The Anti-choice Agenda: The Reality Behind Opposition to Health Reform
by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check
September 1, 2009 - 7:00am (Print)
That’s 20,000 real people with minds, memories, families, hopes, and dreams. People who can feel pain, people who know as they die that it didn’t have to happen. The hook for the lie that federal money will pay for abortion is the fact that by subsidizing health insurance purchases for those who can’t afford it, and by not forcing insurance companies to deprive women of their pre-existing abortion coverage, that’s a subsidy of abortion. In addition, there’s the possibility that a public option that would be available for individual purchase would cover abortion.
In the former case, the claims are without merit. Imagine a woman who works for the federal government and receives a paycheck. If she then gets an abortion, that’s with “federal” money, but few would be dopey enough to claim that’s an overturn of the Hyde Amendment. If they did make that claim, we’d be right to believe that they’re mostly objecting to the idea that a woman can draw a paycheck. Similarly, I’m forced to believe that people who object to the government giving people money who then use a tiny percentage of it for abortion are mainly objecting to giving people money to pay for health insurance. Which brings us back to the unnecessary deaths of 20,000 people a year, and is thus the opposite of “pro-life”. With the public option, we have a similar situation. People will be buying it with their own money, and thus the taxpayer isn’t paying for any procedure. The public option members are. It’s as simple as that.
What all this fact-checking and being rational obscures, however, is the larger moral question of whether or not the federal government should use federal money to directly pay for abortion, which would mean subsidizing that service at places like Planned Parenthood or covering abortion for Medicaid/Medicare recipients, as well as federal employees. And of course the federal government should pay for abortion. Creating entire classes of female citizens who are officially penalized for being sexually active is straight up discrimination. And in this case, doing the right thing is better for all involved. A female soldier who realizes, when she gets pregnant, that she’s better off ending a bad relationship and getting an abortion will be a better soldier than one who’s always caught up with relationship woes because she thought she had no other choice but to marry when pregnant. A Medicaid recipient who decides that she’s not going to have this baby, but instead get vocational training so she can get a better-paying job benefits herself and the taxpayer. If you think of women as human beings with lives and jobs, instead of as the fleshy stuff surrounding the sex organs, it’s easy enough to see why we need to support choices that are already made.
Sure, sure, you have moral objections to abortion and don’t want to see your tax money go to it. I have moral objections to you and your ideology, but I wouldn’t say that you shouldn’t receive Medicaid should you need it. The emptiness of this argument makes sense if you take a millisecond to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. I object to using federal money to kill men, women, girls, boys, and fetuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, but no one’s taking my moral objections seriously, presumably because I don’t stay up at night worrying about the condition of the hymens of America.
What makes the anti-choice freak out over health care reform so funny is that it’s grade A hypocrisy, not that we’d expect any less. If you really object to abortion itself because you value fetal life, then you should be the first in line demanding massive health care reform. Forty-sex percent of women who have abortions weren’t using any kind of contraception at all when they became pregnant, and of the rest, a significant portion were inconsistent in their contraception use. It’s not a coincidence, I suspect, that Western European nations that have universal health care and have normalized the idea of health care for all also see much higher rates of consistent contraception use, and therefore lower abortion rates.
If you visit places like England or France, you see how much more normal it is for everyone to receive regular health care, and it’s not hard to see how you make the leap to using regular contraception. Anyone who really is sincere about fetal life should want that reduction in the abortion rate. In addition, you’d think that people who loves fetuses so much could love them enough after they’re born to be ashamed that the U.S. has a shamefully high infant mortality rate, one that’s linked with low incomes (and lack of regular health care access), to no one’s great surprise.
But as we well know when dealing with the anti-choice movement, when given a choice between preventing abortion and punishing women for sexual activity, they’ll choose the latter every time. Universal health care will most likely lower the abortion rate, but it will likely increase the use of effective contraception techniques, as well as STD screening, HPV vaccinations, and regular Pap smears, all of which reduce the “consequences”---some fatal---of being a woman who has sex. Since female sexuality is the real offense, anti-choicers are predictably protesting a potential reduction in abortions that would have the concurrent benefit of making it safer to be a normal woman. But the rest of us shouldn’t be fooled---if you love life and you love women, then the only sane choice is universal health coverage, one that covers all necessary health care, and yes, that does include contraception and safe abortion.
Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter, @amandamarcotte
In her first sentence, Ms. Marcotte repeats the erroneous assertion that the Hyde Amendment would prohibit the use of federal money to pay for abortions under the pending health care bills. Ms. Marcotte's ignorance on this point, among others, is apparently invincible. In my comment on her earlier post, I explained that the components of the health bill that are the focus of the current debate -- the public plan, and the premium-subsidy program -- do not rely, in any part, on funds that flow through the annual HHS appropriations bill, which are the only types of federal money that are covered by the Hyde Amendment. This has been confirmed by independent congressional analysts.
Under the bill, a federal agency would receive bills from abortion providers for performing abortions, and the agency would pay them with monies drawn from a federal Treasury account, signed by a federal official -- and Ms. Marcotte wants you to believe that this is not federal government funding of abortion. However, by all of the usual definitions applied by federal agencies in every other context, year in and year old, those are federal government funds, and it is the federal government paying for the abortions. Ms. Marcotte wants to pretend that the federal agency is spending private money, not federal government money. I wonder if she would be willing to apply a similarly narrow definition of "federal funds" to other federal agencies -- the CIA, perhaps?
Douglas Johnson, NRLC
It's interesting to me that the number one issue to you and yours---above war, above infant mortality, above poverty---is punishing young women for having sex. And if they are poor, they deserve double the punishment. Why the obsession? I study you and study you and don't get why this is more important than war, than poverty, than saving lives.
And don't tell me it's "the babies". We all know people who really care about infant life support health care reform. After all, it would do wonders to reduce the U.S.'s appallingly high infant mortality rate. It would also, as I detail, reduce abortion rates. Why do you want the abortion rate so high? Is it because you enjoy punishing women who've had sex?
Anyway, I've already, repeatedly, boringly addressed your incorrect claims about federal funding for abortion. The Democrats aren't stupid. They're not going to let this bill get hung up on an irrelevant scream fest about how women are allowed to just have sex and you can't do anything about it. People who buy insurance buy a package that may include abortion. But your claims that the Hyde Amendment will functionally be null are lies, and you know it.
That you have every reason to lie, and I have none. You need to convince your people that this is an overturn of the Hyde Amendment, because you know that most of them can't be convinced to get out of bed for anything that's not about sex and women. They're not going to protest health care reform as it is. You have to make it about women, and them getting away with Teh Sex. Thus you have every reason to be dishonest.
I have no reason to be dishonest. My audience largely supports an overturn of the Hyde Amendment. If the Hyde Amendment was actually being rendered null, we'd be celebrating.
"And don't tell me it's "the babies". " It is about the babies, the ones living within the mother. That's all it's about. It's not about sex. It's not about health care reform (abortion is not health care). It's not about anything but the babies.
Jim Grant, Pro-lifer
"Babies" only count when they're inside the mother? Why? Because that's the best time to use them as a weapon against sexual women?
How do you feel on the subject of contraception, which prevents abortion?
Don't spin my words, Amanda. Of course babies count after they are born.
On the subject of contraception, I believe it prevents conception (sometimes), not abortion.
Jim Grant, Pro-lifer
But let's look at the facts. By refusing to support universal health care, you are setting up thousands of real people to die. That includes real babies that feel and are loved. That's not very "pro-life".
I see little to no evidence that anti-choicers give a hoot about people who exist. As for the claims that this is about "babies" and has nothing to do with sex, I present you a really lovely story about the big hearts and low judgement of your friends in the crisis pregnancy center industry, after a baby was pried from its mother's arms and handed off to a "pro-life" couple:
When Jordan called Bethany's statewide headquarters one night, her shepherding mother answered, responding coldly to Jordan's lament. "You're the one who spread your legs and got pregnant out of wedlock," she told Jordan. "You have no right to grieve for this baby."
But please keep lying about how this has nothing to do with sex. Also, nice dodge on the contraception. I've read the handbook. I know you're supposed to be cagey when directly confronted with your support for high abortion rates through restricting contraception.
you're so awful, i can't even begin to form a coherent response to your your awfulness sir.
truth? is truth unchanging law? we both have truths, are mine the same as yours?
"Imagine a woman who works for the federal government and receives a paycheck. If she then gets an abortion, that’s with “federal” money, but few would be dopey enough to claim that’s an overturn of the Hyde Amendment."
As an IRS agent, I can tell you that money given to a federal employee in a paycheck is definitely not government money. If it was, I would not need to count my salary for income tax purposes. Moreover, I deal with cases in which taxpayers claim that certain payments to them are not compensation. If the money is negotiable by the recipient, it is compensation and owned by that recipient.
Amanda,
Is it possible that even one person, just one person, out of the millions and millions of people who oppose abortion does so not because they want to punish women for having sex, but because they are upset that babies are being killed? If you can't even admit that one person has that motive then I am extremely skeptical that you have a firm grasp on a thing we call reality.
I believe that there are people who believe "babies" are being killed. I disagree that it is "babies" being killed and that strangers should intrude. I base this opinion on the reality of nature's sexism & how it disproportuately affects women and poor families in relation to men and families with more resources. I believe "reproductive rights" are a "affirmative action" kind of counter measure to help reduce the effect of nature's sexism & culture's sexism and classism.
The problem is the sexism (and classism) is so inherant that people unconciously expect certain things of women that are unfair. It doesn't have to be concious to have the effect.
Here's a series of essays about the problem of invisible women, written last year.
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html#7464888925027823317
The essay titles are:
1. The Right to Go Out
2. Planet of the Guys
3. Our Father Who Art in Heaven
4. The Invisible Women
5. The Female Body As Property
6. The Longest Revolution
The link above is to the 6th essay, with links to the first 5.
My counter question to you: Do you believe that if there is systemic sexist and classist discrimination that there should be counter measures? Obviously, we may disagree on the relative importance of this systemic discrimination. But if it exists, do you believe there's justification for addressing the problem?
It would be a lot easier to believe that if so many of the arguments against abortion weren't about the character and morals of the women who have the unwanted pregnancies. For that matter, about the character and morals of the women who have WANTED pregnancies if they are unmarried.
In view of the public labeling of women as sluts, stupid, needing to be controlled, "trying to escape the control of men", etc., of many of ProLife activitists, I'm afraid that ProChoice activists are more skeptical than God listening to Abraham, and finding "10 righteous men" does not convince them that the thousands of anti-sex, anti-pleasure misogynists have honest concern for fetuses, but instead that they regard those pregnancies as something which should be endured because it is a "scarlet belly" - a deserved public shaming of sinners.
Being born female & fertile is a large sign about what God Might Want for you. So it's easier to believe it's ok to expect that pregnant women to make certain choices and not think about what's unfair about those expectations and to think concepts such as "nature's sexism" are nonsense. OtOH, I think my biological sex and (past) fertility was just chance, so I'm not with the program.
I'm sure that matters a whole bunch to people who believe that What God Might Want For You is really important. Obviously, it doesn't matter two pins to those who find organized religions tend to use What God Wants is miraculously similar to what the leaders of the organized religion find convenient to hold onto power and control over people. Being born gay might be a large sign that God Might Want You to Be Gay, but I don't see too many religions arguing that.
If that "one person" _does_ exist, it is certainly _not_ you.
Catseye ( (|) )
You persist in attributing to me statements I have not made, which is a rather ineffectual as a debating tactic, as well as being tiresome.
I did not say that the Hyde Amendment was "being rendered null." I explained that it is a limitation attached to the annual Health and Human Services appropriations bill, and that applies only to the funds that flow through that bill. I also explained that the two new programs at issue that H.R. 3200 would create -- the "public plan" and the premium-subsidy program -- would rely entirely on other funding sources, and therefore, would not be governed by the Hyde Amendment.
Here's how a top Associated Press health reporter explained it: "A law called the Hyde amendment applies the restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs. The health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions." Not covered by the restrictions. (You can read that AP story here.) See?
The Hyde Amendment, so long as it is annually renewed, will continue to apply to the HHS funding stream, which includes Medicaid. But the Obama-backed bill creates big new programs with different funding sources. See?
I did not suggest that you were lying; I said you were lazy about your research. You've just proved it. It will be perfectly obvious to every technically competent congressional staff person, or anybody else who has looked into the matter, that you do not have a clue what kind of law the Hyde Amendment actually is, or what it really does. The sad part is, it appears that you have no interest in educating yourself on the subject. You seem to think that repeating the same unsupported assertion with increased vehemence constitutes evidence.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
Again, here are the facts:
1) People will pay for insurance with their own money.
2) Some people will be given money to help pay for insurance.
3) It's up to the individual what insurance they buy.
4) Some insurance will cover, with the premiums paid by users, for abortions.
That's all. Any suggestion that the federal government will directly pay for women's abortions is a lie. It's a lie you're feeding your foolish followers. And it's ugly and immoral. Some of your people need health care. Some may need it so badly they'll die without it. But you'll sacrifice their health and lives. Are they really just pawns to you?
Amanda Marcotte wrote: "Any suggestion that the federal government will directly pay for women's abortions is a lie."
What a very silly thing to say. The "public option" that would be created by H.R. 3200 IS the federal government, and nothing but the federal government. It will as much the federal government as is the CIA or the FDA. If the public plan sends out checks for abortions, then it is the federal government that is directly paying for the abortions.
The bill places the public option under the control of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, a senior official of the federal government. All of the funds that the public option that it takes in and expends will flow through an account in the U.S. Treasury. [(See Section 222(b)(1) of H.R. 3200.] The funds in that federal Treasury account are, as a matter of law, federal government funds. They are public funds.
It is generally acknowledged, at this point, that under the bill as currently written, the public plan would pay for all abortions. See again the FactCheck.org analysis, "Abortion: Which Side is Fabricating?"
Now connect the dots. Abortionists will perform abortions and send the bills to the federal agency, which will send them payment checks drawn on the federal Treasury account. You cannot get any more direct than that. What you term "a lie" turns out to be the literal, unvarnished truth.
(None of this has anything to do with the Hyde Amendment, which, as previously explained, controls funds that flow through the annual HHS appropriations bill, not the funding pipelines created by H.R. 3200.)
You can keep up your mindless repetition of "lie" and "lying" as often as it pleases you -- apparently you think childish repetition will suffice in lieu of substance. Anybody else out there, however, can check any of this out if they are so disposed. If there is any specific point of substance that anyone wishes to dispute, send it to me directly at Legfederal -- at -- a, o, l, dot, com, because I can see now that I overestimated Ms. Marcotte's attention span.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
I'm not interested in your links to fallacious anti-woman, anti-sex, anti-family, anti-choice websites.
It's been made clear, but you continue misrepresenting. A public option is a publically owned insurance company. It is no more "federal money" to buy an abortion with it than it is using "federal money" to buy a train ticket from Amtrack.
I remain intrigued by how so-called "pro-lifers" are actively supporting a health care system that maintains one of, probably the, highest infant mortality rate in the developed world. If you're so much about babies, why do you not give a hoot about the ones that are born?
When I go to the Amtrack depot to buy a ticket, it is my money until I hand it over to Amtrack. After that, it is not my money anymore -- it is money held by a federally owned corporation, which is what Amtrack is. If Amtrack spends the money on coal, let's say, then an branch of the federal government has purchased coal, using funds that I have provided.
H.R. 3200 is quite explicit. It creates a program in the federal Executive Branch. Section 221 of H.R. 3200 places the public option under the direct
authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, a political
appointee, the head of an agency of the Executive Branch. Section 222(b)(1) creates in the U.S. Treasury a federal funds account "for the receipts and disbursements attributable to the operation of the public health insurance option, including the start up funding." These are federal government funds, as reference to standard GAO and CBO documents will readily confirm.
There is absolutely no language in H.R. 3200 creating a "publically (sic) owned insurance company." You just made that up. You should be more careful about making things up like that, because people can actually go read the documents for themselves if they are so disposed. They can go to http://thomas.loc.gov, enter "HR 3200," go to Title II, Subtitle B, and read all about the proposed new federal program (the public option), and its Treasury account, and so forth. Don't go looking for a publicly owned insurance company, though, because it is not there.
Douglas Johnson
Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
Washington, D.C.
because I can see now that I overestimated Ms. Marcotte's attention span.
No, your error was two-fold, you believed that we would believe you were speaking the truth and not spinning like a top and that Amanda and the rest of the women here are stupid and lacking discernment.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
As a contraception-supporting, pro-life, sexually-active woman of child-bearing age (yes, we do exist and there are a lot of us!!!), this column is incredibly offensive on so many fronts, I hardly know where to begin. You criticize others for a lack of empathy and accuse them of hypocrisy, but your entire column lacks empathy and reeks of hypocrisy.
I guess I’ll start with the
“female soldier who realizes, when she gets pregnant, that she’s better off ending a bad relationship and getting an abortion will be a better soldier than one who’s always caught up with relationship woes because she thought she had no other choice but to marry when pregnant.”
I sure hope it wasn’t your intent, but the implication is that any female soldier who gets pregnant needs to be a good soldier, abort her child and stop whining about her relationship woes. Way to be supportive of women, Ms. Marcotte. Perhaps it’s a wonderful relationship. Or it’s not, but the woman is ready to parent her child on her own. There are other options, and other ways to be a “better soldier,” than just abort. From this one sentence, it seems clear that you agree with Obama’s statement during the campaign that pregnancy is punishment.
Next we’ll look at this sentence.
“If you think of women as human beings with lives and jobs, instead of as the fleshy stuff surrounding the sex organs, it’s easy enough to see why we need to support choices that are already made.”
Talk about hypocrisy. Your entire column seeks only to guarantee that women’s sex organs are able to be used for pleasure, but never for purpose. There is a lot more to women than crazy sexual escapades. Considering that you write books on feminism, I would hope that you would start embracing women for their entire being rather than just one component of their sex organs. Remember that sex organs give us more than sex-drive and desire, they exist to allow our bodies to grow babies. These babies then allow us to further develop as unique individuals, teaching us how to really empathize with others, among many other things.
Children, even when they come at an unexpected time, better us as individuals. You mention a Medicaid women who needs to abort to go to vocational school. There is no reason she should have to choose between the two. Many women go on to do great and wonderful things after they have children. They get vocational degrees, and even become doctors and lawyers. I know many of these women.
Life doesn’t end for women when they have children. It changes, without a doubt; but it doesn’t end. And children are a part of women, so if you really care about embracing the totality of women, it’s time to embrace children.
"Remember that sex organs give us more than sex-drive and desire, they exist to allow our bodies to grow babies."
And here is where we have a problem. I don't know that any pro-choicers would deny that our sex organs allow us to produce babies, we just want to be in control of if and when that happens. Universal healthcare will help that happen, by making it easier for women to obtain birth control. You do not get to decide if I'm going to become a mother. A fluke accident with BC does not get to decide if I'm going to become a mother. I'M the one who gets to decide when that happens. Until I decide I'm willing to allow that to occur, then I'm going to damn well keep having sex purely for pleasure because, well, I'm an adult who's capable of making her own decisions.
Oh, and this:
"And children are a part of women, so if you really care about embracing the totality of women, it’s time to embrace children."
is pretty offensive. I am not defined by my uterus (and I hate to think how an infertile woman would feel about this). Not having children does not make me less of a woman. A child is not a part of me--it is something that I can produce should I choose to do so (and I probably will in the future, but not yet). I don't have a problem with women choosing to have children--I have a month-old neice and will give her and her parents whatever support they need. What I have a problem with is people like you telling me that because I happen to have a working uterus and ovaries, it doesn't matter what I want, nevermind what the personal consequences are, because gosh darn it, I can make BABIES!
If your concern was helping women get out of poverty, why don't you help them do that? If a woman can't pay her rent one month, having an abortion isn't going to help her make next month's rent. Abortion leaves a woman no better off than before she had one (especially if her reason was to get out of poverty).
Pro-lifers care about all human life. Work has been done for years to provide compassion and real solutions that actually help women and their families. It's evident pro-choicers only care about one type of human: the pregnant women who will have an abortion. It's not men (not a chance), and certainly not children. Because if you cared half as much about ending the suffering these women and their families face instead of eliminating the sufferers (babies born into poverty, for example), I think we'd have a lot less poverty.
It must be satisfaction enough for you to know that you didn't actually solve any woman's problem, but that you did give her a band-aid. And maybe that's enough.
If a woman can't pay her rent one month, having an abortion isn't going to help her make next month's rent.
If not being pregnant means she can keep her job then her paycheck will certainly pay the rent. Sometimes I think the posters here have very little idea what it is like to be poor. Just as a suggestion you might want to try reading "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich.
There are many women in positions where taking ONE DAY off work because they or their children are sick means their paycheck will be short and they will have to choose between food and electricity. Maybe the abortion doesn't solve all their problems, but it solves their immediate problem, which is that they absolutely cannot afford to be disabled by a pregnancy.
Certainly our society should work on poverty, but as many of us have noted, the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who are so vehemently opposed to abortion also oppose any sort of government help to the poor, whether it's direct support, housing assistance, Food Stamps, subsidized daycare, subsidized education, because that's all "big government" and might involve taxes.
I never said any woman who doesn't have an abortion has to raise the child.
<blockquote>If a woman can't pay her rent one month, having an abortion isn't going to help her make next month's rent. Abortion leaves a woman no better off than before she had one (especially if her reason was to get out of poverty).</blockquote>
You can't be serious. Getting an abortion might not help your hypothetical woman make her rent the next month--indeed, the expense of the abortion might actually hurt that goal--but in the long run she will save money.
First, because she will not have to take time off of work for any pregnancy-related ailments, much less time off for the birth itself.
Second, because children always increase a household's expenses. They are damned expensive, especially for single mothers who must work to provide for her kid(s), which entails the use of expensive childcare.
I do think that we should have a much stronger, much wider social safety net (including universal health care) so that a woman who wants a child does not have to abort a wanted pregnancy because she can't afford a child. However, not every woman wants every pregnancy to result in a baby, regardless of circumstances, and women should always have the option to decide if and when they become parents.
(Apologies for the html fail. Don't know why my tags don't work.)
61% of women who have abortions already have children.
Are you accusing these mothers of not knowing what it's like to have and raise a child?
And 64% of women who have had an abortion say coercion was involved.
I trust women, too.
And 64% of women who have had an abortion say coercion was involved.
I trust unbiased and well-researched sources. Do you have one of those?
Medical Science Monitor, 2004
"Medical Science Monitor is an international, peer-reviewed scientific journal that publish original articles in experimental and clinical
medicine and related disciplines such as molecular biology, biochemistry genetics, biophysics, bio- and medical technology. "
http://old.library.georgetown.edu/newjour/m/msg03056.html
Kw114,
Is there a reason you can't link me to the actual study -- or even an abstract of it -- that you're citing? Linking me to a description of the journal itself -- with no article title, author, or issue number -- makes it difficult to find the information in its original context.
As I understand this particular issue, the ProLife studies tend to count as 'coercion' any reason that reveals the woman is aware that someone does not support the pregnancy or doesn't think it's a good idea for the mother to have a child. Statements like 'the father doesn't want it' or 'my parents don't want me to ruin my life' or 'I'll lose my job' are all considered 'coercion'.
Strikes again.
Catseye ( (|) )
"Don't just make stuff up. And links to openly deceitful anti-choice propaganda sites do not count as legitimate sources." A. Marcotte
If openly deceitful, propaganda sites aren't legitimate, does that mean there will be a job opening at RH Reality Check soon? I can say for certain that this, at the very least, is nothing close to honest, unbiased or well-researched but is very propagandistic.
Will Amanda preserve her integrity and quit her RH Reality Check job? Stay tuned.
I am not accusing these mothers of not knowing what it is like to have and raise a child. I am accusing our society (including you, and many on both sides of the abortion debate) of refusing these women the support and compassion that they need to bring a child to term, whether that child is expected or unexpected.
The implied judgments that are everywhere in your writing show your hostility to the idea of women bearing children outside of the ideal circumstances. You insist on sex (which, if you note, I haven't passed judgment on, so please don't accuse me of believing that women can't/shouldn't have sex), but refuse the consequences. This puts women who experience those consequences in a bind. You accept the sex, but assume they won't reach their potential with a child. This is where your hypocrisy lies.
Society must support these women. Ensuring adequate healthcare is part of that, but that doesn't mean it has to be the current plan, and it definately doesn't mean an abortion-coverage-for-all plan.
You accused mothers. You said that a woman who has an abortion doesn't realize how having a baby will change her life.
In truth, 61% of women who have abortions know how having a baby will change their lives, as they've already had that experience.
Your attempts to tell women they don't know what an abortion means imply that they are stupid. Full stop. That they don't know what they're doing. That they're morons. That you know better than they what is good for them.
How arrogant. And dehumanizing and cruel.
I choose to trust women. Even anti-choice women get abortions, because it turns out when an unintended pregnancy happens to you, and you simply can't have that baby, suddenly the need for abortion becomes clear. Though sadly many anti-choice women still, like you, assume everyone else who has abortions is just stupid and they're the exception.
"You said that a woman who has an abortion doesn't realize how having a baby will change her life."
No, I didn't.
And I stand by my assertion that what these women need is compassion and support (and I'm talking real substantial help), not some zealot (you) who tells them their problems will go away if they just get an abortion.
But I can see from your not-so-varied responses to comments that you are much happier throwing accusations and bringing people down than providing any insight or help to people.
These babies then allow us to further develop as unique individuals, teaching us how to really empathize with others, among many other things.
Empathy is something which is developed in children when they are small. The idea that women who never learned to be empathic will suddenly develop the quality because children will 'improve' their characters or that women who don't have children aren't emotionally fully developed is really insulting. Childless women also 'further develop as unique individuals' by interacting with other adults.
Children, even when they come at an unexpected time, better us as individuals. You mention a Medicaid women who needs to abort to go to vocational school. There is no reason she should have to choose between the two. Many women go on to do great and wonderful things after they have children. They get vocational degrees, and even become doctors and lawyers. I know many of these women.
Having children for the entirely selfish reason of 'becoming a better person' or insisting someone ELSE have children because of a judgmental belief that they need to be self-sacrificing in order to 'be real women' certainly seems to me to be using children as a way to force therapy on women who society considers aren't sufficiently other-centered. I would also note that considering the amount of abuse and neglect evident, it doesn't WORK very well.
Women who are in a financial position to "become doctors and lawyers" can't reasonably be compared to women who are losing a chance to go to vocational school. Certainly a woman who has to decide if she can fit a baby in with the two children she already has when all of them are living in her car has a problem that is another order of magnitude worse.
Life doesn’t end for women when they have children. It changes, without a doubt; but it doesn’t end.
Nobody said it did. What they did say was that women who are fully aware of exactly what those changes are should be able to control whether those changes should happen in their lives. It's really easy for outsiders to make sweeping judgments about what women are able to do. "It'll be tough but you'll find you can do it" is really easy to say when the speaker isn't the one who has to deal with how tough it actually is and the speaker is blind to the realities of the fact that HAVING CHILDREN MAKES YOU POOR.
And children are a part of women, so if you really care about embracing the totality of women, it’s time to embrace children.
It's also time to admit that the totality of women includes women who can't be mothers, women who don't WANT to be mothers and women who are satisfied with raising one or two children well rather than four children marginally. Personally I really love children and I really love my children but I've got to say, the idea that if I didn't have children then I wouldn't be a 'real woman' really sticks in my craw.
"In addition, you’d think that people who loves fetuses so much could love them enough after they’re born to be ashamed that the U.S. has a shamefully high infant mortality rate, one that’s linked with low incomes (and lack of regular health care access), to no one’s great surprise."
If you knew anything about infant mortality, you would know this. The US has what appears to be a high rate of infant mortality, because when babies are born premature, or are born with health problems, we do what we can to treat them and save them--and we don't always succeed which counts against our infant mortality rate. Countries like England, for example, don't treat or save these babies. They are left to die since scarce medical resources (both technological and financial) don't exist. These babies are categorized as stillborn, for example, and the infant mortality rate is not affected. But maybe Ms. Marcotte would prefer those babies just be aborted ahead of time, possibly under the guise of some "cost-cutting" measure, or simply because they aren't worth the care.
I can't speak for Amanda, but I think the point of that part was that with so many people unable to access health care, many women are left unable to access pre-natal care, leading to worse outcomes.
The US has what appears to be a high rate of infant mortality, because when babies are born premature, or are born with health problems, we do what we can to treat them and save them--and we don't always succeed which counts against our infant mortality rate. Countries like England, for example, don't treat or save these babies. They are left to die since scarce medical resources (both technological and financial) don't exist.
This is a bald-faced lie. England has NICUs, Canada has NICUs, most of the western world has NICUs and they treat prematurity same as we do. Not only does the U.S. have a higher infant mortality rate than all other western nations, it has a higher maternal mortality rate and lower life expectancy than all of them. Hell, even Cuba has better life expectancy and maternal/infant mortality rates than the U.S. These are all achieved through universal health care. Universal healthcare is pro-life and if you and your ilk were truly "pro-life" you would be advocating for it instead of trying your utmost to squash it.
Woolhandler, S., Himmelstein, D. U., Angell, M., & Young, Q. D. (2003). Proposal of the physicians’ working group for single-payer national health insurance. (Reprinted) JAMA, 290(6), 798-805. Retrieved June 14, 2009, from Physicians for a National Health Program: http://www.pnhp.org/physiciansproposal/proposal/Physicians%20ProposalJAMA.pdf
World Health Organization. (2007). World Health Organization Statistical Information System [WHOSIS] detailed database search. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from: http://apps.who.int/whosis/data/Search.jsp?indicators=[Indicator].[MBD].Members
...whatever Kathleen Sebelius (and therefore, Barack Obama)wants it to be. I haven't read the 1,000 page house bill but someone who has read every word has counted the phrase "by the Secretary" over 170 times. The phrase is preceded by: determined, approved, reviewed, authorized, etc., etc. No matter what language is eventually passed, it will be an open-ended document that will expand to 50,000 pages of regulations meaning whatever the HHS secretary desires. Given the secretary's support by the late Dr. George Tiller, who can possibly believe that abortion will not be funded, directly or indirectly? Unless abortion is specifically excluded, without exception, it is a given. I will be paying for your abortions.
Jim Grant, Pro-lifer
Unless abortion is specifically excluded, without exception, it is a given. I will be paying for your abortions.
Hopefully your "without exception" doesn't mean in cases where the woman is going to die? Where the fetus is already dead? Where the fetus is nonviable? But I'm afraid it probably does. After all, why should a penny of YOUR money go to women's health care.
Obviously nobody will be paying for YOUR abortions, because you'll never need one. I think if abortions are going to be excluded, to be absolutely nonjudgmental and fair, insurance policies should also exclude prostate problems. After all, why should women's taxes go to men's health care?
It is my understanding that an abortion that is necessary to save the life of the mother is extremely rare. One OB/GYN has stated that a tubular pregnancy is the only circumstance that serious. That would be the only exception I would consider valid. If the fetus is already dead by natural causes I wouldn't call it an abortion. There would be no life to end. Nonviable fetus? If still living it is worth nurturing. I gladly give my share to women's health care but not to abortion, which is NOT health care.
Your comparison of cancer to a fetus, i.e., disease to life, is repulsive.
Jim Grant, Pro-lifer
... your insistence that abortion is not health care.
I've lost 2 friends to attempted "do it yourself" abortions -- because they could not access a surgical or medication abortion in a safe facility.
If they'd had access to this health care option, they might be alive.
I understand if it's not a health care procedure you support or like, but to deny it as health care dismisses the lives of people who've needed it.
The death of your friends and their babies is indeed tragic. They would be alive if they had not decided abortion was their only option.
Jim Grant, Pro-lifer
They would be alive if the United States had had a health care system that supported their health care needs.
I don't know anything that would have changed their minds on the issue. Moreover, you don't know, Jim, what kinds of circumstances were in their lives and surrounding their decisions.
It's hateful and ill-informed to believe you can pass judgment on them in this way.
If you believe a fetus is a person with a mind, a heart and a life, as I do, you would not kill it for any reason. Obviously you do not so there is no more to discuss.
Jim Grant, Pro-lifer
Well, see, I believe the woman in which the doomed fetus exists is a person with a mind, a heart and a life, and so if BOTH of them are going to die, I have no problem with deliberately killing the fetus to save her life. Obviously those women dying doesn't bother you, so there is no more to discuss.
If you believe a fetus is a person with a mind, a heart and a life, as
I do, you would not kill it for any reason. Obviously you do not so
there is no more to discuss.
Jim, I'm sorry you're so quick to jump to conclusions, but this is definitely not universally the case. In a lot of cases, people don't choose abortion because they don't care about the unborn but rather because they do care about: 1) the quality of life they're able to give to that potential child, or 2) their own quality of life in addition to the lives of the unborn.
There are, like my mom, women who have mental health conditions they're afraid of passing on to their children. Or women who are on medication for those health conditions who fear how going off of it might impact their ability to parent their already born children.
There are women in or struggling to leave abusive, possessive relationships who fear their partner's reaction upon discovering that said partner may now have to "compete" for the woman's affection or attention. Being in -- or even trying to leave -- an abusive relationship can be a hellish process, and it's not at all unreasonable for a woman to feel that her unborn child would actually be better off if the pregnancy was terminated than for the child to be brought into that situation.
There are women with chronic pain conditions that can either: 1) become worse after pregnancy, sometimes to the extent of posing serious health risks, or 2) significantly impact the energy reserves one has for things like holding down a job or parenting children.
Certainly not all women in situations like these will choose abortion, and I'm not at all trying to suggest what any individual woman should or shouldn't do. Rather, I think the issue is oftentimes far more complicated than a person choosing to terminate a pregnancy because they don't care about the fetus.
"...it's not at all unreasonable for a woman to feel that her unborn child would actually be better off if the pregnancy was terminated than for the child to be brought into that situation."
That is why I think we need anti-abortion laws that target the men who impregnate the women who obtain abortions. Roe v. Wade does not seem to prohibit such laws.
Ectopic (tubal) pregnancies happen in approximately 3% of pregnancies. Eclampsia can also be fatal, as well as other complications, and complications of pregnancy ARE a 'disease'. If the fetus is dead and is removed through any method other than inducing labor (very dangerous due to risk of hemorrage) both medicine and statistics do consider that 'induced abortion' rather than stillbirth.
I find your belief that a woman who knows she's carrying a fetus that won't live past birth because of serious deformities should be forced to continue her pregnancy another four or five months because the fetus is "worth nurturing" equally repulsive. I don't see much moral virtue in having the deformed fetus get as large as possible before its removed. Certainly a woman excited about becoming a mother who gets the terrible news that her fetus is 'pre-dead' will have similar feelings to a cancer patient -- get this OUT of me -- NOW.
To Kill an innocent Human is Murder. A Baby is an innocent Human. :. It is Murder to Kill a Baby.
Amanda, You will never defeat Logos. It is not possible. Logic rules.
My question for you is this:
Why do you trust the Government to provide you or those you love with the necessities of your life?
I thought you were the type that didn't want the Government's dirty hands on your body? Is it somehow different if Pappa Gov. pays for you to "take care of the problem?"
Sincerely,
Truth
Your argument might be more convincing if you could grasp that the description "innocent" is foolish and well as illogical. The woman has committed no crime by being pregnant and is therefore ALSO "innocent" or if you are speaking 'morally' the fetus as part of humanity is subject to the religious concept of original sin and therefore is NOT innocent.
I'll trust the government any day over greed-motivated industry executives. At least with the government I actually have chance to push back and have my voice heard when it comes to injustice. Such is not the case when it is private industry providing a necessary service such as healthcare.
Rock on, and don't waste that amazing mind on people who not only don't understand how important Reproductive Choice is to being counted as a full and equal human being, but simply don't care. Trying to explain the logic of the real world to them is just as futile as their trying to explain why they think a mass of cells, or a part of my own body should have the same rights, if not more rights than I do. Saying that a woman should have a baby just because she is pregnant is like saying she should get pregnant just because she has ovaries. If my kidney was able to become sentient, leave my body and live on its own independently, it could have my rights the day it did that, but before then, it's a part of me, and it's hypothetical ability to do that does and should not dictate my life. Who knows when life begins? I don't, you don't, and they certainly don't either. No one can say to someone else what is ultimately best for their life, especially not anyone who would like to force all women into pregnancy, and then do nothing for her or her child once the baby is born. I would be trying my best to get every woman the health care they need before or after child birth if I were pro-life (oh wait, I am, the real kind, and that's what I am trying to do.)
I've stopped giving reasons why abortion is necessary. It is. Under what circumstances should a woman have an abortion? Any. Because we are here, because we already EXIST and should have the right to chose the direction our life takes. Roe v. Wade is "set law" as our newest Supreme Court Justice has so decisively stated. It's time the Pro-Choice movement started acting like it! The other side doesn't do nearly the explaining we do, because they have "god" and "morals." Well we have "the law."
---
If the anti-choice movement was really pro-life, they would be pro-choice.
