In his article, ““Pro-Lifers: We Really Are Hypocrites,” Steven Trebus suggested that Pro-Lifers are hypocrites because:
“We call for Roe v. Wade to be overturned and for the defunding of Planned Parenthood, but we offer nothing in return. We’re a movement devoid of actual solutions and choices. We preach life but fail to actually help the lives of struggling women right in front of us.”
Interestingly enough, Trebus (later in the article) discusses Pregnancy Resource Centers as evidence of what pro-lifers are doing for women considering abortions. Therefore, his statement that “we offer nothing in return” is misplaced. He also ignores the Republican effort for birth control pills to be sold over the counter, an action that would arguably cut down on unplanned pregnancy.
Trebus goes on to suggest it is the “lack of choice” which causes abortions.
“At the end of the day, when a woman considers an abortion, it’s because she feels she has no other choice…”
To generalize all abortions as an instant where an individual feels they don’t have a choice is an incorrect overstatement. Women choose abortion for a plethora of reasons. If we take Trebus generalization as gospel truth, then PRC’s and the fact that two million infertile couples are seeking to adopt (and there are many organizations that help connect these couples to women who believe they cannot take care of the child they carry) can rest his fears of “no other choice” at ease.
He then suggests those who are pro-life should put their money where their mouth is, after discussing how government spending might help the pro-life cause. This is a confusing point because it appears Trebus is talking about how pro-lifers should be in favor of their tax dollars going to PRCs, but he uses the language of personal donations (“money where your mouth is”).
There are several problems with this point:
First, government funding for PRCs is already a reality (as Think Progress, Mother Jones, and Salon complain about consistently).
Second, choosing to not donate to a PRC or other such organizations is not hypocritical for a pro-life person. Killing an innocent life is wrong regardless of whether I donate to certain organizations. I am not an accessory to the death of an unborn child if I do not place a few dollars on the PRC plate, just like I am not an accessory to crimes of other sorts if I do not donate to the right organization.
Third, Trebus told readers he is a libertarian, and as a libertarian it seems he would be aware of how incompetent tax dollars are at solving problems. He admits and dismisses this in the same instance:
“Yes, government services generally suck and have plenty of fraud, but I’d rather help women have a choice and have some fraud than continue down our current path.”
It is curious to me why Trebus, a libertarian, does not advocate for personal donations but instead chooses government forcing you to pay up as a solution. How I spend my money should be no one’s business but my own. Being labelled a hypocrite without knowledge of where my money, my time, my energy goes is a very strange thing for a libertarian to do.
Trebus, it seems, is speaking from a lack of knowledge about the Pro-Life movement and the efforts, money, and resources it puts forth. This article is built upon an unfounded accusation, of which Trebus should remove himself from.