by Zoe Pollock
We’re debating the rights of some group of theoretical women who want to have post-viability abortions, and who have no medical reason to do so, and who were perfectly able to access abortion earlier in their pregnancies. Why? Seriously, why are we doing that? There are not significant numbers of these women. Abortions after 24 weeks are already highly restricted, and can’t just be done on a whim. This is not really a significant point in the abortion debates, theoretically or realistically.
What does impact thousands and thousands of women is the fact that abortions are hard to get because anti-choicers have erected a bunch of barriers, using many of the same arguments that Saletan focuses on in this piece...
Saletan, you have a big platform. If you agree that accessibility and contraception access and education are all key to decreasing the number of second-trimester abortions, why aren’t you doing the legwork of advocating for those things, instead of challenging pro-choicers to debate largely theoretical questions whose answers don’t have much real-world impact anyway? What’s the end game of this debate?