Some writers trade in hyperbolic clickbait headlines. I am not one of them. Nor will I ever be. That said, check out the following summation, relative to the headline of this article:

A Democrat “digital strategist” argues that adoption is more of a “trauma” for would-be parents than killing a potential adoptee before he or she is born. Crazy? Of course. But you already knew that. Read on.

Democrat strategist Elizabeth Spiers, adopted as an infant, writes in a guest New York Times op-ed that the “trauma” of adoption supersedes any opposition to on-demand abortion — all in response to Wednesday’s oral arguments from Mississippi state attorneys seeking to uphold the state’s 15-week abortion ban.

I wrote about Amy Coney Barrett's blithe suggestion that no one needs abortion because women who don't want to be mothers can just give their kids up for adoption and why, as an adoptee, I find that argument abhorrent: https://t.co/53ImpaFJlu

— Elizabeth Spiers (@espiers) December 3, 2021

Spiers focused on this recurring question from Justice Amy Coney Barrett:

Why is abortion necessary, when women who do not want to be mothers can simply give their babies up for adoption?

Here’s Spiers’s response, right out of the chute:

As an adoptee myself, I was floored by Justice Barrett’s assumption that adoption is an accessible and desirable alternative for women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant.

She may not realize it, but what she is suggesting is that women don’t need access to abortion because they can simply go do a thing that is infinitely more difficult, expensive, dangerous and potentially traumatic than terminating a pregnancy during its early stages.

That, America, is profound in its naive idiocy.

Adoption is its own trauma. Even right at birth. pic.twitter.com/fcXP09yHhr

— Matt Anderson (@mandersonville) December 3, 2021

“As an adoptive mother herself,” suggested Spiers, “Justice Barrett should have some inkling of the complexities of adoption and the toll it can inflict on children, as well as birth mothers.”

Um, Ms. Spiers? The operative words here are adoptive mother — not aborting mother.

Then she just gets silly:

But she speaks as if adoption is some kind of idyllic fairy tale. My own adoption actually was what many would consider idyllic. I was raised by two adoptive parents, Alice and Terry, from the time I was an infant, and grew up in a home where I knew every day that I was loved.

A few years ago, I found my biological mother, Maria, and three siblings I didn’t know I had via a DNA test and Facebook.

“The first time I spoke to Maria on the phone … she apologized repeatedly for giving me up and told me she loved me and that I would always be family,” writes Spiers.

I told her, and continue to tell her, every time she brings it up, that the apology is unnecessary. I had a wonderful childhood and I believe she had made the right decision. But she remains heartbroken about the years we missed together.

This is my favorite part:

I’m no Nobel Prize winner, but I still resent being used as a political football by the right. I believe that abortion is a form of health care, and that every woman should have access to it if she needs it.

But perhaps more than that, I resent the suggestion by people like Justice Barrett that adoption is a simple solution, and I resent it on behalf of Maria, who found the choice she made traumatizing and still feels that pain, 44 years later.

Even when an adoption works out well, as it did in my case, it is still fraught.

Ms. Spiers, can you please explain how you are not using yourself as a “political football”? I’ll wait.

This ridiculous woman writes volumes about the “fraught” reality of adoption, yet zero about the fraught reality of a mother killing her preborn child. Worse, she sees zero hypocrisy or contradiction in herself.

“The right likes to suggest that abortion is a traumatic experience for women — a last resort, a painful memory,” Spiers caricatures conservatives.

But adoption is often just as traumatic as the right thinks abortion is, if not more so [based on what data?], as a woman has to relinquish not a ‘lump of cells’ but a fully formed baby she has lived with for nine months.

Oh, Please.

Incidentally, Spiers is the mother of a six-year-old “self-proclaimed Fortnight expert.”

“As anyone who has gestated a human [ROFL emoji] will tell you,” she says, “there is a vast difference between the fourth week of pregnancy and the 40th.” A biological brainwashing, she claims, which happens whether you want to be a parent or not.

Brainwashed, Ms. Spiers? Please. [See: mirror.]

The Bottom Line

This is a quintessential example of the pro-abortion left desperately trying to pull on the heartstrings of decent, God-fearing, pro-life Americans. It is ridiculous. It will change zero minds. It serves only to further illustrate the immoral hypocrisy of those who continue to attempt to rationalize the killing of the preborn.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Relevant RedState stuff:

Whoopi Goldberg Just Came up With the Dumbest Pro-Abortion Argument Yet

CNN Brings on Worst Person They Could to Discuss Abortion Law Case Currently up Before SCOTUS

Justice Thomas Tears Into Pro-Abortion Lawyers With Hard Opening Questions

Impact of New Texas Abortion Law Leaves Pro-Choice Crowd Fuming