-
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
“In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she’s a feminist or a masochist.” –Gloria Steinem
Jul
28
Democrats are having a crisis of faith on abortion
Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, abortion, anti-choice extremism, human rights, legislation, parenthood, politics, pregnancy, race and racism, reproductive justice, slut-shaming, social conservatives, women’s health | Posted by Cara |
The LA Times has a really frightening article about the shifting Democratic stance on abortion.
For years, the liberal response to abortion has been to promote more accessible and affordable birth control as well as detailed sex education in public schools.
That’s still the foundation of Democratic policies. But in a striking shift, Democrats in the House last week promoted a grab bag of programs designed not only to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but also to encourage women who do conceive to carry to term.
The new approach embraces some measures long sought by antiabortion activists. It’s designed to appeal to the broad centrist bloc of voters who don’t want to criminalize every abortion — yet are troubled by a culture that accepts 1.3 million terminations a year.
Part of the bill’s approach seems really positive: it involves increasing access to health care and day care for low-income women. The bad part is that it provides funding for counseling women to consider adoption over abortion.
The problem is that any reputable women’s center that performs abortions already counsel’s patients on all available options. Adoption is always an option, and yet very few women chose it. Why? Because being pregnant is hard work. Anti-choice advocates love to portray women who have abortions as “selfish” for choosing abortion over adoption, as though that woman’s pregnancy is no big deal. It is a big deal. It costs a lot of money to be pregnant. Being pregnant results in lost wages. Being pregnant longer than a few months almost always results in some sort of emotional connection between woman and child. Giving birth is a medically risky and emotionally draining experience. Having everyone you know in life see that you’re pregnant, and then not having a baby to show for it in the end has to be emotionally damaging and socially painful for a large number of women.
Adoption is not easy.
There are also greater issues of social justice at hand. There are already very large numbers of children awaiting adoption. And what, exactly, are we to do with them? Is it right for the government to encourage women to bring children into the world with no place for them to go? What about the fact that most adoptive parents are white and seeking white children, while most unadopted children are not white? Are we going to only encourage white women to choose adoption? I certainly hope not– talk about a racist, eugenics based policy. But what are the other options? To form a program encouraging more people to adopt children of color? Or to simply encourage women of color to also consider adoption, even though their children may not have a place to go?
Then there’s the issue of a government funded program to encourage poor women to have children and then give them away to the rich people who can afford them. This is the Democratic party we’re talking about, here? This is social justice? How about instead of funding programs to encourage pregnant women to consider adoption instead of abortion, we fund programs that will make it possible for women– who do want to carry their pregnancies for term but can’t afford a child– to raise their own children?
Lastly, while recognizing the realities of many women who chose to abort because they feel that society has left them with no other options, this type of program completely erases those women who do have other options and still side with abortion. It erases women who don’t want to have a child at their age– even with all the assistance in the world. It erases women who don’t want to have a child by the man who assisted in conception. It erases women who don’t want children at all, and women who see absolutely no moral conflict in the choice to abort. Frighteningly, it re-frames the issue as a battle between poor damsels in distress who need to be saved, and selfish, slutty bitches who don’t deserve the rights we give them.
I want to say here that I have no problem with adoption. There are many great people out there who want to adopt and who make excellent parents. There are many people out there who have been adopted and lived healthy, fulfilling lives. And women chose adoption for all kinds of reasons. I don’t want to take the option off of the table. But I also don’t want the government to spend money telling women which option is best for them. No matter what the option is.
But it gets worse.
From a political perspective, Democratic strategists warn that emphasizing birth control gives voters a bad impression — “that Democrats are just about free love, not morality,” said Rachel Laser, an analyst for the progressive think tank Third Way.
She has been urging Democrats to embrace programs aimed at helping women in crisis keep their pregnancies, in an effort to show voters that “pro-choice” does not mean “pro-abortion.”
The leading Democratic presidential candidates are increasingly making that more nuanced case.
At a recent presidential forum, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York decried the failure of activists on both sides to work together to bring down the number of abortions. She repeated a mantra her husband made famous more than a decade ago: Abortion, she said, should be “safe, legal and rare.”
Then Clinton paused and added deliberately: “And by rare, I mean rare.”
Okay. So that scares the shit out of me.
Can we fire these strategists? Please?
The idea that a woman who works for a supposedly progressive think tank sees not giving a shit what people do in their sex lives– but still wanting them to be safe in doing it– as immoral makes my head explode. That’s the kind of thinking that should be coming out of a conservative think tank, thank you very much. How can we possibly not be fucked if the strategists are buying into the conservative framing of this issue?
Re-framing this issue is precisely what we need to be doing. We need to be presenting a person’s ability to have sex however s/he consensually wants to without government interference as a moral right. We need to frame providing people with the the tools they need to make healthy sexual decisions and have sex safely as a moral imperative. And we sure as hell can’t buy into this bullshit that having sex is somehow immoral. Because most people, thankfully, are not evangelicals. And I think that the majority of the rest of the American public does not think that sex is immoral. We really can’t afford to forget that.
So what do we do? The fact that Planned Parenthood held a conference and invited presidential candidates is a great start. But what’s next? How do we encourage a group like NOW or NARAL to host a Democratic forum on issue affecting women and reproductive health? How do we get supporters of reproductive justice on the ground floor of these campaigns? How do we let these candidates know what we want, expect and demand from them in this regard? And most importantly, how do we do it all now, before it’s too late?
Popularity: 10% [?]
Comments
7 Comments so far
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
You know, I can’t remember where it was, but I recently read a blog post about this legislation, and the author was celebrating its bright side — that Republicans are actually supporting this policy despite the fact that it involves supporting mothers and providing services for them. Now, I get that it’s a baby step in the right direction on the part of conservatives, but I had the same reaction to it that you did. That this is a huge and scary step backward for democrats. Yikes, yikes, yikes.
I’m not even sure that it’s a baby step for the Republicans. I’ll call it one when they actually support legislation with the intent to help women– not to save “babies” from the choices of those women. I don’t think that their intent is to help women at all.
Oh my goodness, this is really really frightening.
How can we possibly not be fucked if the strategists are buying into the conservative framing of this issue?
the $64,000 question. i posted about this last week, with a bit of a different perspective, but coming back to your question above. this is our first chance to really get out from under the conservative frame on repro rights in over two decades! that means a) it’s going to really fucking hard work and b) it’s vitally necessary.
not two concepts that usually go well together when we’re talking about politics! and as badly as i want to support HRC, it’s here where she really starts to worry me (she is a clinton, after all).
You are nuts! Young women today reject your old 60’s feminist garbage. I can do anything I want in life. We reject your lies that if Roe goes away somehow I lose my right to vote or have to report to the kitchen and take off my shoes. Young women have seen the 3d images and know the lies you tell about a “mass of tissue” Young women know they are lucky they don’t live in China where we would most likley have been aborted themselves. Young women know friends who believed your crap and now cry every day about the child they killed. And young women today know the real meassage behind your words in this post. Here are some examples.
“We need to be presenting a person’s ability to have sex however s/he consensually wants to without government interference”
Translation: “How dare woman have to take responsibility for the consequences of spreading their legs. Only men should be forced to take responsibility if women choose not to abort the baby.”
“I want to say here that I have no problem with adoption.”
Translation: “women who choose adoption are making those of us who choose to kill our offspring look selfish”
“There are already very large numbers of children awaiting adoption. And what, exactly, are we to do with them? Is it right for the government to encourage women to bring children into the world with no place for them to go?”
Translation: “these kids are better off ripped into a little pieces and thrown into a trash can than having to wait to be adopted and if they are never adopted going on to be ummm….. adult people who were never adopted…wait that doesn’t sound that horrible..shhhhhhhh”
“And I think that the majority of the rest of the American public does not think that sex is immoral.”
Translation: “we need to ignore that the overwhelming majority of Americans think that abortion on demand is immoral (every and I mean EVERY poll shows that). We can’t have are representatives voting for things the majority of Americans want..ummm…can we?”
Give it up you 60’s hangovers. We know the truth. The polling suggest you are losing.
Well, folks, I’ve learned something new today. First of all, I apparently reject myself. Secondly, feminism has clearly given me the ability to time travel. Otherwise, I don’t see how I could possibly be a 60s hangover when I was born in 1984.
And all I can say to that is, if feminism gives you the ability to travel back in time, live in any era you choose and then have the option of bringing said previous era’s politics back to the present . . . who the fuck wouldn’t want to be a feminist?
Men and women who have unprotected sex and dont want to get pregnant may not be immoral sluts, but they certainly made a stupid decision.
I’m not going to sugarcoat people’s bad decisions.
That being said, its clear that a wide array of contraceptive and reproductive services need to be available. I do wish the abortion rate could be lowered somehow, as I think all surgery is inherently risky and getting condoms and OCPs into every single person’s pocket is a better use of resources. Condoms and OCPs should be so freely available that they are discarded as trash on the street. That would go a long ways towards lowering the abortion rate and saving money overall.