Name: Tess
Home: St. Louis
Enough Is Enough
Yesterday, Missouri became the 10th state to consider banning all abortions (except to save the life of a pregnant woman). According to the Post-Dispatch, State Sen. Jason Crowell filed a bill to ban abortions, as well as a proposal to add an abortion ban referendum to the ballot in November.
This past week, I've been reading about abortion every day in the newspaper. Newsweek included a story about it too. Last week, both houses of the South Dakota legislature passed a bill to ban abortions, and the governor intends to sign it. With Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, anti-choice activists are seizing the opportunity and directly assaulting Roe v. Wade at the state level.
Enough is enough.
Last month, I wrote about my moral qualms about abortion. Those still stand. I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Now that both "safe" and "legal" are under attack, however, it's time to act.
Reading the articles, I felt queasy. As I scanned Newsweek, I thought, They're going to take away our right to choose.
I guess I didn't believe it would happen. I was born more than three years after Roe v. Wade became "settled law of the land." I have always had access to birth control when I needed it. In college, I walked in the campus Take Back the Night March, chanting, "Women, unite! Take back the night!" I volunteered at a domestic violence shelter and counseled women who had been raped or battered or abused. Although I could see that women had a long way to go in our fight for equality, I took so much for granted. I was fascinated to read Margaret Atwood's dystopia The Handmaid's Tale and realize the veiled women in Afghanistan were a living example of a patriarchal society that controlled women's choices. It seemed far removed from my daily life.
But now, the U.S. is moving backward. The religious conservatives are fighting to control the choices women can make. I believe that abortion can be a difficult or even agonizing choice. But I also believe it is a choice that can only be made by a woman herself. She may choose to consult with other people, but it is ultimately her choice alone.
One sentence of the Newsweek article chilled me the most: "Some states are considering laws to require women to get an ultrasound image before obtaining an abortion." Ultrasound is a medical test used for diagnosis and screening. These laws would mandate a medical procedure that may or may not be necessary. In other words, lawmakers would be making medical decisions for women and their doctors. It's time to dust off an old pro-choice slogan: Keep your laws off my body.
The Missouri bill looks unlikely to become law. If it did, it would be unlikely to affect me. I can think of only two circumstances under which I would have an abortion: rape, or conceiving a child with severe birth defects. I am educated. I have money. I could fly to another state, another country. In the event that I wanted an abortion, I would be able to get one. And it occurs to me: This is what it must have been like in the old days. Well-off women had choices. Poor women didn't.
Now I'm ready to act. I've signed petitions at Planned Parenthood's web site and e-mailed the governor. Now that I'm a registered Missouri voter, it may even be time for some old-fashioned letters. And I'll certainly be at the polls in November.
I encourage my pro-choice readers to follow what's going in their states and take action accordingly. Enough is enough.
This past week, I've been reading about abortion every day in the newspaper. Newsweek included a story about it too. Last week, both houses of the South Dakota legislature passed a bill to ban abortions, and the governor intends to sign it. With Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court, anti-choice activists are seizing the opportunity and directly assaulting Roe v. Wade at the state level.
Enough is enough.
Last month, I wrote about my moral qualms about abortion. Those still stand. I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Now that both "safe" and "legal" are under attack, however, it's time to act.
Reading the articles, I felt queasy. As I scanned Newsweek, I thought, They're going to take away our right to choose.
I guess I didn't believe it would happen. I was born more than three years after Roe v. Wade became "settled law of the land." I have always had access to birth control when I needed it. In college, I walked in the campus Take Back the Night March, chanting, "Women, unite! Take back the night!" I volunteered at a domestic violence shelter and counseled women who had been raped or battered or abused. Although I could see that women had a long way to go in our fight for equality, I took so much for granted. I was fascinated to read Margaret Atwood's dystopia The Handmaid's Tale and realize the veiled women in Afghanistan were a living example of a patriarchal society that controlled women's choices. It seemed far removed from my daily life.
But now, the U.S. is moving backward. The religious conservatives are fighting to control the choices women can make. I believe that abortion can be a difficult or even agonizing choice. But I also believe it is a choice that can only be made by a woman herself. She may choose to consult with other people, but it is ultimately her choice alone.
One sentence of the Newsweek article chilled me the most: "Some states are considering laws to require women to get an ultrasound image before obtaining an abortion." Ultrasound is a medical test used for diagnosis and screening. These laws would mandate a medical procedure that may or may not be necessary. In other words, lawmakers would be making medical decisions for women and their doctors. It's time to dust off an old pro-choice slogan: Keep your laws off my body.
The Missouri bill looks unlikely to become law. If it did, it would be unlikely to affect me. I can think of only two circumstances under which I would have an abortion: rape, or conceiving a child with severe birth defects. I am educated. I have money. I could fly to another state, another country. In the event that I wanted an abortion, I would be able to get one. And it occurs to me: This is what it must have been like in the old days. Well-off women had choices. Poor women didn't.
Now I'm ready to act. I've signed petitions at Planned Parenthood's web site and e-mailed the governor. Now that I'm a registered Missouri voter, it may even be time for some old-fashioned letters. And I'll certainly be at the polls in November.
I encourage my pro-choice readers to follow what's going in their states and take action accordingly. Enough is enough.
posted by Tess | 7:36 AM
7 Comments:
That second link made me so sad. Has it really come to this?
And should the event ever arise, the government is welcome to prosecute me.
My great-great grandfather (I think) went to prison for performing illegal abortions for poor women. I'll have to look into that story.
It is always interesting to me that the people most vehement about preventing abortion are older, well-to-do, powerful, and male: i.e., people who will never need one.
It also seems strange that people so vehement about legislating the prevention of abortion could also have so little actual interest in the health and welfare of babies (particularly babies of low-income parents) once they are born.
Well stated, Tess. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. And the agonizing decision should be left up to the woman, who should retain the ultimate right to control over her own body.
I was especially disturbed that several Democrats (such as Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman) and "moderate Republicans" (such as Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee and both Maine senators) voted to end the filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Alito, knowing full well that his confirmation would bring about this wave of draconian state abortion bans to be tested in the now more conservative Court (among many other likely bad, ultra-conservative rulings). Of the women's rights organizations, from what I understand, the National Organization for Women (NOW) has been the most resolute in criticizing these votes, whereas both Planned Parenthood and NARAL have missed the boat. The latter two organizations may come to regret that they did not hold these senators' feet to the fire on this issue.
Well, in my view, the silver lining is that this whole issue is likely to generate a backlash against conservatives, who after all make up the minority in public opinion on this issue. But that will be no comfort to the poor women with no choices who end up resorting to illegal and dangerous back-alley procedures. I hope not too many of them have to be seriously hurt or even die before we reverse these ridiculous bans and return to addressing our society's REAL moral problems such as poverty, greed, and war-making/violence.
Tess objects to the idea of women having an ultrasound prior to choosing or not choosing a procedure that kills a nascent human being. Ultrasound is a non-invasive rapid procedure that can provide women with a picture of the human life that is growing in the womb. More information leads, generally, to better decision making. Perhaps those who rally around the abortion at all costs banner, and oppose something as medically minimalist as this, understand that a picture is indeed worth a thousand words.
I don't object to ultrasounds when medically indicated. I object to lawmakers deciding when ultrasounds--or any other medical procedures--must be performed.
I also don't understand what "abortion at all costs" means. That certainly doesn't describe my view.
andrew o said:
Tess objects to the idea of women having an ultrasound prior to choosing or not choosing a procedure that kills a nascent human being.
tess has already pointed out that this is not technically what she objects to.
Ultrasound is a non-invasive rapid procedure that can provide women with a picture of the human life that is growing in the womb.
you make it sound like taking a temperature with a thermometer. ultrasound takes time, the presence of a specialist, more money (from the woman or insurance company), and has extremely limited diagnostic utility for most things that could possibly medically matter in this case.
More information leads, generally, to better decision making.
by that logic, the woman should also be forced to have every diagnostic procedure in the book before being allowed to go ahead with an abortion. so, why focus on this particular procedure?
Perhaps those who rally around the abortion at all costs banner, and oppose something as medically minimalist as this, understand that a picture is indeed worth a thousand words.
so, here you are essentially admitting that you like this idea because it might create an emotional reaction that would reduce the abortion rate. which is it? a useful medical procedure or a tool for emotional blackmail? you can maybe legislate the former, but the latter?
i would be perfectly happy if there were never any more abortions ever ever ever. but i don't believe women should be hijacked by the state simply because a single sperm managed, never mind how, to fertilize a single egg. nor do i think much of politicians who play games with people's lives to try to force the supreme court to play its hand.
thought this post might be better off in this more recent thread...
First, let's remove any doubt about my point of view: I'm a white Christian southern male. Now for the good part. :)
Two major issues are being fought over right now in America, and though they're far apart in terms of inherent morality and legality, they both have a strikingly similar question we should be asking: 1. For illegal immigration 'rights' activists, what part of 'illegal' doesn't make sense!? 2. For pro-abortion activists (not 'pro-choice' for all you euphemists), what part of 'killing' doesn't make sense!? God put forth very specific laws regarding the killing of another person, whether it's during a war or via the death penalty. Nowhere did He ever even HINT that it was OK to take the life of an unborn child. That crime is an invention of our twisted society, and God doesn't make mistakes. EVERY child was created through His will. Who are WE to decide it was a 'mistake'?
Talk with 100 women who've made the mistake of aborting their babies, and you'll likely find 98 of them who regret THAT 'choice' MUCH more than they will ever regret the mistake they originally made to become pregnant in the first place. It is a cold, dead heart indeed that finds the ability to kill an unborn child. We should in addition to teaching abstinence be requiring every abortion clinic to provide a sonogram to patients so they can see what they're really doing. Those same 98 women who'd made the wrong choice would probably also say they would much rather have to live with the fact that they'd given up their baby for adoption.
Post a Comment
<< Home