Abortion as “Growth Experience”
The Law Giveth: Legal Aspects of the Abortion Controversy
By Barbara Milbauer in collaboration with Bert N. Obrentz
Review Author: Dave Andrusko
Although the Right to Life movement has nibbled away around the edges, the virtually unfettered right to abortion allegedly found lurking in the “penumbra” of various amendments to the Constitution is still completely intact. All attempts even partially to hedge that liberty have been dashed.
The single meaningful exception to an otherwise unbroken string of pro-abortion Supreme Court victories is a series of decisions in 1977 and 1980 that affirmed the constitutionality of laws denying Medicaid funding for most abortions. Even in this instance the difference was more symbolic than substantive: estimates are that 90 to 95 percent of the women who would have used federal Medicaid dollars had they been available simply switched to state money or found private sources.
Yet to Barbara Milbauer, the relatively minor setback in the Beal, Maher, Poelker, and McRae cases is nothing short of catastrophic. Indeed, we’re informed that the Court’s decisions on Medicaid funding “signaled the end of the great dream of reproductive freedom.”
The casual reader, not familiar with the pro-abortion penchant for apocalyptic language, might wonder, “What is going on?” What is it about a decision that affects a minuscule fraction of the women seeking abortions that drives Milbauer to portray those who oppose abortion — or even federal funding of abortion — as closet storm troopers, spiritual descendants of Anthony Comstock, and, all in all, thoroughly reprehensible people bent on harrying poor women into early graves?
How can such a minor obstacle as the inability of every single low-income woman to have her abortion paid for by Medicaid possibly be blown up to “signal the end of the great dream of reproductive freedom”?
The answer is most revealing. To the Milbauers of this world, women’s right to abort is not merely important, not even just vital. No, the right to abortion has taken on ontological overtones. Quoting the late Judge John F. Dooling, Milbauer tells us that for women abortion is “nearly allied to their right to be.”
Nearly allied to their right to be! The assumptions about women contained in that remarkable sentence reveal something about abortion proponents that is even more important than the legal analysis which makes up the bulk of this book.
As is the case with almost all abortion ideologues, Milbauer refuses to address the core question: Is the unborn child a fellow member of the human family, one to whom we, as responsible adults, owe love, life, and justice? Instead, Milbauer is determined to portray abortion as a growth experience for women whose development has been stymied by male oppression. This is no small order; it requires her to play skillfully the pro-abortion people’s favorite parlor game: divorcing words from their meaning.
Take the idea of sacrifice. Not so long ago, almost everyone would have admired a woman who, faced with an unplanned pregnancy, nonetheless spared the life of her child. If asked, people would have praised her willingness to sacrifice an important but lesser value — her own immediate advantage — for a greater value — the child’s life.
Milbauer turns this on its head. Relying on the work of Carol Gilligan, Milbauer argues that women’s emotional and intellectual growth has been stunted because, traditionally, they have not been allowed to take control of their lives. Thus, our hypothetical example of sacrifice is, in reality, an example of a contemptible self-denial. Lo and behold, the decision not to kill a defenseless unborn child is really “the avoidance of taking real responsibility for making a choice.” Pulverize a 20 gram unborn baby and be a new woman! Needless to say, giving the child up for adoption is unacceptably traumatic to the woman, never mind that the child would live.
To anyone who takes the time to think through what feminists like Milbauer are saying, the irony is obvious: their opinion of women is decidedly unflattering. As Feminist for Life Rosemary Bottcher has noted, many women who claim to be feminists depict women as stupid, gullible, vulnerable, and incompetent.
Such “feminists” believe, Bottcher writes, that
women have the right to be frivolous and self-indulgent. They cannot be asked to endure any hardship or even inconvenience for the sake of [providing] joy for a childless couple or life for a blameless child. Women cannot be expected to conform to a standard of minimal decency, much less one of selflessness.
The Law Giveth will be welcomed by those ill at ease with complexity. The book is replete with buzz words which George Orwell once said had the advantage of both doing people’s thinking for them and “partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.” It is tailor-made for those unwilling or unable to grasp the difference between sacrifice and selfishness, “potential life” and life with potential, and life and death.
Enjoyed reading this?
READ MORE! REGISTER TODAYSUBSCRIBE
You May Also Enjoy
As we bury our parents and watch our circle of family diminish, will we finally humble ourselves before God and ask forgiveness for rejecting the gifts He had to give us?
Much popular Catholic literature on NFP is utilitarian, claiming that obeying Church teaching results in a happier, more exciting bedroom experience.
A great irony of history is that in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court announced its adherence to a prescientific concept of fetal life.