Republicans need a new abortion plan: Focus on unwanted abortions

Republicans focused on abortion bans are clearly in trouble.

Even people who generally dislike abortion can always imagine circumstances where it may appear the better of two bad options. This is why voters in Ohio passed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a woman’s right to abortion. They fear bans will prevent abortions that may be necessary, even if regrettable.

Republicans need to acknowledge these fears. They need to identify a subset of abortions that everyone can agree should be prevented. And that’s easy to do.

A recent peer reviewed medical study has revealed that 24 percent of all women reporting a history of abortion describe them as “unwanted” or “coerced.” Another found that 64 percent of women felt pressured to seek their abortions by other people.

Dwell on those facts for a moment.  

Even a single unwanted abortion is a heartbreaking occurrence. For example, see Britney Spears’s memoir and her hit music video “Everytime.” Then multiply that grief by millions of cases over the last 50 years, and it’s clear we are facing a national epidemic of unwanted abortions.

The same body of research shows that, on average, only the women who freely want their abortions claim any benefits from it. Conversely, the more women report feeling pressured to submit to unwanted abortions, the more they are likely to report negative outcomes, mental health disorders, disruption of relationships and impacted grief. 

In short, unwanted abortions are also unsafe abortions. They do more harm than good. 

This is where Republicans can build consensus on reducing abortion rates. No one is openly in favor of coerced abortions. Even those who, in their personal lives, have pushed a daughter or partner to have an abortion are unlikely to proclaim this is their civil right in a national debate.

The American Psychological Association’s 2008 Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion noted at least 15 factors that identify the women at highest risk of more severe psychological problems following an abortion. Perceived pressure to undergo an unwanted abortion is at the top of the list. 

But most abortion clinics don’t bother screening for these risk factors. Why?

First, because they face no liability for the emotional injuries caused by unwanted abortions. It costs them nothing to ignore both the risk factors that predict post-abortion traumas and their associated complications.

Second, if they did provide proper screening and counseling, many women would not have these contraindicated abortions, and that would reduce the abortion clinics’ profits.

Third, proper screening and counseling takes more staff time. It might even require some women to come back for a second or even third counseling session.

In short, abortion clinics have been built around an assembly line model: fifteen-minute, one-size-fits-all, pre-abortion counseling sessions. Quick in. Quick out. That’s how they maximize both patient flow and profits. But this is also the reason unwanted and unsafe abortions are so common.

Therefore, the solution is simply to guarantee patients’ rights to redress when there is negligent pre-abortion screening and counseling.

This does not ban abortions. It only expands women’s rights of redress when abortion providers fail to provide the level of screening and counseling necessary to prevent unsafe abortions.

The new Republican message must be clear. No woman should ever be subjected to an unwanted abortion.

Democrats who oppose laws defining negligent pre-abortion screening are protecting the profits of the abortion industry at the expense of women. They are opponents, not defenders, of reproductive rights.  

In the same context, Republicans should declare their support for post-abortion healing programs. These groups, mostly run by post-abortive women themselves, are helping women escape the bonds of impacted grief, drug addiction, alcoholism, sexual dysfunction, insomnia and other self-destructive behaviors that can follow unwanted abortions. They are unsung heroes. These programs need more public acknowledgement and public support.

Presidential candidates take note: Voicing your concerns about stopping unwanted abortions, and your support for post-abortion healing, will attract the attention, and votes, of women who would otherwise have voted against you.

I write this as a researcher with 32 years’ experience in the study of thousands of post-abortion case studies. Women who struggle with grief, loss and shame over past abortions will instinctively assume that “pro-life” candidates would despise them if they knew of their abortions. Conversely, when candidates say, “I am pro-choice,” what they hear is “I don’t judge you, but my opponent does.”

Would you vote for a candidate who you feel wants to condemn and shame you? No.

But this fear of judgment can be easily erased. Republicans need to boldly and consistently declare their understanding and empathy for the pressures women face to have abortions. They should also declare, within the context of their own experiences with friends, families and constituents, their support for post-abortion healing programs and compassion for those who struggle with their past abortions.

The victims of unwanted abortions will rally to candidates who show empathy for their pasts and offer a better future for both other women and themselves.

More than 60 women in this country have had abortions. Until now, most have consistently voted for “pro-choice” candidates  — not because they believe more abortions are a good thing, but because they have never heard a word of compassion and healing from “pro-life” candidates. But with a new focus on the facts and solutions described above, Republicans will win more support, especially from those women who have been there, done that and hated it.

This framing of the abortion issue also presents a more effective challenge to Democrats. For far too long, abortion proponents have had their heads stuck in the sand. Their insistence on unlimited access to abortion has simply ignored the fact that in the real world, many, and perhaps most, abortions are unwanted, unsafe or both. Focusing on unwanted abortions shifts the abortion to new ground. 

Are Democrats going to join in efforts to prevent unwanted abortions? Or are they going to make excuses for why abortion clinics should be protected from liability for negligent screening?

Surely, everyone agrees: No woman should ever be pressured into undergoing an unwanted abortion.  

Women deserve better. This is a message that can win elections.

David C. Reardon is the author of numerous medical studies on abortion complications and the author of “Making Abortion Rare: A Healing Strategy for a Divided Nation.”