Ads


Cutting Through the Rhetoric: A Review of Unplanned

In Unplanned: The Dramatic True Story of a Former Planned Parenthood Leader's Eye-Opening Journey across the Life Line, Abby Johnson refocuses the abortion debate on what it is truly about: real people in real situations. As the director of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, Johnson was asked one day to assist an abortionist in a sonogram-guided procedure. When she watched the fetus writhe in the seconds before the end, she was struck: “It wasn’t just tissue, just cells. That was a human baby—fighting for life!” She left her job.

It is the apparent virtue of the pro-choice cause and the enthusiasm of its proponents that first draws Johnson to Planned Parenthood. Her passion for helping those in need is immediately ignited by Jill, the Planned Parenthood representative at her college’s volunteer fair, whose sincerity attracts her and whose logic is persuasive: To “make abortion rare” requires educating women about birth control and providing safe abortions when necessary. Ultimately, Johnson is persuaded to invest herself in “serving women in crisis.”

Johnson encounters a different reality when she comes face to face with actual women in crisis during her time at Planned Parenthood. While deliberating on the issues in general terms may produce universal conclusions, it fails to grasp what is at stake for women and children in each individual case. When a young girl comes to the clinic seeking a referral for a late-term abortion, Johnson writes, “I was in what felt an impossible situation at that moment.” She adds, “I knew I had to give her the referral information, but I didn’t want to. I knew her baby was viable outside the womb—where I drew the line for abortions—and I wanted to find a way to break through to her, hoping she would reconsider.” Through examples like this and stories of those from the political arena to the exam room, Johnson shows that the universal conclusions of pro-choice advocates do not always hold up under the weight of real situations.

Johnson focuses the conflicts of the book around the tall, iron fence that surrounds the clinic in Bryan, Texas where she worked for eight years. At first glance, she wonders whether it was “designed to keep something locked in, or something locked out.” Yet the full significance of the fence was not clear to her at that moment. She says, “I didn’t have a clue how dramatically my own answer to that question would shift over time, nor did I foresee the powerful role this fence was going to play—and in fact, still plays—in my life.”

In Unplanned, Johnson makes it clear that her primary purpose while working for Planned Parenthood was to protect women. But when the organization’s need for revenue overpowers this ideal of limiting abortions, and when Johnson witnesses firsthand what a procedure actually involves, the question of who is being protected from what reaches a dramatic climax.

Her experience as the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic leaves her “amazed at how semantics can shape thought.” Reflecting on her own abortion experiences, Johnson senses the deceit in corporate jargon that proclaims abortion as “removing an unwanted pregnancy, not killing a fetus.” The same jargon dictated that when she carried her own little girl in her womb, she was “in a condition of pregnancy, not . . .the mother of a child already dependent upon [her] own body for sustenance.” It is at this level, that of discourse, that most of us are left to play out the pro-life/pro-choice battle.

But it is what she experiences, on both sides of the fence and in the clinic, that shows what people involved in the debate never see: A mother pleading at the gate for her daughter to reconsider her choice to abort; a bouquet of flowers left alone for Johnson in the middle of the parking lot from peaceful pro-life activists; and finally, the chilling abortion procedure itself. It is the progression of these experiences, and their ultimate climax in Johnson’s awareness of her role in it all, that incite reflection and, in Johnson’s case, conversion.

In my own experience working as a counselor at a pro-life crisis pregnancy center, nothing could have prepared me for some of the encounters I faced. One day, a woman—nearly fifty—came in for a pregnancy test and learned she was pregnant. Single, barely self-sufficient, and already with three grown children, her eyes glazed over with despair when I told her the news. Not yet a mother myself, I wondered if she found my offers of resources and support condescending. Yet even through her tears she could not deny that she was holding a new life.

This could not have been more different from the utter helplessness I felt when I met with a young mother of two and gave her the news that she was pregnant. She shrugged in resignation. “Well, I’m not going to have it,” she said matter-of-factly. She had already had five abortions, she told me. When I asked her if she’d ever experienced any feelings of depression or guilt, she flatly said no, as if to say, “Why would I?” I was shocked by her stoicism. It’s not the response you expect as a pro-lifer after hearing so many times that “abortion hurts women.” When she left, I was overwhelmed by a feeling of failure.

Abortion had hurt this woman, scarring her to the point of numbness. Johnson’s story is strongest where it takes experiences such as these—the agony of uncertainty and the hope of new life for the many mothers who walk into the clinic—and wrestles with them in front of our eyes.

The true value of Unplanned is its ability to show us every facet of the abortion debate: the abstract ideas, the politics, the business, the emotions, the relationships it alters, and the heart-wrenching act itself. Johnson has experienced them all, and her work as a pro-choice advocate demonstrates the tension between the three planes of the issues—beliefs, language, and personal experience—and the difficulty of trying to reconcile them.

Compassion is also a central theme of the book, not because it is written into the stories but because it can’t help but emanate from them. Johnson takes great care to emphasize that many clinic colleagues are people who sincerely believe in assisting those in need and who struggle with their sense of purpose. She recalls a conversation with one of her close friends and co-workers, Megan, who had told her that she “disliked the abortion part of our operation,” but that she stayed because she “did Pap smears and ultrasounds and served as a clinician seeing patients, all of which . . . she enjoyed.”

The mixed emotions of abortion patients themselves are laid bare inside the clinic walls and out in the parking lot. Johnson watches one client as she stops to listen to a pro-life volunteer and thinks, “She didn’t look like she felt harassed to me. Clearly, she’d chosen to talk to the pro-lifer.” When a clinic worker finally regains the client’s attention and walks her into the clinic, Johnson is confused. She thinks, “That client had looked truly interested in the information from the pro-lifer. If we are pro-choice. . .then we believe in women making their own choices, right? So why do we feel we need to protect clients from conversations about their choices?”

Pro-life advocates are displayed, too, as disparate groups with competing goals. Some are sensitive and peaceful, such as the volunteers who keep vigil outside the clinic and approach clinic workers and clients alike with gentle words of “welcome and kindness.” Others, however, are self-righteous and intimidating (one example: a man in a Grim Reaper costume pacing outside the clinic).

This book does not leave us feeling neat and tidy, as though all differences are solved and loose ends tied. Quite the contrary: The path from pro-choice to pro-life advocate is paved with pain, betrayal, and uncertainty. Unplanned provides a candid glance into the hidden corners of the debate that so often elude our conversations.

Samantha Raneri recently graduated with a master’s in international relations from Yale University.

Comments:

3.3.2011 | 12:39pm
C. Ehrlich says:
Policy-level decisions result in actual, individual cases. Planned Parenthood does much to reduce the number of abortions, especially the late-term ones, which are particularly tragic. Let's not forget the facts here.
3.3.2011 | 12:57pm
Jethro says:
Lets follow the logic of part of this for a second:

If 1) a woman seems traumatized by an abortion, that proves that abortion hurts.

But 2) if she does NOT seem traumatized, if she seems "stoic," that ALSO proves it hurts women too. (Since allegedly, her feelings had been denied?).

So there is no argument or action whatsoever, that would disprove your thesis, is there?

Hmmmmm.
3.3.2011 | 1:33pm
jason taylor says:
Jethro, the only definite "proofs" are mathematical and deductive. If he sees a woman that seems traumatized that indicates that abortion hurts. At the least it indicates that she was hurt . It does not prove it in the sense of making it certain, but it indicates it.

Just as if I see the phrase "Jethro says" at the beginning of a post that indicates that someone calling himself Jethro is making that post. In fact I have no proof of that and it could conceivably be the King of the Good Folk visiting incognito to play tricks on us mortals. For that matter the King of the Good Folk may indeed be named Jethro improbable though that may be.

We are taking as given the assumption(admittedly never to my knowledge supported by any evidence) that the Good Folk do not exist. We are also taking as given the assumption(also admittedly unsupported) that the King of the Good Folk is not a commentator on First Things, or if he is he goes by some other name then Jethro.

Therefore I am concluding that a mortal that calls himself Jethro is in fact the writer of that comment. I have no proof of that however.
3.3.2011 | 2:00pm
Mark says:
C. Erlich,

I am not being facetious. What does Planned Parenthood do to reduce abortions? You claim this is a fact. Well, how about giving us some?

And, further, if late-term abortions are tragic, as you admit, could you please tell us why you think so?
3.3.2011 | 2:39pm
C. Ehrlich says:
Mark, while your questions may not be facetious, they do indicate a serious lack of information about these issues. So let me offer what I sincerely believe will be a much more important piece of advice, than important than anything I might say in direct response to your particular questions: Enlarge the sphere of your reading and news sources.
3.3.2011 | 4:26pm
John2 says:
C. Ehrlich,

No sources whatsoever? Or none that you will submit to the scrutiny of others?

The norm is to supply some basis for your claim, not to simply declare victory. I am eager to see the support for it.
3.3.2011 | 4:36pm
MacGabhann says:
@C. Ehrlich:

"especially the late-term ones, which are particularly tragic"
Why do you regard late term abortions more particularly tragic than other abortions?
3.3.2011 | 5:05pm
C. Ehrlich says:
You all make me feel like I've stepped into another world, bringing with me the light of learning and civilization! No, seriously: go diversify your news sources, readings, and radio frequencies! You kid yourselves when you think that you can inform yourselves about the various pro-choice positions by visiting sites like First Things.
3.3.2011 | 5:43pm
MacGabhann says:
C. Ehrlich:

What diversified "sources" would you recommend?
3.3.2011 | 5:45pm
Robert Moody says:
C. Ehrlich, I have yet to see any indication that Planned Parenthood discourages any abortions but, since I get all my news flashes from the Dark Ages, let's pass on that one. Why can't you answer the obvious question already raised here? If abortions are morally acceptable to you, why are they tragic?
3.3.2011 | 5:47pm
John2 says:
C. Ehrlich,

Thank you. I guess we have enough evidence to make our own conclusions.
You stepped into another world if that's what you think. You left the light in your previous world. Because you decline to engage, you will never know that you are patronizing interlocutors who have discussed all the arguments on the topic of abortion, both for and against.

But your interlocutors will know it. Personal opinion -- I think you missed an opportunity.

Seriously.
3.3.2011 | 8:47pm
C. Ehrlich says:
I have a difficult time believing that any moderately intelligent and informed person will deny either of the following two propositions.

(1) Information and access to effective contraception tends to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the reduction in unwanted pregnancies tends to correlate with a reduction in abortions.

(2) Typically there are additional considerations that count against aborting a 40-week old human fetus than aborting a human zygote.

Does anyone disagree?
3.3.2011 | 8:48pm
pentamom says:
C. Ehrlich, I don't really believe that it's news to you that some people believe that the things that you think "reduce abortions" actually do no such thing in the long term, and so you're using the Pharisees' tactic of refusing to answer a question because you know the argument you'll get in response. You're being far more coy than your interlocutors -- they're asking you to answer a direct question for yourself instead of just asserting that every non-Neanderthal knows the answer; you're the one who's all about the assumed incredulity at other people's "lack of information."
3.3.2011 | 9:29pm
C. Ehrlich says:
I see, so "pentamom" apparently rejects proposition (1). It sure is helpful to know where folks are coming from, to discover what common ground we can and cannot assume. Anyone else?
3.3.2011 | 10:19pm
pentamom says:
I see, so C. Ehrlich has either reading comprehension or non sequitur difficulties.

I didn't say I rejected "proposition one." I said I doubted your apparent feigned ignorance that there is another point of view on that (as opposed to mere ignorance of it as "fact") was not credible.

For the record, I don't know enough to accept or reject "proposition one," but I am skeptical of it. But my comment did not say that.

And BTW, if you'll notice the date stamps, your comment about the "propositions" was not out of moderation and posted by the time I composed my previous comment. So I was going on your apparent treatment of it as fact, rather than a "proposition" as you later expressed it.
3.3.2011 | 10:37pm
mal pensant says:
@Ehrlich:

I won't argue with your second point. I fully understand that plenty of people see late-term abortions as somehow "worse", and I understand their reasons, even if I don't particularly agree with them.

As to your first point, however, I (and I suspect everyone else here feels the same way) am rather amused by your steadfast refusal to provide sources or figures that prove that Planned Parenthood has in some way decreased the number of abortions in the US through the distribution of contraceptives.

Actually, unless my mind fails me (and it's rare that it does), I recall that the stats say quite the opposite, and that only a small fraction of women who procured abortions report that they did NOT have access to contraceptives. Now, I could go dig up those stats for you, but since you didn't bother to post links, I'll return the favor. I'd suggest you check into the matter though.

But, studies aside, allow me to pull a real world, common sense example out of my rather ratty top hat: New York. Recent statistics have shown that over 40% of pregnancies there result in abortion, and y'know, last I heard they've got condoms there. In fact, they've got a lot of condoms there. They're an enlightened, modern city. They've even, if you could believe it, got Planned Parenhood clinics! In fact, I hear they've got a whole bunch of 'em! This isn't Saudi Arabia we're talking about here, it's New York freakin' city. It's the capitol of the world! And now, it's the abortion capitol too.

So, you have a cosmopolitan city where access to contraceptives is easy and affordable and....wait....wait wait wait, shouldn't you therefore have a low abortion rate? I mean, by your logic at least, that should be the case.

But you don't. And maybe, MAYBE, that could be because the prevailing opinion that access to contraceptives lowers pregnancy/abortion rates is wrong. Maybe, and I'm just thinking to myself here, maaaaaaaybe this easy access to contraceptives has added to a mentality (or perhaps it's a symptom of it?) where sex is no longer connected to pregnancy, where it is seen as a right rather than something that entails responsibility? And maaaaaaaybe, when you have large numbers of people thinking like that, you see an increase in abortions?

But what do I know? I'm just a backwards, superstitious man who's trying to get all up in women's lady business. How dare I?
3.3.2011 | 10:54pm
John2 says:
C.,

I will take that as your surrender. Thanks for the sword, I will keep it on my mantelpiece.
3.3.2011 | 11:39pm
JDD says:
It seems to me that Abby Johnson might provide in her book some answers to the very questions raised here. I look forward to reading it.


I wonder if Mr. Ehrlich, in his rush to urge us to expand our intellectual horizons, would include or exclude in his reading list a Masters graduate from Yale - such as the author of this book review.


"You kid yourselves when you think that you can inform yourselves about the various pro-choice positions by visiting sites like First Things."


Mr. Ehrlich, the writer of this book informed herself about various pro-choice positions by... being a pro-choice abortion worker. She directed a Planned Parenthood clinic. You're planning on informing yourself fully by reading her book, right?
3.3.2011 | 11:48pm
C. Ehrlich says:
Slow down, mal pensant. If you are indeed being serious here, then what you might want to consider is what might plausibly happen (even in NYC) if we were to suddenly and severely restrict information about effective contraception, as well access to that contraception. Do you think that unwanted pregnancies might increase? Any guesses?

Maybe others will chime in too on this one.
3.3.2011 | 11:51pm
JDD says:
Jethro,


Implicitly you've hinted that the two-point thesis you've laid out is the way that only people who hold a pro-life position would think. I think it's worth pointing out for consideration that these are real observations made about these real women, made by another real woman - Abby Johnson - who was at the time a pro-choice director of Planned Parenthood.
3.4.2011 | 4:14am
edmond says:
Planned parenthood equals low abortion rate?! OMG! Where did that come from!?
Has anyone heard of pregnancies that were made outside the marriage or illicit
encounters? How many abortions from freshman colleges? High school? masseuses
from massage dens, from brothels?
No planned parenthood there, no parenthood at all...

As for condoms, as an obiter, has anyone looked into the carbon footprint of producing one?
3.5.2011 | 11:14am
Ehrlich-So much to say, so little time. I do not accept your prop 1 or 2. As to the question regarding removing condoms from N.Y. and your assumption that there would be an increase in abortions we can say( although I don't have the figures) that prior to the increased distribution of condoms the abortion rate was lower. If not there would not have been much made of the 40% figure. It is possible that if condoms were banned there would be an initial increase in abortions, maybe, maybe not since there have been reports of an increase in the usage of abortion as birth control and the 40% figure did not include the specifics. My guess would be that in time the possible increase would return to previous levels. So we are reduced to dueling guesses.
Your oh so gentle insults that only people stuck in the dark ages could possibly have the ideas that the pro-life crowd that hangs around "First Things" have is not a surprise given your many posts on its' site.
Is it a surprise to you that there are those who disagree with your positions, is it your contention that you only find them here or that somehow we prolifers are dominant in the American public square.
I would contend that the never ending debate on this issue, engaged in by people at all levels of intelligence, indicates the seriousness of the subject and that it is a healthy thing, this across the board engagement by all manner of peoples, even you with your condescending attitude.
3.5.2011 | 1:47pm
pentamom says:
As for Ehrlich's "Proposition 2:"

That's sort of almost half right. If it's possible to worse than "absolutely wrong," then one might adduce reasons why late term abortion would be worse than earlier ones. For example, it's more likely to be more physically and spiritually damaging to the mother, and more spiritually damaging to the execution team. But since you can't really get wronger than wrong, those reasons are effectively irrelevant.
3.5.2011 | 4:58pm
John2 says:
pentamom,

Well said. The abortion itself is dispositive of the original question. The only difference between the two cases is degrees of wrongness. If your actions tend toward hell, then the answer does not lie in "jockeying" for relative positions in the infernal realm.
3.5.2011 | 8:28pm
I have always been pro-life and anti-abortion; I was shocked on that day in January 1973 when I first learned of the Roe v Wade Decision, but I thought the following statement a uniquely powerful way of presenting the artificiality of the "inside the womb license to kill versus outside the womb and breathing constitutionally protected" dichotomy:

"The same jargon dictated that when she carried her own little girl in her womb, she was “in a condition of pregnancy, not . . .the mother of a child already dependent upon [her] own body for sustenance.” It is at this level, that of discourse, that most of us are left to play out the pro-life/pro-choice battle."

Usually, the "birth divide" is used to describe the law's different view of the fetus pre and person post exit from the womb. This passage causes us to think about the mother's relation to the baby. A mother doesn't all of a sudden become the mother after the birth. She is the mother all along, whether you call the entity a "fetus" or a "baby." So her choice is between being a mother-bearer or a mother-killer.
3.17.2011 | 7:21pm
Marysia says:
Neither Planned Parenthood nor the organized antiabortion movement wants anyone to take this approach. But it is entirely possible to be prolife on abortion and support contraception as a human right for its own sake as well as an essential means of reducing abortion.

After all, the scientific evidence shows that contraception *does* reduce abortions:

http://www.allourlives.org/node/73
6.21.2011 | 4:34am
"The same jargon dictated that when she carried her own little girl in her womb, she was in a condition of pregnancy, not . . .the mother of a child already dependent upon [her] own body for sustenance. It is at this level, that of discourse, that most of us are left to play out the pro-life/pro-choice battle." Mr. Ehrlich, the writer of this book informed herself about various pro-choice positions by... being a pro-choice abortion worker. She directed a Planned Parenthood clinic. You're planning on informing yourself fully by reading her book, right?
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact