By Eric Metaxas, Breakpoint.
The ongoing Planned Parenthood scandal has shone an unwelcome light on the way abortion-on-demand actually works in this country—as opposed to the way abortion-rights advocates want us to believe.
It has also opened the door for pro-lifers to make a fresh case against the old saws that prop up pro-abortion arguments. And few people have done a better job of this than Ross Douthat of the New York Times.
Douthat recently answered a series of questions posed by Katha Pollitt, a well-known abortion-rights advocate. Her questions and Douthat’s responses are worth talking about.
For instance, Pollitt raises the specter of women being injured or even dying as a result of so-called “back-alley” abortions. She argues that restricting abortion or even outlawing it won’t substantially reduce the demand for abortion, and that this demand will be met in ways that will harm women.
While Douthat concedes that “abortion cannot be absolutely prevented,” there are “good reasons to think that restrictions and bans do, in fact, reduce the abortion rate much more substantially than [Pollitt suggests].”