In yesterday’s article we used the River Parable (https://brettattebery.com/can-we-do-more-to-help-women-before-they-face-an-unexpected-pregnancy/) to show that although there is a natural human desire to solve the downstream “right here right now” problems born of many of society’s ills, there is always a bigger problem back “upstream” that if solved could massively reduce the number of incidences of downstream occurrences.
In our River Parable yesterday where we looked at the issue of unexpected pregnancies, the doctor in our example went back upstream to “mend the fence” where women were slipping and falling into the river.
So what are the upstream “fence mending” strategies and tactics that pro-life advocates typically use, if any?
There are several that I can think of: Legislation (laws), Education, and Support
Today, let’s cover legislation.
The general belief among leaders in the pro-life movement about laws is twofold.
First, there is a belief that laws can restrict access to abortion.
There are pro-life researchers who still adhere strongly to this belief, even in the face of the onslaught of the now widespread online distribution of the abortion pill which can bypass any law, even if the U.S. Congress passed a law that made abortion illegal nationwide.
As we saw in previous articles, there is no strong reason to believe that laws that restrict access to the abortion pill – the abortion method that will likely account for at least 90% of all abortions within 10 years – will be any more effective than has been the War on Drugs at stopping the flow of illicit drugs.
Some pro-life leaders who are starting to begrudgingly admit this will then pivot to the assertion along the lines of “laws teach.”
What they mean is because a law says something is illegal it serves as a powerful guide for behavior that will influence young people in their current and future behavior.
Admittedly, there is probably some merit to that.
It seems logical.
But I don’t think it can be applied across the board to all situations.
For example, illicit drugs somehow seem to not fit well with this belief.
Clearly, laws that make illegal the use of illicit drugs do not appear to have been an effective restraint against the purchase and consumption of those drugs.
So why do we think it would be any different with laws that make the abortion pill illegal?
In my mind, the “laws teach” belief is weak and can best be described as wishful thinking.
And frankly, now that we are almost three years on the other side of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, I think we have strong measurable data that counters the “laws teach” belief.
If ever there was a teaching moment about abortion that we would expect to change behavior, the overturn of Roe v. Wade would fit the bill.
Yet, here we are three years later and the number of abortions has actually increased post Roe.
So as we stand back upstream looking at the broken fence through which so many women fall through into the river, using laws that make abortion illegal does not appear to be a very effective fence mending strategy.
But laws are not the only strategy the pro-life movement uses to teach.
Tomorrow we will consider how well “educating about life and abortion” can work as an upstream fence-mending strategy.
Stay tuned.
Regards,
Brett Attebery