I’m not an expert on the Supreme Court, and I’m not an expert on constitutional law, and I’m not an expect on woman’s issues. And, frankly, the only reason I support a lot of federal powers is that there was no other available mechanism to give all American citizens their basic civil and voting rights. I wish every state in the union had seen the egregious unfairness of Jim Crow laws. I wish the courts didn’t need to explain that the government has no business banning contraception.
But, unfortunately, the United States of America includes several states where it is deemed appropriate to cede power to the government to regulate who we love, how we make love to them, and what to do when an unwanted or complicated pregnancy results from sexual relations.
Women have only recently escaped from the arranged marriage, they have only recently gained the right to refuse sexual relations with their husbands. It is only in the last few decades that we have lived in a society where we could even begin to hold a woman responsible for getting pregnant. And, unfortunately, there are still a lot of situations where women get pregnant through no fault of their own.
Every day, girls are raped or molested by their fathers, their uncles, their brothers, their priests, their teachers, and so on.
Every day, women discover that something is terribly wrong with their pregnancy, and their baby is going to be born with a variety of difficulties.
For me, the bottom line is that women can only be equal citizens when they have power over their reproduction. That means that women must be free to marry whom they want, at an age they want, and they must be allowed to use contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and they must be allowed to terminate a pregnancy that is problematic, or unwanted.
It’s ridiculous to think that every pregnancy is a conscious and willing choice. I think it is wrong to use abortion as a form of contraception, provided there are other forms of contraception available. But the real issue is: who the hell is the government to interject themselves into the personal, and often excruciatingly painful, matter of woman’s reproductive rights?
If the government is going to overreach it’s constitutional mandate, it should stick to doing it to protect people’s civil rights, not to trample them.
Bingo. As someone who leans libertarian, I’ve always been suspicious of the expansion of federal power. While that sentiment may have once been an unpopular one in liberal circles, 8 years of George Bush’s expansion of the federal government to the detriment of individual freedom has hopefully changed that.
However, I fully support the exercise of federal power to promote/expand liberty. It strikes me as one of the fundamental purposes of the Bill of Rights.
Human Rights Watch recently began to support abortion as a human right for women. I’m seriously starting to think that I will need to apply for asylum in Canada because this country doesn’t want to respect woman as human beings.
I was living in New Orleans as a wee lad and I vividly remember the signs outside of the small communities in the parishes in the delta proclaiming, “Don’t Let the Sun Set on You.”
And they weren’t refering to aluminium siding salesmen.
Jim Crow was ended by the Civil Rights Act. And there is no question it was a blatent intrusion of Federal Power into States Rights. However, political power is vested in the Citizens of the United States not the Federal Goverment or the States. The Civil Rights Act was the only way for Individual Rights – the Rights of the Citizens of the United States as established by the Constitution – to be affirmed over and above States Rights.
Abortion has too many different aspects: moral, medical, social, legal, circumstantial, psychological, for either the Federal or State goverments to control. If we believe in Individual Rights, with Individual Responsibility as it’s twin, then the ability of an individual decide what to do with her body must not be infringed.
Well, what I can say?
Bravo, Booman.
But even if the arena for fighting for justice for women, and for the inalienable rights of human beings in general, turns away from the Supreme Court, we can fight it state by state in the legislatures.
This is not 1954, it is not 1963, and it is not 1973. Yes, there are hateful fools out there who will try to turn back the clock. But they do so at their peril.
Yes, I realize that right now the polling data show the people to be divided on the issue of a woman’s right to control her own body. But what seems desirable in the abstract will be shocking and grotesque when presented to the people as something that is going to be made reality.
In other words–those who want to take away a woman’s right to control her own body, as well as other rights, think that overturning Roe v. Wade would be their triumph.
I say it would be their doom.
The closer these people–and I mean people who make George W. Bush look like Hubert Humpphrey–get to true power, the more they scare the majority. You may have noticed that a Republican-controlled Congress is hesitating to renew the most odious parts of the so-called “Patriot Act”–already, the people have buyer’s remorse as they see exactly what they have purchased with their votes.
The people are not so divided as you think. Polls have pretty consistently put it at 65% who think abortion ought to remain legal, albeit with some restrictions, and just 35% who want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I can’t see them overturning it…I really can’t. I mean, just the logistics of criminalizing abortion boggle the mind. What could happen is that it would revert back to the states and then you’d have the southern/red states where it’d be illegal and the progressive/northern/west coast states where it would remain legal.
And would abortions fall dramatically in the South? Hell no! You’d just have the rich southern girls flying to MA or NY to have theirs and the poor southern girls would drink drain cleaner or shove a wire coat hanger (do they even make those anymore) into their wombs.
…they will turn it over to the States and whoa be the women that live in the Red.
To my mind, resource wealthy countries like those in the Middle East that remain forever labeled “Developing Nations” are the way they are because HALF OF THE POPULATION IS ENSLAVED.
What I want to know is who the hell looks at that and thinks “Oh, that’s what we want. Sign us up for third world please.”
[Women] have only recently gained the right to refuse sexual relations with their husbands.
That depends on where those women live. In many states, the penalties for spousal rape are much lower, and the burden of proof much higher. In Tennessee, for instance, it’s only a crime to force your wife to have sex if you use a weapon, or cause serious bodily injury. And, even then, it would carry a lesser penalty than rape of a non-spouse. So, are women people yet? Will we get a memo when we are?
I see the right to abortion as a civil right because I define it as a right to bodily integrity. The state (in the more broad sense of the term) should have extremely compelling reasons to infringe on anyone’s right to bodily integrity. This is the same reasoning I use to oppose things like the death penalty, the draft, sodomy laws, and the drug war.
I think one of the primary purposes of the US federal government should be to hold each individual state to certain standards of civil rights, such as not excluding any particular class of people from any particular kind of right. I don’t think that’s inappropriate federal intrusion.
I could not agree more, IndyLib. I just filled out a survey for the Democrats and I wrote in large print that reproduction rights (as it said on the survey) was a civil right.
“…For me, the bottom line is that women can only be equal citizens when they have power over their reproduction.…”
I would agree wholeheartedly. But Bush and company would like to keep women in the 1950’s, subservient second class citizens. They have no interest or use in having women as equals.
For others this is a no-brainer. How can we succeed as a modern society if we push women into a secondary role.
We can’t.
But then, the people involved don’t CARE if we succeed as a modern society. They don’t like modernity; heck, they’ve got qualms about medievalism. Feudalism, absolute Divine Right, is where it’s at. God decreed that they should rule and that women and other peasants should know and keep their places (and where those places are we won’t specify. Some of those guys seem to me to be a little on the kinky side…)
Modern? Not so much. As long as we retain the ability to bomb into exinction those we cannot terrorise into submission, and we can continue to put fuel in the SUV’s of the top 1/4% (the USGOP’s “base”), the whole “modern world” thing can go away — everything from the Magna Carta forward has all been going backward.
My thoughts on abortion. You know, I regard restrictions on abortion in much the same light (though far more personally devastating) as the proposed amendment banning flag burning.
If we pass a flag-burning ban constitutional amendment, the first step has been taken to further restrictions on free speech. The first cut is always the hardest to make. The second will be a little easier, the third will seem routine.
Roe falling is the first chip off of the right of a woman to be considered a legal adult, with the sovereign right to decide whether she bears children or not. The second cut could be the legality of contraception (Roe being based upon the precedent of Griswold, after all. I use an IUD, which I rather expect to be illegal by the time I am due for a new one in 2009. What could the third cut be? I don’t want to find out.
Caveat for this comment: I have been discovering the joys of the cosmopolitan martini this evening, so if I have been…less than logical…I blame it on the slow pace of my liver. 🙂
Please excuse any typos. I’m packed but I have to be out the door in 10 minutes.
A certain percentage of people in the world believe Things Happen for a Purpose. There’s a pro-choice guy on my political mailing list that feels there’s a failure of ethical/moral training in this culture when so many pregnancies are aborted for “handicaps” where a decent life is possible (blindness, Down’s syndrom). He’s also one of the people who are working for living wages, maternal support to keep the child, etc.
I think a lot of the culture we’re battling is that if things happen for a purpose and boy/girl isn’t random, then a person born as a woman it’s natural to be a mother. Otherwise the girl would have been born a boy. (No room for ZPG, I guess.)The only bit of Mother Nature I’ve willingly accepted is my sexual orientation. Girls, by reason of being born girls, are born with a systemic disadvantage. For the same kind of reason that there’s affirmative action, the woman’s choice should, IMO, trump the “right” of a proto-person (of either sex) to become alive…
So everything happens for a purpose, except our choices. And, we should just shut up and except the will of — who is it now — God, the unborn? If everything happens for a reason, that potentially blind or retarded child showed up in the womb of someone who would choose to abort, right? I mean why is that the only purposes that seem to matter to these folks are those of unseen forces, and proto-humans who cannot communicate? So, we’re just supposed to walk around in a perpetually mystified, and servile state, enacting the purpose, or will, of some grand design, and we should have no free will at all.
Well, talking to my sister-in-law, her personal relationship with Jesus is what’s most important to her. IE, what God wants her to do. So her choice is saying “yes” to Jesus, whatever Jesus wants. That’s what I mean by saying “for people who believe everything has a purpose…”
And, yes, I should accept what God gives me. So far as I know she thinks I use birth control, doesn’t know what type. So far as I know she did also, since she only had 2 kids before menopause. But having no kids didn’t seem to be an option for her, or my brother.
I don’t agree. If I am to believe there is a diety then I need some reason to have been born a woman that to abort my only child and get my tubes tied. Otherwise, why is the default that a woman gets pregnant passively while the man has an active role? I did not ovulate by my choice. The ova was not fertilized by my choice. The egg did not implant by my choice. I had an IUD, I was oblivious and surprized.
I got pregnant because Mother Nature is sexist. To me the problem of the Passive Nature of Pregnancy ranks right up there with the Problem of Evil as a stumbling block. I’m an athiest, even if I’m culturally Catholic with leaning toward spiritualism. I refuse to believe that I was born inferior.
I applaud you. I agree with you, not I wonder if you can take your support for women one step farther….
I hate disclaimers, they seem insulting and morally superior and they assume too much. To say “I don’t approve of women using abortion as birth control you must assume:
While your disclaimer doesn’t rank up there with ” I would never have an abortion myself because I think it’s murder, but I support choice”… or “Abortion is horrible and tragic and women can be psychologically scarred for life, but I support choice”, it is still a disclaimer and like all disclaimers seems to be an effort to remove yourself from the immoral careless women who “use abortion as birth control” when those women really do not exist.
and to clarify, I didn’t mean to imply that women are solely responsible for using contraception.
I only meant that it is wrong, in my opinion, to view abortion as a valid method of contraception. People should try to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and the government, ideally, could be quite helpful in this regard, by providing information and health care, including contraceptive options.
However, as I pointed out, many pregnancies occur without the consent, or planning of the woman (or man), and the government should not be in the business of arbitrating which pregnancies are consensual, viable, accidental, etc.
To me, there is nothing contradictory about considering it a moral failing to be negligent about using birth control, and still see no role for the government to play in regulating abortion.
In fact, it is in large part the very complexity of how and why women become pregnant that precludes the government from intruding and acting as a moral arbiter.
And, this is only my personal opinion, and not something that I wish to see imposed on anyone. My position is that a women’s pregnancy is a highly private matter, and none of my business.
I don’t know any women who say “I’m not going to use birth control, I’ll just get an abortion if I get caught”. I don’t think that happens. It’s the kind of thing the anti-choice movement has convinced us happens.
Unfortunately, I know one woman who does use abortion as contraceptive. It does happen. Her choice and her business, and I’m sure not common, but it does happen.
Oh, please, explain to me how she does this. Her chosen method of contraception is to run off to the clinic and spend hundreds of dollars on surgical procedures? How many has she had? How is she getting through the screening interviews? Inquiring minds want to know.
She’s had seven in the six years I’ve known her. I don’t know how she gets through screening interviews, it’s her business, not mine. She’s lax about using condoms (usually only the first few times with a new partner), and has a blase attitude about abortion.
I’m not trying to start something, and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t get defensive with me about it. But saying women would never use abortion as a contraceptive is not entirely correct. I’m sure I’m not the only person who has known a woman who does. I’m not saying it is common, but it does exist.
Then, as per my comment above, I thank all that is holy that she’s not having those children. And, yes, I tend to think she’s a rare bird. The only women I’ve known who even approached that level of irresponsibilty, were not so blase about abortions, and they were severely impaired drug addicts.
Oh, yes. I’m another person glad that woman is not a parent. This is a valid argument, IMO, for not criminalizing abortion – how much damage the uncaring mothers would do, during pregnancy even if they give the child up for adoption. shuder
It’s not as if we’re underpopulated or need more variety in the gene pool. Why can’t ZPG be a virtue?
I worked in a women’s clinic. I talked to probably 1000 pregnant women. Every single one of them was pregnant because of failing birth control method or one careless moment. Not one of them had regular sex without using birth control figuring they would just have an abortion if they got caught.
is tantamount to an urban legend. It’s something that the anti-abortion crowd whips out like, “abortion on demand” and “partial birth abortion.” They’re buzz words that have worked their way into the lexicon, so insidiously, that even pro-choice people address them as if they are a real cultural phenomenon. Women simply don’t run around having careless sex, with the notion that they, hell, if I get pregnant, I’ll just abort. It’s not like getting a manicure. It’s an invasive surgical procedure, and a last resort. This is not to say that women don’t have stupid, unprotected sex, just as men do. But, it’s not with the idea that they can just run to the clinic and have it taken care of. Abortion clinics will turn you away if you’ve had two, because more than that drastically increases the risk of damage and infertility. Even with one, you risk such complications. It’s much easier to buy condoms, or pop a pill everyday… and cheaper. “Abortion as birth control,” is a straw man, and it’s one that deserves a ceremonial burning.
I wasn’t clear enough in my reply. I am not trying to promulgate an urban legend.
I’m talking about people having sex without protection/contraceptives when they do not intend, nor want to become pregnant.
When this is done, and an abortion is the result, then I think the people should own up to the fact that they have chosen abortion as their form of contraception. Of course, it’s not effective, since the conception occurred.
This happens constantly, and is certainly not an urban legend. It is mostly unconscious behavior, and lack of planning is the problem. So, you’re right that the people haven’t chosen to use abortion ahead of time. But the effect is the same.
People make mistakes all the time. And I’m not trying to be judgmental. But most of all, I can’t imagine any system that could differentiate, morally, between pregnancies, and decide which pregnancies can be ended, and which cannot. These attempts to restrict abortion to cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother are doomed to failure the moment anyone attempts to build a infrastructure to arbitrate case by case.
It would make every visit to the ob/gyn into a potential crime scene. Every miscarraige would be a potential murder investigation. To even discuss it seems crazy to me.
Moreover, I doubt the sincerity of many, certainly not all, but many of the leaders of the pro-life movement. I think many Republican leaders use the issue to mobilize voters that are not in the socio-economic class of ‘real’ Republicans, but they don’t really want, or intend to ban abortion.
If they did, they would be punished severely at the ballot box and they would lose their tax cuts, their de-regulation, etc.
So, it will be interesting to see what Bush does with his nominations. They may have banged the drum for so long that they will finally appoint judges that will overturn Roe v. Wade, and maybe even Griswald.
If they do, it will be a very bad day for women’s health, but also a very bad day to be a Republican facing the electorate in most of the country.
I realize that I’m nit-picking your phrasing, but I’m doing so for a very specific reason, and you and your views are not the issue. It’s simply that I see phrases like “abortion as birth control” like a kind of virus, spread by abortion opponents. They very intentionally paint a picture of irresponsible women, who, lacking the “consequence” of childbirth, because of the availability of abortion, will just be flinging their legs open at any opportunity, and be bailed out by abortion. First of all, avoiding pregnancy, in the first place, is preferable for any woman, because an abortion is a consequence — and not a pleasant one. Secondly, I don’t think pregnancy should be viewed as a punishment for recklessness. This is the part of the implied message that abortion opponents never even seem to consider. Pregnancy and child-birth should be joyful experiences, entered into consciously. What do they think? That these imagined, irresponsible women who think nothing of consequences, would make great parents? If there are women who really use abortion as birth control, because they’re too lazy to use protection, and are so emotionally deadened that they can just run off to the clinic and have their insides sucked out repeatedly, I’m glad they’re not procreating, because I would be far too concerned about the welfare of their children.
I think its important to remember that the nuttiest fruitcakes in the fundie universe, the Dominionists or Restorationists, or whatever their current preferred label is, don’t want the reversal of Roe v. Wade in and of itself.
They want the end to Griswold, the case that preceded Roe and is actually the fundamental basis for a right to privacy in matters of sexual activity and reproductive choice. Griswold made it unconstitutional to pass a law prohibiting the right to sell, possess and use contraceptive devices. Griswold was the first case to enunciate that people have a right to privacy in certain matters, and was the foundation for the future Roe decision on abortion, and the more recent decision Lawrence v. Texas which ruled sodomy laws unconstitutional.
In essence, it isn’t just abortion they want to make illegal, but all forms of sexual activity unless it is for the purpose of conceiving a child in a traditional heterosexual marriage. So this isn’t just a fight about abortion ladies and gentlemen, this is a fight to protect your freedom to choose who you love and how you love, and (for the tradionally married folks) if you have the right to postpone having children and still engage in sexual relations with your spouse using contraception.
It’s about whether the state or federal governments can criminalise pre-marital sex, adultery, and gay sex and relationships. It is a program far more intrusive then merely taking away the constitutional right to have an abortion.
Reversing Roe is only the starting point for these people. We progressives need to make this very clear in the weeks ahead as Bush nominates and seeks Senate approval of his proposed wingnut justice that abortion is only a small and incidental part of what they seek to accomplish. This is an issue of individual liberty and freedom and we need to paint the other side with the freedom denier brush.
to get up to speed on some of the basics of Your Right to Privacy under the Constitution.
http://www.thisnation.com/library/griswold.html
The position of the Catholic Church is that anything interfering with pregnancy after conception takes place is abortion and that means birth control pills are also abortive. I have to agree with their consistency anyway, it’s the quease factor that increases with length of pregnancy.
My point is that if there were an attempt to overturn Roe V Wade the Supremes would have to revisit the question of when life begins and consider banning birth control pills. That might upset a few conservatives, you think?