The Anti-Abortion Movement Was Always Built on Lies - Infanticide isn't wrong because The Queen of the Pro-Life Movement could be bought with money!

(Archive)

This week, it was revealed that Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. “Jane Roe,” admitted on her death bed that her late-career anti-abortion crusade was all a ruse funded by the Christian right. Laura Bassett takes a hard look at the house of cards the American anti-abortion movement was built upon.
BY LAURA BASSETT
May 20, 2020

In 1973, the plaintiff “Jane Roe” brought a case to the Supreme Court that would legalize abortion throughout America. So it was quite a surprise when, in the mid-1990s, Roe, whose real name was Norma McCorvey, suddenly emerged as an anti-abortion activist. She wrote a book about her change of heart, spoke at multiple annual March for Life rallies, and even filed a motion in 2003 to get the Supreme Court to re-decide her case. “I deeply regret the damage my original case caused women,” she said at the time. “I want the Supreme Court to examine the evidence and have a spirit of justice for women and children.”

As it turns out, that conversion was all a big lie, bought and paid for by the Christian right. In the new documentary AKA Jane Roe, McCorvey confesses on her death bed in 2017 that her change of heart was “all an act” that Evangelicals and anti-abortion groups had paid her nearly half a million dollars to perform. “I took their money and they took me out in front of the cameras and told me what to say,” McCorvey says bluntly.

On its face, this revelation is a bombshell. McCorvey’s about-face on abortion has been the subject of countless profiles and stories in many prestigious outlets, and anti-abortion activists love to bring it up any time the subject of Roe v. Wade arises. But the fact that conservatives were paying McCorvey all along to dupe America shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to abortion politics. Today’s whole “pro-life” movement was built on a lie, and they’ve had to lie in increasingly elaborate ways to stay relevant.

Before Roe, Republicans and white evangelicals generally supported abortion rights, much in the way libertarians do now, because to them it meant fewer mothers and children dependent on the government for support. Segregationists, meanwhile, had their own racist reasons. George Wallace, the longtime governor of Alabama, a Democrat who would later join the far-right American Independent Party, four-time presidential candidate, and outspoken segregationist who is often compared to Donald Trump, backed the legalization of abortion in the late 1960s because he claimed black women were “breeding children as a cash crop” and taking advantage of social welfare programs.

Around the same time, white evangelicals had been trying to avoid desegregation by sending their kids to private, tax-exempt, segregated religious schools. Then in 1971, the Supreme Court decided in Green v. Connally that racially discriminatory schools could no longer claim tax-exempt status. This infuriated and mobilized evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell, who owned one such school in Virginia, to get involved in politics. And it so happened that conservative political activist Paul Weyrich had been looking for ways to harness the political power of white evangelicals to grow the Republican Party. “Weyrich understood that racism—and let's call it what it is—was unlikely to be a galvanizing issue among grassroots evangelicals,” historian Randall Balmer explained to NPR on the subject.


So Weyrich tried to make pornography the wedge issue, he tried prayer in schools, he tried the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution which would have guaranteed equal legal rights to women, and none of those issues really rallied his troops. “I was trying to get people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” he later admitted at a conference in 1990. Then, six years after Roe v. Wade in 1973, Weyrich and Falwell noticed that conservatives were starting to get uncomfortable with the spike in legal abortions after the landmark case and with the sexual, social and economic freedom that reproductive rights had brought to women. So they went all in on making abortion a wedge issue that could marry the Christian right and the GOP. They founded the Moral Majority in 1979, a political organization that essentially used abortion to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term, and made reproductive rights the political rallying cry it is today.

Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 marked the beginning of an era in which Republican candidates relied on white evangelical enthusiasm to win, and he is considered by some to be the “father of the pro-life movement.” But even Reagan did not appear to hold genuine views on the issue; as governor of California in 1967, he had signed a bill into law that decriminalized abortion in the state, long before Roe v. Wade. Then as president, he said he regretted that move and suddenly opposed all abortions except to save the life of the mother. Under his leadership in the ‘80s, the anti-abortion movement radicalized—they ramped up protests at women’s health clinics, pouring glue into the locks and chaining themselves to the doors until they got arrested.

This renegade activism culminated in the first murder of an abortion provider in 1993—and that obviously wasn’t going to cut it as a lasting political strategy for a movement that called itself “pro-life” heading into the future. So they found increasingly deceptive, elaborate ways to manipulate people’s emotions about the procedure. In 1995, the National Right to Life Committee coined the term “partial-birth” abortions, and George W. Bush later signed a bill banning them, despite the fact that the term does not apply to any known medical procedure and is couched in language so vague that it could apply to any abortion procedure.

Meanwhile, Evangelicals were funding thousands of so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the country, which lure scared pregnant women in with deceptive billboards and internet listings and even staff-members in fake medical garb, and then outright lie to these women to steer them away from abortions and even birth control. One woman said she was told at a CPC in Virginia that condoms don’t work because they’re “naturally porous” and that birth control causes memory loss and cancer.

In the late 2000s, the movement put Planned Parenthood in its crosshairs. An anti-abortion group called Live Action started sending undercover actors with hidden cameras into the family planning provider’s clinics, pretending to be a pimp and prositute looking for an abortion or some other wild scheme, and then heavily editing the videos for YouTube to make it look like Planned Parenthood was committing a crime. The most infamous of these, in which the group claims to have caught Planned Parenthood trafficking fetal body parts after abortions, dropped in 2015, giving House Republicans an excuse to launch a $1.59 million investigation into the women’s health organization. The investigation turned up no evidence to indict Planned Parenthood, but the whole issue was inflammatory enough to propel abortion into being a top issue in the upcoming presidential election. Donald Trump won that election, of course, thanks largely to evangelical Christians overlooking his lack of morality and eyeing that empty Supreme Court seat.

As recently as February Trump and Republicans tried to push the false narrative that women were aborting their babies after birth. “It is murder if you take the baby home and kill the baby at home, it’s murder,” former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said at a conservative conference in February. Trump tweeted that Democrats are “so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth.” Obviously, murdering a baby would be infanticide, which is already illegal.

The clearest sign that your movement is built on a house of cards is having to repeatedly lie to your supporters to keep them around. In reality, roughly two-thirds of Americans support abortion rights and would like to see Roe upheld. The Republican leaders trying to push anti-abortion laws are swimming upstream, and they know it.

On the abortion rights side, the message has been consistent: A woman’s choice to carry a pregnancy or not should be between her and her doctor, and perhaps her family, if applicable. No tricks, no sting videos, no deception. Perhaps McCorvey said it best in the film, after decades of being a fake mouthpiece for a movement trying to strip women of their reproductive autonomy.

“If a young woman wants to have an abortion—fine,” she says. “That’s no skin off my ass. You know, that’s why they call it ‘choice.’ It’s your choice.”

Correction 5/21: An earlier version of this piece misstated that George Wallace was a Republican. We regret the error.
 
Like I actually 100% agree that people shouldn't be forced to fund things they find morally reprehensible. But look at everything taxes pay for, there's gonna be something in there most folks don't agree with. Anti-abortion people shouldn't get special treatment for their objections.

The reasoning for Catholics is the concept of "Social Sin." Essentially if a Catholic provides any material assistance in doing a sin, they have sinned.

Granted most everything the government does exists in a "grey" area but by their definition abortion is murder so they are helping commit a sin.

A way to view it is that when you give your money to the government it is no longer "your" money but people don't do things like that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dildo
In Freakanomics, the authors make the argument that it can be statistically proven banning abortion actually hurts society through creating a class of disaffected youth that will turn to violence, crime and self-destructive behaviors as they lack any support from a family or society at large, a consequence of constantly being fed the message (overtly or subconsciously) that society rejects them - their own Mother didn't want them, and then they likely languished in the orphanage/foster care system where they were seen as a burden at worst and a commodity to exploit at best.


Yeah I remember they argued a simular line in the book about the sudden drop in crime rates in the US 90's as a knock on affect, it's a tricky one to 'prove' because you're talking about hypthetical people who arnt here but It's not an extreme jump to consider the social ramifications of a massive surge in unwanted children.

And that's before you consider the massive crime wave in back alley abortions which will definatly occur.
 
Abortions should be banned, provided @Zero Day Defense and fellow pro lifers are willing to foot the bill themselves for their welfare.

If the parents dont want them and you want it,pay for it. Put your money where your mouth is, or do your pro life beliefs end at birth?

I'm just curious. I've never met a truly pro life activist; almost all of them I've come across are pro birth and are happy to leave everyone to rot after.
 
Abortions should be banned, provided @Zero Day Defense and fellow pro lifers are willing to foot the bill themselves for their welfare.

My taxes already go to welfare. There may as well be a general issue around welfare only sustaining rather than elevating in many cases, but it's not as though it's altogether unnecessary. I'm fine with sustaining the poor monetarily, but want to improve on the way the state helps the poor, if possible.

That is, I'm fine with that.

But you seem to misunderstand my position about abortion, since I actually disagree with the notion that abortion should be outlawed. That abortion is a trivial matter for many is, in my view, part of a greater cultural sickness that itself needs to be addressed. Banning abortion doesn't resolve that sickness, and probably wouldn't improve the greater culture's conception of abortion (to a "necessary evil", that's "safe, legal, and rare").

I'm just curious. I've never met a truly pro life activist; almost all of them I've come across are pro birth and are happy to leave everyone to rot after.

And I've never met the pro-life activist that's merely "pro-birth", but they probably exist.
 
Last edited:
No one wants these babies.

There’s the black pill of the abortion debate. Their mothers don’t want them, which is why they are standing at the abortion clinic.

Adopters don’t want them: babies who are not white or cognitively disabled (mainly due to FAS) are massively less likely to be placed for adoption before and after birth than your classic white male infant from a fresh teenage uterus.

The state in the form of CPS and foster care networks are overstretched everywhere and don’t have placements for potentially hundreds of thousands more babies.

No one wants them. So, in the absence of legal abortion, who the fuck is going to take them?

If your answer is some pro life posturing about “the responsibility of the mother”, get ready for a fuckload of Casey Anthony methods of abortion. In fact, pull the statistics: that shit is already happening. The person most likely to harm and kill any child under five is their birth mother. It’s just going to happen more, because women who wanted their child dead in utero are not magically gonna turn into Mary Poppins the minute the kid slithers down the birth canal. Even the most cherished and desperately wanted babies and infants are a massive PITA at times. The statistics already exist: children who were not wanted pregnancies are already at drastically greater risk of abuse and neglect.

If you think the abuse and neglect of hundreds of thousands of kids, and the deaths of thousands of them, is a price worth paying to “own feminists and libs”, you go on and argue for that. I don’t. I met those kids and removed them from those homes. Sometimes it is better not to have existed than to have known the kind of pain and cruelty those kids did. And I’m in a country where abortion is free, safe and legal.

Abortion is a harm reduction strategy. That’s all it is. You don’t need to like it or think it’s great to support its legal availability. I too think many people getting abortions are probably irresponsible and dumb too, yes. I don’t think being irresponsible, dumb, and absolutely not wanting this kid is a great starting point to be a mom.
 
No one wants these babies.

There’s the black pill of the abortion debate. Their mothers don’t want them, which is why they are standing at the abortion clinic.

Adopters don’t want them: babies who are not white or cognitively disabled (mainly due to FAS) are massively less likely to be placed for adoption before and after birth than your classic white male infant from a fresh teenage uterus.

The state in the form of CPS and foster care networks are overstretched everywhere and don’t have placements for potentially hundreds of thousands more babies.

No one wants them. So, in the absence of legal abortion, who the fuck is going to take them?

If your answer is some pro life posturing about “the responsibility of the mother”, get ready for a fuckload of Casey Anthony methods of abortion. In fact, pull the statistics: that shit is already happening. The person most likely to harm and kill any child under five is their birth mother. It’s just going to happen more, because women who wanted their child dead in utero are not magically gonna turn into Mary Poppins the minute the kid slithers down the birth canal. Even the most cherished and desperately wanted babies and infants are a massive PITA at times. The statistics already exist: children who were not wanted pregnancies are already at drastically greater risk of abuse and neglect.

If you think the abuse and neglect of hundreds of thousands of kids, and the deaths of thousands of them, is a price worth paying to “own feminists and libs”, you go on and argue for that. I don’t. I met those kids and removed them from those homes. Sometimes it is better not to have existed than to have known the kind of pain and cruelty those kids did. And I’m in a country where abortion is free, safe and legal.

Abortion is a harm reduction strategy. That’s all it is. You don’t need to like it or think it’s great to support its legal availability. I too think many people getting abortions are probably irresponsible and dumb too, yes. I don’t think being irresponsible, dumb, and absolutely not wanting this kid is a great starting point to be a mom.

I agree, but arguing with Pro-Lifers is like arguing with someone who is severely deluded. Impossible. You just have to wait until natural societal progress has weeded them out.

Pro-Lifers don't care about babies. They hate both women and babies. They just want to execute power over bodies that aren't theirs and over babies that aren't theirs either, all under the guise of compassion and benevolence of course.

It's funny anyways, as if women will stop aborting babies just cause the state says so. Women have been aborting babies since forever.
 
Pro-Lifers don't care about babies. They hate both women and babies.

The president and vice-president of the pro-life student org at my university were both women, and the student org itself was mostly women. They were consistently involved in initiatives to support single mother students. One of the members (and her twin sister) would have likely been aborted if they weren't put up for adoption. Piss off.

While you condemn misogyny, you perpetuate a canard that erases numerous females, and act as if abortion could never be something a woman could be coerced into by their father, their (male-dominated) community, their rapist, etc. You actively ignore the spectrum of opinion existing within the "pro-life" banner and prattle on about "natural societal progress" as though it's linear or uniformly good-- hell, you realize the Greeks and Romans didn't consider abortion anything more than infringing on parental rights when done behind the back of the husband until the Christians, right? How's that for "natural societal progress"?

@Fareal makes a sober and salient point, which will probably speak to someone that actually believes that abortion should be outlawed.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Grumpy
This is just my opinion and I'm not sure where I stand on the pro-life/pro-choice debate (mix of moral clashing with exercising freedom and increasing the realms of possibilities for mothers) but the way I see it, abortion, while it does end up extinguishing a life--because it is life at the end of the day, clump of cells or not, it's life starting at its building blocks of development--it lets a woman hold off on motherhood until she's actually ready for it.

A concerning chunk of single mothers who didn't/can't get abortions in Western society tend to be abusive. Very abusive. My mother is one of those women, to the point where she neglected my brother's autism coming in as a child and now he's a full blown REEEEtard. Her mother did the same. You could argue for adoption but mothers are territorial. They don't want their child being raised by somebody else. At least with abortions they could have did that and waited until they were truly ready for motherhood.

Mothers who don't want kids at that moment in their life could have the time to prepare themselves financially, mentally, and socially (strong social network of family and friends for the child) for their next child. If you're going to have one or more children, make it count. You only have so many eggs before you end up with CWCs. Give it a rich and stimulating environment with a good neighborhood, great friends, and excellent education, and hopefully break the chain of unnecessary abuse towards unwanted children.

Of course, this is just my viewpoint. Like I said I'm not well-versed in the stuff because I keep my uterus in check.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Mrs Paul
As a liberal I'm kind of thinking of this. Maybe we really should stop abortion. Get all those children born. With nobody willing to actually raise them, who better to do it than the government?

This could be a beautiful thing, a whole generation of properly trained children with no family ties to drag them down back into the muck of traditionalism.
 
As a liberal I'm kind of thinking of this. Maybe we really should stop abortion. Get all those children born. With nobody willing to actually raise them, who better to do it than the government?

This could be a beautiful thing, a whole generation of properly trained children with no family ties to drag them down back into the muck of traditionalism.
Not sure if you're joking or not, but even though traditionalism has its own problems, I'd rather be a housewife doped up on Valium making dinner for the husband and my 2.5 kids than seeing children be used as chemically castrated mouthpieces for a destructive ideology.
 
Abortions should be banned, provided @Zero Day Defense and fellow pro lifers are willing to foot the bill themselves for their welfare.

If the parents dont want them and you want it,pay for it. Put your money where your mouth is, or do your pro life beliefs end at birth?

I'm just curious. I've never met a truly pro life activist; almost all of them I've come across are pro birth and are happy to leave everyone to rot after.
Amazing false dichotomy. You live up to your name.
 
Amazing false dichotomy. You live up to your name.
Why is it? @Fareal went into far more detail about the core issue.

Nobody actually wants to look after these kids; Not me, not you, not their parents and neither the pro life abortion clinic protestors.

Yeah, it's awful that our society functions better if a whole subsection of society doesn't exist. Does that make not employing the one known fix that demonstrably works a good idea? No, that would be fucking stupid.

Do you honestly think that at this stage of human development we haven't tried alternatives? We've had orphanages that then went on to produce as Fareal describes a type of person totally antithetical to society. We've tried to make abortion a major offence on par with murder; this had no impact whatsoever on people seeking one and just lead to the creation of a new black market.

The more conservative evangelical/fundie inspired Christian Pro-Life movement are just as misguided about this issue as they were about witches and the sun orbiting the earth.

....Gee, their track record in politics and objective study has actually been really shitty as of late ain't it?
 
Not sure if you're joking or not, but even though traditionalism has its own problems, I'd rather be a housewife doped up on Valium making dinner for the husband and my 2.5 kids than seeing children be used as chemically castrated mouthpieces for a destructive ideology.

So, um...

...what're gonna do with the other half of that third kid?

Do you honestly think that at this stage of human development we haven't tried alternatives? We've had orphanages that then went on to produce as Fareal describes a type of person totally antithetical to society. We've tried to make abortion a major offence on par with murder; this had no impact whatsoever on people seeking one and just lead to the creation of a new black market.
The Democrats graduated from "safe, legal, and rare" to "my body, my choice". Orphanages have been a constant throughout human history; the complaint about orphanages is about their quality, but has there been a concerted effort to do more than just dump them in orphanages and throw money at the homes? We tell successive generations to go nuts as long as they use protection that A) has a substantial failure margin, and B) has a failure margin in the first place. There's substantial pressure on successive generations to consume (in general) and have unhealthy preoccupations with sex in a society inundated with it, but instead of saying to hold off until you can shoulder the potential responsibility of such a weighty action, we've enshrined sex as a mere rite of passage and have made it popular to denigrate another for not having had it well before you can own a house. When Redeemer and Destroyer says:

it lets a woman hold off on motherhood until she's actually ready for it.

all I can think is that we're currently cultivating people that can barely take care of themselves, let alone other people. People that may never be ready for motherhood or fatherhood are regularly doing the one act that creates new life, increasing the chances that they'll conceive and then have to make a decision to abort, arrange for an adoption, drop the child off at a group home, or attempt to be parents.

My issue with your statement is that you think "alternatives" are solely those things that the government enforces, when the greater issue is cultural.
 
My issue with your statement is that you think "alternatives" are solely those things that the government enforces, when the greater issue is cultural.
There is a cultural problem , I agree. But this isn't a problem unique to the modern era. All societies and eras of known human history have had abortions; there was even a drug popular in the Hellenic world made from a herb now extinct because people used it so frequently during some form of invasive abortion procedure. Even during the high renaissance; Rome, the seat of the most powerful pro-life group in the world, was famous for being home to some of Europe's best whorehouses and in turn also the place to go to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

People are going to have sex if they're ready for parenthood or not; moral and/or religious conservatives have been fighting the war and losing every single battle against it since time immemorial. Even in China during the One Child years; many families still had multiple children and the orphanages were overflowing with spares.

We can't stop them having sex; but we can minimise the potential damage.

The Democrats graduated from "safe, legal, and rare" to "my body, my choice". Orphanages have been a constant throughout human history; the complaint about orphanages is about their quality, but has there been a concerted effort to do more than just dump them in orphanages and throw money at the homes?

Lets consider this. Do you honestly see the American people willingly surrendering more tax dollars for someone elses children? And for something like this they will need to be taxed more.

Europeans might. Americans certainly won't. Abortions are cheaper than caring for a child until adulthood.

We tell successive generations to go nuts as long as they use protection that A) has a substantial failure margin, and B) has a failure margin in the first place.

Apparently even abstinence has a failure margin; see a certain 13 year old girl in Palestine 2000 years ago.

Jokes aside; all procedures have a failure margin. And as I emphasized before, people are going to have sex out of wedlock if we like it or not. If we tell them they're going to hell or not. If we tell them they're going to be taxed harder if they have more than one child or not.

We are not going to win the war on evolutionary biology.

There's substantial pressure on successive generations to consume (in general) and have unhealthy preoccupations with sex in a society inundated with it, but instead of saying to hold off until you can shoulder the potential responsibility of such a weighty action, we've enshrined sex as a mere rite of passage and have made it popular to denigrate another for not having had it well before you can own a house. When Redeemer and Destroyer says:



all I can think is that we're currently cultivating people that can barely take care of themselves, let alone other people. People that may never be ready for motherhood or fatherhood are regularly doing the one act that creates new life, increasing the chances that they'll conceive and then have to make a decision to abort, arrange for an adoption, drop the child off at a group home, or attempt to be parents.

I agree that Redeemer and Destroyer's response isn't helpful, and that people are consumed with trivialities. But how do we tackle this, perhaps we should be adapting to biology rather than trying to cudgel biology into a hole it demonstrably does not fit in.

Whatever we do with culture; people will still prioritize sex (it's a core survival instinct after all). Even after the Christian whitewashing of the Greek/Roman literary canon; we've still found a lot of their popular media such as plays and productions like the Lysistrata, Clouds, Satyricon etc that were the equivalent of popular mass media in the major urban centres were loaded with sex, smut and even fart jokes.

Human impulses have not changed. I think it's just a bit pointless to expect us to be able to change them now.
 
There is a cultural problem , I agree. But this isn't a problem unique to the modern era. All societies and eras of known human history have had abortions; there was even a drug popular in the Hellenic world made from a herb now extinct because people used it so frequently during some form of invasive abortion procedure. Even during the high renaissance; Rome, the seat of the most powerful pro-life group in the world, was famous for being home to some of Europe's best whorehouses and in turn also the place to go to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy.

My issue is abortion at its core, yes, but please recognize that-- as I've stated multiple times-- I recognize it as a necessary evil for exceptional circumstances. At no point do I suggest that we should outlaw abortion, or that we should make it by any means that the rate of abortion go to 0%. Tragically, that's not realistic, if not only because there are cases where continued pregnancy can kill the mother. Telling me that abortion has existed from time immemorial doesn't mean much from my point of view, and telling me that even Christian Rome had whorehouses and abortion practitioners doesn't do much for my argument (in part) that the circumstances in which we encourage abortion should be dramatically narrowed down (and accordingly, the circumstances for caring for single/otherwise disadvantaged mothers and even orphans be given attention).

We can't stop them having sex; but we can minimise the potential damage.
Lets consider this. Do you honestly see the American people willingly surrendering more tax dollars for someone elses children? And for something like this they will need to be taxed more.


Of course you can't stop people from having sex, but you can encourage people to think about the act of having sex as a big deal that can easily produce children instead of a mutual masturbation scheme on the level of playing video games with each other (with pregnancy being handled on a similar level as an STD). If you can manage that, and lower the incidence of unwanted/unexpected pregnancy (by however much that may be), then you (ideally) have less orphaned children to worry about in the first place.

Apparently even abstinence has a failure margin; see a certain 13 year old girl in Palestine 2000 years ago.

Hardy har. She was told that was going to happen, and she said OK to it.

...also, I don't think she was 13, but that's not really here nor there.

Jokes aside; all procedures have a failure margin. And as I emphasized before, people are going to have sex out of wedlock if we like it or not. If we tell them they're going to hell or not. If we tell them they're going to be taxed harder if they have more than one child or not.

We are not going to win the war on evolutionary biology.

Is that because we stopped evolving?

Again, the idea isn't to most certainly end the issue, but to mitigate the issue with the ideal of ending the issue without freely killing children in utero when we're not even trying to save a life. If we can manage to achieve the ideal, great. If not, then we're at least trying and we've handled the concept of abortion with the weight it deserves instead of unscientifically crowing about the child being a mere "clump of cells" (or even worse, likening it to a tumor) to cope.

But how do we tackle this, perhaps we should be adapting to biology rather than trying to cudgel biology into a hole it demonstrably does not fit in.

What is society if not cudgeling biology to a manageable state?
 
Something we don‘t do - and I understand in the US this isn’t available for free, which frankly would be more cost effective at a population level than not doing it - is strongly encourage the use and fitting of long term reversible ‘fit and forget’ contraceptives.

Nexplanon and Mirena have really, really low failure rates. They work even if you are drunk, ill, stupid, (god forbid) raped, and they are extremely difficult for an abusive partner to tamper with it. You make one appointment every few years for replacement, and bang, you are done.

Most of the failure rate of the oral combined pill and condoms is user error. I can report that a properly fitted Nexplanon or Mirena does not allow for user error. Mirena is also low dose, so even as a person who can’t tolerate the OCP, I tolerate the Mirena just fine.

Our go-to contraceptive options are some of the least effective we have. That’s something that sex education can and should push back on. It is in all circumstances better to have a Mirena than an abortion. There are no suspicious packets for unsupportive parents or partners to find, and all you have to do maintenance wise is have a wee feel for the threads now and then.

Is this a harm reduction strategy? Yes. Is it an effective harm reduction strategy? Yes.

I do not personally know anyone who thinks abortion is a better choice than effective contraception. It’s well past time to examine as a society our poor and risky contraceptive choices.
 
Back