“Safe, legal, and rare” was once a bedrock argument for legalized abortion. In the years since Roe v. Wade, that argument has shifted dramatically.

This is Part 2 in a series on the abortion issue by editor/owner Justin Stapley. Click here to read Part 1.

Most Americans have heard the phrase “safe, legal, and rare.” It was a phrase that originated in the 1960s and 1970s era of the abortion debate. The Clinton Foundation used the slogan extensively.

The idea was that having the government legalize abortion would allow women a safe place to legally have an abortion. This was preferable to women risking their health and even their lives getting an illegal abortion. Such a place would also provide an opportunity to speak about their options moving forward. Such option would include abortion but also included adoption and other avenues.

Proponents of this viewpoint used to argue the number of abortions in America would go down once the government legalized it. The idea was that women could make the decision while having a clear sense of their options as opposed to making a rash decision while at the height of fear and panic.

For a time after Roe v. Wade, this argument seemed like it would play out. Consultation at an abortion clinic could last over an hour as they would walk a woman, step-by-step, through the process she was considering. The clinics would also present her with a full gambit of her options. Abortion clinics would not consider it a failure when women left without having undergone an abortion.

However, developments over the last few decades have demonstrated the idea of “safe, legal, and rare” has been largely abandoned. Abortion clinics now tout their efficiency, as can be seen in 2005’s Annual Review of Public Health. There they state positively that abortion applicants require, “fewer clinic visits.” They place a strong emphasis on this development, as opposed to a focus on the overall psychiatric health and well-being of the woman as she learns of and chooses from her available options.

Clinics that offer abortions also tout various numbers of efficiency as worthwhile and valuable. These include such as initiating “same-day service,” decreasing the waiting period from “20.3 to 3.6 days,” increasing the number of procedures per session “by 52.7%,” and increasing the percentage of same-day procedures “from 7% to 62%.”

The numbers are fast approaching a reality where nearly every woman who goes to an abortion clinic ends up having an abortion. The phrase “safe, legal, and rare” is beginning to not only be seen by abortion advocates as out of vogue but as actually hostile to women. According to an article in Solidarity, it’s a phrase that “reinforces the stigmatization of those who choose that option.”

Clearly, “safe, legal, and rare” is no longer a plank in the pro-abortion argument. Instead, success seems to be measured by increasing the abortion rate as much as possible. Don’t believe me? Go to a pro-choice rally. Instead of signs saying “safe, legal, and rare” you’re more likely to spot ones touting “abortion on demand and without apology.”

In Part 3 of this series, The Poverty Argument, Justin will move on to another prevalent argument for legal abortion, that legalized abortion helps fight poverty.

Justin Stapley is the owner and editor of The Liberty Hawk and the voice of The New Centrist Podcast. As a political writer, his principles and ideals are grounded in the ideas of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism. You can follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

