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 
Appreciate the analysis.
I am fascinated by your comprehension of Ms. Williams comments on reproductive rights. I too am passionate about woman obtaining services they need to live healthy quality based lives. However, I am a little concerned regarding your research with Planned Parenthood and NARL. I am happy to tell you that both Planned and NARL implore woman to explore all options of their health when it comes to reproductive rights and preventative health care. I personally was informed by personnel of Planned Parenthood that all options regarding my body are important and being educated is the first step to making any decision and informed decision. it has been documented several times of how Planned has spoken out against non-consented sterilization procedures, false information given to woman by so-called “Woman’s Clinics”, as well as the ability to choose adoption, or yes….even to have a child. Awareness and education is there ground work for enabling woman to choose to provide for their bodies as they see fit, regardless of what men, the government, or religions tell us.
As for the comments on Ms. Williams column, I can say this; I read both columns you referred to in your blog and found them to be profoundly in depth. I think you missed her point on the specificity regarding language. Please re-read:
Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.” Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms. While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” The “life” conversation is often too thorny to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice.
Words are a beautiful and powerful element of what makes us all human. I think what she is trying to say is that we, (woman) should not be scared of what these words mean. Life, choice, freedom all mean the ability to take our own health care preferences into our own hands, where they belong.
I sincerely hope this helps.
Thank you
Thanks for writing in, Megan. Appreciate your thoughts. If you agree with the premise of the linked article, that babies in the womb are babies, and they are human, my question for you is whether killing those babies in the womb empowers women, or makes them more human? Words are beautiful and powerful. I also like it when they are accurate.