Her explanation is incredibly weak. It basically just reasserts what she said earlier and again reads to me like the work of sheltered pro-choicer pretending to have been very involved in the prolife movement. It makes no sense to me that the president of a SFL group wouldn't at least bring her thoughts up to her group, or her family or the local prolife organization before completely changing her worldview. This comment was also notable.
In contrast, every pro-lifer I knew was politically conservative and in opposition to things like welfare, mandated paid maternity leave, subsidized daycare, and even things like Head Start.That's how sheltered pro-choicers see pro-lifers. Every pro-lifer? Really? There wasn't a single pro-life person in the SFL group who was okay with Head Start? Interestingly enough, in my time in the pro-life movement, I probably wouldn't know where the majority of the people I know in the movement stand on those issues.
Why was it that sexually liberal Western Europe, where abortion was legal, had the lowest abortion rate in the world? And why was it that Africa and South America, where abortion was banned in nearly every country, had the highest abortion rates? I realized immediately that these questions were crucially important if one wanted to bring down the abortion rate. It was an epiphany moment. And yet, these were questions I had never heard asked in the pro-life movement.Then why didn't she ask these questions to her prolife friends, family and other acquaintances? It's not like she claims she read the article and then challenged other prolifers with her thoughts and they had no response (or maybe that's the next work of fiction blog post). She just changed her mind based on the guessestimated numbers from organizations she knew were pro-abortion. Yeah, right. This story may fool a group of pro-choicers who have certain ideas about prolife movement but nothing about this story rings true to me.