§ Volunteer Form

§ What is Pro-Life Unity?

To achieve Pro-Life Unity we will establish standards that we all agree upon, and efforts that we all regularly participate in. By working together we can challenge the culture of death and the apathy which is pervasive in our society.

§ Action Code

South Africa:  how the fight against the pro-choice movement can quickly become muddled

Long before South Africa was universally associated with Nelson Mandela, cheap international holidays and the only destination in Africa worth visiting if you don’t want to be poisoned by the tap water, its principle claim to fame was a system called apartheid.  A product of its history, apartheid entailed the minority of the population (the descendants of European settlers) ruling over the majority black population in a brutal manner that would have made Mussolini blush.  Blacks were deprived of their citizenship, forced into manual labour (if they were lucky enough to be able to move around at all) and generally preened to serve their white masters.  If they resisted, they were taken care of.  The more fortunate trouble-makers ended their days on the gallows while most of them disappeared in a series of extra-judicial executions that became more depraved and creative as the policy aged. A twisted local version of Calvinist-Christianity was used amongst the whites to justify the oppression with the preordained being identified as white.  The framework of the current status quo as regards abortion grew from that as a reaction. 

During the apartheid years (1948 to 1994), the National Party government regulated sterilisation and abortion (it seems almost nostalgic that the two be associated in anything official) in terms of an Abortion and Sterilisation Act.  Essentially, nobody could get an abortion unless they’d been raped, been the victim of incest (voluntarily or not), were likely to die as a result of the continued pregnancy, were likely to give birth to a child who was either to be deformed (conveniently undefined in terms of the statute) or otherwise ‘unviable’ - or (and this was the catch-all): be likely to suffer detriment (real or imagined) as a likelihood of the pregnancy’s continuation.  The courts were really open to whites and whites, mostly, could therefore only get legal abortions.  The wealthy flew to London or crossed the border (there was a great degree of shame attached to seeking out the procedure) and escaped the humiliation of appearing in open court but the fact remained, your chances of access to an abortion were almost guaranteed if you had the right skin colour.  Simultaneously, illegal abortions resulted in the prosecution of the perpetrators so long as the victims were white.  The government looked the other way when the murdered unborn were black.  Why after all, when whites were already outnumbered, should the authorities care if someone, for whatever reason, had removed another black person who’d require policing later?

Apartheid South Africa became democratic South Africa (much to everyone’s surprise) and having being associated with the previous government in any way bought as much respect as openly supporting the Nazis after the Allied victory in World War II.  Democratisation required the outlawing of all forms of racial discrimination.  Sexual and gender discrimination were out too.  The new order made it its primary objective to undo everything it saw as negative as a result of the old order.  If previously whites only had access to abortions, this had to change.  ASAP.  As a result the legislature began considering the Choice of Termination of Pregnancy Act almost as soon as the old racist order had been ushered out the door.  Now any woman could have a ‘termination’.  It doesn’t matter if you are only twelve years old, married, unmarried, whatever - you can request a pregnancy termination within the first twelve weeks of gestation without having to ever inform your parents (they can be charged with a criminal offence for trying to stop you) or husband.  You can get the abortion after twelve weeks too, although not as easily.

Abortion became part of something called ‘reproductive health’ and the message was that messing with this ‘right’ was tantamount to identifying oneself with the previous order.  Yes, a doctor or a midwife could refuse to carry out the procedure but they were required to tell the ‘patient’ where they would find the ‘treatment’ they sought (effectively making them accomplices).  At the time, to overcome a chronic shortage of medical professionals, doctors were being imported en masse from Cuba.  Considering the necessary ideological qualifications to get a university education under Castro, nobody had any doubt that the exports would be doing much refusing.  South Africa quickly had the most liberal abortion law in the world, not to mention the only abortion law to ever be greeted by the dancing and singing in parliament of members of the ruling party who put it onto the statute book. 

Where does that leave us?  Opponents of abortion enter the fray with a label as ‘reactionary’, ‘racist’, ‘sexist’ or all or some of the above.  Already on the back foot, they can’t make their message heard and are dismissed with contempt before they’ve even opened their mouths.  No major political party dares oppose abortion as a policy decision.  The parameters of the fight have moved on and the opponents of abortion have their energy drained in trying to justify why they should be heard instead of concentrating on what they’re trying to say.  The few successes have only been temporary and principally resulted from the legislature (naturally buoyant after it’s earlier ‘victory’) callously disregarding the process needed to amend the Act.  The shame factor has largely dissipated, as evidenced by the director of a Marie Stopes clinic appearing on radio news near the end of every school holiday period and complaining that he sees the same faces time-after-time, the new girls look younger-and-younger and he’s not supposed to be providing contraception - as opposed to another kind of ‘reproductive health’ service, I suppose.

Why is this important?  The South African example has not gone unnoticed by the “pro-choicers” in your jurisdiction.  This is the template going forward.  It works and it’s powerful.  If Amnesty International can make access to abortion a ‘political right’, opponents everywhere will find themselves branded in the unfriendly media as ‘fascists’, ‘sexists’, ‘reproductive Nazis’, ‘racists’, reactionaries’, ‘misogynists’ and whatever else.  Expect an attempt in your area soon.

What, in my opinion, can be done?  Never let the issue drop from the policy programmes of major political parties.  Never underestimate the power of single voter issues - if South African voters had this luxury, this situation might never have come about.  Never underestimate how quickly things can change.  Pray.

About Frank:
Frank de Sales is a part-time South African Catholic novelist (his debut - Devil’s Island - is now available in the US).  For his day job he’s a lawyer.  Here he explores how the pro-choice movement in his home country was able to twist the debate using political and socio-economic issues to the point where South Africa has arguably the most liberal abortion legislation in the world and how that is unlikely to ever change.  The South African experience has not gone unnoticed and pro-choice advocates are looking to repeat the ‘success of South Africa’ internationally and have the results enshrined in international law.  Frank is contactable on .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or via facebook.