What do you think?
Rate this book
Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement before Roe v. Wade
On April 16, 1972, ten thousand people gathered in Central Park to protest New York's liberal abortion law. Emotions ran high, reflecting the nation's extreme polarization over abortion. Yet the divisions did not fall neatly along partisan or religious lines-the assembled protesters were far from a bunch of fire-breathing culture warriors. In Defenders of the Unborn , Daniel K. Williams reveals the hidden history of the pro-life movement in America, showing that a cause that many see as reactionary and anti-feminist began as a liberal crusade for human rights.
For decades, the media portrayed the pro-life movement as a Catholic cause, but by the time of the Central Park rally, that stereotype was already hopelessly outdated. The kinds of people in attendance at pro-life rallies ranged from white Protestant physicians, to young mothers, to African American Democratic legislators-even the occasional member of Planned Parenthood. One of New York City's most vocal pro-life advocates was a liberal Lutheran minister who was best known for his civil rights activism and his protests against the Vietnam War. The language with which pro-lifers championed their cause was not that of conservative Catholic theology, infused with attacks on contraception and women's sexual freedom. Rather, they saw themselves as civil rights crusaders, defending the inalienable right to life of a defenseless the unborn fetus. It was because of this grounding in human rights, Williams argues, that the right-to-life movement gained such momentum in the early
1960s. Indeed, pro-lifers were winning the battle before Roe v. Wade changed the course of history.
Through a deep investigation of previously untapped archives, Williams presents the untold story of New Deal-era liberals who forged alliances with a diverse array of activists, Republican and Democrat alike, to fight for what they saw as a human rights cause. Provocative and insightful, Defenders of the Unborn is a must-read for anyone who craves a deeper understanding of a highly-charged issue.
For decades, the media portrayed the pro-life movement as a Catholic cause, but by the time of the Central Park rally, that stereotype was already hopelessly outdated. The kinds of people in attendance at pro-life rallies ranged from white Protestant physicians, to young mothers, to African American Democratic legislators-even the occasional member of Planned Parenthood. One of New York City's most vocal pro-life advocates was a liberal Lutheran minister who was best known for his civil rights activism and his protests against the Vietnam War. The language with which pro-lifers championed their cause was not that of conservative Catholic theology, infused with attacks on contraception and women's sexual freedom. Rather, they saw themselves as civil rights crusaders, defending the inalienable right to life of a defenseless the unborn fetus. It was because of this grounding in human rights, Williams argues, that the right-to-life movement gained such momentum in the early
1960s. Indeed, pro-lifers were winning the battle before Roe v. Wade changed the course of history.
Through a deep investigation of previously untapped archives, Williams presents the untold story of New Deal-era liberals who forged alliances with a diverse array of activists, Republican and Democrat alike, to fight for what they saw as a human rights cause. Provocative and insightful, Defenders of the Unborn is a must-read for anyone who craves a deeper understanding of a highly-charged issue.
380 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2016
31 people are currently reading
854 people want to read
About the author
Daniel K. Williams
11 books21 followersDr. Daniel K. Williams is a historian who specializes in American religion and politics. Currently, he is an associate professor of history at the Ashland University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
April 20, 2016
Many book reviewers on other websites have emphasized the central thesis of the book, that the pro-life movement was conceived (ha!) by New Deal Catholics and sustained by many like-minded progressives. In the main, pro-lifers acted as if they were leading a human rights campaign. Which is self-evident to any pro-lifer but perhaps less so to those who are not readily involved in the debate.
I think the author makes his case well enough. The only thing that's missing is the notion that just about everyone was a statist in the 1960s. Small-government fiscal conservatism didn't make a comeback until at least the 1970s-1980s, so the Catholics who were involved in Right to Life were probably no more liberal than anyone else. They were politically "average" at the time.
My main interest in this book is in its narrative of pro-life history. I would say by and large, pro-lifers don't know their history. Many books on abortion history speak of it as a fight for abortion, while this book address the fight for fetal rights. We are introduced to many of the people who led the fight like Walter Trinkaus, Cardinal James McIntyre, Fr. James McHugh, Elizabeth Godwin, Louise Somerhill, etc etc. We also learn about the events that contributed to the rise of the abortion debate. Some of them are more familiar than others, such as Griswold vs. Connecticut. Others, like the fight to liberalize abortion in California in 1966 (and successful in 1967) I had never heard of before. I had been somewhat familiar about the campaigns to liberalize abortion in Hawaii and New York, but I had never known the gritty details of the campaign, especially from the pro-life side.
The book is a little bit misnamed because it sounds like it only covers the pro-life movement before Roe v. Wade when in fact it depicts its unfolding right into the early years of the 21st century. It describes how pro-lifers eventually threw their lot in with Reagan on the hope of achieving a Human Life Amendment, all the while the Democratic Party abandoned pro-life constituencies. It describes the history of the campaigns to block clinic entrances in the 1980s and 1990s as well as the fight for the partial birth abortion ban.
The book missed out on a few important developments in the right to life cause, such as the propagation of ultrasound (although fetal imagery is spoken of) the Internet (which made pro-life information widely available) and the papacy of Pope John Paul II. But on the whole it's an excellent introduction to the history of the American pro-life movement. I paid $9.99 for the Kindle version and it was an excellent value.
I think the author makes his case well enough. The only thing that's missing is the notion that just about everyone was a statist in the 1960s. Small-government fiscal conservatism didn't make a comeback until at least the 1970s-1980s, so the Catholics who were involved in Right to Life were probably no more liberal than anyone else. They were politically "average" at the time.
My main interest in this book is in its narrative of pro-life history. I would say by and large, pro-lifers don't know their history. Many books on abortion history speak of it as a fight for abortion, while this book address the fight for fetal rights. We are introduced to many of the people who led the fight like Walter Trinkaus, Cardinal James McIntyre, Fr. James McHugh, Elizabeth Godwin, Louise Somerhill, etc etc. We also learn about the events that contributed to the rise of the abortion debate. Some of them are more familiar than others, such as Griswold vs. Connecticut. Others, like the fight to liberalize abortion in California in 1966 (and successful in 1967) I had never heard of before. I had been somewhat familiar about the campaigns to liberalize abortion in Hawaii and New York, but I had never known the gritty details of the campaign, especially from the pro-life side.
The book is a little bit misnamed because it sounds like it only covers the pro-life movement before Roe v. Wade when in fact it depicts its unfolding right into the early years of the 21st century. It describes how pro-lifers eventually threw their lot in with Reagan on the hope of achieving a Human Life Amendment, all the while the Democratic Party abandoned pro-life constituencies. It describes the history of the campaigns to block clinic entrances in the 1980s and 1990s as well as the fight for the partial birth abortion ban.
The book missed out on a few important developments in the right to life cause, such as the propagation of ultrasound (although fetal imagery is spoken of) the Internet (which made pro-life information widely available) and the papacy of Pope John Paul II. But on the whole it's an excellent introduction to the history of the American pro-life movement. I paid $9.99 for the Kindle version and it was an excellent value.
January 16, 2016
Full disclosure: I am strongly pro-choice and volunteer at a clinic where I help patients through a gauntlet of protestors. That being said, the "pro-life" or "anti-choice" movement is of great interest to me, since their rhetoric and tactics are a major part of my life. I wanted to learn more.
Unfortunately, I found that for all the effort Williams took to be objective in his reporting, I couldn't shake the sense that he had his own opinions about the matter-- mostly demonstrated by his use of phrases like "unborn child" instead of "fetus." I appreciated his disclaimer about language very much (many protestors don't consider themselves pro-life these days-- they prefer "abolitionist") and think his research reveals a whole lot of interesting and important facts. The movement has changed immensely between Roe v. Wade and today, and, as Williams writes about, prior to Roe.
I unfortunately can't recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a more nuanced history of the movement. There is so much to learn, and despite an effort to show the full spectrum, Williams misses the mark.
I RECEIVED THIS BOOK FROM NETGALLEY IN EXCHANGE FOR MY HONEST REVIEW
Unfortunately, I found that for all the effort Williams took to be objective in his reporting, I couldn't shake the sense that he had his own opinions about the matter-- mostly demonstrated by his use of phrases like "unborn child" instead of "fetus." I appreciated his disclaimer about language very much (many protestors don't consider themselves pro-life these days-- they prefer "abolitionist") and think his research reveals a whole lot of interesting and important facts. The movement has changed immensely between Roe v. Wade and today, and, as Williams writes about, prior to Roe.
I unfortunately can't recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a more nuanced history of the movement. There is so much to learn, and despite an effort to show the full spectrum, Williams misses the mark.
I RECEIVED THIS BOOK FROM NETGALLEY IN EXCHANGE FOR MY HONEST REVIEW
June 5, 2022
A solid, solid piece of historical work. If you think the battle lines over abortion were inevitable, and the respective sides had to be the way they are, I highly recommend this book. Williams shows how the arguments, strategies, and alignments evolved. He tells an almost-completely unknown story in incredible detail, which takes the static situation most of us see and reveals the dynamic underpinnings.
July 12, 2022
If you care about this issue, on either side, and you haven't read this book, you are probably a lot more ignorant and accepting of propagandized narratives than you think. I definitely was. Hard to know where to start in dissecting it, so I just have to implore you to read it.
Some key points though
- abortion/pro life, since the 60s and through to today has been a conflict primarily dominated by two ideologically opposed alliances of women, not a conflict that can be honestly or accurately characterized as men vs. women.
- the full autonomy argument for even late term elective abortions was never popular among even liberal Americans and remains exceptionally unpopular even today
- pro-life movement was not partisan or even necessarily conservative. Many pre Roe pro-lifers were activists for civil rights, anti-vietnam war, anti- death penalty, etc. Even in the earliest days, they were catholics that were also frequently Catholic progressives about labor reform, government assistance and unionizing. The same group of Catholics actually helped push American politics into things like the New Deal
- anti-abortion sentiment during the Roe era was strongest among Black Americans, conservative and progressive, who felt it was connected to eugenics and population control
- even up through Roe and up to Reagan's election, Republicans were more pro-choice than democrats, in part out of disdain for paying welfare to people they found undesirable, since many abortion recipients were poor
- the marriage of the pro-life movement to the republican party and later the Moral Majority Falwell culture war was done with reluctance and desperation, since the Carter administration democratic climate officially endorsed and committed to abortion rights, leaving open no door for pro-lifers at all. Nevertheless, they sold their soul in a terrible way that promoted all kinds of horrible things.
-Roe era pro-lifers frequently pushed for more public health services and childcare funding for mothers.
- Catholic emphasis on being anti-contraceptives and pivot on natural law theory aided the widening of an already big divide between Catholics and protestants. For a long time, this would slow down and hamper ecumenical progress and coalition
- (opinion based on what I learned in the book): one of the biggest mistakes, if not the biggest mistake, was not being proactive in promoting women to leadership roles within the pro-life cause. Of course the pro-choice cause only barely did it first, but the majority of American women for a long time were consistently more anti-abortion than men, so the pro-lifers politically failed to show that. It was a terrible mistake to not have the women be front and center and leading. It made it seem like the pro-choice groups were representative of the majority of American women when they weren't.
There are many other interesting things and if you're wondering why I mostly highlighted the things I learned that might seem unflattering to contemporary pro-choice rhetoric, that's because I've been well aware of the pro-life failures, as they come under frequent scrutiny, so I didn't really learn anything new. Insane pro-lifers bombing clinics? Yeah, it's unconscionably bad, but I've heard about it a million times. Pro-lifers being hypocritical about social policy? True, but again, I hear it all the time.
This book is not polemical at all, which is rare for this issue, but absolutely necessary for it to be valuable in any way.
Some key points though
- abortion/pro life, since the 60s and through to today has been a conflict primarily dominated by two ideologically opposed alliances of women, not a conflict that can be honestly or accurately characterized as men vs. women.
- the full autonomy argument for even late term elective abortions was never popular among even liberal Americans and remains exceptionally unpopular even today
- pro-life movement was not partisan or even necessarily conservative. Many pre Roe pro-lifers were activists for civil rights, anti-vietnam war, anti- death penalty, etc. Even in the earliest days, they were catholics that were also frequently Catholic progressives about labor reform, government assistance and unionizing. The same group of Catholics actually helped push American politics into things like the New Deal
- anti-abortion sentiment during the Roe era was strongest among Black Americans, conservative and progressive, who felt it was connected to eugenics and population control
- even up through Roe and up to Reagan's election, Republicans were more pro-choice than democrats, in part out of disdain for paying welfare to people they found undesirable, since many abortion recipients were poor
- the marriage of the pro-life movement to the republican party and later the Moral Majority Falwell culture war was done with reluctance and desperation, since the Carter administration democratic climate officially endorsed and committed to abortion rights, leaving open no door for pro-lifers at all. Nevertheless, they sold their soul in a terrible way that promoted all kinds of horrible things.
-Roe era pro-lifers frequently pushed for more public health services and childcare funding for mothers.
- Catholic emphasis on being anti-contraceptives and pivot on natural law theory aided the widening of an already big divide between Catholics and protestants. For a long time, this would slow down and hamper ecumenical progress and coalition
- (opinion based on what I learned in the book): one of the biggest mistakes, if not the biggest mistake, was not being proactive in promoting women to leadership roles within the pro-life cause. Of course the pro-choice cause only barely did it first, but the majority of American women for a long time were consistently more anti-abortion than men, so the pro-lifers politically failed to show that. It was a terrible mistake to not have the women be front and center and leading. It made it seem like the pro-choice groups were representative of the majority of American women when they weren't.
There are many other interesting things and if you're wondering why I mostly highlighted the things I learned that might seem unflattering to contemporary pro-choice rhetoric, that's because I've been well aware of the pro-life failures, as they come under frequent scrutiny, so I didn't really learn anything new. Insane pro-lifers bombing clinics? Yeah, it's unconscionably bad, but I've heard about it a million times. Pro-lifers being hypocritical about social policy? True, but again, I hear it all the time.
This book is not polemical at all, which is rare for this issue, but absolutely necessary for it to be valuable in any way.
November 27, 2023
superbly well-written. fair and balanced. yet kind of boring. perhaps that’s because i enjoy the power-hungry evangelical Republican narrative of the Pro-Life movements emergence. yet this book poked holes in that historical narrative in ways i found particularly enlightening.
and this may be uncharitable of me, but you know how sometimes you can just tell a book was written by a man? like it will be super logical and dry? it read like that. but such is the nature of academic monographs and this one was a good one nonetheless.
and this may be uncharitable of me, but you know how sometimes you can just tell a book was written by a man? like it will be super logical and dry? it read like that. but such is the nature of academic monographs and this one was a good one nonetheless.
July 6, 2017
Now this is how to do history. Williams ably traces the diversity of ways in which both sides, as they evolved, have framed the core issue: on the side of abortion advocates, from a "doctors' rights" matter to a "women's rights" matter; on the side of abortion opponents, from part of an anti-contraceptive movement, to a progressive civil rights crusade (in league with expressions of the environmental and women's rights movements), to also being part of a conservative crusade against sexual immorality. Likewise, first it was debated among doctors, then among lawyers, then among legislators, before finally coming before state courts and ultimately the United States Supreme Court. The portrait that emerges is more complex and fascinating than present-day sloganeering would lead one to believe.
In the process, Williams offers readers insight into a world rather unlike the political lay of the land in the early twenty-first century: A world where the pro-life movement unites Catholic activists, opponents of the Vietnam War and the death penalty, the Black Panthers, and even pro-life members of Planned Parenthood; a world where they meet their stiffest opposition from Republican advocates of liberalizing the abortion laws. Churches have a prominent role in this history - sometimes defending the cause of life, but often (sadly) not.
On its own merits, the book is excellent, informative reading for those on any side of the issue (though I consider the pro-life stance to be a moral imperative). Beyond that, in reviewing this book for a church newsletter, I scrutinized it for practical lessons that believers might learn from our at-times-inglorious role in this checkered history; I reprint that below, acknowledging that many review-readers will find varying degrees of relevance there:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we as believers cannot afford to ignore the realm of politics and law, and we cannot afford to ignore the culture of the people. Are there more important things? Yes: a believer's soul will outlast any law, any president (or legislature or court), any nation. But the political and legal world shapes the culture in the years that follow, and movements in the culture determine what political and legal changes are possible or likely – and both are relevant to the work of the kingdom to both save souls and bring God's peace to all creation (including unborn life made in his image).
Second, when a broader cultural movement tells us, “We plan to stop here, we will not go any further,” and there's no principle giving the culture a reason to stop there – just give it a few years, maybe a decade, and that position will be the new normal. That's how it was here: abortion liberalization advocates told pro-lifers that elective abortion was never on their mind – until suddenly it was the necessary next step to take. We as believers have the benefit of a long-term collective memory – the Bible, plus two thousand years of church history. The people of God have seen cultures, governments, movements, all rise and fall. We've seen this pattern play itself out again and again.
Third, the “lay of the land” isn't permanent. The way an issue is framed will change over time. Early on, abortion was considered a “doctor's rights issue,” decades before it became seen as a “women's rights issue” by its advocates. The pro-life cause was attached to the anti-contraception cause, and then to the civil rights movement, and then again to a conservative campaign for turning back the lowering of standards of sexual morality. And the alliances, the alignments of political parties – those aren't permanent either. Before Roe v. Wade, neither party had anything close to a monopoly on being pro-life or 'pro-choice'. We see in this history what the Bible also reminds us: that the only everlasting reality is God's kingdom, which transcends any snapshot of how the pieces are arranged at any moment.
Fourth, we need to unite around the gospel and around everything that it teaches us that God values. We may not always agree on exactly how to apply the gospel to practical social issues, but we cannot afford to be divided. Our great shame is that, if Protestant believers had been team players – if we'd begun working with believers in the Roman Catholic tradition decades earlier – then the cultural landscape could look much different now today. We don't have to abandon our different theological commitments when we work with Roman Catholics; we don't have to abandon the gospel to work side-by-side with Jews, Muslims, atheists – anyone at all – on those issues where the gospel encourages us to work.
And fifth, we need to see the bridges. In virtually any movement, there is something good there; and we need to show how it leads to other good causes, and especially to the gospel – how the gospel is the fulfillment of everything the civil rights movement worked for, or the environmental movement, or the women's rights movement, or any other cause or concern. The gospel is not beholden to any other ideology or movement (however good or worthy), but the gospel does fulfill it and speaks to it. For all of these lessons and a fascinating historical saga, this book is worth reading.
In the process, Williams offers readers insight into a world rather unlike the political lay of the land in the early twenty-first century: A world where the pro-life movement unites Catholic activists, opponents of the Vietnam War and the death penalty, the Black Panthers, and even pro-life members of Planned Parenthood; a world where they meet their stiffest opposition from Republican advocates of liberalizing the abortion laws. Churches have a prominent role in this history - sometimes defending the cause of life, but often (sadly) not.
On its own merits, the book is excellent, informative reading for those on any side of the issue (though I consider the pro-life stance to be a moral imperative). Beyond that, in reviewing this book for a church newsletter, I scrutinized it for practical lessons that believers might learn from our at-times-inglorious role in this checkered history; I reprint that below, acknowledging that many review-readers will find varying degrees of relevance there:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we as believers cannot afford to ignore the realm of politics and law, and we cannot afford to ignore the culture of the people. Are there more important things? Yes: a believer's soul will outlast any law, any president (or legislature or court), any nation. But the political and legal world shapes the culture in the years that follow, and movements in the culture determine what political and legal changes are possible or likely – and both are relevant to the work of the kingdom to both save souls and bring God's peace to all creation (including unborn life made in his image).
Second, when a broader cultural movement tells us, “We plan to stop here, we will not go any further,” and there's no principle giving the culture a reason to stop there – just give it a few years, maybe a decade, and that position will be the new normal. That's how it was here: abortion liberalization advocates told pro-lifers that elective abortion was never on their mind – until suddenly it was the necessary next step to take. We as believers have the benefit of a long-term collective memory – the Bible, plus two thousand years of church history. The people of God have seen cultures, governments, movements, all rise and fall. We've seen this pattern play itself out again and again.
Third, the “lay of the land” isn't permanent. The way an issue is framed will change over time. Early on, abortion was considered a “doctor's rights issue,” decades before it became seen as a “women's rights issue” by its advocates. The pro-life cause was attached to the anti-contraception cause, and then to the civil rights movement, and then again to a conservative campaign for turning back the lowering of standards of sexual morality. And the alliances, the alignments of political parties – those aren't permanent either. Before Roe v. Wade, neither party had anything close to a monopoly on being pro-life or 'pro-choice'. We see in this history what the Bible also reminds us: that the only everlasting reality is God's kingdom, which transcends any snapshot of how the pieces are arranged at any moment.
Fourth, we need to unite around the gospel and around everything that it teaches us that God values. We may not always agree on exactly how to apply the gospel to practical social issues, but we cannot afford to be divided. Our great shame is that, if Protestant believers had been team players – if we'd begun working with believers in the Roman Catholic tradition decades earlier – then the cultural landscape could look much different now today. We don't have to abandon our different theological commitments when we work with Roman Catholics; we don't have to abandon the gospel to work side-by-side with Jews, Muslims, atheists – anyone at all – on those issues where the gospel encourages us to work.
And fifth, we need to see the bridges. In virtually any movement, there is something good there; and we need to show how it leads to other good causes, and especially to the gospel – how the gospel is the fulfillment of everything the civil rights movement worked for, or the environmental movement, or the women's rights movement, or any other cause or concern. The gospel is not beholden to any other ideology or movement (however good or worthy), but the gospel does fulfill it and speaks to it. For all of these lessons and a fascinating historical saga, this book is worth reading.
August 16, 2018
A very good book on the history of the pro-life movement. Recommended for pro-lifers to know the history of their own movement in the US, and also to see some parallels in different countries with people who aim to legalize / repeal legalization of the procedure.
Likewise, it will interest to know how we got to the myth that abortion could only be opposed by white, old, Republican men, and that the Catholic Church couldn't possibly know anything about sexuality nor abortion.
Likewise, it will interest to know how we got to the myth that abortion could only be opposed by white, old, Republican men, and that the Catholic Church couldn't possibly know anything about sexuality nor abortion.
May 23, 2022
If you are looking for a book to understand the pro-life movement, this is the book to turn to. Well-written.
April 25, 2024
This is literally a redacted book at some colleges - this is a pro-life book for my history of abortion class - dw guys I am NOT pro-life but this was fascinating
Read
August 14, 2016This is a comprehensive history of the pro-life and pro-choice movements.
Moral law, natural law and the "inalienable right to life" have been vetoed by selfishness. Once the voiceless are condemned; any of us can be next.
Science is our best chance to change the tide. Technological advances will prove a beating heart = life!
Moral law, natural law and the "inalienable right to life" have been vetoed by selfishness. Once the voiceless are condemned; any of us can be next.
Science is our best chance to change the tide. Technological advances will prove a beating heart = life!
July 25, 2017
One of the most fascinating accounts of recent American history out there. It's both meticulously researched and highly engaging, which is a difficult feat for a historian to pull off. Also I just found the subject matter really inspiring for the way it defies tired culture-war categories. A must-read for any student of US religious and cultural history.
September 1, 2022
I love books that show how current political arrangements could have ended up totally different. "Defenders of the Unborn" demonstrates that in relation to abortion.
Williams claims that the pro-life movement took off as one primarily concerned with the rights of unborn infants and led by progressive women. That might seem otherwordly to a modern audience, but Williams' argument is convincing. Many early pro-lifers considered themselves feminists, albeit followers of a different sort of feminism than the liberal mainstream. Their arguments on abortion were framed primarily as advancing the fetus' right to life, meshing easily with other human rights issues like opposing the Vietnam War and supporting racial justice. Early on, these activists were primarily Catholic, with some Protestants too. However, the human rights argument had the benefit of being non-sectarian, which allowed the pro-life movement to expand across religious (and secular) lines. Interestingly, there weren't many Evangelicals, although they're anti-abortion mainstays today. By the late 1960s, numerous Republicans introduced and passed pro-choice laws, with Democrats often standing in their way.
Williams explores in a balanced, nuanced way how the pro-life coalition changed over time. In the 1970s, he argues that the movement began to shift rightward for a variety of reasons. Through the 1960s and the sexual revolution, arguments for choice evolved. Worries about the "population bomb" combined with new concerns about sexual autonomy. Roe cemented a set of autonomy-based pro-choice arguments and undermined the idea of constitutional protection for the unborn. In this way, Roe shifted the debate and made life difficult for left-leaning pro-lifers. Right away, it elevated "overturn Roe" to the central spot in pro-life activism. A broader spectrum of issues fell behind. Moreover, the decision's language made the paradigm autonomy and rejected key pro-life arguments. Moving forward, number of more progressive activists attempted to focus more on reducing the abortion rate, which clashed with the goal of most pro-life activists and the Catholic bishops--overturning Roe and making abortion illegal through amendment. Pro-life progressives like Sarge Shriver often preferred to reduce abortions, putting them into conflict with the majority. In addition, the nomination of George McGovern and the ascendency of activists pushed the Democratic Party rapidly towards the pro-choice position, embracing moral individualism. Ellen McCormack, who I've reviewed a biography of, ran an avowedly anti-abortion Democratic primary campaign in 1976 and Jimmy Carter gave lip service to restricting abortion, but by then the pro-life movement on the left was declining.
From the 1970s, a rising Evangelical movement began to link abortion to other socially conservative causes. Thus, pro-life voters began to move towards an increasingly welcoming Republican Party. Ronald Reagan was especially important in fueling this shift after he came out in favor of the human life amendment, as were members of the New Right like Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich. They effectively linked being pro-life to being a conservative overall. From then on, the strategy shifted towards selecting anti-abortion judges and justices, who often turned out to be judicially conservative anyway. Over the decades, this realignment of pro-life politics continued. Williams demonstrates how many progressive pro-life activists turned into conservatives through this time. Electoral results followed suit too. As Williams notes, over 1/3 of House Democrats were endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee, but only three had this badge by 2014.
Williams concludes that while the human rights arguments advanced by pro-lifers successfully broadened their tent, these arguments did not solve the fundamental clash of values on the abortion issue. Personally, I'd be interested in hearing what Williams thinks post-Dobbs. The reactions in each political party (and the overreach on the right combined with Democratic backlash) have led to an extra-polarized environment. Today, many Americans take for granted that pro-life = Republican and pro-choice = Democratic. Williams' project in "Defenders of the Unborn" disavows readers of the notion that it had to be this way, making it an essential read for both pro-life and pro-choice people who want to understand more. This history might also serve as a spark for increasingly vocal (although still tiny) left-leaning pro-life groups.
Williams claims that the pro-life movement took off as one primarily concerned with the rights of unborn infants and led by progressive women. That might seem otherwordly to a modern audience, but Williams' argument is convincing. Many early pro-lifers considered themselves feminists, albeit followers of a different sort of feminism than the liberal mainstream. Their arguments on abortion were framed primarily as advancing the fetus' right to life, meshing easily with other human rights issues like opposing the Vietnam War and supporting racial justice. Early on, these activists were primarily Catholic, with some Protestants too. However, the human rights argument had the benefit of being non-sectarian, which allowed the pro-life movement to expand across religious (and secular) lines. Interestingly, there weren't many Evangelicals, although they're anti-abortion mainstays today. By the late 1960s, numerous Republicans introduced and passed pro-choice laws, with Democrats often standing in their way.
Williams explores in a balanced, nuanced way how the pro-life coalition changed over time. In the 1970s, he argues that the movement began to shift rightward for a variety of reasons. Through the 1960s and the sexual revolution, arguments for choice evolved. Worries about the "population bomb" combined with new concerns about sexual autonomy. Roe cemented a set of autonomy-based pro-choice arguments and undermined the idea of constitutional protection for the unborn. In this way, Roe shifted the debate and made life difficult for left-leaning pro-lifers. Right away, it elevated "overturn Roe" to the central spot in pro-life activism. A broader spectrum of issues fell behind. Moreover, the decision's language made the paradigm autonomy and rejected key pro-life arguments. Moving forward, number of more progressive activists attempted to focus more on reducing the abortion rate, which clashed with the goal of most pro-life activists and the Catholic bishops--overturning Roe and making abortion illegal through amendment. Pro-life progressives like Sarge Shriver often preferred to reduce abortions, putting them into conflict with the majority. In addition, the nomination of George McGovern and the ascendency of activists pushed the Democratic Party rapidly towards the pro-choice position, embracing moral individualism. Ellen McCormack, who I've reviewed a biography of, ran an avowedly anti-abortion Democratic primary campaign in 1976 and Jimmy Carter gave lip service to restricting abortion, but by then the pro-life movement on the left was declining.
From the 1970s, a rising Evangelical movement began to link abortion to other socially conservative causes. Thus, pro-life voters began to move towards an increasingly welcoming Republican Party. Ronald Reagan was especially important in fueling this shift after he came out in favor of the human life amendment, as were members of the New Right like Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich. They effectively linked being pro-life to being a conservative overall. From then on, the strategy shifted towards selecting anti-abortion judges and justices, who often turned out to be judicially conservative anyway. Over the decades, this realignment of pro-life politics continued. Williams demonstrates how many progressive pro-life activists turned into conservatives through this time. Electoral results followed suit too. As Williams notes, over 1/3 of House Democrats were endorsed by the National Right to Life Committee, but only three had this badge by 2014.
Williams concludes that while the human rights arguments advanced by pro-lifers successfully broadened their tent, these arguments did not solve the fundamental clash of values on the abortion issue. Personally, I'd be interested in hearing what Williams thinks post-Dobbs. The reactions in each political party (and the overreach on the right combined with Democratic backlash) have led to an extra-polarized environment. Today, many Americans take for granted that pro-life = Republican and pro-choice = Democratic. Williams' project in "Defenders of the Unborn" disavows readers of the notion that it had to be this way, making it an essential read for both pro-life and pro-choice people who want to understand more. This history might also serve as a spark for increasingly vocal (although still tiny) left-leaning pro-life groups.
October 25, 2018
When I read a book like this, my first question is, what is the author trying to prove? It is easy enough to see that pro-abortion rhetoric that the pro-life movement only started after the disaster of Roe v. Wade is false, and that the belief that only Catholics cared about saving the life of the unborn is false as well. What is less obvious is what the author is trying to accomplish with this historical investigation of the pro-rights argument of the pro-life movement. His general hostility to Republican politics appears to be far from unusual, and he delights in showing that the pro-life movement had a larger tie to culture of life and quality of life and social democracy than the Republican party has, and that is probably the clearest line of investigation into understanding the author's intent, as a way of encouraging a kinder and gentler pro-life politics in the present age. By and large, I don't see how the pro-rights argument of the pro-life movement is distinct from my own views [1] about the rights of the unborn to have a fair chance at life and the obligation of others, from mothers to the medical community, to do nothing to keep that from happening.
This book is about 250 pages long and is divided into nine chapters with an introduction and epilogue. The author begins with the clash of values between Catholics and the liberal European Jewish immigrants who were the first proponents of abortion in the United States (1) before moving on the political fight that began in the 1960's when some states started moving towards abortion (2). The author discusses the initial losses of the pro-life movement (3) as well as the campaign for a national right to life (4) during the period where issues of life involving the Vietnam War and civil rights were of particular importance. Then there is a discussion of the unpopularity of "abortion on demand" during the late 1960's (5) and the new image of the unborn that showed many people that the unborn were little human beings and not mere blobs of cells (6). The author then turns his attention to the relationship of pro-life members to the early Progressive movement (7), the national battle over the rights of the unborn (8) and what happened to pro-life politics after Roe v. Wade that made pro-life a Republican rather than a Democratic party phenomenon (9).
By and large, this particular book did not affect my own particular political views at it relates to the abortion issue. The author was certainly informative when it comes to the history of the pro-life movement and provides yet another example of how leftist Jewish elements were hazardous to the well-being of our population, and how the political alliance between Evangelicals and conservative Catholics that I have seen in my own life was achieved by virtue of the common culture of life that both traditions supported. The author also demonstrates how Roe v. Wade was a lot like the Dred Scott decision in attempting to enshrine a wicked view that was losing ground in the court of public opinion with the patina of constitutional legitimacy, and how difficult it is to overcome that sort of corrupt legal decision. If the author and I are not exactly the same in terms of our political worldviews, I see no reason why the support of a pro-life argument that is based on the rights of the unborn is problematic for someone who is conservative and not particularly fond of libertarian politics in general. The history is good, but what was the author trying to prove, anyway?
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
This book is about 250 pages long and is divided into nine chapters with an introduction and epilogue. The author begins with the clash of values between Catholics and the liberal European Jewish immigrants who were the first proponents of abortion in the United States (1) before moving on the political fight that began in the 1960's when some states started moving towards abortion (2). The author discusses the initial losses of the pro-life movement (3) as well as the campaign for a national right to life (4) during the period where issues of life involving the Vietnam War and civil rights were of particular importance. Then there is a discussion of the unpopularity of "abortion on demand" during the late 1960's (5) and the new image of the unborn that showed many people that the unborn were little human beings and not mere blobs of cells (6). The author then turns his attention to the relationship of pro-life members to the early Progressive movement (7), the national battle over the rights of the unborn (8) and what happened to pro-life politics after Roe v. Wade that made pro-life a Republican rather than a Democratic party phenomenon (9).
By and large, this particular book did not affect my own particular political views at it relates to the abortion issue. The author was certainly informative when it comes to the history of the pro-life movement and provides yet another example of how leftist Jewish elements were hazardous to the well-being of our population, and how the political alliance between Evangelicals and conservative Catholics that I have seen in my own life was achieved by virtue of the common culture of life that both traditions supported. The author also demonstrates how Roe v. Wade was a lot like the Dred Scott decision in attempting to enshrine a wicked view that was losing ground in the court of public opinion with the patina of constitutional legitimacy, and how difficult it is to overcome that sort of corrupt legal decision. If the author and I are not exactly the same in terms of our political worldviews, I see no reason why the support of a pro-life argument that is based on the rights of the unborn is problematic for someone who is conservative and not particularly fond of libertarian politics in general. The history is good, but what was the author trying to prove, anyway?
[1] See, for example:
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2014...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2013...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2011...
https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...
December 30, 2020
This deserves a much more thorough review than I have the energy to give, but I'll try to do it justice as best I can. I read this as part of my research project, looking at the creation of the pro-life movement and the backlash against Roe v. Wade by the religious right. This was integral to that conversation, but it did not do exactly what it purports to do, which is build a case that there has ALWAYS been a pro-life movement, despite claims that such political advocacy was crafted in the early 80s. We discover, only a small part of the way into Williams' narrative, that really the concentrated and intentional building of anti-abortion activism mostly occurred in a few year period in the late 60s, and only really took on in the late 70s, once Evangelicals could be convinced to take up the baton that had been carried by Catholics for quite a while.
So yes, Catholics have always been anti-abortion, this is true, but it was not the massive movement we see today, and it was always associated with religion. The pro-life side has been accused of bigotry and sexism while the pro-choice side has been accused of having its roots in eugenics and racism and honestly they're both right. Despite attempts to dance around this reality, there is no question that Catholics wanted to police women's bodies and abortion advocates were very interested in diminishing the number of babies with melanin or atypical abilities. I would really love to read a text that acknowledges and dives into this reality, but this is not it, since Williams' bias is clearly anti-abortion and he tries to real quickly skate over the fact that Catholics cared more about people having sex than they did fetal life.
It's also very clear that any narrative about life starting at conception has always been dominated by religious belief. They built an admirable constitutional rights argument that is documented here, but it was always couched in religious ideology.
On of the strengths found here is the honest presentation of competing narratives: rights of women vs rights of unborn child. If both are human, who supersedes? The primary objection to the pro-life stance has to maintain that the fetal life is not human. And the objections to that have been overwhelmingly from Catholics until just recent history when Evangelicals saw a chance to capitalize on something for political gain.
Reading Chapter 9 "After Roe" was so completely fascinating, forcing the reader to wonder what it? What if Democrats, many of whom had couched anti-abortion policy in the rhetoric of rights and morality that had accompanied the Civil Rights Movement and anti-war protests, hadn't disavowed the pro-life stance? What shape would the politics of our country have taken? What shape would my politics have taken? Because, despite the clear partisan line now drawn on the issue, this was not the case until the 80s. As a matter of fact, pro-life Catholics found more traction within the Democratic party and liberal policies than they did with right-leaning politicians. And then...then a decision had to be made. The Democratic party prioritized the feminist movement and women's rights, and a new narrative was adopted by a newly activist Evangelical faction of the pro-life movement that did not emphasize support programs or social welfare for the mother, but simply pure and unattenuated denouncement of abortion. The entire last third of the book I kept thinking "What if the anti-abortion movement had decided to emphasize the factors that lead women to abortion, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion? What might have been different? How would our country look?"
And that is the speculation I left with...what if? Williams does a fairly good job of leading us there, and really does great work detailing all of the historical events of the movement from 1960-1990. But his leanings are clear, and it does not seem he adequately acknowledged the roots of the pro-life movement he clearly favors, nor does he offer analysis. It's pretty straight delivery. But, that said, this historical recitation lead me to some very interesting ponderings about the what ifs I have mentioned above...
So yes, Catholics have always been anti-abortion, this is true, but it was not the massive movement we see today, and it was always associated with religion. The pro-life side has been accused of bigotry and sexism while the pro-choice side has been accused of having its roots in eugenics and racism and honestly they're both right. Despite attempts to dance around this reality, there is no question that Catholics wanted to police women's bodies and abortion advocates were very interested in diminishing the number of babies with melanin or atypical abilities. I would really love to read a text that acknowledges and dives into this reality, but this is not it, since Williams' bias is clearly anti-abortion and he tries to real quickly skate over the fact that Catholics cared more about people having sex than they did fetal life.
It's also very clear that any narrative about life starting at conception has always been dominated by religious belief. They built an admirable constitutional rights argument that is documented here, but it was always couched in religious ideology.
On of the strengths found here is the honest presentation of competing narratives: rights of women vs rights of unborn child. If both are human, who supersedes? The primary objection to the pro-life stance has to maintain that the fetal life is not human. And the objections to that have been overwhelmingly from Catholics until just recent history when Evangelicals saw a chance to capitalize on something for political gain.
Reading Chapter 9 "After Roe" was so completely fascinating, forcing the reader to wonder what it? What if Democrats, many of whom had couched anti-abortion policy in the rhetoric of rights and morality that had accompanied the Civil Rights Movement and anti-war protests, hadn't disavowed the pro-life stance? What shape would the politics of our country have taken? What shape would my politics have taken? Because, despite the clear partisan line now drawn on the issue, this was not the case until the 80s. As a matter of fact, pro-life Catholics found more traction within the Democratic party and liberal policies than they did with right-leaning politicians. And then...then a decision had to be made. The Democratic party prioritized the feminist movement and women's rights, and a new narrative was adopted by a newly activist Evangelical faction of the pro-life movement that did not emphasize support programs or social welfare for the mother, but simply pure and unattenuated denouncement of abortion. The entire last third of the book I kept thinking "What if the anti-abortion movement had decided to emphasize the factors that lead women to abortion, rather than simply trying to outlaw abortion? What might have been different? How would our country look?"
And that is the speculation I left with...what if? Williams does a fairly good job of leading us there, and really does great work detailing all of the historical events of the movement from 1960-1990. But his leanings are clear, and it does not seem he adequately acknowledged the roots of the pro-life movement he clearly favors, nor does he offer analysis. It's pretty straight delivery. But, that said, this historical recitation lead me to some very interesting ponderings about the what ifs I have mentioned above...
March 30, 2021
This important book will help you understand the varieties of pro-life individuals as well as the shifting relations that the movement has had with the Democratic and Republican Parties and with various Christian denominations. It will help you understand the reasons that some pro-life people have struggled to understand one another as well as the disconnect in pro-choice and pro-life communication. In doing these things, it also sheds light on the increasing polarization and breakdown in communication in the broader political world.
The tone of the work is descriptive, carefully articulate, and softly sympathetic, the approach of a research historian--never dogmatic or partisan. The work is well endnoted and has an excellent index as well.
The author does seem to struggle to appreciate the principles of fiscal conservatism and limited government with respect to social relief, but he genuinely tries.
"As the nation's abortion debate turned into a fight over the Supreme Court, the parties' polarization over the issue became more pronounced, and politicians who had once felt free to disagree with their party on abortion no longer did so. During the 1980s, Democrats Jesse Jackson (who had once written for Right to Life News), Dick Gephart (who had cosponsored a version of the HLA [Human Life Amendment] in the 1970s, and Al Gore (who had once said that abortion was "arguably the taking of a human life" and who had a pro-life voting record in Congress) changed their positions. At the same time, George H. W. Bush, who had opposed the HLA when he competed in the Republican presidential primaries in 1980, reinvented himself as a pro-life candidate, which allowed him to win the support of the NRLC when he ran for president again in 1988." (p246)
"The debate about abortion was a conflict over gender, even though most pro-lifers of the late 1960s and early 1970s had been slow to recognize this fact. It was not a conflict of men against women, as some pro-choicers believed; instead, it was a debate between two different groups of women. . .Both believed that their own positions advanced women's well-being, but because of their sharply contrasting views on pregnancy, the two sides had radically different notions of what liberation for women entailed. (262)
"The debate was not just about what constitutes a human person or the point at which human life begins, but about sexuality, pregnancy, personal autonomy, and gender roles." (262)
The tone of the work is descriptive, carefully articulate, and softly sympathetic, the approach of a research historian--never dogmatic or partisan. The work is well endnoted and has an excellent index as well.
The author does seem to struggle to appreciate the principles of fiscal conservatism and limited government with respect to social relief, but he genuinely tries.
"As the nation's abortion debate turned into a fight over the Supreme Court, the parties' polarization over the issue became more pronounced, and politicians who had once felt free to disagree with their party on abortion no longer did so. During the 1980s, Democrats Jesse Jackson (who had once written for Right to Life News), Dick Gephart (who had cosponsored a version of the HLA [Human Life Amendment] in the 1970s, and Al Gore (who had once said that abortion was "arguably the taking of a human life" and who had a pro-life voting record in Congress) changed their positions. At the same time, George H. W. Bush, who had opposed the HLA when he competed in the Republican presidential primaries in 1980, reinvented himself as a pro-life candidate, which allowed him to win the support of the NRLC when he ran for president again in 1988." (p246)
"The debate about abortion was a conflict over gender, even though most pro-lifers of the late 1960s and early 1970s had been slow to recognize this fact. It was not a conflict of men against women, as some pro-choicers believed; instead, it was a debate between two different groups of women. . .Both believed that their own positions advanced women's well-being, but because of their sharply contrasting views on pregnancy, the two sides had radically different notions of what liberation for women entailed. (262)
"The debate was not just about what constitutes a human person or the point at which human life begins, but about sexuality, pregnancy, personal autonomy, and gender roles." (262)
September 21, 2019
"This book offers an intellectual and political history for the pro-life movement." (Introduction)
And that is indeed the case.
This is a pretty comprehensive book about the history of the pro-life movement before Roe v. Wade, with a little less than 20% of the end being the immediate aftermath and then a spiraling in the epilogue between 1980 and 2013 (the 40th anniversary).
One thing that really bothers me is that a man wrote this book. Williams did fantastic, extensive research and works to not skew the info (yes, this is a biased book about the pro-life movement, but I felt that the political parties and different groups that were initially represented were all given a fair share)...but at the end, he says that "the debate about abortion was a conflict over gender [...]. It was not a conflict of men against women, as some pro-choicers believed; instead, it was a debate between two different groups of women." (Epilogue)
And this is still the case today.
So WHY didn't a woman write this?!
In some reviews, I saw grumbling that this does actually talk about after RvW, but there truly isn't a lot, and it sets the ground of the current political and moral climates.
The language that Williams uses reflects the language used at particular times. He shows shifts in stances and approaches, including what it means to be 'pro-life.' It's one thing for me to have known that these shifts occurred, and that the movement went from being ethical and religious to political, but it is an eye-opener to read more deeply on it all.
It is highly annoying that few women were leading or speaking for either cause in the early '60s, and that the pro-lifers were slower in allowing females to guide them. I do like that once we were given positions of leadership in the late '60s and early '70s, WE were the ones who showed sympathy, condemned the violence (later on) at abortion clinics, and started up facilities to help people of our gender.
I find it interesting that "abortion on demand" was coined in 1970.
The "zero population growth" mindset is frightening.
It is utterly scary to really see how federal courts control[led] abortions.
And that is indeed the case.
This is a pretty comprehensive book about the history of the pro-life movement before Roe v. Wade, with a little less than 20% of the end being the immediate aftermath and then a spiraling in the epilogue between 1980 and 2013 (the 40th anniversary).
One thing that really bothers me is that a man wrote this book. Williams did fantastic, extensive research and works to not skew the info (yes, this is a biased book about the pro-life movement, but I felt that the political parties and different groups that were initially represented were all given a fair share)...but at the end, he says that "the debate about abortion was a conflict over gender [...]. It was not a conflict of men against women, as some pro-choicers believed; instead, it was a debate between two different groups of women." (Epilogue)
And this is still the case today.
So WHY didn't a woman write this?!
In some reviews, I saw grumbling that this does actually talk about after RvW, but there truly isn't a lot, and it sets the ground of the current political and moral climates.
The language that Williams uses reflects the language used at particular times. He shows shifts in stances and approaches, including what it means to be 'pro-life.' It's one thing for me to have known that these shifts occurred, and that the movement went from being ethical and religious to political, but it is an eye-opener to read more deeply on it all.
It is highly annoying that few women were leading or speaking for either cause in the early '60s, and that the pro-lifers were slower in allowing females to guide them. I do like that once we were given positions of leadership in the late '60s and early '70s, WE were the ones who showed sympathy, condemned the violence (later on) at abortion clinics, and started up facilities to help people of our gender.
I find it interesting that "abortion on demand" was coined in 1970.
The "zero population growth" mindset is frightening.
It is utterly scary to really see how federal courts control[led] abortions.
Read
March 21, 2021Very interesting. Makes one wonder if in this Never Trump era in which many young evangelicals have started to care more about social justice than about homosexuality and extra marital sex, if a pro-life movement within the Democratic party could once again spring up.
It seems, in light of the Merrick Garland appointment and Trump's election it is in the interest of Democrats that abortion be exceedingly rare (in the words of Bill Clinton) and thus unimportant, regardless of what they believe about the right or wrong of it. Along with improved access to contraception and the continued reduction of the stigma associated with extra marital pregnancy and adoption, socialist programs for expecting mothers that eased the burden of motherhood would seem to accomplish the goals of all. The left doesn't want more abortions, after all, they just want women to have the freedom that motherhood without help so often restricts. The right would get their long sought after goal of far fewer abortions.
Of course, in this scenario abortions would still happen on the margins. Those who view it as murder would not be any happier than a pacifist would be over a war with few casualties, but that is why it's a compromise. Surely even pacifists prefer the first Persian Gulf War to World War II.
I suspect many machivellan members of the GOP recognize that without the issue if abortion they'd be in real trouble (as if they aren't already) and so therefore actually wouldn't be happy with this compromise (even apart from the introduction of a socialist program). Also, conservative catholics would still be disgruntled over contraception. But t
It seems, in light of the Merrick Garland appointment and Trump's election it is in the interest of Democrats that abortion be exceedingly rare (in the words of Bill Clinton) and thus unimportant, regardless of what they believe about the right or wrong of it. Along with improved access to contraception and the continued reduction of the stigma associated with extra marital pregnancy and adoption, socialist programs for expecting mothers that eased the burden of motherhood would seem to accomplish the goals of all. The left doesn't want more abortions, after all, they just want women to have the freedom that motherhood without help so often restricts. The right would get their long sought after goal of far fewer abortions.
Of course, in this scenario abortions would still happen on the margins. Those who view it as murder would not be any happier than a pacifist would be over a war with few casualties, but that is why it's a compromise. Surely even pacifists prefer the first Persian Gulf War to World War II.
I suspect many machivellan members of the GOP recognize that without the issue if abortion they'd be in real trouble (as if they aren't already) and so therefore actually wouldn't be happy with this compromise (even apart from the introduction of a socialist program). Also, conservative catholics would still be disgruntled over contraception. But t
July 2, 2024
So good! Daniel K Williams strikes again!
Williams is seriously becoming my go-to historian on 20th-century American Christianity. This work get a bit more in-the-weeds than his others, and there are some drier, policy-wonky chapters to work through, but it pays off in balanced historical reporting and insightful synthesizing. Overall, the direction of the pro-life movement was far from inevitable (including the deep alliance with the Republican Party!), and the roles that Catholics and political progressives play in the history of the movement is super interesting, and likely surprising to the average person today. I also loved how careful Williams is with the story of evangelical movement on abortion. He does not go for sensationalized or simplistic tellings, as some are tempted to, but he doesn't avoid criticism, either.
In general, I learned a ton and gained a deep appreciation for the multi-faceted history of the decades leading up to Roe v. Wade by reading this, and I highly, highly commend it to anyone seeking a more-informed historical perspective on the issue.
Williams is seriously becoming my go-to historian on 20th-century American Christianity. This work get a bit more in-the-weeds than his others, and there are some drier, policy-wonky chapters to work through, but it pays off in balanced historical reporting and insightful synthesizing. Overall, the direction of the pro-life movement was far from inevitable (including the deep alliance with the Republican Party!), and the roles that Catholics and political progressives play in the history of the movement is super interesting, and likely surprising to the average person today. I also loved how careful Williams is with the story of evangelical movement on abortion. He does not go for sensationalized or simplistic tellings, as some are tempted to, but he doesn't avoid criticism, either.
In general, I learned a ton and gained a deep appreciation for the multi-faceted history of the decades leading up to Roe v. Wade by reading this, and I highly, highly commend it to anyone seeking a more-informed historical perspective on the issue.
June 25, 2022
Daniel K. Williams is a fascist scumbag of the first order-- a tendentious "historian" whose research isn't quite up to snuff and who never refrains from pointing out a character flaw in an abortion rights advocate while stopping short of doing the same to pro-lifers. While there is some valuable information in this otherwise detestable volume about how Catholics organized against abortion (and even courted Blacks), Williams really should be punched in the face repeatedly for painting the pro-life movement as some innocent home-spun organization that was oppressed. He does acknowledge how the pro-lifers (or, as I prefer to call them, anti-choicers) resorted to graphic imagery as Roe v. Wade was bubbling its way into national consciousness, but he refuses to acknowledge their repugnant violence and their murders of doctors. Which makes Daniel K. Williams not unlike a Nazi sympathizer, a cockroach to stub out with the sharp force of a principled humanist Doc Marten.
April 2, 2023
I read this book after seeing it recommended by The Economist to learn more about America's debate on abortion rights. As a pro-choice supporter, it was interesting to learn how our two political parties were initially reversed in their stance about abortion, and how people were trying to associate the fight for rights of the unborn with other movements such as equality for African Americans and anti-war protests. I found it absurd how there was an pro-life argument that tried to equate abortions to the holocaust. I was hoping that the book would touch upon when consciousness entered the discourse, but I took away that it wasn't a major argument before Roe V. Wade.
August 12, 2018
This book is a bit dry and very dense at times, especially for such a short read. In the epilogue, he is a bit simplistic in his analysis of the modern movement. He does not really look at the effects of their attempts to limit access to abortion other than to say that the rate of legal abortions lower as if this is the end of the story. What about illegal abortions? What about the impact on poor people disproportionately.
August 22, 2020
A well-researched book that includes information about pro-lifers origins a how its goals were shifted after the ruling of Roe v. Wade. It's fascinating to see how the Supreme Court's ruling that stated that the constitution did not protect unborn children impacted the pro-life movement and its shift to the political right. It also provides a brief history of abortion clinics and how they were impacted before and after Roe.
October 16, 2020
This book gave me background information on the Pro-Life movement which I needed seven years ago when I came into contact with the Pro-life movement. The very core of the Pro Life ideology is a good message, alas, it has been corrupted by the social conservatives within the Republican Party. The book lays out the issue of abortion and every possible response to the practice of abortion. It is unfortunate I was not given this book to read seven years ago, I may still be Pro-Life.
October 26, 2017
Such a good book! Whether you’re pro-life or pro-abortion, this book is a great way to understand the issues. From the 19th century onward, it describes the “right of life” supporters. Excellent.
January 25, 2019
Brilliant historical account that explains so much about where we are at today on this issue and why.
July 4, 2019
A nice social history of the pro-life movement. It's quite readable and I learned a lot. I recommend it
February 21, 2020
An interesting look at the pro-life movement and how tied it was to a left human rights movement in its early days and also not uniquely Republican.
March 4, 2021
I read this for a paper I'm writing. It was very informative and introduced me to a lot of history that I didn't know.
Want to read
April 17, 2021Note: I received a digital review copy of this book from the publisher through NetGalley.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews