It's completely disingenuous for an analysis of Emily Bazelon's article in yesterday's NYT Magazine discussing so-called post-abortion syndrome to complain that Bazelon "politicizes" the issue. Asking pro-abortion-rights writers to avoid discussing the political implications of anti-abortion activism is asking for unilateral disarmament. Many pro-lifers concerned about the emotional impact of abortion on women are doubtless trying to help women when they discuss the issue. But as Bazelon makes perfectly clear, they often also regard their so-called consciousness-raising on this issue as a tool in their repertoire of criminalization efforts. This was certainly the case in South Dakota during the referendum over the state's abortion ban last year.

More fundamentally, however, those who are pro-life are obviously the ones responsible for initiating the politicization of the issue. They may feel that doing so is necessary and proper, but they have no business complaining that pro-choice writers interlace political matters into a discussion of health. One of the reasons many of us are pro-choice is precisely that we think women's health and emotional well-being are best served by protecting their right to approach these decisions without fear of the state's pointing a gun at them and intimidating them into possibly pursuing an abortion in illegal, dangerous ways.

Further, it must be said that Hemingway should leave ad hominem arguments and entirely irrelevant media complaints out of her analysis. Her tone in the first half of her piece is in striking contrast to Bazelon's dispassionate, statistically informed and humane tone throughout. Although she could indeed have interviewed more advocates of the post-abortion syndrome perspective, Bazelon has produced a careful, informative article that should advance the dialogue about women's health and well-being.