By: Leslie A. Zukor
- Leslie Zukor
“Leslie, we’re doing God’s work by saving babies!” the voice on my cell phone receiver exclaimed, when I was sitting outside of McAfee Hall one fall afternoon. I was 18-years-old, fresh out of high school, and the newly named Vice President of Wellesley Alliance For Life (WAFL). I was a pro-lifer in principle; I believed that abortion was morally wrong, and I would do anything in my power to stop it. On the other end of the phone line was the lobbyist for Massachusetts State’s largest pro-life group. “We know the Committee Chair very well, and there’s some backdoor maneuvering going on.” There may have been a conflict of interest, but that was irrelevant, the voice explained. “We are doing the Lord’s work, and that’s all that matters.” Knowing full well that I wanted abortions to stop, I expressed my agreement. I would come testify on behalf of a friend in support of the “Woman’s Right To Know” informed consent bill that was then in Committee at the Massachusetts State Legislature. We had a great case, or so I thought. I would go before the House Committee, I had a friend who had supplied me with a gripping personal story, and I was “doing God’s work.” It was only after we hung up the phone that it hit me. “How could I be doing God’s work, when I didn’t believe in God in the first place?” I wondered, and then brushed aside any doubt. Thus, on a snowy October morning, I testified on behalf of “informed consent,” a mandatory waiting period, and giving women greater access to information about alternatives to abortion. Speaking in front of a State House Committee was not the only thing that I did for the pro-life movement during the 2003-04 academic year; I spoke in front of 3,000 people at the Massachusetts annual March for Life, I had a very unrewarding experience protesting at an abortion clinic, and I organized five pro-life speakers in only one year of serving on the leadership council.
Leslie Zukor (left) at the 2003 Massachusetts State Pro-Life March
After everything that I had done for the pro-life movement, I decided to resign my leadership role at WAFL, effective at semester’s end. Why had I, a successful anti-abortion crusader, decided that the pro-life activist’s path was not one that I wanted to take? The answer is that I could no longer associate myself with a movement that willingly chose faith over reason. At pro-life gatherings, Boston Archbishop Sean O’Malley was a regular guest. When I was a speaker at the State Pro-Life March, the majority of speeches made explicit reference to the Creator. Crosses dangling from the necks of organization leaders were as ubiquitous as were the words “right to life”. Harvard Right to Life, a student organization in Cambridge, actively collaborated with Harvard’s Society for Law, Life, and Religion. In short, it was no mystery that for one to belong, one must be religious. Furthermore, issue positions were decided not according to rational thought, but by Papal decree. During the first pro-life lecture that I sponsored, the speaker inveighed against birth control. “We’ve got a grant from President Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative to teach sex education in the public schools,” she explained. “We preach abstinence until marriage, and if that fails, then we talk about alternatives to abortion.” I was shocked. “Didn’t you miss something?” I asked, quite befuddled. “What about contraception?” Her reply was equally astonishing. “We teach abstinence only. And if that fails, then we give the kids alternatives to abortion.” In the course of our dialogue, she admitted to a startling truth. She wouldn’t even mention the word “contraception”, much less teach impressionable young minds about how to prevent unintended pregnancy. In short, because of this woman’s Roman Catholicism, the word of the Pope took precedence over rational thought on how to lower the abortion rate. Moreover, it shocked me that this woman, who also testified in favor of the “Woman’s Right to Know” bill, was only in favor of informed decisions when they were in concert with Catholic doctrine. Shouldn’t teenagers be able to make an informed decision about when to begin sexual activity and what contraceptive devices to use? Not according to those who put Roman Catholic dogma ahead of rational examination. Although I would have liked to have engaged in a meaningful dialogue about the issue, I knew that there was no winning with a woman whose beliefs about the world were shaped by faith alone.
Leslie Zukor speaks at the pro-life rally
this message is for Leslie Zukor: Abortion, whether sponteneous, therapeutic ore elective, all results are the same, no abortion is unethical if a woman does not wish to be pregnant. If a woman is not free to choose, there is chattel slavery & theocracy imposed upon her. Forcing a parasitic relationship upon a woman is the only unethical aspect here. A very late term abortion, where the fetus is viable is the only debatable question. When a mother’s health is at risk, why should a fetus have more rights than a woman? If fetal health is not at risk & a woman’s health is not at risk, very very very few gynecologists would perform such an abortion merely upon demand. It is the “tampon terroist” & the theocrats who would cite the relative handful of late term aboritons & equate that debatable question with a 3 day old fertilized human ova. Fight theocracy, not nationalizing the birth canals & ovaries of women. Peace, Larry 843-926-1750