I'm peeved.
Just read in the
Chicago Tribune about
South Dakota passing a bill outlawing all abortions except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy. I guess this signals the first in a series of steps to challenge and overturn Roe v. Wade. Dammit!
First off, it bothers me that we had to have a Supreme Court judgement in Rv.W in the first place protecting women's rights to, effectively, her choice in medical procedures. That simply strikes me as ridiculous that it would even be a question. But, OK--fetuses are people, too, and someone had to speak for them (excepting, of course, that that was not the issue but really religious beliefs and the equality of women at the time). So, it was done.
It must be said that I'd probably count myself in a camp that exists for a very small number of people. Not pro-life, not pro-choice (that, of course, is too dichotomous and serves only to fragment the women's movement). Rather, I'd say I'm quite a bit of both. I'm pro-life in that, hey--had my birth mother believed firmly in abortion, I may not be here. I also think that the abortion battle has created a false perception of only 2 options for those with unwanted pregnancies: keep it or abort it. It's like the false perception that we have a 2-party system in politics. You hear a lot in the fertility realm about adoption but not so much in the family planning/education realm. HOWEVER, I'm pro-choice because we are all different with different circumstances. Proceeding with a pregnancy and/or raising a child is not a matter to be taken lightly and not everyone is prepared for it. So, who is anyone to think that they can make that decision for millions of women across the country?
Yes, when one makes the decision to engage in sexual intercourse one is making the decision regarding conception. I don't disagree. But, I don't think legalized abortion removes someone's personal responsibility for the sex act and its consequences. People who may believe that have clearly never talked someone through the process.
What I think gets lost in this battle are two things: the sanctity of a woman's body to no one but herself, and women's rights to equal, quality medical care. Conceptually, I see them as very linked. Firstly, I simply do not believe in or condone legislative decrees regarding what transpires inside my uterus. Particularly when those making the decisions, for the most part, do not have a uterus. This is true of the rest of my body, and whenever I read about laws regarding dissemination of nutritional information or cases where people sue fast food restaurants I am equally disgusted. My body is my responsibility, and what I decide to put into or take out of it is up to me. I mean, if our administration believed tumors were placed in a person's body by G/god and decreed that they could not be removed, despite the inherent danger to the individual, would we just sit back? I know--pretty far-fetched and simplistic analogy. Sorry, I'm a little wound up.
Nevertheless, unfortunately there are moments (far too many) when the sanctity of a woman's body is violated, often violently, and her ability to chose to engage in sex and/or protect herself has been completely compromised--stripped away. The SD law would not allow exceptions for rape or incest. Excuse me? So, I did not make any choices--not who, when, where, how--regarding the sexual encounter, and now I am violated again by not having a choice regarding what I'm going to do about it. I am forced to carry on with a pregnancy that is a daily reminder of the crime committed against me. As if 40 weeks of pregnancy was an easy thing to deal with in the first place. Clearly, these are men making such arbitrary rules. Men who didn't pay much attention to their mothers or wives.
One may argue that, in those circumstances, SD did allow emergency contraception. Folks--not 100% effective. And, we're assuming the woman is in the state of mind to seek medical assistance in those crucial first 36-72 hours. We're also assuming she's a woman--girls are becoming reproductively capable (just made that up) earlier and earlier. Can you just imagine a victim of rape or incest who hasn't even had her first period becoming pregnant as a result? I doubt she will be able to talk about what happened in the short time necessary to get emergency contraception, or even recognize that she could be pregnant until too late.
But, it kind of leads to my next thought and that is access to medical care for women. Only recently have most insurance companies agreed to cover oral contraceptives. Isn't that ridiculous? And how long did it take for things like Viagra to get insurance coverage? Kind of beside the point of abortion (or is it--were there greater access to quality, affordable contraception sooner . . . ). My meaning is simply that gaining equality for our gender has taken/is taking much longer than it should, and one great victory has been in health care. And, like it or not, abortion is a medical procedure addressing women's health. Does anyone remember what it was like before Rv.W? Illegal, back-alley abortion clinics where women would be butchered beyond functioning, or get infections that could lead to death. That wasn't just the 60's, folks. We're talking for more than a hundred years women have sought ways to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. Fortunately, the sexual revolution has given us more say in who and when, and still people think abortion rates are high. Can you just imagine the rates before that time? Now, abortion is legal. It has become a more simplified, sterile, outpatient procedure. Women are no longer dying like they were. Do we really want to return to secret, back-alley illegal abortions? Because, history tells us, they won't go away just because we outlaw them.
Along those lines, what about women who wanted a baby but the pregnancy, for whatever reason, is not viable. We can discover these things now! Isn't it amazing? But, how heartbreaking would it be to know you are carrying a baby that will never live beyond its first five minutes? There have been remarkable advancements in fetal and neonatal surgery. But, some babies just can't be saved. Should we tell a woman that her embryo or fetus is simply no longer viable, that it may or may not be naturally miscarried, and let her go on her way? Or, what about the agonizing decision regarding a baby that may be severely impaired? Some people know they are not capable of raising such a disabled child and--please, hard-core pro-lifers--how many of you are willing to adopt and raise that child? I've got some mighty hard statistics that say you aren't.
You may notice here that I've not debated the issue of when life begins. Because, in my view, it doesn't matter. I don't care if you believe it begins the moment of conception, the moment the child takes their first breath, or at the "quickening". "What about the babies?" "Who will speak for these voiceless creatures? God's greatest gifts?" How about all those children in the child welfare system right now? Babies that were not planned, were not wanted, with incompetent parents. Please. This is not about the children, and don't pretend that it is. I think that is what is insulting and enraging. The anti-abortion movement has hidden behind faith and religion all these years. To me, it is about men and women who continue to not value the rights to privacy and self-determination (especially of women). According to the article, "Leslee Unruh, founder of the Alpha Center that provides counseling to pregnant women and those who have had abortion, said the governor's decision to sign the bill is a victory for women. "We finally have been heard," said Unruh. "We are so excited. We're ordering lobster and having a party. We are thrilled."" Wow. I wonder what victory she's thinking about, because I don't see it.
So, women, whatever you believe, stand up for each other. Rather than judging and condemning actions we may not understand, let's give each other the benefit of the doubt. Let's not turn back time and our efforts. After all, do you really think that if it were men having the abortions it would be this controversial?
