In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Housecleaning

I spent this afternoon cleaning out some closets in preparation for giving them a fresh coat of paint. You know how it is: things pile up, like sports equipment and camping gear and canned goods and cheap plastic dildoes that have developed unsavory discolored patches, and before you know it you have a cobweb-clotted mass of trash on your hands. So I went in with my fistful of papertowels and my Windex and my spider shoe, and after a couple of hours my closets were all clean and tidy. It was satisfying! I wish I’d done it sooner, but I have this tendency to let things pile up in my closets until things and closets are both past any use.

You know what’s not like a closet? My uterus.

More informed and pithy reproductive-rights bloggers have already gone to town on William Saletan, but this is just ridiculous. There is nothing controversial about “early,” just as there is nothing controversial–per se, anyway–in “safe,” “legal,” and “rare.” Nobody prefers later abortions to early ones; nobody who recognizes a woman’s right to choose believes that delay is a feature. “Early” is a problem for the exact same reason that those other three are. Given the choice between hurting women and permitting women to seek abortion, pro-life lobbyists will always choose to make women’s lives much harder.

Most women do not need several months to decide that they don’t want to be pregnant–in fact, many women make this decision before they actually get pregnant. Most women opt for earlier abortions. It’s safer, it’s less costly, and–most importantly–you don’t have all that fetus clutter to worry about when you have houseguests or need a place to store your toboggan. Really, why would you delay an important medical procedure that only becomes more difficult as time passes? Why would you keep an unwanted pregnancy longer than you had to? Anybody? Or maybe I’m reading him wrong–maybe he’s arguing that women should feel guilty about not working harder to secure earlier abortions?

Can Slate get a blogger who understands at least on some abstract logistical level what pregnancy means? Who doesn’t need to be told that there’s a difference between being pregnant for an extra few months and not? It was one thing to listen to Saletan nattering on about how pro-choice advocates really needed to incorporate the idea of choice into their moral arguments, but to hear him talk about abortion as though it’s something you can just put off indefinitely, no cost-benefit considerations involved? Like getting a wart frozen off your pinkie?

The only way anyone could attribute any natural resistance to “early” to women in general is through misogyny. You have to believe women are perverse or stupid, or you have to believe that women don’t have bodies, that there is no experiential component to pregnancy. You also have to believe that the debate is between two groups who both want the best for women. How do we know that’s just not true? Well, women have to delay medical treatment in order to make people like William Saletan feel better about themselves. The problem here is access. Dignity. Solve that problem–stop forcing women to make medical decisions based on political shibboleths–and Saletan’s new concern-troll toll bridge evaporates.


22 thoughts on Housecleaning

  1. Wonderful post Piny. I think you’ll find this more and more when actually making progress towards decriminalisation of abortion, as we found during the process last year (!) in Victoria, Australia (not BC.) The “pro-lifers” decided that they had lost the battle on early abortion, so they focussed all their effort on portraying women as selfish people who would be getting very, very late term abortions of healthy viable babies ON A WHIM for NO GOOD REASON. And it would be happening ALL THE TIME. Because these nasty women will be doing it just for “convenience”. What?!

    I thought I’d raise a small thought experiment,

    So many people seem to think that we’ll have abortions, even late term abortions, because we suddenly decide we want to fit into our Melbourne Cup frocks or some shit. OK, let me play their game for a minute or two. Let’s suppose that I’m a completely shallow party animal who just wants to look good, avoid personal issues and not lose my gym-toned sixpack or my partying lifestyle. Am I likely to have a late term abortion? Think about it.

    Will I wait until I’ve got a grossly distended stomach (there goes the gym-toned sixpack, already) and have had to buy a second wardrobe of elastic-waisted garments; I’ve gone up two bra sizes; the people at work and at the club have all started asking interested questions; the family have all noticed; I’ve got puffy ankles and likely one or two other physical side-effects; I’ve kissed goodbye to my wine, cocktails and lots of my favourite foods; I haven’t had a proper sleep in weeks… Hmmm. Do you get my drift?

    Convenience? Hah!

  2. I wish I’d done it sooner, but I have this tendency to let things pile up in my closets until things and closets are both past any use.

    You know what’s not like a closet? My uterus.

    Hilarious. I mean, in a maddening, frustrating, what-are-these-people-thinking sort of way. Excellent post!

  3. Or as Molly Ivins put it, no woman seven months pregnant ever waddled past an abortion clinic and said, “Damn, I knew there was something I’d been meaning to get around to!”

  4. Huh I just happened to read that article, but I got a different tone from it. (I have seen plenty of articles from that author that did make my blood boil, but this one didn’t.) I thought his point was that access to early abortion is the problem and that if only “pro-lifers” would stop imposing waiting periods, blocking access to RU-486, and preventing govt funding of abortions most abortions would be taking place earlier which would be better for women themselves and be less evil in the minds of people who oppose abortion. Wasn’t that the point?

    Anyway what I thought was most interesting about this is that in talking about abortion with some adamant anti-choice people on a message board once, someone brought up the whole “it stops a beating heart” thing. I pointed out that actually the heart does not start beating until 3 weeks after conception, so it’s entirely possible that abortion could occur before a heart beat and then wouldn’t those who say the “it stops a beating heart” line have to be okay with an abortion that early? The point I was trying to make was just that there’s nothing morally relevant about stopping a beating heart. But surprisingly one of the people I was responding to came back and basically said that no she didn’t find abortion morally problematic if it happened before the embryo’s heart began beating.

    I was kind of amazed. I had never heard a self-identified pro-lifer admit that if an abortion occurred early enough, before an embryo had many physical traits in common with born humans, it isn’t wrong. It makes me wonder if there are other opponents of abortion out there who really wouldn’t care if all abortions happened in the first 2 weeks of pregnancy!

  5. Can Slate get a blogger who understands at least on some abstract logistical level what pregnancy means? Who doesn’t need to be told that there’s a difference between being pregnant for an extra few months and not?

    Well, first of all, I’m fairly certain William Saletan has never been pregnant, or feared it. That’s part of the problem.

    Neither have I, for the same reason, but that’s not incompatible with my viewpoint.

  6. Philfemgal – I doubt it, considering how many of the people who are against abortion are also against other reproductive choices, including hormonal birth control and Plan B. I’m impressed that you have, but I’ve yet to find one who didn’t think a fertilized egg was the same as an infant. Or who at least claimed to when it was convenient.

  7. Great post, and I love the closet analogy. However… I don’t know, I personally find the “rare” part of “safe, legal, and rare” highly offensive. I could just about give a crap less how rare they are, and I don’t think government should concern itself with the rarity of a legal procedure. Why don’t we just say that exercising one’s First Amendment rights should be legal but rare? Either the right to abortion exists or it doesn’t. I’m going with “safe, legal, on demand and without apology… and no one else’s damned business.”*

    This phrase is just another example of feminists and liberals being put on the defensive and coerced into framing their side of the debate in a way that kowtows to right-wingers. (Same goes with all this crap about health care for “working families.” Is the whole family going to pick grapes together in some Steinbeckian nightmare scenario? Don’t we have child labor laws? We need health care regardless of work or family status.)

    For the sake of women, for whom abortion can be (depending on the procedure) an invasive, debilitating, uncomfortable and/or painful procedure, sure, it’d be great to decrease unwanted pregnancies through education, access to birth control, etc. But I don’t want to cede any ground to advocates for ever-increased fetal rights.

    Concerning Saletan’s piece, I found it a bit roundabout. He makes an interesting point that pro-lifers’ pet policies lead to delays in abortion and therefore increasingly developed fetuses being aborted and seems to suggest that more abortions might be better than fewer if they are more likely to be early in the pregnancy. He also seems to understand that women have actual reasons for deferring abortion, such as lack of funding or asinine waiting period laws. But I felt his overall point was a bit muddled. Was it simply to point out that pro-life policies may eliminate some abortions but merely defer others, making them more morally problematic? I’m not quite sure, but the last sentence makes me fear there is a new pro-life agenda to contend with (or rather a new focus within their agenda). Apart from concerns for women’s health and well-being, “early” concerns me about as much as “rare.”

    I have to admit that I don’t really follow Saletan’s work, and though I looked through some information on him and a few past columns, I’m not quite sure how to interpret this one contextually. I can only say that I personally consider the matter of women’s rights versus fetal rights settled and am uncomfortable with rhetoric that suggests that (everyone on) both sides feels the need to achieve some greater balance between them than simply possible restrictions on third-trimester abortions.

    *Discounting viability concerns, which is an entirely separate topic. And I do understand that women and other oppressed groups have historically been successful at gaining rights by engaging in this kind of disingenuous but persuasive rhetoric; but I’m sure activists in those groups as well have often found it as distasteful as I do.

  8. I’m with philfemgal on this one. I think Saletan point is that women don’t delay abortions for fun but that many pro-life arguments and measures (like parental notifications, RU-486 not readily available) force them to. He sure should have made that even clearer.

    Under Waldman’s proposal, for instance, “Medicaid funding would be generous for first trimester abortions, minimal for second trimesters, and non-existent for the third.” That sounds good. But suppose you’re just past your first trimester. A second-trimester abortion is considerably more expensive than a first-trimester abortion, and now we’ve taken away your anticipated means of paying for it. Good luck raising the money from family and friends while your fetus develops and the eventual abortion becomes that much more awful.

    He just supposes one might be past the first trimester. That’s not saying someone let things go that far intentionally but that it just happened (and it does happen). And he’s right that capping financial help will exaggerate the problem for worse.

    Anyway, using “rare” is a double-eged sword. Of course having less need for abortions would be good but there’s always the danger of letting this slip into slut-shaming way too easily.

  9. For some reason html didn’t work out, so the second paragraph was a quote from Saletan.

  10. Saletan ignores something all males tend to: Abortion is not a pain-free procedure. The longer a woman waits, the more painful the required procedure. Not to mention far more expensive. Who would choose more over less pain?

    I’ll echo others who have posted that if a woman waits, there is a reason. Money is probably the number one reason.

  11. Argh, the worst part of that article was how he framed it as a discussion with his “buddy”, one of the few “people willing to seriously talk compromise on abortion”. Because there’s no jollier sport for an afternoon than dickering over a woman’s body, and those hysterical females will never indulge your need for such abstract political musings.

    As if they had the right to use women’s bodies as a bargaining chip in their arguments.

  12. Really, why would you delay an important medical procedure that only becomes more difficult as time passes?

    The problem is people DO clearly sometimes delay care for critical medical problems. For example, women who present to the doctor with advanced breast cancer will sometimes have noted a lump in their breast months or even years before presenting. They delay for various reasons but the most common two are lack of money and fear: they don’t have insurance and are afraid of getting a bill or they are so scared by the very thought of breast cancer that they simply can’t force themselves to deal with the symptoms until they become horrifically undeniable.

    So if there are women seeking 7th month abortion for pregnancies that they knew they didn’t want from the start, they are not the vain, empty headed woman of anti-choice fantasies but poor, scared women.

    If women delay abortion for similar reasons–their insurance doesn’t cover it or they don’t have insurance and can’t raise the cash in less than 3 months or they are so terrified by the idea of pregnancy that they can’t even think about it is undeniable–then there are several potential interventions that might help. The first problem is in principle easier: just implement universal health coverage with coverage for abortion included and that problem disappears. Yes, I know, the political issues involved are non-trivial, but still the solution is obvious if the implementation is not.

    The second, I’m less sure. Is it possible to make an unwanted pregnancy less frightening? Maybe if the pregnant woman–or girl–knew that she would not be stigmatized for the pregnancy–whatever the outcome, if she had support for her decision so that any decision–abortion, adoption or raising the child–was truly feasible for her, maybe she would be less frightened. And more able to acknowledge and deal with the pregnancy, whether “dealing with” it means starting folic acid and lamaze classes or seeking out an abortion clinic as soon as possible.

  13. Huh I just happened to read that article, but I got a different tone from it. (I have seen plenty of articles from that author that did make my blood boil, but this one didn’t.) I thought his point was that access to early abortion is the problem and that if only “pro-lifers” would stop imposing waiting periods, blocking access to RU-486, and preventing govt funding of abortions most abortions would be taking place earlier which would be better for women themselves and be less evil in the minds of people who oppose abortion. Wasn’t that the point?

    Sorta, yeah. And I agree with “early” per se–at least, with all the circumstances that make early abortions possible–and also think it’s great when columnists describe the effects of these laws.

    The problem is that despite the acknowledgement that punitive abortion laws do nothing but fuck women, Saletan is married to this “compromise” idea. It’s as though the zero-sum is simply between “protecting women’s choice” and “hurting fetuses.” (Or whatever–that is, as though fetal quality of life were of any independent interest to anti-abortion groups, and as though female quality of life were of any interest at all.) Were that the case, a compromise would be a working frame for the discussion.

    But it’s not. For two reasons: first, anti-abortion groups don’t care about women, and aren’t interested in softening anti-abortion regs to protect women. Especially at levels more nuanced than say life-threatening pregnancy complications.

    More importantly: women themselves, for reasons related both to self-interest and personal beliefs about abortion and pregnancy, will generally do these things on their own. They don’t really need to be pressured to have less invasive procedures, or earlier terminations, or to take birth control in order to prevent pregnancy in the first place. All these decisions have incentives built in. They have a more direct, more informed interest in what goes on inside their own bodies than anybody else.

    So that brings us around to the bit we just can’t compromise on: choice. Women need to have the unquestioned, uncomplicated right to choose how and when to end their pregnancies. Saletan dances around that idea because he needs to believe there’s a sensible, moral way to complicate choice without any women getting hurt. And in this case, it’s caused him to write a bizarrely woman-absent description of pregnancy.

  14. I’ll echo others who have posted that if a woman waits, there is a reason. Money is probably the number one reason.

    I’m actually not sure if it’s money. I’d assume that one of the highest reasons a woman has a late-term abortion is that she was open to parenthood, and later discovers that this wasn’t viable for whatever reason. We know of several medical reasons that would make a late-term abortion necessary, or feel necessary, for example.

  15. And in this case, it’s caused him to write a bizarrely woman-absent description of pregnancy.

    I’m beginning to believe that Slate is afraid of letting a woman write about abortion on a regular basis because it would make the site seem too liberally biased. Because abortion is merely a political issue.

  16. However… I don’t know, I personally find the “rare” part of “safe, legal, and rare” highly offensive. I could just about give a crap less how rare they are, and I don’t think government should concern itself with the rarity of a legal procedure. Why don’t we just say that exercising one’s First Amendment rights should be legal but rare? Either the right to abortion exists or it doesn’t. I’m going with “safe, legal, on demand and without apology… and no one else’s damned business.”*

    This. Just, exactly this.

  17. *Discounting viability concerns, which is an entirely separate topic. And I do understand that women and other oppressed groups have historically been successful at gaining rights by engaging in this kind of disingenuous but persuasive rhetoric; but I’m sure activists in those groups as well have often found it as distasteful as I do.

    What?

  18. I hate 101ing all over the place, but I really didn’t understand this article or Feministe’s response to it. The original thing seemed to be talking (in a vague, read-over-three-times kind of way) about early abortions being better for women and more palatable to the pro-life side, except that they may mean more abortions, which leads to difficulty in marketing the idea. Then this article is about how a womb isn’t like a closet. I know I have missed something, but I’m having trouble figuring out what…

  19. @Fiendish: Piny is saying that people don’t just put off reproductive decisions, like one might when cleaning out one’s closet.

    Essentially, this guy is going on about late-term abortions and how that squicks people out, and Piny is saying that most of the time, abortions are early on, because who the fuck is going to put in the energy to gestate just because they ‘don’t feel’ like getting their abortion early. As someone up there quoted the late, great Molly Ivins — no one waddles past an abortion clinic seven months pregnant and says, “Damn! I knew there was something I forgot to do.”

    I don’t think you are 101ing; you merely missed the metaphor.

  20. Sorry to derail, but your dildos might last longer and be patch-free if you spend a little more instead of buying cheap ones. If they are like other consumer items, anyway–I don’t know, I am a machinist and I made my own…

Comments are currently closed.