Fetal Rights Part 3: Giving Fetuses Rights at the Expense of Female Freedom

The final article I'll include in my discussion of fetal rights is one that takes a very loud, potentially controversial standpoint about fetal rights: that they enslave a woman to her pregnancy. Despite the extreme viewpoint, I think this is something to examine: if we give fetuses so many rights, are we then by default limiting the rights of the woman in question? I've always thought so, that fetal rights inherently give a fetus precedent over the woman, which has never seemed fair to me. Kuswa, Achter, and Lauzon argue that "the fetal body presents a challenge for the pro-life position because its classification as a distinct life is continually in flux. Put another way, the gap between the adult body that usually serves as a sign of the citizen, and the body that is typically imagined as a fetus, helps us understand how pro-life rhetoric works. This move, we argue, invests the fetus with a body, a personhood, and a corresponding citizenship that is separate from and often at odds with its mother" (168).

They continue, "absent a discussion of the pregnant woman and her rights, fetal citizenship is elevated and given access to justice through the values of morality and life" (168). I think that phrase is very important: "absent a discussion of the pregnant woman and her rights." Because in the discourse about fetal rights, rarely do the pregnant woman's rights seem to come up. When they do come up, as discussed in Part 2 of this blog post series, it seems that the pro-life set tries to portray the fetal rights as coinciding with the woman's rights: that an abortion is counter to a woman's rights, and that keeping the baby is the best thing she could do for a myriad of moral reasons.

This article gives a very interesting argument for giving a fetus citizenship. They begin with this: "advocates of abortion restrictions declare that when a woman consents to sex she is simultaneously consenting to the risk of pregnancy" (172). But that argument is flawed, they say, "because even if the woman's consent to sex is explicit, she does not automatically consent to pregnancy in the same moment. For example, when a person decides to engage in a dangerous activity she recognizes that there is a risk of injury but does not necessarily consent to actually being injured" (172). This reminds me of contraceptives: none of them are 100% effective. But if a woman uses them, she's actively trying to prevent getting pregnant, though she acknowledges the small risk that the contraceptive might not work. Here is where the argument gets interesting: "women should have the right to abort the fetus even if they have consented to sex because [...] a person has the right to break a contract at any point in time, despite prior consent to the agreement" (172). So, even if the woman acknowledged the potential for getting pregnant, she can "break" that contract or that "consent to the risk of pregnancy" legally. "Abortion restrictions result in the involuntary servitude of women to the fetus and effectively impede pregnant women from exercising their right to break a contract with the fetus" (172). So even if the fetus is legally defined as a person, by this argument the woman still has the right to break her contract with that fetus--and they aren't even arguing this in the face of a fetus being a person. However, I can see the pro-life objection: breaking a contract isn't the same as "murder."

Another argument they make is that consent laws take away a woman's autonomy, and assume that a woman isn't intelligent enough (or is too much like a child who "needs guidance") to understand what an abortion really entails. "Laws such as informed consent are the state's attempt to persuade women to make the 'correct' choice by providing them with detailed information about abortion and its effects on the fetus. These laws presume that pregnant women are unaware of what an abortion actually is or its consequences" (174). In my posts about abortion myths, one of the myths is that women need these waiting periods to make sure they really want an abortion. The assumption there is that women haven't thought about it before making their appointment, which is insulting. Of course they have.

The woman becomes unimportant in the consideration of fetal personhood. "Abortion restrictions are an example of creating fetal citizenship in that they attempt to resolve conflict between the woman and the fetus while washing away the woman's identity based on gender or pregnancy" (179). This is why it's convenient to align a woman's rights with the rights of a fetus: if the same thing is in both of their best interests, it's easy to forget that the woman's rights to her own body are essentially being stripped away. "The pregnant woman is forgotten in the equation even though she is the essential component: she provides the body necessary for the fetus's existence and survival" (179). If a woman doesn't have the option to terminate a pregnancy, her actions are then restricted for nine months: most of these fetal homicide laws are at least trying to also prosecute women for doing drugs or engaging in risky activities while pregnant. Her own control over her life is limited if she is forced somehow to carry the pregnancy to term. "Representations of the independent fetus contribute to the constitution of the pregnant woman as a child with limited agency who needs help making important decisions in her life" (179). It seems that an individual should know one's body best, and should know what to do with her body better than anyone else. Unfortunately this attempt to give a fetus rights makes the assumption that if a woman chooses abortion, she can't possibly know what she's doing, and needs to be taken to the "correct" choice as soon as possible.

Is this a viewpoint that's too radical, too unfair to the people who want to make a fetus into a person? Or is there some merit here--that if a fetus is given so many rights, the rights of a woman are limited, and there's an underlying assumption that the woman doesn't know what's best for herself?

Source:

THE SLAVE, THE FETUS, THE BODY: ARTICULATING BIOPOWER AND THE PREGNANT WOMAN. By: Kuswa, Kevin; Achter, Paul; Lauzon, Elizabeth. Contemporary Argumentation & Debate, Sep2008, Vol. 29, p166-185, 20p

--Alexandra

Fetal Rights Part 2: Pro-Life Strategies

I read another article that examines the rhetoric and legislative strategy of pro-life: that they've altered the presentation of their position "from one that pits fetal rights against maternal rights, to one that emphasizes the unique and intimate bond between the woman and the 'child'" (Halva-Neubauer 101). I've mentioned this before, that when I look at pro-life propaganda and legislation, I'm always struck by the way they portray the fetus as a baby, not as something that will grow into a baby. As Halva-Neubauer and Zeigler say, they portray "the fetus as a living infant in other legal contexts, and [emphasize] what anti-abortion activists characterize as the painful, brutal, and inhumane nature of the abortion procedure and those who perform it" (102). As a visual rhetoric tool, "groups that do not focus primarily on abortion also advance the case for fetal personhood by employing imagery that portrays the fetus as a baby" (109).

It's much harder to make a case for fetal personhood when the rights of the fetus do not line up with the rights of the mother--when the rights of the fetus may, in fact, at times oppose the rights of the mother. But "the assertion that the interests of the fetus and the interests of the pregnant woman necessarily coincide represents and important development in pro-life advocacy work;" a development that makes it a lot harder to separate a pregnant woman from her unborn child (Halva-Neubauer 102). It's also a lot easier to argue for the rights of a person--which is why the pro-life side is arguing so hard for fetal personhood: "Pro-life activists adopt the view that abortion ends a human life and have consistently advanced the principle that the practice should be stopped, just like any other form of unjustified killing" (102).

Another part of the rhetoric strategy involves carrying the baby to term being presented as the best option for the woman. "Not only does the issue [of limiting reproductive choice] implicate control of women's sexuality, but it also reaches to the very definition of human life. [...] pro-life groups integrate the language of duty, morality, and women's traditional (and religious) role as mother" (107). In another blog entry, I mentioned a Tea Party candidate who saw abortion as "woman abuse"--this standpoint that abortion is bad for women is one that the pro-life movement has been taking more recently. Halva-Nebauer and Zeigler see it as a "shift from portraying the pregnant woman as the enemy to the woman as someone who has an intimate connection to the life within her, who requires education at worst and who can serve as an advocate for the fetus at best" (108).

The other way pro-life and anti-abortion activists created a strategy to argue for fetal personhood involved the assertion that a fetus can feel pain. Though this is hotly contested among scientists and activists alike, a film called The Silent Scream which was released in 1984 shows "a sonogram of a suction abortion at twelve weeks [...] when the fetus opens its mouth, apparently reacting to the fact that the suction pipe has located its body" (Halva-Neubauer 104-105). Regardless of whether or not this film proves that a fetus can feel pain, the image of a fetus being aborted cannot be easy to watch, even for the most adamant of pro-choice people. (When I was researching for this blog, I came across images of aborted fetuses, and they're haunting and disgusting, and a powerful tool to manipulate the emotions of people who are uncertain of where they stand on the issue).

One last thing the article talks about that really struck me is their "Statutory Analysis" near the end. "The statutory strategies portraying the fetus as an infant take numerous forms, though they fall into two categories. The first includes legislative measures that seek to establish legal personhood. These include fetal homicide laws, as well as more subtle variants of personhood, such as those requiring abortion clinics to show ultrasound images of the fetus to the woman prior to performing an abortion and providing benefits to the unborn [...]. The second category of laws addresses the purported brutality and cruelty of abortion, with particular emphasis on late-term procedures, when the fetus is most likely to resemble an infant. These laws regulate specific abortion procedures, relying on the imagery of dismemberment to convey the message that a baby is being destroyed by the procedure. They also require that the health-care provider inform the woman that the fetus may experience pain during the procedure (a heavily disputed point) and to offer the option of fetal anesthesia" (112). It is also worthwhile to note that on the subject of fetal pain, "abortion-rights advocates counter that the fetus does not feel pain, and that the sole purpose of the legislation [that involves requiring physicians to tell women that the fetus may feel pain and to offer fetal anesthesia] is to increase the cost of the abortion procedure" (105).

The most interesting thing about all of this, in my opinion, is that this pro-life strategy seems to be arguing that they're actually not limiting the rights of women at all, since they're so adamant that women have a connection with the fetus inside of them, and that it's harmful to women to get an abortion. Is that a fair assumption to make? Can a group of people really tell an individual woman what is best for her, when they know nothing about her?

Source:

Promoting Fetal Personhood: The Rhetorical and Legislative Strategies of the Pro-Life Movement after Planned Parenthood v. Casey. By: Halva-Neubauer, Glen A.; Zeigler, Sara L.. Feminist Formations, Summer2010, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p101-123, 23p

--Alexandra

Fetal Rights Part 1: Why Pro-Choice Should Get Involved

In the debate about abortion, a lot of the argument centers around whether or not a fetus qualifies as a person. The pro-choice side of things is that a fetus does not qualify as a full person due to the lack of viability outside of the womb, particularly early on in pregnancy. The pro-choice standpoint is that a fetus does qualify as a person from the moment of conception. These are two viewpoints that will likely never be reconciled; however, there is a legal battle ongoing about the rights of a fetus: the pro-life side says that a fetus needs to be protected under the fourteenth amendment as a person. The pro-choice side asserts that giving these rights to the fetus is at the detriment of the mother, who gets forgotten in the crossfire, and that the fetus will be given priority over the mother, who is legally a person and protected under the constitution without dispute.

The most effective way to get the fetus defined (or not defined) as a person? Fetal homicide laws.

In the Hickcox-Howard article, "Fetal homicide laws criminalize the killing of a fetus without the consent of the pregnant woman" (317). The article examines why it's important that pro-choice activists get involved in the drafting of these laws: the author says they'll happen with or without the input of the pro-choice movement, but if the pro-choice movement doesn't speak up, "poorly drafted laws can threaten access to abortion by failing to adequately protect abortion providers from the threat of fetal homicide charges" (319). Hickcox-Howard says that a good fetal homicide law "places the choice of whether to carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate it where it belongs--with the pregnant woman--and prevents third parties from violently usurping a woman's right to make this choice" (319).

The problem, she goes on to say, is that "the pro-choice movement currently believes that the only acceptable response to a proposed fetal homicide law is to attempt to block its passage entirely and substitute a bill that enhances punishments for assaulting a pregnant woman, but does not create a separate criminal offense for harming or killing the fetus" (319). Hickcox-Howard asserts that instead of becoming popular, these viewpoints have essentially removed the pro-choice viewpoint from the law-drafting process, which means that the fetal homicide laws that do get enacted end up threatening abortion rights (320).

The first time a fetal homicide law came into the federal government was in 2004, when it passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Hickcox-Howard 323). "The push for fetal homicide laws [...] has centered on two competing goals: to protect pregnant victims of spousal abuse and to create fetal rights that would threaten the right to choose" (Hickcox-Howard 323). It is this second goal that makes these laws attractive to pro-lifers and unattractive to the pro-choice movement. But this is exactly why Hickcox-Howard believes that the pro-choice movement should be more involved. From the pro-life standpoint, the UVVA act was a huge plus: "the theory was that the law would shift the public's understanding of personhood, thereby undermining support for the right to choose" (327).

The pro-choice movement has taken a very hard view on fetal homicide laws in the past: that they shouldn't exist. But Hickcox-Howard's logic is sound: fetal homicide laws will exist, because there is too much pressure for them to be enacted to defeat them. However, if pro-choice activists get involved in the drafting of the laws the way the pro-lifers have, perhaps these laws could be limited to specific instances that are unrelated to abortion or abortion providers. The one thing that Hickcox-Howard fails to mention is whether or not pro-choice activists would be given access to the drafting of these laws. I can imagine, in a political setting, the lawmakers who are creating these laws only listening to pro-life PACs, and ignoring the pro-choice side entirely.

Source:

THE CASE FOR PRO-CHOICE PARTICIPATION IN DRAFTING FETAL HOMICIDE LAWS. By: Hickcox-Howard, Mary Beth. Texas Journal of Women & the Law, Spring2008, Vol. 17 Issue 2, p317-341, 25p

--Alexandra

11 year old gives birth; Do you think we need abortion?

I think more often than not many people feel abortion is an exhausted issue. It's legal in the U.S and that's all that matters. However, it is still a very pressing issue that many people are fighting to make illegal once again. We need more support for this topic or our freedoms will indefinitely start dwindling away from us. I found a very interesting and shocking article about an 11 year old girl who was forced to have her child after being raped. The story takes place in Mexico, however, the girl did cross into California to try and receive an abortion. Read the story and post your thoughts!

http://wireupdate.com/wires/9084/11-year-old-gives-birth-in-southern-mexico-after-being-denied-abortion-despite-rape/

-MF

Abortion 101

Abortion Clinics VS Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Crisis pregnancy are usually operated by churches or religious organizations who are pro-life. These groups want to be the first to contact a woman when she is pregnant to try to "talk her out of" getting an abortion. Crisis Pregnancy Centers also offer bible study sessions for women who have already received abortions to try to "save their souls". They also use sonograms as a way to persuade women not to abort. In 2006 a bill was introduced titled, Stop Deceptive Advertisting for Women's Services. This bill states that Crisis Pregnancy Centers must state the truth in advertising campaigns. Many Crisis Pregnancy Centers say that they will offer an abortion as a choice, yet when women go there they are attacked with people trying to talk them out of it.

Violent Protests on Abortion Clinics

Violent protests on abortion clinics started in the early 1970's in the U.S. after the ruling of Roe v. Wade. There has been numerous accounts of damage including arson attacks, bombings, and shootings. In 1996, it has been recorded that thirteen million dollars of damage had been caused by antiabortion groups arson attacks. These attacks have lead to some clinics being shut down due to the staff wanting to quit due to the fear they encountered on a daily basis. On May 31st in Wichita, Kansas, Dr. George Tiller was murdered by Scott Roeder, an anti-abortion activist. Tiller was the medical director at a clinic that provided women's health care services such as abortions. Dr. George Tiller provided abortions to women because he had a good friend who had died due to an illegal abortion. He had a passion to help women and improve their lives. Scott Roeder, Tiller's killer, believed that god had wanted him to kill Tiller and that he was "supposed to do this". Scott Roeder said in court that abortions are not right because it is not "a mans job to take life it is gods job" although he took George Tiller's life.

Abortion Law Restricts Teen Options

Many states have considered or adopted laws that would prevent teens under 18 from obtaining an abortion unless they involve a parent or go to court to try to get a waiver. This has made it extremely difficult for teens under 18 to receive abortions in a safe manner. Many teens who don't tell their parents have very good reasons for doing so. In one study, 22% of teens who did not tell a parent about their abortion decision feared that if doing so they would be kicked out of their house. Going to court to get a waiver is not a good alternative. When teens are forced to go into court to talk to a judge it often causes fear and anxiety. Delays in the court process increases the risk of the procedure and even makes it unobtainable for some teens.

-Stephanie Westfall

The Tea Party... Again

One of the things that's really struck me about the Tea Party in the past month is their stance on abortion. In the past, abortion has not generally been the factor that comes to the forefront of a race, and I've noticed that more and more lately, Democrats and Republicans seem to take a similar stance: that abortion is okay under certain circumstances, or that they just don't want to touch Roe v. Wade at all. Mostly, it doesn't come up, because things like the Iraq war, the economy, the job market, all take precedent and social issues like abortion and gay marriage seem to take a backseat. (Not that they necessarily should).

But the Tea Party is bringing out the pro-life guns, and anticipating shooting down several pro-choice Republicans. (Whether this happens remains to be seen; I write this blog entry the night before election day). Of course, abortion isn't the main issue that the Tea Party is running on, but their (rather vocal) stance on it definitely speaks to their extreme conservatism. And I'd have to say, I feel like I've heard more about abortion from them than I have from the Democrats or the Republicans in past elections.

An article in the Washington Examiner discusses how Tea Party candidates beat out several high profile Republicans in the primaries this spring--Republicans who were pro-choice. While the defeats weren't only about abortion, I've heard this tune before: that the pro-choice stance of these republicans was most certainly a factor in their defeat.

The Examiner reports that on the other side, the Democrats seem to be getting a lot of money from pro-choice groups who likely feel threatened by this new lineup of candidates. This article, by a pro-life website, reported that even Planned Parenthood was caught off-guard, and then worried, by the growing popularity of the Tea Party and its candidates. The Democrats have noted the extreme social stances of Tea Party candidates, and have in some instances used these views to push the candidates "off-message" (of their original platform of frustration with "Obamacare" and the recession) says this article at The Associated Press.

According to the same article, some Tea Party members have backed off from their original extreme viewpoints. One, Ken Buck of Denver, "endorsed a state constitutional amendment that would give fetuses constitutional rights, then withdrew his support after doctors and lawyers pointed out it would also ban some types of fertility treatments and emergency contraception." The same article highlights some distressing views that these candidates have not just on abortion, but about gay marriage and civil rights.

Sharron Angle, one of the Tea Party's candidates, expressed her views opposing abortion even in the face of rape or incest, stating that "God has a plan." Click here to listen. She also said in another interview that if a 13 year old girl was raped by her father, that girl should be counseled to have the baby. Christine O'Donnell stated that she only supports abortion if the "life, not health" of the mother is in danger. So basically even if your health is at risk, you should still have the baby, because you're not going to die from it.

It seems to me that these views are giving more rights to the fetus than to the woman, and I still can't get away from the impression that they are trying to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

--Alexandra

Abortion Myths Part 3: Women Myths

Myth: Irresponsible women use abortion as a method of birth control. Responsible women don't need abortions.

Fact: Unintended pregnancy can happen to anyone, because there is no contraceptive that can give you an absolute 100% guarantee that pregnancy will not happen. If a woman actually was using abortion as a method of birth control, according to NAF's research, a woman would need between 2 and 3 a year to prevent all the incidences of pregnancy. Women who need abortions are not all young and frivolously irresponsible, though it is true that more women who want abortions are not married. According to research, half of the women who need abortions report that contraceptives were used when they got pregnant and needed the abortion. (Source: NAF)

Myth: Women need mandatory waiting periods to make sure they really want abortions.

Fact: NAF says that "Research indicates that relief is the most common emotional response following abortion, and that psychological distress appears to be greatest before, rather than after, an abortion." According to this article written by a long-time abortion provider, women don't just frivolously pop in to get an abortion, but rather they seriously consider it from the moment they realize they're pregnant. Waiting periods just add to the inconvenience, and make it that much more difficult for a woman to get an abortion.

Myth: Women who have abortions are selfish.

Fact: Women who desire abortions know the extent of the physical and potentially life-changing ramifications of having a child. Many women feel that, for either financial or psychological reasons (like not being mature enough) they are not ready for a child. Other reasons, such as being victims of rape or incest, also come into consideration. It is a complicated decision that usually involves many factors.

Myth: Adoption is a better alternative to abortion.

Fact: Some groups, like this one, insist that adoption is a better alternative than abortion. However, they all fail to mention that a woman still has to give up her body for 9 months to carry the fetus before giving birth (which is painful and scary) then only to know for the rest of her life that her child is somewhere in the world. They often harp on a woman knowing for the rest of her life that she's "killed her child" if she gets an abortion. But if she gives her baby up for adoption, that's a child of hers that she'll always know is out there somewhere--both are psychological perspectives to consider and one should not be considered more or less important (or easier or harder to deal with) than the other. The simple truth is that while adoption is a viable option for some women, for others it is not, and they need the right to make that decision for themselves.

Myth: God will hate you and/or send you to Hell for getting an abortion.

Fact: Nobody can tell you what you should or should not get out of your religion. The answer to this one lies in a personal connection with religion that someone working in a Crisis Pregnancy Center cannot give to you. This is an extremely personal belief that lies within the individual woman. Can I stress it enough? It's personal, something for each woman to decide for herself in the way that she is most comfortable with, without outside pressures that have an agenda weighing in.

--Alexandra

Abortion Myths Part 2: Care Myths

Myth: If you go to Planned Parenthood, they will force you to get an abortion.

Fact: Planned Parenthood is simply a place to go if you need to consider your options about an unwanted pregnancy. Rather than being a place to go if you need an abortion (though they do offer those services) Planned Parenthood actually focuses mostly on contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. In their own words:

"These health centers provide a wide range of safe, reliable health care — and more than 90 percent is preventive, primary care, which helps prevent unintended pregnancies through contraception, reduce the spread of sexually transmitted infections through testing and treatment, and screen for cervical and other cancers. Caring physicians, nurse practitioners, and other staff take time to talk with clients, encouraging them to ask questions in an environment that millions have grown to trust."

Myth: Doctors who perform abortions are only in it for the money.

Fact: Doctors and centers that offer abortions are often the victims of violence and hate crimes. Being a doctor who offers abortion as an option is a dangerous profession, and abortion isn't as costly as many other medical procedures, and hasn't gone up in price very much compared with other medical care.

Myth: Abortions are really easy to get. Thanks to Roe v. Wade, a woman can easily find a place to get an abortion, since they're so widely available.

There is a lot of restrictive legislation in place that forces women to wait or get consent to have an abortion. Many ob-gyn programs don't offer the training needed to give an abortion, which means that there aren't many abortion providers around. There is both federal and state law restricting using government funds for abortions, which means that even though the fee isn't very high, many women who are in need of abortions can't pay it. There are a lot of restrictions and difficulties that come with wanting to get an abortion. So they are not nearly as accessible as one might think. (Source: NAF)

--Alexandra

Abortion Myths Part 1: Health Myths

There are many myths surrounding the practice of abortion in the social, political, and health arenas. This post will cover some of the most prevalent myths about abortion as it relates to the health of a woman seeking one.

1. Myth: Having an abortion means you can't get pregnant again, or that you will have serious trouble getting pregnant again.

Fact: Abortion is "twice as safe as getting your tonsils removed" (1) and has no negative effects on the reproductive organs of the woman. If she wants to get pregnant again later, there is no medical reason why she should not be able to. There is no "scar tissue" that builds up and makes it more difficult to get pregnant again, if an abortion is done correctly, even after multiple abortions (2). Abortion that is performed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy is one of the safest surgical procedures (3). The most dangerous type of abortion is an illegal one, performed by someone who is untrained and doing the procedure under the table (in instances where abortions were not legal in our country in the past, for example, or in countries where abortion is not legal).

2. Myth: Having an abortion puts the woman at a much higher risk for breast cancer.

Fact: The National Cancer Institute put this one to rest in 2003 when they had over 100 experts on pregnancy and breast cancer come together (2), and one of the things they found was that "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." (Quote came directly from the website). Medical fact does not support this claim, which is a myth that anti-abortion zealots peddle around to scare women away from considering abortion.

3. Myth: Having an abortion will give you "Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome".

Fact: Many women do not experience any sort of long-term trauma after having an abortion. Every woman experiences abortion differently; there is no one definitive reaction to an abortion, and having an abortion does not guarantee psychological problems. Instead, most studies have found that the most prevalent emotion women feel after having an abortion is relief (1, 2). There are other emotional factors that can contribute to feelings of grief or sadness or loss after an abortion: the thing to remember is that if a pregnancy was unwanted, there was likely a lot of emotional stress connected to the situation to begin with that can be confused with emotional stress about the abortion (3). Planned Parenthood says that 20 percent of women experience feelings of depression after an abortion that pass quickly, but then so do 70 percent of women who have just given birth--and that these feelings are related to large fluctuations in hormones that occur after either experience (1). NAF has collected a lot of research about this myth, which can be found on their page specifically devoted to refuting this myth with medical and psychological research.

These are the three biggest medical myths that I found (that were also presented as truths on anti-abortion websites) when researching this topic. Fortunately there is medical and scientific information out there that is readily available for any woman who should want to know the truth. She doesn't even have to take Planned Parenthood or NAF's word for it: the studies are out there. The only problem is that some organizations don't encourage women to seek the information, but rather scare them or push them around with an agenda.

Sources:

1. Planned Parenthood

2. NAF's common myths

3. NAF's safety of abortion

--Alexandra

Pro-life: Another Interview

Another one of my pro-life friends agreed to do a short interview with me, just exploring her ideologies and reasons behind her thinking. What I find interesting is that even though she, personally, is pro-life, she also thinks that the actual decision belongs with the woman. It's easy to think that all pro-life people want to limit all abortion options for every woman (and sometimes their websites certainly seem to state that!) but it's good to remember that there are pro-lifers out there like my friend who still believe it is a personal choice, above all.

1. How did you arrive at a pro life point of view?
I have seen many women try and try to have children with no luck and then you see worthless people who have a million kids and dont appreciate them. All babys are innocent and can not help that they are concieved.

2. Are there any circumstances under which you think abortion is acceptable? (Such as in the case of rape, for example.)
If I would happen to be raped and became pregnant I would absolutely not want to carry that child. I also believe that if you are pregnant and it is a life or death situation it is also considerable.

3. Do you think that abortion or the banning of abortion should be up to the federal government, or the states?
Abortion should not be up to the federal government or the states. I believe it is a personal matter that either should have absolutely no say in.

--Alexandra

Reproductive Rights: A History

Abortion is a practice that has been around for thousands of years--and it had been legal in the US when the settlers first came and when the constitution was written. But it wasn't until the 19th century that this country started passing laws to make it illegal. It takes over one hundred years (from the early 1800s to 1967) for one single state to pass more liberal laws regarding abortion. Around the same time, laws are being passed both for and against contraception and contraception education--even some that prohibited married people from receiving education about contraceptives. During this century and a half of illegal abortion, dangerous "backalley" abortion procedures were being performed, which were very dangerous to the women seeking them, to their reproductive health, and could often result in death. 1973 is the year of the Roe v. Wade decision, which took the struggle from the state to the federal level.

A more comprehensive history (which is where I got my information), courtesy of NAF can be found at this link.

A handy timeline of important dates in abortion rights history can be found at this link.

-Alexandra

The Tea Party & Abortion

It is quite possible that one of the reasons Tea Party candidates are doing so well against republicans is their pro-life stance. There were already relatively few pro-choice republicans, and it seems that they keep getting knocked down by their Tea Party opponents. Though the abortion debate often takes a backseat to many other issues (who wants to talk about abortion when the Iraq war is on the table?) one writer at The New Republic argues that perhaps right-to-life politics plays a larger role than we think it does.

There is a large potential for the non-conservatives to overlook how zealous extreme right-wingers can get about abortion--even to the point where it has the potential to overthrow a candidate. What pro-choicers also fail to consider, in my opinion, is the language used by Tea Party and reactionary Republicans. They bandy terms about like "murder," "genocide," and "death panels" (we can thank Sarah Palin for that one) and zealously crow about having religion on their side. It can seem daunting and difficult to argue for the right to choice when someone else is making it sound like you're arguing for the right to choose murder.

In keeping with what I would call this "sensationalism" attached to the anti-abortion argument, one Tea Party candidate ran an ad that was so graphic in its portrayal of aborted fetuses, that Youtube banned it from their site. This particular candidate is running on a mostly anti-abortion platform, but instead of calling herself pro-life, she calls for the end of "child killing."

Wait a moment, now. Child killing? Using the word "child" instead of "fetus" is a really transparent rhetoric strategy--nobody wants to kill children, of all people. Her argument is that she had two abortions, and she was lied to when she was told that her fetuses were not babies. But the part that really gets me is that she calls abortion an "abuse of women". I would argue that removing a woman's right to choose is the real abuse--it's abuse of a woman's body, because it is allowing someone else to tell a woman what to do with her body for the next nine months, taking away her control over her own body. There are so many things women can't do during pregnancy, so many limitations that are put on her life, that even if a woman wanted to give that baby up for adoption, she'd be giving up almost a year of her life because someone else made the decision for her.

Also, this candidate said she had two abortions. I may be reaching here, but I find myself wondering why her opinion didn't change after she had her first abortion. Why did it take a second one to push her over the edge? I wonder about her story, because I wonder what prompted her to have a second abortion, and then to decide that it's child killing and wrong. I don't argue that the emotional trauma of an abortion can change a woman's opinion of the practice, or at least her opinion of whether or not it was the right decision for her--but... why did it take two, in this case? Which makes me feel like this is more of a political ploy, and less of a personal story.

I think it's manipulative of this candidate to call it "child killing" and the "abuse of women". Because I really don't think it matters what any given person thinks of a fetus. What matters is that a few people cannot tell the masses what they are or are not entitled to do with their bodies. These candidates could argue for better counseling, or better contraceptives, or better sex education, but instead they manipulate the constituency with scary images and sound bites.

Usually I try to keep my opinions to a minimum when I'm posting here, but I think it's pretty clear that I am unimpressed with this woman's campaign and that I find people like her extremely scary. I thought we came to America all those hundreds of years ago to get away from people trying to oppressively run our lives. I would love it if the need for abortion was eliminated--but I most certainly want the option to be available should I, or anyone else, need it.

--Alexandra

"Prevention First"

"Prevention First" is an agenda supported by NAF to help educate and support family planning. They want to give everyone the knowledge that there are many preventative measures you can take in order to reduce unwanted pregnancies and STDs. I think this is a great agenda, and one that can be supported by both pro-choice and pro-life people. It is one thing that can help our entire world, and it would be great if this came into full action. Check out the article for more info!


-MF

http://www.prochoice.org/policy/congress/prevention_first.html

Taking Choice Rights for Granted?

In a Newsweek article titled "Remember Roe!", published by Sarah Kliff earlier this year, Kliff laments the fact that abortion rights don't seem to be important in politics any longer--in fact, there seem to be, in her opinion, too many anti-abortion-rights Democrats in Congress today, and pro-choice activists can no longer count on the Dems to vote their way.

The health care reform, which inspired the Sarah Palin post from me last week, is part of what inspired Kliff to write her article. The tagline for it reads: "HOW CAN THE NEXT GENERATION DEFEND ABORTION RIGHTS WHEN THEY DON'T THINK ABORTION RIGHTS NEED DEFENDING?" Kliff talks about Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL, and Keenan's worries that the young people on the side of abortion today don't have the same passion that women in her generation did--women who grew up uncertain of their reproductive rights, who witnessed a multitude of dangerous and illegal abortion procedures.

Kliff's article relays some stunning (and distressing) information:

New NARAL research, conducted earlier this year and released exclusively to NEWSWEEK, only amplified Keenan's fears. A survey of 700 young Americans showed there was a stark "intensity gap" on abortion. More than half (51 percent) of young voters (under 30) who opposed abortion rights considered it a "very important" voting issue, compared with just 26 percent of abortion-rights supporters; a similar but smaller gap existed among older voters, too. Worse still for NARAL, the millennials surveyed didn't view abortion as an imperiled right in need of defenders. As one young mother in a focus group told NARAL, it seemed to her that abortion was easily accessible. How did she know? The parking lot at her local clinic, she told them, was always full.

Kliff mentions that more and more "millenials" are opposed to abortion on a moral issue, even if they do believe that the government doesn't have the right to make the choice for an individual. Most individuals, however (between 75 and 85%) support the right to choose under certain circumstances, and a majority of "millenials" do support the right to choose in "most cases."

However, the problem is what Keenan has expressed: the lack of passion. Perhaps this new group of young people, in an ideological sense, believes that a woman has the right to choose (even if they find abortion itself morally repugnant), but they are not actively defending that right. Instead, it seems that most youths are taking it for granted.

NARAL is struggling to find a way to make it relevant to today's youth, since it seems an unlikely thing, with the current Supreme Court lineup, that Roe would be overturned--though Keenan does concede that an overturning of Roe would certainly rile up the young generation. Of course, nobody in NARAL wants that to happen. The desire of both sides to make the issue black and white doesn't help matters. Now that the pro-life side has technology in their court (the ability to create very detailed ultrasound pictures being a big one) NARAL will have to allow a little bit more "moral complexity" into their message.

Is there a way to convince today's apathetic pro-choice youth that it is still an important issue, without something severe happening like a serious threat of Roe being overturned? Do you think we've grown complacent, taking for granted the fact that if we needed to, we could have an abortion? Or are we as protective of abortion rights as ever? Is the possibility of NARAL conceding to a more moral battle a good thing, or will it undermine their steadfast attitude about abortion rights?

(Citation for the article: REMEMBER ROE! By: Kliff, Sarah. Newsweek, 4/26/2010, Vol. 155 Issue 17, p38-39, 2p

A link to the article can be found here.)

On the other side, Newsweek also published a response to Kliff's article: Remember Roe? Young Activists Say They've Never Forgotten.

--Alexandra

The Pro-life Side of Things

I always think it's important to talk about both sides of an argument, and to try to see them in an equally fair light. So even though I am a very pro-choice person, I also do my best to understand the other side of the coin, and to respect other opinions that differ from my own.

A friend of mine who is currently expecting her first child with her husband graciously agreed to answer a few questions for me about her pro-life opinions! I think she does a really good job explaining this other side of the argument, and since she's currently pregnant, she gave me a very insightful look into how early one is aware of a fetus. Also, I think it's interesting that in this pro-life opinion, the right to abortion isn't related to women's rights. It raises some interesting questions, and she brings up some very interesting and insightful points. What do you all think?

1. How did you arrive at being pro life?
Well, to me it's simply a matter of common sense. If an elderly person became an inconvenience to their adult child, would we find it acceptable for that elderly person to be put to death? Or if a woman suddenly felt she could not handle her teenage child, would we be okay with her having the teen "put down" as one would put down a sick dog? No. So why is it considered acceptable to end an unborn baby's life? That connection just can't be made for me, which is why I am pro-life.

2. Do you think that enough help is offered for women who don't want to get an abortion (such as financial aid for struggling women, or adoption services) or is there more that could be done to help these women out?

From what I've seen recently (being pregnant myself), no one wants a woman to have an abortion simply because she feels incapable of dealing with the pregnancy. Everywhere I go, I feel like I see signs, billboards, flyers, etc. advertising help for pregnant women who don't know where to turn; so yes, there are plenty of resources out there. And as far as adoption goes, there are so many couples out there who cannot conceive and who are eager to adopt a child that otherwise would not be cared for. I know this because my sister and her husband are one of those couples - they couldn't have their own children, so they adopted twins from a woman who did not have a job or a stable family unit to help her out. Help can always be found - it just takes the willingness to ask for it.

3. Is there any circumstance under which you'd find abortion an acceptable course of action (such as rape)? If yes, which, and if not, why not?
I can't think of any situation in which I would find abortion an acceptable course of action. Again, this stems from an inability to see this as a logical solution. If a woman is raped, shouldn't we kill the rapist? Why would we kill the baby, who is to blame for exactly 0% of the crime? To me, this makes as much sense as putting the rapist's roommate to death for the rapist's crime - in other words, it makes NO sense. And with all the resources available for pregnant women and all the couples looking to adopt, a women only has to deal with the baby until he or she is born - then her life can go back to normal. I just don't see the rationale behind ending a baby's life because of outside circumstances.

4. Do you think that legislation concerning abortion is something that belongs in federal politics, or is it something that should be decided on a state by state basis?
I don't think it really matters, honestly. A woman who is determined to abort her baby will cross a state line to do so. Having said that, I would prefer that it be decided on a state-by-state basis as opposed to federally - it gives the people more freedom to decide what they want for themselves, which is more democratic.

5. Do you think that having the option of abortion is an important part of women's rights, or do you think that women can have equal rights without this option?
I think women DO have equal rights without the need for "abortion rights." Again, it doesn't make sense to me that ending an unborn life is seen as a legitimate course of action for a woman to take. To be completely candid, if we're going to allow women the right to choose abortion, we should allow everyone the right to murder as they see fit. If your neighbor makes your life difficult, you should be allowed to kill him. If your son makes you miserable, you should be allowed to kill him. I see no difference between these situations and abortion. As far as the claim that a baby is not "alive" until it is born, well... I saw my daughter's heartbeat on an ultrasound when I was 7 weeks pregnant, which is only 5 weeks after conception. I could feel her moving 13 weeks after conception. How that could be seen as a cluster of cells that are not yet "life" is beyond me.

-Alexandra

The Assassination of Dr. Tiller Cont.

Whoops completely forgot to include the link I was talking about in my last post! Sorry! Here it is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5cg4B1TgKk

The Assassination of Dr. Tiller

Many who support Pro-Life often preach that they are all about peace and anti-violence. This does not seem to be the case when it came to the assassination of Dr. George Tiller. He was murdered inside his church in Wichita, Kansas. He was killed because he was a doctor who provided abortion services. George Tiller was a strong believer in Pro-Choice and that women had a right to their own bodies without the interference of the government. Tiller offered abortions to women who were carrying fetuses with severe or fatal birth defects. He also aborted fetuses, in cases where two doctors certified that carrying the fetus to term would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." George Tiller believed that women should not be forced to have a baby that came from rape or incest. He wanted to put a stop to this and because of that..he was murdered.

Rachel Maddow felt strongly about Dr. Tiller's murder so she (with the help of few others) made a documentary titled, "The Assassination of Dr. Tiller". Here's a preview of it below. The interesting parts start around 2:00 minutes into the clip. Check it out if you get the chance. I thought it was crazy how the murderer of Dr. Tiller, Scott Roeder, got the idea of murdering him after watching The 700-Club on tv that morning. hmmm

Check out the clip and post what you think! :)

-Stephanie

Gunpoint Abortion Case

The article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102201693.html

Since Mallory wrote about the bill that would make it so that you needed consent to the baby's father to get an abortion, I thought this was an interesting bit of news to talk about. I think this article makes it clear that the father's interests and the mother's interests absolutely do not always coincide--the fact that this young man had to resort to violence because he did not want to be a father so badly attests to that.

I think it's terrible that he pointed a gun at his girlfriend's head and tried to force her, on pain of death, to do something she did not want to do. I think he should be charged for attempted murder of his girlfriend. But the idea of fetal homicide laws, (about which the article says, "38 states have fetal homicide laws increasing penalties for crimes against pregnant women,") make me nervous, because whether or not a fetus is alive is a hot ticket issue in the abortion debate. I agree, if someone harms a pregnant woman and her fetus is damaged or ends up dying, that person needs to be prosecuted and face dire consequences. But it's using the word "murder" that worries me, as it does when I see slogans "abortion is murder" from the pro-life side of things.

Because if abortion is murder, then it's hard to argue as a right that all women should have. Of course there is a difference between harming a wanted pregnancy, and a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy. However, if the law doesn't draw these lines now, I fear that these cases in which harming the fetus is called "murder" or "homicide" will set precedents for fetuses as living beings that cannot be harmed--which, in turn, will make it impossible to get an abortion. It's a really hard thing to think about, but ultimately, I believe that whether a woman thinks she's murdering her fetus or simply terminating it by getting an abortion should be up to her, and her alone.

Do you think that this precedent set by this Ohio case could bleed over into calling all abortion "murder" or do you see it as an isolated incident that won't affect the overall abortion debate? What about the clear discrepancy between what the father and mother want: does that speak well for the bill that would require the father's consent for an abortion? Can you see a difference between an outsider harming a wanted fetus, and a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy, or are both of those things still "murder"?

--Alexandra

Future of Abortion Laws?

Pro choice gives a mother her rights as a human being to be able to choose what she feels is best for her and the fetus inside of her. With the funding for clinics diminishing little by little, what do you feel will happen to the anti-abortion laws as a whole in upcoming years? We have already seen as stated by Mallory that the father must consent, making it so a female cannot solely make a decision as important as this on her own. In your opinion what do you think will be next?

--Symone L.

House Bill 252

John Adams, an Ohio representative, introduced a bill that would require the father's written consent in order for a woman to be able to obtain an abortion. If the woman gets an abortion without consenting the father, she would face criminal penalties; as much as 6 months jail time.


How do you feel about this? And if a woman were raped, should she still have to be bound by law and have that man's consent if she were to get pregnant?

I think this is outright ridiculous, and if this passes I feel we will only be taking steps backward in this fight for equality.


mf

Crisis Pregnancy Centers

According to this NYT article, many crisis pregnancy centers in New York City are misleading about what services they offer, and set up shop in near proximity to Planned Parenthood to attract pregnant and confused women into their doors instead of walking into Planned Parenthood.

Crisis pregnancy centers don't provide abortion, contraceptives, or counseling about whether or not a woman may want an abortion. Instead, they hit you over the head with pro-life propaganda, some even going so far as to bring religion into it and telling women that "God will never forgive you". In a time in a woman's life that is already so fraught with emotions and confusion, being manipulated into making a certain decision doesn't seem fair. The author of this article, Susan Dominus, tries to shed light on these centers. She also examines council members on the Manhattan city council who are trying to get crisis centers to be more direct about what they offer, such as putting signs up by the door listing what they do and do not offer pregnant women.

Some of the people running the centers got argumentative, and said that if that's the case, then Planned Parenthood ought to put up that they only offer abortion counseling, but that is in fact not the case at all. Planned Parenthood offers all kinds of counseling services, and just because they are pro-choice and offer abortion doesn't mean that they would encourage a woman to have one if she was leaning towards adoption or another solution.

Is it wrong for crisis pregnancy centers to mislead scared pregnant women with strong anti-abortion messages? Is this kind of manipulation fair? Or should women be offered all of their choices, so that they can make the best decision for them? I personally think these centers should be held more accountable about the services they offer--if a woman walks in thinking she wants an abortion, she should know before she even opens the door that this is not what she'll be presented with once inside.

--Alexandra

Sarah Palin on abortion

The female politician who has usurped the idea of feminism and twisted it into something traditional, that does not seem to vie for what feminism has always been about (and in my opinion she sets feminism back a few decades), of course has strong views on abortion.

The article: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43198.html

A couple of weeks ago, Palin brought up the issue of abortion. She opposes Obama signing the Health Reform bill, especially on the grounds that it advances the "abortion industry" that she so opposes. Of course, we all know that Palin would oppose abortion even if her daughter was raped. Even if perhaps her politics have been groomed and refined so that she would never make such unpalatable statements now (though, honestly, I'd still put it past her) this is a message that I can't forget, and I also know it's a stance that is unlikely to change.

So what did abortion have to do with Obama's health care reform? Well, strict anti-abortion language wasn't added to the bill, though a certain anti-abortion group would have liked it to, but with the support of that group helping the Democrats pass the bill, they had to get something in exchange. They got: "an executive order signed by Obama affirming current law and provisions in the legislation that ban federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother." (source: this msnbc article)

While Sarah Palin may argue that Obama missed a big opportunity to kill abortion entirely, I (being on the other end of the spectrum) am worried that Obama was even willing to sign that sort of executive order. First off, I would be more comfortable if abortion was a states right thing--then if even the majority of states outlawed it entirely, I have faith that states like California would still make it legal--meaning that abortion would still, at least for some, be an option. It would be much better to have federal law giving autonomy to the women who want an abortion, but my faith that that will happen is very low. Secondly, I'm worried that Obama was willing to sign that executive order. I get that technically he was only upholding the status quo of laws that were already there, but every time a president does something, it makes a statement about politics and the state of that issue as it stands in the country. Being of the opinion that abortion should be available to anyone who wants it, I don't find it comforting that federal money only supports it in certain circumstances that do not apply to many women seeking abortion. I find it less comforting that we seem to be heading down an abortion-limiting road.

Abortion seems more palatable if someone was raped, or if there's danger to the mother. Then it seems that you have good reason to end the pregnancy. But to take Sarah Palin's view, that the fetus is so important (important enough to trump a daughter being raped, having her choices taken away, and then being forced to raise a baby she didn't even want) seems to give the fetus rights that the mother doesn't even have. Women need autonomy over their own bodies if we're ever going to achieve equality.

What do you think of Palin calling abortion an "industry"? I think her choice of words attempts to vilify abortion, since we tend to think of industries as large and unfeeling. Do you agree with Obama's executive order? Do you think it's odd that he would go to an anti-abortion group to get support for his health care reform? What do you think this means for the future of abortion rights?

--Alexandra