Do Anti-Choicers Really Care About Abortion Rate?

It's a misinformed notion that anti-choicers are primarily motivated by a desire to save fetuses rather than a desire to control sexual expression, especially female sexual expression.

Most of you are no doubt aware of the term "feminazi," a term coined by Rush Limbaugh to equate the belief that men and women are equal with a fascist regime that started World War II and committed genocide against 12 million people. You may, however, be less aware of the bizarre defense that Limbaugh and his listeners hide behind when confronted with a truth-wielder who points out that most women and probably most men fall under the definition "feminist" even if they don't embrace the label, because they do believe that women should have social, political, and economic equality with men. And also that the real Nazi attitude towards women resembled the stance of the James Dobsons and Rush Limbaughs of the world more than that of the Glorias Steinem and Feldt–including a belief that women belonged in the home, that the state and men should control female sexuality, and that abortion should be illegal. If you can get onto his show and confront Limbaugh with these facts, odds are he'll make the bizarre claim that what he really means by "feminazi" is not the majority of women, or even actual women who call themselves feminists, but women who want to maximize the abortion rate in the U.S.

The castrating feminist wielding a curette and a condom with holes poked in it (to maximize the main cause of abortion: unwanted pregnancy) doesn't exist in real life, of course. In fact, by the only people doing the realistic work to maximize the abortion rate are anti-choicers whose methods–reducing education and access to services–help create a need for abortions, while feminist policies generally work to reduce the abortion rate. Clearly, it's a convenient dodge so that Limbaugh can oppose women's basic rights while pretending he doesn't, but this mother of all strawfeminists has left her mark on the debate. Now a huge chunk of people tend to think the struggle between "pro-lifers" and pro-choicers is over the number of abortions, not the legality of it, and assume the former wish to reduce that number while the latter don't care or wish to raise it. The belief that "pro-lifers" are mainly motivated to reduce the abortion rate, and just think that an abortion ban is the best practice, is a myth that causes many otherwise smart people to make naïve arguments about ways to appease the opponents of reproductive justice.

Recently, I saw one of these naïve arguments on Obsidian Wings, by the somewhat conservative blogger Publius, who argued in his post about the movie "Juno" that the "pro-life" movement would be better of being, well, pro-choice. Which is to say by embracing the right to have an abortion while trying to persuade women not to do it. It's an argument you hear from a number of people trying to be moderate on the issue, and it fails on two measures. First of all, it's sexist and buys into the anti-choice assumption that women are, by their nature, too damn stupid to know what abortion is and that the abortion rate reflects widespread female stupidity on the issue rather than a genuine desire to terminate on behalf of the millions of women who undergo this procedure. If they only knew what they were doing, the logic goes, they'd stop themselves. (The movie "Juno" hit a real sour note by buying into this–we're supposed to believe that the otherwise preternaturally brilliant young woman somehow didn't stop to consider that terminating a pregnancy meant killing a fetus until an anti-choice protester yells at her.)

But it also buys into the misinformed notion that anti-choicers are primarily motivated by a desire to save fetuses rather than a desire to control sexual expression, especially female sexual expression. While the big mass "yes, but" semi-uninformed "pro-life" voters might have these feelings about babies mixed in with their discomfort about female sexuality, the organized anti-choice movement prioritizes controlling female sexuality over the hypothetical lives of babies every single time.

Publius also buys into the trendy but ultimately silly notion that women's basic bodily autonomy is a complex issue.

But that said, it's a tough issue. As a new parent, it's difficult to articulate the depths of affection that I've felt over the past two years. For the lack of a non-trite word, parenthood is a beautiful thing.

I really, really love cats. I think they are insanely cute, and people who don't like cats are crazy. But it doesn't follow that I therefore believe:

  • Everyone should have pet cats whether they like it or not. In fact, I think that someone disliking cats is probably a damn good reason to keep them from taking on that responsibility they don't want.
  • That if you like cats, that should mean that you should be willing to house every single stray cat that happens to wander up on your porch.
  • That the cuteness of kittens means that we shouldn't spay or neuter cats, because kitten cuteness trumps the quality of life issues that arise when there's way more cats than an environment can support comfortably.

All these things seem obvious when it comes to cats, but when it comes to the cuteness of kids, all common sense flies out the window and we're supposed to be sympathetic to the way kid cuteness "complicates" things for those who want to take anti-choicers seriously. Granted, as humans we should and do take human life more seriously than cat life. But the greater value on human life means that we should be even more responsible about the health and well-being of humanity, which is best ensured by the "every child a wanted child" philosophy. And adoption isn't the simple answer that some would like to believe it is, even if sweet Hollywood comedies paint idealized images of it for our amusement.