| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Mirror Vision
With just a few key changes, a pro-abortion
propaganda piece could be
transformed into a powerful argument for protection of the unborn.
From time to time, an important American newspaper publishes a story so grotesquely biased that it can be used as a case study in journalistic bias. And now and then, a careful reader might notice that by altering one or two crucial facts in a news item, he could give the story an entirely different perspective.
Consider the story that appeared on page 3 of the New York Times on April 10. The headline read: “Rape of Mexican Teenager Stirs Abortion Outcry.” The article, by Julia Preston, told the sad tale of a 14-year-old Mexican girl, Paulina Ramirez Jacinta, who had become pregnant when she was raped by a drunken intruder.
When she learned of the pregnancy, Paulina’s mother decided that her daughter should abort the child. But doctors, priests, and government officials in Baja California did their best to dissuade the girl from having an abortion; and ultimately they succeeded. So the story ended with Paulina in tears, because a Cesarean delivery will force the cancellation of her plans for a fancy party on her 15th birthday.
What didn’t happen
The case of Paulina—a young girl, living in a poor family, crudely violated, and then confronted with an unplanned pregnancy—is certainly a very sad one. But before analyzing the story further, let us pause to consider what did not happen in her case:
• Paulina was not legally barred from obtaining an abortion. Abortion is a legal option for rape victims in Baja California.
• Government officials did not refuse to allow the abortion. The local attorney general personally—albeit reluctantly—signed an order authorizing the abortion. The procedure was to be done at a government hospital, and at public expense.
• Paulina was not left alone to pay for the costs of raising an unexpected child; state officials said that they would pay for the costs of childbirth and adoption.
So in what respect were Paulina’s rights violated? The Times story explains: “No official ever refused Paulina the abortion, but they counseled her against it so openly and forcefully that she and her family became frightened and desisted.” In other words, Paulina was talked out of her planned abortion. Ultimately she chose not to destroy her unborn child.
The danger of persuasion
Why did Paulina change her plans? Shortly after discovering her pregnancy, she checked into a government hospital. But the chief obstetrician refused to perform the abortion; when faced with a direct order to do so, he resigned. Other doctors followed suit, while Paulina waited passively in her hospital room. Social workers visited her, and tried to convince her to continue the pregnancy. Finally—of her own volition—Paulina left the hospital.
Next, Paulina’s family visited a local official. The Times describes that official’s attitude:
As attorney general he spent much of his professional life handling cases of people he could not help because they were already dead. In Paulina’s case he apparently felt that he could save a life: that of her unborn child.
After doing his best to present the pro-life perspective, the attorney general drove Paulina and her mother to a nearby Catholic church, where the pastor reminded them of the Church’s teachings on abortion and the dignity of human life.
Still unpersuaded, Paulina’s mother demanded the attorney general’s written approval for the abortion, and that official relented. But at the last moment, the hospital director reminded the Jacinta family that abortion entails certain risks—the possibility of hemorrhage, or of sterility. At that point, Paulina and her mother finally decided against the procedure.
An American counterpart
Now try to imagine how Paulina’s story would have unfolded if she had been living in the United States. With a visit to the local Planned Parenthood office, she could have obtained a referral for an abortion. She would not have needed to inform her parents; even if the state where she was living had a parental-consent law, the Planned Parenthood counselors could have directed her toward a sympathetic judge, who would write a court order to circumvent that law, without asking any nosy questions. If she showed any signs of moral scruples, those counselors could put her in touch with a clergyman affiliated with the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights.
Very few American doctors would try to dissuade our hypothetical teenager from having the abortion. She would be ushered into a clinic where the medical personnel specialized in that lucrative practice. She would hear little or nothing about the risks involved in the procedure, or the alternatives to abortion.
In the US, a pregnant teenager is rushed toward the abortion clinic, with few questions asked or answered. In Mexico, pro-life officials have a chance to argue against the procedure, and possibly—as in Paulina’s case—to save the life of the unborn child. In which country are human rights truly endangered?
—Philip F. Lawler