The Pro-life movement needs to step back from Planned Parenthood.

[TPIG]

It seems to me that one of the major flaws with the current pro-life movement is its extreme focus on one organization - Planned Parenthood. This is a mistake. It's a mistake NOT because Planned Parenthood isn't a major abortion provider; indeed, 1/3 of abortions in the US are performed by Planned Parenthood. It's a mistake because it narrows the argument to such an extent that the message of the pro-life movement becomes lost to arguments about what type of healthcare PP provides, or what percentage of their funds are used for abortions. In the grand scheme, these little factoids should not matter when we have a nation that allows the murder of the unborn. By allowing the arguments to become so focused on the finances of the organization, the overall message of protecting the unborn becomes fuzzy. The main problem is the law, not just Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood, technically operates by the letter of the law. The pro-life movement should re-adjust its focus away from Planned Parenthood and towards a constitutional amendment protecting unborn life. We should have the courage to fight for this, far more difficult goal.

Other pro-lifers, do you agree, or am I off the mark? Anyone else, feel free to comment as well.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I think most of what you say is accurate in terms of our bigger goal, but PP is a tangible adversary (and one that likes to agitate us more than other abortion providers).  But, no abortion provider should receive funding, not just PP.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem is the numbers. The reason they go after it is because it is easier to convince people that an organization is profiting/violating/abusing its way along the path to providing this service than it is to convince people that abortion should be banned at all stages.

There are a lot of people who are pro-choice generally speaking and support it being legal for a set period of time but at the same time think it is an unfortunate practice and are most certainly against late term abortion. By focusing on planned parenthood, they can unite both this group and the firm pro-life advocates such as yourself in righteous indignation and ride that right into office, or at least that is how it plays out in the script.

Going to the heart of the matter, has the opposite effect, it narrows the support base. If you play out the second and third order of events, narrowing the support leads to the other side winning and confirming judges who are most certainly not on the side of the pro-life community.

So to make a long story short, it is political strategy motivated by political expediency, to attempt to move in the desired direction without having to face the electoral consequences (and thus by extension the resulting road blocks to said progress that is losing an election) of actually trying to focus on the root issue itself.

[TPIG]

I think most of what you say is accurate in terms of our bigger goal, but PP is a tangible adversary (and one that likes to agitate us more than other abortion providers).  But, no abortion provider should receive funding, not just PP.

Agreed.

[Bidenworth2020]

I agree,as someone who leans pro-life.  I think an important part of being pro-life is being, well, pro-life . That means helping poorer parents get what they need for their child, whether it be cribs or diapers. Also, family planning allows for the babies to have a better life,so that is obviously positive.

[TPIG]

The problem is the numbers. The reason they go after it is because it is easier to convince people that an organization is profiting/violating/abusing its way along the path to providing this service than it is to convince people that abortion should be banned at all stages.

There are a lot of people who are pro-choice generally speaking and support it being legal for a set period of time but at the same time think it is an unfortunate practice and are most certainly against late term abortion. By focusing on planned parenthood, they can unite both this group and the firm pro-life advocates such as yourself in righteous indignation and ride that right into office, or at least that is how it plays out in the script.

Going to the heart of the matter, has the opposite effect, it narrows the support base. If you play out the second and third order of events, narrowing the support leads to the other side winning and confirming judges who are most certainly not on the side of the pro-life community.

So to make a long story short, it is political strategy motivated by political expediency, to attempt to move in the desired direction without having to face the electoral consequences (and thus by extension the resulting road blocks to said progress that is losing an election) of actually trying to focus on the root issue itself.

I understand the theory behind your argument, but I'm not sure that I agree. According to Gallup, 48% of Americans identify as pro-life, and 48% identify as pro-choice. At the same time, 62% of Americans have a favorable view of Planned Parenthood. Doesn't it hurt the pro-life brand to focus so heavily on an organization that so many Americans support? Would it not be better to step back and focus on the big picture and try to win hearts and minds that way?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem is the numbers. The reason they go after it is because it is easier to convince people that an organization is profiting/violating/abusing its way along the path to providing this service than it is to convince people that abortion should be banned at all stages.

There are a lot of people who are pro-choice generally speaking and support it being legal for a set period of time but at the same time think it is an unfortunate practice and are most certainly against late term abortion. By focusing on planned parenthood, they can unite both this group and the firm pro-life advocates such as yourself in righteous indignation and ride that right into office, or at least that is how it plays out in the script.

Going to the heart of the matter, has the opposite effect, it narrows the support base. If you play out the second and third order of events, narrowing the support leads to the other side winning and confirming judges who are most certainly not on the side of the pro-life community.

So to make a long story short, it is political strategy motivated by political expediency, to attempt to move in the desired direction without having to face the electoral consequences (and thus by extension the resulting road blocks to said progress that is losing an election) of actually trying to focus on the root issue itself.

I understand the theory behind your argument, but I'm not sure that I agree. According to Gallup, 48% of Americans identify as pro-life, and 48% identify as pro-choice. At the same time, 62% of Americans have a favorable view of Planned Parenthood. Doesn't it hurt the pro-life brand to focus so heavily on an organization that so many Americans support? Would it not be better to step back and focus on the big picture and try to win hearts and minds that way?

If only politicians had common sense...

[Karpatsky]

I understand the theory behind your argument, but I'm not sure that I agree. According to Gallup, 48% of Americans identify as pro-life, and 48% identify as pro-choice. At the same time, 62% of Americans have a favorable view of Planned Parenthood. Doesn't it hurt the pro-life brand to focus so heavily on an organization that so many Americans support? Would it not be better to step back and focus on the big picture and try to win hearts and minds that way?

The thing is, 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' as terms are both so euphemistically removed from the actual policy that it doesn't tell you much of anything. If both Pew and Gallup are to be believed, about 10% of people identify as 'pro-life' (for whatever that means) but still support abortion being available in most cases.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/17/nearly-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal/

[TPIG]

I understand the theory behind your argument, but I'm not sure that I agree. According to Gallup, 48% of Americans identify as pro-life, and 48% identify as pro-choice. At the same time, 62% of Americans have a favorable view of Planned Parenthood. Doesn't it hurt the pro-life brand to focus so heavily on an organization that so many Americans support? Would it not be better to step back and focus on the big picture and try to win hearts and minds that way?

The thing is, 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' as terms are both so euphemistically removed from the actual policy that it doesn't tell you much of anything. If both Pew and Gallup are to be believed, about 10% of people identify as 'pro-life' (for whatever that means) but still support abortion being available in most cases.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/17/nearly-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal/

I understand your point, but to counter with other data, according to the May 2018 Gallup poll on abortion, 18% of Americans believe it should be illegal in all cases and 35% believe it should only be legal in only a few circumstances. In other words, 53% of Americans support tighter restrictions on abortion, than what we currently have.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

[Karpatsky]

I understand the theory behind your argument, but I'm not sure that I agree. According to Gallup, 48% of Americans identify as pro-life, and 48% identify as pro-choice. At the same time, 62% of Americans have a favorable view of Planned Parenthood. Doesn't it hurt the pro-life brand to focus so heavily on an organization that so many Americans support? Would it not be better to step back and focus on the big picture and try to win hearts and minds that way?

The thing is, 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' as terms are both so euphemistically removed from the actual policy that it doesn't tell you much of anything. If both Pew and Gallup are to be believed, about 10% of people identify as 'pro-life' (for whatever that means) but still support abortion being available in most cases.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/17/nearly-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal/

I understand your point, but to counter with other data, according to the May 2018 Gallup poll on abortion, 18% of Americans believe it should be illegal in all cases and 35% believe it should only be legal in only a few circumstances. In other words, 53% of Americans support tighter restrictions on abortion, than what we currently have.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

I think your interpretation oversteps on the meaning of the 35% - 'a few' circumstances is subjective, and it does not imply more strict than currently exists. I could easily imagine someone who supported abortion on demand, but only in the first trimester, answering so. In fact, your link shows 60% of people 'generally' support legal abortion in the first trimester.

[TPIG]

I understand the theory behind your argument, but I'm not sure that I agree. According to Gallup, 48% of Americans identify as pro-life, and 48% identify as pro-choice. At the same time, 62% of Americans have a favorable view of Planned Parenthood. Doesn't it hurt the pro-life brand to focus so heavily on an organization that so many Americans support? Would it not be better to step back and focus on the big picture and try to win hearts and minds that way?

The thing is, 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' as terms are both so euphemistically removed from the actual policy that it doesn't tell you much of anything. If both Pew and Gallup are to be believed, about 10% of people identify as 'pro-life' (for whatever that means) but still support abortion being available in most cases.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/17/nearly-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal/

I understand your point, but to counter with other data, according to the May 2018 Gallup poll on abortion, 18% of Americans believe it should be illegal in all cases and 35% believe it should only be legal in only a few circumstances. In other words, 53% of Americans support tighter restrictions on abortion, than what we currently have.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

I think your interpretation oversteps on the meaning of the 35% - 'a few' circumstances is subjective, and it does not imply more strict than currently exists. I could easily imagine someone who supported abortion on demand, but only in the first trimester, answering so. In fact, your link shows 60% of people 'generally' support legal abortion in the first trimester.

It also shows that 53% don't support abortion on demand during the first trimester and that 77% oppose it in the third. Again, the majority of Americans favor more restrictions on abortion.

[Karpatsky]

I understand the theory behind your argument, but I'm not sure that I agree. According to Gallup, 48% of Americans identify as pro-life, and 48% identify as pro-choice. At the same time, 62% of Americans have a favorable view of Planned Parenthood. Doesn't it hurt the pro-life brand to focus so heavily on an organization that so many Americans support? Would it not be better to step back and focus on the big picture and try to win hearts and minds that way?

The thing is, 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' as terms are both so euphemistically removed from the actual policy that it doesn't tell you much of anything. If both Pew and Gallup are to be believed, about 10% of people identify as 'pro-life' (for whatever that means) but still support abortion being available in most cases.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/17/nearly-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal/

I understand your point, but to counter with other data, according to the May 2018 Gallup poll on abortion, 18% of Americans believe it should be illegal in all cases and 35% believe it should only be legal in only a few circumstances. In other words, 53% of Americans support tighter restrictions on abortion, than what we currently have.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

I think your interpretation oversteps on the meaning of the 35% - 'a few' circumstances is subjective, and it does not imply more strict than currently exists. I could easily imagine someone who supported abortion on demand, but only in the first trimester, answering so. In fact, your link shows 60% of people 'generally' support legal abortion in the first trimester.

It also shows that 53% don't support abortion on demand during the first trimester and that 77% oppose it in the third. Again, the majority of Americans favor more restrictions on abortion.

But does that reflect the actual state of the law? The poll also shows 66% of respondents want current law to either remain as it is (37% satisfied, 10% despite unsatisfied) or become less strict (19%). This number is quite compatible with the Pew numbers I posted earlier.

[TPIG]

I understand the theory behind your argument, but I'm not sure that I agree. According to Gallup, 48% of Americans identify as pro-life, and 48% identify as pro-choice. At the same time, 62% of Americans have a favorable view of Planned Parenthood. Doesn't it hurt the pro-life brand to focus so heavily on an organization that so many Americans support? Would it not be better to step back and focus on the big picture and try to win hearts and minds that way?

The thing is, 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' as terms are both so euphemistically removed from the actual policy that it doesn't tell you much of anything. If both Pew and Gallup are to be believed, about 10% of people identify as 'pro-life' (for whatever that means) but still support abortion being available in most cases.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/17/nearly-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal/

I understand your point, but to counter with other data, according to the May 2018 Gallup poll on abortion, 18% of Americans believe it should be illegal in all cases and 35% believe it should only be legal in only a few circumstances. In other words, 53% of Americans support tighter restrictions on abortion, than what we currently have.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

I think your interpretation oversteps on the meaning of the 35% - 'a few' circumstances is subjective, and it does not imply more strict than currently exists. I could easily imagine someone who supported abortion on demand, but only in the first trimester, answering so. In fact, your link shows 60% of people 'generally' support legal abortion in the first trimester.

It also shows that 53% don't support abortion on demand during the first trimester and that 77% oppose it in the third. Again, the majority of Americans favor more restrictions on abortion.

But does that reflect the actual state of the law? The poll also shows 66% of respondents want current law to either remain as it is (37% satisfied, 10% despite unsatisfied) or become less strict (19%). This number is quite compatible with the Pew numbers I posted earlier.

Well, given the incompatibility of the conflicting numbers, it would seem that some portion of that 66% are not fully aware of the current law. The reason I think the 66% figure is flawed and not my 53% figure (those who desire illegality for abortion on demand in the first trimester ) is due to the vague nature of the question, whereas the question that produced the 53% figure was quite specific.

[Karpatsky]

But does that reflect the actual state of the law? The poll also shows 66% of respondents want current law to either remain as it is (37% satisfied, 10% despite unsatisfied) or become less strict (19%). This number is quite compatible with the Pew numbers I posted earlier.

Well, given the incompatibility of the conflicting numbers, it would seem that some portion of that 66% are not fully aware of the current law. The reason I think the 66% figure is flawed and not my 53% figure (those who desire illegality for abortion on demand in the first trimester ) is due to the vague nature of the question, whereas the question that produced the 53% figure was quite specific.

That is plausible - if that is the case though, to return to your original point, wouldn't you say that there is a strategic value is focusing on a specific organization in that it can show people that their perception of law is incorrect? It seems to me if that concept is accurate, the potential problem of returning to a more broad stance is that it will not motivate even those who agree with it if they don't believe that the problem exists.

[TPIG]

But does that reflect the actual state of the law? The poll also shows 66% of respondents want current law to either remain as it is (37% satisfied, 10% despite unsatisfied) or become less strict (19%). This number is quite compatible with the Pew numbers I posted earlier.

Well, given the incompatibility of the conflicting numbers, it would seem that some portion of that 66% are not fully aware of the current law. The reason I think the 66% figure is flawed and not my 53% figure (those who desire illegality for abortion on demand in the first trimester ) is due to the vague nature of the question, whereas the question that produced the 53% figure was quite specific.

That is plausible - if that is the case though, to return to your original point, wouldn't you say that there is a strategic value is focusing on a specific organization in that it can show people that their perception of law is incorrect? It seems to me if that concept is accurate, the potential problem of returning to a more broad stance is that it will not motivate even those who agree with it if they don't believe that the problem exists.

That's actually a very good point. My intention with this thread was not to say that Planned Parenthood shouldn't be highlighted at all but rather to say that pro-lifers shouldn't be so concerned with fighting out the finer details of PP's financials and activities that they cede the larger point of the movement. Perhaps, a good middle ground can be found between the two approaches.

[Karpatsky]

But does that reflect the actual state of the law? The poll also shows 66% of respondents want current law to either remain as it is (37% satisfied, 10% despite unsatisfied) or become less strict (19%). This number is quite compatible with the Pew numbers I posted earlier.

Well, given the incompatibility of the conflicting numbers, it would seem that some portion of that 66% are not fully aware of the current law. The reason I think the 66% figure is flawed and not my 53% figure (those who desire illegality for abortion on demand in the first trimester ) is due to the vague nature of the question, whereas the question that produced the 53% figure was quite specific.

That is plausible - if that is the case though, to return to your original point, wouldn't you say that there is a strategic value is focusing on a specific organization in that it can show people that their perception of law is incorrect? It seems to me if that concept is accurate, the potential problem of returning to a more broad stance is that it will not motivate even those who agree with it if they don't believe that the problem exists.

That's actually a very good point. My intention with this thread was not to say that Planned Parenthood shouldn't be highlighted at all but rather to say that pro-lifers shouldn't be so concerned with fighting out the finer details of PP's financials and activities that they cede the larger point of the movement. Perhaps, a good middle ground can be found between the two approaches.

To be honest, I think the greatest strategic weakness of those in favor of increased abortion restrictions is the positions most identified with it and committed to it are those most extreme. I think any interpretation of these numbers will find that even if there is theoretically a majority in favor of more restrictions on the current system, there is almost certainly not a majority in favor of the sort of constitutional amendment you suggest - and abortion is not the sort of issue you can really 'convince' on one way or another. Worse, to try to refocus on the sort of restrictions which might gain majority support would risk alienating the religiously-motivated base which is most committed. Do you think it politically feasible to overcome this catch-22 in the current climate, or are you hoping for a generational shift in attitudes?

[Calthrina950]

I think that Planned Parenthood has become the "bogeyman" of those on the right, as regards to abortion, and it's not surprising to see why. Thus, I agree with your contention that the pro-life movement needs to extend the range of its focus beyond this one organization. Such an effort might be more conducive to promoting that cause in the long run. A greater effort must be made to respond to the movement's critics and to promote the alternatives to abortion that do exist. At the same time, we have to recognize the constraints that are currently set under our legal system.

[Adam Griffin]

Most Americans have a grossly overestimated perception of just how many abortions occur, as well as when, how and why they occur. It's definitely likely that a substantial chunk of people support abortion being restricted in all but "a few situations", with those situations being the case for >95% of abortions performed presently. I've seen polls before somewhere but Americans think a ridiculously large number of abortions occur within the third trimester, when it's only like 2% and isn't even an available service (primarily due to no doctors providing it rather than laws prohibiting it) in most states.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

If the pro-life movement were intellectually honest about Planned Parenthood, then by now they would have created an organization that did everything Planned Parenthood does except abortion.

They haven't done this because they aren't concerned about women's health or protecting the unborn. They just want to vilify women and take the money that goes to their healthcare and spend it on tax cuts for the rich.

[TPIG]

But does that reflect the actual state of the law? The poll also shows 66% of respondents want current law to either remain as it is (37% satisfied, 10% despite unsatisfied) or become less strict (19%). This number is quite compatible with the Pew numbers I posted earlier.

Well, given the incompatibility of the conflicting numbers, it would seem that some portion of that 66% are not fully aware of the current law. The reason I think the 66% figure is flawed and not my 53% figure (those who desire illegality for abortion on demand in the first trimester ) is due to the vague nature of the question, whereas the question that produced the 53% figure was quite specific.

That is plausible - if that is the case though, to return to your original point, wouldn't you say that there is a strategic value is focusing on a specific organization in that it can show people that their perception of law is incorrect? It seems to me if that concept is accurate, the potential problem of returning to a more broad stance is that it will not motivate even those who agree with it if they don't believe that the problem exists.

That's actually a very good point. My intention with this thread was not to say that Planned Parenthood shouldn't be highlighted at all but rather to say that pro-lifers shouldn't be so concerned with fighting out the finer details of PP's financials and activities that they cede the larger point of the movement. Perhaps, a good middle ground can be found between the two approaches.

To be honest, I think the greatest strategic weakness of those in favor of increased abortion restrictions is the positions most identified with it and committed to it are those most extreme. I think any interpretation of these numbers will find that even if there is theoretically a majority in favor of more restrictions on the current system, there is almost certainly not a majority in favor of the sort of constitutional amendment you suggest - and abortion is not the sort of issue you can really 'convince' on one way or another. Worse, to try to refocus on the sort of restrictions which might gain majority support would risk alienating the religiously-motivated base which is most committed. Do you think it politically feasible to overcome this catch-22 in the current climate, or are you hoping for a generational shift in attitudes?

Would you mind expounding upon your theory of this catch-22 a bit more? Which abortion restrictions that a majority of Americans would support do you think would simultaneously alienate religious conservatives. I'm having a hard time thinking of examples of this.

[Frodo]

If the pro-life movement were intellectually honest about Planned Parenthood, then by now they would have created an organization that did everything Planned Parenthood does except abortion.

They haven't done this because they aren't concerned about women's health or protecting the unborn. They just want to vilify women and take the money that goes to their healthcare and spend it on tax cuts for the rich.

[Badger]

Now let's hear from all the pro-life women on Atlas.

<crickets>

Hmmm. That's....awkward.

[Karpatsky]

But does that reflect the actual state of the law? The poll also shows 66% of respondents want current law to either remain as it is (37% satisfied, 10% despite unsatisfied) or become less strict (19%). This number is quite compatible with the Pew numbers I posted earlier.

Well, given the incompatibility of the conflicting numbers, it would seem that some portion of that 66% are not fully aware of the current law. The reason I think the 66% figure is flawed and not my 53% figure (those who desire illegality for abortion on demand in the first trimester ) is due to the vague nature of the question, whereas the question that produced the 53% figure was quite specific.

That is plausible - if that is the case though, to return to your original point, wouldn't you say that there is a strategic value is focusing on a specific organization in that it can show people that their perception of law is incorrect? It seems to me if that concept is accurate, the potential problem of returning to a more broad stance is that it will not motivate even those who agree with it if they don't believe that the problem exists.

That's actually a very good point. My intention with this thread was not to say that Planned Parenthood shouldn't be highlighted at all but rather to say that pro-lifers shouldn't be so concerned with fighting out the finer details of PP's financials and activities that they cede the larger point of the movement. Perhaps, a good middle ground can be found between the two approaches.

To be honest, I think the greatest strategic weakness of those in favor of increased abortion restrictions is the positions most identified with it and committed to it are those most extreme. I think any interpretation of these numbers will find that even if there is theoretically a majority in favor of more restrictions on the current system, there is almost certainly not a majority in favor of the sort of constitutional amendment you suggest - and abortion is not the sort of issue you can really 'convince' on one way or another. Worse, to try to refocus on the sort of restrictions which might gain majority support would risk alienating the religiously-motivated base which is most committed. Do you think it politically feasible to overcome this catch-22 in the current climate, or are you hoping for a generational shift in attitudes?

Would you mind expounding upon your theory of this catch-22 a bit more? Which abortion restrictions that a majority of Americans would support do you think would simultaneously alienate religious conservatives. I'm having a hard time thinking of examples of this.

I don't mean any particular restriction, but the strategy of pursuing marginal restrictions rather than going directly for your 'more difficult goal' - one example on this forum is ExtremeConservative, who for some time had that C avatar.

[TPIG]

If the pro-life movement were intellectually honest about Planned Parenthood, then by now they would have created an organization that did everything Planned Parenthood does except abortion.

They haven't done this because they aren't concerned about women's health or protecting the unborn. They just want to vilify women and take the money that goes to their healthcare and spend it on tax cuts for the rich.

Sure, just ignore the hundreds of Catholic health centers around the country....

[Koharu]

Now let's hear from all the pro-life women on Atlas.

<crickets>

Hmmm. That's....awkward.

If you think this is an argument than you need to reevaluate your debate-style. How many women are there total on atlas?

While we don't quite match the statistics of the real world, there are plenty of women on Atlas, including myself. Badger's comment is something to consider.


As someone who used to be pro-life as a teenager, I would actually agree that pro-life folks could do better if they stopped trying to attack Planned Parenthood. They'd do even better if they stopped attacking family planning and birth control availability. I understand why Catholics are against it (even though it's based on the most ridiculously legalistic reading of the story of Tamar ever--the "don't do this" was because it was taking advantage of a relationship, not because semen not ending up in a vagina is a sin), but evangelicals being anti-birth control and family planning is just ridiculous. More birth control = less abortions! Tada!

And then just because maybe it'll get more attention in this thread, I'll quote what I said a while ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am a 30-something woman, happily married for over 10 years, who struggles with infertility and plans to adopt. Even still, I realize that abortion is a necessary thing and the way it is done in this country is not murder. It's certainly better than leaving babies out to die to exposure, which was done in biblical times and was still never mentioned specifically in the Bible despite some other, very specific laws (including sacrificing children to Molech).