Abortion

Defiance and Innovation Keep Abortion Available, If Not Legal

Restrictionists once again discover that draconian rules aren’t enough to overcome people unwilling to obey.

|

Once again, restrictionists find that their heart-felt beliefs aren't up to the job of making laws enforceable when the targets of their crackdowns are just as motivated and eager to disobey. Just ask Aid Access, a non-profit group that recently responded to an FDA letter demanding it cease its efforts to ease women's access to drugs that help end pregnancies by essentially telling the federal agency to fuck off.

What does Aid Access do?

"Aid Access allows chemical abortion pills to be prescribed by an abortionist in the Netherlands, filled by a pharmacy in India, and shipped to stateside customers," Republican members of Congress summarized in a letter praising the FDA for its intervention.

That's about rightalthough Rebecca Gomperts, who founded and runs Aid Access, really works from Austria after receiving her training in the Netherlands.

Amidst the always heated debate over abortion, Aid Access isn't the only organization assisting women who want access to abortion pills from overseas suppliers. With Alabama and Georgia only the most prominent among the states approving draconian new restrictions on terminating pregnancies, plenty of outfits see both need and profit potential in the large numbers of women who lack easy, legal access to abortions. The same day that Aid Access received the letter in which "FDA requests that you immediately cease causing the introduction of these violative drugs into U.S. commerce," India-based pharmaceutical company Rablon received similar official hate mail.

In fact, there's enough competition in the abortion pills-over-the-Internet market that Plan C, a website sponsored by the National Women's Health Network, maintains an online report card comparing price, quality, and shipping speed. (Aid Access gets the only "A" grade, by the way.)

The drugs supplied by Aid Access, Rablon, and the other players in this gray market sector are mifepristone and misoprostol. Both are recognized by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) as "safe and effective" means of ending pregnancies, especially when used together.

While legal in the United States, the drugs are subject to an FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy—tight restrictions on who can dispense them and where they can be used. Under the restrictions, mifepristone "may only be dispensed in clinics, medical offices, and hospitals by or under the supervision of a certified healthcare provider," among other limits on its availability.

Of course, as with so many restrictions on controversial goods and services, it's very likely the rules were put in place not to protect patients from especially dangerous medications but as barriers to access in lieu of an overt ban. That's what ACOG thinks, anyway.

"ACOG opposes regulations or restrictions that are inappropriately unique to the provision of abortion," the professional organization said last year. "ACOG recommends that mifepristone for reproductive health indications be made available in retail pharmacies like other prescription drugs and without unique provider certification or patient consent requirements."

But the barriers remain in place, and online suppliers based overseas continue to bypass those legal restrictions to reach customers who want what they have to offer.

"As it is generally accepted that the FDA has no authority over the practice of medicine by licensed doctors in the U.S., it is surprising that the FDA would now be claiming to have authority over the practice of medicine by a licensed doctor in Austria," Aid Access's attorney, Richard A. Hearn, wrote to the FDA in a May 16 response. "When U.S. women seeking to terminate their pregnancies consult Dr Gomperts, she will not turn them away."

Aid Access continues to consult with American patients via telemedicine from overseas and issue prescriptions to be filled by pharmacies on the other side of the planet, no matter what U.S. officials may think of the situation.

It's difficult to miss the parallels between the provision of abortion drugs through the Internet, the flourishing online markets in recreational drugs and drug recipes, and the thriving trade in blueprints for DIY firearms. In all cases, factions of the population strongly favoring restrictions of varying severity come up against people unwilling to abide by limitations and eager to defy the law to exercise their liberty.

In all cases, restrictionists have succeeded in many jurisdictions in turning their preferences into policy. With their favored laws in place, they can throw barriers in people's way and make life difficult for those they catch breaking the rules.

What they can't do, however, is end widespread defiance.

"The scofflaws' motivations don't matter; agreement with their reasoning doesn't matter; sharing or even respecting their values is entirely irrelevant," I wrote in 2012 about gun laws. "All that matters is that, from one country to the next, across barriers of language and culture, government officials…have run into overwhelming resistance."

Once again, we see that no matter how passionately and sincerely their supporters may be, laws are unenforceable when a significant percentage of the people to whom they apply are unwilling to obey them. That means that restrictive laws are more likely to breed conflict between factions and between people and government than they are to enact successful prohibitions.

Aid Access openly told the U.S. government to stuff its anti-abortion efforts, and the women making use of its services are quietly doing the same. Under the circumstances, the availability of abortion is likely to prove as eternal as the abortion debate itself.

NEXT: New Employment Regulations Could Destroy California's Gig Economy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Chemical abortions in the early stages of pregnancy are pretty much a fact of life. I don’t know a single person on either side of the issue who doesn’t understand that.

    The issue is no longer whether abortion at all stages of the pregnancy should be banned. Because of chemical abortion, that is not a practical option. What is practical and is the issue is banning abortion post viability.

    1. The biggest issues aren’t the people on both sides of the issues as they largely are in lockstep over what they believe it’s the people presenting what the actual arguments are. IE the media and the politicians. I think like 65% of the US is against 2nd trimester abortions.

      1. Yes. And the ironic thing about this article is that the existence and availability of chemical abortions makes the case for banning 2nd trimester and later abortions stronger not weaker. If women are able to get chemical abortions early in their pregnancy, how can they claim any harm not getting them after viability?

        1. getting 65% of this country onboard with anything is next to impossible hence the mudding of the waters and fear-mongering is done on purpose so nothing gets done. My biggest issue with by far with outlawing it completely is the enforcement arm of that I just see nothing but 4th amendment violations as far as the eye can see.

          1. I completely agree with you. How do you tell what is an abortion and what is a legitimate miscarriage without invading the hell out of the privacy of every woman who has a miscarriage? I don’t see how you do. An aboriton ban is either a draconian privacy nightmare or a dead letter. I don’t see how you get one that is not one or the other.

            1. Does this same logic apply to safe storage laws for firearms?

              1. Yes it does. And that is why I am skeptical of laws that ban guns or abortion even though I am definitely pro life. Just because something is wrong does not mean making it illegal is practical or worth the downsides that come with doing so.

    2. I don’t know a single person on either side of the issue who doesn’t understand that.

      Know, or know of? ’cause there are multiple states that already have laws on the book banning first trimester medication abortions should Roe v. Wade be struck down, and keep passing laws to force the issue.

      Claiming ignorance of the fact that there are sincere people with political power who are actively trying to end first trimester medication abortions is kind of weird when they regularly make the front page.

    3. Note to foreign readers: João de Deus here is a Ceausescu-style collectivist infiltrator assigned by organized mysticism to monitor Reason magazine and irritate libertarians.

      1. Note to readers, Hank remains the dumbest human being on the internet.

  2. “…Rebecca Gomperts, who founded and runs Aid Access, really works from Austria after receiving her training in the Netherlands.”

    …and we know that people from Austria are never homicidally inclined.

    “mifepristone for reproductive health indications”

    Another thing the abortion debate does is give us a treasure trove of euphemisms. It’s like “domestic institutions” in the old days.

    “laws are unenforceable when a significant percentage of the people to whom they apply are unwilling to obey them.”

    Largely true in a government based on popular consent, with a right to jury trial on top of it. Take the de facto legalization of lynchings despite laws against murder.

    Which is why legal reform needs to be accompanied by public education.

    1. The fact that reason does not employ a single pro life writer or has ever to my knowledge published an article arguing against abortion from a Libertarian perspective shows just how much their staff’s positions are driven by Progressive fashion and lifestyle.

      1. Stephanie Slade is explicitly pro life.

        1. I didn’t know that. If that is the case, and I don’t doubt you, then why doesn’t she ever write an article on aboriton? I can’t remember a single anti abortion article ever published at reason. Can you?

          1. last article she wrote on the subject is her trip to the 2017 March for life. Although her and ENB had an at length discussion about it a couple weeks back on their podcast.

            1. I remember that. And I would not call that a “anti abortion” article. It was more along the lines of a safari piece where Slade went among the exoitc pro life activists and regalled the staff with tails of how the pro life people really are human beings and stuff.

              I have never seen a piece in reason that explains and defends the Libertarian pro life position.

                1. One in four years. But, there is one. I stand corrected.

                  1. Also Judge Napolitano is pro-life. Wish he would write articles (or a series of questions) again.

          2. “then why doesn’t she ever write an article on abortion”

            Pro life Libertarians should be seen and not heard

            1. This magazine is explicitly trying to bring the left into the fold and alienate the rightleaning rothbard types having even a single explicit pro life position is the antitheses of that goal as it’s a sacrament in the religion of leftism.

        2. Note to foreign readers: Explicitly pro-life here means in the same sense that Robert Dear, Scott Roeder, James Kopp and Paul Jennings Hill are pro-life. See Wikipedia

      2. They won’t take that “free minds” thing to the point where the proggie hive disapproves of their thoughts.

      3. The fact that reason does not employ a single pro life writer

        I fully acknowledge reasonable arguments from libertarian perspectives on both sides of the issue. I’d be curious to understand the breakdown of folks who identify as libertarian who consider themselves pro-life. I suspect it’s not a majority, but not insignificant by any means. Does anybody have those numbers?

        1. On the abortion debate, I explicitly distrust every source and every survey. I haven’t seen one that wasn’t heavily politically motivated and biased. Sorry, but there are no numbers that we can trust.

        2. How does a libertarian square abortion with NAP?

          Deny science?

          1. The basic idea that pro-choicers have is that before a certain point, abortion is no different than cleaning up after coitus or blowing your nose. All of your bodily fluids contain living cells. The question has always been when the fetus stops being simply cells that belong to the mother and starts being its own being.

            That is the question. Everything else is meaningless noise.

            1. So the answer is yes, by denying science.

              1. NOBODY in the scientific or medical communities have any difficulty recognizing that from conception on a new distinct living human being exists.

                They do not confuse this being with snot.

                For anyone to believe otherwise, they must deny science and medicine.

  3. I’d like to see the article about the latest technological innovations in chop shops to convert stolen cars into legitimate-looking vehicles, and therefore car theft should be legalized.

    1. Clearly, if a law will not result in 100% compliance, it’s totally pointless.

    2. The word ‘stolen’ really didn’t tip you off to the fact that you’re making a bad argument?

      1. Nope, and it still doesn’t.

        1. Stealing your car and having it rebuilt is exactly like having my car rebuilt.

      2. No it didn’t because there is nothing wrong with his argument. Let’s slow this down and try to use small words and see if we can explain to you what is going on.

        The point is that if it became impossible to stop car theft, that wouldn’t justify making it legal. In the same way, it being impossible to totally stop abortion does not necessarily justify making it illegal, thought it might depending on just how useless a ban would be.

        Where I think you have lost sight of the argument here is that you don’t see the underlying assumption of the post which is that abortion, because it is murder, is a violation of someone’s rights just like theft is. When you understand that assumption, then your point about the word “stolen” is completely nonsensicle.

        You may not agree with that assumption and think life begins life begins with the magic trip down the birth canal. But that is a different debate and your opinion about it says nothing about the validity of this argument.

        1. Making something illegal where there is no legitimate hope of real enforcement creates a situation where State actors will leverage their power arbitrarily and capriciously.

          There are practical, respect for the law, reasons to only make illegal things that you intend to enforce regularly and evenly.

          1. That all depends on what you mean by “real enforcement”. If it is 100%, then no law should ever be passed. Just because some people will avoid the law doesn’t mean that it is not a just law. Some people get away with murder but that doesn’t mean murder laws should be repealed.

            As I said above, what this says is that it is not practical to outlaw abortions early in the pregnancy. It says nothing about the wisdom of outlawing aborton post viability and in fact renders many of the objections to that moot.

          2. I think your error is when you speak of “mak(ing)” abortion illegal, as if we’re selecting from a menu of moral choices and taking whichever choice meets your utilitarian calculus.

            But what if you believe that living human beings are persons with a *right* to life, a right which may not be taken away by the positive law? Just like victims of honor killing (also not the easiest ban to enforce when relatives close ranks, cover up, and claim the victim “went back to her home country”), the victims of abortion have the right to laws protecting them.

        2. Where I think you have lost sight of the argument here is that you don’t see the underlying assumption of the post which is that abortion, because it is murder, is a violation of someone’s rights just like theft is.

          Who do you believe should be punished when a woman gets an abortion? What should the punishment be? Are there any cases where a woman can get an abortion and not be punished?

          1. The woman and the doctor and whoever else participated in the abortion should be punished. That is an easy question to answer.

            As far as punishment, that depends. Every case is different. The proper punishment would depend upon the circumstances and whatever mitigation the defendents could offer.

            1. Would you be willing to accept self defense as a reason for getting an abortion?

              In terms of murder, I’m not sure how you could consider abortion anything other than premeditated murder.

              1. Would you be willing to accept that self defense does not apply in the overwhelming majority of abortions?

                1. Yes.

                  1. You understand that is the Catholic position on abortion, more or less?

                    1. Ok?

              2. The medical facts are that an induced birth is always less risky than an abortion after viability. So, there is no “self defense” defense in a post viability abortion. The whole thing is a myth

                Women obtained about 70,000 abortion procedures in Florida last year, and more than three-quarters of those were classified as having been “elective,” meaning that the women did not provide a reason for having obtained the procedure. Another 20 percent of those abortions were classified as having been chosen for “social or economic reasons.”

                Meanwhile, the instances that abortion-rights supporters tend to focus on accounted for a tiny percentage of the overall abortions in Florida last year. Fewer than 1.5 percent of the abortions were in cases where a woman’s physical health was threatened, fewer than 2 percent were in cases where a woman cited psychological-health problems, and fewer than .3 percent were in cases where a woman’s life was in danger. One percent of the cases involved serious fetal abnormalities. Only .14 percent of women reported having obtained an abortion due to having been raped, and only .01 percent took place in cases of incest.

                http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/florida-abortion-statistics-debunk-common-pro-choice-argument/

                1. Ok, so without any possibility of self defense then it’s just varying degrees of murder. Is that correct? And anyone involved at all gets the same charge, right? Nobody would be accessory, if that even makes a difference legally?

                  1. I am not saying there is no possibility. I am saying a legitimate claim would be very rare. And yeah, it would be varying degrees of murder. How could it not be?

                    1. I just wanted to be sure I had your position correct. Thank you.

                2. I’ve read the data. It’s not “More than 3/4s”. It’s 92% “No Reason Given/ Elective”.

                  That phrasing changes everything, as you conflate elective abortion, including every horrid stereotype, with the “prefer to not answer”. As almost every reason for abortion is painful or shameful (whether being attacked, drunk out of your mind when it happened, or just poor), it’s small wonder that the vast majority give no reason.

                  Anyone trotting out that survey should learn a thing or two about surveys of things society considers shameful. THEY ARE WORSE THAN USELESS. People always avoid answering or give the answer that they feel the interviewer wants to here. I would suggest reading SuperFreakonomics, which this painfully obvious through a few simple examples.

                  1. Sure, people consider abortion shameful, unless it is done for the health of the mother or in a case of rape or incest. So if people are going to lie in these surveys, they would lie and claim they had a reason other than it being elective. So, if anything this survey exagerates the number of medically necessary abortions for the reasons you give.

                    Thanks for the own goal.

          2. It’s not politically feasible to do this at present for women who hire abortionists, though even now it’s feasible to punish women who abort by themselves without an abortionist’s intervention.

            And as for women who hire abortionists, once public opinion has been educated up to the proper level, and legal abortion has been relegated to the catalogue of historical abuses (with textbooks probably crediting progressives for prolife victories), then there will be time to provide punishment for any woman who kills her children – and just as a desperate woman who kills her newborn child may get a more lenient sentence than a professional baby-drowner, a desperate woman who gets an abortion may get a more lenient sentence compared to a professional abortionist.

            1. The question isn’t what is politically feasible. The question is what is the right thing to do. And anyone who claims to be pro life but think that only the evil abortionist and not the woman should be held accountable for an abortion is either lying or doesn’t fully understand their own position or doesnt’ take that position seriously if they understand it.

              1. See below.

            2. Don’t dodge, pretend the world is the way you want it to be then try again.

              1. I just did – meanwhile, in the world as it is, the prolife movement is fighting like mad even to get half-measures enacted.

                With the growth in public enlightenment, these half-measures could grow into full measures such as I discussed.

                There are lives to be saved today, but getting legislatures to save these lives – and getting the courts to accept this – means half-measures for the moment.

                Look at the half-measures that opponents of slavery had to put up with. Looking at England (which didn’t have to go through a civil war), first they banned the importation of African slaves while permitting the continued enslavement of those slaves who were already in the Caribbean colonies. Then when they got rid of legal slavery finally, they paid off the slaveowners – another half-measure and compromise of principle.

                Saving actual lives, as opposed to scoring Internet debating points, requires moving step by step, not giving up right away because you can’t get everything at once.

                1. One of the most tragic compromises is allowing abortion for the innocent children of rapists, while the rapist himself cannot be killed. This is a truly abominable situation, but do prolifers refuse to protect children conceived in one-night stands because the public isn’t educated up to the point of protecting a criminal’s innocent children?

                  This is serious business, not fodder for Internet snark.

                  1. It is a necessary compromise because fathers of teen girls would oppose forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth.

                    Ask Todd Akin how fathers of teen girls supported him.

                    1. IIRC that guy said rape doesn’t result in pregnancy. He was wrong; it can.

                      Anyway, I’ve acknowledged the public’s double-mindedness on killing the rapist (“never!”) versus killing the rapist’s innocent child (“get rid of it!”).

                      *If* we’re going to kill someone, it should certainly be the rapist.

                2. Why are you unwilling to state what your ideal would be?

                  1. With all due respect, don’t you read?

                    “And as for women who hire abortionists, once public opinion has been educated up to the proper level, and legal abortion has been relegated to the catalogue of historical abuses (with textbooks probably crediting progressives for prolife victories), then there will be time to provide punishment for any woman who kills her children – and just as a desperate woman who kills her newborn child may get a more lenient sentence than a professional baby-drowner, a desperate woman who gets an abortion may get a more lenient sentence compared to a professional abortionist.”

                    1. So you’d punish the woman but not the doctor and you take no hard stance on what the punishment would be. Your position on abortion being murder in all cases without question just seems like you’d be a little less squishy on dealing with it.

                    2. “So you’d punish the woman but not the doctor and you take no hard stance on what the punishment would be.”

                      What on earth are you talking about? When you’ve finished arguing with the opponent in your head, you can address what I actually said.

                    3. Look Sparky, by his reasoning, abortion is first degree murder of a child for hire. It’s internally consistent reasoning.

                      It’s odd how both parties feel that the other is so evil that both consider themselves on the right side of history.

                    4. Again, here is what I said:

                      https://reason.com/2019/06/03/defiance-and-innovation-keep-abortion-available-if-not-legal/#comment-7806048

                      Infanticide isn’t always punished as first degree murder, so if you insist on “consistency,” why should abortion always be punished that way? It’s not like I said the unborn are entitled to *more* protection than newborns.

                      Of course, we’re talking about the mother, not the hired killer (whether his job is killing babies in the womb or out of it) – throw the book at that person.

                    5. “It’s odd how both parties feel that the other is so evil that both consider themselves on the right side of history.”

                      I allowed myself to articulate, as a goal, having a country where legal abortion is classified among the abuses of the past. This doesn’t mean I claim to *know* we’ll get to that point.

                    6. Looks like we hit a reply wall…

                      Here’s what you said:
                      there will be time to provide punishment for any woman who kills her children

                      Now you have since clarified that you would also punish the doctor, so that answers that. It looks to me that your position is similar to John’s. Abortion in all cases is murder and the degree may vary.

                      If that’s still wrong, you could provide a direct response rather than continuously talking around the question.

                    7. There was no ambiguity when I said:

                      “…a desperate woman who gets an abortion may get a more lenient sentence compared to a professional abortionist”

                      And your response was

                      “So you’d punish the woman but not the doctor”

                      How on earth could you possibly reach that interpretation based on what I said?

                    8. “continuously talking around the question”

                      On the contrary, I gave specific answers, and you indignantly asserted I’d said the exact opposite of what I in fact said.

                    9. compared to a professional abortionist

                      I’ll admit that I most likely misread this sentence.

                    10. Sorry to get heated, misunderstandings happen, but when one tries to be clear it’s a pain to keep re-quoting myself.

    3. Ireland, Amendment 8… Haven’t you republicans pushed 8 different Bully the Babes Amendments to the Constitution already? This thread is how George Wallace spoiler votes retooled the Gee Oh Pee into the Landover Baptist Lobby.

  4. >>>What they can’t do, however, is end widespread defiance.

    yay! stick it to the man wtf … if the result is something dies the practice is aggressive … mho

    1. The unrestricted ability to kill those who inconvenience you is the most cherished freedom according to libertarian philosophy, you know.

      1. love it.

  5. Even if these 7 or 8 states end up banning abortions after 8 weeks and such… it’s not like it’s that hard to get your ass a couple hours down the road to another state. This “Roe v Wade might go down!” panic is the most overblown thing since …. Roe v Wade I guess.

    1. These are the same people that freak out when you need a form of ID to vote

  6. Yes, it is a neverending fight to enforce restrictive principles of the NAP.

  7. Another rousing meeting of Libertarians For Statist Womb Management and Libertarians For Big-Government Micromanagement Of Ladypart Clinics.

    Hurry along, though — that big joint meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, Cruel Immigration Practices; Libertarians For Tariffs And Protectionism; and Libertarians For Traditional Family Values (White Supremacy) is about to begin!

    1. Reverend of death. How libertarian

  8. So many slaver theocrats on a supposedly libertarian site. 20 week old fetuses have the brainwave patters of brain-dead people. First trimester embroyos are less conscious than tadpoles. The only reason for enslaving women to these kinds of creatures is religious. So what if they have human DNA? The future is not the present. An acorn is not an oak tree. A zygote is not a person. If you really think a zygote is a baby then you should be sending in the troops to invade all the fertility clinics.

    1. So we are now judging what a “person” is based upon their physical abilities and brain waves? No slippery slope there at all.

      Beyond that if not viability outside the womb, then where is the line? Birth? So explain to me what changes about a child during the process of birth that causes it to transform from a lump of cells to a full human being due to a trip down the birth canal or a C Section?

      I am sorry Lester but you are a retard and a dangerous one at that.

      1. Yes, Lester, only a theocrat would believe that a human has inviolable rights. No being a theocratic yourself, you fully accept that you arerightness, and anything may done to you for the good of the community.

      2. Whose talking about viability? This article is about first-trimester abortion-inducing drugs. They’re only useful well before viability.

    2. >>>The only reason for enslaving women to these kinds of creatures is religious.

      “only”.

    3. Might I ask your thoughts on Hippocrates? He does predate Christianity by several centuries. The Hippocratic Oath explicitly bans abortion as a type of deadly medicine.

      Abortion is no more a religious issue than theft is. The church has explicit opinions on both. However, the issue is at its heart a secular one.

      1. I’d go with universal over secular.

    4. You ain’t seen looter party infiltrators till you’ve looked at the Libertarian Platform Committee. Every plank that licks GOP boots alienates women, and every plank to import Saracen berserkers without inspection alienates voters who understand long division. Anyone with email and a few dollars a year can be a sockpuppet here and mostly “remove all doubt” as to their condition.

  9. Women keep getting rape so “suck it!” prohibitionists … or something.

  10. How does a libertarian square abortion with NAP?

    Deny science?

    1. exactly.

    2. Simple: The non-aggression principle means you don’t do things to people against their will. But that still allows you to do things that aren’t against anyone’s, or anything’s, will — like kill things that don’t care whether they live or die and aren’t owned by anyone who does care. The vast majority of living things don’t know anything about life, hence have no plans for the future, hence aren’t disappointed by dying. Embryos, whether of plants or people, easily fit that description to the best of our current knowledge.

      1. We kill things that demonstrate the desire to live all the time. That is not the criteria for the right to life and does not square abortion with NAP.

        Every living human does have the right to life. Even when it is too young or temporarily incapable of telling you so.

  11. The Prolife community has over the years focused on stopping legal abortions rather than making abortion unnecessary. As the articles noted women will find ways around prohibitions. The antiabortionist could change focusing on prevention. Make sure there is education of and access to contraception. Economic support for poor women and better support for disabled people. The interesting question what is their real motive, protecting life or controlling women? That remains to be seen.

    1. “controlling women”

      Men and women who try to kill their children should be “controlled” by not being allowed to do so.

      You can do Handmaid’s Tale cosplay all you want, but the prolife leadership is filled with women.

      1. If women were in control of the prolife community I believe things would be noticeably different. I think there would be more emphasis on making abortion unnecessary. More attempts to find middle ground. We could test this theory right now. Have all the men in prolife leadership resign and turn the reins over to the women. Then we can see how the women really feel. What do you think?

        1. How about men *on both sides of the abortion question* resign. Surely your side can do without Jim Carrey, angry boyfriends who bully their girlfriends into having abortions, or Brian Sims, the Pennsylvania politician who filmed himself badgering prolife teenage girls and offering money to anyone who doxxed them?

          All male. All pro-choicers. Are prolife men to leave the field to these men as “representative” of our sex?

          1. And let us not forget male abortionists, governor Ralph Northam of Virginia, and their ilk – let them all resign.

          2. Sounds good to me. Lets leave the question of abortions to the women. They can work out the issue.

            1. Pass the word to the prochoice men. Until they leave the political arena, the prolife men will have to stay active if only to protect the prolife women from the prochoice men who attack them.

              1. From Katha Pollitt in The Nation:

                “Men:..That dollar you earn compared with the average woman’s 80 cents? Put it to work by donating today to an abortion fund in one of the abortion-ban states….

                “…should you impregnate a woman who wants an abortion, pay the whole bill….And while you’re at it, make a donation to the clinic, too. The staffers put their lives on the line for you.”

                https://www.thenation.com/article/abortion-access-men-feminism/

          3. Girl bullying mystics are exactly that… girl-bullying mystics. Nationalsocialists sought nothing but to protect defenseless German children from the depredations of selfish Jews. I can’t wait to volunteer as an interpreter when new Nuremberg trials put Eddie, Jawn, Rodent and other sockpuppets in the dock like Julius Streicher and Goering. Robert Dear was as sane as Streicher until organized coercive mysticism found insanity pleas preferable to martyrdom. It’ll be fun.

            1. It seems your commitment to the right to life is equalled by your commitment to the right to free speech.

  12. “There were two victims in the horrific attack earlier this month on Jennifer Irigoyen in New York City. But the state’s law recognizes only one of them.

    “Anthony Hobson allegedly dragged his pregnant former girlfriend into the stairwell of her Queens apartment building and stabbed her in the stomach, neck and torso. Irigoyen was in her second trimester. Neither she nor her unborn child survived.

    “The Queens district attorney initially announced that Hobson would be charged with second-degree murder and abortion, reasonably enough, considering that he stands accused of killing both Irigoyen and her child. Then he dropped the abortion charge in light of the state’s radical new pro-abortion law….

    “In New York, pro-abortion advocates have shown us what they really are, and no one should ever forget.”

    https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/02/15/crime-sheds-light-on-abortion-law-stance/

    1. Ireland, Amendment 8…

  13. Abortion highlights a universal truth about real world problems; principles can only go so far and some problems don’t have solutions. There isn’t a Libertarian argument for either side. Protecting unborn life means forcing women to carry. Letting women choose means state sponsored murder of unborn children. There is no middle ground or grey area morally. Both outcomes are morally degenerate and unacceptable.

    Instead of focusing on morality, which is a losing issue, we should focus on practical solutions. Women will continue to abort, even if we consider their reasons to be savage. People should respect life and they should understand that sex carries the risk of pregnancy. Human pleasure is not an excuse to kill your child and just because you were “safe” about it doesn’t mean you get a get out of jail free card. Safety is abstinence or being a responsible person who doesn’t run away from a new life just because it’s going to be difficult. The law should stay away from such complicated moral issues. You can’t make these sorts of decisions for other people, no matter how reprehensible their decisions may be.

    1. “You can’t make these sorts of decisions for other people, no matter how reprehensible their decisions may be.”

      What about infanticide?

      1. I really don’t know. I’m extremely conflicted morally because personally, I don’t support most abortions. I’m okay with rape/incest exception as well as non-viable fetus and health risk for the mother, but past that, I wouldn’t even permit one at one week. If I were a woman and god forbid I was in one of those situations, I think I would still try to carry the child, but I don’t feel comfortable forcing others to choose that. All I know is that when we focus on the morality, we get into murky waters. For instance, my logic about not making decisions for others can justify pretty much anything, even though most people agree that infanticide is off the table. On the other hand, my actual morality is relatively restrictive towards abortion, but I can’t bridge the gap between making decisions for myself and for others. It feels wrong to force people to carry a child. I’m disgusted with the underlying morality, like when people say the child is unwanted or that they will kill themselves if forced to carry, but I just don’t know what to do.

  14. The 1981 Love Canal article made me proud to be a Reason subscriber. Tuccilli’s article here countering a different but similar tribe of superstitious lynch mobs brought back a lot of that feeling of pride. Congratulations, Reason, on publishing a really good article. –libertariantranslator

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.