First Things RSS Feed - Clarke D. Forsythe

How the Supreme Court Gave Us Gosnell

Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:00:00 -0400

The conditions in Gosnell’s house of horrors clinic, far from being exceptional, are the logical outcome of the fine print in Roe v. Wade . As the growing controversy over similar horrors in Texas reveals, the conclusion of the Gosnell case hardly means the end of grisly headlines”headlines we wouldn’t have without the Supreme Court’s ill-fated decision.

Continue Reading »

A Fact Ignored by the WHO

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 00:01:00 -0400

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently released Born Too Soon , the first country-by-country comparison of national rates of pre-term birth. This 125-page report, funded by dozens of public agencies and private foundations, claims to be “the global action report on preterm birth.” Hidden in its pages is a story of what must be better understood to help women carry a healthy baby to term.

Pre-term birth (sometimes called premature birth or PTB) is birth before thirty-seven weeks gestation. (“Very pre-term birth” means birth at less than thirty-two weeks.) Pre-term birth carries serious risks for both child and mother. It’s the leading cause of infant morbidity and mortality, and very pre-term birth is associated with cerebral palsy and autism.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom that the United States has the best maternal health in the world, the study reported what data has shown for the last two decades: the U.S. has had a rising rate of preterm birth. In fact, the rate of preterm birth in the U.S. has increased thirty percent since 1981. While some of this is due to better record-keeping, more aggressive use of newborn intensive care, and wide access to assisted reproduction in the U.S., much of the increase remains unexplained.

Some findings of the WHO report are very troubling. As the New York Times reported in its front-page story on the WHO report, “the U.S. is similar to developing countries in the percentage of mothers who give birth before their children are due . . . [The U.S.] does worse than any Western European country and considerably worse than Japan or the Scandinavian countries.”

What is the cause of this thirty percent increase in the U.S. since 1981?

The Times mentions a number of possible risk factors”age, cesarean sections, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and smoking. And the authors of the WHO report suggest as a potential cause “the unique American combination of many pregnant teenagers and many women older than 35 who are giving birth, sometimes to twins or triplets implanted after [IVF].”

In the end, the researchers throw up their hands and express confusion: “Experts do not know all the elements that can set off early labor.” The Times quoted an author of the WHO report: “Even after controlling for risk factors like age, poverty, smoking, obesity and diabetes, ‘we really don’t have an explanation for what’s behind it.’”

Continue Reading »

An Unnecessary Evil

Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0500

When William Wilberforce rose in Parliament on the evening of May 11, 1789 to give his maiden speech against the slave trade, he argued that the trade was both inhumane and unnecessary for the British economy. His words were part of a conscious strategy that began in 1787, when the British Abolition Committee “concluded that the general, moral case against the slave trade had been made and that the way to induce a positive readiness to end the trade was to demonstrate that it was impolitic as well as unjust and inhumane.” Consequently, the Committee “more particularly directed their attention to the plea of political necessity which is frequently urged to justify . . . this traffic.” As the historian Roger Anstey observed, this was the beginning of a conscious program of “advocacy which was henceforth to be frequent in the whole abolition campaign.” That program took twenty years, until Parliament abolished the slave trade throughout the Empire in 1807.

The cause for life in America has yet to reach the second stage. The argument that the unborn are human lives has been largely won. It is now time for a coherent, sustained, and concerted effort to demonstrate that abortion is “impolitic”—bad for women as well as the unborn. As was the case with the slave trade, such a program is needed to counter the notion among many Americans that abortion is a “necessary evil.” In carrying their argument to Middle America, pro-lifers must go beyond preaching to the anti-abortion choir: they need to make their case in ways that appeal to those who are currently undecided or conflicted on the issue. As Chesterton put it, “We must either not argue with a man at all, or we must argue on his grounds, and not ours.”

A 1991 Gallup Poll on “Abortion and Moral Beliefs” found that 77 percent of Americans believe that abortion is at least the taking of human life, if not murder itself. More specifically, 49 percent considered abortion “murder,” while an additional 28 percent thought of it as “the taking of human life.” Several more recent polls confirm that virtually half of all Americans consider abortion to be “murder.” As sociologists James Davison Hunter and Carl Bowman rightly conclude, “The majority of Americans morally disapprove of the majority of abortions currently performed.”

Yet while many Americans believe abortion is wrong, they also believe it should remain legal. The Chicago Tribune aptly summarized the situation in a September 1996 editorial: “Most Americans are uncomfortable with all“or“nothing policies on abortion. They generally shy away from proposals to ban it in virtually all circumstances, but neither are they inclined to make it available on demand no matter what the circumstances. They regard it, at best, as a necessary evil.”

If Middle America—as Hunter calls the 60 percent in the ideological middle—sees abortion as an evil, why is it thought to be “necessary”? While the 1991 Gallup Poll did not probe this question specifically, it did make clear that it is not because Middle America sees abortion as necessary to secure equal opportunity for women. For example, less than 30 percent believe abortion is acceptable in the first three months of pregnancy if the pregnancy would require a teenager to drop out of school (and the number drops below 20 percent if the abortion takes place after three months). Likewise, less than 20 percent support abortion in the first three months of pregnancy if the pregnancy would interrupt a woman’s career (and that support drops to 10 percent after three months).

Instead, many Americans may see abortion as “necessary” to preserve women’s health—and this despite the fact that such a view is based on easily refuted misperceptions. In fact, during our unprecedented experiment in abortion-on-demand over the past three decades, the health of untold numbers of women has actually been damaged. This is thoroughly documented in a recent book by Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles, Women’s Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence (2002). First, there is the direct harm of abortion to women—short term and long term. Women still die from legal abortion, and short-term harm may include infection and damaged reproductive organs. Long-term harm includes risk of infertility, psychological trauma, and increased risk of breast cancer (at the very least, from the delay of a first full-term pregnancy). In addition, there is the broader impact of indirect harm to women’s health. Abortion directly and substantially fosters an attitude and a culture of sexual irresponsibility. The rise in sexually transmitted diseases, including pelvic inflammatory disease, and the rise in hospitalizations for ectopic pregnancies show the results.

Behind the slogans about women’s freedom is the disaster of disordered lives. The social experiment with abortion has aggravated the very problems—like illegitimacy, child abuse, and domestic abuse—that it promised to solve. It has isolated women in their pregnancies and made them more vulnerable to violent abuse from uncommitted men. Can anyone say that legalized abortion has fulfilled its promise to reduce child abuse, or to reduce illegitimacy, or to reduce poverty?

Such misperceptions explain the seemingly contradictory polls showing that a majority of Americans believe that abortion should remain legal despite believing that it is murder. While the most committed pro-life Americans see legality and morality to be inextricably intertwined and thus view the polling data as contradictory, Middle America understands “legal” and “illegal” not in moral but in practical terms: Is criminalizing the procedure a realistic solution? It is commonly believed that prohibitions on abortion would not reduce abortion but would only push thousands of women into “the back alley” where many would be killed or injured, despite the evidence to the contrary. In 1957, for example, only 260 deaths could be traced to abortion. By 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, only thirty-nine women died from illegal abortions, while twenty-seven died from legal ones. So much for the back alley.

Abortion advocates regularly do their best to spread such myths. For example, in 1995 when Congress first began to consider a bill prohibiting partial-birth abortion, abortion advocates bought a full-page advertisement in the New York Times showing a large coat hanger and the caption, “Will this be the only approved method of abortion?” Likewise, as Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a one-time pro-abortion leader, has written: “In NARAL we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always ‘five thousand to ten thousand deaths a year.’ I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the ‘morality’ of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?”

While Middle Americans may view abortion as an evil, they view it as intractable. Likewise, they view fervent campaigns to prohibit abortion as unrealistic if not counterproductive, while they are drawn to realistic alternatives and regulations. They agree that there are too many abortions and would like to see them reduced. Abortion is not a galvanizing electoral issue for Americans because they don’t believe that much can be done about the issue legally or politically. But they are wrong.

Given the state of public opinion and the fact that 75 percent of Americans believe that abortion is at least the taking of human life, if not murder itself, effectively changing public attitudes will require a shift of emphasis and resources to educating Americans about abortion’s impact on women. The most direct and effective response to the myth of abortion as a “necessary evil” is to raise public consciousness concerning the damage abortion does to women. If Americans come to realize that abortion harms women as well as the unborn, it will not be seen as “necessary,” and the “necessary evil” may be converted into evil pure and simple. In this way, we may lay the foundation for a dramatic shift in public opinion in the years ahead.

Clarke D. Forsythe, an attorney, is President of Americans United for Life.

Continue Reading »

Doing What Can Be Done

Fri, 01 Dec 1995 00:00:00 -0500

American social reform movements have typically sought guidance from theologically informed morality for their political action. But what actions theology and morality demand are not always clear. The anti-slavery movement endured considerable internal debate over political action: the Boston Unitarian Minister Theodore Parker condemned Daniel Webster for his participation in the Compromise of 1850 with the words, “They enslave their children’s children, who compromise with sin.” Similarly, the bill to ban partial-birth abortions that the House of Representatives passed on November 1 has engendered considerable internal debate over political action within the pro-life movement.

The prohibition on D&X, or partial-birth, abortions was originally debated and approved by the House Judiciary Committee last July. First publicized by an Ohio abortionist at a meeting of the trade association of abortionists, the D&X (dilation and extraction) method involves removing the unborn child feet first from the womb, cutting into the back of the head with surgical scissors, extracting the brain tissue, crushing the skull, and then extracting the rest of the dead child’s body. Two Ohio abortionists have performed hundreds of these, usually after twenty weeks of pregnancy. Capitalizing on the political gains made in the House in the November 1994 elections, proponents of the ban seek to overthrow the abortion legacy of Bill Clinton, to educate Americans about the cruelty of the abortion culture, and to remind them that thousands of late-term abortions are committed by abortionists every year.

Despite the bill’s sponsorship by the pro-life movement’s leading statesman of the past twenty years, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), some pro-life leaders have condemned the partial-birth abortion ban-and the pro-life organizations supporting it-because the bill allegedly contains a “health” exception, permitting a D&X abortion to protect the health of the mother. All abortions take the life of an unborn child, of course, but the purity of pro-life principle in those who condemn the bill does not guarantee success in banning all abortions-and may, in fact, help extend the reign of the abortion terror.

Moreover, the pro-life objectors may be misreading the House bill, for, in fact, it contains no “health” exception, but rather a much more narrow “affirmative defense” by which the abortionist may attempt to prove-only in the context of a criminal prosecution-that he used the D&X method to “save the life of the mother.” Subsection (e) of the bill states:

Continue Reading »