Student Insurance and Abortion: A Battle at University of North Carolina
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
August 18, 2010 - 6:00am (Print)
It happened so quickly you might have missed it if you blinked. One day a storm was brewing on the University of North Carolina campus, with the administration taking a firm stance on one side, and the campus's anti-abortion student group pushing hard from the other.
The next morning, the storm blew over, the University had acquiesced, and the fight was done.
At the center of the battle was the school's mandate that all students must be covered by some form of medical insurance -- a rule that occurs at most public and private universities. Should the student not have insurance, either their own personal policy of coverage via their parents' policies, they would be required to purchase insurance through the school at a cost of about $350 or $375 per semester, or $700 to $750 a year.
Most people would be excited to have such affordable insurance with the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. Students, especially, rely on preventive healthcare to keep serious illness at bay, when complications could not only cost them lost time in the classroom but also lost money on tuition.
But the anti-choice students on campus discovered that among the many benefits being provided in their affordable plans was one they simply could not accept - coverage for elective abortions.
Via the Carolina Journal Online:
“I’m dismayed that my classmates who cannot afford their own health coverage or who are not covered by their families will not only be forced to purchase health insurance, but they will also be forced to pay into a pool that will go to abort the children of North Carolina students,” said Sarah Hardin, president of North Carolina State University’s chapter of Students for Life, in a prepared statement.
But the University noted that no one was forcing the students to purchase the school insurance, and if they were unhappy with the idea that their payment might somehow go to support abortion, they were more than welcome to purchase their own, separate plans.
Joni B. Worthington, UNC Vice President for Communications, said in an e-mail to Carolina Journal that students don't have to buy the university plan that includes abortion coverage, but can buy their own that does not include elective abortion coverage. But they must have insurance of some kind, she said.
"No student is required to buy the University-sponsored plan; in fact, to date more than 90,000 students have elected not to purchase the University plan," she said. "What our students are required to do is have a health insurance plan that provides creditable health care coverage. Any student may choose to purchase health insurance elsewhere that does not provide elective abortion coverage. Our sole concern is that our students all have affordable, high-quality health care coverage."
Pro-choice groups on campus echoed Worthington's sentiments, as well as pointed to the myriad other reproductive health coverage options being provided in the school's policy. When contacted by RH Reality Check, Amy Sparks, the UNC President of Medical Student's For Choice, responded,
"I applaud UNC's decision to offer a cost effective plan (it costs close to $1000 less than the previous year's plan) that covers the full spectrum of reproductive health services that are particularly pertinent to the health of college aged students."
More access to services, especially contraception, for a lower cost, means fewer unintended pregnancies, and fewer women potentially in need of an abortion.
The school seemed to be very firm on its belief that those who dislike the policy's abortion coverage should simply look somewhere else for insurance.
Then, the next day, they weren't. Via Eyewitness News 9:
University of North Carolina will let students remove coverage for elective abortions from their university-sponsored health insurance after a national group complained about the coverage.
UNC system President Erskine Bowles on Thursday directed a student insurance company to contact students who have bought a policy this fall and give them the chance to opt out of that coverage.
Students who object to the idea of paying for abortion coverage now have a way to express their dislike of the procedure: they can opt out of that part of the coverage plan. Cost savings for those students? Absolutely nothing, since having abortion covered didn't change the cost of the plan in the first place. As UNC President Erskine Bowles told the News Observer,
"No student will be required to have this coverage as part of their health care plan, nor will they be paying for anybody else...It has no effect on the cost whatsoever. It didn't before; it won't now."
Of course, Student's for Life continue to fight the policy, first arguing that students who choose to stay in the "abortion coverage plan" will have a higher "cost of attendence ratio" and rank higher than the anti-choice students when it comes to federal financial aid (even though the two plans have identical costs, so no "cost of attendance" ratio should be higher than anothers), then by stating that it somehow constitutes federal funding of abortion, and violates the Hyde Amendment.
But in essence, the real mission is not to provide equal access to financial aid, or to ensure students who object to abortions don't have to pay for them. The real mission is simply to eliminate abortion coverage for all students because some students don't like the idea. As Kristen Hawkins, Executive Director of Students for Life, told the Herald Sun,
"Abortion is not health care, neither for the preborn child or his mother," Hawkins said. "Abortion should be removed from the UNC System completely."
"More access to services, especially contraception, for a lower cost, means fewer unintended pregnancies, and fewer women potentially in need of an abortion."
It's quite logical that the contraceptive mentality - that conception is something that can be controlled (as opposed to sexual activity, which apparently cannot be) - leads to demand for abortion when artificial contraception fails. However, what I don't think many doctors who prescribe contraception realize is that if they prescribe it for someone who absolutely does not want to have a baby, they may in effect be prescribing an abortion, since no contraceptive is 100% effective.
Artificial contraceptives were legalized decades ago on the argument that they would be used primarily by married couples to give them some control over the number of children they would have. They are not and never were intended to prevent someone from having any children at all, and to prescribe them for any purpose beyond their original intent is just plain reckless.
Well, I hope you're out there protesting, Kevin, and trying to prevent those young college boys from buying condoms. I'm sure if you march around with a 'no contraceptives' sign in front of the drugstore and explain to enquirers that they should wait until they're married before they have sex, they'll rededicate themselves to their studies and be better people for the self-discipline.
One thing is for sure, and that is that I think more highly of young people than you do. Perhaps it's because I was one myself not that long ago.
One thing is for sure, and that is that I think more highly of young people than you do.
So that's why you want to take options away from them! I guess all those people who wanted to ban rock'n'roll thought very highly of young people, too.
You can't attack the message so at least attack the messenger, eh? Perhaps I should have written more clearly. I say I think more highly of young people than you do because I have more faith than you that they're capable of doing the right thing.
If you have faith that they're capable of doing the right thing, why rail against access to contraception and abortion? If you TRUST that young people in general can make the right decision when it comes to THEIR bodies, what's the problem with making all options accessible?
If the benefits supposed by those who promote access to artificial contraception and abortion are wrong, then why offer such things to students?
If the benefits supposed by those who promote access to artificial contraception and abortion are wrong, then why offer such things to students?
Because other students may disagree with you on whether these benefits are "wrong." What's next, are you going to argue that the cafeteria should stop serving meat because you personally feel it's "wrong?"
To assert that contraceptive use should be reserved for married people only could not be further from the reality of human experiance. Humans are sexual beings. And pregnancy is only an ocasional concequence of intercourse, not it's sole purpose. Why is it so neccessary to "control" sexuality? Men and women have been coming up with ways to prevent pregnancy and terminate pregnancy for literally thousands of years, and now we finally have very safe and reliable methods. I think it's something to be celebrated!
How very sad that university educated students could be so opposed to paying into an insurance pool that would ensure their classmates get health care. Ignorant and selfish.
we finally have very safe and reliable methods
And you're calling those opposed to contraception ignorant?
No
Maybe ignorant is the wrong word. It's like people who want to pick and choose where their tax dollars go. It just doesn't work that way. I am morally opposed to war, but I can't just opt out of paying taxes because we're at war right now.
The university cannot change insurance coverage because a minority of anti-choice students have a moral objection to what that insurance may or may not be used for.
That being said, while I respect that some people might not desire contraception (or abortion) for themselves, I cannot for the life of me understand why someone would be opposed to contraception for the general population.
It's like people who want to pick and choose where their tax dollars go.
The university cannot change insurance coverage because a minority of anti-choice students have a moral objection to what that insurance may or may not be used for.
Exactly! So what if I think obesity is the result of poor lifestyle choices and don't think my money should pay for the considerable negative health effects? I also don't smoke or drink, why should I have to pay for the effects for people who do? I'll never use services for prostate issues, why would I want to pay for those? What if I think cancer is God's way of punishing you and I'm morally opposed to my money paying for any cancer treatments?
Actually, I should amend my subject - self-righteous and/or self-involved are perhaps better words.
Ah, self righteous, now that's the term I was looking for!
Here's the thing, I totally get it. If you're anti-abortion it's because you think abortion= murder because fetus=baby, and obviously you don't want anyones money anywhere at any time, (private insurance or not), to be paying for it. The equation adds up.
I can sort of understand being anti-abortion as a private choice. But you cannot protest reproductive health care on the grounds that it is murder, while simultaneously supporting your country invading another country. It might seem a little off topic, but not only is it "picking and choosing" with tax dollars (or insurance dollars) but it's inconsistant. And that's my biggest peeve with antis.
(However if you're anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-eating animals, anti-death penalty, I will still respectfully disagree, but at least you make sense)
If you're anti-abortion it's because you think abortion= murder because fetus=baby
Actually, I'm anti-abortion because no one has ever made a reasonable, supportable case that abortion is not murder or that a fetus is not a baby.
Kind of like how I'm pro-choice because nobody has ever made a reasonable, supportable case that abortion is murder or that ZBEF are actual persons.
Person = a complete, distinct, living, unconditionally viable and fully human being.
Abortion = manslaughter of a person.
You make absolutely no sense whatsoever and completely contradict yourself with your own definition. Using your definition of a person, how does aborting a 9 week pregnancy in any way resemble murder or manslaughter??? A 9 week embryo is neither complete nor viable.
(However if you're anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-eating animals, anti-death penalty, I will still respectfully disagree, but at least you make sense)
I disagree. The death penalty, like anti-abortion, is using state violence to exact, with support of the will of a segment of the population, control over the body of an individual and deny personal sovereignty. It is no coincidence, IMHO, that anti-choicers tend to favor the death penalty, though there are exceptions. It is far more consistent, IMHO, to be anti-death-penalty and pro-reproductive rights, because it's for telling the state to back off before it decides your destiny for you.
PS sorry to go on about a paranthetical statement you made and please don't take my use of bold letters as rude, I just know that many people skim herte and I wanted to highlight the important parts. You have made some very good points and I agree with the rest of them.
It is far more consistent, IMHO, to be anti-death-penalty and pro-reproductive rights, because it's for telling the state to back off before it decides your destiny for you.
You must be in favor, then, of small government? If so, at least we have that in common. Unless you think it takes a big government to keep the government out of your business?
The death penalty, like anti-abortion, is using state violence to exact, with support of the will of a segment of the population, control over the body of an individual and deny personal sovereignty.
Perhaps you could provide an example of "state violence" used in an anti-abortion matter? In any case, what you suppose anti-abortion to be is precisely the opposite of what it actually is. In other words, those on the pro-life side seek to prevent the state or an individual from exercising violence on another individual, and denying them their personal sovereignty.
Oklahoma's efforts to force transvaginal ultrasounds prior to obtaining an abortion.
Oklahoma's efforts to force transvaginal ultrasounds prior to obtaining an abortion
are certainly no more invasive than the procedure the woman has already freely chosen to undergo.
Kevin, transvaginal ultrasound is rape!
What if you had been anally raped, and in order for you to get medical care you had to receive an anal ultrasound? It's sick and sadistic to force a woman to be raped again by a vaginal ultrasound.
http://torontoemerg.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/rape-me-all-over-again/
Oklahoma Public Legal Research System
Sponsored by the
Oklahoma Attorney General´s Office
using CNIDR Isearch-cgi 1.20.06 (File: 21-1114.html)
4. rape by instrumentation resulting in bodily harm is rape by
instrumentation in the first degree regardless of the age of the
person committing the crime; or
5. rape by instrumentation committed upon a person under fourteen (14)
years of age.
B. In all other cases, rape or rape by instrumentation is rape in the
second degree.
http://oklegal.onenet.net/oklegal-cgi/ifetch?Oklahoma_Statutes.99+853014...
By that definition, the abortionist is already a rapist by his/her own free choice and the consent of the victim, and it will possibly be rape in the first degree. That a required attendant procedure could be interpreted as second degree rape is hardly consequential.
I know that the concept of a woman having the power to consent to what enters our bodies has always been a difficult concept for conservative men and their sons to grasp. I understand that in your sub culture the women do as they're told and so consent isn't really as big an issue as it is under US law.
I once had a doctor give me a physical for a state job, take a pap smear and then not run the tests. I found out that he did this with every woman patient under 40 in the small rural town I was living in at that time. It was rape dressed us as a fake medical procedure. So is your entirely unnecessary "required medical procedure" It's not required because it's a medical procedure , it's required because a bunch of sick old men spend a lot of time imaging ways to demean and shame women.
A woman is required to give medical consent to have an abortion. She gives her authority to have a medication abortion (mifepristone) or a surgical abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure, not rape.
A transvaginal ultrasound is NOT NEEDED to perform an abortion. It is used to harass and intimidate women seeking an abortion. If a woman does not consent to a transvaginal ultrasound and is forced to have one, it IS like being raped. Having something stuck up your vagina against your will IS rape. I'm guessing you don't have a vagina and don't understand.
If, in order to obtain a perfectly legal abortion, a woman must permit herself to be penetrated by an ultrasound probe -- in whatever way, or for however long, the technician and doctor wish to do so, that seems to me to be what statute 21-114 of the Oklahoma Criminal Code defines as rape by instrumentation. This act (putting an object in a vagina, anus or mouth against that person's will) is explicitly defined as rape in the first or second degree.
http://classic.feministing.com/archives/020971.html
Whether or not it is more or less invasive is of no real consequence. If it is done without her consent it is rape. For example, just because I put my own fingers in my vag doesn't automatically give somebody else permission to do so. And just because I consent to one form of penetration doesn't mean I automatically consent to all penetration. For example, just because I let somebody put their fingers in my vag doesn't mean I consented to them putting their penis or some other object in me too.
Penetration without consent is rape.
Contrary to what you've all stated, the Oklahoma law doesn't require transvaginal ultrasound. It only requires the use of the method that would be expected to provide the best image - either abdominal or vaginal. But the law has been temporarily blocked, anyway, with the next hearing scheduled for January. In any case, I stand by my previous statements. http://www.lifenews.com/state5081.html
At least this debate is exposing the fact that all pro-lifers want is for women considering abortion to know the truth. Even "The Center for Reproductive Rights argued that this new law violates patients' privacy by forcing women to receive information that they do not necessarily want -- and may not emotionally be able to handle." They don't dispute that the information is true (as if ultrasound images could actually lie). If a woman cannot be expected to handle the truth about a medical procedure about to be performed on her, then taking issue with the least invasive aspect of it is just quibbling. (Not to mention the specter of having a doctor perform a procedure on you that he may not really want you to understand.)
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/05/03/4430404-ag-blocks-oks-ne...
ugh. Kevin, women DO know the truth.
The law isn't being opposed because women "can't handle" the information or because they'd rather be kept in the dark.
It's being opposed because it's truely insulting and demeaning- this idea that women somehow won't understand what it means to be pregnant or what an abortion really is until we create a ridiculous law to enlighten them.
Did you know that half of women who have abortions already have children? Don't you think that a 30 year old women with 2 kids at home has already seen several ultrasounds at various stages of her pregnancies? Do you know what a 9-week-old fetus looks like on an ultrasound? It looks like a blob. A little black blob. This is the TRUTH we have to show women for them to "understand"? sure.
I just get so tired of women being talked about like they're ignorant children.
I think a woman choosing abortion for herself probably knows a hell of a lot more about ultrasounds, fetal development, her own body and her own choices then these legislators making up silly rules. This isn't about informed consent. It's about creating a financial barrier (because ultrasounds are expensive).
It sounds like you need to haggle with those on your own side as to the arguments you're going use to oppose such laws. Obviously there's some disagreement among you.
"Did you know that half of women who have abortions already have children? Don't you think that a 30 year old women with 2 kids at home has already seen several ultrasounds at various stages of her pregnancies? Do you know what a 9-week-old fetus looks like on an ultrasound? It looks like a blob. A little black blob. This is the TRUTH we have to show women for them to "understand"? sure."
Don't these women ever think about other women ,like myself, who may like to adopt? You shouldn't be getting pregnant if you cant or think you can't take care of any more kids in the future.. Use b/c or get your tubes tie. Common sense you know.It amazes me people keep having unprotected sex and dont think about consequences.
Don't these women ever think about other women ,like myself, who may like to adopt?
Sure, right before they remind themselves that they have better things to do than go through a whole pregnancy, with its attendant risks and potential complications, just to make a baby for you.
Why don't you just walk up to a few random persons on the street and ask them for $1000? That's a lot less than the trouble of pregnancy is worth. Who knows? One of them might be feeling generous.
You shouldn't be getting pregnant if you cant or think you can't take care of any more kids in the future.. Use b/c or get your tubes tie.
"I can't afford BC, I haven't had insurance for over three years."
"But I did use BC, you f****** b****!"
"Umm... I still want to have a kid later on. Just not right now."
You know what they call people who ASSume?
Or, PCF, even, "Sterilization is not 100% effective" and "I asked, they won't let me unless I have 2 kids, already or am older than 35".
Nice to know that she is truthful about how ProLifers think about children, eh? Consequences.
Don't these women ever think about other women ,like myself, who may like to adopt?
I sincerely hope not.
Don't these women ever think about other women ,like myself, who may like to adopt?
Yah, I was TOTALLY thinking about what other people might think or want when I got pregnant. Cause I totally value my body for it's reproductive capacity and worth to other people. And I totally think babies are just commodities to be handed off. //end snark
Just because a woman can't have children doesn't mean women who can owe them one. And contrary to the propaganda and guilt tripping, there are plenty of children are waiting to be adopted, but apparently just not enough perfect, healthy, white infants.
It amazes me people keep having unprotected sex and dont think about consequences.
It amazes me people do pretty much any irresponsible activity (spend money they don't have, drink and drive, etc.) and don't think about the consequences.
At least this debate is exposing the fact that all pro-lifers want is for women considering abortion to know the truth.
It is exposing nothing of the sort.
Yes but saying they must take abortion coverage isn't giving them much choice. What if a 60 year old woman applies who won't likely need the coverage?
"If they want abortion coverage removed, what assistance could they provide to a student who got pregnant and couldn't afford to pay out of pocket for an abortion? "
That is why birth control should be used. Abortion coverage is like saying go ahead and have fun. Someone else will pay for it. I'm not talking about the ones needed to save the mother's life. Abortion has risks just like any other procedures or multiple pregnancies. You never hear about them though.
I agree it is nutty to place your reproductive life in 'God's hands' This is where I differ with them. Kevin, birth control and abortion are two different matters. There can t be an abortion with no baby right? It takes eggs and sperm to make them.
That is why birth control should be used. Abortion coverage is like saying go ahead and have fun. Someone else will pay for it.
"That is why a toothbrush should be used. Dental coverage is like saying go ahead and don't bother with brushing. Someone else will pay for it."
Nope, sorry. I'd rather not have a root canal, even if someone else were paying for it, and I think most women would feel the same way about abortion.
But we'll gladly take subsidized contraceptive coverage, and comprehensive sexual education so that we can enjoy clean and orderly sex lives. Would you mind talking to those nasty anti-choice activists who would rather leave us with neither?
So, take off the coverage that would cover continuing a pregnancy too, then, for seniors. Otherwise, hypocrisy....
If the Oklahoma law was enacted,
"It states that either an abdominal or vaginal ultrasound, whichever gives the best image of the fetus, must be done."
"Neither the patient nor the doctor can decide which type of ultrasound to use, and the patient cannot opt out of the ultrasound and still have the procedure. In effect, then, the legislature has mandated that a woman have an instrument placed in her vagina for no medical benefit."
Other states have also enacted unnecessary ultrasounds as a requirement to procuring an abortion.
From the Guttmacher Institute,
"Over the past decade, several states have moved to make ultrasound part of abortion service provision. Some laws and policies require that a woman seeking an abortion receive information on accessing ultrasound services, while others require that a woman undergo an ultrasound before an abortion.
Since routine ultrasound is not considered medically necessary as a component of first-trimester abortion, the requirements appear to be a veiled attempt to personify the fetus and dissuade a woman from obtaining an abortion. Moreover, an ultrasound can add significantly to the cost of the procedure.
Contrary to what you've all stated, the Oklahoma law doesn't require transvaginal ultrasound. It only requires the use of the method that would be expected to provide the best image - either abdominal or vaginal.
Contrary to what you've all stated, the Oklahoma law doesn't require transvaginal ultrasound. It only requires the use of the method that would be expected to provide the best image - either abdominal or vaginal.
Just FYI, since apparently you get your news and info from only pro-life websites, the biggest issue with this law is that for an early pregnancy (i.e., when over 90% of abortions are being performed) the transvaginal ultrasound IS the method that would provide the "best image", mostly due to the size and position of the developing embryo. Plenty of medical professionals attending those legislative hearings testified to exactly that point. You and the rest of the AC/PL side can continue to be dismissive and coy about this, but the effect is the same; to be compliant with that law, 90% of women obtaining abortions would have a totally unnecessary ultrasound wand put in their vaginas whether they wanted it or not, and with NO EXCEPTION for victims of rape or incest. THIS IS STATE SPONSORED RAPE.
THIS IS THE SIDE YOU'RE ON. THIS IS WHAT YOUR "TEAM" SUPPORTS.
You must be in favor, then, of small government? If so, at least we have that in common.
If by "small government" you mean in the tea-party sense of trying to get out of paying taxes, that's a separate issue.
Perhaps you could provide an example of "state violence" used in an anti-abortion matter?
http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,policia-estoura-clinica-de-ab...
It's in portuguese, a typical police raid on a Brazilian abortion clinic from this year, with arrests and prosecution of the patients and doctors. most browsers have a translate button these days, but not that good I know.
But police raids on family planning clinics are routine in Brasil, and are a cautionary tale. Also women arrested and spending long sentences in jail for aborting are examples of state violence against women's sovereignty and bodily integrity, which anti-choicers support, and is happening now in places where your intentions have become manifest.
Never happen here, I hope not, because our side won't let it. But if your side wins, it will.
those on the pro-life side seek to prevent the state or an individual from exercising violence on another individual
Your turn, provide us with an example of pro-life forces preventing state violence from exercising its will against an individual's will.
women arrested and spending long sentences in jail for aborting are ...happening now in places where your intentions have become manifest.
Perhaps examples from the U.S. prior to Roe v. Wade would be more convincing.
provide us with an example of pro-life forces preventing state [or individual] violence from exercising its will against an individual's will.
I only wish I could. The law is not on our side, which makes the task difficult. For an example of what we'd like to prevent, just listen to the testimonies from the members of Silent No More: http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/
(If you find it difficult to listen to them, know that you're not alone.)
Kevin, your point is?
I hope Roe v. Wade never is never overturned. I will do everything in my power to make sure abortion will always be safe and legal. BTW I wouldn't try to exploit the "abortion is trauma" myth here. We can see through your not so thinly-veiled misogyny.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/07/06/myth-abortion-trauma-syndrome
So now I suppose you're going to suggest that those women are paid actresses and their stories are fabrications.
You have a valid point, though, which is that for a woman who has a very utilitarian view of human beings and/or believes the myths that abortion doesn't really kill a baby and that it really eliminates a tragedy or a mistake, abortion probably won't be traumatic. However, for the woman who views children as a gift from God with a soul as well as a body, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that they might find abortion highly traumatic. So much so that they probably wouldn't choose it. The problem is, there's no way for a woman of the former perspective to know if she might someday become one of the latter.
So much so that they probably wouldn't choose it. The problem is, there's no way for a woman of the former perspective to know if she might someday become one of the latter.
So your argument is that anything that a person may one day come to regret should be banned.
Now, given that the divorce rate is hovering around 50% these days...
While some - perhaps some of you - would argue otherwise, it is necessary for at least a good number of us to bear and raise children, if humanity is to survive. No claims that marriage is a Garden of Eden, but few would dispute that a family headed by married parents is the best and most stable structure for the raising of children. Marriage is therefore necessary, even though it is sometimes evil. Abortion is never necessary, and is always evil.
No claims that marriage is a Garden of Eden, but few would dispute that a family headed by married parents is the best and most stable structure for the raising of children.
This depends way too much on the parents to be universally true. Some of us are from, or have dear friends/family who are from, families with married parents that created toxic environments for them. My husband's parents were married, and having his father in his life took a huge emotional toll on him (and sisters, and mother). Sure, his father was the provider for the family, but I would argue that the emotional damage that he inflicted upon them outweighed that benefit.
As for your last comment, I'm sure the families of women who died as a result of pregnancy complications would disagree.
I'm sure the families of women who died as a result of pregnancy complications would disagree [that abortion is never necessary and always evil].
Abortion is always evil, but so is letting a woman die when some treatment or procedure is available to prevent her death. Saving a woman's life is always permissible, even if a side effect of her treatment is the undesired but unavoidable death of her baby. These situations are vanishingly rare, however, especially in this day and age, and I wouldn't classify them as an abortion, since aborting the baby isn't the intent - it's saving the mother's life.
... I wouldn't classify them as an abortion, since aborting the baby isn't the intent - it's saving the mother's life.
Because what's the point of breeding livestock if they can't breed?
Saving a woman's life is always permissible, even if a side effect of her treatment is the undesired but unavoidable death of her baby. These situations are vanishingly rare, however, especially in this day and age, and I wouldn't classify them as an abortion, since aborting the baby isn't the intent - it's saving the mother's life.
On what basis do you assert that "these situations are vanishingly rare? It is my understanding that the incident of ectopic pregnancy is actually increasing, as is the incidence of eclampsia (which is more likely to be a complication in the obese, and obesity is increasing).
Whether or not YOU classify them as "an abortion" that's how the medical field classifies them, and so laws that are passed to ban 'abortion' will also ban helping those women, and may ban D&C abortions and suction evacuation abortions necessary to help women who have suffered spontaneous abortions avoid infection, even though in those cases the embryo/fetus is already dead.
That's the problem with trying to demonize a medical PROCEDURE without regard to the reason that the procedure is being done -- 'abortions are evil' is just stupid when a great number of abortion PROCEDURES turn out to be done to save women's lives after complications OR miscarriages and "I don't think of THAT as an abortion" is a statement that reveals massive ignorance of the actual facts of reproduction.
No claims that marriage is a Garden of Eden, but few would dispute that a family headed by married parents is the best and most stable structure for the raising of children.
I'm sure that will be a big comfort to the folks living in battered-women's shelters.
Abortion is never necessary, and is always evil.
When you're a hidebound misogynist who has no regard whatsoever for the inherent value of womens' lives, this may certainly appear to be the case.
Kevin is in favor of same-sex marriage as well as full adoption rights for LGBTQ folks.
Marriage is therefore necessary, even though it is sometimes evil. Abortion is never necessary, and is always evil.
Then personally get married and never have an abortion. Problem solved.
Perhaps examples from the U.S. prior to Roe v. Wade would be more convincing.
Why? Prior to Roe V Wade the anti-choice movement didn't exist. Women had clandestine abortions in peace in Brazil too, prior to the anti-choice movement. The movement is responsible for the violence, which in the example I gave, included an arrest and detention of a minor girl (In Brazil this means younger than 18.) just after her abortion. That's what the face of your movement succeeding looks like. It's an international movement, and it's horrendous that members of it insist that we not look at countries where your agenda has been implemented, because it's exactly what happens when you persecute it fully.
It's an international movement, and it's horrendous that members of it insist that we not look at countries where your agenda has been implemented, because it's exactly what happens when you persecute it fully.
The ProLife movement has been lying its head off since its inception.
Remember when they said it wasn't about birth control AT ALL? And yet now they drone on and on about the 'contraceptive mentality' and how nobody has a 'right' to birth control.
Remember when they said nobody had any objections to medically necessary abortions and nobody was talking about letting women die, and now they insist that Catholic hospitals have a right to do refuse care and do exactly that?
Of course they don't want anyone looking at real life examples of what the laws and policies they think are so terrific end up causing. If people actually knew the truth, knew that ProLife really means 'who cares if women die, they should have been home where they belonged', they wouldn't have a hope of getting their laws and amendments passed.
I said
provide us with an example of pro-life forces preventing state violence from exercising its will against an individual's will.
not
provide us with an example of pro-life forces preventing state [or individual] violence from exercising its will against an individual's will.
I said state violence, provide an example of how your movement is against state violence against individuals.
My original statement was:
those on the pro-life side seek to prevent the state or an individual from exercising violence on another individual
You took out "or an individual" when you paraphrased me. I simply put the phrase back into your quote to restore my original meaning (and included it in brackets to denote that it was I who did so).
But back to the point. In this country, it isn't the state that perpetrates the violence I speak of (at least not yet), it's individuals. You can't say the same for other countries, though (e.g. China, local areas in other countries).
I wasn't paraphrasing you. You replied to a post I made about how prochoice is anti-state violence. You injected the [or individuals] part. Get it straight. I called bullshit on your movement really being against STATE violence. YOU were trying to confuse MY point.
For an example of what we'd like to prevent, just listen to the testimonies from the members of Silent No More: http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/
It's regrettable that your side saddles women with so much guilt and shame. I'll tell you one good predictor of whether a woman will be OK with her pregnancy or abortion: having friends and family you can talk to without fear of judgement, a medical system and doctors which respect women and don't lambaste them for having abortions, also not being arrested and detained by police right after your abortion, which is happening thanks to your movement, that will affect the impact of her abortion. So I don't see what your side is doing to help women process their abortions at all.
You wantwomen to have more regrets, not less.
And as for the men who are upset because they were not able to force the women they inseminated to carry a pregnancy against their will? They can go ....
I fully agree with you.
I think the point my long-winded explaination was getting at was that I find it interesting that anti-choicers will condone murder (believing abortion is murder) depending on its context.
Just as you pointed out, people who are against abortion tend to be pro death penalty (and probably more often then not war supporters), yet they'll preach til they're blue in the face about a "culture of life" - which I after hearing the term a million times I'm still not entirely sure what that's supposed to mean.
.
I take "create a culture of life" to mean "condition women to self-sacrafice no matter what". It does not mean "save babies" or "respect mothers", except perhaps in the most superficial sense, because ensuring quantity without regard for the effects an overabundance of that thing has is choosing to be wilfully ignorant, and not at all conducive to creating an actual "culture of life". Antis argue, ridiculously, that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness should apply to z/b/e/f's, but make no efforts to ensure the people making those fetuses into children have health care, employment or education. Oh, and neither can the child. Once born, you're on your own. Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, peon!
The anti-choice movement's efforts are mainly to have us "back in our place" as birthers of babies and keepers of the home. The anti-choice movement knows that creating babies keeps women, especially low-income and minority women, at a disadvantage socially, economically, bodily and financially. Therefore, easier to control. Creating unwanted children keeps women down. Think if the hundreds of thousands of abortions that take place every year were brought to term. That's thousands of jobs potentially lost, thousands living in poverty, millions in financial strictures or lacking healthcare, shelter, clothes, education and food because some think women are too stupid to decide what's best for themselves.
The women in the anti movement choose not to think about this, or assume that they will be the exception (Google "My Abortion is the Only Moral Abortion") or privileged above all others because of their socioeconomic class and/or skin color, as some already are.
In other words, those babies are better off dead.
But why stop there? There are children who are already born who are at a socioeconomic disadvantage. Why not just take them out of their misery?
In other words, those babies are better off dead.
No, actually, the pregnant women are better off not finishing their pregnancies in the first place.
I know, you keep forgetting there's an actual woman involved. You might want to write that on your hand or something.
But why stop there? There are children who are already born who are at a socioeconomic disadvantage. Why not just take them out of their misery?
Uhh... you can certainly argue that if you like. You already have plenty of experience demanding truly revolting social policy, so it should be easy for you. I doubt many people will go for it, however---and certainly no one here.
I know, you keep forgetting there's an actual woman involved.
No, I'm not, but you're forgetting that about half the time there's two.
You already have plenty of experience demanding truly revolting social policy
Certainly not as much as you, though.
Really? You think slavery is better social policy than ANYthing else? Hmmm....
No, WE aren't. We don't have to remind you that there is a fetus involved, we just have to remind you that the WOMAN is involved, which is why we mention ONLY the woman. Unless you WANT us to preach to the choir, like YOU'RE doing?
No, I said that those women who chose to abort should always have the ability to choose what's best for them, without people like you attempting to rule over them. And "all those babies"? Are you seriously saying you think zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses are "babies" before a woman has finished gestating it? Have you forgotten that building those things into anything even superficially resembling a baby requires a woman to risk her life and health for nine months, again in childbirth, and any furthur outside expenses occurring only to her? The sheer number of times we've been over "z/b/e/f does not equal baby and being pregnant is not an obligation to give birth, sperm is not magical and eggs are not magically transformed into little people as soon as the man cums"... it's getting old. Get a clue or GTFO.
PCF is right. Perhaps you should write it on your hand.
Why not just take them out of their misery?
How about let's throw out all the laws that rich people bought to make that increasingly make being poor a crime, and let's use our taxpayer dollars for social welfare not corporate welfare.
The attacks on reproductive rights are part of a larger picture. The purpose of those of us not at the top of the pyramid is to keep them up there. Hey, the Prison Industry is a growth industry
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/prisons/review.pdf
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/04/09/prison-nation
The latest statistics, released last week, show that as of June 30, 2008, more than 2.3 million people were behind bars in this country -- an increase of almost 20 percent just since 2000. This gives the United States an incarceration rate of 762 per 100,000 residents -- the highest rate in the world, dwarfing those of other democracies like Great Britain (152 per 100,000), Canada (116), and Japan (63).
Lots of babies are needed for future occupants of future prisons. (The prison industry can't grow if it isn't constantly building more prisons.)
Artificial contraceptives were legalized decades ago on the argument that they would be used primarily by married couples to give them some control over the number of children they would have. They are not and never were intended to prevent someone from having any children at all, and to prescribe them for any purpose beyond their original intent is just plain reckless.
What? Are you serious? Reckless to give women control over their lives and control their own destiny? Birth control (birth control pills etc.) DO PREVENT abortion.
BTW, do you have a problem with women that are childless by choice?
Birth control has been around for thousands of years, used by married and unmarried women. Contraceptives were made illegal by the patriarchy (church and state).
And, personally I don't want to pay for someone to have 19 children (like the Duggars). Without a doubt birth control, emergency contraception, and abortion should be covered in ALL insurance plans.
Birth control (birth control pills etc.) DO PREVENT abortion.
I believe that's true. However, I also believe that more abortions are caused by the mentality fostered by the widespread availability of artificial contraceptives than are prevented by the use of same.
You are, I believe, talking about the "contraceptive mentality," correct?
I just happened across a wonderful blog about it:
http://thatmarriedcouple.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-contraceptive-ment...
Sigh! And here we go again.
Look Kevin...I get that you attach some mystical woo-woo significance to the sex act within marriage, and you are perfectly entitled to do just that.
But as someone who could have popped out one a year with little more than a wink from the Better Half, I'm pretty sure there is nothing "mysteriously unitive" about it. In fact, fear of another surprise pregnancy was obviously a serious drawback to our "unity."
Got 33 years in, with 3 sons, and Oh Look...the affections of the Better Half do not appear to have waned since he went in for the kindest cut of all.
As it happens, these days, women have "other" things we would like to do with our lives, including enjoying marital relations absent that fear. I get that you and folks like you are convinced that "true intimacy" only exists if women are stressed, miserable and frightened of the possibility of another pregnancy, but if it is all the same to you...spare those of us who love our kids, but do not want any more of them.
I just happened across a wonderful blog about it:
So the "contraceptive mentality," apparently, is what anti-contraceptive people imagine pro-contraceptive people think about sex.
If they obsess that much over how others conduct their sex lives, theirs must not be all that wonderful...
"So the "contraceptive mentality," apparently, is what anti-contraceptive people imagine pro-contraceptive people think about sex."
Fixed that for you, PCF...just in case anyone missed it.
Exactly ProChoiceFerret.
It's like they get their rocks off on obsessing about other people's sex lives.
And what's wrong with knowing all of the contraception options that are available? I guess I have "contraception mentality."
The "contraceptive mentality" thing is just absurd, heterocentrist and brimming with woo.
Furthurmore, I think "contraceptive mentality" as a concept is just a way for privileged people of means to take a piss on everyone else. It's a way of making themselves false martyrs to some weird definition of sexual morality, when really all they are doing is being holier-than-thou and wanting kudos for living as they see fit, an option they will happily deny to others.
In academic terms, the ability to be "open to life" is a socioeconomic and moral status marker. It's a reproductive "keeping up with the Joneses", and nothing more. It is the notion you should forego certain activities others get to indulge in if you do not have or do not wish to have the trappings they do - a heterosexual marriage, money and the capability to care for multiple helpless dependents. In other words, it's the Tea Party definition of freedom: people who are not just like us should not have/do not deserve [insert whatever here].
Birth control (in the US, anyway) is expensive. It should not be, but it is at the present time. Birth and childrearing are even more so. Historically, a white wedding dress was a marker of wealth and class, because white fabrics were expensive. Eventually it became the standard of purity and sign of morality for a bride, since the more afford you could lavish on a wedding, the closer to God you were.
Having children has become such an extravagance. The rhetoric about "putting our reproductive lives in God's hands" is based in sanctimony and narcissism, not giving and charity. Sure, an omnescient, omnipotent being takes a particular and personal interest in your sex life, because you are just that special. You (generic you) breed for yourself, not for the good of the world.
Self-professed contraceptive mentality refuters choose to go forth and have sex, only while stating that they are open to any conception that may occur. All is well, at least for them. It is not that which I have a problem with. It is this: they also say that you should not have sex if you don't want children, and you are particularly evil if you take steps to avoid pregnancy or birth, such as contraception and abortion. It's never "responsible" to these people to contracept because you want an adult relationship but not a(nother) child, for whatever reason, even though logically that's better all round. It doesn't have to be logical: if you aren't like us, you aren't/shouldn't be allowed it, so there.
Their choice, then, is both moral and right, in their minds, though really it is only sanctimony. They dress this up in faux-feminism and empowerful language, but the message remains: you are bad and immoral if you pursue pleasure without pain, and if you do not want to be punished, you should keep your legs shut. You cannot afford/are incapable of/do not want to birth child after child therefore you are not deserving of the same recognition or respect as me. I deserve my pleasure, because I have defined "responsible" as I see fit and my privileges/religion/specialness allow me to indulge that definition. By procreating in support of this idealogy, I am doing a favor to the world by setting an example for what is good and moral, aren't I great?
On another note, there is something in the rad-fem critique of the pharmaceutical industry treating women's bodies as something defective to be "fixed" with drugs, but more often than not I find this has been co-opted for disingenuous reasons to promote forced birth. It's no good to say women are not defective machines then go on to treat us as incubators. Cutting your nose off to spite your face? I think so.
Weirdly, it used to be that women with many children (poor, as they often were) were seen as defective and impure, carnal and lascivious, unable to control their base urges, the evidence for which was their many children. Having many children was a sign of loose morality. It was wealthy (and white) women who "reserved" themselves and only procreated as "necessary". It was never to be for pleasure, never to be her choice, though you could argue wealthy women had slightly better leverage it probably wasn't worth much, since it was all about the man and his needs, his property real and material, his control over his family.
Just like today, the real disadvantages which caused many births to poor women were convieniently glossed over so the privileged could justify their position as more "deserving" than the dirty Other. It's more or less the other way around now, but we'll still occasionally see it when women who aren't the "right" color, creed, or class have many children.
If anyone ever wondered whether the "contraceptive mentality" actually exists and what it's all about, they only have to look through the last several comments in this thread. It's right there in black and white.
they only have to look through the last several comments in this thread
I see nothing that indicate any such mentality, Kevin. Why not pick one and run with it? Enlighten me.
The rhetoric about "putting our reproductive lives in God's hands" is based in sanctimony and narcissism, not giving and charity.
I think my biggest question for these types, is why don't they put EVERYTHING in God's hands??? Why aren't they all Christian Scientists? Shouldn't God also fix broken bones and cure cancer or treat sepsis? I mean, what's so special about reproduction? I mean, if they really "trust" God, I think they should commit fully, not just half-ass it like they tend to do.
Shouldn't God also fix broken bones and cure cancer or treat sepsis? I mean, what's so special about reproduction?
Usually, that ends up being inflicted on those who are incapable of giving consent to the practice, usually children but sometimes the incapacitated, like Terry Schiavo. There have been cases in which children have died of sepsis caused by appendicitis or rotten teeth because parents believed the sky fairy would "cure" them. Any wingnut idea in practice is harmful, just like contraceptive mentality refuters.
I think that poor women who had more children were looked down upon because of their economic status first, then had their numerous children presented as 'evidence' for the upper class' justification.
This is happening with the entire UNC school system, not just UNC-Chapel Hill. UNC-Greensboro, Pembroke, Charlotte, Asheville, and Wilmington, State, Eastern, Western, App, and Arts universities are also affected by this.
Earlier this year, an anti-abortion student group on the Victoria University (BC, Canada) campus was denied funding because they put up huge posters of dismembered, "aborted" (we all know those stock images) fetuses and referred to it as a genocide. Naturally, students were extremely offended and complained. Lots of students complained. The group's funding was revoked and of course they cried discrimination and attempted a law suit.
It's been settled since then, but I think this is a similar example of how pro-life student groups seem only interested in getting worked up, but not doing any real work. I'd be interested to see what, if any, help Students for Life at North Carolina is giving to pregnant students, students with children etc... If they want abortion coverage removed, what assistance could they provide to a student who got pregnant and couldn't afford to pay out of pocket for an abortion?
