June 28, 2022

Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing, by EPPC’s Ryan T. Anderson and Alexandra DeSanctis, launches today.

As the Supreme Court returns abortion law to the democratic process, this powerful new book reframes the coming debate. Ryan and Alexandra expose the false promises of the abortion movement and explain why it has made everything worse.

Read an excerpt: How the Eugenics Movement Made Race-Based Abortions Normal

Yesterday, Ryan and Alexandra participated in a panel at the Heritage Foundation cohosted with the National Review Institute. They discussed the themes of their new book with Kathryn Lopez, Senior Fellow at the National Review Institute.

Ryan and Alexandra also appeared on The People’s Podcast with Mike Huckabee to discuss their new book.

Patrick T. Brown Cited in New York Times
 

EPPC’s Life and Family Initiative and the work of Fellow Patrick T. Brown were praised in a June 25th New York Times op-ed:
 

“Accordingly, in a recent Times Opinion essay, Patrick T. Brown acknowledged the need for ‘a broader vision of policy than just prohibiting access to abortion.’ A post-Roe world, he wrote, ‘is one that compels a greater claim on public resources to support expectant mothers’ and demands that we ‘take seriously the challenges that women and families experience not only during and immediately after pregnancy but also in the years that follow.’

“The conservative think tank where Mr. Brown is a fellow, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has developed a robust, holistic Life and Family Initiative aimed at protecting the lives of prenatal children and offering concrete support to the families in which they will be born.”

Erika Bachiochi Provides Pro-Life Perspective for New York Times and CNN

On June 24, EPPC Fellow Erika Bachiochi contributed the following commentary to a New York Times opinion feature on the Dobbs opinion:

“In an attempt to negate the majority’s reliance on the 14th Amendment in its reasoning, the dissent thinks it has thrown a trump card here. Sure, the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment did not understand liberty to include an abortion right. But how could they have? the dissent asks. Women could not vote; the ratifiers were all men!

“This may be. But it is worthwhile to note that the first wave of American feminists, to whom the dissent refers, were quite attuned to the relationship between abortion and women’s liberty and equality; indeed, that some women felt the need to end the lives of their unborn children revealed to them just how deeply society had failed women. Recognizing, as Victoria Woodhull did, that the rights of children ‘begin while yet they remain the fetus,’ these early women’s-rights advocates sought equal rights—in marriage, education, property, the professions and the franchise—in part so they could carry out their responsibilities to their children, born and unborn.

“In doing so, they held not a ‘foreshortened view’ of women’s rights, as the dissent patronizingly argues, but one based on a rich understanding of human beings as fundamentally interdependent. For 19th-century women’s advocates, rights were properly grounded not in male-normative ideals of unencumbered ‘autonomy,’ as the now-repudiated ‘right’ to abortion was, but in our responsibilities to one another. They offer a model for how we might approach a Roe-free future that, in fact, does better by women than the past 50 years.”