Mary Elizabeth Willliams, who wrote the now infamous Salon article “So what if abortion ends a life?“, is now commenting on the recent Texas abortion case. A teen girl had to go to court to prevent her parents from forcing her to have an abortion.
In an article entitled “Reproductive freedom also means choosing not to have an abortion,” she states
In a more enlightened world, this could have been just a story about a girl exercising her basic rights. It wouldn’t have become a cause that an antiabortion group would seize upon, giving it the opportunity to crow, as Center for the Defense of Life’s Greg Terra did to the L.A. Times, “This is a tremendous victory and another life has been saved. We are very proud of our teenage client for being strong enough to stand against her parents to save her unborn child’s life.” It wouldn’t be a victory for an organization dedicated to “aggressively defending the sanctity of human life.” It wouldn’t be about the fetus at all.
Benfer says, “There is no difference between this case and any of the cases in which girls have fought to receive an abortion without parental consent.”
She then goes on to quote a NARAL spokesperson:
The antiabortion side would like you to believe that we’re all ruthless baby-killers here on the side of our constitutionally protected rights. But this week, NARAL Pro Choice Texas’ Heather Busby called the decision “a victory for women’s reproductive health,” adding, “Women should have the ability to determine what happens to their bodies and what happens with a pregnancy.” And if we believe in reproductive freedom, if we truly support a woman’s right to choose, then that means supporting all her choices. Not for the sake of the baby. For the sake of the mother.
I’m certainly glad that NARAL supports women who choose to give birth to their children. I’d be more thrilled if this wasn’t the same organization that fights measures which could help women make more informed decisions about their bodies and the children they carry. Like, say, informed consent laws.
These “anti-choice” laws often require, according to NARAL, that women be informed that the father of the child is liable for child support, that women be provided with a list of abortion-alternative and adoption agencies and that they be offered the opportunity to view photographs of the child in the womb at various stages of development.
So supporting women if they choose to abort or give birth to their children is pro-choice. Providing women with information about their choices is anti-choice. Oh, the incoherence.
(Did you catch the “not for the sake of the baby”? I’m surprised she used that language. Yes, it is a human being in the womb.)by