An Abortion Provider Speaks, And More Common Ground Confusion
By Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check
July 5, 2009 - 11:04pm
Subscribe to RealityCast:
RealityCast iTunes subscription
RealityCast RSS feed
Links in this episode:
William Saletan and Steven Waldman on Bloggingheads
Rush Limbaugh loosens his grip on reality
On this episode of Reality Cast, I'll be interviewing abortion provider Amy Hagstrom Miller about her work, particularly in the light of the recent assassination of Dr. George Tiller. Also, why Will Saletan and Steve Waldman talking abortion get it all wrong, and why pro-choicers should feel okay about the Governor Sanford spectacle.
Mary Roach fans rejoice! She's putting more video content out there. Here's her talking about how to have a better sex life.
- mary roach *
I'm currently reading her book "Stiff", which is about the various things that happen to corpses. The sex stuff is usually a little easier to read about.
**************
- jaws theme *
- uteruses 1 *
Jodi Jacobson wrote about it, but I can't help myself, I have to play some clips from this train wreck of a conversation between two men who will never be pregnant doing that thing they do, where they rotate between being mildly annoying to making me reach for a butter knife to pop out my eardrums rather than listen to their blather. I watched it so you don't have to, and you'll be privy to some of the more outrageous things that Saletan and Waldman said.
Waldman kicks off with a doozy of a statement.
- uteruses 2 *
I'm going to be charitable and chalk this up to wishful thinking instead of to outright deceit. Anti-choicers openly link contraception and abortion, and even though they claim their opposition to both has something to do with "life", it's clear that the more obvious connection is that both have to do with sex. Specifically, the problem is and always has been the fear that women who don't risk childbirth every time they have sex will have an opportunity to escape male control. Waldman's statement here shows why I think this common ground strategy is doomed to failure. If you can't accept the basic reality that the anti-abortion position is grounded in hostility to sexual liberation and women's rights, then you can't really have a productive conversation.
While Waldman shoots out more "are you kidding me?" statements than Saletan, Saletan does do a bang-up job of keeping up with the nonsense.
- uteruses 3 *
Okay, fine, I'm happy to use the word "morality". I think it's immoral for people with hang-ups about sex and fantasies of a 1950s patriarchy to advocate for immoral laws banning women's right to make their own moral choices about abortion and birth control. I think that it's immoral to use the word "morality" to mean "not being a slut". I think morality is about how you treat people and act in the world, not who you sleep with or whether or not you have a baby when some stranger thinks you should.
In fact, I think that women choose abortion and contraception for intensely moral reasons most of the time. Because it's moral to want to only have children when you're ready. It's moral to cherish your own health and well-being enough that you are responsible in your sexual behavior. It's moral to believe that women are human beings who deserve not just the right to bodily autonomy, but to finish their educations, marry who they want, and have the right to determine their own lives. I think it's immoral to stop them. I think it's morally suspect to obsess over the fear that some woman somewhere got away with unapproved sex. I think that people who scream at women trying to reproductive health care are not only not the moral standard, but have a distinct lack of morals and a sadistic streak. Is that enough moral talk, or should I apologize for having sex instead?
There's over 60 minutes of this kind of talk, and mostly it's not productive. They dwell on the idea that contraception is common ground, when in reality pro-choicers have always advocated it. Nothing new there. But I can't finish this off without exposing you to a quote from Waldman that really drives home to me that no matter how much he writes about this issue, he doesn't really think about it. He just reacts based on a bunch of reactionary feelings. This is his reaction to Saletan wisely pointing out that most women don't want to carry a baby for 9 months just to give it up for adoption.
- uteruses 4 *
And that's basically the entire tone of this discussion and many like it. There's all these noises being made of understanding what it must be like, and then "solutions" are offered that shows that they don't actually know or apparently care to know. How low your opinion must be of unmarried, pregnant women to say that they would be bought over with what amounts to 14 cents an hour for the work of making a baby.
Waldman admits that the push to get more women to give up babies is symbolic. But he should think harder about that, because it shows what symbolically matters to anti-choicers. Adoption symbolizes a return to the proper social order, where bad slutty women give up their babies to deserving married couples. If you think it's a crime when unmarried women have sex, this is the way for them to pay back their debt to society. The common ground discussion will be doomed to fail as long as the misogyny and sex-phobia that drives the anti-choice movement is pointedly ignored like this.
************
insert interview
************
The stories about hypocritical social conservatives who want to control your sex lives but can't even keep it in their pants are coming out so routinely lately that it seems almost pointless to cover them. But I'm going to do a segment on Governor Mark Sanford, in no small part because Senator John Ensign owes Sanford a thank you for upstaging him and his less dramatic affair. Sanford is really playing up the drama that has exploded in the wake of him running off to visit his mistress in Argentina without telling anyone where he was.
- Sanford 1 *
Mark Sanford, as he believes that gays don't deserve the right to love and women don't deserve the right to privacy, has forsaken his right to have either respected for himself. But even so, it was hard to watch the feeding frenzy explode, because it resulted in the exposure of his love letters to his mistress, and has put her on the spot. The few pictures available of her are being floated around, probably in no small part because Sanford relished describing her beauty in emails, and that makes people want to see that beauty for themselves. The saddest part of all this is that I doubt that being the object of such a massive exposure and have his love life become an object of ridicule for Sanford probably won't do a thing to convince him to be kinder to women or gays.
Of course, what it has done has given other hypocrites an opportunity to act self-righteous, their favorite thing to do. Bill O'Reilly loves playing martyr over this.
- Sanford 2 *
I like how he tries to pass off the impeachment of a President over a blow job as if it was the actions of a minor fringe. But let's make this clear to O'Reilly and everyone else who wants to play the victim over this. The supposed "hard left" are the people out there who actually believe in and respect people's right to a private love life. We support gay rights and reproductive rights. If you don't think people have this right, and Mark Sanford doesn't, then you invite this sort of nonsense.
Also, if you tout patriarchal marriage as the end-all, be-all, as conservatives like Sanford do, then you're basically asking for the kid to say that the emperor has no clothes. Today, I'll be that kid.
- Sanford 3 *
Boy, sounds like his marriage must have been boring and miserable that he was flirting with and carrying on at least emotional affairs with 6 and maybe more women. That doesn't do much for recommending the home life. What's that again about how traditional marriage is so great that we have to build our laws around pushing people into it?
*************
And now for the Wisdom of Wingnuts, the black President made me do it edition. Here's Rush Limbaugh, speculating on why Mark Sanford had an affair.
- Limbaugh *
There are many reasons this is a stupid thing to think. But let's go for the most obvious, which is the affair actually started before Obama was elected, and it's rumored that it was the reason that McCain picked Sarah Palin instead of Mark Sanford for a running mate.
Specifically, the problem is and always has been the fear that women who don't risk childbirth every time they have sex will have an opportunity to escape male control.
Wow. I can understand exaggerating your opponents views in order to make them look even more ridiculous, but this is just silly. If you actually believe that statement (which I'm afraid you just might) then you've gone over the edge towards lunacy with the tin foil hat UFO watchers. Honestly, if your argument is correct and is the best argument then you shouldn't have a problem addressing your opponents where they are and actually attacking what they believe. Here it is clear that you are not interested in that and you instead have conjured up an imaginary opponent that seeks nothing less than to ensure that sex is joyless and occurs once per year at peak fertility to keep women subjugated and pregnant and under male control at all times. There simply is nobody out there arguing for this, yet boy do you ever destroy those imaginary evil doers!
Yes, in times of war nations resort to demonizing the enemy in order to rally the troops, but is your argument so weak that you can't rely on facts and truth? I believe that you may be slipping further towards pro-choice extremism and you could use a dose of actually hanging out with people with different views. You don't have to like them, you don't even have to talk to them. It might benefit you simply to see them in their natural environment and observe them as they articulate their opinions. You might actually find that they actually believe the stuff they say and don't have some hidden agenda to destroy women.
One of the problems with the internet is that it has become so easy to surround ourselves with people who agree with us and to separate ourselves from people who think differently. You are definitely slipping away and I sincerely hope that you stop and surround yourself with people of differing views.
Then you want women to risk pregnancy every time they have sex.
Perhaps a biology lesson is in order? Sex makes babies. People enjoy having sex without making babies. Throughout history, they've come up with way to do this, though most contraception methods have historically been ineffective. In recent years, effective methods like condoms and hormonal birth control have been invented. The anti-choice movement promptly threw a fit, because they don't want people to have effective contraception.
How do you feel about condoms? The birth control pill? Sterilization?
The organized anti-choice movement opposes all forms of effective contraception. This is saying the exact same thing as they want women to risk pregnancy every time they have sex. You're taking issue with tone, not with the facts on the ground. I do not owe people who don't respect my rights a euphemism.
Then you want women to risk pregnancy every time they have sex.
No. You see, women have been taught to hate and fear their own bodies. Which is really sad. The fact of the matter is that a woman can only possibly get pregnant a few days out of every cycle. Even then it might not happen. Yet all women live in fear that this may happen every time they have sex. Even those using contraceptives live in perpetual fear that the next period might not arrive. Yet this is supposed to be "women's liberation".
What's so liberating of living in dread while at the same time giving men (and by this I mean the worst sort of men) exactly what they want? The worst sorts of men have the perfect stepford wives these days. They are women that are desirous of sex just as often as the men, they are sterile, they are willing to kill any offspring that accidentally result from their "sexual encounters", they are non-committal, and they are constantly worried about their looks. The feminist movement has bowed to every demand of the ugliest sort of man.
All the while women are all alone when it comes to the responsibility of reproduction. They alone must deal with the prevention of conception (seeing as how they're the only ones that will have to deal with the consequences), the termination of any children that result, the care of the children that they keep, and the men are not to be involved at any point (well except of course for a small sperm donation). This is freedom?
I take issue with the extreme wording declaring everyone who disagrees with you as being anti-woman, anti-sex, children-must-result-from-every-act-of-sex, nut cases. To say something as extreme as that shows how out of touch with reality you risk becoming by surrounding yourself by people who only agree with you.
Please don't continue down this path.
The feminist movement has bowed to every demand of the ugliest sort of man.
Which tells me that you know nothing of the feminist movement.
I take issue with the extreme wording declaring everyone who disagrees with you as being anti-woman, anti-sex, children-must-result-from-every-act-of-sex, nut cases.
We will continue saying this as long as you oppose comprehensive sex education and access to contraception. Have a nice day.
The beloved rhythm method only works if you don't have sex like half the month.
So much for your claims to be pro-sex. The only kind of contraception you'll accept is the kind that minimizes the amount of sex you can have.
But thanks for admitting you're anti-contraception!
And really, the person here painting all opponents with a broad brush is you. You just claimed that 98% of American women are hapless victims of male sexuality, that pretty much every straight woman in America is basically asexual and wants nothing more than to have an endless stream of babies, but that evil, evil men---the only gender you apparently seem to think likes sex---won't let us.
98% of women you think are asexual victims and dupes.
I like sex. And am deeply offended by your suggestion that I only do it for men.
You have a poor opinion of women, if you think that we're automatically going to be interested in an argument because it's about *depriving* men of something. I want women to have more, not men to have less.
Believe it or not, non-nutty people have sex all the time for both of them. Because it's fun! And they bond. Not because she's tolerating it (and contraception) because she has to.
Do you believe in lesbians? Did you know that there entire women that have sex without a man even in the room? There goes your lovely theories about why women do what they do.
"Yet all women live in fear that this may happen every time they have sex. Even those using contraceptives live in perpetual fear that the next period might not arrive. Yet this is supposed to be "women's liberation".
What's so liberating of living in dread while at the same time giving men (and by this I mean the worst sort of men) exactly what they want? The worst sorts of men have the perfect stepford wives these days. They are women that are desirous of sex just as often as the men, they are sterile, they are willing to kill any offspring that accidentally result from their "sexual encounters", they are non-committal, and they are constantly worried about their looks. The feminist movement has bowed to every demand of the ugliest sort of man.
All the while women are all alone when it comes to the responsibility of reproduction. They alone must deal with the prevention of conception (seeing as how they're the only ones that will have to deal with the consequences), the termination of any children that result, the care of the children that they keep, and the men are not to be involved at any point (well except of course for a small sperm donation). This is freedom?"
Just tell women what they feel. And that's the truth, not actually what women feel. All you need to know.
Sheesh. Do you realize that women have subjective experiences of the world like men? Or, to put it in terms you'll understand, do your realize we think and feel and are autonomous beings, not just projections of your hopes and fears?
A couple things:
First, the mild anxiety I feel about possibly becoming pregnant while on hormonal birth control is nothing, absolutely nothing, compared to the dread I felt while we were just using condoms. The fear of unplanned pregnancy is, frankly, a constant for sexually active women--yes, even women who are married or who already have kids. Asking women to give up BC because they still feel a little nervous about unplanned pregnancy is about as reasonable as asking someone with a newly broken bone to give up pain killers, because he still feels some discomfort.
Second, no, not every woman has predictable cycles, or is fertile at the exact same time every month. While a woman may (or may not) be fertile for only a few days, sperm live longer than that, so sex has to be avoided more than just a couple days a month. Toss in the inability to tell precisely when ovulation occurs, plus the jump in libido that most women have when they're more fertile, and maybe, just maybe, you might begin to see why woman want to use BC.
But perhaps the inherent problem, as far as I can tell, is that you really don't believe that women like sex, or have a sex drive of their own. You may want to sit down for my confession: I like sex. I even--do you have your pearls at the ready--like to masturbate. I know, I know, it's hard for you to believe that I actually like sex of my own accord, and not because some "worst sort of man" (thanks, btw, for insulting my spouse) is somehow manipulating me into feeling that little tingle between my legs.
But I highly doubt that anything anyone says here will dissuade you from your belief that women don't understand their bodies, 'cuz if they did, they'd find out that they really don't like sex and really just want to pop out kids continuously.
It's fascinating that someone who objects to the 95% of Americans who have sex before marriage and the 98% of women who use contraception would deem me an "extremist" because I support the vast majority of people's basic rights without using squishy euphemisms to protect the feelings of those who oppose the behavior of, I repeat, 98% of women.
And it's only the worst kind of men who are out wanting sex to begin with. We've deluded ourselves into thinking we like sex when what we REALLY want is babies.
There are evolutionary reasons for sex beside makin' the babiez... social bonds and the like. It's one reason why humans aren't hyper-fertile- pregnancy is actually extremely taxing on a human female and a much larger percentage of pregnancies have complications along with issues during birth. We don't usually get pregnant repeatedly (unless you're a Duggar, and ol' Michelle artificially speeds up the time between pregnancies by weaning) because it's dangerous to do so biologically speaking. Yet we as a species STILL WANT SEX.
Maybe I should be glad the only partner I've had for a good long time is "BOB", eh?
I'd also like to know how one can be a Stepford wife and non-committal at the same time - isn't one a direct contradiction of the other?






















