Tactics of the Times

Over the past several days some of the pro-abortion blogs have been spreading tasteless remarks and goofy theories about pro-life attorney Harold Cassidy and the legal work and legislation going on in South Dakota. It’s no surprise that pro-abortion blogs would take shots at pro-life attorneys and crisis pregnancy center people involved in litigation with Planned Parenthood. But this sudden little buzz of nonsense started for a more calculated reason, I think.

It’s the same reason the New York Times Sunday Magazine recently devoted its lengthy cover story to the central question “Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?” Pro-abortion forces have mounted a campaign to discredit the best and most successful pro-life argument to date: you have to tell women the truth about abortion before they choose to have one.

This battle really does pivot on one concept at ground zero, and it is “choice.”

In the 34 years of abortion on demand since Roe, the evidence of its damage is piling deep and high, at the expense of the women who experience it. When South Dakota legislators passed the ‘informed consent bill’, Planned Parenthood rushed into court and got an injunction to stop it. They couldn’t accept the requirement to actually give women the information it required. 

While it’s held up in court, women are speaking up and speaking out themselves about the ravages of abortion, in the Silent No More campaign among many others. Heroic efforts by crisis pregnancy center workers have put state legislators on notice that women need protection. This message is getting out convincingly, and with momentum. And the pro-abortion forces can’t stop it. So they are trying to discredit it.

Amy Welborn has a follow-up today to that Times magazine post-abortion story, citing some glaring omissions in it. There’s plenty Emily Bazalon willfully overlooked to report the Time’s story, as one of the researchers she interviewed reveals.

I recently spoke with Dr. Priscilla Coleman who was interviewed by Ms Bazelon and briefly mentioned in the article. Dr. Coleman was disturbed by what she considers “out-right misrepresentation of the science by a reporter who was given the evidence and clearly understood it.”

That’s precisely why Bazelon misrepresented it. The evidence pointed to a truth she and the abortion industry do not want you to know. 

Bazelon writes: “The idea that abortion is at the root of women’s psychological ills is not supported by the bulk of the research.” She offers this conclusion, early in her lengthy essay, after having received from Dr. Coleman an overview of the more than a dozen studies published just since 2002 by the Bowling Green State University Researcher and her colleagues suggesting otherwise.

Dr. Coleman said these studies address many of the methodological problems that plagued earlier research. This newer wave of research has strengths that more definitely pinpoint abortion as the culprit in many women’s mental health problems.

‘Definitely pinpoints abortion as the culprit’ is strong language.

Dr. Coleman noted that Bazelon also failed to mention a recent study by David Fergusson. He and his colleagues found strong associations between abortion and anxiety, depression, substance use, and suicide ideation. As a self-described “pro-choice” researcher, Fergusson’s results have sent shockwaves.

Fergusson’s work is a major oversight, given his findings.

Had Bazelon shared his results with her readers, she could not have so easily shrugged off the vast literature in highly respected academic journals, dismissing them as the workings of biased pro-life researchers with a political agenda.

But that wouldn’t have fit the pro-abortion agenda.

In addition to ignoring the studies that clearly indicate abortion poses serious risks to women, Bazelon uses the now familiar strategy of focusing on older, small scale, scientifically flawed studies.

Good that it’s now familiar, so maybe folks won’t be so fooled by it anymore.

Emily Bazelon is a smart woman and a strong abortion advocate. She knew what she was doing in her Times article by raising questions about the pro-life movement’s attention on women’s health and interests — she was trying to plant doubt. But by raising the question on the cover story, “Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?”, she may have just raised the consciousness of women suffering from it. They now know there’s a name for it, and resources with help and hope.