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