Posts Tagged ‘anti-choice’

Let’s be real. Women spend far more than 24 to 72 hours considering their decision when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Having to wait additional time is just pure condescension.

Oh, but I forget, some legislators don’t think that women can make these decisions—hence, the rest of South Dakota’s new dictate.

In addition to waiting 72 hours, women in South Dakota must visit an anti-choice propagandist (aka “crisis pregnancy center”) before having an abortion. And, if you think these centers are remotely unbiased, think again. The SD bill describes them as organizations whose mission is to “educate, counsel, and otherwise assist women to help them maintain their relationship with their unborn child.”

Clearly, our women’s health and lives matter message is getting us no where. They don’t care. Enough is enough. My new mantra: “You’re Not the Boss of Me”. Can’t you see it popping up in legislatures across the country, t-shirts, billboard and sandwich signs? It’s simple and clear.

It feels good. Say it again, “You’re Not the Boss of Me.”

No telling what’s in store this week. So far this year has been a doozy. I’m sure there’s more condescension to come from state and federal politicians of the women-can’t-think-for-themselves stripe.  But before giving up all hope, spend a little time watching women fight back in Wyoming. There’s a reason why the so-called Equality or Cowboy State was first to grant women’s suffrage.

When anti-choice Wyoming legislators introduced a state-scripted-politicians-in-the-exam room bill, here’s what Republican Rep. Sue Wallis had to say, “What this bill does is say that, as a woman, I’m not smart enough to know the decision I’m making, that somehow the state is required to intervene in this particular decision, where the state is required in no other medical decision..”

In other words, you’re not the boss of me.

Maybe the so-called “Right to Life” movement felt it was losing ground with its usual tactics of intimidation and images of distorted fetuses outside of health centers. Maybe they realized that women don’t appreciate being treated as if they are merely a uterus and one that is public property at that.

In recent years, we’ve heard a slight change of their tune to the message that “Abortion is Bad for Women”. I can’t imagine anything much worse for women than being denied the ability to make your own reproductive health decisions based on the personal opinions of these people but we’ll leave that aside for the moment.

The “Abortion is Bad for Women” argument partially rests on completely false claims that abortion is physically dangerous for women. Never mind that it is one of the safest and most commonly performed medical procedures and the only way to truly ensure that abortion is dangerous for women is to make it illegal and force women into the back alleys again. But we’ll leave that bit of “logic” for another day.

The crux of their argument is really that women who have abortions suffer from so-called “post-abortion syndrome” where she becomes depressed, anxious, filled with regret, perhaps even suicidal. But last Thursday, a major study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine debunking this idea by finding no link between mental health issues and abortion. This is just the most recent installment of evidence that the so-called “post-abortion syndrome” does not exist.

In fact, women in the study who went on to carry their pregnancies to term faced greater risk of developing mental health problems due to hormonal changes and stress among other factors. Women who chose to have abortions were more likely to seek mental health services while pregnant but were less likely to need them after making their decision. Researchers concluded that this is due to the fact that the decision to have an abortion is often not an easy one and that these women may have other aggravating factors in their lives leading them to choose abortion such as an abusive partner or financial problems.

The issue really boils down to what the pro-choice movement has said all along: Every woman is different. Yes, some women will feel sad after deciding to have an abortion. But many will also feel relieved and happy to have it behind them. The same range of emotions can be attributed to women who give birth or to women who never become pregnant or have any children at all.

The fact is that you can’t generalize what is ultimately an individual experience and the broad range of human emotion for an entire population. Especially not one as diverse as simply “women”. If anti-choicers were actually concerned about women, they would lay off the preaching and “we know best” attitude and try actually trusting women to make the best decision for their own set of personal circumstances… including their current state of mental health.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for that sudden change of tide but, for the sake of women all over the world, I hope that studies like the one released last week will at least reveal the anti-choicers for what they are. One thing is for sure, you can’t genuinely proclaim to care about women when you don’t even really trust their judgment.

Likely future Speaker of the NC House, Paul "Skip" Stam

“We’re a centrist state. We’re a small government, we’re a limited-government, free-market, stay-out of my-personal-life electorate.” So declared Republican NC Representative Thom Tillis, the mastermind strategist behind the Republican take over of the NC House on WUNC this morning.

Really. I wonder what soon-to-be Republican Speaker Paul Stam thinks about the “stay-out-of-my-personal-life-electorate.” I can’t say that he’s ever been a fan. Well, at least as far as the female portion of the electorate is concerned.

Stam makes it clear at every turn that his number one priority is restricting reproductive freedom. He did it in the 80s when he led the effort to dismantle our State Abortion Fund, which helped low-income women pay for safe, legal abortion care. And, earlier this year, he led an almost one man crusade to deny abortion coverage to public employees across the state. 

Let’s not forget 1994, when Republicans took over the NC House. In one short session, they successfully overturned comprehensive sex education, enacted parental consent for abortion and rendere the State Abortion Fund permanently inaccessible.

Stam is no believer in a “stay-out of my-personal-life electorate” unless by personal life we’re talking personal income tax. When it comes to a woman’s most profoundly personal and private concerns, Stam is all about having a say.

 

And let’s not forget Stam’s steadfast opposition to the anti-bullying bill last legislative session. Who can remember how many times he took to the floor to oppose protecting all children in North Carolina from bullying?

He didn’t like the bill because it named the very children who are likely to be bullied based on perception or reality. The kids he didn’t want to protect were those whose gender identity or sexual orientation were called into question. The rash of suicides this year alone by LGBT kids underscores the importance of last year’s bill, which passed by one vote—the one cast by Democratic Speaker Joe Hackney.

Candidate for CO Senate seat, Ken Buck, is a great example of how anti-choice extremism won't get you ahead in the polls.

In many cases the answer is no. So says Amanda Marcotte of RH Reality Check who puts her argument so much better than I ever could and manages to deliver some good news to us just about week before Election Day!

It seems that the Tea Party candidates and other very socially conservative, anti-choice politicians have not gotten the memo that misogyny and extremist views on women’s rights are a turn-off to most voters. Maybe they’ve forgotten that women make up over half of this country’s population?

Many of the candidates that we’ve heard so much about this election such as Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell hold extreme views on reproductive choice, the Civil Rights Act, social security, and (most infamously in O’Donnell’s case) masturbation. In these races, among others that Marcotte highlights, the pro-choice candidates are running ads to educate voters on the extreme views their anti-choice opponents hold on reproductive rights. Much to the Tea Party’s chagrin I’m sure (and possibly to their surprise) voters are listening and polls are reflecting their change of heart as would-be Republican blow-outs become tight races with no clear front-runner. 

In some cases it seems like the candidate should have thought twice before ever opening his mouth on any issue pertaining to women, their rights, or their role in society. Would-be Colorado Senator Ken Buck is held up as a shining example of this. After declaring that abortion should be illegal in all cases (NO exceptions), sounding off about his lack of sympathy for rape victims (he basically accused her of having “buyer’s remorse”) and making “jokes” that imply women are unfit to hold public office is it any wonder that mainstream voters are running the other way?

 Marcotte’s article is somewhat long but worth reading. Her take home message for anti-choice extremists is clear: What will get you elected in the primary just will not fly in a general election where you have to do more than pander to a small, very conservative base.

The more important take home message for voters is that learning about your candidates’ views on reproductive rights is well worth your time. Would you want to cast your ballot for someone who doesn’t trust you (or your sister, partner, daughter, etc.) to make fundamental childbearing decisions? In many cases, candidates who don’t trust women to make the decision of when and if to become a parent also don’t trust them to, say, hold elected office. Sadly, even in 2010, misogyny is a common theme in this election.

So, do your homework! Vote for candidates that share your pro-choice values. You only get this one vote in 2010. And (to borrow a phrase from Ken Buck) you don’t want to have buyer’s remorse after your ballot is cast.

Fortunately it isn’t as hard as it sounds! The Planned Parenthood Action Fund has done a lot of the work for you. Check out our endorsed candidates tobe sure that your vote for your legislators are going candidates who share your values and will stand up for women’s health in the General Assembly!

In Monday’s N&O, seventeen year old Jessica Williford’s op-ed claimed that Republican women will finally prove themselves the real decedents of our nation’s feminist forebears.

She cited all sorts of quotes from our founding mothers, which seem to support Jessica’s own clearly anti-choice views. Of course, it’s easy to pull quotes out of context and even easier to judge yesterday’s comments or actions by today’s standards.

For example, one could debate whether Thomas Jefferson really believed “all men were created equal” since he owned slaves when he penned our nation’s Declaration of Independence. I digress.

Jessica’s op-ed suggests that opposition to abortion is the one position unifying all of these Republican women. How interesting when there are so many challenges facing America’s women and their families today. Unemployment, the economy, rising child care and college costs just to name a few.

But Jessica’s Republican women would have us focus on denying women reproductive freedom.

There is no decision more fundamental than a woman’s right to choose whether or not to be a mother. No decision will affect her life more intimately or her destiny more profoundly.

Real feminists know this, which is why they trust other women to make childbearing decisions. Too bad some of our real founding mothers aren’t around to set the record straight.

National Public Radio made the decision this Spring to change the way that they cover stories concerning abortion. They’ve announced that they will no longer use the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life,” but will instead use “abortion rights supporter” and “abortion rights opponent.” The linked article is by NPR’s ombudsman, and I’d also recommend reading her previous thoughts on the topic, since they helped to precipitate the change. That can be found here.

While the terms are a bit more clunky, NPR is not alone in this decision. Almost all other major news outlets had already switched. And while “abortion rights advocate” doesn’t really have the same ring to it as “pro-choice” to my ears, it does seem to convey more of an element of neutrality, which I would guess is NPR’s objective.

But does this really matter? In one of the linked articles, NPR’s ombudsman quotes a linguistics professor from Georgetown University, Andrea Tyler, who discusses word choice. Dr. Tyler believes that when those opposed to abortion rights were able to get the term “pro-life” into everyday use, they “won” the battle of the words. She says:

“It doesn’t seem like a good thing to be anti-choice. But it’s worse to be anti-life. So there’s an inequality in the frames when you say pro-life and pro-choice. Being the opposite of pro-choice is not as bad as being the opposite of pro-life.”

While I’m not sure I fully agree with Dr. Tyler’s view, I do believe that language can be a powerful framing tool in our lives. For instance, I used to say “pro-life” before generally switching to “anti-choice,” partly because that’s the phrase people around me were using and partly because I don’t think there’s anything remotely pro-”life” about many of those individuals (pro-”only the people who do exactly what I think they should do” is probably more accurate, but may be a bit too verbose to catch on). But I am curious to see what other people think about this, or if NPR and I are reading too much into semantics.

What do you think? Do you consciously use a particular term when talking about the opposing sides in the abortion debate? If so, why?

I know that, while writing some of these posts, I can get a bit repetitive in some of my thoughts. You’ll see me talk a great deal about how opponents of reproductive and other rights have a tendency to make stuff up and pass it off as the truth. I have a bad habit of reading far right-wing websites and so I can sometimes fixate on the activities of the more “out there” (to use the best euphemism I can) members of society. But what probably bothers me the most, what infuriates me every time, is hypocrisy. And unfortunately for me (and my blood pressure), it often seems that politicians most opposed to issues I care deeply about are the most hypocritical.

Take, for example, Mike Huckabee. Huckabee (former governor of Arkansas and Republican Presidential hopeful, current Fox “News” host) recently spoke at a pro-life banquet at Purdue University in Indiana. In front of over 650 attendees, Huckabee said the following:

“We cannot allow our country to get to the point where we decide that one life is expendable and another is valuable. We need to recognize the worth of all human beings, not only in politics, but in culture.”

This sounds innocuous enough, as it’s fairly standard rhetoric. It’s an argument that one could hear from just about any member of the anti-choice crowd. But Huckabee’s famous enough that many of his other comments are in the public sphere and, as we’ll see, it’s fairly easy to ascertain that Mike Huckabee doesn’t recognize the worth of all humans… just the ones he can manipulate for political advantages.

Shortly after Barack Obama’s election, Huckabee went on the televised battle royale known as The View. While there, he talked about the significance of America’s first black president and was questioned about his stance on LGBT rights (the video from the link’s been disabled, but the article has the transcript of the appearance, plus a brilliant deconstruction of what Huckabee’s really saying between the lines). In a nutshell, Huckabee basically states that he doesn’t believe that LGBT rights is a civil rights issue and that, because of this fact, laws shouldn’t be passed to protect LGBT citizens. His rationale for this belief? The fact that not enough gays have been beaten or killed. Yes, seriously.

In other words, in Huckabee’s eyes, for LGBT Americans to be worthy of equal protection under the law, more of them need to be hate crimed (on a side note, I’ve often wondered what the magic number of beatings/killings is to reach civil rights status. Huckabee’s never explicitly stated). That doesn’t really jibe with the whole “respecting the worth of all humans” belief, does it? After all, it seems that if gays are to meet Huckabee’s litmus test for civil rights, more need to die tragically… which indicates that Huckabee does, in fact, find some lives worthy of being sacrificed.

And this is the rub with the anti-choice crowd. They tend to go on and on about the sanctity of life, the worth of every life, of the unborn… but it’s only talk. In reality, it masks what’s really at stake: an attempt to impose a supposed level of morality on others. Anti-choicers like Huckabee don’t have any interest in the sanctity of human life. If they did, they would actively fight to protect every human being… gay, straight… African-American, white… Christian, Muslim… from harm. But they don’t even come close. Instead, it’s just about making others believe what they do… and even worse, it’s about controlling the decisions of others through rhetoric, deception, and a false sense of morality.

Now, some of you may be thinking that I’m being a little too hard on Huckabee or that I’m unfairly jumping to conclusions. But honestly… I don’t see how you can have it both ways. You either mean what you say… or you don’t. And it seems pretty clear that Huckabee just doesn’t.

Sadly, Huckabee’s just the tip of the hypocrisy iceberg. Because, as you’ll see in the second half of my posting (Galling Pro-”Life” Hypocrites II: Electric Boogaloo)… things can get much, much worse.

If you’ve been checking out our patient forum, you may have already seen a post in Share My Story by use2be.  Her story is one that is not that uncommon -  an anti-choice person finds herself facing an unintended and unwanted pregnancy. 

Sometimes like use2be, the anti-choice person decides her best choice would be to have an abortion.  She may reconsider her belief system and become pro-choice.
  
  “My views and opinions are now very different and I feel very blessed and very glad that women still have a choice”

Or she may not.  In an article, “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion,”  Joyce Arthur collects and shares stories of anti-choice women who’ve sought abortion care. 

Here’s an excerpt from her article:

“I’ve had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, ‘You’re not going to tell them, are you!?’ When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn’t want this to interfere with it.”

Whether or not an anti-choice woman reconsiders her belief system, she is still able to have the choice.  Thanks to the millions of pro-choice activists, voters, legislators, and providers who work to protect and provide that right.  THANKS to all of them and all of you!   

With the Stupak ammendment advancing the anti-choice position, it is more important than ever for all of us to stand up for women’s rights.

Planned Parenthood believes in compassionate care for all women when making life’s most profound decisions.