Medical sociologist writes idiotic think-piece about abortion rights for the NY Times in which she’s so busy tapping all the required Stations that she obscures whatever it is she’s trying to say. Editors should just say no to this brand of crap.

Matt Lavallee was in college when he learned his girlfriend was pregnant. “The news scared me,” he said, acknowledging that an unintended pregnancy was an even more daunting prospect for his girlfriend. “But there was no question that abortion was the best option for us.”

…

We don’t often hear abortion stories from cisgender men like Mr. Lavallee, even though they are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the world’s unplanned pregnancies, and so often benefit when an abortion occurs. The much more familiar pattern when efforts are made to curtail abortion is for a slew of mostly women to share their abortion stories.

If by “responsible for” Andréa Becker means “impregnated” then it’s not the overwhelming majority, it’s all. And Mr. Lavallee isn’t a “cisgender man,” he’s a man. The word “cisgender” is an absurd redundancy.

As for her pretend surprise that discussion of abortion focuses on women, I would point out that that’s because it’s women who are at the sharp end of it. Men may or may not take responsibility, they may or may not help with logistics and financing, they may or may not share parental duties in the absence of an abortion, but the whole thing happens outside their bodies and inside the bodies of women. Abortion is about women not because women are hogging the limelight but because it’s women’s bodies that are involved.

Reproductive health science has likewise disproportionately focused on the people who have abortions. 

She means women, but she’s rude enough to pretend she doesn’t. Contemptible.

Researchers like myself have devoted our careers to examining not only who gets abortions, but what the experience is like, what barriers must be overcome and how having an abortion or being denied one alters a person’s life trajectory. This research has found that access to abortion is associated with improved physical and mental health and is correlated to higher educational and financial attainment in the long run for both women and their children.

Yet now for some reason she’s pretending that “people” other than women need access to abortion.

Yet amid all this abortion research, some critical questions remain: What’s the effect on men who co-conceive and then the pregnancy ends in abortion? And who even are these men?

Ya mean people?

By contrast, there’s scant data on how cis men benefit from abortions, let alone demographic data that characterizes this population. This is partly because of methodology concerns: A man might not necessarily know he helped cause an abortion. Moreover, amid continuous attacks on abortion rights, the urgency among researchers has logically been to demonstrate the benefits of abortion access for those who can become pregnant.

One minute she is talking about women, the next minute she isn’t. One minute it’s people, the next minute it’s cis men. Confusion soup.

Her intention seems to be to point out that men benefit from abortion too, and she does eventually get around to spelling that out, but there’s so much cis-ing and person-ing that she clogs up and obscures her own argument. Dumb as paint.