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.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

10 Reasons Why the Fight for Reproductive Justice Is Still Essential

By Jill Filipovic, AlterNet. Posted January 22, 2008.


It’s worth raising a glass to Roe today -- but even more importantly, it’s time to get out and fight.
proverbs31.1001
proverbs
Advertisement

Also posted at Feministe and the Huffington Post.

35 years after Roe v. Wade solidified American womens' right to abortion, reproductive rights remain in limbo. And while abortion rights are crucial to women's health and autonomy, they are hardly the end-all be-all to reproductive justice -- even if the constant attacks on those rights (and on the people who provide women with them) have forced the pro-choice movement to remain on the defensive about abortion in particular.

Roe at 35 is in bad shape. But there are plenty of forward-looking, positive steps to be taken. It's worth raising a glass to Roe today -- but even more importantly, it's time to get out and fight. Here are a few reasons why:

10. Abortion is already inaccessible and out of reach for many women.

Eighty-seven percent of U.S. counties do not have an abortion provider. Parental consent laws, 24-hour waiting periods, and other anti-choice roadblocks make abortion difficult or impossible for many women -- young women and low-income women in particular. The Hyde Amendment blocks federal Medicaid money from paying for abortion, meaning that low-income women have their medical care determined by anti-choice bureaucrats instead of doctors. When women have to spend weeks trying to legally bypass parental consent laws, or when they have to take time off work, save up money for the procedure, find someone to take care of their children, figure out transportation, and drive miles and miles to the closest clinic only to be told to "go home and think about it and come back tomorrow," the procedure gets pushed back -- and later-term abortions are more difficult and more expensive. An abortion at 24 weeks (a procedure already impossible to get in most states) can cost as much as $10,000. Groups like the National Abortion Network of Abortion Funds and the Haven Coalition attempt to offset the costs of abortion and the related expenses, but their budgets and abilities are limited, particularly in contrast to the financial and political strength of the anti-choice movement. In the meantime, Roe remains an unfulfilled promise for many American women.

9. If abortion is illegal, then women and doctors will be criminals.

Anti-choicers dislike answering the sticky question of how much time in jail women who have abortions should serve. But as it stands, a lot of anti-abortion legislation is not premised on outlawing abortion, but rather attempts to establish that life begins when an egg is fertilized. Much of that legislation expresses the idea that a zygote and a fetus are people deserving a full range of legal rights. In such a "pro-life" world, women who have abortions are murderers, and doctors contract killers. Women are already going to jail for "murder" because they used drugs while pregnant; it's hardly a stretch to argue that women could face jail time for terminating pregnancies, especially if anti-choicers really believe -- as they claim -- that fetuses are people invested with full rights. As it stands, about one in three American women will have an abortion at some time in her life. Those are a whole lot women to turn into criminals.

8. Anti-choicers care about controlling your sex life, not saving babies.

For all their talk about valuing babies and life, anti-choicers have demonstrated time and again that they could actually care less. They're more interested in punishing women for sex and in maintaining a male-dominated family model. And they're only "pro-life" up until the moment of birth -- then you're on your own. Anti-choice politicians opposed extending health care to low-income kids; they routinely vote against Head Start and early childhood education programs; they abhor welfare programs that give aid to single parents and low-income families; and they are at the forefront of opposition to state childcare aid. It's no surprise that 100% of the worst legislators for children are "pro-life," and many of the most "pro-life" states are the worst for children and for women. While children are hardly their first priority, anti-choicers are extremely concerned about what you do with your private parts. They are the architects of "abstinence-only" sex education that flat-out lies and misleads students in order to promote conservative values of female submission, homophobia and general ignorance. Many of them opposed a vaccine that could save thousands of women from cancer -- because the vaccine prevented cervical cancer and had to be given before the onset of sexual activity, meaning that anti-sex nuts had one less tool in their slut-punishing arsenal.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: abortion, pro-choice, roe v wade, reproductive justice

Jill Filipovic is a New York-based freelance writer and a law student at NYU. More of her writing is available online at her blog, Feministe.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

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:
if a zygote/embryo is a human being....
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jan 22, 2008 10:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
then does a miscarriage need to be redefined as suicide?

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

» RE: not necessarily... Posted by: vasumurti
Sad
Posted by: stevenroyals on Jan 23, 2008 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel sorry for parents who have killed their children through abortion.

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

» RE: mad Posted by: goatini
» RE: Sad Posted by: data23
» RE: Sad Posted by: montims
» RE: Astounded Posted by: TheLimit
Poorly framed article
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 24, 2008 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there’s one major flaw this and other pro-choice articles have, it’s their mistaken misuse of the word “pro-life”. How many times does it have to hit their heads for them to realize that these social rightwing terrorists are NOT NOT NOT pro-life. Everything about them is pro-DEATH. It’s the FRAMING stupid !

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

the mystery of life
Posted by: sunspot on Jan 24, 2008 6:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So I have a few questions for the anti-choice crowd: What if Consciousness is more flexible than they can imagine? What if the soul exists, chooses its circumstances of birth, and is also capable of choosing its circumstances of abortion? What if it's ok with the soul to wait until another time or to choose another set of parents who are willing and ready to provide that soul with a 'vehicle' to enter? If there is a God, what if It allows miscarriage and abortion because it serves a greater purpose that we don't know? Heavens knows people die of natural and unnatural circumstances at all ages, so why should abortion be any different than any other time of death? And lastly, how do you know that even though there are living cells in a fetus, and even if they are imbued with Consciousness, how do you know that the Soul doesn't enter the body at birth? Does it matter?

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

All good arguments -- but where's the "Essential?"
Posted by: BenCaxton12 on Jan 24, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In this it's going to take more than a 12-point screed of perfectly sound, and long-understood arguments to get Reproductive Freedom on anyone's political agenda.

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

both sides now
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 24, 2008 7:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Both sides of the abortion debate are engaged in a propaganda war. Dr. Bernard Nathanson (cofounder of NARAL; a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue), wrote in his 1979 book, Aborting America:

“…the Right-to-Lifers are not in favor of all ‘life’ under all circumstances. They are not in the forefront of the save-the-seals crusade. They are not devotees of Albert Schweitzer’s ‘reverence for life,’ or its equivalent in Eastern religions, in which the extinction of cows or flies somehow violates the sanctity of the cosmos.

“Turning to the human species, they do not necessarily oppose the taking of life via capital punishment. Where were they when Caryl Chessman was executed for a crime he did not likely commit—and a rape at that, not a murder?

“They were likely not notably in the opposition while the United States was sacrificing lives on both sides of a questionable war in Viet Nam.

“They are not ‘pro-life’; they are simply anti-abortion.”

However, Dr. Nathanson goes on to say about those who prefer to be called “pro-choice” instead of “pro-abortion”:

“This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as ‘choice’? The answer is: Almost anyone—depending. The diehard opposition to civil rights and public accommodations for black Americans in the ‘50s and ’60s was ‘pro-choice’ with a vengeance. Some whites wanted the ‘right’ to serve hamburgers or rent hotel rooms to whomever they wished.

“Most of us now oppose the concept of choice in such ugly claims. The true question is, ‘What choice is being offered, and should society sanction that choice?’ In any honest discussion we must focus upon what is being chosen, without hiding behind the slogan.”

Most Americans are neither pro-life nor pro-choice. American public opinion falls somewhere in the middle. We see those on the pro-choice side opposing even reasonable restrictions on abortion.

For example: our laws require parental notification or consent if minors want tattoos or pierced ears; why should abortion be exempt?

The decision to take a life is very grave, so why is it unreasonable to require a 24 hour waiting period, to give a new mother time to think things through, rather than make a decision in haste?

The pro-choice rhetoric that women are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not to carry a child to term means they ought to be able to make informed choices. The informed consent or “women’s right to know” laws advocated by pro-lifers are consistent with pro-choice rhetoric.

Even many on the pro-choice side are uncomfortable with abortion during the later stages of pregnancy, yet they are often reluctant to support a ban on partial-birth abortion: a procedure which is never medically “necessary,” and which former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan likened to infanticide.

In Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues, Paul Nowak points out that Planned Parenthood opposes even reasonable restrictions upon abortion, such as 24 hour waiting periods, parental notification, informed consent or “women’s right to know” laws, etc. Nowak writes: “Planned Parenthood opposes clinic regulations, despite the fact that in many states there are more restrictions on veterinary clinics than self-regulated abortion facilities.”

Since the goal of the pro-choice movement is to “keep abortion safe and legal,” why does Planned Parenthood oppose clinic regulations?

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

» There is one...it's called foreplay Posted by: freedomlover
pro-life liberals
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 24, 2008 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who led Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 antiwar campaign in Wisconsin and later served as head of the state’s American Civil Liberties Union, wrote, "It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed," because the liberals’ arguments in support of abortion "could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide.”

Feminists For Life supports the entire feminist agenda, except abortion rights:

“I have always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue,” observed pro-life feminist Rosemary Bottcher in the Tallahassee Democrat.

“It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and about human rights, while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction.”

Rosemary Bottcher criticized the American Left for its failure to take a stand against abortion:

“The same people who wax hysterical at the thought of executing, after countless appeals, a criminal convicted of some revolting crime would have insisted on his mother’s unconditional right to have him killed while he was still innocent.

“The same people who organized a boycott of the Nestle Company for its marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped lands would have approved of the killing of those exploited infants only a few months before.

“The same people who talk incessantly of human rights are willing to deny the most helpless and vulnerable of all human beings the most important right of all.

“Apparently these people do not understand the difference between contraception and abortion,” concluded Bottcher. “Their arguments defending abortion would be perfectly reasonable if they were talking about contraception. When they insist upon ‘reproductive freedom’ and ‘motherhood by choice’ they forget that ‘pregnant’ means ‘being with child.’ A pregnant woman has already reproduced; she is already a mother.”

At a speech before the National Right to Life Convention in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, on July 15, 1982, Reverend Richard John Neuhaus of the Evangelical Lutheran Church said:

“I have a confession to make. I am a liberal. More than that. I am a Democrat...I know that among some pro-life advocates liberalism is almost a dirty word. I know it and I regret it. I know that among others there has been a determined effort to portray the pro-life movement as anti-liberal and, indeed, as reactionary. I know it and I regret it.

“We are today engaged in a great contest over the meaning of liberalism, over the meaning of liberal democracy, indeed over the meaning of America...Will it be an America that is inclusive, embracing the stranger and giving refuge to the homeless?...Will it be a caring America, nurturing the helpless and protecting the vulnerable?

“...The mark of a humane and progressive society is an ever more expansive definition of the community for which we accept responsibility...The pro-life movement is one with the movement for the emancipation of slaves. This is the continuation of the civil rights movement, for you are the champions of the most elementary civil, indeed human right—simply the right to be.

"There is another and authentically liberal vision of an America that is hospitable to the stranger, holding out arms of welcome to those who would share the freedom and opportunity we cherish...

“The unborn child is the ultimate immigrant...The analogy between the unborn and the immigrant may seem strained. I fear, however, that it is painfully to the point.”

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

» RE: pro-life liberals Posted by: TheLimit
» Kosher sausage Posted by: morticia
lienjud@aol.com
Posted by: lienjud@aol.com on Jan 24, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am distressed how narrow these concerns are. I work as a maternity nurse and see what happens to pregnant women, It is hard to get fired up for the small portion of women who decide to have an abortion while pregnant are treated badly by their doctors. Denied the right to VBAC and home birth, home birth midwives yet at the same time cajoled into C/S, induced for the doctor's convenience which then can lead to a C/S. There is so little understanding among doctors about normal labor and so little reverence for how well nature has designed us. We have such hubris, thinking we need to improve upon nature. I have supported reproductive rights for all my adult life and wish we would broaden the fight. Many more would join us!

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

Cam1
Posted by: Cam1 on Jan 24, 2008 8:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.kentucky.com/591/story/294684.html
Preserving choice, Editorial
Sad, but true...
'mind boggling' said; "We hear of the Social Security crisis but again we have only the courts and the selfish women who choose to abort for the crisis. We have killed off a generation which would be funding Social Security for the baby-boomers."
!!AH HA!!
So, money is the motive for 'pro-life? to fund SS for baby-boomers!!! It makes so LESS sense now, when you finally let the rest of us know your agenda! What an azz!
SEX Education, Birth control & REALITY should be embraced, not shunned, by the public! Why do we continue to be IGNORANT about OUR OWN BODIES, FUNCTIONS & URGES? Just because WE CAN BREED, DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD!
BTW, abstinence's a joke! KNOWLEDGE IS POWER, so, if you EMPOWER PEOPLE with ALL OPTIONS AVAILABLE, they should logically be able to make an INFORMED DECISION that will benefit themselves first, society, last.
Oh, but keep the sheep dumb & under control, so we just TELL THEM WHAT'S IN THEIR/ OUR BEST INTERESTS, instead of letting them THINK for themselves...
WHATEVER!
Although i feel that 'an-eye-for-an-eye' will eventually leave the world blind,,, their are certainly those who should get the death penalty; like those 2 azzes complaining to the Supreme Court that 'lethal injection' isn't humane! They lost that choice when they brutally murdered those people.
Hey, 33 cent bullet; quick & painless!
(Then you could pass-on those savings to the SS fund for the baby-boomers, since that's your main concern!
Posted by: C

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

I feel sorry for yet-born children
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 24, 2008 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel sorry for yet-born children...being born unto a dying planet. Folks who continue to breed are only causing more human suffering for generations to come.

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

» RE: I feel sorry for you. Posted by: Realliberal87
You could
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Jan 24, 2008 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just practice contraception, turning this debate into largely a non issue. Just stop letting your loser boyfriend nut up in you without taking the proper precautions. This is 6th grade health class shit.

The world is burning and the coat-hanger brigades and the bible thumping morons want to debate whether a clump of cells is a person when they could just remove the starting point of the debate, conception....strange days indeed.

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

» RE: You could Posted by: firsttimecaller
No such thing
Posted by: darkgrrrl on Jan 24, 2008 12:09 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anti-abortion crusaders are not "pro-life". They are anti-choice, pro-christianity, and pro-control of women.

Anti-choice zealots frame all their arguments around "babies" and "murder" - this is meant to evoke natural compassion for innocence. In addition, it is a calculated method of establishing a position that's very difficult to attack; they try to force the opposition into being "anti-baby" and "anti-life" - hard positions to promote.

However, that's all a ruse. In reality, their agenda is focused on forcing American society into the increasingly ill-fitting mold of the traditional patriarchal nuclear family. Men are to be the leaders and providers, and women are to be submissive housewives tasked with birthing and raising God's next generation.

In their view, sex is for procreation. Women shouldn't want it or like it, and unwanted pregnancy is just punishment for sluts.

If you stop and think about it, the only way to justify enslaving a woman to a clump of cells inside her body is asserting that the woman's life and rights are less important than the clump's. The anti-choice movement cannot say that outright; the sexism would be too blatant. Instead, they focus on the "rights" of the clump of cells and avoid any discussion of the women who would be subjugated in favor of those cells.

If the anti-choice ranks actually cared about babies and children, our top national priorities would be universal health care; public education including preschool/early childhood; federally subsidized day care; parent training and education; and college funding to assist parents in providing for their families. However, as pointed out by others, anti-choice representatives tend to vote against those things.

It's not about babies, or life. It's about control.

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

» RE: No such thing Posted by: bcgirl125
» It's not just about control Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» Good point, I should have said Posted by: meetmeineleusis
» RE: caring for children Posted by: vasumurti
» Roe v. Wade must be overturned Posted by: reevolve
» RE: No such thing Posted by: paula.c
why forget OVERPOPULATION ?
Posted by: stilldreaming on Jan 24, 2008 2:18 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we love children and want them to have a good - sustainable -future, we need to educate every human on Earth about the need to reduce the population growth rate and stabilize the number of humans on our planet.

We can choose to do it .. voluntarily, humanely, and respectful of human rights and individual choices .. or "God" will do it for us, in His usual violent, horrific, catastrophical ways.

Of course, I would choose birth control, education, and real choices in family planning around the world *before* abortions. But we need ALL the voluntary, safe ways to allow for reproductive choice, while there's still time.

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

» RE: why forget OVERPOPULATION ? Posted by: vasumurti
RE: 10 Reasons
Posted by: Realliberal87 on Jan 24, 2008 6:21 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting that those who support baby killing now try to call it "justice". I have never heard the nazis refer to their holocaust as just. There is absolutely nothing just about slaughtering innocent people and who is more innocent than a defenseless baby? You would be more honest if you called Roe vs Wade " The Final Solution.

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

NAIS=communism=fascism=no reproductive freedom
Posted by: stilldreaming on Jan 24, 2008 7:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with you about the realistic solutions being a blend of techniques and habits based on sound science.

I cannot imagine any American endorsing NAIS -- having to report to authorities everytime I take my dog across the county line to the beach smacks of the worst dictatorships. The best theory I heard about why NAIS came from someone following the money: Texas Instruments lobbyied or bribed the Texas guy who concocted NAIS, so TI can sell the chips.

It figures that the factory farms with hundreds of animals already made themselves exempt from proposed NAIS.

This is not off-topic; it's about threats to individual freedoms.

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

The Pro-Life Liberals are a joke
Posted by: Kym525 on Jan 25, 2008 9:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What have you people been smoking all your lives? Haven't you been paying attention or are you buying into all that right-wing rhetoric?

Every pro-choice person I have met, and every organization I have been involved with are not just about abortion. They have been in the front lines for universal and affordable healthcare, family leave for men and women, better education from Head Start through college, equal pay, comprehensive sex education, access to birth control--all the issues I've been reading in these various posts that you all claim to to striving for. NARAL and NOW have been in the trenches against Bush's failed "abstinence-only" programs which study after study have shown to do NOTHING to prevent teens from having sex.

What angers me about all you so-called "pro-life liberals" is that you talk the talk but don't walk the walk. How many of you are at this moment adopting a child or becoming foster parents? It's so easy for you to castigate women for choosing to terminate a pregnancy, but a lot harder for you to get your hands dirty and take care of all the unwanted and abused children in this country. How many of you even give a damn about the lives of inner city children?

Limousine liberals, the lot of you!

The difference is that in the end, abortion should remain safe and legal and for the woman to make this life-altering decision. No one celebrates it, no one thinks it's CONVENIENT. In a just world, this wouldn't even be a topic of conversation. I support keeping abortion safe and legal and the decision in the hands of the ONLY person who should make it--the woman.

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

real social support
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 25, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pro-life columnist Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice, a self-described “liberal Jewish atheist,” wrote in 1992 that governor Robert Casey made Pennsylvania one of the first states to mandate help for young, disabled children (with $45 million for the first year). He set up a model child-care program for state workers; he had been pushing for family leave legislation; and he had put together a program to assure health care to every uninsured Pennsylvania child up to the age of six.

Robert Casey “has been lauded by the National Women’s Caucus for his persistence in naming women cabinet appointees (40 percent) and in increasing the participation of women and minorities in state construction contracts from one percent to 15 percent. He is also a friend of labor (a phrase that used to be said more often with regard to Democratic politicians).

“The press has been cautioned about its bent toward stereotyping pro-lifers,” noted Hentoff. “...many readers and viewers have a decidedly limited sense of the diversity of pro-lifers. Feminists For Life of America, for example, includes women who came out of the civil rights and anti-war movements and now work for what they call ‘a consistent ethic of life.’...(Feminists For Life president) Rachel MacNair has been arrested at least 17 times—for protesting against nuclear plants and nuclear weapons...”

Hentoff later observed that the Democratic Party had abandoned free speech by not allowing Casey to speak at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. According to Casey, “The Democratic National Committee has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Abortion Rights Action League.”

Casey said he would strongly support Lynn Yeakel who was then running against Republican Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. Yeakel favors abortion but, Casey said, “we agree on all the other issues.” Casey stated further that he would not leave the Democratic Party. The anti-abortion Republicans, he insisted, “drop the children at birth and do nothing for them after that.”

Unlike Republicans, pro-life liberals advocate real social support for pregnant women and mothers. In Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices, editor Gail Grenier Sweet calls for:

easy access to contraception, sufficient maternity and paternity leaves, job protection, job-sharing and flex-time, aids to women who wish to stay home to raise young children, tax breaks and subsidies for women caring for elderly relatives at home, community based shelters for pregnant single women to learn parenting skills and finish their education, upgraded pension plans to alleviate the poverty faced by many elderly women, humane care of the handicapped and elderly in nursing homes, hospices for the terminally ill, medical care for infants born with handicaps, shelters for battered women, childcare programs, etc.

Similarly, in the December 1993 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a "consistent-ethic" periodical on the religious Left, in an article entitled “How Will we Revere Life?”, editor Rose Evans writes:

“This editor has long been aware of the relative success of the Dutch support system for pregnant women, compared to that of the U.S. The Dutch abortion rate is a minute fraction of the American. I believe the rate for young women in their teens is about one-twentieth of the U.S. rate. And this is done not so much by restrictive laws (although there are some restrictions) as by real social support for pregnant women and mothers.

“The situation for pregnant women in the U.S. who don’t have assured income, family support and medical insurance is abysmal and getting worse. Choice is a joke. Women don’t have money for decent food, decent housing, or decent medical care, nor adequate support after the child is born.”

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

» RE: real social support Posted by: Kym525
» RE: real social support Posted by: morticia
» RE: real social support Posted by: morticia
Call it what you want...
Posted by: Gumwars on Jan 26, 2008 12:36 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Roe vs. Wade is illegal by virtue of the 10th amendment. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling (with some justices in dissent) which in fact held common law above constitutional law (which is in violation of the constitution).

Now before you pro-choice fanatics get your soapboxes out and start the sermon of how violating the constitution is better than back alley abortions just pause a minute and read on...

Believe it or not, the Constitution of the United States of America is a pretty well written work. It affords all of us a organic and inalienable rights to self govern. It originally granted the states more autonomy and freedom to negotiate troubled waters like this.

Well according to the 14th amendment, 1st article (and if anyone here reads history knows that this amendment was ratified under duress, and is another illegal bit of legislation) supposedly grants the expectant mother the right to privacy regarding abortion:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I believe that the right in question is implied. The actual court case stated that the right is held in the "due process" clause. You can read the rest of the 14th amendment and it makes no specific point regarding a right to privacy (which technically would be covered by the 3rd, 9th, and 10th amendments, by implication and only insofar that you weren't violating someone else's rights in the process).

Here's what one of the Justices had to say about it (Byron R. White courtesy wikpedia):

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court."

In other words the citizens of the United States got left holding the short end of the stick, again. The government essentially subverted the constitution with common law using an amendment that wasn't really ratified as justification.

So now that you "pro-choice" folks know that your right to choose was actually a pretty clever ruse to steal state autonomy all the while sticking the bill to the taxpayer. Oh, that's right, once Roe vs. Wade was upheld Medicare had to subsidize abortions. That means every person in the country that doesn't believe in abortion is helping to pay for them through payroll taxes.

So to all the pro-choicers out there who hate it when I stand my ground on the morality of the topic keep in mind that the taxes I pay help fund the activity that I wholly do not support. Talk about having it rammed down your throat and not having a word edge-wise.

Continued below...

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

» RE: Call it what you want... Posted by: Gumwars
I'm not "Pro-choice...."
Posted by: morticia on Jan 26, 2008 10:43 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..I'm "Pro-keep-abortion-safe-and-legal." When anyone says he or she is "opposed" to abortion, they might as well be saying that they are "opposed" to thunderstorms, waves washing up on the beach or teenage boys masturbating. 100 years of prohibition in the U.S. proved beyond any doubt that making abortion illegal does not end abortion; it drives it underground, where it becomes dirty and dangerous, and women follow, whether we are "opposed" to abortion or not, and whether we approve or not. This is simply a fact. Abortion was not invented in 1973. When abortion is illegal, women have illegal abortions, and illegal abortion is very bad for women. When a politician or an ordinary citizen says he or she favors an abortion "ban," what this translates to is that they are willing to send women back to the illegal abortionist. Either those saying they favor an abortion "ban" have bought into extant historical revisionism which says that illegal abortion wasn't so bad, that the horror tales are urban legend, mere exaggeration, or else they know how bad it actually was and consider it appropriate punishment for women who abort. Arguments about "rights" and whether or not a fetus is "human" are futile, irrelevant and a snare. The question needs to be "framed" in an entirely different way: Are you willing to send women back to the illegal abortionist? Because that's where they'll go, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, and whether we like it or not, if it's recriminalized.

Nature, through millions of years of evolution in a rigorous biosphere, installed the sex drive in our brains and powered it up to specifically short-circuit "judgment" and "restraint" and "caution" and such, almost exactly like a spell or a drug. Nature wants one thing, and one thing only, and that's for sperm and egg to meet, as often as possible and wherever and whenever possible, and uses us, men and women, to that end. This is why there are almost 7 billion of us on the planet. Whether this process is in line with our personal desires is strictly a matter of chance, but of no concern at all to nature. This is why women have abortions, whether it's legal or illegal and whether we approve or don't approve. Making it illegal and dangerous is to punish women in a crude, dirty, savage barbaric way for being human.

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

The real heart of the matter
Posted by: jaytee on Jan 27, 2008 2:09 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time a woman menstrates she's letting a potential child bleed out of her. What a selfish bitch! That egg could have been fertilized to create a beautiful baby! But, no, she has to go a bleed out her eggs one by one, month after month, killing countless children. Jesus is crying.
And every time a man ejaculates he's killing potential children, because anyone of those little spermies could have fertilized one of those eggs women let bleed out of them. So, every time Johnny jerks off to a Pamela Anderson movie, just think of all the little kids in heaven waiting to be concieved!
These people should be put away for MURDER!!!

If you don't get my point it's this... when is this going to stop?! A clump of cells is a baby?? Having a child isn't just about giving birth! Only wanted children should be brought into this world.

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

RE: The real heart of the matter
Posted by: vasumurti on Jan 27, 2008 4:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Virtually all medical authorities (physicians, biologists, etc.) agree with geneticist Ashley Montagu who wrote: “the fact is simple. Life begins not at birth, but at conception.” J. Lejeune of Paris, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down’s syndrome, observed: “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

When does human life begin? “At conception,” states Professor W. Bowes of the University of Colorado. Professor M. Matthews-Roth of Harvard writes: “It is scientifically correct to say that individual human life begins at conception.”

Everything that defines a person physically is present at fertilization—only oxygen, nutrients and time to develop are required. The unborn child has his or her own genetic code, EEG trackings, and circulatory system. Often, the blood type and sex of the unborn child will also differ from that of the mother. The heart of the unborn child begins beating at 18 days, and is pumping blood at 21 days. The brain is functioning at 40 days—EEG trackings have been made at less than six weeks gestation. The unborn child responds to stimuli by the sixth to eighth week. Rapid Eye Movements (REMs) characteristic of actual dream states, are present in 23 weeks. There are clearly two distinct individuals (mother and child) present during pregnancy.

Dr. J.C. Willke, former head of National Right to Life, says:

“Ask the question, is this fertilized ovum alive? Yes, by any dimension of that word, this fertilized ovum is alive, growing, replacing multiplying cells, life. Is this fertilized ovum human?...Take a look, 46 human chromosomes...This is human, growing, intact, programmed from within, moving forward in a self-controlled ongoing process of maturation, development, sexed male or female, replacement of his or her own dying cells, within ten days taking control of the host body that this little being grows within, controlling physiologically the host body for the balance of that gestation time, enlarging her breasts, softening her pelvic bones, setting his own birthday, all this controlled by the developing baby, this is alive, human and sexed.

“That’s the biological measurement. Total intactness from a single cell. You’re 40 million million cells, but every single cell is the identical replication, genetically speaking, of the first one. Nothing was added to that single cell, who you once were, nothing but nutrition."

“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”

---Declaration of Geneva
World Medical Association
1948

“The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

---A Declaration of the Rights of the Child
UN General Assembly
1959

“Is birth control an abortion?”

“Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”

---Planned Parenthood pamphlet
1963

“The reverence of each and every human life has been the keystone of Western medicine...it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”

---California State Medical Association
1970

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

Hey, vasumurti! How about a poll...
Posted by: morticia on Jan 28, 2008 7:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...of women who had illegal abortions back in the Bad Old Days! Let's ask them if they're in favor of recriminalization! What do you think they'd say?

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