Abortion supporters always try to portray Pro-Lifers as uncaring and radical because we will not even accept abortion in cases of rape and incest. With the recent South Dakota law banning abortions without exceptions for rape and incest, abortion supporters are using the usual arguments to vilify the law and those responsible for getting it passed. They got a petition placed on the November ballot to attempt to overturn the law, so it is easy for them to focus on these “hard cases” as justification for rejecting the law.

There may be two difficulties with focusing on the rape and incest exception. The first of these difficulties may be quite surprising. It turns out that abortion supporters never consulted victims of rape and incest to see if they really wanted abortions. According to the Ad Hoc Committee of Women Pregnant by Sexual Assault (WPSA), abortion creates more problems for rape and incest victims than it solves. In an effort to gain a public voice, WPSA has written a petition to Congress and state legislatures asking for public hearings at which women who’ve become pregnant through sexual assault can share their stories and address the real concerns that they have faced.

“In virtually every case, those people who claim to represent our interests have never taken the time to actually listen to us or to learn about our true circumstances, needs, and concerns,” WPSA wrote. “We are deeply offended and dismayed each time our difficult circumstances are exploited for public consumption to promote the political agenda of others.”

WPSA is particularly concerned about the widespread misconception, even among people who generally oppose abortion, that sexual assault victims generally want or benefit from abortion. For example, a poll in South Dakota recently found the law to ban abortion there would receive overwhelming support if it provided an exception for rape and incest. Without the exception, the poll showed the ban favored by 39%, with 47% opposing it.

However, WPSA members say abortion does nothing to help women pregnant through sexual assault, and is often detrimental to them. “In many cases, we felt pressured to abort by family members, social workers, and doctors who insisted that abortion was the ‘best’ solution,” they wrote. “For many, the abortion caused physical and emotional trauma equal to or exceeding the trauma of the sexual assault that our abortions were supposed to ‘cure.’”

Legislators should be encouraged to hold these hearings. Will the mainstream media cover the issue? We won’t hold our breath waiting. Regardless, the conventional wisdom of the rape and incest exception is open to serious challenge.

The second difficulty may be a bit more subtle. Since abortion supporters are fully committed to abortion on demand, what is the impact on public opinion of suggesting that the South Dakota law is unacceptable because it fails to provide exceptions for rape and incest? The public should be able to infer that if only exceptions for rape and incest were included, the law would be acceptable to its opponents. We know that is not what they intend, but I think the public will take that concept away from the South Dakota debate.

Even if the media would ignore testimony that rape and incest victims really do not want or benefit from abortion, they may not be able to prevent public perception from moving even further away from acceptance of abortion on demand. If that happens, the nation will be moving toward the Pro-Life position and will be more receptive to the message of sexual assault victims, whenever they get a legitimate hearing.

Bill Beckman