Feminists Love Abortion So Much They’re Blind to Abortion Alternatives Helping Women

Opinion   |   Tom Glessner   |   Jan 20, 2022   |   11:17AM   |   Washington, DC

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett drew the ire of abortion advocates with a comment during oral arguments for the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case in December. The case, to be decided this year, may spell the end of Roe v. Wade and its policy of abortion-on-demand. Recent responses from abortion proponents show how blind they are to the compelling realities of abortion alternatives.

Barrett, an adoptive mother herself, asked if a woman who lacks access to abortion is freed from forced parenthood when she leaves her baby at a safe location for adoption. Barrett’s comment was in reference to Safe Haven laws, which did not exist when Roe was passed in 1973.

These lifesaving laws exist in all 50 states and are covered extensively in the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates’ (NIFLA) Dobbs amicus brief. Under these laws, any woman can relinquish her baby at a hospital, fire station or other designated safe haven within a set period of time. In doing so, she will incur no legal liability – criminal or civil. Workers at the designated safe place are then required to deliver the child to the proper authorities to be placed for adoption.

The safe haven law alternative – unlike abortion – is free for all women. These laws ensure that freedom or liberty from parenthood is guaranteed in every state. Concern for the potential burden of an “unwanted” child on a woman was a significant factor in the Roe v. Wade decision. The court said: “Maternity … may force upon the woman a distressful life and future … [F]or all concerned, associated with the unwanted child … there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it.”

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

Safe haven laws save women from the emotional distress that many feel after having an abortion. They also give women much more time than the abortion industry does to decide what option they will choose. In short, the Supreme Court’s original concern regarding a mother being forced to parent an “unwanted child” is now completely meritless.

Not surprisingly, Barrett’s comment drew howls of mockery from those who are so in love with abortion that they cannot fathom any other alternative. In a recent article for the Associated Press, Ashley Brink – the manager of a clinic operated by the abortion-rights group Trust Women in Wichita, Kansas – said the question was “‘undermining people’s decisions and choices and ability to control their lives and their futures.’” Another abortion advocate described the justice’s comments as “breathtakingly thoughtless.”

No one is suggesting that adoption and the use of safe haven laws are easy for the mother contemplating abortion. As a mother who had to navigate the adoption process, Justice Barrett is intimately acquainted with the difficulties this decision presents for all parties. A mother placing her child for adoption is undertaking the bravest of acts. She is selflessly protecting the life of her baby while choosing to give her child the advantage of a secure future she may be unable to provide.

The left’s criticism of Justice Barrett shows that they will uphold the abortion industry’s death-on-demand ideology over every other consideration. These apostles of abortion see it as a sacred rite. However, safe haven laws – if utilized by a mother considering abortion – are a win-win for all involved. The birth mother and the adoptive parents benefit from these laws. Additionally, the unborn child’s life is spared and given an opportunity to achieve his or her ordained purpose.

Since 1973, more than 63 million abortions have taken place. These children were future doctors, lawyers, artists, authors, teachers, scientists and leaders in other fields that would have contributed to American culture. The loss of these individuals is a tragedy that has robbed our nation of great discoveries and contributions. We became poorer because of this decision, which allows for the indiscriminate killing of the innocent in the name of convenience.

Justice Barrett raised a critical question about safe haven laws that the Supreme Court must consider when determining if Roe v. Wade should remain on the books. The answer to this inquiry clearly shows how outdated the logic of Roe is.

There are alternatives to the death and destruction of abortion. Because of safe haven laws, adoption and other choices available through pregnancy centers in communities nationwide, all women have access to these life-affirming options. We pray America’s rebirth into a nation that cherishes all human life will start with the tossing of Roe v. Wade and its discredited logic onto the ash heaps of history.

LifeNews Note: Thomas Glessner, J.D., is president and founder of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, or NIFLA, a pro-life nonprofit that made history and headlines in the Supreme Court case NIFLA v. Becerra.