Why Lauren Rankin won't "debate" abortion rights
The case against debating your own civil rights.
Hi, Parker here. š
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, erasing the nearly 50-year-old precedent guaranteeing the right to abortion. For Lauren Rankin, whose new book, Bodies on the Line: At the Front Lines of the Fight to Protect Abortion in America, had just come out months earlier, this meant a flood of media requests and an opportunity to share her views with audiences she might not otherwise reach.
Rankin made a conscious choice not to appear on shows that would frame this as a debate with two equally-valid sides. A few days earlier, Dr. Jennifer Gunter made the same decision. Rankin opted to turn down an appearance on CBC Radioās The Current (Robin Marty, the operations director at West Alabama Womenās Center and author of The New Handbook for a Post-Roe America, appeared on the show that day, instead). [Ed. note, update: I phrased this really weird, and thatās on me. I didnāt intend to make it sound as though Robin Marty happily agreed to debate the issue or anything like that, but rather, to highlight how this exercise in ābalanceā ends up being sprung on people. Marty elaborated on this on Twitter. Again, my most sincere apologies to her.]

I respect Rankinās strategy here for avoiding media appearances determined to frame this as a ādebate.ā While the issue is being treated that way by politicians and by many in the press, issues of civil rights shouldnāt have to be treated that way. I asked if she would be at all interested in expanding a bit on her tweet, and she was kind enough to agree.
Without further ado, hereās Lauren:

As soon as I saw that the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Womenās Health Organization on Friday morning, I knew what was coming. Within minutes, my inbox was filled with press releases, statements from elected officials, and media requests. Less than three months ago, my book, Bodies on the Line: At the Front Lines of the Fight to Protect Abortion in America came out. This story, about the legacy of clinic escorts and everyday volunteers on abortion access, had become more timely than ever.
I fielded multiple interview requests an hour, turning down a lot that I just didnāt have the bandwidth to do. When The Current, a show on CBC Radio in Canada, asked me to come on and discuss how the end of Roe v. Wade would affect patients and the people who serve them, I thought it was a worthwhile opportunity.Ā
The producer called me for a prep interview, getting a sense of what I could talk about and wanting to know the overarching perspective of my book. We talked for about 15 minutesāāI shared facts, anecdotes, research, opinions. At the end, she said that sounded great and she wanted to book me for their show on Monday, June 27. I said great. Then, the other shoe dropped.
She told me that I would be joined by an abortion opponent who would share their perspective, then I would share mine, then it would be a moderated conversation. This wasnāt surprising. Itās extremely common for mainstream media to pit abortion rights supporters and opponents against one another, as if itās a simple debate of two reasonable sides.
But in the shadow of the loss of Roe, knowing what was already happening in states with trigger laws and abortion bans ready to go into effect, something felt different.Ā
Opposition to safe and legal abortion isnāt actually a reasonable position. It isnāt grounded in concern for life. It isnāt about nurturing children or creating a just, loving world for the next generation. Opposition to safe and legal abortion is about control. This movement is about violence. This movement is about preserving a white supremacist state.
In the past 30 years, anti-abortion terrorists have murdered 11 abortion providers and clinic staff. Abortion opponents have kidnapped abortion providers, stalked clinic staff and clinic escorts, and even harassed their children at their schools. They staged massive blockades at abortion clinics, bringing hundreds, sometimes thousands of people, to scream at abortion patients, grab them, and traumatize them. They stole fetal remains and kept them in their homes, put them in jars to shove in abortion patientsā faces. This movement, which was born not out of opposition to abortion but opposition to integration in Christian schools, is now championing the end of Roe v. Wade as a victory for āwhite life.ā
This is about more than just a political disagreement. This worldview, one predicated on ending bodily autonomy as a basic right, is fundamentally undemocratic. If I appear as simply the other side of this āpolitical debateā on a radio program, my presence validates that worldview as somehow reasonable. I will not do that. Not anymore.
Iām not afraid to ādebateā anyone. But the concept of ādebateā positions this issue as reasonable on both sides, and it just isnāt. You can privately oppose abortion and believe that others should have the ability to choose for themselves whether they want one or not. But that isnāt what these folks believe. Abortion opponents believe that a pregnant person should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term no matter what. You donāt want to have a child? Too bad. This pregnancy could endanger your mental health or even your life? Oh well. You were raped? Thatās a āgift from God.āĀ
Thatās violence. Thatās control. Thatās a fundamental disregard for humanity. There is nothing to debate here. One side believes that pregnant people should literally be forced to die to carry a pregnancy to term and one side doesnāt. Iām on the side that doesnāt. I believe that your body is yours, that you deserve to determine what happens to it, that your thoughts and feelings and dreams are vital and worth protecting.
After the call, I wrote an email to the producer:
Iām sorry to do this, but upon further consideration, Iām not able to do this interview. I cannot be a part of a segment that features me alongside someone who opposes human rights in theirĀ
most basic form, framing our two points of view as equal. It is a traumatic and difficult time in this country and Iām unwilling to frame opposition to this right as valid in any way. I apologize but it feels like the right thing to do, and I hope you can understand that. If youāre interested in having a segment that doesnāt pit me against an opponent of basic reproductive freedom, Iām happy to participate.Ā
I never heard back. Thatās fine. They want to continue to uphold the mainstream media narrative that abortion is just two sides duking it out. But in this moment, when so much is at stake, when states have already enacted trigger laws and abortion bans, when clinic staff are calling their patients in tears to tell them that āweāre done,ā itās become more apparent than ever that now is the time to stop validating anti-democratic and fascist movements as somehow āreasonable.ā I donāt care if it costs me book sales or speaking gigs or media opportunities. Itās the right thing to do. Itās my body. Itās my choice. And it should be yours, too.
Parker here, again. š
Thank you to Lauren Rankin for allowing me the privilege of publishing her thoughts in my newsletter. Please follow her on Twitter, and yes, please, consider buying a copy of Bodies on the Line: At the Front Lines of the Fight to Protect Abortion in America.
GIVEAWAY: Iāll purchase one copy of the book to give to a reader in the format of your choice ā hardcover, ebook, audiobook ā to one commenter. To enter, simply post something in the comments of this post, the ones below. Iāll respond to the winner to figure out the details after Friday at noon ET.
I wonder where we go as a country from here. The GOP, from top to bottom, is laying out their plan to take over and eliminate rights in plain sight. Meanwhile, Democrats aren't willing to do anything but play by the made up rules of the game. What would they possibly do if the president isn't even considering protecting Americans from the extremist court? Just like everything else, we'll look back in 20 years and think that someone maybe should've done something.
Very principled response. No one should ādebateā rights when the alternative position is simply āI donāt think you are entitled to basic rights.ā As the consequences of these religious and racist bans proliferate, I hope they become less popular, but Iām not holding my breath.