Let's Not Miss This Opportunity

July 8, 2009 - 8:00am (Print)

I almost did not open the e-mail asking me to write for this blog. I thought it was spam.

I’m not used to getting e-mails from people soliciting my opinion on reproductive rights. I am an unlikely candidate for pundit. I’m a working-class mother, a doula, a high school drop-out, whose primary source of news is Facebook. I do not generally voice my opinions; debates on reproductive rights usually seem to give women like me pretty shallow treatment.

Then I read a blog post on the website Religion Dispatches entitled, “Common Ground on Abortion—Or Appeasement of Foes?” by The Rev. Dr. Carlton Veazey. It condemned Obama’s call for work on common ground issues like preventing unwanted pregnancies. It made me so mad that I had to join the website just to comment on it. And so when I got the invitation to write for the OnCommonGround forum I jumped at it.

Dr. Veazey is pro-choice and the President and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. And though I support the legal necessity of abortion I disagree with pro-choice leaders like Dr. Veazey who view common ground as anti-choice.

Veazy believes that: “Achieving common ground will … diminish the ability of women to make decisions about abortion.” Veazey seems to think common ground will hurt women. He continues, “That’s unacceptable. It’s unacceptable for even one woman to suffer in order for opponents of abortion to be appeased.” He never explains why common ground will lead to women’s suffering. “We should not sacrifice women’s lives in the service of calming controversy and tempering anger over an issue that has become political.” His prediction sounds scary, but he fails to make his case that reducing unintended pregnancies and increasing access to the options of adoption and parenting is somehow bad for women. When it comes to common ground, my view is that he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No pun intended.

In my work and personal life, I have listened to hundreds of women’s stories about their pregnancies outside the context of politics. It’s clear to me that women do not have abortions (as is often suggested by the pro-life movement) because they are ignorant, careless, or murderous. But is also clear to me, that decisions about abortion are not just as Dr. Veazey writes, “private and individual, a matter of conscience.” Our decisions are dictated by the circumstances of our lives-poverty, racism, rape, crappy job opportunities, to name a few.

And that’s where common ground must start, with the circumstances of women’s lives.

Here, off the top of my head, are some common ground ideas that could further reproductive justice, not erode it.

Take away barriers to access abstinence, birth control, parenting, or adoption;

Advocate for living wage jobs for mothers and for workplace flexibility so they have time to be mothers, and for quality childcare so that parenting is a safe, sane, affordable option for working class families;

Create ethical, accessible adoption that is responsive to the needs, concerns, and rights of birth parents;

Create scholarships and subsidized childcare for student parents so that decisions about pregnancy aren’t made for the wrong reasons, like having to forego education;

Offer free, effective, on-demand substance abuse treatment which can reduce the unintended pregnancies instead of punitive drug policy that destroys families;

Create a viable social safety net that ensures no American child goes without basic needs, thereby reducing abortion for the sole reason of poverty;

Launch a public relations campaign to transform the cultural shaming of poor, single, and young mothers, affirming the beauty and potential of all families, reducing abortion for the sole reason of shame;

It is time for reproductive justice advocates to put forward a common ground agenda, not because it is politically advantageous, but because it is morally just. We need to hold accountable the hypocrisy of politicians, often pro-life, who help create the social conditions that contribute to our high unintended pregnancy and abortion rates.

Dr. Veazey’s position and the wider pro-choice movement’s condemnation of common ground illustrate the great failure of the pro-choice movement to understand the complexity of women’s personal choices. The importance of women’s individual stories, deeply personal and poignant, are done a disservice by those who think that abortion is only a personal decision.

Feminists of conscience must be willing to face complexity, and work with anyone else who will do the same. Achieving common ground will be accomplished by addressing the root and systemic issues that inform and interfere with our ability to choose. Common ground presents the first chance that voices of women like me, and our issues, will be included in the mainstream abortion debate.

. . . . . . . . . .

22 comments

Comments are rated by readers on a scale from 1 to 5. Comments with a rating of 2 or less are hidden. Click on hidden comments to view them.

Jim Grant Great ideas July 8, 2009 - 9:56am

As a pro-lifer, I support your ideas and don't see how anyone on either side could disagree. I may not agree with you on birth control but if all your other recommendations were implemented, we would make huge progress toward justice for all.

Anonymous Pro-life also and just July 8, 2009 - 10:08am

Pro-life also and just wanted to say great article. Thanks!

Anonymous Most of your ideas I agree July 8, 2009 - 12:34pm

Most of your ideas I agree with (although, politically speaking, neither political party and particularly the GOP is going to increase the safety net or do anything practical to help single mothers.)
I'm not sure how what you mean by barriers to access to abstinence.
What I find curious about your list is what is missing, namely the responsibility of males in the business of reducing unwanted pregnancies. To be fair this is a subject seldom broached and certainly not by the 'pro-life' side. When men are mentioned at all it's almost always framed as a 'mens rights' issue . I'll bet that if 'common ground' conclusions spoke to the responsibilities rather than the rights of men that the number of unwanted pregnancies would plummet rapidly.

Jim Grant Mens responsibilities July 8, 2009 - 2:31pm

Excellent point! Why aren't men brought into this debate? As my wife has maintained for decades, men are at the root of almost everything that is wrong with the world. Who starts wars? Corrupts businesses? Rapes and beats women? Commits violent crimes of all sorts? Promotes porn? It's an endless list. Both men AND women need to act responsibly to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Jade Souza Thanks for your insightful July 9, 2009 - 6:46pm

Thanks for your insightful comments.

What I mean by barriers to abstinence is the epidemic of rape and domestic violence in our country. Rape is extremely prevalent against women in their childbearing years, and pregnant women experience abuse by their partners more frequently and severely than nonpregnant women. It seems obvious that the very first step towards women having control of their reproductive choices could also be a common ground step- women need to be in control of their own sexuality.

What you raise about men's power and responsibility is very relevant and I really appreciate it.

As for the part about support of single moms...well, I'm not a politician, but it seems to me that we cannot create a culture of life if we cannot support the women who give and sustain that life. By the same token, women will not have real choice as long as parenting is such a dangerous option to both women and children.

In that sense we are at a crossroads with the challenge of reducing abortion, and also as more and more people are finding themselves in poverty for the first time. While I don't expect that politicians and the rich will lead the fight against child poverty, neither am I willing to accept it as a fact of life. It took tremendous funding and public relations pressure to convince people that single moms and children were not only undeserving of charity, but in fact the source of our social and economic problems in America. This is counterintuitive. I believe that it takes more to train people to ignore their conscience than vice versa, so I have hope that we can come back to our senses when it comes to protecting children and the vulnerable from the dangers of poverty.

crowepps Very glad you were invited to write July 8, 2009 - 3:32pm

Agree with what you said and very much enjoyed how well you said it.

Pamela Corwin Great post! July 9, 2009 - 11:43am

This is a fantastic article. It's well thought out and expressed and full of really great ideas for implementing change. Thank you so much for sharing your point of view.

Kat Allen Thank you July 9, 2009 - 1:01pm

Thank you for putting this together in such a clear and well written way. Both men and women need to be aware of options that are so often put forward to us as either "this" or "that". The picture - and life - is so very much more. And you're so very right in that it all starts way before a woman becomes pregnant.

Thank you again -

Jessica Langton A wonderful article! July 9, 2009 - 1:32pm

I don't see how a person could argue with your ideas, and well written to boot. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts.

clydweb Where the common ground falls away July 9, 2009 - 6:53pm

I don't think anyone in the reproductive justice movement would disagree with your ideas. All of those things would help contribute to a reduction in the need for abortion.
I think the pitfall of common ground is not that those of us working for reproductive justice are opposed to looking at the abortion issue in a broader way, but rather where the anti-abortion folks refuse to make abortion more accessible for the women who need it.

It is outrageous and unacceptable that only 17 states provide public funding for abortion services, that federal employes, military personnel (and their spouses) are denied health coverage to pay for abortion. It is outrageous and unacceptable that women have to endure 24 hour waiting periods, mandatory counseling, or, for young women, have to obtain parental consent (or go to court and beg a judge to let them obtain an abortion).

By all means, improve the social safety net for mothers and children, make adoption more accessible, but if we are really working for women and families, then we need to make abortion more accessible. Repeal the Hyde Amendment, make insurance companies cover contraceptives, end the shame and silence surrounding abortion and make abortion accessible while reducing the need. That would be common ground, that would be justice.

http://www.birthingjoy.net/blog

Paul Bradford Access to abortion July 9, 2009 - 8:10pm

As long as the argument centers on the question of whether or not women should be able to obtain an abortion, we are distracted from the more important question which is, "How can we empower women to do a better job of caring for their children and of keeping them safe?"

Who ought to decide whether abortion is the best thing for the mother? The mother herself. Who ought to decide whether abortion is the best thing for the child? Same answer, the child's mother. The only way to protect children is to trust their mothers.

What puts children at risk is not their mother's access to abortion, what puts them at risk is the pervasive denigration of the unborn as something sub-human. I have heard many people, some on this 'site, use expressions such as 'potential person' or 'clump of cells' to refer to young people who are in the beginning phases of development. Dehumanizing language can lead to dehumanizing actions.

If we could educate people to stop using ageist speech the way we have educated them to stop using sexist or racist speech we would be working to build a society where it is not necessary to threaten women with criminal penalties for getting abortion. Women would care too much about protecting the children they recognize as their moral equals to be interested in ending their lives.

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

crowepps Ageist speech July 9, 2009 - 8:26pm

Paul, you have used the phrase ageist speech many times in your posts, and it would be really helpful if you could explain exactly what you mean by it. I believe your intent is to set as equivalents the blastocyst, early fetus, late-term fetus and born child, giving all of them exactly the same value?

If this is so, wouldn't they all be exactly equivalent to the woman and deserving of no less and no more consideration than she? Isn't holding her to a higher standard of responsibility and insisting she should 'sacrifice' just because she's post-puberty also 'ageist'?

Paul Bradford Women can figure this out on their own. July 10, 2009 - 3:13pm

Human beings differ in 'value' if you decide that a person's value is a function of what s/he means to somebody else (or some group of somebodies) or if you decide that someone's value is a function of how much other people/organizations have invested in her/him.

When I consider what is meant when we think about people being 'created equal' I think we're talking about equality in the intrinsic sense. I may not be as valuable as you are in terms of how productive or personable we are, and you might be someone who is more valuable than me inasmuch as others have a greater investment in your life than they do in mine. Still and all we are 'equal' in intrinsic value. In order for a person to behave in a moral way s/he has to consider my life to be as valuable as yours.

Over the years some people have claimed that the lives of light skinned people are more valuable than those of dark skinned people. That's racism. Some people have claimed that the lives of men are more valuable than the lives of women. That's sexism. Today, even in 'respectable' circles, some people claim that the lives of 'breathers' are more valuable than the lives of non-breathers. They often claim that the younger the non-breather is the less valuable s/he is. Zygotes and blastocysts are considered to have virtually no intrinsic value. That's ageism.

The post-puberty woman facing an unintended pregnancy has a problem -- most likely she's got a big problem -- often enough she's facing a catastrophic problem. She has the option of 'making the problem go away' if she aborts -- but if she considers that the developing child inside her has a life with equal intrinsic value to her own life she will consider the fact that no matter how big her problem is if she doesn't abort, her child has an even bigger problem if she does.

I don't believe a woman would need any special instructions from me to figure that out. She'll figure it out on her own as long as she recognizes her child counts as much as she does, and she's more likely to recognize that if she doesn't grow up surrounded by ageist talk.

By the way, as long as we're talking about justice for post-pubescent women, I hope you realize that I fully support legislation that will force fathers to take as much responsibility for their children as mothers do -- I even believe that a man who impregnates a woman against her will ought to compensate her for the pain and suffering of carrying his child.

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Jade Souza Thanks for sharing your July 9, 2009 - 8:57pm

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I would never tell someone to sell out their convictions for "common ground". I don't believe that is how positive change happens. In fact, I would not call that kind of compromise common ground at all.

And by the same token, I think a women's movement that views abortion access as the sole reproductive issue, or that uses abortion as the dealbreaker is leaving a lot of women out in the cold.

clydweb Abortion Access is not the sole issue July 10, 2009 - 2:52pm

I'm not suggesting that abortion is or should be the sole reproductive issue, in fact I'm arguing quite the opposite - it should be part of a comprehensive public policy that gives women greater choices and more options. The problem I see with the common ground agenda is that abortion access is the sole issue NOT being addressed.

I agree that comprehensive sexuality education, better social safety net for mothers and children, better access to contraception and making adoption easier and more accessible ARE part of reproductive justice. However, to push for those things while ignoring the needs of women who do seek abortions, for whom abortion IS the best option is to deny those women their fundamental human rights. Low-income women are denied access to abortion every day because there is no funding. Lawmakers even now are talking about limiting private funding for abortion by not allowing women to use federal subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortion.

"Common Ground" seems to start with the assumption that abortion is a necessary evil and that slants the discussion to eliminating abortion. That is not justice. There has never been a time in human history when there has not been some need for abortion. If we are interested in women's health and women's rights then we need to acknowledge that sometimes abortion is the best decision and that no one, ever, has the right to take that decision away from a woman.

I just don't think it's justice or common ground if we are not simultaneously making abortion more accessible while implementing policies that reduce the need for abortion.

http://www.birthingjoy.net/blog

Paul Bradford Stone Age Abortion July 10, 2009 - 3:34pm

There has never been a time in human history when there has not been some need for abortion.

I wonder if you've considered the fact that, prior to the development of civilization, the "need" for abortion was even greater than it is today. That is to say, women in our great-great grandmother's day faced tremendous peril if they were to try to raise more children than they could handle. In those days, however, methods for inducing abortion were crude and unreliable. That's why they relied upon the practice of infanticide to assure that 'every child was a wanted child'. Ten thousand years ago, as many as 25% of infants were killed soon after they were born. That allowed the infants who were 'spared' to have a better chance for survival.

I wonder why we don't do that anymore. Maybe it's the fact that we've undergone a process of 'moral advancement' since those days. To tell you the truth, I find myself wondering how we will all view abortion once this process has advanced even further.

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

kjf It sounds as if you feel July 10, 2009 - 6:42pm

It sounds as if you feel very strongly about increasing women's access to abortion and that you believe it is not possible to improve reproductive justice for women without doing this. I agree that women's access to abortion is an issue that needs to continue to be addressed and fought for by its supporters. However i fail to see how it can ever be a part of a common ground platform since pro-lifers seek to reduce abortions and do not condone it under any circumstances. How do you propose framing this issue so that pro-lifers will back it?? My understanding was that common ground was where both parties could find agreement and work together to improve reproductive justice for women. In no way do i expect pro-choice supporters to give up their fight for women to choose abortion. I just don't see how it can be a part of common ground? Are you suggesting that common ground hurts this fight? If so in what way do you think it will have this affect?

karre

Anonymous Access to abortion as a part of common ground July 10, 2009 - 7:23pm

How do you propose framing this issue so that pro-lifers will back it??

Women who do not have access to safe, early-term abortion often end up resorting to late-term procedures. If "pro-lifers" can agree that early-term abortions are preferable to late-term ones, then support for improved access to abortion naturally follows.

clydweb Can 'common ground' give us justice? July 15, 2009 - 4:42pm

I think the problem that I have with Common Ground is that it starts with the belief that 'abortion is wrong.' And I don't feel like that is actually where the common ground is. Those of us who believe in women as moral agents, who believe that choosing abortion is a moral choice, we are left with no where to stand in this conversation.

I believe that women have the right and the ability to make their own decisions concerning an unwanted pregnancy and the role of society, public policy, whatever, is to support her in her decision - whatever her decision is.

The real common ground is reducing the need for abortion; preventing unwanted pregnancy is just good public policy. Justice is reducing the need while ensuring universal access - that would be ensuring the needs of all women, those who choose to parent, choose adoption and choose abortion are supported.

I see the common ground agenda of this administration continuing the shame and stigma around abortion, which will absolutely not advance the cause of reproductive justice.

http://www.birthingjoy.net/blog

kjf I think you are right though July 10, 2009 - 7:02pm

I think you are right though in feeling angry that the administration is using common ground as a way to ignore the pro-choice agenda. me too.

Shannon E O'Malley "I just don't think it's July 14, 2009 - 1:02pm

"I just don't think it's justice or common ground if we are not simultaneously making abortion more accessible while implementing policies that reduce the need for abortion."

great point clydweb

Alison Cole Original post July 16, 2009 - 4:20am

YES YES YES!! Thank you for this, Jade.