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

Why I Provide Abortions

Lauren sent on this powerful piece written by an abortion provider, explaining why he provides the services he does. You really have to read the whole thing, but here’s a teaser:

By 1967 I was a third year medical student, still with no visible means of support, and we were pregnant with our third child. It was the spring of that year and I was ending my rotation in the Ob-Gyn Service clinic. I was assigned a 40 plus year old, poverty stricken mother of several children. I think she was unmarried but I am not sure of that now. This care worn mother-of-several had a large abdominal mass that I rapidly determined to be a well advanced pregnancy. I asked my resident to come and break the news to this woman; it was very obvious to me that she was not going to be happy about the news of another pregnancy. When told that she – already unable to adequately feed and clothe her family – was again pregnant, she looked up at me and the resident. There we stood, two white males, well clothed, well feed young men with superior educations. We were, in her eyes, stunningly blessed and obviously going places in the world. She began to weep silently. She must have assumed, for good reason, that there was no way that we would understand her problems; she knew also that there was nothing that we could or would do to relieve her lacerating misery.

“Oh God, doctor,” she said quietly, “I was hoping it was cancer.”

He concludes,

Like multitudes before me and, I trust, multitudes to come, I eventually heard (Try as I might to avoid hearing it!) in that mother’s grief-filled declaration, “Oh God, Doctor, I was hoping it was cancer”, a still, small voice asking, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” to which I was at last compelled to reply, “here am I, send me.”

He also illustrates something that many pro-choicers emphasize — that there is no such thing as an “abortion of convenience” — but phrases it better than anyone I’ve read:

I have never seen an abortion decision entered into lightly by anyone involved. The decision to have an abortion is most often made in the time of the first great personal moral crisis that ever faces a girl, a woman, her family and the people who love them. It is only those who stand outside and condemn the women and families who are faced with these dilemmas who take lightly the decisions made in these straits and trivialize the circumstances in which they are made.

Emphasis mine, because that is an absolutely crucial point.

Also on Kos today is the question, Will a Dem win in 2008 generate right-wing violence? Meteor Blades links to Zuzu’s post about anti-choice violence never being called what it is: Terrorism. S/he goes on to question whether a 2008 defeat will bring back the right-wing militias, anti-government sects, anti-gay and anti-choice terrorists, and others who are currently quiet because they’re having their needs met by the Bush administration. I’ll add to the list the anti-immigrant vigilantes like the Minute Men, whose needs aren’t being entirely met by the current administration and who I suspect we’ll see further violence from even before the election — but I’d predict that a Dem win would exacerbate that, too.

We can’t be surprised when a political ideology that relies on violence and warfare as the solution to all of its grievances breeds smaller groups which rely on violence and warfare to solve their own problems, but without the legitimacy that the federal government assumes (and I would say “without the rules that the federal government is required to abide by,” but the concept of rules and basic morals seems to have gone straight to hell over the past few years).

Right-wing terrorists are festering across our country. They maintain sites like The Nuremberg Files (which I’m not linking to, sorry) which list the names, addresses and other information about abortion providers. They keep a list of “Aborted and Nearly Aborted Abortionists” that chronicles the doctors, nurses and other health care providers who have been killed or injured by anti-choice terrorists — the point being to celebrate the individuals who have murdered and attempted to murder the people on the list. Several of the terrorists are listed as “At large, planning next murder?”

According to site owner Neil Horsley (who in addition to threatening abortion providers with murder, occasionally goes on national radio programs to discuss his youthful penchant for having sex with mules):

We are updating this section DAILY. Our goal is to record the name of every person working in the baby slaughter business across the United States of America so, as in the Nuremberg Trials in Nazi Germany, we can punish these people for slaughtering God’s children. Email us with your evidence.

In addition to listing the names of abortion providers, they also list information about their families, judges, law enforcement officials, and on and on. Their efforts at stalking and violence are facilitated by “abortion cams” that tape women walking into clinics and put their images online.

But guys like Neil Horsley and the Operation Rescue and Army of God dudes are fringe extremists, right? It’s not like any of the mainstream, telephoning-the-White-House “pro-family” groups would embrace these men, right? Well… “brothers under the skin” seems like a pretty accurate characterization.

Thankfully, there are people like Dr. Harrison who, to incorporate the stereotypical feminist quote (that I love anyway), “daily provide women with a choice, who stand down a threat the size of Oklahoma City just to listen to a young woman’s voice.”

Dr. Harrison is not the only one. Other doctor diaries are here and here; there are hundreds of health care providers who do this same good work every day. Unfortunately, abortion providers are becoming fewer and fewer — nearly 90 percent of U.S. counties lack an abortion provider. Current providers — those who haven’t been killed, haven’t quit for fear of being murdered (or having their families murdered), those who have stuck out the harassment and the stalking and the glares of disapproval — are often in their 60s and 70s, continuing because there’s no one to replace them. Thankfully, there are some young people who are willing to make serious personal sacrifices — facing down violence, taking a substantial pay cut, exposing themselves and their families to threats and stalking and hatred — to provide women with abortion services.

They have my admiration and my gratitude.


36 thoughts on Why I Provide Abortions

  1. My abortion provider was a judgemental jerk, god/s bless him.

    I’d hate to have zero instead of 2 going on 3 college degrees today. I’d hate to be married instead of divorced. I’d hate to be the mother of a 13-year-old who knew I resented him/er.

    Laurel

  2. Dr. Harrison’s article is excellent; I’m glad he and many others are out there performing necessary medical procedures every day.

    I don’t really think of my own abortion as a personal and moral crisis. It was not something I would have otherwise chosen, sure, but it wasn’t a focal point of my life, and the decision wasn’t all that hard. By the time of my abortion I was so sure I was making the right decision that during the procedure itself I was chatting with the doctor, making jokes, etc. I guess a judgmental observer would say I was taking it lightly. But does it really matter how serious or lighthearted I was? I made the right decision, for my own body, and I had the right to do so. 10 years later, during my second (this time wanted) pregnancy, I don’t regret my decision.

  3. Aren’t there any laws to convict those stalkers? The website celebrating murderers shut down? Anyone who might plan a murder invetigated and watched?

    Just saying that he wants to punish people should be a starting point because punishing other people is not his business. Is there any organization that helps the nurses to get their pictures removed from the internet?

    Abortion is allowed in so many European countries so how come there aren’t bombings on clinics and police officers watching entrances? There have been protests and struggles, too, and remain in some countries but it still puzzles me to see how much violence is used in the US then.

  4. I’d hate to be the mother of a 13-year-old who knew I resented him/er.

    I’ve observed what I believed to be a similar situation, and it was sad.

    I once knew a woman who had three children; at least two were unplanned and the eldest she’d had while still in high school. I never doubted that she loved her children, and it’s certainly not my place to second-guess her decisions, but I noticed that she often found reasons not to be around her children, including making long-term plans for her life that were incompatible with children. In fact, during most of the time that I was in contact with her, the children were actually being raised by her mother and stepfather, neither of whom were in particularly good health. The woman’s mother died just before I moved away and didn’t see the woman again.

    All of this led me to believe that she faced family and other social pressures to have the children when she would have preferred otherwise. I could be wrong, of course.

  5. My god, what sad stories, all three of them. I hardly ever cry, but this, this makes cry.

  6. “Oh God, doctor,” she said quietly, “I was hoping it was cancer.”

    I’m such a bad person. I read that line and all I could think of was Jenna Malone’s character in saved, biking to the Planned Parenthood and chanting to herself “please let it be cancer.” (Which, all other things, being equal is an adorable movie.)

  7. Perhaps I heard wrong or something was mis-stated, but, according to the lawyer who leads my synagogue’s Talmud study group,that, in constrast to the obligations we Jews have at least to each other, under U.S. law there is no obligation to save the life of someone you see, e.g., dying on the street.

    If I don’t have an obligation to spare a few minutes giving CPR to some person on the street, how is it that pregnant women have an obligation, according to the so-called pro-life crowd, to provide their bodily fluids directly to a fetus living inside their bodies? And, while parents do have obligations to provide for their children, there are also mechanisms in place for parents to pass on those obligations by giving up their children — which mechanisms obviously cannot exist if a fetus is still in the womb (and anyone who says “if the fetus is viable, then it’s different as the fetus could be delivered” is evidently a little unclear on what all delivery involves — they don’t call it labor for nothin’!).

    So will pro-lifers wish to actually legislate God’s affirmative answer to Cain’s question “am I my brother’s keeper?” or does the “you have a moral and legal obligation to provide your very vital fluids toward maintaining the life of another” argument only apply to the unborn? Where, e.g., would the so-called pro-lifers be on a mandatory blood-donation law?

  8. If I don’t have an obligation to spare a few minutes giving CPR to some person on the street, how is it that pregnant women have an obligation, according to the so-called pro-life crowd, to provide their bodily fluids directly to a fetus living inside their bodies?

    There are exceptions to the non-duty to rescue. For example, if you cause a car crash and are capable of rendering aid, you must do so rather than wandering off to get drunk in a bar. I suspect that this would be the response: you caused it, you fix it.

    Not that I am remotely sympathetic to such an argument, but there it is.

  9. evil fizz,

    I happen to actually be sympathetic to this argument … and I think that we do need to move more toward Biblically based society where we are more our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.

    I guess a pro-lifer would say that the woman in question “caused” the situation so she’s obligated to provide that life support (which would also be why some pro-lifers might support rape exceptions). ‘Cept the thing is that it takes two to tango, as they say. Is the father obligated to provide bodily support for the fetus?

    Perhaps the Dems. if only as a matter of political theater (remember when lefties were good at this and righties sucked at it?), should attach an ammendment to any bill restricting abortions a requirement that the father-to-be be made to have equal reduction of liberty as the pregnant woman: he has to carry around one of those weight packs, give blood in quantities proportional to the quantity of blood effectively depleted of its nutrients by the fetus, etc. Perhaps forcing the demands of pregnancy on people other than “them wimins which gots themselves knocked up” might change the tune of those so-called pro-lifers who are the moral equivalent of chickenhawks?

  10. Perhaps I heard wrong or something was mis-stated, but, according to the lawyer who leads my synagogue’s Talmud study group,that, in constrast to the obligations we Jews have at least to each other, under U.S. law there is no obligation to save the life of someone you see, e.g., dying on the street.

    Your confusion isn’t unique these days since huge segments of Americans conflate legality with morality.

    All law comes from morality but not all morality is the proper province of law.

    That is why a majority of Americans are pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. They want a more balanced approach to a procedure that pits the rights of a woman with the rights of a nascent human life, especially when the fetus becomes viable around 24 weeks. That’s why the majority of Americans want first trimester abortions remaining legal even if they consider the majority of such legal abortions immoral.

    It is silly to say “there is no such thing as a convenience abortion” when the NYTimes presents Amy Richards who found it terrifying to face the prospect of shopping at Costco if she had her triplets.

  11. It is silly to say “there is no such thing as a convenience abortion” when the NYTimes presents Amy Richards who found it terrifying to face the prospect of shopping at Costco if she had her triplets.

    Richards may have phrased it lightly, but the situation she illustrates isn’t an easy one. She was living in a tiny walk-up apartment in the East Village. She was making very little money working as a freelance writer and speaker. She wasn’t married. She didn’t have a strong family support system in New York. She was going to have to go on bed rest for at least a month. That’s no little intrusion into one’s life.

    I have a life very similar to Amy’s. I live in a sixth-floor two-bedroom walk-up with no living room (just a kitchen and bathroom between the bedrooms), in a bedroom that fits my bed and leaves me with about 2 feet of space to walk. I live off of student loans. I’m single. My whole family is on the West Coast. And if I got pregnant with triplets tomorrow, you can bet that terminating all three pregnancies (or two, if I thought I could handle one child) wouldn’t be about “convenience.” Richards used the Costco example as a jokey way of illustrating just how much her life would have to change if she had three babies, and how thoroughly impossible it would be for her to raise three children in her situation.

    That’s hardly about “convenience.” It’s about self-preservation. And you should ask any woman who’s terminated a pregnancy if the medical expenses, the invasive surgery, and the anti-choice shaming were particularly convenient.

  12. That’s no little intrusion into one’s life.

    Jill, Jill! You’re missing the point. The point is, it’s little to no intrusion into Darleen’s life.

    Let’s stay focused on what’s really important here, huh? Sheesh!

  13. Jill

    I’m not going to re-argue Richard’s cavalier immorality. Obviously she had every legal right to terminate the 2 siblings of her child rather than…say… giving them up for adoption (better dead than with someone else). Or moving to the ‘burbs with the babies’ dad who was there and was more than willing to support her. She’s the one that will have to face her own child later in life with the question “why did you do that?”

    Along with choice comes owning our responsibility for making that choice.

    I wasn’t minimizing the intrusion. Been there done that when my daugther spent close to a month in the hospital, in bed hooked up five ways from Sunday, after she went into premature labor with her twins. Husband and I took leaves from work so she would always have someone with her.

    When a woman chooses to abort because the pregnancy is ill-timed, that is the definition of “convenience”.

    I, along with the majority of Americans, do not want to stop her from getting a safe, legal abortion in the first trimester, regardless of reason. It’s at best a tragic situation. And a serious one about which some insist on treating unseriously.

  14. Of course, my bad. How could I forget the cardinal rule of Darleen comments? If it’s not about Darleen, it’s about the Dhimmitude. And even then it’s still pretty much about Darleen.

  15. “a still, small voice asking, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” to which I was at last compelled to reply, “here am I, send me.”

    I don’t know i’ve ever seen Isaiah 6 put to better use. Very powerful.

  16. Obviously she had every legal right to terminate the 2 siblings of her child rather than…say… giving them up for adoption (better dead than with someone else).

    …which would have required her to carry and birth TRIPLETS. Did you read the part about how she couldn’t travel? Would have to be on bed-rest at 20 weeks? How she lives in a five-story walk-up apartment? It’s not as simple as “carry the babies and give them up for adoption.” That doesn’t eliminate the problems that come with carrying the babies.

    Or moving to the ‘burbs with the babies’ dad who was there and was more than willing to support her.

    …which is easy to do when you’re pregnant with triplets. Expecting someone to give up her entire life — her home, her friends — is asking a lot. And have you ever tried to live in “the suburbs” of New York? It’s not exactly cheap out there.

    When a woman chooses to abort because the pregnancy is ill-timed, that is the definition of “convenience”.

    Ok. My point is that abortion is never convenient. The definition of “convenience” is something that adds to one’s comfort or makes a situation more advantageous. An abortion doesn’t do that. An abortion is a response to a very inconvenient situation. It’s an attempt to return to normalcy, to one’s standard life. And it requires going out of your way to do that — it requires significant expense, time, energy, stress and pain. It is most certainly an inconvenience. It is probably less of an inconvenience than having a child, but that doesn’t suddenly make abortion any more “convenient” than any other type of surgery.

    I also take issue with the idea that terminating an ill-timed pregnancy is a sign of moral failure that one should “take responsibility” for. We deal with situations to the best of our ability. If a woman feels that she does not want to be pregnant, or cannot be pregnant, I hardly see how she’s morally derelict in getting herself un-pregnant. I hardly see how that’s something she should “take responsibility” for, as if it was a major screw-up, but if she grovels enough then you might forgive her.

  17. I’m not going to re-argue Richard’s cavalier immorality. Obviously she had every legal right to terminate the 2 siblings of her child rather than…say… giving them up for adoption (better dead than with someone else).

    Except for the part where they WOULDN’T BE with someone else. You know, the last few months of the pregnancy where they would be in her, overloading her bodily systems, putting her on bed rest when she couldn’t afford it, et cetera. The relevant comparison would be “better gone than in me.” I do not find anything particularly immoral about “I can handle one, and will, but three are too much.”

    In a way, it’s almost more “moral” from a pro-life perspective, because she is doing more (giving life to one baby) than most women who get abortions—her breaking point of “too much” is higher than theirs. But instead, the pro-lifers compare her to the heights of what she could have done, and find her two babies short instead of one baby ahead.

  18. Obviously she had every legal right to terminate the 2 siblings of her child rather than…say… giving them up for adoption (better dead than with someone else).

    I grew up close to a family in which there were two biological children and one adopted child. One of the biological children repeatedly sexually abused the adopted child in adolescence.

    I’ve always known that I could never be a willing participant in a child of mine being put up for adoption. That’s not a slam on adoptive families, or a judgment on the nature of adoption, it’s just where I stand.

    So no, I don’t regard the decision to abort rather than to carry a fetus to term and give the child up for adoption to be a matter of “convenience,” even setting aside the very real possibility of serious medical complications from the pregnancy and birth.

  19. I’m not going to re-argue Richard’s cavalier immorality. Obviously she had every legal right to terminate the 2 siblings of her child rather than…say… giving them up for adoption (better dead than with someone else). Or moving to the ‘burbs with the babies’ dad who was there and was more than willing to support her. She’s the one that will have to face her own child later in life with the question “why did you do that?”

    Oh, screw that. What if she’d kept all three fetuses, delivered them at twenty-five weeks and lost them all? Would that be more moral, in your view? Would it be better if there were no children at all to ask that question?

    It’s at best a tragic situation. And a serious one about which some insist on treating unseriously

    ‘Cause there’s nothing serious about having to be on bedrest from twenty weeks on. Cripes! Darleen, you act as if that’s the most minor of impositions, nothing special. And becoming dependent on another person for one’s support and care, no imposition there, either.
    Tell me, Darleen, is there anything at all that you would think was too much to ask of a pregnant woman, rather than that she abort?
    Fuck that. Seriously, fuck that. And tell me, do tell me, please, Darleen, how is it less moral to abort two of three than it is to abort all three?
    Also, I don’t happen to give a good goddamn about any sort of “balanced approach” that “most Americans” may or may not want to abortion. If I need one, I should be able to get one, and it’s me who defines that need. Take your fastidious sanctimony elsewhere.

  20. Darleen–

    There’s a bunch of embryos down at the fertility clinic who need mommies right now. How about you go over and have two or three of the little darling implanted?

  21. She’s the one that will have to face her own child later in life with the question “why did you do that?”

    Why the crap would you TELL a little kid about that kind of shit before they can understand it? I found out at 17/18 that my mom had a really hard time emotionally choosing to keep me. By 17/18 I understood those kinds of emotions.

    Reminds of those stupid fetus posters that say “mommy, why did you kill me?” Like the damn Welches Grape Juice commercials of the pro-lie movement.

  22. I’d hate to be the mother of a 13-year-old who knew I resented him/er.

    I too have witnessed a situation (or at any rate its messy aftermath) in which a woman who most definitely did not want to be pregnant at that time was forced to carry to term and raise the child. That woman was my great-grandmother and the child was my paternal grandfather. She had two older children, and for whatever reason she didn’t want THIS one. Husband found out what she was trying to do, threatened to have her committed and/or take her kids away if she went through with it, and when my grandfather was an infant, had to arrange for his wife never to be left alone with the baby. I guess he’d figured she’d get over her silliness once the baby was born, but a conscientious nanny alerted him to the fact that whenever she was alone with the kids and the baby, she’d encourage them to play fun games like “put baby up the chimney” or “put baby out the window.” And she made sure her son knew she’d wanted an abortion, and hated his guts. How do you think I know all this dirt?

    Anyhow, she did a decent job raising her older two, neither of whom turned into a wife-beating alcoholic, but actually turned out to be fairly functional people and parents. My dad and his two brothers, however, all turned into mini-editions of their own dad. The only reason the trend wasn’t precisely duplicated in the third generation is the fact that my mom both has a stainless steel spine and was lucky enough to be born in a time when she COULD file for divorce and earn a living to support her kids.

    My grandfather hurt a lot of people, and he wasn’t a happy person in the slightest. He died when I was 16, and I have no memories of ever seeing him happy. Schadenfreude and glee over having successfully bullied someone into giving him what he wanted, yeah, I saw those, but never genuine happiness. If I had a time machine and could go back and make it so my great-grandmother was able to get that abortion unsuspected, I would, not because I’m angry with him (I worked past the anger a while back), but out of compassion. Making sure he never existed is probably the kindest thing I could do for him. He had every advantage in life: money, good education, highly intelligent, good health, good looks… Turns out being raised by a woman who never forgave you for existing negates all those advantages.

    I don’t have a time-travelling phone box, so never mind, but yes, forcing a child to be raised by a mother who doesn’t want it is a horrible thing to do to that child (setting aside for the moment the issue of the horrible thing being done to the pregnant woman). Not every woman will react as dramatically as my great-grandmother, but there’s likely to be damage nonetheless. Ongoing, multigenerational damage, with people who are not only self-destructive and unhappy, but also actively destructive towards the people close to them.

  23. Darleen, any thoughts on the situation I outlined above? Care to explain how being born was the best thing for my grandfather? And no, adoption was not an option in that case, as my great-grandfather wanted her to raise the child. The only way she was getting out of it was a “miscarriage” or a tragic accident in infancy, unless she wanted to lose her other kids and her freedom.

    And she had a nanny, incidentally, so she didn’t even have to deal with the most onerous childcare tasks. Just living in the same house was enough to set her off, and enough to fuck him up forever (and cause him to fuck up his own wife and kids similarly). And don’t tell me she was a psychopath, because she managed to raise two other kids who turned out fine. It was that one child and his three sons who turned out terribly damaged, and terribly good at damaging people close to them.

    Am I a bad person because I’d rather my grandfather hadn’t suffered his whole life? I love my life, I’m not sorry I’m here, but I still think the world would’ve been a better place if he hadn’t been born. And I think that from the point of view of the quality of life he got, it would be the most merciful decision. And would’ve saved his own wife and kids from being subjected to him.

  24. Jesus, Darleen, I don’t get you.

    Can you PLEASE be poor for about three days or something? It might give you some freaking perspective.

    And if you have been before, then wow, how quick we are to forget…

    I mean, I’m not even saying that Richards was poor, but to move even 2 1/2 hours out of NYC, prices for houses are fucking ridiculous. You’re better off with an East Village apt, for sure.

  25. The thing about the idea of convenience is that with a bit of clever definition you can make it stand for anything you personally don’t approve of as a reason. I mean, it’s pretty inconvenient to be blind, so that woman who wanted an abortion to save her sight? Convenience. Come to think of it, it’s even less convenient to be dead.

  26. You know, you’re right, Nick. Not having a stroke? Convenience! Not wanting to have premature babies? Convenience! Not wanting to vomit oneself to death? Convenience!
    We oughta have a competition wherein the one who gets an anti-abortion type to oppose abortion under the most extreme circumstance wins. Who wants to design the trophy?

  27. I know first hand about having unwanted children. I had two. I had mixed feelings the first time around. The second time I definitely knew that motherhood wasn’t my thing, but was bullied into continuing with the pregnancy by people who had their own selfish agendas.

    My children have suffered mightily by my not being a better mother. I did my best but lacked many things that a person needs to be a decent parent, namely an education and financial stability. I love them and I’m glad they’re here, but my life would have been better if I hadn’t had children, and they would have been spared much psychic pain if they were never born.

    This is the dirty little secret of motherhood that cannot be told. I wish I could tell the world my story.

Comments are currently closed.