Life Before Roe v. Wade

I began my career as an Obstetrician/Gynecologist 30 years ago and have seen as well the effects "back-alley" abortions but also the enourmous burden of caring for a life that was unexpected, unplanned and unwanted. What I realized was there was absoultely no understanding of what it took to raise a healthy child by those who proclaimed themselves "pro-life". Two other facts became obvious; that there was almost no support from men who were responsible for pregnancies and no debate regarding the fact that it is well known how pregnancy occurs. It is called sexual intercourse. So I have changed directions and now have a PhD in Health Education focusing on the role of father and sex education. I am not well aware, however, in the social and political climate in this society it is a tought mountain to climb.

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

Had Roe v. Wade never happened in 73, abortion was well on its way to being legalized on the state level...and today we’d have close to the same level of legal abortion...but with a big difference....the GOP would probably never have come into its current prominence without its main wedge issue. As a liberal who supports legal abortion, I have also come to the conclusion that Roe v. Wade is a giant noose around the neck of Democrats. It's enabled the GOP to con the masses with its Terri Schaivo-like pseudo “culture of life” while distracting them from the economic devastation of their other policies. Liberals, you know what, if people in places like Alabama, Mississippi and Utah don’t want to have legalized abortion....we should accept that...as opposed to having a Stalinist-like approach that abortion should be legal in every square inch of the nation and in places where it’s obviously not wanted. I welcome the overturning of Roe v. Wade....it would be a disaster for the GOP. Most states would step right in to relegalize it...and when the first instance of a woman dying of a botched abortion comes in, there’d be an outcry to relegalize it where it had been outlawed.

I realize the horrible situation that existed as told by the author above, and Roe v. Wade in one huge swoop fixed this...but at the same time it created a mechanism for con-artist politicians to redefine many elections around “social issues” rather than economic ones. Don’t count on Bush’s goons in the Supreme Court to overturn the GOP’s greatest political cash cow...there’s just to much political capital for milking this issue for what all it’s worth. The “culture of life” con-job will continue into perpetuity...and we'll keep on loosing many elections because of it.

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

In my state, it's easy to use "scare tactics" to make women fear abortion. The main reason most women in my state go to get an abortion only to be scared away is they're either raped, unemployed, underemployed, or underpaid to the point that they couldn't afford to take care of one child much less 2 or more. With all the obstructions and bans put in place in South Dakota and other states and even nationally, as a man I feel we're already returning to that state of horror before Roe v Wade became the law of the land. Moreover, and the article doesn't mention that even for us males in the heartland, many privately fear that without abortion, men will also be put back to responsibility hell.

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

1973 was 23 years ago? So, that means we're in 1996! That also means Ace of Base is back! Awesome!

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

All this talk about abortion, and I'm not against it, but whatever happened to preventing pregnancy to begin with? And I know that there are some circumstances when you can't prevent pregnancy, i.e. rape etc. But even to encourage people once they become sexually active to participate in birth control. And as far as laziness goes, we have STD's etc. all the more reason to use a condom, rather than just winging it, because a condom doesn't "feel good".

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

If we don't want to have nation-wide consistency for our citizenry why don't we simply Balkanize? That way every state can do what it wants on every issue, not just abortion. And why stop at the state level: let's get down to county and even lower levels.

While we're at it, let's revert to the communication environment of the founding fathers when it took days to let a neighboring state know what was going on in yours. That was a large part of the rationale for all the state-level autonomy.

And we really ought to come up with a national name change? "United" States indeed!

If our citizens are to be treated differently depending on their geographical location let's do it up right. There's no Abe Lincoln around to prevent secession so let's secede away until we arrive at the "perfect" arrangement. The maps may look a little funny but what the hell. At least we'll have consistent fiefdoms.

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

What can be done to lessen the suffering of those being aborted?

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

I like you, Vespasian. You and I had a wonderful exchange on the Vonnegut page. You are smart and civilized. I differentiate between your brand of "pro-life" and the bloodthirsty wrath-of-god Bible-thumping misogynist brand. Possibly you've read some of my posts pertaining to abortion; if so, you know that my pro-choice position is militantly concerned with the barbaric and inevitable reality of what happens to women when abortion is illegal. (I was "there:" Please read "The Way It Was" at motherjones.com) I appreciate, therefore, the chance to ask this question of a thoughtful non-Ralph Reed/Pat Robertson self-described "old hippie" pro-lifer, who surely does not take the position that a woman who bleeds to death on a motel room floor after being poked with an umbrella spine by a hairdresser or a mortician is getting what she deserves: What about illegal abortion?

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

I am pro life. My views on prolife were previously forwarded to a newspaper that opposed abortion and birthcontrol, which views were consigned to the circular file rather than newsprint. I guess the idea is that people should not think, just obey what they are told.

1. Reproduction is and should be solely a medical matter between patient and dctor, not a legal football.

2. To reduce abortions, birth control should neither be discouraged, nor prohibited. And this includes the morning after pill.

3. If you do not believe in abortion or birth control. Do not participate in thisfor yourself.

4. Unless and until you are in the shoes of one who has to face making this agonizing decision, you have no right to impose your values on another. (Please do not inform me of the rights of unborn children. I have heard this before.)

5. Eliminating or taking the teeth out of legal abortion will not end abortions. They will just become illegal.

6. Consequences of illegal abortions can kill the mother, and leave already living children without a parent. (I know of this situation)

7. Those who are "prolife" should understand what this means. It does not mean probirth. It means providing those services that will enable a child to grow up helathy, both physically and emotionally. Cutting WIC, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. Cutting opportunities for children who have children just forces a continuation of poverty. Believe in life? Assure that those who are lalive are not living in dire poverty and neglect. Forcing children to carrry to term, then abandoning them is unconscionable. (Frontline had program on this!)

8. There are hundreds of thousands of children throughout the world who are dying of starvation, disease, abandonment, homelessness, abuse (kidnapping, slavery, war crimes). Being prolife also means helping prevent conditions that kill living children, and their parents throughout the world.

9. Wives of promiscuous, AIDs infected men need to be protected, and treated when necessary.

Coninued on next thread

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

10. It has been found that healthy, educated, mature couples are less likely to have large families, want the children they have and do not resort to abortions to limit their family. Therefore a healthy, secure environment is essential for the quality of life of both parent and child. This means a living wage, access to medical care and a security blanket in event of crisis.

11. A healthy physical enviroment- good clean water, air, food, homes, etc.- is the right of every living child. Those who are prolife should be at the forefront of environmental movement.

12. Work for peace. Wars kill. Children are killed. Children are left parentless. Children are left.

13. Death penalty should be abolished. The justice system needs to be overhauled to protect the poor, the minorities, the intellectually limited, the underrepresented. If guilty of serious crimes: life without parole; throw away the key.

The amount of killing in the world is beyond description. Those who oppose abortion for others, should look to themselves to see what they are doing to save those who are already alive.

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

Connect the dots, folks! There is NO Biblical basis for banning abortion - except of course "Thy Shalt Not Kill" - which would also outlaw that war in Iraq AND capital punishment. Connecting the dots, forbidding abortion increases the pool of soldiers 18 years down the road. Limiting the federal minimum wage to $5.15 per hour also ensures a voluntary army. Yes, I believe in the conspiracy theory!

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

We need to focus on the real content of the issue, and not the alleged mistake of dates within an article, for goodness sake!

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

I'm an OB nurses and I realize that the nurses and doctors who remember the bad old days are retiring. How do we get the next generation involved to make sure that women don't have to risk their lives obtaining abortions by going to illegal abortionists. Ironically, a couple of years ago where I live, a 16 year old girl died as a result of what was essentially an illegal abortion (she died of sepsis), because of parental notification laws. She was afraid to go to a legit facility because of that. I was appalled and shocked that with Roe v. Wade, women are still dying from botched abortions.

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

Did you know that abortion wasn't criminalized until after the Civil War? Before that time, it wasn't addressed in the statutes. What happen to cause this shift in attitude. No offense to physicians, but it was organized medicine working on getting the granny midwives out of patient care. There was also an economic incentive as well, especially for the infant field of OB-GYN, who was having to prove to the world that male accouchers (sp?) were much better than those old superstitious midwives.

New thought: It has always struck me that the anti-abortion movement has a flavor of racism about it. Has anyone ever noticed that the leaders of the anti-abortion (and let's face it, birth control too) groups are generally white and mostly men? Have you noticed the clinics they tend to picket and harass: clinics serving primarily white women. So is the message it's bad for white women to have abortions, but it's okay for women of color, etc. to have 'em? And did you know when discussions about fertility control were concerned about the "future of the race," they meant the white (Anglo-Saxon-Protestant) race ( guess people of color it was okay for them to control fertility). These were generally the same people who were horrified by the large families of immigrants, etc.

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

I've determined that there are three distinctive prevailing attitudes among anti-choicers when it comes to the reality of the dangers to women of illegal abortion. Either:

1.) They're ignorant of how it was when abortion was illegal, believing abortion was invented in 1973, or...

2.) They buy into historical revisionism, which says all those stories about coat hangers and raging infections and bleeding to death never happened, are mere propaganda, or weren't nearly as common as we say they were, or...

3.) They know how bad it was, and think the baby-murdering sluts deserved what they got.

Some of the Number Ones are possibly educable. The Number Twos at least have some sort of conscience--the idea of women and girls being met by strange men, blindfolded, poked with an umbrella spine or a catheter by a motorcycle mechanic or a hairdresser on a kitchen table or car seat actually does bother them, so they "deny" it. There's nothing you can do about the Number Threes. They're the full-on misogynists, an ugly breed who've been with us since the beginning of time and will always be with us. And not all of them are men.

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

Since South Dakota saw fit to outlaw 99.9% of possible abortions, the fight will begin for the religious right to get roe v. wade over turned. If that happens the rich religious right that were all high and mighty wanting it over turned, will be making trips to canada, where its legal to deal with unwanted pregnancys. Otherwise if you can't afford that, take your chances with your life getting an illegal one.

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