn’t like it that if a woman is found to be at an abortion clinic because of threats or intimidation, the bill sets a 72-hour waiting period during which authorities can investigate the situation before an abortion can be performed. Apparently, if a woman enters an abortion facility under duress, feeling alone and hopeless, and all of a sudden through an intervention her world changes, abortionists don’t want to give her any time to reevaluate her options. They think she should have the abortion she doesn’t really want and have it now before she realizes her circumstances are different and authorities can offer protection from her abuser.
That protection can be crucial. Pressure to abort is a deadly serious matter.
Arrijana Hill was 16 and carrying twins last year when she was killed in her parents’ Houston home, allegedly by her high school boyfriend who was upset that she would not abort their babies.
Dawanna Thomas was 18 and pregnant this past February when her boyfriend allegedly drowned her in a Texas creek and burned her body over her refusal to abort.
Shaniesha Forbes was 14 and told Christian Ferdinand that she was pregnant with his child and would not get an abortion. Mr. Ferdinand was sentenced in January to 29 years to life for smothering Ms. Forbes, dousing her with Axe body spray, burning her body, then stuffing her remains in a suitcase which he tossed in a stream.
The litany of attacks against women who refuse to abort is as horrific as it is long. The Texas-based group Life Dynamics catalogs them. And in my role as pastoral director of Rachel’s Vineyard and the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, I see firsthand the heartbreak of these women who were coerced into abortion.
And coercion doesn’t just include physical assaults. Women are threatened with abandonment by boyfriends or husbands. Teens are told they will have to leave home. All kinds of pressure is brought to bear on mothers who want to keep their babies, but are told they can’t. Some can resist, others resign themselves to a decision they would never freely choose.
Then there are human trafficking victims — minors who are sold into prostitution and forced by their captors, men who regard pregnant slaves as damaged merchandise, to kill their unborn children. We know from Live Action’s undercover videos that some abortion clinics are only too happy to make money off of trafficking victims. If there’s any screening going on, it’s to make sure that “services” are rendered.
Some abortion propagandists have dropped the label “pro-choice” because their research found that the term doesn’t resonate with younger women. The entire movement should drop the term just for the sake of truth in advertising. If you don’t want to help women who are being bullied and terrorized into having abortions, you’re pro-abortion.
Twenty states have enacted laws designed to prevent involuntary abortions. Texas, hopefully, will be the next.