Letters to the Editor

Responding to the pro-abortion claim that pro-lifers don't "trust women." They believe that an end to abortion would "wage war" against women.

Letter Number: 49

Some confused politicians support legal abortion and explain, "Although I'm personally opposed to abortion, we must trust the women of this nation to make their own morally correct choices."

This is a cowardly attempt to skirt the issue and placate both sides. Of course, it only placates the pro-abortion side, because politicians who say this go along with the abortion agenda nearly 100 percent of the time. Having a pro-life voting record will give you a slight edge at the polls, but this slight edge can't help you much if your campaign lacks funds. And it's the rich white men who support abortion that have deep pockets. When you hear a politician say he's personally opposed to abortion but still wants it to be legal, what you have is someone who wants to keep the pro-abortion money while neutralizing his opponent's pro-life edge at the polls.

This is a dishonest, sneaky, underhanded trick. And if pro-abortion people were interested in honesty and virtue, they'd stop giving their money to candidates like these. But they won't. Their whole movement survives by deceit. But maybe at the next election, ordinary voters will let such conniving candidates know that we don't approve of such chicanery.

Letter Number: 50

Some legislators who support legal abortion explain, "Although I'm troubled about abortion, we must trust the women of this nation to make their own morally correct choices."

The combination "troubled about abortion...trust the women of this nation" is something you usually hear from slick politicians. And to put it bluntly, it's pure garbage! To begin with, the only people in America who are really troubled about abortion are the ones who are busy trying to stop it. So when someone says he's troubled about abortion while running for office as a pro-abortion candidate, he is quite simply lying through his teeth. If it really is a morally correct decision, then there's no reason to be troubled, and if there's reason to be troubled, then it isn't a morally correct decision. You can't have it both ways.

Letter Number: 51

Some legislators support legal abortion and explain, "We must trust the women of this state to make their own morally correct choices."

If they really mean this, they should support legislation exempting women from all laws.

If we are going to trust women to make morally correct choices about abortion, why not trust them to make morally correct choices about everything?

Let each woman make her own moral choice about whether to stop at red lights. Let each woman make her own moral choice about whether to embezzle money from her employer. Let each woman make her own moral choice about writing bad checks.

When you step away from abortion, you can see how silly this whole idea is. Obviously, most women can be trusted to make morally correct choices about most things. They will stop at red lights, refrain from stealing, only write checks they have money to cover. The reason we need laws is that some people--women as well as men--cannot be trusted.

Obviously, when it comes to abortion, some women cannot be trusted. If they could be trusted, they wouldn't be defending a wrong as if it were a right.

Letter Number: 52

Today I saw a strange bumper sticker. It read, "If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"

Who says we can't trust her with a choice? We trust her to choose her career and her friends. We trust her to choose what car to drive, where to live, what to eat. She makes thousands of choices every day, big and small.

Of course, her bumper sticker refers to a specific choice. She wants to be free to choose abortion.

The very fact that she wants this choice shows that she can't be trusted with a child. Women who can be trusted to care for their own children don't fight for the right to kill them. It is because of women who want abortion that there must be laws against it. If people could always be trusted, there would be no laws at all.

This woman announces to all passing drivers that she can't be trusted with an unborn child. She also raises a legitimate question: can she then be trusted with one after it is born? Perhaps. After all, she would have to kill the born child with her own hands, and few women are that cold. But even if she can't be trusted with the born child, there are plenty of trustworthy families waiting to adopt him or her.

Just because she can't be trusted with a child, she wants our okay to kill it. That seems pretty shabby to me.

Letter Number: 53

The flier for the upcoming pro-abortion march featured a number of slogans, the stupidest of which was, "Trust Women."

A Woman's Book of Choices, among other pro-choice writings, coaches women on how to report fake rapes, feign mental illness, threaten suicide, and pull other stunts to get an abortion.

Pro-choicers encourage women to lie to everyone. Teens are to lie to their parents, wives to their husbands. According to pro-choicers, it is perfectly okay to lie to your insurance company, to the police, to hospital administrators. Women are to file reports on rapes that never took place, to falsify medical records claiming miscarriages that never happened, to tell their insurance companies that they were having diagnostic tests rather than an abortion.

Pro-choicers encourage every kind of fraud and deception under the sun. There is no one they won't lie to or swindle to get what they want. They then want us to trust women? I wouldn't trust a pro-choice woman to tell me if it was raining or not.

Letter Number: 54

Some politicians account for their pro-abortion stand with, "Although I'm personally troubled about abortion, I trust women to make their own decisions."

What would we think of a politician who said, "Although I'm personally troubled about incest, I trust men to make their own decisions?"

Imagine a politician doing about incest what some have done about abortion. Imagine him advocating legalized incest in government-sponsored incest centers. Imagine him spending your tax money on "counselors" to help the incest-minded justify their actions before raping their stepdaughters. Would you believe he was at all troubled by incest?

That is what some politicians have done for abortion. They have voted against any restrictions. They have voted in favor of government funding of abortions. They have supported abortion counseling with your tax dollars.

How troubled by abortion could they possibly be?

Maybe they are troubled because they don't think there are enough abortions. Because if abortions really troubled them, they'd be working to stop abortions, not promote them.

Letter Number: 55

A congressional candidate recently said, "Although I'm personally troubled about abortion, I trust women to make their own decisions."

Of course, he was trying to imply that abortion opponents don't trust women.

Obviously he's never been to a pro-life event. Most attendees are women. And if you look at the speakers' platform at a typical March for Life, you'd see Judie Brown, Wanda Franz, Rachel MacNair, Nellie Gray, Beverly LaHaye, Olivia Gans, Helen Alvarez, and other pro-life leaders.

Now, if we don't trust women, why are they leading our biggest and most influential organizations? Why are they running our local pro-life offices, writing our newsletters, organizing our conventions?

Why do we take so many pregnant women into our homes? Let them use us as references so they can get apartments, loans, or jobs?

It's the pro-choicers who don't trust women. They think only the elite few can be adequate mothers. If a woman is poor, uneducated, or black, they assume she will be such a terrible mother that her children are better off dead. That doesn't sound like trust to me.

Obviously, this candidate's stand on abortion has nothing to do with trusting women. It has to do with trusting abortionists to keep those campaign contributions coming in.

Letter Number: 56

A U.S. lawmaker recently said, "Although I'm personally troubled about abortion, I trust women to make their own decisions."

What he's really trying to imply is that pro-lifers don't trust women. The trouble is, he can't say it straight out or people would see how phony that is.

The pro-life movement is a grassroots movement whose members and leaders are mostly women. To imply that this predominately female movement considers women too stupid or untrustworthy to make their own decisions would be silly if it wasn't so insulting.

This politician owes not just pro-life women, but all women, an apology. It is disgraceful to say that millions of women would organize for no other purpose than to squash other women. The pro-life movement is based on the premise that some women will do wrong if they're scared or desperate enough. The pro-choice movement is based on the premise that all women are equally stupid and shiftless.

Which side really doesn't trust women?

Letter Number: 57

I recently heard a politician say that although he is personally troubled about abortion, he trusts women to make their own decisions. This seems to be a favorite position of so many of our more "enlightened" male politicians.

Oddly, I haven't seen these guys argue in favor of legalized prostitution. I haven't heard them say that women should be exempt from laws about drugs because they can be trusted. Obviously, their abortion stand has nothing to do with "trusting women" since they seem to have no problem with laws limiting how many drugs women do and whether they have sex for money. Apparently, "trust" only becomes an issue when it comes to abortion.

I personally don't know what it is about abortion that these guys like so much. Perhaps it gains them campaign contributions or political power. Or is it possible that they are womanizers who like being able to weasel out of paternity suits by whisking their girlfriends off to the nearest--and most discrete--abortionist? With what we know about the personal lives of so many of our political leaders (Bill Clinton leaps to mind), this is not as far-fetched an idea as it might seem.

In any event, these guys can't seriously be troubled by abortion or they'd be trying to stop it.

Letter Number: 58

A candidate for the state legislature stated in his campaign speech, "I'm troubled about abortion, but I trust women to make their own decisions."

What he is trying to imply is that he trusts women, but that pro-lifers don't.

Suggesting that pro-lifers somehow don't trust women is absurd, because most of us are women. It isn't women pro-lifers don't trust--it's abortionists. We know that they entice women to abort with deceptive "counseling" that intentionally makes it seem like abortion is their only "choice." They lie about the risks, lie about alternatives, and tell women that their unborn babies are just "globs of tissue." Again and again they're caught letting unqualified people perform medical procedures. They're caught falsifying documents. They are experts on insurance fraud and tax evasion. They've even been caught trying to ditch the body after a woman died! Here are people you literally can't trust to take a pulse or mop the floor, and this candidate tries to protect them with a bunch of propaganda about trusting women.

If he is so troubled about abortion, he ought to do something to make abortionists clean up their acts.

Letter Number: 59

A political candidate recently stated in his campaign speech, "I'm troubled about abortion, but I trust women to make their own decisions."

This candidate implies that he trusts women, but that pro-lifers don't.

Actually, it is pro-choicers who don't trust women. They say women are too weak and pathetic to handle pregnancy and motherhood--that women can't be trusted to take care of their own bodies and their children. It is pro-aborts--not pro-lifers--who insist that women will self-abort with knitting needles, or abuse and neglect their children so horribly that the children would be better off dead. Since this guy is always in the company of women who applaud chopping up live babies, it isn't surprising that he doesn't trust women.

The truth is, many women are trustworthy. They oppose abortion. They love their children. It is because of the untrustworthy ones that we need laws against abortion. After all, laws aren't written to keep honest, decent citizens in line. They're written to control dishonest, untrustworthy people.

Letter Number: 60

Pro-abortion activists who oppose the proposed abortion law are asking legislators to "trust women."

The abortion law would require that abortion mills give women information about risks and alternatives. It also requires that if a woman asks for information about the fetus, she must be provided with accurate answers.

Illinois tried to pass regulatory laws in the wake of the Chicago Sun-Times investigation that found unsanitary and dangerous practices had killed at least 12 women. They also found "counselors" being threatened with losing their jobs for giving women too much information, on the grounds that too much information would lose the sale.

National Abortion Federation member Richard Ragsdale was among the abortionists who challenged these regulations. In the first Supreme Court case in history to settle out-of-court, many provisions--including the informed consent clause--were stricken from the regulations.

In other words, thanks to the abortion industry stepping in, women in Illinois are being handed over to compulsive liars for their information about abortion. This isn't trusting women, it's trusting abortionists. And after this particular gang of abortionists killed 12 women, you'd think we'd have learned better than to trust them.

Letter Number: 61

The theme of yesterday's rally against the proposed abortion law was "Trust women."

The abortion law would require that abortion mills give women information about risks and alternatives. It also requires that if a woman asks for information about the fetus, she must be provided with accurate answers.

One abortion clinic counselor who was questioned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey demonstrated the need for such a law. When asked what a woman would be told in response to a question about the physical development of an eight-week fetus, the employee said, "Well, there are layers of counseling here and if a woman asked that question, she would be referred on to the next counselor."

When asked how the next counselor would answer the woman's question, the answer was, "Actually, the counselor would help her explore the reason why she is asking that question in the first place."

In other words, they don't trust her to ask for the information she wants.

The very fact that abortionists resist such a law is proof that they are the ones who don't trust women. They want women to be kept in the dark so that the all-wise abortion counselors can make the decisions for them. And of course, the decision will always be for abortion.

If they let women choose for themselves, based on complete and accurate information, they might lose a sale.

Letter Number: 330

An abortion advocate's reaction to the recent Supreme Court abortion decision is predictable, and of course inflammatory and inaccurate. She said it "opens the country up to a full-scale war against women."

She ignores the fact that women have been shown, in poll after poll, to be less supportive of unfettered abortion than men. As noted pro-choice writer Daniel Callahan observed, "The polls would suggest that abortion is as much a war among women as against women."

There is, in the feminist movement, a contingent that would consider the legality of abortion to be a war against women. Feminists for Life agrees with the woman who drafted the original Equal Rights Amendment, Alice Paul. She called abortion "the ultimate exploitation of women." These feminists argue that men would never tolerate abortion if it was something they felt forced to submit to. They point out that women can be maimed, left comatose, or even killed by abortion, while men suffer no risks at all.

Maybe we should look at the court's decision not as a declaration of war against women, but as a call for a cease-fire in the real war against women--institutionalized, legalized abortion.

Letter 62

Recently, I heard someone say that stopping abortion "will not happen through changing laws but from changing hearts."

Isn't that special? This is the just the standard diversionary position of someone who knows that abortion is evil but lacks the courage to take a stand, has a financial or political interest in abortion, or is trying to appease both sides.

The reality is, no one disagrees that the answer to all of humanity's problems lies in changing hearts. But, practically speaking, what would our crime rate look like if we just waited around for that to happen? For example, is this woman willing to erase laws outlawing rape from the books? Would she like to go into a dark alley late at night and try to change a rapist's heart? Or what if her neighbor was having sex with his six-year-old daughter. Would she alert the authorities, or just hope that this guy would one day have a change of heart?

Martin Luther King once pointed out that laws are not intended to change hearts but to control the heartless. He was right. And in modern society, no one is more heartless than the gang of moral degenerates who work at American abortion clinics. Until laws prohibiting abortion are restored, abortionists will be free to kill helpless unborn children, while maiming, raping, and killing many of their moms. Maybe some people think this is acceptable, but I don't. Women and children deserve better.

The bottom line is, if abortion is not wrong then why do we need this change of heart? And if it is wrong, why do we allow the heartless to do it? I say, let the law lead and maybe some of the hard-hearted will follow.

Priests for Life
PO Box 236695 • Cocoa, FL 32923
Tel. 321-500-1000, Toll Free 888-735-3448 • Email: mail@priestsforlife.org