I'm not speaking to the 16% who are "consistently pro-choice." They're pretty much settled in their opinions and not likely to change unless something jolts them so much that it makes them totally re-examine everything they've taken to be true. I don't think that there's anything here new enough to do that.
The "personally-opposed pro-choice" is another group I'm not likely to reach. My personal experience with them is that they're as firmly set as the consistently pro-choice, but for different reasons. They're not enamored of abortion per se; they're devoted to what they perceive as The Sisterhood, and they'll stand by it through thick and thin. And to them, The Sisterhood is the consistently pro-choice. Now, if their idea of The Sisterhood changes to women in general, then they might be motivated to address abortion industry abuses, or to at least check out the safety record of a particular facility before they take a friend there. So while I can hope that they'll at least become uneasy about, say, just trusting a NAF clinic without further investigation, I doubt that they'll find anything of interest here.
The "reticent prochoice" are my main target audience. These are people who are uneasy with the idea of abortion. They see it as the lesser of two evils, but not as anything that really can be held up as a positive good. These are the ones most likely to come away uneasy about trusting abortion facilities and prochoice groups to really be looking after women's well-being. My goal is to make skeptics out of them, and, if possible, give them the wherewithal to start holding prochoice organizations and abortion facilities accountable. I see them as the potential backbone for a third movement -- a truly prochoice movement, that doesn't want any woman to get on the abortion table unless she's 100% sure that this is what is best for her. A truly pro woman movement that does not tolerate seedy Main Street Maimers or consumer fraud. They're only seven percent of the general population, but they're fully a quarter of the prochoice movement and I think that if they stood their ground they'd drive out those for whom abortion has become an end in itself.
It's recently been revealed that it was an abortion clinic in Maryland that referred Karnamaya Mongar to Kermit Gosnell's filthy Philadelphia abortion mill.
As cynical as I am about abortionists, I know that they're not all quacks. Curtis Boyd and Warren Hern, for example, seem to really care about their patients and to want to see them safely through their abortions. Surely there are more than just two abortionists in the United States who keep their facilities clean and sanitary, and staff them with adequately trained staff, and have all the medications and equipment they need. Could this Maryland clinic not find one within driving distance for Karnamaya?
It really doesn't seem like I'm asking something out of step with prochoice values to ask them to do a docket search, check the medical board for disciplinary actions, and check with the health department before referring women to an abortion practitioner. If the main priority really is women's safety and well-being, the people at that clinic shouldn't need prolifers smacking them upside the head to motivate them to do this.