Comments on: Gonzales Decision: We Help Women By Removing Their Autonomy

By: d.r.s.

d.r.s. — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:04:00 +0000

Question…Even if someone did nothing to try and prevent a pregnancy, whether they didn’t have the resources or were just short-sighted, why shouldn’t they have an abortion? If there’s something unfortunate or sad about an abortion, I could understand the feeling that a preventable one is sadder than one where all preventative measures were taken. But why does that mean that “irresponsible” people aren’t entitled to medical assistance? A friend of mine broke her hand this year by punching a brick wall, and even though it was stupid, nobody suggested that the doctor shouldn’t have fixed her up because she brought it on herself, or that people who choose to punch brick walls should take responsibility for their actions by forgoing the cast and painkillers.

While a pregnancy isn’t a permanent handicap, it’s basically a nine-month handicap, followed by an extreme and sometimes dangerous physical event which can lead to permanent damage. I’d say that if we have the technology to prevent that, people are entitled to use it even if they could’ve gotten themselves out of it earlier.

By: Dianne

Dianne — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:51:09 +0000

let’s face it - the Pro-choice movement has done what? Nothing it seems

Not done enough I could agree with. But done nothing? How do you think that emergency contraception got legalized anyway? Sudden realization on the part of pro-lifers that it would prevent abortions? No. And who supports real sex ed including the infamous distribution of condoms in schools (which does reduce the teen pregnancy rate if they are given out in the context of good education on how to use them)? Pro-choicers again. And yes, the pro-choice movement, like any movement, can be elitist and clueless at times, but that hardly seems a reason to condemn it entirely or discount the good that it has done.

By: Tennessee Guerilla Women

Tennessee Guerilla Women — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:25:15 +0000

[...] Just like in the 19th century, the elderly Fathers make our choices for us. In other words, the Fathers on the High Court term women as always mothers and wives, but they treat us as their daughters.Some of Kennedy’s rhetoric reeks so much of paternalism that it reads like the rulings of the Fathers on the 19th century courts.”The paramount destiny and mission of women are to fulfill the noble and benign office of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator.” Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 1872 [83 U.S. 130 at 141]In Kennedy’s opinion, women are once again mothers and wives first — and flighty ones at that — not autonomous individuals with the right to choose our fate.Women mothers can’t make their own decisions because we change our minds too much, and we’re just not smart enough to make informed decisions, opines Father Kennedy.”It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know . . . “, Gonzales v. CarhartLike every good “pro-lifer,” Kennedy views all women, especially pregnant women, as mothers. The man even views women who have terminated their pregnancies as mothers!Have you had your period this month, ladies? No? Well, congratulations, you may be a mother!It will be up to the 2009 Democratic Congress to undo this judicial slap in the face to women’s rights.An editorial in today’s New York Times weighs in on the High Court’s view of women as “flighty creatures,” as well as the ever diminishing credibility of Bushie’s Loyal Supreme Court:NY Times - Denying the Right to Choose — “Justice Kennedy actually reasoned that banning the procedure was good for women in that it would protect them from a procedure they might not fully understand in advance and would probably come to regret. This way of thinking, that women are flighty creatures who must be protected by men, reflects notions of a woman’s place in the family and under the Constitution that have long been discredited, said a powerful dissenting opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.”". . . The court has handed the Bush administration and other opponents of women’s reproductive rights the big political victory they were hoping to get from the conservative judges Mr. Bush has added to the bench. It comes at a real cost to the court’s credibility, its integrity and the rule of law.”Related:Slate: Father Knows BestAlas, a blog: We Help Women By Removing Their AutonomyBitch Ph.D: Supreme Court declares women less intelligent than legislatorsPandagon: Take my uterus, pleasePacific Views: Without A Health Exception: HyperemesisStone Court: The Health of the Woman Huffington Post: A Dark Day for Women’s Health and SafetySupreme Court Abortion SCOTUS Justice Kennedy Partial Birth Abortion Ban Bush Politics News Reproductive Rights Gonzales v. Carhart Feminism Patriarchy [...]

By: Kai

Kai — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 18:11:13 +0000

Post 15:

While the rate of abortion is declining due to the use of emergency contraception such as RU-486….

I would be fairly skeptical of source of “information” that conflate RU-486 with emergency contraception.

It is interesting that Rara places the blame of inadequate birth control information and availability on the feminists, rather than
- those who push abstinence-only education
- the same Supreme Court “Justices” that ok’ed company health insurance not covering birth control to women while providing other preventative care
- those who cut funding to Planned Parenthood
etc etc

I think the anger is well-justified, albeit misdirected.

By: rara

rara — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 00:31:34 +0000

My bad for not quoting from statistics earlier, I didn’t have ready access to them but they were in my head because, well everyone that knows the basics of the subject of abortion surely knows the statistics in regards to how disproportionate abortion practices are with certain segments of the population and how abortion is used as a means of birth control by a vast number of women in this country, surely you all knew that, or so I thought….

What I find interesting, surprising and even somewhat shocking is that most of you who replied did not know these statistics…

When I was a kid and up until not too long ago, I used to watch the Spanish language channels and see commercials for low-budget “Medical Clinics” advertising abortion procedures, complete with bad soap-opera style scenes of a women who has a problem and is trying to find a solution to it. I used to ask my mom why we never saw these commercials on English language stations; she couldn’t give me an answer…

I never saw these types badly acted but memorable commercials advocating contraceptive use though…And I’ve lived in three major metropolitan areas.

One thing is the AIDS prevention campaigns, but I have never seen campaigns aimed at INTELLIGENTLY educating the minority, at-risk communities like the ones where I grew up in about the importance of family planning. And no: Planned Parenthood hasn’t done enough and their message has not reached everyone, let’s face it - the Pro-choice movement has done what? Nothing it seems. This is what I find disturbing, women taking on the banner of abortion as their symbol of feminism when there are broader issues to be addressed and when their focus has been on beating a dead horse till people actually tune the same song out. It almost seems as if the Pro-Choice movement is of an elitist bunch who needs a cause and thinks it’s championing for all women when in fact it has ignored the ones most at need.

And then you wonder why many are cynical of the established feminist movement….

By: Lu

Lu — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:29:55 +0000

Hear, hear, Kate L. and Dianne.

Just FTR, there are women (usually, but not always, very young women) who hide pregnancy, deliver alone, and either leave the newborn to die of exposure or kill it outright. It’s rare, fortunately (more so now since many states now have “safe haven” laws allowing a woman to surrender a newborn at a hospital, no questions asked), but it does happen. Usually the woman is fathoms deep in denial until the baby actually comes, and for that reason I’d think the hypothetical 39-weeker would be even more rare, but I wouldn’t rule her out either.

By: Kate L.

Kate L. — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:40:04 +0000

Dianne, I completely concur and I thank you for writing what I was trying to say much more competantly than I did.

I too agree this mythical woman who randomly decides no longer to be pregnant anymore in the 3rd trimester for no reason whatsoever more than likely does not exist -( and if she does, she’s one in a billion I would think), but I think it is important to not deny the possibility (albeit not a strong possibility) and I whole heartedly agree with all your conditions.

By: Lu

Lu — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:02:33 +0000

…doctors refused to perform an abortion on a woman who had “only’” a 40% chance of dying from her pregnancy.

That is disgusting. I wonder what personal risk those doctors would take to save someone else’s life.

By: Dianne

Dianne — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:07:03 +0000

Incidently, re the mythical woman with a normal pregnancy who wants an abortion for no particular reason at 39 weeks: I would argue that IF she existed, she would be in the wrong morally. (Note the conditional tense.) My claim is that by not having an abortion for the preceding 8.75 months, she has made an implicit statement that she plans to complete the pregnancy and that changing her position at this point is unfair to the fetus. I would also argue that, while there is some evidence suggesting that the fetus is not self-aware or thinking on a cortical level at 39 weeks, the evidence is ambiguous enough that taking a third trimester fetus’s rights into account is not completely ridiculous. So I would be ok with a law banning abortion after the 7th month of gestation IF:
1. Abortion was freely available, cheap, and easily accessible in the first trimester.
2. There were exceptions for the life and health of the mother and for fetal anomolies not discovered earlier. I would set the bar for “risk to the mother” quite low. Say, anyone with a risk that was one sigma greater than average could get an abortion if they felt the need to. (Almost no one 39 weeks pregnant is going to accept, unless they are at really extreme risk, but I put this in because of cases like the one in Louisiana where the doctors refused to perform an abortion on a woman who had “only’” a 40% chance of dying from her pregnancy.)

By: Dianne

Dianne — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:00:08 +0000

rara: I apologize. I read your comment #16 before reading #15 and therefore didn’t see that you had provided significant support for your assertion. That was completely my error so please disregard the first paragraph of my comment #17. The second still stands, though: I’m completely in favor of encouraging the use of birth control by positive means (making it easier to obtain and use, educating people about its use), but against using negative means (making abortion less available and/or socially acceptable.)

By: Dianne

Dianne — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:51:43 +0000

As someone who grew up in an inner city I know PLENTY of case of women who didn’t want to get pregnant yet didn’t take ANY steps in preventing pregnancies that eventually ended up in terminations.

The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”. I don’t think that anyone is denying that there are women out there who take foolish chances with their bodies. The question is, is this phenomenon common enough to cause a major social problem. To know that, you’d have to have numbers. What percentage of couples practicing penile-vaginal intercourse don’t use birth control? What reasons do they give for not using it? Which groups are most likely to forgo birth control? That sort of question must be answered if you want any reasonable solution to the problem to be found.

Incidently, I’m all for encouraging women (and men) to use birth control if they don’t want to have children right now. If you’re advocating better sex ed, making cheap or free birth control easily available to all, or otherwise encouraging people to avoid unwanted pregnancies, I’m with you. Restricting abortion or shaming women who have abortions because they might be using the abortion as birth control, that I can’t support.

By: rara

rara — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:58:26 +0000

Jen Writes:

Quote: “MANY women do not bother to use a primary birth control method”

Why do you suppose that is? And can you see the huge judgment implied in the word “bother”? Since you know they don’t bother to use it, please, tell me why.

I’ve never met, or heard of (except from anti-woman sources) any woman who doesn’t’t want to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. The solution is providing safe, affordable forms of birth control, and educating and empowering women who need it, not finger-wagging.

As someone who grew up in an inner city I know PLENTY of case of women who didn’t want to get pregnant yet didn’t take ANY steps in preventing pregnancies that eventually ended up in terminations. Why this phenomena? I think it has many causes and as difficult as it is for some to hear this, it does indeed boil down to lack of personal responsibility and bad life choices. Academic education plays an important role but it’s not everything. Not enough has been done to make a case of the importance of birth control amongst “at risk” women. This is not about access to contraceptives it’s about the importance of them. People do have access to birth control yet planning for the future is not something that some people are used to doing or have heard enough of, or care enough about and it’s obviously been affecting women’s quality of life and future. Here is where the role of the pro-choice feminist movement has failed quite notably.

Maybe if the pro-choice movement weren’t so concerned with preaching to the choir and instead focused it’s attention to the women that need it most, these statistics wouldn’t be a reality. It is not OK and not acceptable for certain segments of the population to be so behind in terms of contraceptive use and misuse. This is not what progress is all about. And I’m referring to a host of potential and real issues that arise from lack of contraceptive use; anything from sexually transmitted diseases to health risks of multiple abortions. Something is not right when the statistics mentioned are not diminishing; and if the government isn’t doing enough, what is the established feminist movement doing then?

“But isn’t the point of abortion to be a choice of last resort?”
Mandolin wrote:

No. I mean, I think it’s been framed that way. But I think the point of abortion is to no longer be pregnant, for whatever reason one doesn’t want to be.

Here we disagree. In my opinion and that of many, abortion should be a means of last resort while contraceptives should be the first resort in taking true “control” of one’s body and reproductive health and in making wise personal choices for both men and women. Why some segments of the population choose abortion over contraception is indeed something that needs to be addressed and why I think the issues surrounding abortion should be reconsidered by the current pro-choice movement.

BTW, apology accepted =]

By: rara

rara — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:23:03 +0000

“Incidence of Abortion

Each year in the United States, approximately 6 million women become pregnant; half of these pregnancies are unintentional. One in ten births result from unwanted pregnancies. While the rate of abortion is declining due to the use of emergency contraception such as RU-486 or the insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) for up to 7 days after unprotected sex, approximately 1.3 million women choose abortion as a way to deal with their unintended pregnancy.”
http://www.medical-central.org/abortion.htm

Guttmacher Institute
Go to: “Lingering Disparities” for a confirmation of the above.
Some quotes:

“Among women at risk of unintended pregnancy, a greater proportion in 2002 than in 1995 were not using contraceptives, and some disparities in use grew during that time.”
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/05/04/AiWL.pdf

Full statistics, graphs, etc. can be found on this report and on the Guttmacher Institute’s site.

Excerpts from an older but very interesting Guttmacher Report, Sharing Responsibility: Women, Society and Abortion Worldwide, 1999 can be found here, the original report is quite interesting too, a quote:

“Finally, as a leader in world affairs, this country has an obligation to reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion that reaches beyond its borders. The need for effective contraceptive services is growing in many regions of the world, and women may increasingly turn to abortion—even unsafe abortion—should this need continue to go unmet. Support for U.S. population assistance will help to meet the demand for contraceptives while improving the health of women and children around the globe and reducing the need for abortion.”
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/pdf/2003/0121_clip.pdf

And of course these sources are all pro-choice, pro-women, pro-health.

By: Ampersand

Ampersand — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:49:20 +0000

Generally speaking, I think “partial birth abortions” are not whims or done without any kind of serious compelling circumstance, so mostly I’m going to support the woman’s right, but I’m not comfortable with “fetus always loses” either.

It’s not “the fetus always loses.” It’s “the person best positioned to make this difficult decision is the pregnant woman.” Many pregnant women will in fact decide to give birth, so I don’t think it’s accurate to describe letting women decide as “the fetus always loses.”

I’m glad that you support the woman’s right. Would it help you to feel better about it to remember that supporting someone’s right to make a choice, isn’t the same thing as agreeing with whatever choice they make?

By: Myca

Myca — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:14:09 +0000

I think that part of what we’re seeing here is a framing issue, which is part of why I don’t like the ‘abortion is necessary but sad’ framing.

Fuck that, man.

I like abortion. Abortion is good. It gives women more bodily autonomy, reduces the number of unwanted children, and helps create more social and economic parity between the sexes.

I’m not worried about women ‘using abortion as birth control’ because 1) I trust women, and 2) It wouldn’t really bug me much if they were.

—Myca

By: Mandolin

Mandolin — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:52:46 +0000

” So I was responding to that incident, which isn’t really fair, esp. if you didn’t follow it.”

I mean that as an apology, by the way. Sorry. (This comment may come across more clearly when my earlier one gets out of moderation.)

By: Mandolin

Mandolin — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 17:51:40 +0000

“Well this really deserved a rolling of my eyes. Can you get any more condescending?”

I was going for “uncharitably annoyed.” By the by, someone showed up at a recent argument about abortion on feministe to tell all the straight feminists that we should stop having vaginal sex because it was irresponsible of us, and that we weren’t allowed to talk about abortion because it was straight-centric. So I was responding to that incident, which isn’t really fair, esp. if you didn’t follow it.

“It’s reassuring to know that if a condom fails or the pill fails, there is the option of an abortion.’

Okay. Cool. That wasn’t clear to me when I read your post, in which you said, “I do believe that abortion should be an option and mostly reserved for exclusive cases: rape, incest, medical conditions,” but did not, that I saw, allow for accidents to occur in normal, competent use.

“Protecting the rights of women to have the option of an abortion is something I support”

Excellent.

“what I question is why nothing is being done to question why many women are being irresponsible with their reproductive health by failing to use a primary form of birth control in the first place?”

And here I ditto Jen, in full. In particular:

*What is your evidence that many women are being irresponsible (and how do you define many)?

*Why do you think that the burden of “irresponsibility” falls on the “women” (the only woman I’ve ever known personally who didn’t use birth control was 14 at the time) when there are various attacks on the dissemination of knowledge? I mean, if you want the discussion to be about how to get more birth control and knowledge about contraception to more people, I think we’re all in favor of that. I don’t know why it has to be pitted against abortion.

“But isn’t the point of abortion to be a choice of last resort?”

No. I mean, I think it’s been framed that way. But I think the point of abortion is to no longer be pregnant, for whatever reason one doesn’t want to be.

Personally, although I doubt that there are lots of women using birth control as their primary contraceptive (did know one; again, she was 14), if they want to do that, I’m pretty okay with it. I would much rather they had knowledge of and access to birth control of course, and in the current political climate, I can’t guess that’s necessarily the case. But if there were a hypothetical woman who did know all about birth control, had buckets of condoms at her disposal, and still decided to be free as the breeze — as her friend, I might wonder what kind of fetish she had for pain and losing money, but as her political ally, my official opinion is, “Eh.”

Let’s be honest with ourselves and with reality - MANY women do not bother to use a primary birth control method and the feminist movement is sweeping this fact under the rug and it shows here in your case when you’re acting defensively instead of addressing a glaring issue.

By: Kate L.

Kate L. — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:16:29 +0000

Hey, Sailorman - is my understanding of Roe V Wade correct?

“That is a balancing result: I don’t disclaim that the life of the fetus should “come into consideration;” it’s just that after considering it I STILL say “nope, fetus loses.” ”

I don’t know… During 3rd trimester circumstances I don’t know if I think fetus should always lose. There most definitely needs to be medical loopholes and in general discretion of the physician in concert with the woman’s decision trump fetus rights…

But as I said - an otherwise totally healthy 32 week pregnant woman (no risk to her health) and perfectly healthy fetus… unless there’s some pressing reason why it took 32 weeks for the woman to decide to terminate I don’t think the fetus should always lose. I admit that opinion is colored by having BEEN pregnant and remembering what the 32 week fetus looked like in ultrasound and felt like in my womb… However, I just can’t imagine a scenerio like the one I just wrote REALLY happening. Generally speaking, I think “partial birth abortions” are not whims or done without any kind of serious compelling circumstance, so mostly I’m going to support the woman’s right, but I’m not comfortable with “fetus always loses” either.

And I don’t think that makes me less of a feminist.

By: Sailorman

Sailorman — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:47:51 +0000

I’m not really comfortable with feminist rhetoric that denies that there is EVER a point in pregnancy where the life of the fetus should come into consideration

Come into consideration? Or “win” the balancing test? those are two very, very different things.

Many folks–including me–believe abortion should be, in the end, the choice of the mother no matter what. That is a balancing result: I don’t disclaim that the life of the fetus should “come into consideration;” it’s just that after considering it I STILL say “nope, fetus loses.”

By: Kate L.

Kate L. — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:30:55 +0000

“The reality (as in statistics) is that most abortions are used by women as a means of birth control. ”

I’m afraid I need to see the evidence to believe this one. As well as evidence - facts about just HOW many women use abortion as “birth control.” I just need to see some evidence other than your judgmental assumptions in order to believe that one.

For the record, I have my own issues with some of the abortion rhetoric in the feminist discourse and have NO PROBLEM discussing them.

Unless my understanding is incorrect (and please - one of the many lawyers and legal scholars on here correct me if I am wrong - I really do want to know), Roe V Wade was a pretty fair way to think about abortion. I don’t really know why anyone messed with it.

My understanding is that under Roe V Wade, a woman could obtain an abortion for any reason without much hassle at any point during the first trimester. (approximately up to about 14 weeks gestation depending on who you talk to). I’m really comfortable with this - and I’ve been pregnant and felt connected to a fetus, etc - I still think a first trimester free for all is pretty reasonable.

Second trimester abortions are allowed under certain medical guidelines (problems with the fetus, health risks to the mother, other sticky situations that require some method of review - it’s no longer the free for all that is the first trimester rule). I’m also relatively comfortable with this part. I’m not HAPPY about people who choose to abort “disabled/defective” fetuses, but my personal feelings and opinions aside I think given the current climate for people with disabilities and services available I get it and I’m ok with it. Not HAPPY, but ok.

Third trimester abortions (so called partial birth abortions) are only allowed under strict medical guidelines where there is imminent danger to the mother’s health and/or it becomes clear that even if the fetus is carried to term it will not be viable outside of the womb. This too I am comfortable with. I also just don’t believe doctors sign off on this kind of thing without careful consideration of all the facts. Maybe I’m naive, but I just don’t believe that unless you start showing me some compelling evidence that physicians are liberal/irresponsible with this rule.

That’s my understanding of Roe V. Wade and I think it is completely reasonable. I don’t think abortion is ok at ANY point in time in ANY circumstance. I’m NOT comfortable with a woman who is otherwise in good health and whose fetus is in good health who is 32 weeks pregnant deciding, “oh, I don’t want the baby after all, I want an abortion.” I just don’t think that’s ok. I also don’t believe it happens. Or, if it does that we need to worry about it becoming frequent or common. I can’t tell you exactly when life begins, I don’t really know if anyone is going to be able to settle that one, but I can tell you that I think that at 32 weeks gestation a fetus is definitely a baby and one who has damn good chances of surviving outside the womb presuming they have access to standard care in the US for premies.

Thus, as feminist as I am, I don’t think abortion is ok - no matter what. I DO think there are exceptions and circumstances where the life of the unborn comes into the equation and needs to be taken into consideration. But for me, (because I don’t believe a fetus is a “baby” in the first trimester) I’m ok with a woman choosing an abortion in any circumstance before the end of the first trimester. I’m also not for age restrictions/parental consent laws because I think those are partially responsible for people waiting longer than the first trimester to get an abortion - to go through the court procedures to override the consent laws might push people past the first trimester.

I’m not really comfortable with feminist rhetoric that denies that there is EVER a point in pregnancy where the life of the fetus should come into consideration - and I don’t really ever see that outright, but you don’t have a lot of feminists speaking out about any restrictions they believe should be on abortion (and for good reason I think, but I still don’t like it).

I am flabbergasted at the belief that severe health risks to the mother don’t play a role in determining whether or not a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy. That just seems like a collosal step back into the dark ages.