By: The Rev. Dr. W. Ross Blackburn

A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be comforted, because they are no more (Matthew 2:18).

The following reflection comes from the portion of the Gospel that was excised from the middle of this Sunday’s reading. It shouldn’t be, for this passage, albeit dark, is a part of the Christmas story. We cannot understand the light that is the Christ if we fail to acknowledge the dark world into which Jesus came.

The passage records what has become known as the Slaughter of the Innocents, when Herod killed the baby boys under two years old in order to destroy Jesus. The lines above also record the effect of the slaughter-having lost their children, the mothers were undone. Rachel wept for her children that were no more.

Today, however, Rachel no longer weeps. In our abortion-committed culture, she is not allowed to.

The examples today are legion, but let me give you two. The first is the season finale of ABC’s Scandal, where the main character, Olivia Pope, undergoes an abortion-on the TV screen no less, the doctor with scalpel in hand and suction machine in view-apparently
without regret or other emotional consequences. The message, embedded in an episode that explicitly supports the funding of Planned Parenthood, appears to be that abortion is a normal procedure, causing very little turbulence. Such is certainly how Jennifer Conti, an OB-GYN writing a response to the episode for Slate, took it: “Abortion isn’t what you may think it is. Abortion is normal. It’s not rare, and it’s rarely tragic.” Olivia Pope is not weeping.

The second example comes from a paper concerning the emotional effects of abortion, available on Planned Parenthood’s website. Speaking of pro-life advocates and their claim that abortion harms women emotionally, Planned Parenthood writes:

They have called this nonexistent phenomenon “post-abortion trauma,” “post-abortionsyndrome,” or “post-abortion survivor syndrome.” They have hoped that terms like thesewill gain wide currency and credibility despite the fact that neither the American
Psychological Association nor the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recognizesthe existence of these phenomena. More recently, they have suggested that women whohave abortions are more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, but there isno substantive scientific evidence that this is true (AMRC, 2011).

The truth remains that most substantive studies in the last 30 years have found abortion to be a relatively benign procedure in terms of emotional effect – except when pre-abortion emotional problems exist or when a wanted pregnancy is terminated, such as after diagnostic genetic testing.

Notice the term “substantive”, used twice above. Apparently they are not interested in all the evidence, only the “substantive” scientific evidence. And, unsurprisingly, the most “substantive” studies apparently agree with Planned Parenthood’s claim. The criterion by
which they judge studies or evidence as substantial or unsubstantial is apparently unimportant. Regardless, the implication is obvious. If a woman experiences emotional trauma post-abortion, something is wrong with her. The problem is not the experience of the abortion, and not what has been done to her and to her baby, but with her. The “substantial” science has shown that abortion is benign. Rachel is not allowed to weep.

One doesn’t really need to track down the numerous studies (those Planned Parenthood obviously deems unsubstantial) that show the profound and disturbing emotional effects upon women that an abortion leaves in its wake. Only those with a prior commitment to
keep abortion acceptable and available would indicate it abnormal to have emotional problems when a mother’s child is no more. Common sense indicates otherwise. But the impulse to bury such unpleasant effects is understandable. Better to maintain this façade, for if people really knew what abortion does to women, what might happen to abortion?

Yet isn’t it interesting that those who claim they want to support women in effect shame women by implying that there is something wrong with them when they weep? And isn’t it interesting that those who are said to be engaged in a “war on women”, denying women
their basic reproductive rights, are the ones available to comfort those who do weep? Of course Rachel still weeps. This is what mothers do when they lose their children. For even when women are told to get over it and stuff their emotions, reality has a way of surfacing. No, not all women are the same, and all do not respond to abortion in th