Henneberger on Pro-Life Stereotypes

Henneberger on Pro-Life Stereotypes by MSW

My response:

It is no accident that the post covers the right to life movement as a bit looney, because their strategy is essentially incoherent and is designed for emotional impact rather than a well defined and achievable policy goal. While it is laudable to want to recognize the rights of the unborn, going back to pre-Roe law won't do that. Abortion was regulated as a medical procedure, not as murder. As such, the way it was banned really did violate the privacy rights of women because under the law the fetus was not a legal person. Of coure, privacy goes away once the fetus is "personified" in law - however doing so in the first trimester is an impossible proposition, because of the prevlance of miscarriage. If every miscarried child is a person too, than miscarriage becomes a public event to be investigated by the criminal law and subject to civil tort lawsuits. This has a practical impact on the unborn, since no malpractice carrier will allow any obstetrician to give pre-natal care in the first trimester if doing so can lead to a neglicence suit if the person under their care dies (even though that death is better for the person and the species).


The fact that the movement won't face these questions, and design compromises that deal with them, shows the extent to which it is not about policy but about emotion to be tapped for electoral politics and fundraising. Also, the woman on the ladder may have easily been a poor woman having a miscarriage who makes too much to get Medicaid but not enough to have health insurance. Think about that next time you celebrate curbside protests.