The Real Goal of the New Pro-Life Movement: A Response to Austin Ruse
By Rebecca Bratten Weiss and Matthew Tyson
Austin Ruse has written an article in which he shares some strange impressions about the purpose of the New Pro Life Movement:
“But, as I see it, the New Pro-Live Movement is not really interested in establishing a new pro-life movement. Read their overheated rhetoric and you will see their real interest is in destroying the pro-life movement that has brought us closer and closer to ending abortion in America.”
Ruse rests his odd conclusion on two basic assumptions: first, that the steady decline in abortion rates is due wholly to the tactics of the mainstream pro-life movement; secondly, that opposition to abortion inevitably resides with a Republican party-line.
To the first of these, let me say: yes, the pro-life movement has done much great work. Since a number of us in the NPLM have been involved in pro-life work our entire adult lives, we know this to be true. But we also know that much of the decline of the abortion rate is due to social causes as well: greater access to health care; a removal of the stigma on single mothers; more reliable social safety nets.
Our option to focus on eliminating demand for abortion arises out of our rejection of the culture-war paradigm, and our belief that simply ending abortion will not end injustice. The majority of abortions happen due to economic distress. And abortion is not pleasant, not pretty. It’s not something women want. Most pro-choice advocates recognize this, also. So when we see poor working women, many of whom have children already, choosing this very unpleasant and often traumatizing procedure, we can’t assume that they’re driven by hedonism or hatred of babies. We need to ask: what is driving her to make this choice? And how can we eliminate these pressures of injustice?
Yes, we have crisis pregnancy centers. I have used several myself, in my more desperate times. I have donated to them, in my more prosperous times. What our critics don’t seem to understand, though, is that when we say “we need more”, this is not a criticism of the centers that exist. It is not ignorance of the centers, or of their good work. But here’s the deal: to oppose the injustices that drive women to abortion, we DO need more: we need comprehensive health care; we need guaranteed parental leave; we need financial assistance for those in most dire financial straits; we need housing for the homeless and rehab for the addicted.
And yes, we do take issue with those who vote against abortion, but then vote against government policies that would provide these supports to women and families. We think that “social justice” and “pro-life” can not be separated from each other. And indeed, in earlier times, being a pro-life Catholic also meant being a social-justice Catholic. This recent divide is artificial, and harmful. Thus, we dispute Ruse’s second point: that “[o]ne must be pro-abortion in the Democrat Party. Pro-lifers have no home there even if they are “better” on the minimum wage.”
I would argue that a genuine pro-lifer has no home in either party, but can certainly work for a pro-life end in any party.
While we applaud the good work of pro-life workers in the trenches, we are very critical of where movement leadership has headed. Consideration of abortion outside a consistent life ethic leads to the absurdity of granting the label “pro-life” to political leaders who give lip service to opposing abortion, while at the same time advocating unjust war, torture, capital punishment, and deportation of refugees. We think that being truly pro-life means not just saying “no abortions!” — but creating social frameworks in which choosing life is a truly realistic option. Under Republican leadership, it is very unlikely that abortion will become illegal, and very likely that policies would be enacted that actually lead to an increase of abortion rates. Moreover, making abortion illegal will not necessarily reduce abortion rates significantly, unless we also remove the causes that drive women to choose abortion. Eliminate these — and many of the arguments against making it illegal will disappear.
The one-issue approach has led to absurdities such as the adulation of Trump as a pro-life hero, and to desecrations such as Fr. Pavone’s stunt with a naked human corpse. It has also alienated a great deal of pro-lifers who do not fit into the narrow niche that the current movement has carved for itself.
In fact, Ruse is far from the first person to throw criticism at alternative and “whole-life” organizations. Take Democrats for Life for example. This is an organization that has fought tirelessly to spread a pro-life ethos throughout the Democratic Party. They’ve even broken with the party to oppose Planned Parenthood and divert federal funds to community health centers. Yet, because DFLA is governed by a consistent life ethic and isn’t solely an anti-abortion organization, it’s been characterized as a smoke screen, a liberal cover operation, and a poison pill to the Pro-Life Movement.
This does incredible damage to the pro-life cause, and while we seek to find common ground with anyone genuinely dedicated to protection of life and to social justice, we can not countenance certain personal or political acts as representing a genuine pro-life ethos.
That’s why we founded the New Pro Life Movement: not to “destroy” anyone, but to distance ourselves from a trend in which the pro-life cause has been appropriated by political leaders who do not care about life, or by zealots who have reduced activism to performance art. We want to create a more inclusive movement that believes protection of the unborn and social justice are not separate issues, that seeks to eliminate the social ills that drive women to abort in the first place, and that is dedicated to protecting, supporting, and sustaining all life from conception to natural death.
