Many people argue that women are the second victim of the grisly abortion industry, but clearly men can be victims, as well.
Why are men reflexively treated as the fall-guy in the abortion debate?
Recently National Review Online convened a group to opine what would happen to women in a post-Roe v. Wade world who might obtain an illegal abortion. The panelists reveal that before 1973, women who sought an abortion were not subject to criminal prosecution. So overturning Roe v. Wade would not fill our jails with post-abortive women.
One theme surfaces repeatedly in the commentaries: feckless boyfriends who abandon their partners in their hour of greatest need.
Hadley Arkes of Amherst College describes women having an abortion as routinely “abandoned by the man.” And Dorinda Bordlee from the Bioethics Defense Fund obliquely refers to fathers as “those who should be caring for [the mothers] and their unborn children.”
So does research back up these broad pronouncements of male abandonment?
In their book Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love, Shostak and McLouth report that 44% of single men offered to marry the woman, 18% of the couples had discussed adoption, and half the men accompanied the woman to the abortion clinic – hardly the image of wholesale male abandonment.
When these men show up at the clinic, they are met with a chilly reception. Two-thirds of the fathers want to accompany their partner throughout the experience, and nine out of 10 hope to hold the hand of their partner in the recovery room. But in most cases abortion clinics prohibit men from such expressions of support.
But the NRO panel reserves it harshest criticism for men who force their girlfriends to abort.
Walter Weber at the American Center for Law and Justice claims that “many” women (we aren’t told the number) obtain abortions because “they are coerced by boyfriends, bosses, parents, etc.”
Joseph Dellapenna of Villanova University states, “Significant evidence led one sociologist to conclude that ‘the attitude of the man is the most important variable in a woman’s decision to have an abortion.'” Dellapenna does not cite, however, the name of the sociologist or explain what constitutes “significant evidence.”
And Frederica Mathewes-Green recounts the tales of two women who were undergoing an abortion. As they lay on the clinic table, both of them were praying that the boyfriend would burst through the doors and say, “Stop, I changed my mind.” Mathewes-Green’s imagery of the angelic woman succumbing to the spell of the conniving male is unmistakable.
But research paints a very different picture.
Several years ago Carol Gilligan’s acclaimed study, In a Different Voice, examined the dynamics of the abortion decision. She found in only one-third of cases did the father have any influence on the woman’s decision to abort.
Likewise, professors Arthur Shostak, Ross Koppel, and Jennifer Perkins recently summarized several large-scale surveys of men in abortion clinic waiting rooms. They reported that only 19% of men in waiting rooms affirmed the idea of abortion in general, and fewer than 5% of men “may have cajoled their partner into having the abortion.”
The conclusion is clear: men are not dragging their pregnant girlfriends willy-nilly into abortion clinics against their will.
Abortion is one of those moral and social tragedies that seems to invite simplistic explanations. But the reality is far more complex.
For example, none of the NRO participants mentioned the fact that thanks to the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision Casey v. Planned Parenthood, women are not required to inform the father of the impending abortion. That’s an important omission — according to clinic workers, in 15% of abortions the man never finds out, or learns of the deed until it’s too late.
I once met such a man – years later he was still grieving the silent loss of his precious innocent.
A growing body of research reveals that fathers suffer a variety of ill consequences following the abortion. Dr. Catherine Coyle recently reviewed 28 studies that reveal men often suffer regret, sadness, and depression. One-third admit to a longing to see the fetus.
Coyle sums up the research with this observation: “Several authors have noted a tendency among men to defer the abortion decision to their female partners as well as a tendency to repress their own emotions in an attempt to support their partners.”
Many argue that women are the second victim of the grisly abortion industry. Clearly men can be victims, as well. So when will we stop treating fathers as social pariahs?
“Likewise, professors Arthur Shostak, Ross Koppel, and Jennifer Perkins recently summarized several large-scale surveys of men in abortion clinic waiting rooms. They reported that only 19% of men in waiting rooms affirmed the idea of abortion in general, and fewer than 5% of men “may have cajoled their partner into having the abortion.””
I agree with the sentiment of this article and all, but seriously, who is going to answer affirmatively in a survey in an abortion clinic waiting room that they “may have cajoled their partner” into having the abortion? Here’s the bottom line: The decision ultimately rests on the mother, since our legal system offers no “right to choose” to either of the other two parties in the reproductive process (the father and, of course, the unwanted “tissue”). I suspect that very few women go and have an abortion with their life literally in danger if they refuse. Regardless of the results of the various surveys, statistics, and “facts” presented by either side, it’s an issue of personal responsibility. And since the “tissue” legally belongs to the mother, the responsibility is hers.
Thank you Mr. Roberts for your thoughtful piece. In fact, some of the post abortion healing movements in this country are addressing the issues of the PA father. See http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/men/ as one example and for other resources.
Mr. Mulligan’s comment “I suspect that very few women go and have an abortion with their life literally in danger if they refuse[.]” shows a lack of awareness of the reality of the pregnant woman’s world. The statistics of “abortion by murder of the mother” are horrific. “Murder is the leading cause of death among pregnant women.” (I.L. Horton and D. Cheng, “Enhanced Surveillance for Pregnancy-Associated Mortality-Maryland, 1993-1998,” JAMA 285(11):
1455-1459 (2001); Associated Press article cited in the Pro-Life Infonet (now LifeNews.com), on April 25, 2003.) (and see http://www.afterabortion.org for more)
‘Puff piece’ is an article or op-ed that avoids controversial subjects, spins its subject positively, or deliberately hides its flaws; things this article clearly hasn’t done.
“its primary mission … is women’s reproductive health care, including preventing pregnancies.”
The problem with that is PP has done nothing in 30 years that significantly improves a woman’s health. Whatever improvement we have seen is due to improvements in medicine generally, not to ‘abortion research’ specifically; which is all but nonexistent. PP does not redirect any of its funding to medical research; only to policy research (social science, public education, and policy analysis), which is self-serving.
Abortion as a medical procedure has no positive impact on a woman’s reproductive health other than in the rare case of abnormal pregnancy or life-threatening complication. Having an abortion risks compromising her reproductive system by the very procedures employed. There is no possibility having an abortion will enhance her pregnancies later. This leaves mental health as the only other capacity in which PP plays a role; a role this article contends PP has failed at.
“… standard part of Planned Parenthood practice to counsel pregnant women on all available options …” Ms. Girard’s article does not accuse PP of not having ‘counseled’ clients or left options out. She said the spin PP puts on said counsel discourages prospective abortees from those other options . She also gives some insight into how PP does this. Therefore, if you disagree, you must challenge the assertion PP is discouraging live-birth options.
PP’s counseling and adoption placements are a function of its funding sources. It gets most of its funding from government, and it is government that dictates counseling of adoption and parenting as a precondition for getting funding – not PP doing it out of any conviction.
A quick visit to PP’s website should convince anyone that PP pays scant attention to the adoption and parenting options. I am an adoptive parent who has worked with agencies; and PP is not representative of the type of advocacy expected of an adoption service. For comparison see Catholic Charities, AdoptionServices.org or Adoption.com. Adoption agencies have tons of links to adoption resources, pictures of smiling babies and families, preparation materials, contacts, legal & funding advice, glowing adoption stories, support groups, &c. By contrast PP’s single, short adoption page is as sterile as it gets. PP has page after page dedicated to prevention and abortion options that emphasize the negatives of giving birth, and even more pages dedicated to defending abortion and turf. As Ms. Girard points out, if abortion is so wonderful, why still so much need to defend it after 30 years of holding the political high ground.
Why is it absurd implying PP “might improperly use Title X funding”? It is a dictum in politics and policy to ‘follow the money’. We might not be able to show PP has broken any technical ‘rules’, but that is not the same as recognizing they have an agenda, are unethical in their methods, or will push the envelop of those rules to satisfy their (and not the public’s) objectives. If their grant of funding is based on remaining strictly neutral whenever presenting options to young, distraught, and easily persuaded women, and they ‘spin’ those options favor one outcome, then they have violated the terms of the agreement. This is difficult to prove and PP has a strong ally in government protecting it from accusations. Otherwise, it would now be up to its neck in lawsuits from those whose trust it most abuses: women pressured to chose abortion over the imperatives of the womb.
Mr. Koltys is correct there is no contradiction in Hillary Clinton’s statement. However, that is because the statement is a deliberate non-sequitur, a non-statement that implies she has met no one unsupportive of abortion precisely because there is no one who does not support abortion. This is patently absurd on its face because there would be no occasion, then, for saying it; nor would we be here contradicting her.
Finally, Mr. Koltys’ quote attributed to aborting mothers “I don’t believe in abortion, but …”, proves the opposite of what he intends. He means to say, by it, that those who avail themselves of PP’s services while lamenting they are against abortion are hypocritical, i.e., they can’t be both for and against a thing they engage in. In fact, it only proves the desperation they are under and the lack of support they find for the other options. He expects them to reason as philosophers instead of the irresponsible, frightened, abandoned, abortion-is-okay saturated children they most often are.
My apologies, comment #3 above belongs to another article and was posted here by mistake. [RS]
Susan,
I found the JAMA article by Horon and Cheng, but am at a loss what page you meant us to see at either LifeNews.com or afterabortion.org? I would very much like to read what they have to say. Can you provide direct links or give us the title to these?
I have only skimmed the JAMA article, but already see some problems with it. Because it is an article and not a full study report, only tabulated results, methodology, and conclusions are presented; and none of the raw data, rationale or assumptions behind decisions to place particular data in labeled bins, data tests and validation (i.e., sanity checks), selection of sample size (has to be large enough to be reproducible), statistical confidence, &c. A more serious problem is the article makes no mention of peer review, corroborating studies, or a methodology essentially blind to data placement. Without these it is hard to say how well the study was done or how closely it reflects reality. Possibly, the other articles give some clues to this. Without corroborating studies, the best we can call this study is ‘suggestive’ and warranting an independent follow on study to demonstrate Horon/Cheng is reproducible.
20% sounds high, but I am willing to keep an open mind until I’ve seen more. To put this number in perspective, the article is saying 1-in-5 women who are both pregnant and die before giving birth (or soon after having given birth), not 1-in-5 pregnant women or 1-in-5 women. The number of pregnant women in Maryland who are killed is, thus, tiny. 50 out of a total 433,195 pregnant women in Maryland from 1993-1998 (the stated period of the study) is about 0.01%, and is even less if we include legally aborted births (all pregnancies). I took my numbers for live births from: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa/ab-usa-MD.html. I do know women are sometimes coerced into having abortions because I’ve been witness to some of that. We’ve also all heard media stories about husbands (and women) that kill to be rid of unwanted children. The problem is the media has proved an unreliable and totally biased source, making it difficult to know how much the problem warrants societal attention. At the same time, I know most men are not the monsters we are painted, and have to caution the authors (two women with a stated objective of discovering ‘how bad’ things are) may be pushing their data to a preconceived fit. Everyone does (almost impossible not to) and is why blind studies are so important. Again, it would be useful knowing how far they’ve pushed or shielded their data sorting from their own biases. Regardless whether the true number is 20% or 5% or even 0.01%, however, it represents a serious ongoing problem.
(cont.)
(cont.)
One thing this article does not demonstrate, though, is that abortion plays any significant role in these deaths (though it may have been intended to suggest such a relation exists without actually stating it). A reluctant father who kills to be rid of an unwanted child is just as likely to kill were abortion not a legally available option. Similarly, a pregnant woman willing to abort her child is only marginally more bothered by the legality of her act. If pre-1950 estimates are to be believed, the number of illegal abortions pre-Roe was not significantly different from post-Roe documented numbers. Similarly, I have no reason to think human sexual behavior and violence have changed much. If the numbers have changed, the difference will only apply to people who are dissuaded by prevailing mores and legality, and not to those who kill. The only debate, then, reduces to whether legal abortion is safer than the illegal variety was and whether a legal/illegal status makes any difference to someone willing to kill. Logically, I don’t see it would save a single pregnant woman from being murdered any more than legal abortion has proved safer than illegal. If the father is violent and wants the child to disappear when the mother is opposed, then having a legally available option makes no difference.
20% sounds like a horrendous statistic until we put it back into the context from which it was extracted. 20% makes this statistic the leading cause, but only within the narrow population from which it is drawn. The problem is we read this number and automatically misapply it to the far larger population, the population of all pregnant women. Pregnant women are not at huge risk of being murdered as this statistic implies. Indeed, a 1-in-10,000 rate (the number H&C should have cited) is far less frightening than the 1-in-5 they intend. The authors (Horon & Cheng) made no effort to clarify this disproportion or put it in a comprehensible context, one we would correctly and automatically get. Partly, that is not their fault because we were not their intended audience. An yet, their article uses adjectives like ‘devastating’, ‘disturbing’, ‘neglected’, and ‘misclassification’ in the opening lines to set up whoever reads it and lure them into assigning the same lurid conclusion they do. Likewise, and knowing sooner or later someone would come across the article and fixate on their ‘hot’ statistic, they have must realized it would enter the general debate surrounding ‘reproductive rights’ and abortion, and should have included a better clarification.