Abortion Protest Misses the Point

On October 23, Stand True will observe its fourth annual Pro Life Day of Silent Solidarity. The official event website, silentday.org, instructs each participant to don a conspicuous red armband and to spend the day in silent mourning for “children who have their lives taken in the name of choice.” This protest demonstrates the anti-choice movement’s preference for hollow stunts over meaningful steps toward reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in America.

One may fairly assume that the pro-life movement’s beef with abortions has to do with the fetus as it is and not with the “potential” of the fetus; otherwise, as Monty Python brilliantly parodied in its film The Meaning of Life, one is forced to regard every sperm sacred and every unfertilized egg tragic. Monty Python cannot truly claim originality since the Bible expresses this very doctrine (Leviticus 15); but since few Americans want every menstrual cycle declared a felony and prosecuted, one concludes this country has moved past those golden days. So what does Stand True have to say?

Stand True helpfully provides quarter-sheet fliers titled “Why I am Silent” to arm protesters for the barrage of questions they are bound to face on the October 23. The flyers state that “the victims we stand on behalf of were not blobs of tissue, but beautiful human persons, with hearts that beat, brains that gave out brain waves, and a soul.” One can disagree, as do many in the pro-choice camp, but arguments from both sides quickly run up against a lack of tangible evidentiary support. On the other hand, physiological observations can be meaningfully discussed, so it is worth pointing out a few facts. By the end of 12 weeks’ growth, a fetus is less than three inches long and weighs about one-half of one ounce (average birth weight is over 100) (1,2). According to a 2001 study by the Alan-Guttmacher Institute, 88% of all abortions take place by the 12^th week of pregnancy (3). While numbers certainly do not tell all, those on the pro-choice side might be understood for feeling that a fetus at less than one-half of one percent of average birth weight is not a full baby. Moreover, most medical experts believe a fetus cannot feel pain until 26 weeks’ development or more (4). The 2001 Alan-Guttmacher study found that 99% of abortions take place before the 21^st week of pregnancy (3), so in more than 99% of abortions, no fetus suffers. Physiological support for arguing that abortions kill developed “human persons” is really quite scarce.

But to focus on statistics is to miss the real point: unwanted pregnancies lead to abortions, so decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies will decrease the number of abortions. Republicans and Democrats alike might therefore embrace the pregnancy-preventing silver bullet: sex education. Comprehensive sex education teaches teens about contraceptives, and contraceptive use leads to fewer pregnancies (15). Moreover, comprehensive programs do not have many of the downsides critics suggest. In a 2002 study, Dr. Douglas Kirby found that “sexuality and HIV education curricula do not increase sexual intercourse, either by hastening the onset of intercourse, increasing the frequency of intercourse, or increasing the number of sexual partners” (12). Other studies reach the same conclusion (13, 14).

Opponents of comprehensive sex education programs like to quip that abstinence is the only perfect contraceptive, which of course is true. Abstinence prevents pregnancies—but abstinence-only education does not. Teens exposed to abstinence-only programs abstain until marriage with the same frequency as informed students (14). Moreover, a stunning 88% of students who pledge premarital virginity in middle school and high school break their pledges (7, 8). These teens are at the greatest risk of all: since they are uninformed, they fail to engage in safe sex practices and hence increase their susceptibility to becoming pregnant. In addition, it turns out abstinence-only education is no “education” at all: a report compiled for Rep. Henry Waxman (D- CA) in 2004 shows that “more than two-thirds of government-funded abstinence-only programs contain misleading or inaccurate information about abortion, contraception, genetics, and sexually transmitted diseases” (5, 6). It takes special determination to support an education campaign that distorts facts and still does not work.

Statistics work best alongside expert opinions. The American Medical Association has urged the widespread adoption of comprehensive sex education programs in schools (9). The Journal of Adolescent Health has declared that “Providing ‘abstinence only’ or ‘abstinence until marriage’ messages as a sole option for teenagers is flawed from scientific and medical ethics viewpoints” (10). In a 2005 “Letter to Senators,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said their organization “believes in comprehensive sex education that includes education on abstinence and contraceptives, and requests no further increase in abstinence only education funds” (11). These are just a few of the many professional organizations speaking out against abstinence-only programs.

Given the facts and the experts’ agreement, one might reasonably expect anti-abortion activists to favor greater contraceptive availability and broader sex education policies. By and large, they do not. So let us examine what we have. Abortions result from unwanted pregnancies, and there are too many unwanted pregnancies in America. These are preventable, and their frequency can be reduced by educating people and by making contraceptives widely available. Instead of embracing these steps— steps that would drastically reduce the number of abortions sought each year—anti-choice protesters plan to wear tape and armbands and mute themselves in pointless self-sacrifice that makes no progress towards solving real problems. Moreover, Stand True struggles to make its protest meaningful by adopting the atrociously patronizing tone typical of the anti-choice movement. The event main page declares that “Over 4,000 women are emotionally damaged every day.” Women everywhere will be comforted knowing that Stand True can predict their future states of mind. The official event instructions tell participants to pray “not only for the babies and their mothers, but also for the abortion doctors and their staff.” One hopes this attitude gives participants a pleasant sense of moral superiority, because it certainly does no one else any good.

At time of writing, Stand True’s Silent Day registration counter boasts 2,500 schools from the United States—what a difference that energized body might make were to launch an improved teen education campaign! The odds are slim, but it is a worthwhile suggestion. Barring miracles, this enthusiast for Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression feels compelled to wish Stand True’s protesters the best—but one wonders when anti-choice advocates will care enough about stopping abortions to do genuine work on the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

References

Stand True’s Pro-Life Say of Silent Solidarity: http://silentday.org/

1. parents.com, fetal development section
http://www.parents.com/parents/story.jsp?storyid=/templatedata/parents/story/data/1031.xml

2. BabyCenter.com, Average Fetal Length and Weight Chart
http://www.babycenter.com/average-fetal-length-weight-chart

3. The Alan-Guttmacher Institute, “Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States,” 2001. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

4. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, “Can a embryo or fetus feel pain?”

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain1.htm

5. Planned Parenthood and the NCAC, ‘Abstinence Only Programs,” section: “Comprehensive sexuality education does work”
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news-articles-press/politics-policy-issues/teen-pregnancy-sex-education/abstinence-6236.htm

6. “The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs”, prepared for Representative Henry A. Waxman, 2004
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

7. Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, “Promising the Future: Virginity Pledges and First Intercourse”
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJS/journal/issues/v106n4/040236/040236.web.pdf

8. Comments by Bearman and Bruckner (see 7) in USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-03-09-abstinence-study_x.htm

9. American Medical Association, H-170.906: “Sexuality Education, Abstinence, and the Distribution of Condoms in Schools”
http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-170.968.HTM&s_t=H+170.968&catg=AMA/HnE&catg=AMA/BnGnC&catg=AMA

10. The Society of Adolescent Medicine: “Abstinence-only Education Policies and Programs”
http://www.adolescenthealth.org/PositionPaper_Abstinence_only_edu_policies_and_programs.pdf

11. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Letter to American Senators from the President of the ACOG, 30 August, 2005
http://www.consciencelaws.org/Repression-Conscience/Conscience-Repression-45.htm

12. Dr. Douglas Kirby, “Effective approaches to reducing adolescent unprotected sex, pregnancy, and childbearing”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_39/ai_87080441

13. Taraneh Shafii, MD, MPH; Katherine Stovel, PhD; King Holmes, MD, PhD “Association Between Condom Use at Sexual Debut and Subsequent Sexual Trajectories”
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561469

14. Trenholm et al, 2007. “Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs—Final Report”
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/impactabstinence.pdf

15. The Alan-Guttmacher Institute, “Get ‘In The Know’”
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/

-Barry Slaff, C’11