Abortion, Contraception and Dirty Politics
To me women having absolute control over their medical and reproductive decisions is a civil and human rights issue. I strongly believe that reproductive decisions are private choices made by a woman (or man where applicable) in consultation with her doctor and restricting access to either abortion or contraception does not belong on the governmental agenda.
Countries in the world that have strong secular values and less religious influence in government have lower crime rates, and higher social values. I am referring to the most atheistic societies, including countries like Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, & to a certain extent Canada (Note that while these are not ‘true’ atheistic societies, with 100% atheists there, but they are far more atheistic than say South Africa, USA, etc.).
These countries are far better “behaved” in almost every measure (eg. violent crime, sexual ethics, spread of STD’s, teen pregnancies, abortion rates) - these are all lower in countries where there are higher levels of indigenous atheists. So it does seem that the belief that high levels of religiosity somehow lead to higher levels of ethical or moral behaviour are patently false and a fantasy.
Women are going to continue to have abortions. Denying American women the same right to make their own medical decisions free from interference is a human rights issue - plain and simple.
Roe vs Wade
(1) The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy.
(2) All state laws limiting women’s access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by Roe v. Wade.
(3) State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman.
On March 6, 2006, hoping to directly challenge Roe v. Wade, South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds signed into law a pro-life statute which made performing abortions a felony. That law was subsequently repealed in a referendum held on November 7 of the same year. On February 27, 2006, Mississippi’s House Public Health Committee voted to approve a ban on abortion, but that bill died after the House and Senate failed to agree on compromise legislation.
Several states have enacted so-called “trigger laws” which “would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned.” Those states include Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota. Other states have passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and those states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington.
At one end of the debate are the self-described pro-life advocates, those persons opposed to abortion. They assert the moral claim that the fetal-being “is no less human than its mother and, therefore, has an inalienable right to life” ( National Issues Forum [NIF] 1990, 8). To them, abortion is immoral. It is also murder, and it must be stopped.
Perceiving abortion as the “ultimate immorality,” abortion opponents support the use of the government’s coercive authority against it ( Steiner 1983, 1). Their preferred abortion policy would be to see access to abortion completely forbidden, or at least nearly so. This could be accomplished through a Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade ( 410 U.S. 113), passage of the Human Life Amendment, or congressional action recognizing human life from the point of conception and the extension of Fourteenth Amendment protection to the fetal-being ( NIF 1990, 14).
At the other end of the abortion controversy are the self-described pro-choice advocates who support a woman’s unconditional right to legal abortion. Equally as strident in their views, pro-choice advocates often begin from the normative premise that women have “a right to bodily self-determination” ( Petchesky 1990). That is to say, women must have absolute control over their bodies, particularly in regard to reproduction. For these persons, the civil rights and equality of women cannot be secured without their ability to control their reproductive process. Abortion rights, therefore, are frequently interpreted as the first line of defense against a sexist and unequal society ( NIF 1990, 18). In sharp contrast, pro-choice advocates interpret abortion as both a private choice and a private medical procedure. They assert that restricting access to abortion “does not belong on the governmental agenda any more than do other medical procedures that some deem especially unwise” ( Steiner 1983, 1).
McCain has said: “I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion. As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn.” http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm
Obama has said: “As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don’t think that’s any Republican out there who I’ve worked with who would say that I don’t listen to them, I don’t respect their ideas, I don’t understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we’re always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.” http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
Meanwhile Bush is attempting to redefine contraception as abortion
Can you imagine living in a place where birth control is considered an “abortion” and health insurers won’t cover it? Where even rape victims are denied emergency contraception?
It seems unbelievable, but the Bush Administration is quietly trying to redefine “abortion” to include birth control. The Houston Chronicle says this could wipe out dozens of state laws that protect women’s reproductive freedom and protect rape victims. Access to basic health care for millions of women would be jeopardized. And it’s being pushed as a “rule change”—meaning, it doesn’t need congressional approval. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/12/moveonorg-urges-opposition-hhs-regulations-redefining-contraception-abortion
The Bush administration’s draft regulations on abortion and contraception can be read at:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf
MoveOn.org asks people to write HHS opposing the proposed regulations and has formulated an online petition available for signature and this is the text:
“Contraception is NOT abortion. The Bush Administration’s proposal to change the definition of abortion and reduce women’s access to birth control must be stopped.” http://pol.moveon.org/contraception/?rc=rh
Speaker Pelosi released the following statement on the Administration’s draft proposal:
If the Administration goes through with this draft proposal, it will launch a dangerous assault on women’s health.
The majority of Americans oppose this out of touch position that redefines contraception as abortion and represents a sustained pattern of the Bush Administration to reject medical and sound science in favor of a misguided ideology that has no place in our government.
I urge the President to reject this policy and join with Democrats to focus on preventing unintended pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion through increasing access to family planning services and access to affordable birth control.
The Pro-life Position
Having failed thus far to make abortions completely forbidden, pro-life abortion opponents pursue a political strategy designed to greatly reduce access to abortion and related services. They advocate such restrictive actions as passing laws prohibiting abortion except when the mother’s physical or mental life is at risk, requiring parental or spousal notification and consent, mandating waiting periods and informed consent, prohibiting the expenditures of public funds or use of public facilities to perform abortions, and promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion ( NIF 1990, 14). All these actions are taken, pro-life advocates claim, to save the fetal-being’s life.
IMO antiabortion activists worked long and hard to present abortion not as a last-resort method of fertility control when other forms of contraception have failed or not been used, but rather as a horrific form of murder. It has become clear in the last several years that the aim is not just to stop abortion. If that were the aim, then antiabortion activists would do much better if they vigorously promoted contraceptives. Instead it seems the aim is to infuse with shame all sexual expression and experience outside of heterosexual marriage.
It seems unbelievable, but the Bush Administration is quietly trying to redefine “abortion” to include birth control, unless and until you are well informed about the pro-life agenda and political tactics.
Bush’s actions reveal that the hard line religious right wingers intend to
(1) redefine contraception as abortion
(2) strip a pregnant woman of her civil rights;
(3) grant civil rights to her fetus; and
(4) compel her to deliver it either at full term or prematurely; and
(5) allow it to be adopted.
When combined with the concept of redefining contraception as abortion, we can readily see that pro-life advocates claim to uphold democratic principles when, in fact, they appear to be part of a committed campaign to establish government control over women’s medical and reproductive decisions by way of dirty politics.
Hat tip to a fellow blogger who has also blogged on this topic.
Aug 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I just threw up in my mouth a little. Since moving back to the US 5 years ago from Canada, I’ve hated the decision for far too many reasons. Not that I’ll be leaving anytime soon, but I’ll be sickened & disgusted on a regular basis, at least.
Aug 23rd, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just created a post dealing with the same topic, though not nearly as objective. It’s just refreshing to stumble upon (heh) someone else that can see the bigger picture when it comes to abortion…that being the fact that it would be a restriction of personal freedom to ban it.
Aug 24th, 2008 at 11:52 am
@lana
I believe that 40 years of time passing has made many of us complacent. I believe that we may have the impression that the pro-life movement is merely a small group fanatics who aren’t to be taken seriously. However, the more research I do the more alarmed I become. It seems clear that the separation of religion and politics is laughable and that the so-called “faith groups” have enormous influence on American politics.
As I said in my post I strongly believe that reproductive decisions are private choices made by a woman (or man where applicable) in consultation with her doctor and restricting access to either abortion or contraception does not belong on the governmental agenda. Now that I am clear on what the actual pro-life agenda is, I will be committing of all my budget for charitable donations to the pro-choice movement both in Canada and in the USA.
Aug 24th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
The bigger picture can be seen all over the world in countries where abortion has been made illegal. The result is back alley abortions and dead mothers who leave behind orphans that the members of the pro-life movement are not adopting. Their rhetoric is hollow. They do not support contraception. They direct their funds and government funding only to “abstinence” programs that are ineffective when it comes to preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Aug 24th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
I in the process of writing a post on abortion. I firmly for a womans right to choose. What bothers me about all of these so-called pro life people is that don’t care what happens to the child after it is born. I believe pro birth would be a far more accurate description. I also find it terrifying that they are going after the pill. it seems that they believe that women exist to reproduce. The idea that the state has the right to control the body of another is horrifying. No women cannot have the pill but condoms which men can choose whether to wear or not are just fine.
Aug 24th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
As I said in another comment I firmly believe that those of us who are pro-choice have to AWAKE! The pro-pregnancy people have an agenda that is quite different from what we may have complacently assumed it was.
Aug 25th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Hear hear TT! Many times do I drop into your place for your excellent and well-written insights, and this is no exception. Thank you once again for standing up for sanity and human decency. Everyone should have strong feelings about this issue and I support your views entirely. But it doesn’t stop here. I agree that our more secular societies are probably healthier in most respects too.
I’m rapidly moving to a position where I believe that government and the state should withdraw from any role within our social and personal worlds other than one that upholds the absolute personal freedom of the individual and whose constitution is about protecting the rights of the individual rather than determining what they are! Increasingly I have a view that government should confine itself to national defense and law and order (including the police and the courts) and that it functions as an agency of service provision within the limited ambit of its authority. The main difficulty in this idea is that it carries with it an enormous increase in the extent of the responsibility we would have to exercise over our own lives. Freedom means responsibility too. But reading this post made my pulse race and my stomach churn as I thought “By what right is government allowed to control the moral choice that an individual makes over his or her own life?”
Perhaps some people in our society might choose to adopt a pro-life position, but let them go and live in their own communities where their values and views are voluntarily shared by others rather than trying to force it on the rest of us by whatever means; politics, law, religion or otherwise.
Mmm I feel a blog post coming on!
Aug 25th, 2008 at 5:45 am
What a well written article that clearly defines both sides of the issue.
I agree with your comment that we have become complacent over the course of these 40 years. I keep hearing people say that “Roe v Wade will *never* be overturned” but that belief highlights how complacent we have become. We are not that far from this decision becoming overturned–all it will really take is a few more appointments of conservative judges. The fact that in the last 40 years, the majority of administrations have been conservative makes Roe v. Wade a very real issue in this upcoming election.
Thanks again for the great read. I stopped by a couple of days ago but wanted to take more time today to read the article more thoroughly!
Melinda
Aug 25th, 2008 at 9:25 am
This is very true. Women must be given the freedom of choice whether to go for or against abortion. I think they are capable enough of making such decision and are very much aware of the consequences, so it’s up really them.
Issues between religious and political groups will never cease, and so this going for or against abortion. What both sectors should do, I think, is to educate women, especially on how to promote good reproductive health, without vested interests.
Aug 27th, 2008 at 6:19 am
I started to read this late last night but had to get to bed as I was up at 5:00 am. But I wanted to get back here and tell you that not only is this exceedingly well laid out, thought out and presented clearly (very professional), but that I admire you for blessedly tackling these tough issues. I think writing about them is your forte’. This is done brilliantly. I couldn’t have said it any better, and I am moved to tears and deeply deeply grateful that you have put this out here to make people aware.
I have signed the petition at move on. Thank you my brave and true hearted friend. You are a warrioress of the highest form.
I am deeply moved and honored to have your spirit touch mine.
Sep 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Hi,
Very nice blog you have here. Found your blog after searching information for relationships. Thanks for the great info!
My name is Irene and I’m involved in an online site called ‘A woman’s mind at http://awmtv.com which provides videos relating to relationship advice as well as forums, etc.
I was hoping that you would have a minute to check out the site and perhaps if you liked what you saw… put a link on your blog?
I may be going out on a limb by asking you for promotional help through your blog, but I hope you find awmtv.com to be as news worthy/helpful as I perceive it to be. There’s still a lot of new things to come up on it, but hope you like what you see!
Thanks for your time :)
Best,
Irene
Sep 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
@Irene
I’m not up to visiting the blogs I already have on my blogroll right now. If you read the post called Falling, falling, falling and the comments you will understand why. When I recover I will be pleased to check out the site you left the link to. Right now I can barely handle answering comments and making the odd post.
Sep 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
@praning
OH MY! I just discovered I had not answered your comment. I’m so sorry I overlooked it somehow. Please forgive my ignorance.
I agree with you: “What both sectors should do, I think, is to educate women, especially on how to promote good reproductive health, without vested interests.
The difficulty is that the right wing religious people do not support sex education.
Sep 5th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Thanks! That’s just what I needed to read.
Sep 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The abuse of power we have witnessed under the Bush Administration has been appalling. The spectre of McCain and Palin continuing that abuse is scary indeed. Let’s hope voters wake up to the facts, understand the dangers and vote for Obama and Biden.
Oct 13th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
[...] Bush is attempting to redefine contraception as abortion. Can you imagine living in a place where birth control is considered an “abortion” and [...]