RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Roundup: Abortion Clinic Safety Zones in Chicago; Misreading the Pew Poll on Attitudes Toward Abortion

By Jodi Jacobson, Editor, RH Reality Check

October 12, 2009 - 1:55pm

Published under: | | | | | | | | | |
Jodi Jacobson's blog | Printer-friendly version |
Jodi Jacobson's picture

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said he'll sign a City Council-approved ordinance which forces protesters to keep a healthy distance from women entering abortion clinics, reports NBC Chicago.

"There has to be some civility left in our society. Everybody has the right to demonstrate and picket. But to use words and other things to frighten people going in to seek assistance, that is another question," he said Friday.

The Chicago City Council voted two days earlier on the ordinance, which could get violators slapped with a fine up to $500 for coming within eight feet of someone walking into a clinic.

Women say they're routinely approached and handed flyers in anti-abortion activists' last-ditch effort to counsel or change the woman's mind.

Daley said he expects a legal challenge, but isn't worried about it.  Chicago's ordinance is patterned after an even stricter law in Colorado that has already been challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court.

No Shift on Abortion, Says Sarah Posner

Writing in the American Prospect, Sarah Posner argues that some commentators, like Dan Gilgoff of US News and World Report have misread recent polls on abortion.

In his column, argues Posner, Dan Gilgoff buys into the idea that President Obama and the Democratic Party should be mindful of voters who worry that Obama will "overreach on abortion rights," based on the new Pew poll out on abortion attitudes.

"But that poll doesn't show any seismic shift in abortion attitudes," asserts Posner, nor does it contain any warnings to Obama and the Democrats that they should be any less pro-reproductive rights.

According to Pew:

Among people who know that Obama is pro-choice, a plurality (29% of the public overall) think that he will handle the issue about right. About one in- five (19%) worry that Obama will go too far in supporting abortion rights, while very few (4%) worry that he will not go far enough in supporting abortion rights.

Who are the people who are worried about this unspecified overreaching? Fifty-two percent of conservative Republicans, and only 19% of moderate Republicans, and only 18% of independents. So the Democrats should shift their agenda to satisfy the fantasies of conservative Republicans that Obama is some "radical" on abortion rights?

A commentary in The Politic suggests that U.S. health reform make room for fedearal funding of abortion care.  Jonathan McCleod writes that:

[I]t would be wrong for the government to start dictating the terms of valid insurance coverage, such that a common and basic procedure like abortion would be excluded.  If the government is going to take taxpayer’s money to create a subsidy, the government has no right to create disincentives to purchase that which an individual considers the optimal insurance coverage.

If the U.S. goes further than that and fully funds health care with public money (as Canada does) and if abortion is legal (as it is in Canada), then it is the responsibility of the government to fund abortions.  To do less would be to fail the citizenry. Again, abortion is legal.  The government has no business attempting to use a separate programme (health insurance) to do indirectly what they could not do directly: abolish abortion.  Such legislative chicanery has no place in a thriving democracy.  If pro-life factions wish to outlaw abortion, they must win the debate; they must not be allowed to game the insurance industry.

October 12th, 2009

NewsOK: ‘Jane Roe’ talks on abortion issue in Tuls

California Catholic Daily: Clinical trials on girls as young as 13

Cape Cod Times: Working to end abortion is best way to respect life

Herald Net: Anti-abortion activists join in 40-day campaign

Catholic Exchange: Pro-Life Leaders Shocked at Vatican Spokesman “Appreciating” Obama Peace Prize

Virginian Pilot: McDonnell and Deeds give a personal take on social issues

October 11th, 2009

HuffPo: Abortion: A Healthy Choice

Kansas City Star: Another sign of difficult economic times: People are putting off having babies

Morganton News Herald: Locke: Speak the truth about abortion

Moderate Voice: Adoption: An Overlooked Crisis (Guest Voice)

Sunday Herald: Abortion, Choice and the Unborn

Mansfield News Journal: Pro-life groups deserve newspaper's coverage

Newark Advocate: Gathering prays for an end to abortion

DNA: HC takes serious view of child adoption, will issue guidelines

Des Moines Register: Controlling women the wrong emphasis

Sydney Morning Herald: Catholic, a chemist but he won't sell the pill

October 10th, 2009

The Politic: Abortion Must Be Publicly Funded

Norwich Bulletin: Groups face off over abortion in Norwich

Nebraska.TV: Abortion foes to protest at NU regents meeting

The Bulletin: White House Sidesteps Abortion Funding

NBC Chicago: Daley to Sign Abortion "Bubble" Ordinance

Oregon Live: Sex ed for teens: Today's abstinence programs are worth their funding

Chicago Sun Times: Daley backs buffer for abortion clinic protesters

Auburn Pub: Kathryn Lopez: Abortion lies should come as no surprise

The Gleaner: Who distorts the abortion debate?

October 9th, 2009

Catholic Culture: Abortions increase in France despite contraceptive successes

Politico: NARAL's picks to click

Opposing Views: Vatican Fails to Condemn Pro-Choice Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

Kansas City Star: (Letter) Anti-abortion display offends

Campus Progress: Finding a Common Ground: Abortions and Health Care Reform

Examiner: Oklahoma to pass abortion bill that would make medical records public

LifeNews: Pro-Life Groups Condemn Awarding Pro-Abortion Obama Nobel Peace Prize
NYTimes: Abortion Foes Tell of Their Journey to the Streets

Catholic Exchange: Human Personhood and Women

American Prospect: No Abortion Shift, No Need To Cater to Anti-Abortion Activists.

NYTimes: Behind the Scenes: Picturing Fetal Remains

Feminists for Choice: More Pro-Choice Trivia

LifeNews: Pro-Life Advocates to Meet Spain Prime Minister at White House, Urge No Abortion

Change.org: GOP Lawmakers Want to Put Your Abortion Records Online

U.S. News & World Report: The Promise and Peril for Obama in Rising Antiabortion Sentiment

Jezebel: Worst Holiday Ever: National Pro-Life Cupcake Day

LifeNews: Pro-Life Group's Video Shows Hyde Amdt Doesn't Stop Abortion in Health Care

BBC News: Abortion drug claim 'improbable'

U.S. News & World Report: The Country's Emerging Shift on Abortion


Jodi Jacobson's blog | Printer-friendly version |
. . . . .
3 comments
Please login or register to post comments...
Viewpoints

Thanks for the mention. I generally avoid writing about abortion as I doubt there's much to the topic that I can add (and I'm pretty conflicted on the topic, if I had to, I'd probably self identify as pro life, but I'm sure "real" pro lifers would consider me pro choice).

 

What bothers me the most about the general abortion debate is the unwillingness of so many to address the topic and many tangential issues directly and in good faith. From a quick glance at your round-up, it appears that you're not like that. I appreciate that there are a variety of views represented. I really doubt we'll move forward in this debate if either (or both) sides don't listen to what others are saying.

 

Cheers,
Jon

Submitted by Jonathan.McLeod on October 13, 2009 - 10:26pm.
Thanks for your note.....

Jonathan, Thanks for your note and so glad you came to the site.

 

This is a very complex issue, because in fact if you believe, as I do, that women have an essential right to control their bodies, and that sex and sexuality are not sinful, but rather a normal part of human life, you can't avoid the fact that at the end of the day there will be sex, and there will be unintended pregnancy.

 

I think we can all listen to and debate each other from now until the sun runs out of gas, but the evidence tells us what we need to do from a public policy point of view....educate all people about sex and sexuality, without stigma or blame; give all people the information, skills, power, and tools (and here I mean real access to the services and methods available) people need to lead safe, healthy, consensual sexual lives and thereby reduce the adverse outcomes of unsafe sex, such as unintended pregnancy (which leads to abortion) and sexually transmitted infections; ensure that early aborion (as well as early detection and treatment of sexually transmitted infections) is easily and widely available without stigma. End the epidemic of sexual violence and assault.

 

Through these means we can reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and by extension abortions, as well as sexually transmitted infections, while ensuring all people can exercise their basic rights .....responsibly. This position rests on fundamentals of human rights and responsibility and evidence.

 

I can easily hear, respect and fully support the position of those who are personally "pro-life" though I am not clear what that means as I consider myself "pro-life" for all born people. While I can hear and support the position of those who do not wish to use contraception nor choose abortion in their own lives if facing a set of circumstances where someone else might, I can not support nor do i see a compromise with their position of imposing a set of religious morals I don't share onto and through public policy.

 

I think this is where the debate gets clouded--we are talking not about individual and religious freedom paired with good public health policy and practice and individual rights and responsibilities, but rather governing through theology....and the costs of such a position are not shared equally, but are borne only by women at the total cost of their freedom. In effect, we are not comparing oranges with oranges....we are not even in a debate about apples and oranges....we are in a debate that is more about comparing oranges with grand pianos....the pro-choice and political (e.g. institutionally organized far right) "pro-life" positions come from fundamentally different values around women's agency, sex, and reproduction.

 

But I'd love to hear your thoughts.

 

With best wishes and thanks for your comment. Jodi Jacobson

Submitted by Jodi Jacobson, Editor, RH Reality Check on October 14, 2009 - 6:16am.
Much agreement

Hi Jodi,

 

I have a few quibbles with your comment.  I know that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" can be nebulous as people will have their own definitions; however, I think we can draw some lines and acknowledge that when people say "pro-life" we know, basically, what they mean.  Further investigation will be required to determine to what degree they oppose abortion, but the fundamental concept is generally accepted.

 

I tend to use the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as that is what the sides of the debate have adopted, and I find terms like "pro-abortion", "anti-abortion", "anti-choice" and "anti-life" tend to be used to try to score points rather than further the debate (and I know that you didn't use these terms, I'm just off on a bit of a tangent).  That being said, I also understand that people who are at the forefront of the fight day-in day-out have reason to be less inclined to employ the niceties I do (and I think that goes for people on both sides of the debate).

 

I also object to the notion that someone's faith should not affect their politics.  I don't mean to advocate any sort of theocracy, but the questions surrounding abortion have to do with the nature of life and humanity, personal soverignty, freedom of choice, and the balance (if one thinks it's necessary) of these.  Someone's faith and philosophical underpinnings are going to have everything to do with how someone answers such questions.  I don't support people proposing particular policies because "God says so" (or, worse, a religious leader says so), but liberalism is based on the idea of some sort of "specialness" (for lack of a better term) of humanity, and for many, this may stem from faith.

 

Finally, you write, "the pro-choice and political (e.g. institutionally organized
far right) "pro-life" positions come from fundamentally different
values around women's agency, sex, and reproduction."  I think this is an uncharitable analysis of the pro-life position.  The pro-life position doesn't, necessarily, fundamentally differ regarding women's agency, etc. (though, sadly, some of it does).  There is a question of the nature and value of the entity growing inside of the woman (I'm trying to use words that carry few connotations).

 

At this point, I should probably state where I'm coming from.  I don't see an issue with early stage abortion.  I don't believe that the entity, at that point, is a person - has that "specialness".  However, by the time we reach the end of a "normal" pregnancy (let's say the 39th or 40th week), that entity does have that specialness and is, thus, a "person" and deserving of "protection" (I'd rather not use politically charged words, but what can you do).  The question comes, when does the entity deserve this protection?  I don't pretend to know, and I'm open to persuasion.  I haven't given it a whole lot of thought, because, in Canada, there is not really a healthy (or even unhealthy) debate about abortion.  (Anyone interested, can read a slightly more detailed explanation at my personal blog, http://cannedgoodsandammunition.blogspot.com/, starting with ths post: http://cannedgoodsandammunition.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-i-consider-myse... - alright, enough with the shameless self promotion.)

 

Okay, I spent a lot of time on my objections, but I consider them minor.  Other than those, I am totally on board with your post.   It is ridiculous to think we will ever reach a point where there will be no unwanted pregnancies, and we have to be willing to deal with that fact.  Further, the best ways to fight unwanted pregnancies are, as you say, education and the removal of shame from sex (I would throw in economic development and a better educational system aside from just improved sex ed).  These are things that should certainly be promoted.

 

Considering the not too distant past and the generations of social, sexual and economic subjugation of women (not to mention basic biology), it is obvious that questions of sexuality and reproductive health have a disproportionate impact on women.  Any policies must not be blind to this.

 

There's not really much more that I can add.  I appreciate your response to my comment, and, again, thanks for the initial link.

 

Cheers,

Jon

Submitted by Jonathan.McLeod on October 15, 2009 - 11:39pm.