Why don’t “pro-choicers” want to talk about abortion coercion?

Alex Zielinski of the San Antonio Current is not happy that pro-life lawyer and Justice Foundation president Allan Parker sent a letter to Texas school districts offering guidance counselors and nurses training and resources on state law against coerced abortions.

From Parker’s letter:

Sounds like pretty routine fare to me—districts that already offer support to students pressured to abort can simply ignore the letter, and districts that are negligent in this regard desperately need a reminder. What’s the harm?

In Zielinski’s mind, there’s plenty of harm. But then, she is well-versed in finding outrage where none exists, such as calling Idaho biased against Planned Parenthood for leaving the organization off a list of free providers of a service Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide for free, along with declaring it racist to oppose banning race-based abortions, and twisting a case of a mom scarring her newborn for life via attempted self-abortion into “punish[ing] women for seeking abortion”.

Zielinksi writes in the Current of Allan Parker’s statements:

Don’t worry, Alex, I can provide you with the data Parker couldn’t. According to a 2004 study published in the Medical Science Monitor, 64 percent of women report feeling some sort of pressure to abort. There’s not a lot of hard data on the subject (largely because the abortion industry isn’t interested in the answer), but it’s worth noting that in addition to the many anecdotes Live Action News has covered over the years, there are also women who claim Planned Parenthood staff actually forced them to abort and ex-Planned Parenthood personnel who admit it. Zielinksi continues:

Nonsense. As I explained back in January, the rule changes simply close loopholes that make it easier for minors to get abortions without actually proving that their parents deserve to be cut out of the decision. Zielinski’s reference to “five business days” is particularly misleading—what the court actually did was extend the amount of time a judge has to make a decision from two business days to five—which has the effect of increasing teens’ chances of getting a ruling at all. She goes on:

What were those “legally irrelevant” documents? The only one specified in the original report is a picture of an aborted first-trimester baby… that supposedly had no bearing on an ultrasound law. As in, a law all about imagery. Incompetence was definitely at work here, but not on Parker’s end. (Do you suppose the judge who berated him, Sam Sparks, also thinks Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was “incompetent” for discussing abortion imagery in his partial-birth abortion decision?) More from Zielinksi:

I don’t know what’s more pathetic: contrasting Zielinski’s condescension against the fact that she’s straight-up lying about pregnancy centers, or watching an abortion defender pretend to advocate for prenatal care while Planned Parenthood’s prenatal care dropped 53.8 percent from 2009 to 2013. Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report reveals that prenatal care (categorized under “Other Women’s Health Services”) amounted to 17,419—less than five percent of the 323,999 abortions the organization performed (which is itself falsely claimed to be just three percent of Planned Parenthood’s business…meaning that by Planned Parenthood’s own standards, their prenatal care is positively minuscule).

Debunking Planned Parenthood's "3%" Abortion Myth

Ultimately, neither is as pathetic as the big picture here: a movement that defines itself with the label “choice” recoiling against the suggestion that we should be aware when women are being forced into abortions against their will.