Pro-life or pro-choice; why I choose not to suppress either side on tax credit issue | Opinion

It’s like Voltaire never said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

It’s a quotation that is often attributed to the French philosopher François-Marie Arouet, who wrote under the pen name Voltaire. If that’s not confusing enough, the words actually appear to have originated with a Voltaire historian, Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who wrote under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre. So, Voltaire’s most famous quotation was, apparently, not a quote at all, but another pen-named writer’s paraphrase of his attitude toward another philosopher’s work.

All of which goes to show that “truth” is complicated.

I was reminded of that this past weekend, when I was put on blast on social media by Trust Women, an abortion provider and advocacy organization that operates in the space once occupied by the clinic of George Tiller, the Wichita abortion doctor who was assassinated by an anti-abortion fanatic in 2009.

What got Trust Women bent out of shape was my decision to allow space in the Opinion sections of The Wichita Eagle and Kansas.com for a guest column titled “In defense of state support for pro-life pregnancy resource centers.”

Trust Women’s post was seen by others and I spent the weekend arguing on Facebook against the contention that I should have suppressed the column by Nelly Roach, president of the Columbia, Mo.-based Choose Life Coalition.

The column supported proposed legislation currently being debated at the Kansas Statehouse that would give a 70% tax credit for donations to pregnancy resource centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers, or by their opponents, as anti-abortion centers.

Trust Women’s objection was primarily that I didn’t “fact check” the column before publication. I did.

Let me take a few of their specific objections in order (Trust Women’s objections in italic):

▪ Contrary to this article’s claims, the overwhelming majority of AACs are not licensed medical facilities and do not offer a full range of services because they do not refer for abortions. In fact, in Kansas, not a single AAC is licensed by the KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment).

The article didn’t claim PRCs, or AACs if you prefer, to be licensed medical facilities. If it did, I’d have changed it. I agree with Trust Women as far as that some of these organizations stretch the definition of “clinic,” but “clinic” is a broad term with multiple meanings ranging from cancer treatment to advice on how to play the flugelhorn. Licensure isn’t required for what they do, even including basic medical services such as pregnancy tests and non-diagnostic ultrasound.

▪ Another objection dealt with a study that showed PRCs offered pregnancy testing more quickly than abortion clinics.

The study found that AAC’s were in fact more likely to offer same-day appointments than abortion clinics, but Roach’s editorial omitted the cause of this disparity. In 23 states, there are mandatory waiting periods of at least 24 hours, making it illegal for many abortion clinics to offer same-day appointments. The original study goes on to conclude that more financial resources should be provided to medical facilities — including abortion clinics — in order to increase access to pregnancy confirmation services.

Trust Women is correct about the study’s recommendation, and also pointed out correctly that the study came out in January, instead of “this month” as the column stated. However, the 24-hour waiting period applies to the performance of an abortion and doesn’t preclude Trust Women from offering same-day pregnancy confirmation services.

There was more, but these were specific factual challenges. It shows how two sides on an issue can draw different conclusions, even when presented with the same facts.

That’s why we have an Opinion page, so those differences of opinion can be aired.

My own opinion is that PRCs, or AACs, should not be granted the special favors being considered by the Legislature. I don’t think the services they provide justify tax breaks for their donors.

The counseling they give is obviously biased and in many cases, misinforms women of the risks of abortion compared to carrying a pregnancy to term. Some of that misinformation is actually written into state law, and must be provided by abortion providers to their patients, which is wrong.

Also, the operators and supporters of PRCs tend to be very politically active, and it’s never good policy for state government to use tax money to fund one side of a political debate.

But there is a debate, and I’m not going to squelch either side of it by excluding guest columns from one side or the other. I’ll do my best as an opinion editor to filter out the blatantly false and preserve the differences of interpretation.

If Trust Women wants to write a rebuttal to the original column, or anything I’ve written here, I’d be happy to entertain that for publication as well.

When it comes to PRCs, I often disagree with what they say, but I will defend their right to say it.

To say “to the death” seems a little over-dramatic, because I don’t expect to be fighting any duels over this.

I guess I’m just not an Evelyn Beatrice Hall.