Anti-abortion speaker sparks heated debate

A lecture about abortion stirred heated debate yesterday, as Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council (FRC) delivered a fiery condemnation of what she described as the practice's shaky legal basis and its grave consequences for women.

Though the lecture was advertised under the title "How Abortion Harms Women," Yoest, vice president for communications for the nonprofit Christian think tank and lobbying group, said a more accurate name was "The Politics of Abortion: Moving Toward a Post-Roe America."

"I believe Roe v. Wade is on its way to extinction ... precisely because abortion harms women," she said.

Speaking to a large audience in Robertson 16, Yoest faced a crowd of students and community members anxious to argue with her during the question-and-answer session that followed the lecture.

She maintained that the United States is "on the road, long term" toward the overturning of Roe v. Wade. "There is an intellectual rot at the heart of that decision," she said, noting that even many liberal scholars agree that there is no constitutional basis for the controversial 1973 Supreme Court ruling. She added that the case was an example of the inappropriate use of judicial power.

Yoest argued that abortion's consequences hit home on a more personal level for many women who undergo the procedure. "It's very sad to me when you look at how many relationships break up after abortion when women say they had abortions to save their relationships," Yoest said. She described what she called the problems of Post-Abortion Syndrome, which include effects such as "drug and alcohol abuse, personal relationship disorder, sexual dysfunction ... and attempted suicide."

After her presentation, Yoest opened the floor up for questions, and her opponents seized the chance to challenge her arguments. Sara Viola '08, a member of Princeton Pro-Choice Vox, said she was skeptical about the psychological effects of abortion that Yoest described. "It would be very easy for people on the other side to cite anecdotal evidence [as well]," Viola said.

"I think there is a place in public debate in drawing attention to human experience," Yoest answered. "I wanted to draw your attention to the increasing trend of women speaking out on their experiences of abortion."

When Viola asked Yoest to respond to the American Psychiatric Association's rejection of the existence of "post-abortion syndrome," Yoest declined to argue with her. "The American Psychological Association is a highly politicized body," she said. "I don't want you and I to duke it out ... I have a Ph.D., and these studies, they're an art form."

During her lecture, Yoest criticized descriptions of Plan B as a contraceptive, arguing that it can prevent implantation of an already-fertilized embryo, thus destroying nascent human life rather than preventing its creation.

"They're working very, very hard to blur the line between contraception and abortion," Yoest said of the abortion rights advocacy organization NARAL Pro-Choice America, adding during the question-and-answer session that "if you are inhibiting implantation of an ... embryo that has the full DNA [to] develop into a human being, that is not contraception" but rather abortion.

"Women deserve informed consent," Yoest said. "When they hear Plan B [described] as 'emergency contraception' ... they don't know how the drug works."