Mary Elizabeth Williams, a writer for Salon, has a truly unique view of abortions: They can be good for families.
In a piece published in Salon on Wednesday, Williams commenced with the argument that a woman who is a mother can be just dandy if she gets an abortion:
The voices of the anti-choice movement have a specific vision of their enemy. It’s a selfish, reckless young woman who believes in abortion out of “convenience.” It certainly couldn’t be a man, because men don’t care about these things. It couldn’t be a woman who understands the experience of motherhood, because once you hold a little baby in your arms, you could never condone abortion.
Only days before her latest excursion into stumping for abortion, Williams mocked marriage between a man and a woman:
A few weeks ago, when the new priest was conducting services, my daughter and I both flinched when he spoke of “traditional marriage” which can “only be between a man and woman.”
But we digress.
In her latest effort, Williams continued, “Here’s a simple inconvenient truth opponents of choice don’t want to acknowledge — for a lot of women, abortion makes their future families possible. My friend’s entire adult life, a life that includes three great kids, would be unimaginable without the abortions that have also been a part of it.”
Unimaginable.
As Isaac Cross writes at Newsbusters:
After proving that women who have held their child in their arms are willing to kill their child in their womb, Williams gave the reasons why abortions are, in fact, good for families. Williams claimed that without it, some women’s lives would be “unimaginable” and talked about how it’s necessary sometimes for the safety of the mother.
This was particularly directed against the Catholic Church, which Williams argued wants to prohibit a mother from “trying not to die so she can raise her children.” This is a classic and ill-informed argument, seeing that the Church allows treatments to save the mother “even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”
Williams posited that the real fulcrum for the pro-life movement was not to protect the babies in the womb, but instead “a fury over women controlling their own lives.”
Williams concluded, “I get truly scary vitriol sent my way regularly, but it really ramps up whenever I express the fact that I’m a mother who supports choice and who wants my teenage daughters to have the freedom to choose when and if they have children. This means access to birth control, morning after pills and abortion. Because I love them more than anything in the universe and I want them to be educated, independent, and healthy. People who want to protect their daughters are called mothers. And people who are frightened of that prospect are called misogynists.”
And women who kill their babies in the womb are euphemistically called “pro-choice.”
Unlike the babies, they do get a choice.