-
sponsorship
Amanda,
Before I begin, I want to clarify something. I’m not “anti-choice.”
I am anti-abortion. That might sound like semantics, but I think it’s a
sign of the gulf between abortion-rights supporters and abortion foes.
“Anti-choice” has a connotation of “anti-woman,” that being against
abortion means you think women shouldn’t have control over their
bodies. I will defend until my dying day a woman’s right to choose
whether to have sex. I think the pill might have been the greatest
invention of the 20th century. I’m all for passing out condoms in high
schools. Adoption should be easy, and birth mothers should be able to
have open or closed adoptions. Women who choose to keep their children
and who need help should have access to financial assistance and other
support programs that will enable them to be productive and gain
employment and raise their children. I just can’t support abortion. And
frankly, I can’t think of many pro-lifers I know who feel differently.
Yes, there are some who think sex is strictly for marriage and
procreation. But you’re not going to make any headway with them. If the
pro-choice and pro-life sides are to have any hope of working together
to reduce the number of abortions, which should everyone’s goal, we
need to try to understand one another and stop what’s essentially
name-calling ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX).
-
sponsorship
A post from DoubleX writer Amanda Marcotte:
I'm sorry, Rachael, but this story you linked about Abby Johnson's sudden conversion
from a Planned Parenthood director to an anti-choice fanatic has more
holes in it than a piece of Swiss cheese after being used for target
practice. Johnson's story fits way too neatly into a bunch of easily
disproven anti-choice myths, the main one being that all it takes is
one glance at an ultrasound to cause someone to "realize" that hey!
abortion removes a fetus from your uterus. Pro-choicers already know
that. Johnson seems to be selling a story that's a tad too pat, too
close to what anti-choicers want to hear.
After all, your average person in the United States has
seen probably hundreds of sonograms in their lives, and most of them
show a fetus at gestational age well beyond the point that most women
get elective abortions. If you compare the ultrasound taken prior to an
elective abortion, the feeling is actually one of being underwhelmed,
because there's not much there compared to the ones we're used to
seeing. The anti-choice sentimental devices rely therefore on ignorance
more than illumination—their own mistaken understanding of what goes on
in an abortion clinic ... (Read the rest of this article in DoubleX).
-
sponsorship
Earlier this month, Abby wrote about a Texas bill that would require doctors to give ultrasounds before performing abortions, and now pro-choice Kansas Gov. (and potential Health and Human Services head) Kathleen Sebelius has signed a similar bill into law. According to the New York Times, "The measure, which the governor signed on Friday, requires abortion providers who use ultrasound or monitor fetal heartbeats to give their patients access to the images or sound at least 30 minutes before an abortion."
The Times also quotes Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri CEO Peter Brownlie, who says that the Overland Park location of Planned Parenthood "already allowed women to see ultrasound images, but that few accepted the offer." Somehow I am unmoved by this legislation. I think that most women who are confident in their reproductive choices will not want to see the ultrasound and that giving them the option won't deter them from their conviction. What do you think, Slate women? Is this really a defeat for pro-choicers?
-
sponsorship
The NYT worried this weekend, in the Style section, about the graying of the cadre of abortion counselors who have done battle for access to the procedure since the 1970s. They're the women who worked out of fortress-like buildings, in out of the way places, where protesters made sure the job was never hassle-free—and sometimes physically risky. The article correctly pointed out that a new generation of counselors and doctors is filling these positions in big cities but not rural areas. That's especially true in swathes of the South and Midwest. The director of Planned Parenthood for South Dakota is also the director for Minnesota and one other state.
This map has for a while made me wonder: Are buses and planes the future of national access to abortion? Should the groups that support making the procedure available raise money to pay for women to travel to the cities where clinics aren't under seige, and counselors and doctors don't have to be pioneering true believers to work there? It's a strategy that wouldn't further the mission to fulfill Roe by making abortion available everywhere across the country. It would add to the travel burden some rural women seeking abortions already face. And so it's unlikely to appeal to the abortion-rights groups. Unless and until they really can't staff the outposts. At that point, maybe there will be a new rallying cry: The Roe Bus, coming to take you away.
-
sponsorship
Planned Parenthood has an alternative for Indiana shoppers who were uninspired by this year's exceptionally bleak and cheerless Black Friday. Instead of stocking stuffers, residents of the Midwestern state can instead give their loved ones gift certificates in increments of $25 that can be credited toward any of the organization's services and products from birth control to abortions.
According to Chrystal Struben-Hall, VP of Planned Parenthood in Indiana, the gift certificate campaign will provide options to women who, in light of winter expenses and the economic climate, may have shunted health care costs to the bottom of their priority lists.
Struben-Hall maintains that the certificates aren't specifically intended to dissuade the cost of abortion, but critics of the program have objected to the lack of an official restriction preventing this. I have less of a problem here. In theory, the financial empowerment of women to take advantage of their right to use contraception or abort seems like a good idea to me. And while the organization would certainly take a financial hit if the demand for abortions and birth control slumps along with the economy, Planned Parenthood's marketing scheme seems motivated more by genuine concern than capitalism. Struben-Hall's point about women's health care sinking in priority during economic hard times is a valid one. And if women feel financially pressured to cut corners on birth control or regular pap smears, this could lead to life consequences for them that persist even after the recession subsides.
In practice, however, I can't imagine a scenario in which the presentation of a $50 gift certificate to Planned Parenthood would be either desirable or appropriate. Which market is Planned Parenthood targeting here--the boyfriend-husbands? The parents? Forget the holiday sweater that's worn once out of sheer politeness; these certificates--be they for morning-after pills or pelvic exams--take the reception of unwanted Christmas gifts to new levels of awkward, potentially encroaching upon more than a woman's fashion sense. At best, the certificates may be considered an unsolicited bodily imposition. At worst, they could be (and have been) misinterpreted as commercializing some extremely personal choices that have already received an uncomfortable amount of criticism this year.
-
sponsorship
On Monday, there was an outrage when Politico's Jonathan Martin reported that the Obama campaign was seeking a rape victim for an ad. Apparently, the campaign had contacted Kiersten Stewart (Martin misspelled her name as Steward) with the Family Violence Prevention Fund to help them find a victim for an ad relating to rape. According to the e-mail obtained by Politico, Stewart was unsure of the specifics regarding the ad.
At first, this made me queasy, too. A spokeswoman for rape? But then I thought about it. Why is this any different than using Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor, to do an attack ad on Obama's position on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois? Or using a POW who served with McCain to make an ad saying that he is unfit to lead?
Newsrooms have an ongoing debate about whether to name rape victims. The names are public record, but out of either respect or discomfort, newspapers decline to name them. But in the case of a political ad, the woman has a say in the matter. If the Obama campaign finds a woman to speak in its ad, she would have volunteered. If she wants to let herself be used this way, then who's to stop her? Many feminists have argued, after all, that shielding rape victims is misplaced chivalry and only compounds the shame.
The other difference here is that most of the testimonial ads are put out by independent groups, not by a political party or candidate. Jessen's ad was created by a group whose sole purpose is to reveal Obama's support of infanticide. No doubt this is something Jessen approves of—she's involved with the group. In Obama's case, he is asking a rape victim to talk about just one issue on his platform. Who knows if she supports all, or even most of, his positions. Planned Parenthood aired an ad today featuring a rape victim. There was no similar reaction. In Obama's case, the woman ends up speaking about rape but really serves as a spokesperson for Obama's campaign. In the Planned Parenthood situation, the woman talks about rape, but her speech doesn't have the same endorsement quality.
Obama's campaign wasn't wrong in seeking a rape victim for a political ad, but it does feel a little like exploitation. Then again, if she volunteered, no harm, no foul.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?