Katha Pollitt over at the Nation urges readers to recognize this important day, and many of them aren't having it:
On a more positive note....how about, National Days for:
State Exectioners (tough work & like Abortion providers, people die!)
Emergency Room Staff
Butchers
SPCA Executioners
Dr. Death (starts w/K)
Posted by Happy at 03/09/2009 @ 2:09pm
Talk about a convoluted phrase; "Appreciation for Baby Killers".
What's next, "National let's euthanize a Senior Day"?
Posted by antisocialist at 03/09/2009 @ 3:24pm
A national day of recognition sounds a little callous and smug given that this issue is considered by many to be an extremely difficult moral issue at best. Still, the anti-choice crowd has largely determined rules of engagement, and they have used criminality at times to push their agenda, including terrorism. Pro choice supporters must maintain the high ground at all times. If this means going without accolades of public recognition and appreciation, so be it. Private support and thanks is totally appropriate.
Posted by OneVote at 03/09/2009 @ 7:19pm
Forgive me for giving too much airspace to naysayers, but I've posted these comments because they just sort of reinforce why this day is so important. Given the expected uptick in clinic violence, a troubling shortage of younger people interested and willing to takeover this important work in the future, and of course, just the simple fact that it's such an under-appreciated field given the politics surrounding it (see above), it is necessary that those of us who are inclined recognize this day do so heartily.
So let's just take a moment out of our lives to, at a minimum, pause and really appreciate the struggle abortion providers face, the controversy they endure, and the dedication demanded of them, especially in the face of violence and frequent social black-listing.
For a little more reading for the issues surrounding the expected increase in clinic violence, check out Eleanor Bader's piece from yesterday outlining the tensions arising around various clinics as the new administration's support swings in a new direction. And on Sunday, the New York Times had a piece up about the lack of younger people willing to work in clinics as directors and providers. Here's just a little excerpt:
At 50, Ms. Burgess is the youngest member of the Hope clinic's leadership team, which includes Ms. Baker; Debbie Wiehardt, 57, the office supervisor; and the two doctors performing abortions (the only men on the 30-person staff), who are both in their 60s...
Abortion advocates like Kelli M. Conlin, president of Naral Pro-Choice New York, say that while it's not a problem finding younger doctors and support staff to work in clinics in large urban areas like New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago, it is an issue in more conservative places like upstate New York; smaller Midwestern cities; Southern states, including Texas; and rural areas.
Lastly, Dr. Suzanne Poppema has a piece up along similar lines. She urges:
Want to help save the endangered abortion provider? Here are three things you can do today. If you know a doctor who provides abortions, thank them for what they do. Call or write to your elected officials and ask them to consult with an abortion provider before voting on any abortion-related legislation. Too often, bills are passed without input from the very people they affect most. Finally, if you've had an abortion, tell someone about it. One in three women will have an abortion by age 45, yet it remains a taboo topic. The more we can talk openly and honestly about women's abortion experiences, the more we can reduce the stigma around this procedure.
Katha also suggests:
You can show your support for the selfless people who make more than words on a page by making a donation to the Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project (WRRAP), an all-volunteer group which helps low-income girls and women around the country pay for their abortion care. As the economy sinks and unemployment rises, more and more women will find themselves both needing to terminate a pregnancy and unable to come up with the cost. Help WRAPP be there for clinics and for women.
And while simply wanting to show appreciation should be enough, it can't hurt that if you send Katha your receipt for $50, she'll mail you a signed copy of her collection of personal essays, Learning to Drive.
All arguments for recognizing this day and the courage of abortion-providers aside, let's also just remember that this shouldn't be reserved only for March 10. Most days of the year, clinics face the same threats and the same nasty politics. So if you don't have time today to write a letter of thanks, make a donation, or whatever other creative ways you can come up with to recognize this day, March 11 isn't too late. Neither is March 22nd. Nor July 25th. Nor the entire month of December! Appreciation is always appreciated.
]]>Now maybe my opinion is a piss in the river, to be crude, but I wanted to focus on a specific strand of news items that are challenging the Sebelius nomination as an affront against the Common Ground and abortion reduction platform that paved the way for an Obama vote by those more conflicted about abortion (notice: not necessarily "pro-life" identified).
So the question seems to be, does a Kathleen Sebelius nomination mean a departure from the abortion reduction approach?
First: the naysayers, and these are pretty predictable. There's the Susan B. Anthony List, whose president Marjorie Dannenfelser called out the nom as:
...further evidence of something gone terribly wrong for those seeking consensus on the abortion issue, especially the President. He speaks of finding 'common ground' on abortion, but then he makes a series of decisions that comprise the biggest overreach since the 1973 Supreme Court wiped every legal protection for unborn children off the books in the Roe v. Wade decision and the Doe v. Bolton companion decision.
So that's her opinion, which is pretty predictable, and then there's...
Well, that's about it.
The general consensus seems to be that Sebelius is the best pick for a common ground approach, regardless of more extreme christian groups are calling her, among other things, an "enemy of the unborn" (thank-you, Bill Donahue, for your fresh perspective).
But in fact, I wanted to highlight something else, and that's Kathleen Sebelius's own position on the matter. The fact that Sebelius is Catholic has meant that many on the religious end have thrown a stink about, what one blogger so eloquently put it, her apparent membership to the, "'Yes, I'm a Catholic but an ardent promoter of abortion on demand' bunch."
For Sebelius herself, it means she's a "Pro-choice pro-lifer." Dan Gilgoff at USNews has a longer excerpt from a 2006 address, but here's just a bit that I thought was beautiful and illustrates where she's really coming from:
On one hand, faith is intensely personal. Faith probes the deepest reaches of our souls and every aspect of our inner selves. It sustains us in our family lives and gives us strength to do the right thing, even when it is hard or unpopular...working for the common good is not a new concept, but a core tenant of the teachings of my faith...
My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong...If we work hard and match our rhetoric with our actions, we can create a culture that is more welcoming of mothers and treasuring of our children. We must redouble our efforts on prevention and personal responsibility. We must stand with women who feel so alone that abortion seems like their only choice. These women need people to walk with them, not cast stones at them...
If we truly wish to reduce the number of abortions further, we need to work together to truly promote a culture of life, by helping women and families to get the support they need when facing unexpected pregnancies and to continue to reduce the number of abortions. Healthcare, child care, job opportunities, affordable housing-- they are all the building blocks of a culture of life and we can use them to build a future where abortion is extremely rare.
The thing is, I'm not Catholic, but I am a very spiritual person, and I feel like faith is an important dimension in the total shape of my world views, when it comes down to it. And as someone who is conflicted about abortion, not in politics (where I'm staunchly pro-choice) but in faith, it's nice to hear someone basically say it's okay to be pro-choice and pro-life. Someone said this to me a long time ago, and I was really resistant, but the proof is in the pudding.
A Sebelius nom is something I can definitely get behind. And as far as Common Ground goes, the Sebelius nom is just another brick in the pavement.
]]>Introduced in the '90s, the female condom was launched as a new way to combat HIV/AIDS and other STIs, especially in developing nations. Presumably more effective since they cover more skin, it has historically failed in terms of distribution and marketing, probably because of the reasons I listed above.
However, in recent years, the female condom has gotten a make-over. No more strange-looking plastic ring-- the new ones' insertion is more akin to a tampon. There's also the addition of a softer, less crinkly material and adhesive dots to keep it in place and also to help it expand with the body. But I still have to wonder: can the female condom ever be sexy or pleasurable?
Health workers, as part of The Pleasure Project in India say yes! Taking criticisms such as mine into mind, last month at a New Delhi youth festival aimed at raising awareness for sexual health (dubbed Project 19), volunteers led onlookers in a game of female-condom-first-impressions, among other activities. Combatting the idea that safe sex can be unsexy, especially in the case of the female condom, they instead promote it as fun and pleasurable, and in some cases, as an "erotic accessory."
"Talking about disease and fear haven't worked very well. People believe they are in a safe relationship and that disease does not apply to them," said Arushi Singh, a resource officer for the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which trains health educators in South Asia. "But pleasure," she said, "applies to everybody."
Data suggests that this approach could work, especially among sex workers who, according to the National Aids Control Organization, have often persuaded clients to consent to protection using the pleasure rationale. Since India's expanding its female condom distribution among 200,000 sex workers, could marketing this way mean women and men will buy into the female-condom-as-sex-toy pitch? Another advocate for this approach illustrates the pitch:
We tell the sex workers to have fun with the female condom. We tell them, "You spend money on makeup, jewelry, jasmine flowers for your hair. This female condom is another ornament for you."
It's all good and well, but I can't help feeling that this approach is almost inappropriate given the gravity of the situation-- 2.4 million Indians were living with AIDS/HIV in 2007, which seems to merit a more serious discussion than ornamentation, especially when it comes to the impact that this has on women's lives, both those currently doing sex work (which adds a whole other dimension of gravity) and those who are not.
But the pleasure platform has one distinct and very positive advantage: women who are denied power not only in terms of birth control decisions but in sex on the whole can only begin to reclaim it by talking about pleasure, and the easiest way to do that is in a casual and engaging way. And as the only female-initiated means of preventing both pregnancy and STIs, the female condom is still the most preferable tool for promoting such an approach to safe sex. The pleasure platform reminds us that sex doesn't always have to be about wresting control back for the sake of safety and for fear of the consequences. Instead, it can be a platform for reclaiming agency.
]]>
The report found that publicly funded family planning prevents more than 800,000 abortions and almost 2 million unintended pregnancies annually in the United States. Needless to say, given the costs associated childbirth, this new data spells out savings for taxpayers as a direct result of such funding.
Report co-author Rachel Benson Gold called the family planning program "smart government at its best," asserting that every dollar spent on it saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births to mothers eligible for Medicaid-funded natal care.
After Medicaid family planning aid was dropped from the stimulus bill, many expressed a conviction that since the provision wasn't directly stimulus-oriented, it would simply be picked up elsewhere, myself included. However, the measure is nowhere in sight in the 2009 Spending Bill (set for approval on Thursday). This conspicuous absence suggests that such hope may have been too optimistic.
But the report gives some real backing to what should be a no-brainer: expanding provisions for family planning is common sense in times like these.
Is it too idealistic to expect that this data will spur Congress to take family planning measures off the bench? Or is the "Planned Parenthood bailout" and "tax-payer-funded abortions" argument taking too huge a toll on the progress of these issues?
As Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser suggested earlier this week:
President Obama may very well be supplying an 'overreach' moment for the right to life movement by attempting to require taxpayers to fully fund abortions in federal programs and the domestic and international abortion industries themselves. This 'abortion industry bailout' during a time of acute economic crisis is a dramatic overreach that far outstrips citizens' public opinion...Obama's overreach gives pro-life human rights advocates in the mold of Susan B. Anthony reason to hope. A turning point for protecting the unborn could well be on the horizon.
I'm going to stick to my guns and hope that hope will prevail. It's too early to be loosing faith in the platform that won Obama his Oval Office. So let the Guttmacher report show congress the necessity of continuing to bring family planning aid up to bat, especially since the ranks of low-income women who absolutely need this funding will continue to expand.
And on that note, I'm holding Obama to his word:
When the science is inconvenient, when the facts don't match up... they are cast aside. Well it's time for us to change that. It's time for a different attitude in the White House.
]]>
"If God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, why would he send any of us to hell?" I remember my teacher blinking at me, and I continued, "And if he's so all-powerful, and he loves us so much, then why can't he just save us by making us believe?"
The next thing I knew, the principle had my mother on the phone. I remember sitting in a big chair waiting to be punished as I stared balefully up a tiny painting of Jesus crowned in thorns.
The answer to my question I found out much, much later, is free will. Subscribing to a faith is a personal decision. It is not a choice that can be thrust upon anyone--not by a teacher, not by a principle, not even by your mother.
Personal decisions and free will? I'm not making any new arguments.
Forgive me for waxing so personal, but as a citizen of North Dakota, I am deeply ashamed to be heralding from a place that, frankly, I'm not so surprised by.
My state has one clinic and 17 crisis pregnancy centers. We rank 50th in the nation for for women's reproductive health by NARAL, which slapped us with a big fat F. Guttmacher's stats confirm; we also rank 50th in the nation for efforts to help women avoid unintended pregnancy.
My state has pulled out every anti-choice legislative trick in the book. Trigger ban? Check! Gag rule? Check! Spousal consent?? Check!! And the list goes on.
So while the Reproductive Health community is finally taking a gander at my less-than-populous state, I have the sincerest wish that my fellow North Dakotans will take a gander at themselves, too.
We can talk until we're blue in the face about how far this bill will go, and the ramifications that it will have on many more facets of reproductive health than those that conceived of it ever intended. But at the end of the day, the fact that this piece of legislation even exists isn't the biggest problem.
It's the environment that it was born of.
Eventually, all of this will have run its course and the Repro Health community will turn it's eyes upon another state with another catastrophic piece of legislation. But the fact will remain; North Dakota really needs to get it together. If we don't throw all of our effort into fostering an environment where the sanctity of free-will and personal decisions can thrive, this drivel is going to keep resurfacing.
To those of us who care about reproductive freedom in states like North Dakota and elsewhere: Let's start driving the agenda!
]]>The two groups are WISH, Women in the Senate and House, and the Republican Majority for Choice. After being marginalized within the party for years and years, the two have combined powers to set their sights set on weakening the Republican party's newest pro-life platform.
All I have to say to the is, Good Luck, because the platform is rigid. Here's a little gem:
Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children... At it's core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion.
WISH and the RMC are interesting anomalies. As the the largest fundraising program for pro-choice Republican women, WISH, according to their website, has fundraised nearly $3,500,000 to endorse candidates such as Olympia Snowe (R-ME). And the RMC, which subscribes to the "big tent" approach to divisive social issues, not only blatantly supports reproductive rights, but also goes so far as to shame their party's conduct when it comes to the matter, calling out their agenda as "intrusive and alienating," "obstinate," and "irresponsible."
Interestingly (or maybe unsuprisingly?), LifeNews spoke not with the RMC or WISH, but with Colleen Parro, head of the Republican National Coalition for Life, who said,
Feeling scorned after eighteen years of trying and failing to remove the pro-life language from the Republican national platform, and with the last three Republican presidential administrations [taking a pro-life stance], pro-choice Republican women are trying to make a come-back.
I wonder, and I'm asking this in earnest, if these groups are so frustrated by the lack of inclusivity of the Republican party, why do they still remain loyal? Salon had a feature up awhile back regarding the RMC's (the RPCC at the time) floor fight in Philly over the issue. Adele Stan quoted one member saying,
I'm a Republican because I believe in less government in all aspects of my life...and to have the pro-life position determine whether or not you're a Republican will make us a very small party in the end.
While they may be a minority as far as the big pro-life players in the GOP go, both groups are bolstered in their position by pointing to evidence that says the majority Republican citizenry is actually on their side, whether they self-identify as pro-choice or not. After telephoning 1,000+ Republicans in a phone survey, the RMC found that 80% of those surveyed found themselves agreeing with the statement "a person must follow her own faith, personal beliefs, and conscience in private matters like abortion."
They're definitely an interesting bunch if they're up for the challenge. But I suppose, given all the talk about finding Common Ground, if ever there was a time to launch an effort to weaken the GOP's unyielding stance on abortion, now's the time.
]]>Coming from one of the most progressive states in the nation as far as sex-education and access to contraception go, at first glance it seems that legislation with a title such as this would lack the sinister contours that it has taken on in other states. But despite Maine's razor-sharp sex-ed edge, this seemingly innocuous piece of legislation has right-wing intentions.
Liza Haberzettl over at the Maine Campus tackles it head on:
The title of the bill sounds innocent enough, but it leaves out its intention: Teens won't be able to access prescription contraceptives unless their parents give the OK.
Proposed by Sen. Doug Smith (R), the bill is his second action taken directly in response to the scandal spurred by an unpopular (or at least popularly uncomfortable) decision made by the Portland School Committee a little more than a year ago. In a 7-2 vote, the committee gave King Middle School the go ahead to make a full range of contraception available at the school's health center--without parental consent and to students as young as 11.
It's interesting to note that Maine's age of consent is 16, and in some cases, 14 if it's between adolescents 5 years or less apart in age. King Middle School's students are on average aged 11-13.
Not only that, but the King decision isn't about mere condom distribution, it's about hormonal birth control. If the patch has been shown to be dangerous for adult women, then what are it's effects be on an 11- to 13-year-old? Not to mention that Depo Provera, shown to reduce (reversibly) bone density in adult women, actually impedes the development of sufficient bone density in young women. And if we reduce the issue to just the pill--well, I can only speak from personal experience here, but I went on the pill at 15 for my period (or at least that's what I told my dad) and I'll tell you right now, it made me so sick and just so emotionally wonky. So questions like, "How will this affect my daughter's body? Her hormonal development? Her emotional state?" are questions that I believe parents of 11- to 13-year-olds have every right to ask. Sen. Smith put it well after the defeat of his first bill:
If a student cannot go to the Portland Museum of Art without a permission slip from a parent they certainly should not be getting prescription drugs wihtout parental permission.
But, as Liza suggests, the consequences of such a broad bill will invariably get in the way of older teen's abilities to confidentially access the contraception that they need. And based Texas's experience with a similar law, what we see in Maine might not be a pretty picture.
Texas recently implemented a similar law. The projected results are staggering: An additional 8,000 teen pregnancies, 5,000 teen births and 1,600 teen abortions annually - all due to the loss of confidentiality for teens seeking reproductive health care. I might be mistaken, but isn't this the sort of thing we're looking to prevent? The estimated financial cost of all this? A pretty $43.6 million.
The problem isn't that Sen. Smith is trying to control women's bodies, or even that he might have an over-active moral compass that makes teen sex super scary to him. It's that his legislation has targeted too broad of a population, bringing older teens above the age of sexual consent under the same umbrella as younger ones. I think that yes, this is definitely a distinction that must be made. By legislating parental consent for the broader category of "minor," Sen. Smith puts too many consenting, knowledgeable and capable young people at risk of loosing access to hormonal birth control.
Given Maine's 36-year leadership position on sex-ed and a "knowledge is power" attitude when it comes to teen sexuality, I think this bill will have the same fate as its predecessor (although we'll see how far moral panic will get 'em). But it's definitely instructive to consider how murky the waters can get when it comes to such innocently framed legislation. And given the entire national situation when it comes to sex education and teen pregnancy, it's important to make sure bills such as this one don't become a model for other less-than-pro-choice states where damage on the Texas-scale can be incurred.
]]>But new state legislation is following in the footsteps that Oklahoma tread awhile back; law-makers in Nebraska, Indiana, and Texas are pushing for legislation requiring not only that an abortion provider perform an ultrasound on each woman seeking an abortion, but that the abortion provider would be forced to present the image to the woman, whether she looks at it or not.
And this is the justification:
"Many times, these are young mothers who are in vulnerable situations. And they are about to make a very grave choice." said Nebraska Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln, who introduced the ultrasound bill (LB675) there. "This is about informed consent."
Informed consent is used as a means to the end of rendering women who are seeking abortions as incompetent, vulnerable, and generally unable to understand what having reproductive power actually means (as if any of these guys would ever know).
And I’ll spare you the snark—I could laugh about how ridiculous it is to expect an ultrasound to render a woman all gushymushy baby-crazy and repentant of ever having considered abortion, but in all seriousness, I think this entire issue is worth more than righteous outrage and a snarky comment.
Because I do take informed consent seriously. Who doesn’t?
Generally speaking, I would appreciate knowing I had the option to view the image of the fetus. Many women do choose to do so, and here’s a shocker, many women go through with it anyway. But it gets super problematic when 1.) The required ultrasound must be paid for by the woman seeking an abortion 2.) The patient must be referred to a “clinic” with ultrasound technology, which is usually a CPC, and 3.) The language surrounding the consent is dripping with scientifically incorrect rhetoric that wags a finger more than it outlines the details of the procedure.
Beyond that, I don’t need to tell you that forcing a woman to view the ultrasound is borderline perverse. In what world can one give informed consent to a medically sound procedure while being robbed of the dignity not to consent to a medically unnecessary requirement?
So what do we do if these pass? Have a riot? Start a revolution? Sue? I suppose in the meantime, the best thing to do is remain vigilant. If you live in any of these states, you know the drill; let your representatives know just who they’re representing.
]]>Editor's Note: Please welcome RH Reality Check's new blogger, Micah Steffes! Micah is joined by three other young bloggers - Joe Veix, Kathleen Reeves, and Elisabeth Garber-Paul - each of whom will offer their perspectives in our Real Time Blog every week.
Awhile ago, it came out that Mississippi had the dubious honor of being crowned state with the highest teen birth rate (mind you—not teen pregnancy rate, teen birth rate). So with this news, the Mississippi state senate is actually considering doing something constructive about it:
“Sen. David Jordan, D-Greenwood, wants to create a pilot program that would give the state Health and Education departments the power to make choices about sex education, including which school districts and which grades to teach it in. Those agencies would also decide what the curriculum should be. He submitted Senate Bill 2291 to do so. It’s been referred to the Education and Appropriations committees.”
It's great that instead of lamenting a statistic, the powers that be are taking it to heart and actually considering the statistic a result of the fact that most Mississippi school districts have pledged allegiance to abstinence-only sex-ed (that's such an oxymoron).
But I have one caveat: Why do we have to talk about alternatives to abstinence-only programs in such a way that disregards the actual happiness, health, and safety of students, and only after the teen pregnancy stats pop up to freak us all out? Because by that time, the debate usually takes on the dimensions of either a cautionary tale about the poverty and less than lustrous future of teen mothers (note: never teen parents) or the economic burdens of teen pregnancy.
Case in point: The Sun Herald jumps right on the bandwagon.
“Lawmakers also note the cost of teen pregnancy to the state is high. Besides the costs associated with the births, they say many teen parents often find themselves living a life of poverty as they raise their child. Those without much support from their parents might have trouble paying their bills and may depend on the state’s social services. Many don’t finish high school, much less go to college.
A 2006 study from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy estimates in 2004, Mississippi spent at least $135 million dealing with teen childbearing. That same year the entire country spent a total of about $9.1 billion. Of Mississippi’s expenses, 49 percent came from state taxpayers and 51 percent came from federal taxes.”
Let's talk about the actual lives of teenagers who are having less-than-informed sex, whether or not it ends in (gasp) teen pregnancy. Let's talk about the other dimensions of all of this, before it becomes and economic or moral problem. Let's talk about happiness and safety. And here's a revelation! Let's talk about STIs, baby. Because as another article points out,
“Sexually transmitted diseases are a persistent problem for the state's youth, according to data from the Department of Health. In 2007, there were 432 new cases of chlamydia in youth ages 10-14. The number was 8,444 for ages 15-19. New cases of gonorrhea were 118 and 2,641, respectively. There were 36 new HIV cases in the 15-19 age group and none among the younger teens."
If anything, this should have been the headline that jump-started the conversation. At least Sen. Jordan has it right: “I don’t want people to die at 30 because of AIDS.”
]]>Editor's Note: Please welcome RH Reality Check's newest blogger, Micah Steffes! Micah will be joined by three other young bloggers who will offer their perspectives in our Real Time Blog each week.
Salon's Broadsheet has a piece up that starts off with one of the most intriguingly bold statements I've come across in a long while.
"In theory, 100 percent of us, regardless of our position on who gets to decide what and when, fully agree that we'd much prefer no woman would have to get an abortion in the first place."
I don't know about the 100 percent, but I've gotta say, the woman has ovaries. Because once you've said that, then you can ask, "Well why aren't 100 percent of us working together to reduce abortion?"
And that's where the common ground movement comes in. I've really latched onto the hope that this movement will gain some real momentum, namely because the way the battle of pro-choice vs. anti-life has been waged has become really unappealing to me. It's really easy to feel there isn't any room for a more nuanced understanding of what's at stake. Maybe it's just me, but I think declaring that I feel complicated about it would be the equivalent of marching out into no-mans land.
So I'm optimistic about the possibilities that this movement presents. I believe I'm a rarity.
And I think I know why.
"When I hear of conservative groups supporting legislation to help out pregnant women and their children, it actually makes me think that some compromise may be possible."
What is all of this about compromise? The mentality that supporting a common ground movement will be a concession is really upsetting because when it comes down to it, what would pro-choicers be giving up? We support these things: we believe in helping out women and their children, in access to affordable child-care, family planning, mandated health coverage for pregnant women and newborns. So tell me, where is the compromise?
If we ditched our pessimism, I think what would emerge would be far from compromise. If "100 percent of us, regardless of our position on who gets to decide what and when" agree that abortion isn't the most desirable experience a woman can have, then our ends are the same. That, my friends, would be collaboration.
Not compromise.
I guess what I'm trying to say is don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
"Still, it's tantalizing to imagine what genuine "third way" legislation would look like. I'm absolutely not suggesting that those of us who wholeheartedly support abortion rights become apologists for our positions or accept compromises we don't agree with. But if we likewise were willing to draft and support a bill that leaves out the parts that would be objectionable to those who oppose abortion (leaving that fight for other bills, not abandoning it altogether), it seems absolutely possible that we could do a better job of preventing unintended pregnancy and making things easier for pregnant women and their children."
Amen, sister.
]]>