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 That law was subsequently repealed in a referendum held on November 7 of the same year.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.
