On January 22nd, 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down their decision in the case of Roe vs. Wade. Thirty-five years later, we’re down to about 1.2 million abortions in the US per year (down from 1.5 million at the high point) and abortion is legal in all 50 states for almost any reason. This leaves me with but one conclusion: the pro-life movement has been a complete and utter failure.
After 35 years of voting for “pro-life” candidates (a code word often meaning “Republican”), the political arm of the pro-life movement has little to show for their efforts beside parental notification laws in 34 states and a partial birth abortion ban that Justice Kennedy practically begged someone to challenge. All, in all, the pro-life movement has had marginally more success than American Medical Marijuana Association despite the “support” over the years of many prominent politicians. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me for 35 years running, and I’m a pro-life activist.
To the credit of the pro-life movement, more and more people are realizing that doing the same thing over and over again will not yield different results. Germain Grisez admitted as much a few years back, but he never had the audience to make enough of a difference. On January 20th, in a move guaranteed to generate a firestorm of letters from irate EWTN fans, Fr. Benedict Groeschel invited a man to his show by the name of Msgr. Phillip Reilly, who was willing to speak the truth and unmask the pro-life movement’s work for what it is: a failure. Msgr. Reilly realized this a few years back and decided to try a radically different approach: no more shouting and yelling, no more making young mothers feel like they were evil incarnate because they were contemplating abortion. Msgr. Reilly founded the Helpers of God’s Precious Infants. The weapons he chose were not sound bites, placards or the ballot box, but rather prayer and love… for the baby, the doctor and most especially, the mother, regardless of what choice she made inside the clinic. The approach is not particularly new — prayer & sidewalk counseling has been around for a long time — but his willingness propose it as a model opposed to the traditional shout and vote approach was quite impressive.
Whether folks will listen to Msgr. Reilly or not is anyone’s guess. But perhaps come January 22nd, next year, there will be be a little less failure… and a little more hope thanks to Msgr. Reilly. There are a lot of moms out there who could use it.
The 12 Angry Men Blog 
January 22, 2008 at 9:22 am
I am definitly a pro-lifer but have always chosen the way of love. It is not often that you can guilt people into a real relationship with Christ so why try.
January 22, 2008 at 10:22 am
You, sir, get the point.
January 22, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Far be it from me to disagree either with the superiority of Msgr. Reilly’s approach or the frequent political follies of the pro-life movement. And, yes, the pro-life movement has had 35 years of failure, so far.
But the movement to outlaw the slave trade in Britain had some 25 years of failure before the trade was outlawed in 1807. And the anti-slavery movement in general experienced 50 years of failure in Britain, and over 80 years in the southern United States.
And during those long periods there were times where it seemed society was marching steadily backwards. So, while I encourage Msgr. Reilly in his ministry, I think a place remains for those gadflies who—like William Wilberforce in England—continue to argue that law should not be used to strip certain persons of their humanity for the convenience of others.
January 22, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Seeing a decrease in the number of abortions in the light of no other initiatives other than abuse pregnant women and teach kids to say no rather than educate them properly is amazing.
Add the fact that the population has grown by a fair bit in the US over the last 25 years and any decline in abortion rates has to be applauded and treated as positive.
In fact if I hadn’t seen the figures I would have called anybody who expected a reduction in abortions naive.
Abuse and ignorance are not the ways to alter the situation.
Keep it legal, educate and support those in society then it will drop even further. The alternative will drive it underground with the inherent risks and fail to take into account the realities of being a person.
January 23, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Yeah, the aggregate numbers, especially the drop in the 90s, is interesting. As a rate adjusted for the much larger US population now, that’s a remarkable change, about a 40% reduction adjusted for population.
I don’t know what it all means, like all sorts of social things, there are probably a confluence of reasons and no one can point to a unique cause.
January 23, 2008 at 10:06 pm
A much better way to speed the decline of this industry would be for the Congress to remove abortion issues from the purview of the SCOTUS and federal courts. This way, state laws would again carry the day; incremental change would be magnified as anti-abortion majorities in the states that have them radically reduce the practice overall.
Divide, and conquer. The reason (IMO) that the pro-life movement doesn’t get results is that it’s having to petition the behemoth of the federal gov’t to get anything done; neither the Dems nor the GOPers want to lose that political football. (Which, incidentally, is also a good reason why my solution will prolly not fly.)
It’s interesting to note that, immediately after Roe, the absolute number of accidental pregnancies increased (apparently because the abortion option had been made available, removing the concersn of possible unwanted pregnancies).
January 24, 2008 at 11:36 am
Brian says: ###A much better way to speed the decline of this industry would be for the Congress to remove abortion issues from the purview of the SCOTUS and federal courts. This way, state laws would again carry the day; incremental change would be magnified as anti-abortion majorities in the states that have them radically reduce the practice overall.###
While I agree with the federalism approach to this question (albeit for different reasons), you should note that the change might not be as large as you suppose. Many of the states where there are substantial majorities contra are *already* de facto abolished, or near enough as to make little or no nevermind.
The now unembargoed Atlantic has some interesting discussion of the political football aspect in the nice article The Day After Roe by Jeffrey Rosen:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/roe
Personally I think this question is prima facie evidence for the view that disputable social questions are usually best left to the states, though there are, of course, giant examples to the contrary. This was the view of Judge Henry Friendly, one of the best judges (along with the likes of Learned Hand and Richard Posner) never to be on the SCOTUS:
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15636375_ITM
(He was probably too smart for the court; Nixon appointed nitwits like Warren Burger instead.)
In short, Judge Friendly anticipated the vast majority of political problems caused by Roe v. Wade subsequently.
Other tidbits:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/health/06abor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Hmm, there was another long article I read a while back but can’t find. Oh well.
January 24, 2008 at 11:38 am
One other point. Tim Harford in his new book (Logic of Life) talks about the effect that parental notification laws (and HIV) have on oral sex rates. States with parental notification of abortion laws had increased rates of oral sex.
Harford’s new book is really good, as is his previous one, The Undercover Economist.
http://www.timharford.com
January 25, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Leaving it to the states is probably not the answer either. The arguments over science standards in education is illustrative that democracy is not always the best way when discussing facts.
I mean if we were all to vote that the sun will not rise tomorrow and elect a governor who ran on that ticket it might not change the fact that the sun would rise tomorrow.(David Hume excepted)
I would throw issues concerning minorities into that mix of issues probably not best served by a straight up and down vote. Women wanting an abortion are a minority and their requirements should be viewed as a federal and constitutional matter.
The other point to consider is that you would only be transferring the issue to states that allowed the procedure from those that outlawed it. I believe that the US transportation system is still usable.
I guess the states that outlawed it could always follow the lead proposed in Atwood’s the Handmaiden’s Daughter.
Education is still the only way to solve this issue and that includes access to contraception as well as information. Just say No really didn’t work for drugs, so why on earth should we expect it to work with regard to sex. Most of us don’t have to find a pusher and their supply chain to have sex.
January 29, 2008 at 11:58 pm
My experience of March for Life a few years back left a somewhat sour aftertaste, as the rally had such a hokey political feel to it that it made it almost impossible to find any logical arguments that supported the cause. The women they paraded around at the front of the march and on stage were so blatantly used that you almost felt bad for them being up there since they thought they had some important role beyond just a political football tee. And then trotting out a pre-recorded message from Double-Ya (who still had some political cache at the time) had the feel of trying to say the movement had the ear of those in power, while the tone and presentation of the message felt like it was just pandering to the electorate.
It seems as though Msgr. Reilly is right, and that a true conversatio morum in society will have to take place on a much more intimate level than by merely seeing a bunch of people along the National Mall.