Writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, a professor named Jonathan Zimmerman from the University of Pennsylvania claims that the murderous enterprise of abortion is actually a family value.
With the possibility of Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed to the Supreme Court, feminists are rightly concerned that the fate of Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance. For Zimmerman, the prospect of states being allowed to enact their constitutional right and regulate abortion as they please is a scary future. His solution to this static debate: reframe the abortion argument to become a family issue, not a women’s issue.
According to Zimmerman, leftists should look to America’s newfound rejection of traditional marriage following the Obergerfell ruling. He points out how opinions on abortions have remained fairly steady over the years while favorable opinions on homosexual unions have only risen.
“Support for same-sex marriage has skyrocketed more quickly than on any public question we have measured,” writes Zimmerman. “So now might be a good time to step back, and see what lessons one issue might hold for the other.”
Zimmerman thinks that framing abortion as a “women’s issue” is a mistake because it “leaves out half of the voting population.”
“That’s a huge tactical mistake by my fellow liberals because abortion has profound and indelible consequences for men,” the prof writes. “If it becomes illegal, fathers as well as mothers will be saddled with new responsibilities and expenses that they might not be equipped to bear. Restricting abortion doesn’t simply restrict the rights of women; it restricts parents, period.”
Zimmerman then goes on to point out that several studies show that women who keep their unwanted pregnancies “are at increased risk for alcoholism, criminal activity and psychological difficulties.”
“In the landmark 2012 Turnaway Study in San Francisco, researchers found that women who had been denied abortions because they were too late in their gestational terms were more likely to be on public assistance than women who received abortions,” he writes. “They were also less likely to be employed, and more likely to be living in poverty.”
“How can that be good for families, or for the nation writ large? This isn’t just a question of parental rights; it’s also about what’s right for children. They will suffer real, tangible losses if abortion is banned.”
All of that is just a rather nice and gentle way of saying eliminate the undesirables.