Murder-By-Abortion Advocates Raise Important Issue: Should Women Who Have Abortions Be Punished?
The following two columns by James K. Fitzpatrick appeared in “The Wanderer,” a conservative Roman Catholic weekly newspaper. I do not agree with all that’s said here. This is, however, an important issue. – JL
ANNA QUINDLEN: Bad person makes good point which real pro-lifers cannot ignore.I don’t like to be in this position, but logic leads me here: The advocates for legal abortion have been making a solid argument of late. Not about the nature of the fetus. They are lying through their teeth about that. They know a fetus is an unborn child, and don’t care. Their defense of partial-birth abortion makes that clear. It is on another aspect of the debate over abortion that the “pro-choice” crowd is making a lot of sense. Pro-lifers are going to have to deal with the argument. So far they are not. They are trying to avoid it instead. A recent column on the web site Catholic Exchange (catholicexchage.com) by Sheila Gribben Liaugminas, a member of the editorial board of Voices, a Catholic women’s publication, though admirable in many ways and well-intentioned, is a case in point.
The new strategy of the pro-abortion forces is to push a simple question to center stage: “If abortion is criminalized, what should the penalty be for a woman who has one?” Gribben Liaugminas notes that columnist Anna Quindlen, “hardly contained her enthusiasm over this new strategy in her piece titled ‘How Much Jail Time for Women Who Have Abortions?’ (Newsweek, August 6, 2007).” Quindlen describes a documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Illinois: “The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It is as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations.”
Here’s Quindlen’s explanation for why they look gobsmacked: “There are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can’t countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can’t have it both ways.”
Clever, no? Quindlen is on the mark. How can we hold to the position that only the abortionist should face criminal charges for the killing of the unborn child, and not the woman who contracted him to perform the killing? We wouldn’t let someone who hired an assassin escape punishment. The problem, of course, is that pro-lifers understand that if they call for jail time for women who undergo an abortion they will kill any chance for passing laws to outlaw abortions. They know how voters will respond to the prospect of women being handcuffed and frog-walked off to jail in punishment for their abortions.
The pro-abortion forces think they have us cornered. They contend that if we say we don’t want the women who have abortions punished, it must be because we intuit, despite our protestations to the contrary, that the fetus is not truly a child. But if we admit to that proposition, why forbid abortions? If, on the other hand, we insist upon calling for serious jail time for women who procure abortions, we know that we will alienate voters who oppose abortion on principle, but who do not want women, perhaps their own family members, going to prison because of their abortions.
Gribben Liaugminas’ answer to the dilemma is one that you may have heard before. The abortionist should be punished for performing the abortion, she argues, but not the woman who hired him, because the woman is a “victim” in an abortion: “First of all, nobody in the pro-life world, nobody in state or federal government – at least nobody of reason and consequence – is considering holding women accountable for abortions after they’re banned.” She cites several legislative proposals to end abortions that specifically state that the women involved in an abortion will face no criminal penalty. She calls upon pro-lifers to “get it straight,” to say loudly and clearly that “pro-life legal experts, legislators and advocates know that women are already victims in abortions”; to put an end to the scare tactic of implying that imprisoning women is the intention of those calling for an end to legal abortions.
On one level, Gribben Liaugminas is correct. The pro-abortion crowd is using this new tactic as a “gotcha” tactic. But pointing out that pro-lifers have stated specifically and repeatedly that they do not intend to jail women who have had abortions misses the point. People like Anna Quindlen know that pro-lifers do not want to jail women who have abortions. That is what they are needling us about. What they are asking is: why not? Calling the women “victims” during an abortion does not work as an answer. Not in every instance. There may be individual cases where women are so overcome by the chain of events leading up to their decision to abort that they should not face criminal charges. But that is not always the case. We have all read the accounts – perhaps know firsthand — of women using abortion as a form of birth control, of abortions being performed for convenience. Should, for example, a woman who decides to abort because a pregnancy would interfere with a planned European vacation be considered a victim? A woman who aborts to make it easier for her to complete her graduate studies, or to save her figure?
SHEILA GRIBBEN LIAUGMINAS: Agrees: no punishment for women who murder their innocent unborn babies.Some take another tack: they argue that women who go through abortions need not be punished with jail time because they will be punished by a “lifetime of guilt” for what they have done to their unborn child. Gribben Liaugminas cites an interview that appeared on LifeNews.com, in which pro-life activists speak of “the guilt, shame, and remorse” that “post-abortive women experience.” There probably is truth in that proposition. But what of women who have had multiple abortions? They do not seem weighed down with guilt over their decision. Moreover, there are rapists and murderers in prison who tell us they are genuinely anguished by the evil acts they have performed. No one would argue they should not be in prison because of that anguish.
I can understand why pro-lifers do not want to call for jail time for women who have had abortions. I can see how such a call would severely damage the prospects for anti-abortion legislation. But the truth is the truth. This question of the “mother’s” guilt must be dealt with in the philosophical and moral arena, even if it makes sense to keep it low key in the political process.
Am I saying that there should be serious punishment for some women who secure abortions? If we want to be logical and honest in responding to the point made by Anna Quindlen, the answer to that question has to be yes; for some women, in some cases. (Of course, after the law has been changed to state clearly that abortion is a crime. I am not calling for a repeal of the ex post facto laws.) The concepts of mitigating circumstances and diminished capacities come into play in determining the punishment for murder, rape, theft, perjury, embezzlement. There is no reason why they should not also come into play when considering a woman who has hired an abortionist.
We can draw lines those lines. Frightened teenagers who have bought into the abortionist’s propaganda about an unborn child being little more than a “clump of tissue” should be treated differently from a socialite who uses abortion as a backup form of birth control. But the lines must be drawn. The way to deal with Anna Quindlen’s smarmy maneuver in the culture wars is to answer it honestly. Not all women who procure abortions are victims, or guiltless. Yes, some deserve punishment. Not as much as an abortionist who has performed hundreds of abortions, but something serious.
Column 2
On Oct. 25th in this space in The Wanderer, a column of mine appeared entitled “The Pro-Abortion Side Has a Point.” In it, I discussed an article that appeared on the web site Catholic Exchange (catholicexchange.com) by Sheila Gribben Liaugminas, a pro-life activist. Ms Liaugminas’ topic was a new tactic being employed by pro-abortion groups: demanding that pro-life advocates explain why they are not willing to call for serious jail time for women who have abortions. In the words of Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen, a supporter of abortion rights: “There are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can’t countenance the first, you have to accept the second.”
The pro-abortion groups think they have us cornered with this maneuver. They know voters will not react in a positive manner to the prospect of sending women who have had abortions to prison. So do pro-lifers. But how can one take the position that an unborn child is killed during an abortion and not call for the woman who hires the abortionist to face a severe legal penalty? We would not take that position in the case of a woman who hired an assassin to kill her husband or a rival in a love affair. Why the different reaction to the killing of an innocent unborn child?
Ms. Liaugminas’ way of dealing with the question was to demonstrate that the historical record is clear; that pro-life groups have never called for jail time for women who have had an abortion. She was persuasive; the facts are on her side, and she lined them up in her column. My response was to contend that this line of thinking, though well-intentioned and factually correct, misses the point; that the pro-abortionists who are seeking to embarrass pro-lifers with this issue know that pro-lifers do not call for jail time for women who have had abortions. What they are asking is: why not?
I took the position that pro-lifers need to deal with this argument; that we have no choice but to be intellectually honest, even if doing so involves a political risk in the short run; that people such as Anna Quindlen are going to make an impact on the debate over abortion with this ploy, if it is not countered. I went on to maintain that there are indeed certain women, in certain cases, who should face jail time for procuring an abortion.
DR. WILLKE sees women who murder their unborn babies as ‘victims’ who should not be punished for the horrible crime of abortion.Dr. John C. Willke, president of Life Issues Institute, writes to disagree. He argues that my position “will give aid and comfort to the pro-abortion movement”; that the pro-abortion advocates will use it as a scare-tactic to frighten voters repelled by the thought of women being frog-marched to jail along with the abortionists. He cites a 1983 study of 200 years of legal history by the American Center for Bio-Ethics, which found “no documented instances of prosecution” of women who have had abortions. Willke continues, “I have been in a position of leadership in the American pro-life movement since its inception, and I can’t think of a single responsible pro-life leader who would agree with punishing the women, even if she was obviously culpable of soliciting the abortion.”
Dr. Willke also takes issue with my contention that not all women who procure abortions should be considered victims: “Mr. Fitzpatrick reports accurately that the pro-life movement considers the women as the second victim in an abortion, but finds this unconvincing. Perhaps, if he had labored directly in this vineyard as long as many of us have, he would be more convinced of this fact. Let’s remember that the abortionist took money to commit this deed in the cold light of the day. He is the one who should be punished. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the women getting the abortion have been victimized.”
I do not like the idea of disagreeing with Dr. Willke. I admire his efforts on the behalf of the unborn. Still, it strikes me that what he is doing is restating the argument made by Sheila Gribben Liaugminas, providing us with even more evidence that pro-lifers have never called for punishing women who have had abortions. The problem is that the pro-abortion groups using the tactic we are discussing concede that point. What they are asking, I repeat, is: why not? Why is hiring a killer different in the case of an abortion? I submit that not every woman who procures an abortion can accurately be placed in the category of a “victim.” The examples I used in my column were a highly educated woman who uses abortion as a form of birth control and a woman who aborts so as not to ruin a planned vacation. We all have heard of cases such as these. They are not that far-fetched.
And it strikes me that Dr. Willke has heard of them as well: that that is why he used the phrase “overwhelming majority” when describing the number of women who should be considered victims as a consequence of an abortion. I take that to mean that he has come across a minority who should not be considered victims. That is my position as well. I was not calling for jail time for every woman who aborts her child. There are women so overcome by the chain of events leading up to their decision to abort that they cannot be judged accountable, an unmarried teenage girl who has bought into the pro-abortion propaganda about a fetus being nothing more than a “clump of tissue,” for example; or a distraught young girl who is the victim of a rape. The concepts of “diminished capacity,” “temporary insanity,” “involuntary manslaughter,” and “reckless endangerment of life” are applied when we judge other crimes. We can apply them to women who have had abortions.
I am convinced that if we don’t frame our position in that manner, if we persist in the position that all women who have had abortions, regardless of their motives and frame of mind, should be free from criminal penalties, we will end up, like it or not, making the point that folks like Anna Quindlen are trying to corner us into making: conceding that we don’t really think the fetus is an unborn child.
Another letter-writer, J.N. of Winthrop, MA, reacted to the column with the following observation: “A man shot a pregnant woman recently and was charged with two counts of murder – one for killing the woman and one for her unborn child. Had he been wearing a white coat, he could have been paid by medical insurance for killing the unborn child. How can the law identify the child as a murder victim in one case and just a hunk of flesh in the other?”
Good question; and one I have never heard the “pro-choice” groups answer. You would think that anyone huffing and puffing about pro-lifers not being intellectually honest about jail time for women who have had abortions would take the time to answer it – if intellectual honesty is really their concern.