Rod Dreher

The Christian Child of Pakistan

View From the Crisis Pregnancy Center

By Rod Dreher • August 21, 2012, 9:59 AM

My TAC blog colleague Eve Tushnet has a good piece in The Weekly Standard about how her perspective on marriage and pregnancy has changed in the last decade of working as a volunteer at a Washington, DC, crisis pregnancy center. (CPCs, in case you don’t know, are organizations, usually run by Christians, who help women figure out workable alternatives to abortion). Excerpt:

When I started counseling I saw our work as serving the mother-child dyad. I wanted to help the woman and save her unborn baby. Over time I began to see more and more the frayed communal fabric in which these women and children are wrapped. I began to appreciate the connections they lacked—to their own fathers, to their children’s fathers, to happily married couples who could serve as models, to churches where they were nurtured and shown God’s love. Now I see my job primarily as helping women find people in their own communities who can give them support, advice, and most of all the hope that married love is possible.

I really hope you’ll read the whole thing. Bless Eve for her work at this center. One of the stories I’ve done in my career that means the most to me was a little nothing piece about that CPC when it first opened, in the mid-1990s. I wrote something ordinary about it for The Washington Times, where I worked at the time. I found out the next week that a copy of that day’s paper had been mistakenly delivered to the door of a woman, not a subscriber, who was planning to have an abortion that very day. She flipped through the paper, saw the story, had a change of heart, and called the center. She chose to have that baby, not abort her.

Posted in Abortion.

23 Responses to View From the Crisis Pregnancy Center

Matt in TX says:

August 21, 2012 at 10:33 am

I thought it was interesting that the article doesn’t mention adoption at all.

“But abstinence isn’t a life goal. It’s not a destination or a vocation. Motherhood is—it’s a way to give and receive love, and to gain a sense of meaning and purpose beyond oneself.”

It’s a little difficult for me to tell if Tushnet is simply communicating how these mothers think, or if she’s endorsing this way of thinking, herself. It sounds to me like she’s endorsing it, which is very interesting to me, given her oft-repeated statements on her own life.

In any case, while I am pro-life, it’s also easy for me to wonder about how this mindset could create a culture of single-motherhood spanning generations.

Maybe the Catholics can enlighten me: why isn’t abstinence a “vocation” or a “destination”? I thought it was, in Catholic thinking. I can understand the desire to write a hopeful article, but I also sense a kind of soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations current here, where there’s a pipeline down which these poor members of the underclass are directed, and there’s a different one for Yale-educated “I’m-very-good-at-sublimation” folks.
Don Quijote says:

August 21, 2012 at 10:52 am

ROTFLMAO…

Conservatives vote for a series of economic policies that destroyed the economic basis of the working class and then you expect them to have middle class values and support systems…
Joe the Plutocrat says:

August 21, 2012 at 10:56 am

and what become of that child? did the mother require public assistance in the form of food stamps, section 8 housing? did the child and the (presumed) single mother become part of the ‘unfunded entitlement’ tote board? abortion is what it is; it is no more or less moral/ethical than dropping cluster bombs on Kosovo; Predator drone strikes in Pakistan, or capital punishment. it is the state sanctioned end of a life; not an ‘unborn baby’; a life. the only question is; whom do we want to make this difficult ‘choice’? the SCOTUS (Roe v. Wade) has simply stated that a woman has the right to choose. bully for organizations like CPC, but at the end of the day; the ‘state’ while granting to right to choose cannot determine if the choice was the right one.
Mary Russell says:

August 21, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Wanted to underline nearly every word in this article, including the fact that many women do not get married because they want to achieve an elusive stability beforehand. I have heard many women say they will not get married for essentially materialistic reasons- they want the big white dress, the party afterwards, but can’t afford all of that, so don’t get married. Others think marriage is a pie in the sky ideal unattainable by ordinary people.
CPCs do wonderful work. It’s not just about counselling people out of abortion. A colleague of mine in a former job was the medical counsellor for a local CPC. They did the pregnancy test, referred to our practice (or any other practice the client expressed a preference for) for prenatal care, then would follow up with counselling and material support in the form of baby clothes, strollers, cribs, etc.
Eric K. says:

August 21, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Thanks Rod. Eve and people like her who work at pregnancy centers all over the country are the hands and feet of Jesus.
Chris Jones says:

August 21, 2012 at 12:24 pm

Don Quijote

You win the prize for “facile and shallow analysis of the day”.

The roots of the shambles that is the working class/underclass are extremely diverse and complex. It’s far more complex than just the “economic policies” of the government (globalization, feminism, the sexual revolution, immigration and other demographic issues all play their part, just to name a few). And even to the extent that economic policies are to blame, it can’t be pinned on “conservatives” alone. Economic policies of both Democratic and Republican administrations, and of both conservatives and liberals, have contributed to the problems.

And of course, when an orthodox Christian (who is not actually a conservative in the political sense (have you ever read Eve Tushet before?)) has taken direct action to address social problems, you put forward this brain-dead sloganeering to divert attention from the actual good that is being done. Way to go.
Rick says:

August 21, 2012 at 1:10 pm

“But abstinence isn’t a life goal. It’s not a destination or a vocation. Motherhood is—it’s a way to give and receive love, and to gain a sense of meaning and purpose beyond oneself.”

I think she’s saying that abstinence is not a vocation (like marriage, motherhood, celibate life) it is a discipline. Sometimes we fail in discipline and need to repent and recommit to the discipline. Selfless love is a vocation: even for men and women who have failed to live chastely and who have become parents.
Carol says:

August 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm

Eve Tushnet is an orthodox Christian? I thought she’s Catholic.
Ampersand says:

August 21, 2012 at 1:30 pm

Chris Jones: on behalf of liberals everywhere, I’m begging you to encourage your politicians to crusade against feminism and the sexual revolution. Instead of the code-phrases and dog-whistles, let’s have it out once and for all: the people who want to go back to the ’50s, and the people who don’t. I’d like an honest battle between the two, just to see what’d happen.
Laser says:

August 21, 2012 at 2:53 pm

People who get disappointed that a woman doesn’t abort her child are a mystery to me. However, the nice thing about this blog is I am sure I will be educated multiple times in the comments section by the depth of their moral bankruptcy.
Eric K says:

August 21, 2012 at 2:58 pm

Ampersand – I did not read Chris as saying that we need a return to the 50s. He was simply asking for an acknowledgement that some of the social changes since then have had a negative effect on the working class and the situation that exists today can not solely be blamed on one party’s economic policies.
Chris Jones says:

August 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm

Carol,

I meant to describe Miss Tushnet as an “orthodox” (small-o), not an “Orthodox” (capital-O) Christian. An “orthodox Christian”, as I am using the phrase, means “a Christian who believes according to the classic, historic teachings of his or her communion,” and can be applied to any Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox. It does not mean “a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church”; I use “Orthodox” (capitalized) for that meaning.

So yes, Eve Tushnet is a Roman Catholic, and one who is loyal to the historic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, she is orthodox.
Chris Jones says:

August 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm

Ampersand,

Where to begin?

I’m begging you to encourage your politicians …

Stop right there: I can’t encourage “my politicians” to do anything, because there are no politicians who are “my politicians.” I have little interest in, and even less likelihood of, having the government enforce my social views. If I did, I think you might be surprised at the results.

… to crusade against feminism and the sexual revolution

There was nothing in my comment to suggest a “crusade” against anything. You don’t have to dislike feminism to recognize that it has wrought a revolution in the economic sphere, since women are now in the labour force in very large numbers. Whether one regards that as a good thing or a bad thing, it cannot be denied that it has consequences and it has costs. It is certainly true that the addition of the skills, intelligence, and creativity of millions of women to our economy has enriched our economic life; but it is also true that the exodus of that same intelligence and creativity from our homes has impoverished our home life. Many would say that the trade-off has been worth it, and perhaps they are right; but it will not do to pretend that the trade-off does not exist.

Likewise with the sexual revolution. To an extent it has increased the scope of liberty, at least in sexual matters. But it is inarguable that it has damaged the stability and social effectiveness of the family. Anyone who believes that the sexual revolution has been an unalloyed good is deluding himself.

the people who want to go back to the 50s and the people who don’t

Well, there is no golden age. But if there were one, it would be a lot longer ago than the 50s. The point is not “going back” to some golden age, but speaking the truth and living by the truths of human nature that are timeless.

I’d like an honest battle between the two, just to see what’d happen.

Careful what you wish for, you might not like what would happen. This is the country, after all, which refused to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, and where voters have turned down gay marriage every single time it has been put to a vote.
Don Quijote says:

August 21, 2012 at 4:39 pm

(globalization, feminism, the sexual revolution, immigration and other demographic issues all play their part, just to name a few)

Globalization (The search of cheap labor outside of the US)& immigration (The importation of cheap unskilled labor AKA illegal immigration & the importation of skilled labor H1Bs & company) are economic policies. Feminism is the result of an economic policy that encouraged women to join the workforce.
Cheap Labor Uber Alles is and has been the core default economic policy of the republican party since the end of WWII…
Franklin Evans says:

August 21, 2012 at 5:37 pm

Chris,

You get my nomination for Rod’s civility “award”, hands down. I do have a rebuttal to offer.

There is a simple (not simplistic) view that informs the details you describe. They are valid, no argument there, but they are not validly labeled causes.

The simple view is that below the top 5%, gross income has stagnated in real dollars and fallen in inflated dollars. The collected data cannot be denied. This has a chilling effect all by itself. We can (and our society should) debate the underlying factors, but here we can limit ourselves to results.

Item: Below that 5%, single-income families have become increasingly impractical. The woman’s contribution to family income is critical, leaving her and her mate a catch-22: she can work full-time and they can remain childless, or they can have children and see their income class drop precipitously with each one.

Item: average compensation for women continues to be less than the $1 men get. The largest, objective factor is maternity leave. It does not belong in the debate on this issue. The remaining disparities can and should be labeled gender discrimination to some (and arguable) extent.

Our social ethic does not include a monetary value on the mother staying at home with her children. It’s a nice can of worms, to be sure, but it must be discussed for one glaring reason: The extended family is long gone — having other adults around is a huge advantage — and nothing has come along to replace it to any extent. That was a huge contributor to the success of the single-income family. A close second is the decline of long-term stable communities due to increased mobility. The best friend who would help take the place of an extended family moves half way across the country (or even just the city) to take a better-paying job. The couple with grown children heads to greener pastures for retirement. There are many positive aspects to mobility, but this is a glaring unintended consequence.

I must agree with Don Q: Feminism was made possible when women were called into the factories and other home-front jobs during WWII. I wouldn’t dignify that necessity as a “policy”, nor would I refer to it as “encouragement”. Women got a taste of life outside the nursery and kitchen, and there was just no going back.
Chris Jones says:

August 21, 2012 at 5:47 pm

Cheap Labor Uber Alles is and has been the core default economic policy of the republican party since the end of WWII…

Happily, then, I am not a Republican.
Carol says:

August 21, 2012 at 7:20 pm

Thanks, Chris, for the explanation.
JonF says:

August 21, 2012 at 7:59 pm

Re: Maybe the Catholics can enlighten me: why isn’t abstinence a “vocation” or a “destination”?

Matt, as a former Catholic and now Orthodox, my answer (perhaps not the Pope’s!) would be that celibacy is a special and uncommon chrism: an invitation, seldom given, to become the especial beloved of the Lord. It is not something everyone can or should aspire to, any more than we should all aspire to monastic poverty. (Chastity, which != celibacy, is of course a virtue for everyone)
pinkjohn says:

August 21, 2012 at 9:51 pm

Indeed Rod, blessings on Eve Tushnet for her service here. CPC’s have evolved by necessity over the years from simply trying to talk women out of abortions (frequently by misleading them into thinking they were actually concerned about them instead of their unborn fetuses) or being what they perceived as “anti-Planned Parenthood” into something much more.

I remain pro-choice for many reasons. However, if this article is a reflection of the real view from the trenches in CPCs, there is much more overlap between the two camps than there used to be. The focus has to be on real women and children, not “woman’s body” as a symbol of autonomy from male oppression, and not on the “unborn” as a symbol of life, innocence and purity destroyed by the selfish mother.
PDGM says:

August 21, 2012 at 9:55 pm

A meta-comment if I may:

Is it my imagination, or are the comments section of this blog becoming less civil and less thoughtful, while (not a coincidence) becoming more polemical, more slogan-oriented, and in general less interesting?

A good blog comment section is neither an echo-chamber or feedback loop, nor is it a place where people go to dump their views on others in a context-ignorant, facile way. The pleasure of RD’s blog comments section has been its overall success in achieving the first while avoiding the second; but it seems like it’s steadily marching towards the latter and away from the former.
Franklin Evans says:

August 21, 2012 at 11:04 pm

PDGM: It depends on the thread and the inhabitants it attracts. Purely from my personal POV, the topics Rod has chosen lately tend to attract strongly held opinions. I’m certainly resembling both that and your observation.

I’m not worried about it, and I humbly reassure you as well. These tend to be cyclic, not extreme to extreme all at once. As a FB friend posted recently, using a very accurate series of people in diverse climates: “If you don’t like the weather, wait an hour.”
Siarlys Jenkins says:

August 22, 2012 at 10:25 am

at the end of the day; the ‘state’ while granting to right to choose cannot determine if the choice was the right one

Hear! Hear!

The work described in this article is the finest the pro-life movement has to offer. Aside from the possibility that some CPC’s may use deceptive or manipulative methods, anyone who opposes this work in general merits the description “pro abortion” as distinct from pro-choice.

Abortion may sometimes, or never, be the right choice. The state is not qualified to decide, but CPC’s certainly have their place in the public square. Those that offer comprehensive support to the pregnant woman who must make the decision are doing good work.
Meredith says:

August 22, 2012 at 2:02 pm

“Maybe the Catholics can enlighten me: why isn’t abstinence a “vocation” or a “destination”? I thought it was, in Catholic thinking. I can understand the desire to write a hopeful article, but I also sense a kind of soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations current here, where there’s a pipeline down which these poor members of the underclass are directed, and there’s a different one for Yale-educated “I’m-very-good-at-sublimation” folks.”

Well, I’m a Catholic and I’ll try to explain: Eve spent much of the article on her efforts to make marriage feel more realistic and accessible to her clients. The simple message, “Wait until marriage!” is fine for teenagers but woefully unhelpful to young adults who subscribe to the fashionable idea that marriage celebrates the fact that you’ve finally Arrived, rather than serving as the foundation of your success. And people of all social classes have come to feel this, so Eve’s intuition that “waiting” is not a way of life applies to everyone, not just the poor. The difference between the rich and the poor is that, after living with each other for eight years, the rich couple is finally able to throw an outrageous party for their thirty-something friends, while the poor couple never quite scrapes together the cash.

The takeaway: marriage and consecrated life are vocations, “waiting” is just a stage. And Christians who tell their kids “Wait for marriage! Wait for marriage!” while discouraging them from marrying young are just cruel.