Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Roe Under Attack, Now More Than Ever

Posted by Cara Kulwicki, The Curvature at 4:12 PM on January 23, 2008.


2007 was a particularly bad year for reproductive freedom. In 2008, voting pro-choice is crucial in order to move past Roe's limitations.

This blog was originally published on 1/22/08

Today is the 35th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. And that means it's also Blog For Choice Day.

This year's theme is about politics: why is it important to vote pro-choice? I looked at this question for a while and felt stumped. I vote for candidates who support reproductive health for the same reason that I vote for any issue: because I believe in it. That's clear enough. But more specifically, we need to vote pro-choice because simply being pro-choice is not enough.

Those of us who have been paying attention know perfectly well that Roe is under attack. And 2007 was a particularly interesting year. The Roberts-led Supreme Court upheld the "partial-birth abortion" ban that has no exception for a woman's health, despite its direct conflict with Roe. States have been tripping over themselves to pass "trigger laws" that would outlaw abortion immediately if Roe was overturned. State legislators have also been proposing an endless amount of misogynist bills that would restrict the right to an abortion: all out bans, "informed consent" laws that lie to women, laws requiring forced, medically unnecessary renovations to abortion clinics, laws requiring that women get permission from their fetus' fathers before having an abortion, and laws granting legal rights to fetuses, or even to fertilized eggs.

Not all of the legislation, thank god, has been passed. Too much of it has. And some we're still waiting on.

We've also faced attempts to shut down clinics, direct harassment doctors who perform abortions and outrageous abuse of the legal system. All of these attacks were politically motivated. And our elected officials were either a part of the problem or part of the solution.

We've also got the long-standing battles. There's the Hyde Amendment, which basically rendered the Roe decision irrelevant for millions of low-income women. Internationally, we've got the Global Gag Rule to contend with. And though Congress has recently tried to repeal all or parts of this unjust law that has killed innumerable women overseas, it was a fruitless endeavor. Because we have an anti-choice president.

And it goes beyond abortion. Roe, ultimately, was about more than abortion. Though the specific ruling only handled that one issue, it shifted public consciousness and established other reproductive rights by default. With abortion came the realization that women can choose when and if to become pregnant. Together, with the newfound right of women to not be mothers at all, education and career opportunities were increased. It stopped being acceptable for pregnant teens to be kidnapped by their parents, taken to live in a Catholic-run prison/home and then have their babies snatched from their arms. With the right to choose the number and spacing of children came the implicit right to have children when one chooses. At least, for some women.

In celebrating Roe and "choice," we also have to acknowledge its limitations. And that includes the poor women, primarily women of color, who still regularly have their right to raise their children taken away, for whom abortion is not a "choice" but a financial necessity, and whose fertility is regularly condemned as responsible for a whole slew of social problems. Just like we need to demand that anti-choice Republican candidates explain their stances on contraception, we need to demand that pro-choice Democrats declare their intentions to help women raise the children they have and to stop supporting health, welfare, immigration, war and economic policies that negatively impact and devalue poor mothers and mothers of color.

We're living in frightening times for reproductive health, when we can't even get Congress to clean up their messes and close a loophole that has caused contraception prices to skyrocket at college and community health clinics (though one of our presidential candidates, Barack Obama, has been among those who have fought hardest). We're living in a time when the Democrats can take back Congress, but only by running a bunch of anti-choice candidates, and when Democrats who are pro-choice are terrified to say so. We're living in a time when Rudy Giuliani -- Mr. "I would nominate strict-constructionist (anti-Roe) judges" -- is considered pro-choice and when such pathetic "support" for women's rights and health has probably been instrumental in sinking his campaign. A time when basic expressions of support for comprehensive and honest sex education is used against candidates in ways that implicitly accuse them of perversion and pedophilia.

We need to make abortion a winning issue for more than just Republicans. We need to make women's health more than a "special interest" cause, and to make social programs that help mothers perceived as something other than unsellable socialist insanity. We need to stop talking about women who have abortions and women who have children as two separate groups when they're mostly the same damn women. We also need to stop talking about abortion rights and "morals" as though you can only choose one. Essentially, we need to stop letting the antis run the political conversation.

And we can't do any of that unless we can at least talk about reproductive health issues openly. In a country where rights have been stripped away (or just never granted) by misogynist and racist legislators, electing pro-choice officials is one of the best and most productive things we can do. We need a pro-choice president because even if the Dems pick up seats in Congress this year, we are still unlikely to have a veto-proof majority. We need a pro-choice Congress because the president can't sign anything that doesn't make it to his or her desk. All of the Democrats still in the presidential race have promised to repeal the Global Gag Rule as one of their first orders of business. They've also promised to support comprehensive sex ed and to refuse to sign any anti-choice legislation. It's not enough, but it's a start, and quite frankly it'd be a fucking miracle compared to the last few decades (since most of the good that Clinton might have done given the chance was impossible with a hostile Congress). We need to get them in office, hold them to their promises, thank them and then demand more.

Voting pro-choice is the only way to get more politicians to take a stand, to see reproductive health and reproductive justice as winning issues. It's up to us to use what small power we have as citizens to make them winning issues.

Digg!

Cara Kulwicki is the founder of The Curvature, where she blogs daily about a wide range of feminist issues.


"Ono" They Didn't
Right-wing propagandists have used John Lennon's "Imagine" in a film without permission. Yoko Ono fights back.
April 28, 2008.
Bush Official: Doctor's Right to Withold Info Greater Than Patient's Right to Receive It
The Bush Administration has already said that doctors should be able to deny medical care to women. Now they want to deny information, too.
March 27, 2008.
Maryland School District Violates Pregnant Students' Rights
Informing parents of a student's pregnancy is bad policy for pregnant women and for families -- but it's standard anti-choice politicking.
February 8, 2008.
Sexual Violence Escalates in Kenya
As violence in Kenya reaches epidemic proportions, rape is again used as a tool of war against women and girls.
January 29, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
ultrasound causes autism
Posted by: o on Jan 24, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://merzenich.positscience.com /2007/05/01/ ultrasound-and-autism/

the link between the rise in autism and the rise in the use of ultrasound machines is being hidden from the public. . Yale Medical School studies show evidence that monkey fetus cerebral cortex cells are scattered by ultrasound, and rats too. why not humans? our skulls are thicker... so the paid said... yes the very scientist who did the research said that. suspicious? well, yes. 20 years ago autism hit 1 in 10,000 now its down to 1 in 160. it only rose in countries who use the ultrasound machines, and at first only among the rich, then the middle classes now it is striking the poor. just like the technology of ultrasound, getting cheaper. like life.

http://www.realsavvymoms.com /preconception/article.php? category2=3&article=222

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what do the polls show?
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 24, 2008 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Voting pro-choice is the only way to get more politicians to take a stand..." writes Cara Kulwicki.

What do the polls show?

“I am struck by how knee-jerk the liberal/progressive community is on the necessity of legal abortions,” writes Timothy Shipe of Westerville, Ohio, in the June 2003 issue of The Progressive. “On every other issue, the progressive community looks at the parties involved, assesses the humanity, the vulnerability, the justice, the balance of power, and then weighs in on the side of the underdog. Every issue, that is, except for abortion.

“The day I accept as ‘progressive’ the anti-human practice of willful abortion is the day I say OK to unjust war, unfettered capitalist exploitation of people and the environment, capital punishment, ethnic cleansing, and so forth.”

Opposition to abortion can be found across the political spectrum. A national poll by Wirthlin Worldwide on the evening of the 1998 elections found that 38 percent of all Democrats (and 40 percent of Democrat women) oppose abortion. A national poll released by the Center for Gender Equality (a women’s think tank headed by former Planned Parenthood executive director Faye Wattleton), in January 1999, found that a majority of American women do not support legalized abortion on demand. 53 percent of female respondents to the poll said abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest, to save a mother’s life or not at all, up from 45 percent in 1996.

A Zogby International poll in August 1999 found that the majority of Americans recognize that abortion destroys a new individual human life (52 percent versus 36 percent), oppose partial-birth abortions (56.4 percent versus 32 percent), are opposed to tax-funded partial-birth abortions (71 percent to 23 percent), and think parents should be notified if their minor child seeks an abortion (78 percent).

The abortion controversy is analogous to the Vietnam War. By the late 1960s, both the right and the left came to agree that the war was wrong; they merely advocated different strategies for ending it. The real losers on this issue are the 1.5 million annual victims of prenatal homicide, and the spineless politicians afraid to speak out against the madness.

On secular, human rights grounds, the American Left should take a stand against abortion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A man comments...
Posted by: zipper696 on Jan 24, 2008 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..so it's easy for me.

But...the most basic argument ANY woman has regarding abortion is:

"By what right to you impose your will, your moral standards and your religious precepts upon me?"

It's a valid question but one the "Babysavers" avoid answering.

But of course the world is still controlled by Old White Men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A man comments... Posted by: vasumurti
» How about a poll.... Posted by: morticia
Actually, vasumurti, no....
Posted by: morticia on Jan 27, 2008 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...your right to swing your fist through the air ends way before the next person's face begins. In a domestic abuse case, this would be called intimidation and a tangible threat, whether you connect with someone else's kisser or not, and your "right" to do it would be legally curtailed. Very revealing, though, that you chose this particular analogy.

Whether you compare a woman having an abortion to someone punching someone else in the face or whether you compare it to homicide or housebreaking, though, it's spurious. Abortion is unique. There is no other circumstance that we face under the sun where one entity is growing inside another. This puts it in a category by itself. Any and all comparisons are faulty, misleading and of no practical use. It can only be looked at on its own terms.

As you know very well, I don't proceed from the usual starting point which just about everyone else on both sides accepts and proceeds from just about by default--a woman's "rights" versus a fetus' "rights." Rather, I see that abortion is inevitable, whether it's legal or not, and that when it's illegal, women do it anyway, and illegal abortion is very bad for women. When abortion is legal, fetuses die. When it's illegal, women AND fetuses die. Those are simply the facts. Either a person's natural bias is on the side of women, or it is on the side of fetuses. Your natural bias is on the side of the fetus, and you've made that plain. Your "Feminists for Life" stance is a poorly-fitting disguise. I was impressed by your cool sangfroid in your recent post in response to the recent "Are U.S. Policies Killing Women?" AlterNet article. Horrific descriptions of mortality rates in Kenya from illegal abortion, wards full of women dying of sepsis and hemorrhage? A national health crisis particular to women because they are women? Does vasumurti shed a tear? Hell, no! All you could muster by way of acknowledgment was some dry quote about "reinstating laws" to make Kenyan fathers "financially responsible" for their offspring.

We see clearly where your natural bias lies. So be it. And the fact that you arrived at your "pro-life" stance via liberal doctrine only makes it that much more revealing. It was in you, and it was going to come out, no matter what.

That article demonstrated a crucial point: women don't have abortions because they've weighed the debating points and waited around to see who "won," and they are not deterred by the threat of dirt and death. They do it out of a primal drive, and it's common enough that it's obvious that there is no "type" of woman who aborts. This is an indicator of how powerful the drive to become un-pregnant can be, and which will never be touched by laws or arguments. This is why abortion can only be looked at on its own terms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]