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

A true pro-life platform

According to the LA Times, Democrats are adopting language and policy goals that reflect “conservative” views of abortion. Which is true, to a point — but more accurately, they’re promoting policies that make it easier for women to make the right choice for themselves. In other words, they’re promoting pro-choice policies:

The Reducing the Need for Abortions Initiative provides millions in new funds to:

• Counsel more young women in crisis to consider adoption, not abortion.

• Launch an ad campaign to inform needy women that they can receive healthcare and other resources if they are “preparing for birth.”

• Expand parenting education and medical services for pregnant women, in some cases by sending nurses to their homes.

• Offer day care at federal job-training centers to help new mothers become self-sufficient.

The initiative, part of a broader appropriations bill, passed the House with solid bipartisan support. A separate measure, still pending, calls for funding maternity and day-care centers on college campuses so pregnant students won’t feel they must have an abortion to stay in school.

Obviously some of these proposals are problematic — most notably the first one. Counselling should help women make the best choice for their lives, not coerce or guilt them into making a choice that some Congresspeople think is best. It also sounds like a sneaky way of saying that they’ll throw more money at so-called “crisis pregnancy centers,” religious organizations that claim to help pregnant women but actually just throw Bible verses at them and don’t do much of anything after the baby is born. I also have an issue with the proposal to “Launch an ad campaign to inform needy women that they can receive healthcare and other resources if they are ‘preparing for birth.'” It’s pretty fucked that low-income women are told they can receive health care and other resources only if they’re using their body as an incubator for something that Congress has deemed more important. Everyone in this country should be able to receive health care and other resources simply because we’re human beings and we are valuable in our own right — not because we’re carrying an ever-important fetus. Of course, under the Bush administration, health care for pregnant women isn’t actually given to pregnant women — it’s technically given to the fetus.

But other than those two things, the rest of the bill sounds pretty good. I support anything that gives women more resources and more non-coercive options. I do think it’s interesting that the part of the bill that helps born people — maternity daycare centers on college campuses — is still pending. I wonder whose holding that up?

But conservatives also accuse Democrats of using abortion rhetoric to sell the right on traditional liberal priorities, such as healthcare funding. Democrats have rejected other ideas that conservatives consider highly effective in reducing abortions, such as requiring women to view ultrasound images of the womb.

“In terms of bridging the ideological gulf, you need to ask: Is this a two-way street?” said David K. DeWolf, a law professor at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Wash., who has advised antiabortion groups.

Rep. Mike Pence, a Republican from Indiana, sees hypocrisy in the fact that much of the new family planning funding will go to Planned Parenthood. The money can’t be used to terminate pregnancies — it’s for birth control and gynecology services. But Pence says it’s ludicrous to send tax dollars to the nation’s largest abortion provider in the name of reducing abortions.

“That’s not a common ground I can accept,” Pence said.

Right. Because if you want to prevent abortions, it’s a terrible idea to allow people to access birth control and gynecology services. Better to just tell them not to have sex.

And how offensive that liberals would use talk about abortion in the context of health care, and point out that some women choose abortion because they know they can’t afford the costs of pregnancy, child birth, and child-rearing. That’s just crazy-talk, and clearly a cover for their radical lesbian feminist Communist agenda.

I’m glad Democrats have finally caught on to what pro-choice leaders have been saying for a long, long time: That women need the widest range of choices possible. We need birth control access, health care, well-baby care, pre-natal care, child care, and supportive workplace policies. Now if only “pro-life” Republicans would get on board and take steps to actually decrease the abortion rate without purposely harming women. I won’t hold my breath.


13 thoughts on A true pro-life platform

  1. I do think it’s interesting that the part of the bill that helps born people — maternity daycare centers on college campuses — is still pending. I wonder whose holding that up?

    When I was in college I wrote an opinion piece for the school paper that asked “why aren’t there changing tables in the bathrooms?” I got many responses that college students don’t or shouldn’t have kids.

  2. I’m sorry- I can’t look at this as anything more than a continuation of what the Dems have been doing for a long time- the old “If you can’t beat them, join them” routine. The daycare part of this is great, but honestly, the Dems need to stop conflating the legitimate choices women have in regards to their reproductive lives, and the legitimate needs women who have chosen to bear children have. ABORTION IS NOT AN “EVIL” TO BE REDUCED OR RENDERED OBSOLETE. If the Dems don’t wan’t the right to choose abortion to be lost, they need to stand their ground on this and not pander.

  3. Pence says it’s ludicrous to send tax dollars to the nation’s largest abortion provider in the name of reducing abortions.

    Only if you’re too stupid to realize that birth control prevents abortion. If not for the IUD I got at Planned Parenthood, I could’ve had dozens of abortions by now.

    I hate the way misogynists paint Planned Parenthood as a corporate chain of abortion clinics and nothing more. Most of their clinics don’t even perform abortions, but all of them provide birth control.

  4. Counselling should help women make the best choice for their lives, not coerce or guilt them into making a choice that some Congresspeople think is best. . . . It’s pretty fucked that low-income women are told they can receive health care and other resources only if they’re using their body as an incubator for something that Congress has deemed more important.

    It doesn’t look like coercion to me. The gov’t is entitled to use benefits to incentivize people to make what it considers to be better choices. In fact, a good deal of our tax policy does exactly that (i.e. if you want corporations to behave a certain way, give tax breaks or subsidies). Why can’t health care benefits be used that way? Obviously, there’s a line where it does become coercive but I don’t think the Initiative crosses it.

  5. Which is the real reason misogynists hate them. They wouldn’t even care if PP stopped offering abortions. As long as PP’s telling women something other than “your pussy is the rightful property of your husband, and your job is to make it available for his use”, they want it shut down.

  6. • Counsel more young women in crisis to consider adoption, not abortion.

    I don’t like that at all. I don’t think adoption is a good, direct alternative to abortion. Most women who want abortions wouldn’t be happy with adoption, because you have to go through all the risks and pain of pregnancy and then the experience of giving away your child is much more traumatic than abortion, especially if you’re not prepared for it. Adoption is a good option for a women who won’t consider abortion for whatever reason (if she’s pro-life, or if she really wants the experience of childbirth without the rearing part, or whatever) or in sad circumstances where a mother can’t care for her child (because she died or became severely disabled or is abusive, or…). Especially when most states don’t have strong laws enforcing open adoptions, so women are being told they’ll be able to visit their babies after adoption and then can’t (insert other horror stories here), I think it’s kinda cruel to promote adoption as good option to women.

  7. Trailer Park beat me to it.

    The nation’s largest abortion provider is also the nation’s largest preventer of abortions. I would imagine that they get more revenue from birth control sales, due to the volume involved—but that’s a bit beside the point because they’re a non-profit organization, and making money is secondary to their goal of helping women have healthy sex lives and choose whether and when they want to have babies. There is no concern whatsoever about competition for abortion revenue, no conflict of interest in lowering the abortion rate from a financial perspective.

    Providing abortions is important to Planned Parenthood solely because the abortions provided are either wanted or needed by the women getting them; because the women who have them feel that terminating a pregnancy is preferable to sustaining the pregnancy and dealing with the child that would result; because forcing women to continue unwanted or unsafe pregnancies is wrong. It is a means by which women can avoid oppression and retain control over their own lives—just like contraception. The two are means towards the same end, and the pro-lifers are blind as a bat in the field of a radar jammer if they can’t notice that abortions are barely ever necessary or even desireable without an unwanted pregnancy making them so.

  8. I agree with Neko-Onna: fuck the Democrats on this one. Their arguing that the number of abortions needs to be reduced (a “moral obligation” according to Tim Ryan, the anti-abortion Democrat who cosponsored this), without any concurrent argument defending women’s right to have as many choices as possible just gives leverage to conservatives to promote their own methods for abortion reduction, as illustrated by the second LATimes excerpt in your post.

    I’m glad Democrats have finally caught on to what pro-choice leaders have been saying for a long, long time: That women need the widest range of choices possible.

    Nowhere in the first excerpt do they speak of choice; on the contrary, their sole concern is to reduce the number of abortions. To make matters worse, though there are some financial promises, the need to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies is minimized; they’re mostly trying to encourage pregnant women to carry to term. Don’t abort, give it up for adoption. We can help you if you’re preparing for birth (but if you’re not, you’re on your own; is that what’s implied?). We’ll even send nurses to your home (but only if you keep it — don’t be a slut!). Now, I’m not being callous: helping future mothers is a good thing per se. But when that’s the main focus of an initiative whose central message is “the number of abortions has to be reduced cuz abortions are baaad,” then for all intents and purposes, the Democrats are, as the LATimes rightly put it, adopting “some of the language and policy goals of the antiabortion movement.”

    There’s no moral argument, no real opposition to the right-wing frame; the whole thing is premised on the idea that, first and foremost, abortion is evil, thus allowing conservatives to pander their own wares. After all, though I have no idea if that’s the case, perhaps guilt-tripping women with images of their pregnant womb really does work to some degree, but that doesn’t make it right. Unfortunately, when the only way to determine the desirability of a given policy is to measure its effectiveness in reducing the number of abortions, while ignoring an overriding moral position (choice), it’s harder to fight against reactionary proposals and defend abortion providers, as the need to reduce the number of abortions becomes more important than the need for women to have easy access to abortion.

    From the article:

    Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, a Democrat who opposes abortion, goes even further. For the first time, he said, his party is sending a forceful message to conflicted women: “Bring the baby to term, and we’ll provide for you.”

    If you don’t, I guess you can fucking die or something.

    I agree with most of the following:

    From the left, too, the new strategy has drawn barbs. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) urges her party to stick to promoting contraception, instead of trying to sway women’s choices after they conceive.

    But what do the oh-so-serious centrists reply?

    Democratic strategists, however, say that message is too simplistic.

    From a practical standpoint, increasing access to contraception will not eliminate abortion. Roughly half of all women who seek abortion said they were using some form of birth control, albeit inconsistently, the month they conceived.

    That’s what I was talking about: reducing the number of abortions becomes the overriding goal: choice is forgotten. When birth control fails, their main objective, apparently, will be to do all they can, short of coercion, to push women to carry to term — will the amount of pressure applied to pregnant women become the only difference between Democrats and Republicans with regard to abortion?

  9. Right. Because if you want to prevent abortions, it’s a terrible idea to allow people to access birth control and gynecology services. Better to just tell them not to have sex.

    Not to mention that the evil, evil doctors at Planned Parenthood also offer pre-natal care. As far as the forced-birthers are concerned, women don’t need pre-natal care, because as long as the fetus survives to take a breath (even if it’s severely disabled or on the verge of death), it’s all good. Who cares about the woman — she’s just a walking incubator for The Fetus.

    Though I have to disagree with a few people here: reducing the number of abortions would be a good in and of itself. Getting repeat abortions is hard on the body and women are much better off preventing the pregnancy rather than terminating it.

  10. This actually infuriates me, but not because the dems are adopting this stuff. I’m not even surprised at that. Colorado’s NARAL and our planned parenthood (I live in Denver) are also promoting this “prevention first” stuff that totally plays into the idea that abortion is not needed or desired, and that we just wouldn’t need abortion if we were educating people and providing them with contraception. I can’t get behind any message that says abortion is a bad thing.

    It seems mostly like lies and misinformation for me. They’re going to launch an ad campaign to inform women they can get health care? Where is this mysterious health care coming from? Also, I’m soooo sure that care will expand after the pregnancy to both the mother and child (and family and other children). Actually, it’s probably more of this “women can have gov’t care as long as they are baby incubators, but after that, not so much”. Also, this policy better also apply to undocumented women who are often in need of pre-natal care. Oh wait, we don’t want *those* women having babies. At least not in our country.

    Also, who doesn’t know when they get pregnant that there are three options? You can have the baby, put it up for adoption, or have an abortion. it’s not like planned parenthood and others have launched massive campaigns to hide the option of adoptions. People don’t need counseling about something they know exists.

    And finally, they want to train women to be able to obtain jobs that don’t pay them enough to live off of? that’s not self-sufficiency. I have a college degree and I’m making 7.50 an hour, which isn’t enough for me to live on, let alone if i had a child. Give me a break.

    You know what would actually be a good step for the Congress to take? Repealing the Hyde Amendment so low income women could get an abortion with medicare.

    Sorry, I’m really mad about this and I’ve kinda gone on a tangent, but this makes me really depressed for a number of reasons.

  11. i’m new here & i’ve had a stroke so forgive me if things don’t come across as intended. i’m an adoptive parent & i’m 100% behind whoever said that adoption in NOT a viable alternative to abortion or birth control i’ve adopted my brats because i want them. i also could have used ivf, but i’d rather give homes to kids already here. i’ve noticed that people who broadcast adoption as a choice usually have no adopted kids of their own. it strikes me that as long as the “kids” are in someone elses womb, they care about them. once they are out, too bad, so sad, now you’re a drain on the system. birth control is the best first step. IMO

  12. The gov’t is entitled to use benefits to incentivize people to make what it considers to be better choices. In fact, a good deal of our tax policy does exactly that

    Our tax code is a pretty good example of why that’s a BAD idea.

    Only people who already have choice can be incentivized by programs like that. That is, they must already have access to alternatives, to information, to resources. Otherwise, it is coercion.

    Put another way: do you know any poor people who use tax credits and special deductions to limit their tax liability?

Comments are currently closed.