Tuesday
Mar232010
A step backwards for reproductive rights
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
When I was pregnant with Emma, I started having regular contractions much earlier than I should have. I was worried I might be in early labour and went into the Labour and Delivery clinic at hospital where my prenatal care provider was and where I was due to have my baby. As I sat waiting for the doctor to come back with some information for me, a teenage girl and her mother approached the check-in counter.
"She has an appointment for surgery," the mother said.
"Of course," said the nurse. "Can I have her provincial health card please?"
The mother handed over the girl's card and a few moments later, another nurse came out and led the girl and her mother away to a room. Her parents didn't have to remortgage their house to pay for the procedure. She didn't have to push her way through protesters to go into a special clinic. She certainly didn't have to take what pennies she could scrape up and trust some person with a knife in a dingy motel. She could depend on the fact that the Canada Health Act and the provincial health care plans that stem from it allowed her access to a full range of choices, none of which would cost her money or risk her life.
It is our right.
But I see that right crumbling around us and it makes me scared for my daughter's generation and scared for all the women and girls who live in parts of the world where they do not have those same rights.
The United States passed historic health care legislation this week ensuring affordable access to health insurance for many people who were previously unable to get insurance. This is a huge step forward. But it comes with a huge step backwards for reproductive rights. Abortion is legal in the United States, but the current legislation may make it unaffordable and inaccessible to most women (you can sign a petition to the Democratic Party in support of reproductive rights here). In his post on the six big flaws that need fixing, Jon Walker wrote:
This is certainly only one of the many ways that the new legislation impacts women. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check has an extremely comprehensive post that looks at the wins and losses for women's health in this health care bill and is well worth a thorough read. She talks about issues like the right to pump breastmilk at work, support for postpartum depression, the elimination of pre-existing conditions, partial (but not complete) removal of gender rating, free preventive care, lack of coverage for immigrant women, and more.
At the same time as the United States was passing its historic legislation, the Canadian government was debating reproductive rights in its Parliament. No, not the reproductive rights of Canadians, which (for now) will stay intact. Rather, they were debating the details of Canada's aid package focusing on maternal and newborn health in developing nations. The Conservative government first said that the purpose of the plan was "to be able to save lives" but that it would not include any provisions for contraception or abortion.
The government obviously has a very skewed view of how exactly lives are saved in the world's poorest countries. Lack of child spacing options and lack of access to safe abortions is what kills mothers and babies in those countries. Eventually they agreed to include birth control in the package, but said that it was out of the question for Canadian government aid to be used to fund abortions.
The opposition parties (which jointly hold a majority of the seats in the house) filed a motion "asking for the Government of Canada to commit to the position that Canada has held for 25 years, which is to defend women's right of access to the full range of reproductive health services overseas." According to the CBC article Contraception motion defeated, the absence of several pro-life Liberal Members of Parliament, as well as the votes against the motion by several Liberal Members of Parliament led to the defeat of the motion (side note: this looks bad for Liberal leader Ignatieff).
The fact that the Liberal party cannot keep their ranks together to vote on something important like this says a lot about the strength (or lack thereof) of the party and its leader. This makes me even more scared about the possibility of a future majority Conservative government, something which scares plastikgyrl too as she wrote in her post Reproductive Health Care Takes Big Hits in North American Politics This Week:
Very scared.
Is it better to have health care while giving up reproductive rights? Yes and no. Certainly the health care legislation in the United States and Canada's aid to countries around the world helps many women who desperately need health care and do not need abortions. However, it also puts those women who do need abortions at a greater risk than they were at before. It is polarizing and sets dangerous precedents. Can we rewind to two years ago when Dr. Henry Morgentaler received the Order of Canada? I liked that world view better.
Image credit: Steve Rhodes on flickr
"She has an appointment for surgery," the mother said.
"Of course," said the nurse. "Can I have her provincial health card please?"
The mother handed over the girl's card and a few moments later, another nurse came out and led the girl and her mother away to a room. Her parents didn't have to remortgage their house to pay for the procedure. She didn't have to push her way through protesters to go into a special clinic. She certainly didn't have to take what pennies she could scrape up and trust some person with a knife in a dingy motel. She could depend on the fact that the Canada Health Act and the provincial health care plans that stem from it allowed her access to a full range of choices, none of which would cost her money or risk her life.
It is our right.
But I see that right crumbling around us and it makes me scared for my daughter's generation and scared for all the women and girls who live in parts of the world where they do not have those same rights.
Abortion and health care reform in the United States
The United States passed historic health care legislation this week ensuring affordable access to health insurance for many people who were previously unable to get insurance. This is a huge step forward. But it comes with a huge step backwards for reproductive rights. Abortion is legal in the United States, but the current legislation may make it unaffordable and inaccessible to most women (you can sign a petition to the Democratic Party in support of reproductive rights here). In his post on the six big flaws that need fixing, Jon Walker wrote:
This bill is a massive rollback of a woman’s right to choose. It would take away the abortion coverage of millions of Americans. The system of exchanges and affordability tax credits could easily be modified to ensure federal funds are not used to pay for abortions, while still not taking away the ability of women and small businesses to buy insurance packages that cover abortion. Having an individual mandate that forces women to buy insurance, but also a law that prevents them from getting insurance that covers a legal medical procedure, is a disgusting abuse of women’s rights.
This is certainly only one of the many ways that the new legislation impacts women. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check has an extremely comprehensive post that looks at the wins and losses for women's health in this health care bill and is well worth a thorough read. She talks about issues like the right to pump breastmilk at work, support for postpartum depression, the elimination of pre-existing conditions, partial (but not complete) removal of gender rating, free preventive care, lack of coverage for immigrant women, and more.
Abortion and Canadian aid for maternal health in developing nations
At the same time as the United States was passing its historic legislation, the Canadian government was debating reproductive rights in its Parliament. No, not the reproductive rights of Canadians, which (for now) will stay intact. Rather, they were debating the details of Canada's aid package focusing on maternal and newborn health in developing nations. The Conservative government first said that the purpose of the plan was "to be able to save lives" but that it would not include any provisions for contraception or abortion.
The government obviously has a very skewed view of how exactly lives are saved in the world's poorest countries. Lack of child spacing options and lack of access to safe abortions is what kills mothers and babies in those countries. Eventually they agreed to include birth control in the package, but said that it was out of the question for Canadian government aid to be used to fund abortions.
The opposition parties (which jointly hold a majority of the seats in the house) filed a motion "asking for the Government of Canada to commit to the position that Canada has held for 25 years, which is to defend women's right of access to the full range of reproductive health services overseas." According to the CBC article Contraception motion defeated, the absence of several pro-life Liberal Members of Parliament, as well as the votes against the motion by several Liberal Members of Parliament led to the defeat of the motion (side note: this looks bad for Liberal leader Ignatieff).
The fact that the Liberal party cannot keep their ranks together to vote on something important like this says a lot about the strength (or lack thereof) of the party and its leader. This makes me even more scared about the possibility of a future majority Conservative government, something which scares plastikgyrl too as she wrote in her post Reproductive Health Care Takes Big Hits in North American Politics This Week:
The Conservative picture of an international maternal health strategy leaves me worried about what happens should they ever get a majority government. If contraception and abortion are issues those in power do not want to fund/support internationally, how long would it be before the 1988 overturning of the abortion law is repealed? What about the contraception components of the omnibus bill passed by the Trudeau government in 1969? Will enough people in this country believe that such decisions are in the best interest of the women of this country?
Very scared.
What is women's health without reproductive rights?
Is it better to have health care while giving up reproductive rights? Yes and no. Certainly the health care legislation in the United States and Canada's aid to countries around the world helps many women who desperately need health care and do not need abortions. However, it also puts those women who do need abortions at a greater risk than they were at before. It is polarizing and sets dangerous precedents. Can we rewind to two years ago when Dr. Henry Morgentaler received the Order of Canada? I liked that world view better.
Image credit: Steve Rhodes on flickr
Reader Comments (92)
See and I believe that in that case your own personal tragedy can be someone else's miracle. I cannot speak to what that would feel like. I cannot say if it would be nine more months of being raped. I can say that even if it was I would still feel that the child deserved life. And I would love to know that this horrible tragedy I went through brought someone else the one thing they have been praying for. It seems almost therapuetic. Not easy - but nothing about a rape is. Is it needlessly cruel for a child to be brought into the world as a product of violence? Yes! But that is the rapists doing not the woman carrying and delivering the child. No matter how that child came to be there they are there and they deserve life not death.
Additionally, less than 1% of rapes lead to pregnancy. So, as much as the pro-choice side likes to tout that as a huge reason for abortion it really is not the main reason abortions are preformed.
PhD-just wanted to say thanks for the great post. Obviously there is still huge disagreement about when life begins and when, if ever abortion is justified, not to mention contraception in general and the healthcare bill. But this is one of the most robust discussions of women's rights I've seen in a long time. I especially think it is awesome the level of respect and lack of name calling that seem to be present. I agree to disagree on the abortion issue, but there is no question that I'll keep reading your blog :)
Additionally, less than 1% of rapes lead to pregnancy.
Can you please cite this?
Additionally, I agree with you. The majority of women who choose abortion do not do so because of pregnancy caused by nonconsensual sex. It doesn't make their need (yes, need) for access to safe and affordable abortion any less valid.
I do not believe that a fetus is a child. I believe a fetus is a potential child. I understand how precious that potential child is when you want to have a baby. But I can also understand wanting to abort that fetus if you do not want to have a baby. I understand that this belief gives me a completely different perspective on things than someone who believes that a fetus is a human being from the time of conception.
Forcing a woman who became pregnant against her will to put the wishes of prospective adoptive parents ahead of her own bodily rights just doesn't seem right to me. If someone wants to give that gift, I think that is wonderful. But I don't think it should be forced on anyone. To do so reminds me way too much of the Handmaid's Tale.
Off hand this is the only site I can find. It has a good break down. I realize that people who are pro-choice are going to say that it is not factual since it is a pro-life site but at the moment I cannot find a single pro-choice site that is talking about how many rapes lead to pregnancy. It says that the number is actually more like 1 or 2 out of every thousand. I will acknowledge that it is not including statistics on statuatory rapes - my assumption since it says it is talking about all forcible rapes that it is including things like the fourteen year old girl being raped by her uncle but is not including the 16 years old girl who is dating a 19 year old boy. Anyway here is the site - http://www.christianliferesources.com/?library/view.php&articleid=461
Well, I think that pretty much ends the conversation. I am not going to convince you to see it as I do. There is not some brilliant thing about life, the cycle of life or the process of life developing that is going to change your mind. I know you have children, I know you have been pregnant and if that did not convince you that the baby growing inside you was a real live living human being there is nothing I can say that will. And in reverse there is nothing you can say to convince me that it isn't. The only thing I want to say is that (and I assume you know this) I was not implying that ONLY rape victims should be denied abortions. I simply think that ALL abortions (with the exception of ones that would be honestly necessary to save the life of the mother) should be illegal.
That said I will say that while we do not agree and I do not see how we can I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it. I appreciate the fact that my comments have no been deleted. I appreciate anyone who is willing to have an honest conversation and does not refuse to acknowledge there is another side. So thanks!
I simply think that ALL abortions (with the exception of ones that would be honestly necessary to save the life of the mother) should be illegal.
And I think that if abortion is criminalized, women will die. Women will not stop seeking out abortion simply because it's made illegal. It'll just be a lot harder to access, with no guarantees of safety. You asked above, "Why not allow BOTH people to be saved?"
Your solution accomplishes the exact opposite.
My friend had no periods for two years, then had a period that lasted for a full year. How does NFP work for her? By "irregular periods" I don't mean "longer or shorter than 28 days but still the same number of days each time," I mean "irregular as in it's not the same each time so how can you measure when you're ovulating when there's not pattern to the cycle?"
Perhaps NFP works just by taking your temperature every day and knowing when your temperature is at X degrees you're ovulating so you should not have had sex 2-3 days before and should not 2-3 days after. I remember learning about NFP in my sex ed class in middle school (I moved to Texas for high school, so we didn't talk about those things), which was a long time ago, but from what I remember the system depended on having a regular cycle so you could predict your ovulation. Maybe I'm wrong and this system really is as wonderful and fail-proof as you say.
Even if it is, women deserve choices. This means access to OTHER forms of birth control.
This document from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group formerly associated with Planned Parenthood but now independent, breaks down the reasons women said they were having an abortion and might be interesting to read in the context of this discussion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
I don't know how you can separate the issues. Where do you draw the line between one and the other?
"Birth control can exist without abortion" is a problematic statement -- it depends on what you consider "birth control" and what you consider "abortion." Is the morning after pill (Plan B -- not RU 486, which is a totally different drug) "abortion"? It's not, but many anti-choicers say it is. Now, if we say the morning after pill is "abortion," then what about the regular birth control pill? Most people would call that "birth control," but you can take a higher dosage of the regular birth control pill after unprotected sex and have the same effect as Plan B, because Plan B is just a higher dosage of the hormones in the regular birth control pill. So, is the regular birth control pill "abortion" now, because it could be used as the morning after pill?
Now, what about people who think birth control is "against God's will" (or immoral, as you put it)? Does NFP count as "immoral" birth control? It's not artificial/hormonal... so are condoms "okay," because they're not hormonal? But they are "artificial," because you're actively doing something to prevent conception... but then isn't natural family planning also "artificial"? Aren't you actively doing something to prevent conception? So is that "immoral" as well? Are you defying God's will by planning sex to avoid ovulation?
There is no easy answer. There is no way to please all people, all beliefs. This is why all options need to be open to everybody, and each woman can choose for herself what is best for her.
That's what "reproductive rights" and "pro-CHOICE" mean.
plastikgyrl, The argument that something should be legal just because people will do it anyway if it became illegal does not hold water for me. I do not think we should legalize drugs just so that people are no longer buying it illegally. People make the argument that less people would die from drugs if we were able to test them and make sure they were not laced with other poisons. That does not wash with me and neither does that argument for abortion.
This non-partisan site, the Rape and Incest National Network, cites a figure they got from the Justice Dept. saying 5% of rapes resulted in pregnancy. It is possible that women who become pregnant as a result of rape are more likely to report that rape to the government (I'm pretty sure there is some sort if compensation for victims available I'm at least some cases, so perhaps that has something to do with it. I don't really know though) so I would believe that non governmental organizations accurately got a lower number in their studies.
Lol I guess I shouldn't type while nursing a baby. Anyway, here is the link:http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims
and I had a typo that should be "in some cases" not "I'm some cases"
Upstatemomof3: "I cannot speak to what that would feel like. "
Exactly. YOU cannot speak to what that would feel like for any woman other than yourself. And you cannot say how you would react if you were in that situation until you have lived through that situation yourself.
You cannot tell me how I feel. You cannot tell me that now that I am pregnant, I regret the abortion I had. I do not. I do not feel any differently about that abortion now that I am pregnant, now that I have seen the beating heart of this fetus at 8 weeks (I terminated at 13 weeks, as soon as I found out I was pregnant). FOR ME, abortion was the right choice. (And no, there were no medical issues involved. I made the right choice for me and for that potential child.)
FOR YOU, abortion would probably not have been an option. I support your choice. I support your right to carry your pregnancy to term, IF THAT IS THE CHOICE YOU WOULD WANT TO MAKE.
My choice cannot dictate yours, and your choice cannot dictate mine.
You cannot speak for any woman other than yourself.
No, but I can speak for that baby! That baby deserved a life - whether you regret taking it's life away from it. And no abortion would never be an option for me - no matter what!
Okay, how can you speak for a fetus? There are people walking among us who were born to parents who did not want them. Who abused and neglected them. They have life, but at what cost? And, blah, blah adoption, etc....LIFE is not that simple. It is messy and complicated and nuanced. The bottom line is women should be trusted to do what is best for their life. Trust women, period.
I trust you to do what you think is best for yourself, your sitution, your future. I trust if you become pregnant unexpectantly you will make the decision that feels right for YOU. If that means carrying the pregnancy and becoming a mother, I trust you to do the best you can with that CHOICE. All pro-choice supporters want if for you (and the laws) to trust us in the same way.
When we (the people) allow or encourage laws to exist that take away ANY part of fully bodily autonomy we give ground to the possibility of more laws to take away further rights. If abortion is made illegal, i.e. the government has a legal right to women's bodies, then what about people who be just as strongly as you do that OVERpopulation is a problem? It's possible they could wage a campaign and a law could be created limiting how many children women have. Women have a right to full bodily autonomy, and that includes the uterus.
(You should really look up the numbers of women who die or nearly die from back-alley abortions in countries like Venuzuala. Abortion is 100% illegal there no matter what the circumstance. Children are being orphaned because their mother had no access to birth control, could not afford another child and sought out an abortion in desperation.)
A period that lasts for a full year is not a period, it's a sign of something else.
Between my kids, I had very irregular periods, not just the length of my cycle, but some months I didn't get it at all. But I usually knew that was going to happen because of NFP.
It's a little more detailed than takin your temperature every day, but instead of a long comment, I'd just point you to "Taking Charge of Your Fertility" by Toni Weschler, which details NFP clearly and succinctly. NFP isn't for everyone, I eventually got an IUD because my stress levels were high and having to pay such close attention to my cycles was not helping. And I personally have no issues with other forms of birth control. But NFP is a great choice for women who can't or don't want to use other forms of BC. I just wanted to point out that the notion that NFP is for women with regular cycles is incorrect.
(My friend would have loved to go to the doctor to find out what was wrong with her that year, but she didn't have insurance. Which brings us back to the whole health care issue... but I digress.)
I just wanted to point out that because it worked for one woman, or two, or seven, or twenty-seven women, IT'S NOT FOR EVERYONE. Women need CHOICES. They need information about and access to ALL forms of birth control, so they can choose the method that works for them.
This is what we fight for when we fight for reproductive rights. This is why I'm proudly pro-choice.
I do too Lindsay. After trying for years, having several miscarriages, she finally had what she thought would be a viable pregnancy and then had to abort it in order to begin treatment. Very sad.
Depends on what you mean by "difficult." Being in a situation where you're pregnant and really don't want to be is an extremely difficult thing for most girls and women in that situation, but (and I can provide references to this when I get home, as I developed a resource package on this topic for Planned Parenthood Ottawa) the most common emotion expressed by women/young women after having an abortion is relief that they're no longer pregnant.
I agree completely, though, that no one should have to jump through hoops to get health care covered.
I am always concerned when reproductive rights are being discussed and decided by a group of high income / downright wealthy MPs who will never have to worry about surviving childbirth, living past infancy, where their next meal will come from or if they can keep a roof over their head.
I dislike banter on this topic because people are always in one camp or the other and no one is going to change anyone's mind.
As far as the pro-abortion/anti-choice business goes, except in cases of rape or incest, a choice has already been made. Intercourse produces babies. That is what it does. You choose to have intercourse, there is a chance you will create a baby. That being said, I'm not against most forms of contraception, but people need to realize that they have limitations and there is a chance they will fail, in which case you will either become parent to a child or will need to make an adoption plan.
And, it seems very clear to me that pro"choice" people are pro-abortion. Just look at the sheer number of posts here that are totally devoted to justifying it. And, no, I'm not one of the strict all-or-nothing pro-lifers, but I vehemently despise the notion that simply because you had an "oops!" with or without birth control, you 'deserve' to eliminate.
I also am not one of the all-talk-no-walk pro-lifers. Our first child was adopted. We still have open communication/visits etc. with both of the birthparents. We consider both of them to be just like family. They ARE family. Due to private circumstances that are not mine to disclose, they made an adoption plan. We had a home and open arms for a child, and they selected us to be her parents. Later, my husband and I birthed a child as well. So I have had both experiences and they have shown me how all families are beautifully and wonderfully made.
And, Upstatemomof3, I agree totally about the death penalty. I am also anti-death-penalty. I am truly trying to have a very consistent moral view that follows the seamless garment of life. There was a time when I was strongly pro"choice," but as I grew and matured, I became more enlightened and came to understand that the issue involves more than simply the woman herself. When a woman is pregnant, she has become a new being - the steward of a new life - and thus deserves the utmost care, respect, love, and support. When a fetus is aborted, it is not just the fetus itself who has died. That death affects generations to come. My mother's birthmother told her that if abortions would have been legal, she would have had one. She instead made an adoption plan, and gave life to my mother, who gave life to me, and I gave life to my daughter.
The original woman's suffrage movement had nothing at all to do with abortions. Susan B. Anthony herself was strongly opposed to abortions. Here is information on that from about.com: "("When a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is a sign that, by education or circumstances, she has been greatly wronged." 1869) She believed, as did many of the feminists of her era, that only the achievement of women's equality and freedom would end the need for abortion. Anthony used her anti-abortion writings as yet another argument for women's rights."
I'm confused. Because if you look at my previous comment, you'll see that I said that NFP is not for everyone. It ended up not being for me at this point in time. I'm not disagreeing with you that women should have choices when it comes to BC. I'm simply pointing out that you don't have to have regular cycles to successfully use NFP.
Yes, in your second comment you do say it's not for everyone. And I agree with that. I pointed out that was the point I made with every one of my comments about NFP. Other people who have commented on this post seem to think that one size fits all when it comes to reproductive choices and birth control. I am stating as clearly as I can that this is not the case (stating it for everyone reading the comment thread, not just individually to you, Kayris).
I'm glad you agree with that statement. I wish more women understood that not every woman's body is built the same way or functions the exact same way.
"And, it seems very clear to me that pro”choice” people are pro-abortion. Just look at the sheer number of posts here that are totally devoted to justifying it."
Do you also see all the posts devoted to defending and justifying birth control?
I agree that no one is going to change anyone's mind. Which is why I think we should stop trying to force one group to do it X way. If you do not want to have an abortion, then I don't want you to have one. I will fight for your right to not have one, no matter what your doctor says, because it is YOUR CHOICE what happens to your body and to your pregnancy.
Why can't we just respect women enough to allow them to make their own decisions about their bodies? I don't want to you think exactly the way I do, I want you to allow me to think the way I do. I allow you to think the way you do.
I disagree that pro-choice = pro-abortion.
I don't like abortions. I could probably never have one myself. From that perspective, if I had to be "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion", I guess you could call me "anti-abortion".
But, I am pro-choice because I do not think it is up to me to impose my preference/will on other women. Just because I don't like the idea of abortion, doesn't mean that I think other people's access to abortions should be restricted.
I feel the same way about abortion as I do about religion. It's not for me. I don't like it. But I think everyone should learn about it and have the freedom to access/practice it.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for abortions. This is not a perfect world.
Check out Preeclampsia.org to find a great many examples of women with HELLP Syndrome. I had this at 31 weeks with my son and had to deliver immediately to save my life as my liver was rupturing. HELLP ALWAYS necessitates immediate expulsion of the fetus or delivery of the baby because the mother is already in organ failure. Delivery is the only treatment/cure and both mother/fetus/baby will die without it.
Yes, it often comes later in pregnancy, but in those forums you will meet women who had HELLP at 19 and 20 weeks which is definitely before the age of viability.
Thought provoking post, Annie. I haven't read the other responses, but my initial thoughts are despite the fact that I am 100% pro-choice, I think that the U.S.'s desperate need of heath care reform takes precedence this time. The heath care bill narrowly passed as is, as expected, and throwing in coverage as controversial as abortion would have nailed it's coffin. Under the circumstances, I'd rather low-income families have health insurance without abortion coverage than no coverage at all.
I've had the military's version of health insurance all my life, and it has never covered abortion. And I've had two abortions in that time. One for the usual reasons ("babydaddy" was a loser, wrong time in life, etc etc) and another because of fetal defects incompatible with life.
You know what? It would have been AWESOME to have had abortion coverage! (particularly the second time around. One can forgive the federal government for not giving a shit about how much of a loser one's boyfriend is, but c'mon, the second situation was just arbitrary cruelty in action. They were willing to send me to a hospice at government expense for five months, but god forbid they pay for some Pitocin before 38.5 weeks.)
But I'd never ever ever consider dropping my coverage for that failing alone. The same insurance also happily picked up the tab for four full-term live births and extensive prenatal care, and an abortion is a hell of a lot cheaper than raising a kid, full stop. Yo.
[...] at PhD In Parenting wrote a piece called A step backwards for reproductive rights. She tells [...]
Hey Upstatemom,
I'll speak for myself-- to have an abortion was the wisest choice I ever made and I will be eternally grateful that I had the freedom to choose. And no, my pregnancy did not threaten my health, and I'd not been raped, but I was one of many, many people who end up with an unplanned pregnancy whose timing was so wrong. In the seven years since my abortion, I have had my first child and this experience has only underlined my certainty that what I did was right for me-- pregnancy is so hard, motherhood is so hard, and to endure these things when I was so unprepared would have compromised the rest of my life (and my ability to mother). Which is selfish, and it is, but I'm sure that choosing *my* life over the potential life of a pre-fetus the size of a grain of rice was so unwise.
I guess it's easier for you, for whom these issues are a matter of principle, but for those of us who have lived them, it is (and will always be) a infinitely more complicated matter.
Sorry, "was NOT so unwise"
It's an interesting debate. And it is so often divided into camps. My personal stance, I'm anti-abortion for myself. I don't even think I could go through with one if my life was in danger or I had been raped.
However I'm pro-choice. As with all things I think we need to make the choice for ourselves.
As long as abortion is legal, I'll remain pro-choice. If it ever becomes illegal again I'll have to reevaluate.
As wrt to the American Health Bill. If elective abortions had to be sacrificed in order for it to pass than I think it's what needed to be done. If it means that families with children suffering from horrid genetic disorders no longer need to hide that disorder from their doctor in order to prevent being diagnosed so that the child can continue to have coverage or that women who want to keep their children can now afford to seek prenatal care and health advice to keep those children healthy and this was the ONLY way it could happen then I'm not going to cry "foul." Yes, it's not the best scenario. But neither is abortion. Birth control will now be covered. Medically necessary abortions will now be covered. Other "elective" surgeries will often not.
I don't think this will result in abortions being made illegal. But it will result in a bill passing that will make a huge difference. And no one had really been sacrificed as women seeking elective abortions have not lost coverage, they just haven't been given the coverage they hoped for. Ideally would it all be covered? Of course. But if the world operated ideally abortions wouldn't be neccesary for any reason.
On a side-note, am I the only one that finds it alarming that while we're struggling to protect our pro-choice rights here in Canada where abortions are covered, the choice to have a child is not covered or protected as fertility treatments are not covered? Will they be covered with the new legislation in the States?
Olivia -
You said "There are people walking among us who were born to parents who did not want them." You are right! I am one of them. My parents never wanted me. My mother beat me. My mother threw me down stairs. My mother dislocated my ear drum by throwing me into a dresser. I know exactly how hard some people have it. But I do not wish that I had been aborted. I have grown up, gotten past that time of my life and made a great life for myself. So, I can speak to the baby because it is a life - it deserves to live it. You cannot possibly know what that person would have done if given the chance. And really people who say that they themselves should have been aborted (and I have never heard that but I'll believe you that people feel that way) have a very interesting perspective since any and all good things they have would not exist as they would not exist.
And as for the government and their laws -while I get your point. I do. And I am one to talk about if you give the government an inch they will take a mile plenty. It all boils down to the fact that I believe that it is a baby, a life and therefor we have no right to kill it. I see no difference between abortion and killing a child hours after it was born (morally - obviously I understand that one is legal and one is not).
KC,
I am glad you are happy and comfortable with your decision. I am glad that you are able to live your life and feel like you did the right thing. However, I do not think you should have had that option. Because it is not how you feel about it that I am fighting for. I am fighting for the life of that child. That child deserved the chance to live.
I agree that, given the choice we were given, yes, the right thing to do was sacrifice reproductive rights for the good of the many.
The issue is how offensive and ridiculous it is that THAT was the choice we were given. Why are women's rights fair game to bargain with in that way? Would anyone have dared say he was going to kill the bill if it included coverage for AIDS patients? That they "knew what they were getting into" when they had sex? That all those HIV-positive patients should have "just kept their legs crossed"? That people with AIDS are just "teh gayz" anyway and that God hates them so let them die?
Why is it fair to say this to women? (Replace "gayz" with "sluts/whores")
And how can anyone claim to be "pro-life" and say he's opposing health care reform for the lives of those fetuses, when he's so ready to let UNDENIABLE, UNEQUIVOCAL human children and women and men die from lack of health care? What about all the extra-uterine lives that are lost every year because people do not have access to health care? Because insurance drops patients as soon as they develop and expensive condition? Because a newborn is denied a simple, life-saving procedure because the insurance company claims it's a "pre-existing condition"?
This was not about "protecting life." This was about controlling women, and not wanting to help the poor/less fortunate. We women continue to be second-class citizens, which is why our rights were the ones chosen to bargain with.
I know this is a bit off topic, but I think the above comment from Criss is something that can and should be applied to all parenting decisions. I am staunchly pro-choice for just this reason. Therefore, I appreciate this post... but I do want to point out the hypocrisy of standing up for a woman's rights in this respect, but then telling her she doesn't have the same rights once the baby is out of the womb, in so many different ways...Not that you, PhD, or anyone in particular here is doing that... I just find it puzzling in general that so often the same people are standing up for pro-choice issues and then acting like other parenting decisions - working outside of the home, not breastfeeding, CIO, etc are inherently selfish or irresponsible choices, even when they are done in the name of the parents' sanity or health.
Just thinking aloud here. Great dialogue though.
Another great point.
Sadly, pro-breastfeeding has kind of turned into anti-formula because the pro-breastfeeding crowd is fighting against the years of anti-breastfeeding propaganda (and the companies that make money by selling you formula and telling women untruths).
But the reality is that some women cannot breastfeed, for whatever reason (biological/genetic reasons like they aren't producing enough milk or real-life reasons like it's just not working out with the situations in their lives at that point in time), and the rest of us need to respect that choice.
Same goes with any other parenting choice -- what might have worked for you, or your kid (or, in my case, what I think WILL work in the future when I have kids) will not necessarily work for that mother with her kids, because they're kids not clones. I cannot speak for another woman (or her fetus), so why would I think I can speak for another mother and/or her children. (Yes, there's a line -- abuse is not a "parental choice," it's abuse. But these are not the things we're talking about here.)
People just need to start minding their own beeswax and quit sticking their noses in other people's lives and choices.
Criss: I also find it very worrying that drugs for 'erectile dysfunction' are covered. They're botique drugs, pure and simple, but because they are aimed at wealthy upper-class men, they're covered by the health reforms. It would be interesting to see what would happen if those were linked to the Hyde Amendment. I bet it would be repealed post-haste.
"When every child is a wanted child, I bet we’ll find their health and safety both improve greatly."
I think this is over-optimistic. Lots of people think they want babies, but don't really want to be parents.
Totally random thoughts.
I'm pro-choice. I'm not pro-abortion. I hate abortion - it turns my stomach. But, women *are* going to have them, and I'd rather see them done in a proper medical context than in back alleys. It's that simple.
Well...actually, it's not that simple. Women *are* the custodians of the life/potential life inside their womb. They simply are. It's not up to anyone else to make the decisions about what happens to that life/potential life. The decision about that baby/fetus *will* be made by the mother, because there is nobody else who can make those decisions. I suppose we could restrict pregnant women to supervised quarters and make them eat or drink by IV, if we, as a society, didn't like the choices they were making, but even that doesn't result in an outside agent controlling the pregnancy/baby, because maternal stress has an impact on a gestating child, as well. That fetus *is* part of the mother's body until birth, and there's nothing we can do to change that biological fact.
And...whenever we're talking about abortion, there seems to be a "baby's life vs. mother's inconvenience" tone to the pro-life arguments. Pregnancy, even a healthy "low risk" pregnancy, does actually carry increased risks to a mother's life. With good nutrition, hygiene, etc., those risks are pretty low, but they're still real. I don't feel that I, or society, have the right to force a woman to carry a baby to term, and then maybe watch her die from a rare complication (eg. amniotic fluid embolism). These things *happen* - they're rare, but they happen. This is not necessarily a case of "mom has abortion" vs. "mom has baby, gives it up for adoption, then goes on her merry way". Mom could die. I've been very willing to take the risk of something going wrong all eight times I've been pregnant (and things have...3 m/c and a term stillbirth), but that's not a choice that other people can make for me.
And, all that being said...I really do wish people would take the possibility of a woman getting pregnant from sex more seriously than we frequently do. (I've lost track of the number of "accidental" pregnancies I've encountered in my life, but it's a lot. A few of those were birth control failure, but most of them were the "I don't want to get pregnant/get her pregnant, so the magical wish field will prevent it".)
[...] of breastmilk substitutes, calling out a mom who didn’t buckle her child into a car seat, reproductive rights, and [...]