Paul Kengor: Supreme Court decision is a victory for pro-lifers |
Featured Commentary

Paul Kengor: Supreme Court decision is a victory for pro-lifers

The Supreme Court has struck down a California law compelling pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise abortions — that is, centers established for the very purpose of providing alternatives to abortion. The centers viewed the law as an unconstitutional infringement of their rights of speech, not to mention religion and conscience.

The high court agreed, barely. The 5-4 opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Anthony Kennedy, the court swing-vote who in June 1992 preserved Roe v. Wade by writing the majority opinion in the infamous Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling. The Supreme Court’s four liberals dissented in lock-step.

The case was a victory for the pro-life cause, but the truth is it should have never gotten this far.

The reactions by the pro-choice movement are telling. The Center for Reproductive Rights and the National Abortion Rights Action League insist that pregnancy centers “manipulate and deceive” pregnant women by not advertising abortion. Planned Parenthood Action called these centers “harmful” to women, accusing them of “lying to women.”

Abortion activist Heidi Hess said the high court “voted to control women.” She fumed that this was done by the court’s “five male Supreme Court justices.”

That complaint seems the height of hypocrisy. It was an all-male Supreme Court that gave America Roe v. Wade.

The reactions reveal not only the stridency of the “pro-choice” movement; they also reveal how far too many “pro-choice” activists merit the very label they hate: pro-abortion.

Consider: For decades, these same activists have refused to counsel non-abortion options in abortion clinics. There has long been a grassroots push by pro-lifers to have ultrasound machines in abortion clinics; 80 percent to 90 percent of women considering abortions change their minds when they glimpse their unborn babies.

A friend of mine who runs a pro-life center told me that pregnancy help centers are proliferating at a rapid rate in direct proportion to the shrinking of abortion centers. And that’s the real story here. Abortion centers are losing business to pregnancy help centers that give women alternatives. They threaten the financial survival of abortion clinics.

“Pro-choice” activists know this, which is why they fight legislation requiring ultrasounds. And how does that help a woman’s “choice?” Do pro-choicers want women to have maximum information for their best “choice” or not?

I’ve met women in tears who have told me about walking into Planned Parenthood clinics and receiving no option but abortion. One woman, an 18-year-old freshman in the 1990s, terrified of her parents learning she was pregnant, hoped that someone, somewhere, on her way to or inside a clinic in downtown Pittsburgh, would provide her with options other than abortion. She was given no such option, nor any compassion. Her baby was destroyed. She has never gotten over the trauma.

Today, she’s a donor to crisis pregnancy centers. She gives them money to provide abortion alternatives, not to promote abortion. The California law sought to undermine that very purpose. Shame on the “pro-choice” movement and Supreme Court justices who refuse to understand that.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.