Daily Kos

The Last Abortion Clinic: Whistling Past the Graveyard

Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:00:08 PM PDT

There's a lot of talk these days about what might happen if Roe falls, and most opinion seems to be roughly divided into two camps.  A sizable contingent feels confident that the Republicans need Roe more than Democrats do, both because it's the most reliable way of energizing their base, and because they fear the voter backlash that would surely follow its loss.  Almost as many people seem to believe that Democrats should shut up about the issue of abortion and let it go, because all it's good for is losing elections.  Their reasoning goes that even if Roe was struck, abortion rights would revert to the states and because -- as some preciously naive poster commented a few days ago -- "Americans are liberal and pro-choice," women would still keep access to safe and legal abortion care.  

Both those opinions are wrong -- for some women, even today, literally dead wrong.  Should you still cling to either of those cherished illusions, PBS Frontline's The Last Abortion Clinic and numerous abortion providers will tell you that you're only whistling past the graveyard.

Fifteen years later, Walter Dellinger's 1990 analysis sounds like prophecy.

[Harvard professor Mary Ann] Glendon suggests that Roe v. Wade "insulated the pregnant woman from the larger society" and that it precluded humane statutory initiatives and supportive communitarian approaches to the problem of abortion and unwanted pregnancy. Nothing in Roe v. Wade, however, precluded a woman from choosing to consult her parents, spouse, minister or supportive friends about her decision; nothing in Roe precluded government from reducing the number of abortions by making more effective birth control widely available; nothing in Roe v. Wade precluded the community from providing the financial support that would make it easier for more women to choose to have more children. What Roe foreclosed was not communitarianism, but compulsion.

Now, in 2005, even with Roe still nominally alive, a mounting wave of TRAP legislation is making compulsion our national norm.  This year's state-level legislative sessions imposed a near-record number of laws imposing new restrictions on a woman's access to abortion or contraception.

Since January, governors have signed several dozen antiabortion measures ranging from parental consent requirements to an outright ban looming in South Dakota.  Not since 1999, when a wave of laws banning late-term abortions swept the legislatures, have states imposed so many and so varied a menu of regulations on reproductive health care.

West Virginia and Florida approved legislation recognizing a pre-viable fetus, or embryo, as an independent victim of homicide. And in Missouri, Gov. Matt Blunt (R) has summoned lawmakers into special session Sept. 6 to consider three antiabortion proposals. (Note: One of these has already forced the closing of the only clinic within 160 miles of Springfield, MO)

While national leaders in the abortion debate focus on the upcoming [Supreme Court] nomination hearings grass-roots activists have been changing the legal landscape one state at a time. In most cases, the antiabortion forces have prevailed, adding restrictions on when and where women can get contraceptive services and abortions, and how physicians provide them.

Antiabortion activists say they have pursued a two-pronged approach that aimed to reduce the number of abortions immediately through new restrictions and build a foundation of lower court cases designed to get the high court to eventually reverse the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision making the procedure legal.
<...>
South Dakota has been among the most active states, passing five new laws, including a "trigger" law that would impose an immediate abortion ban after any Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.  
<...>  
In its new informed-consent law, South Dakota requires physicians to tell women seeking an abortion about the "existing relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn child," and that all abortions "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being.

What World Magazine's "Christian Views" applauds as the "clinic-killer" tactics of Pro-Life Mississippi have raised state-enforced compulsion there to a holy imperative and made it official government policy.          

Image hosted by Photobucket.comThe last abortion-providing clinic in Mississippi is the Jackson Women's Health Organization.  PBS producer Raney Aronson and a team from Frontline spent two months finding out how that has happened, and how your own state could be next.  Wherever you are, it's comforting to think "it can't happen here," but I can virtually promise you that at some level, it already has begun.

This November, the Supreme Court will take up its first major abortion case in five years: Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. This case will come before a changed court. But for Betty Thompson, a former abortion clinic director in Jackson, Mississippi, the concern is less about Ayotte and more that Roe v. Wade is simply becoming irrelevant as states pass hundreds of abortion regulations across the United States. "[Pro-life groups] are going to chip away at Roe v. Wade until the law is on the books, but nobody will be able to access the service," she tells FRONTLINE. According to one abortion provider in the South, who prefers to remain anonymous: "The assault on abortion rights is very clever. It's very smart. And we are losing."
<...>
Americans United for Life considers Mississippi an example for the nation. In fact, the organization's motto is "Changing Law to Protect Human Life, State by State." "Mississippi has an impressive track record," AUL senior legal counsel Clarke Forsythe tells FRONTLINE. "Our goal is to see that other states pass the type of legislation that Mississippi has passed over the past decade, and we see a lot of legislative activity. Legislators and governors across the country in many different states are looking at the same type of common sense legislation that Mississippi has passed."

Mississippi isn't the only state where women are tithing their health and safety to the religious right.  Even in the major metropolitan area of Dallas, "moral values" TRAP laws are driving women and teenage girls into deep and dangerous waters.  Two or three women a week finally make their way to our clinic only after having tried everything from self-injecting multiple vials of Methergine, to ingesting up to 30 tabs of Cytotec (10 times the therapeutic dose when used as the stage-two drug in medical abortion), to taking or doing just about anything else you can think of, including punching their abdomens purple.  Some of the women who try to abort themselves are from countries where abortion is illegal, and they already "know" and accept that abortion is dangerous.

Flea markets and bazaars here do a thriving business in drugs to "make your period come," and in low-income neighborhoods everybody knows "a lady down the street who can help you out."  All of this has become so prevalent in the Spanish-speaking community that when a woman calls to ask about fees, I feel her out a little and ask if the cost will prevent or delay her having her abortion. If she says yes or even seems to hesitate, then we contact the Lilith Fund or Texas Equal Access, so that if she's alone and has no one to help her she won't do something dangerous or have to prostitute herself to get the money. That happens a lot, too, since our Texas TRAP laws and more restrictive state regulation took effect last year.  They were diabolically designed and crafted to cost providers dearly and thereby increase the cost of providing abortion care, and they do exactly that.  

And the teenagers who can't tell their parents are a whole 'nother story. They think that they can drink bleach to have a miscarriage. They pay their best friend's boyfriend to punch them in the stomach every day after school for days on end. They get on the internet and read about how abortions are performed, and call to find out what kind of tube they can use at home.  Jane's Due Process literally saves lives in this state, but I live in fear of the day that I can't keep one of those kids on the line long enough to make her believe that there's a safe way out.  

And I can virtually promise you that when one of them carries out her pitiful, desperate plan and ends up in an ER, nobody talks about it.  Only a few weeks ago, an OB/GYN resident at a major Dallas hospital told me about the women who come bleeding into their ER, but she won't tell anybody else, and it's hard to blame her. I can't imagine a quicker road to professional perdition for a hospital physician in Dallas, Texas in 2005 than stirring up a public ruckus about abortion -- unless it's getting caught performing one.

The people who imposed our TRAP laws here are the people in charge, and they like things just the way they are -- quiet as a church mouse. That's why Rick Perry had mega-evangelist Rod Parsley at his elbow when he signed the Texas parental consent law that made abortion providing physicians eligible for the death penalty... in a Ft. Worth church.  

But it could be worse. What follows is information received just a couple of days ago from a friend who is an abortion provider in yet another southern state, as we discussed the Frontline program and the increase in illegal abortion caused by TRAP laws.  This comes from a woman for whom I have unbounded respect and admiration, someone who saw "abortion wards" up close and personal before 1973 and who has dedicated herself to providing women with a high quality of abortion care ever since.

Our local university medical hospital tells me they see 12-20 patients per year already who have either self-induced or had illegal abortions.  Some make it, some don't. These are underage and/or poor women mostly and a few daughters of pro-life families who can't be seen entering a clinic or going against what their parents believe.  So we're already living with this at that level and know it will increase when Roe falls.  As a matter of fact I've already been approached to help them organize an 'abortion ward' -- like in the old days -- as they know their caseload will mushroom.  

[I] don't think this is unique to our area or news. The local hospital I referred to is unfortunately publicly funded and we're in a solid repug state so I imagine they're afraid of losing funding if this info is confirmed.  Also the very doctors who treat these women are afraid of losing their contracts and there's always the 'privacy' excuse.  

I know other 'private' docs and hospitals are experiencing the same but just like in pre-Roe days, mum's the word.  Most people don't even realize  hospitals had abortion wards before Roe. Just like what's happening today, it simply wasn't talked about openly.

We deal occasionally with a patient who's attempted to self-induce (through use of caustic douching or ingestion - most common being taking an entire bottle of quinidine tabs chased with castor oil).  When the quinidine dosers call, we get involved with getting them to E.R. before their cardiac rhythm is interrupted -- then if the pregnancy continues, we provide abortion care at little or no charge -- as patients are usually poor; however some are underage, in which cases we shepherd them through the judicial bypass procedure -- sometimes both.

In this culture I don't know of a woman who's been through this (or her family) who could 'go public' as they would be shunned in the community, lose job, lose children, etc.

Shades of Margaret Atwood's "Handmaids Tale".

[W]e're already dealing with it to some degree here and certainly know what to do if there are complications from legal abortion -- but this is a whole other aspect I haven't had to deal with in years and with my outrage over losing this right for women, I know I'm not detached and objective (nor do I intend to be).  ...

To know now how safe and simple this care is and deal with the fallout from criminalization (knowing that those injuries and infections were totally avoidable -- except for the religious right, ignorant, backward, etc., etc., etc.), going back to holding women in my arms while they die a totally preventable death is not something I aspire to and not sure I can hold up to it.

This isn't some specter of a future horror that might or might not ever come to pass. This is the United States of America right now, and repressive state-level laws "regulating" abortion are already compelling women -- as always, primarily poor women of color and teenage girls -- to resort to the same dangerous and sometimes deadly methods of illegal abortion that kill thousands of women in the Third World every year.  

If you aren't already horrified, there's no hope for you.  Don't even try to imagine how much worse it would be if Roe fell. And maybe no one could hold up to the reality of it, or would -- if they knew.  But until Frontline went to Mississippi and Louisiana, nobody except people like us was talking about what already has been going on for some time.  

And where's that guaranteed political backlash?  It's nowhere, the same place it would be without Roe. If nobody is talking about it now, in this time and space of relative freedom, who would dare to make a public issue of nonexistent abortion rights in places where abortion had become a crime?

OK, the timing's lousy. Tuesday is election night, and we all have races to watch. But the polls will have closed before "The Last Abortion Clinic" begins, and nothing else you do then will change even a single vote.  Watch this program, learn the details of what not enough people know, and then let's all come back and talk together about what we can do -- and must do -- to keep women safe and free.  If you won't be home at the regular broadcast time, you can even see it via streaming video from the PBS site.

Or don't watch it, and try not to think about what a desperate woman somewhere in the United States of America in 2005 will feel forced to do tonight.  Just push it right out of your mind.

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

And on your way home, don't forget to whistle when you pass the graveyard.

Tags: abortion, reproductive rights, Roe v. Wade, women's rights, privacy, Christian, Republicans, red states, moral values (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 324 comments

  •  I'm posting from work (4.00 / 90)

    so I might not be able to check back in for a while, but I wanted everyone to know about "The Last Abortion Clinic" in time to see it.

    We owe a debt to some brave and good people who put themselves on the line to make this program possible.

    •  I knew this was you writing (4.00 / 12)

      even before I looked at the author line.  Best. Diary. Ever.
    •  now THIS is a diary (4.00 / 16)

      THIS is the quality of dkos I know and love.

      Brilliant. Highly recommended.

    •  Thank God for you Moiv (4.00 / 14)

      Moiv, once again you have taken my breath away.  What would women do without you?  

      I hope you don't mind but I wrote to my two senators, Boxer and Feinstein, and sent them the link to this diary.  I tried to sum it up first but then realized that every single word was too important so I implored them to read it in its entirety.

      It's gut wrenching to read the words and have it sink in that it's not a third world country you're speaking of.  It's our country.  What kind of leadership do we have when Schumer and Clinton stump for pro-life rightwingers in our party?  Is it that they are ignorant about what's going on?  Is it that they are so far removed from those of us who live beneath the ivory towers that they don't know women and young girls are dying?

      We owe a debt to some brave and good people who put themselves on the line to make this program possible.

      This is so true but it's also true that we owe a great debt to you for your daily heroism, bravery, courage and tenacity for doing what you do every single day.  I honestly don't know how you do it but because you do you have saved countless lives.  You make me so damned proud and grateful to be the same gender as you.  Thank you and bless you.

      I will not die an unlived life. Not in fear, I will live out loud and on the record. Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) 1-800-787-3224 (TTY)

      by caliberal on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:17:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please recommend moiv's diary (4.00 / 9)

      Make sure it stays visible on the front page.
      .
      And thanks, moiv, for another great diary.
      .
    •  Thank you for highlighting the Frontline show. (4.00 / 8)

      I will definitely watch the show, and I think your diary is brilliant.  

      I'm old enough to remember before Roe.  Do you think part of the problem is that younger people today don't understand what we're heading back to?  

      •  There's a saying (4.00 / 13)

        in counseling: You can't take someone to a place you've never been.

        This is my fear, too -- that there are too many younger people who simply can't imagine this country as it existed only a couple of generations ago. When we talk about those times, all they hear is, "To get to school, I walked seven miles barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways."

        I believe that's why polls reveal that so many women under 25 now self-identify as "pro-life" -- as do so many women who have abortions. Talk is cheap, and since they've never paid a price for it, they dismissively take their reproductive freedom entirely for granted. They can take it or leave it ... until they lose it.  

        •  Moiv, (4.00 / 3)

          Thank you for brilliant and painful post and for york work, as always.

          I'll leave a full post below, but I had to short-answer this-- and stalk you to give you fours.

          We younger women don't so much take the right lightly as we take the threat lightly.  We grew up hearing that the generations before us got us the right to vote, the right to have a career the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.  There's a sense that the right to choice is on equal footing with the right to vote.  A more detailed response to follow, but thanks again.

      •  I think that is EXACTLY it. (none / 1)

        I'm younger...I didn't know a time when Roe wasn't the law of the land...but my Great Aunt did and she almost died, was left unable to have children, and her husband (who told her that he'd divorce her if she got pregnant) divorced her when he found out that she had given herself an abortion.

        Even before my Mom told me that story I was pro-choice though...at age 8 I told one of my babysitters who found out she was pregnant that she wasn't old enough and didn't have enough money to have a baby...(nosey little 8 yr. old I was). My Mom told me my Aunt's story when I was 12 and got kicked out of theology class for being pro-choice...apparently the Pope doesn't like me very much (can't say I'm too bothered by that)...

        Since I heard her story I have been 100% adamant about choice as have my four younger sisters...but a LOT of younger girls simply don't believe that they will ever need it...they don't see why it is necessary...and I think that's part of where we're not doing enough. The stories of pre-Roe need to be told over and over again...young people need to know WHY it is SO important...and hopefully then they will start to change their minds.

    •  I can't know (none / 1)

      what this program meant to anyone else, but this woman speaks for me.
    •  Give them some feedback (none / 0)

      The WaPo says that the producer, Raney Aronson, will take questions live online tomorrow morning.

      "The Last Abortion Clinic" ... Producer Raney Aronson will be online Wednesday, Nov. 9, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the film "The Last Abortion Clinic."

      Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.

  •  It IS important. (4.00 / 18)

    I'm on my way tomorrow to the annual meeting of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice--a group that all too few people have heard of. I'm trying to tape this into my camcorder so I can burn a DVD of it and take it with.

    Way too few people know what's going on in their own states, even the "pro-choice" states. The Catholic church is relentless in paying lobbyists to push anti-choice measures in just about every state. It's an eye opener to go to NARAL's  web site and look it up state by state. If you don't think this can happen where you live, look it up, it probably already is!

    Thanks again MOIV for holding this up for all to see!

    Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable Whenever Possible

    by RevDeb on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:08:33 PM PDT

    •  agreed. (4.00 / 5)

      & great group.  the reicht wing has hijacked religion & used it to push their agenda.  

      we really need to retake the religious debate & this group is a GREAT idea.

      please keep us informed!

      •  It's more than an idea, (4.00 / 6)

        it's been around for 30 years. It perpetually needs money and energy. Right now, we are short on funds for our Clergy For Choice program which is one of the most important.

        The CfC  offers "All Options Clergy Counseling" training, keeps a network going of pro-choice clergy that are willing to speak out, is starting up a "Seminarians for Choice" program as well as a seminary course on "The Theology of Choice" (we have the syllabus, it's been taught in Chicago, and we are working on getting it taught in SF, Boston and NY (other suggestions for schools welcome.)

        Lots of programs, not much money. What else is new?

        Comforting the Afflicted and Afflicting the Comfortable Whenever Possible

        by RevDeb on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:51:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  RCAR (none / 1)

      Good to hear RCAR's still going strong.  My mom used to be the national rep from Michigan years ago and I have the greatest respect for that group of dedicated people.

      Keep up the good work.

  •  Thank you so much for the heads up (4.00 / 10)

    I will definitely be watching tonight.

    It drives me crazy when people will so cavalierly say "Well, if Roe falls it will be up to the states."  What if you live in Alabama, or Utah, and the nearest "free" state is hundreds of miles away?  In the next few years, I fully expect to see a flood of young women coming up to NYC to get their abortions. It happened before Roe and it will happen again.

    •  But the Problem Is (4.00 / 10)

      As highlighted in the Frontline program, in many states (or large regions within a state) it already doesn't matter that Roe remains the law of the land.  Just because abortion remains legal in a particular state is no guarantee that a woman will have reasonable access to an appropriate facility.  And, like it or not, there's virtually nothing that can be done by outsiders to reverse this trend.  If local pressures have caused clinics to close and individual abortion providers to cease performing the procedure, only grassroots changes in attitudes are likely to restore local women's rights.  That's why this Frontline program is important.

      This past weekend, the New York Times ran a graphic that showed, among other things, abortion rates for all 50 states.  Not surprisingly, those states that are virtually without abortion clinics also had the lowest rates.  The states that have the most significant numbers/concentrations of providers had the highest rates.  To suggest that the prevalence of such facilities is in any way demand-driven, however, is an exercise in fallacious reasoning, but one that I would expect the anti-choice factions to cite nonetheless.

      Can you smell the Constitution burning?

      by The Maven on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:40:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (4.00 / 6)

        Not surprisingly, those states that are virtually without abortion clinics also had the lowest rates.

        Hmmm... wonder what are the rates of women showing up at the ER with complications related to attempts to self-abort?

        Sad.  Just sad.  BTW, Moiv, thank you for all that you do to remind us how vital this fight is.

        •  my question also (4.00 / 6)

          Do the hospitals report self abortion cases?  There are hundreds of things that hospitals report to federal agencies, but I don't know if anyone is collecting information on this.

          The information on the street is appalling.  Drinking bleach?  Common sense should steer people clear of that - but I guess desperation pushes people to do terrible things.

          Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

          by Fabian on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 05:07:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  There's no reporting requirement (4.00 / 7)

            for cases of self-abortion. Last spring the Lege tried to pass a bill requiring extensive reporting measures for even the most minor complications of legal abortion, but it was a pure harassment measure so invasive of women's personal privacy that the sponsors finally backed off.

            Licensed abortion providers here in Texas already must keep detailed documentation of all followup care, including a QA evaluation every 90 days to identify and correct any possible problems revealed by more than 10% variations from the norm.  So there was no reason for the proposed legislation exept to hassle doctors and intimidate women, and the information that would have been required from women was intrusive in the extreme, related to their personal lives, not their medical conditions.

            But if you injure yourself in an attempt to self-abort, the government couldn't care less.

            The bleach thing comes from kids 15 or 16 years old, and willing to do almost anything as long as they don't have to tell their parents. One girl who called had already bought the bleach, and only called to find out exactly how much she needed to drink. She wanted to make sure that she took enough to make sure it was going to work. They're the ones who scare me the most, because they're so young that they don't believe in their own mortality yet.

          •  There is nothing commonsensical about it (4.00 / 11)

            Common sense should steer people clear of that - but I guess desperation pushes people to do terrible things.

            It goes so far beyond desperation.  The sheer terror felt when confronting an unwanted pregnancy cannot be told in words alone.  In 1966 I was 18 and pregnant.  I would have literally gone crazy if I didn't have 4 other young girls around me who were pregnant at the same time.  One was my sister, two were my next door neighbors and the other one was my sister's best friend.  We all lived on the same block in a town of 11,000.   We were between 15 and 18 years old.

            Even with that support I was so horrified and scared I ran away to Mexico.  I left a letter in the mailbox telling my parents I was pregnant and had run away to a place where I could do something about it.   That was forty years ago yesterday but I remember the stark terror of every mile and every second.  

            They alerted the border patrol who caught me.  My parents forced me to marry the boy who got me pregnant which in turn forced me into motherhood.  

            One of the reasons for my absolute terror was watching other sophomore, junior and senior girls in my high school try to self-abort.  They drank all kinds of household cleaners, they had their boyfriends beat them in the stomach, they threw themselves down the staircases in our school, they used knitting needles and they died at the hands of quack abortionists.  

            It's not a matter of common sense.  It's way beyond common sense.  It's reaching for whatever you can to get rid of the pregnancy.  It's not having a choice.  It's being deep into something your mind, body and emotions can't comprehend.  It's a living hell and it's also watching the man or boy who impregnated you walk away.  It's a slap in the face of inequality, injustice and, for me, the first real knowing that democracy stops for women the moment they are born and it is said, "it's a girl."  

            What can possibly be commonsensicle about something that is so horrendously unjust?  

            I will not die an unlived life. Not in fear, I will live out loud and on the record. Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) 1-800-787-3224 (TTY)

            by caliberal on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:00:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Nice job. (4.00 / 12)

    I just read about this in an article on Salon: Welcome to No-Choice America

    I will watch for sure. Sometimes I think to myself that overturning Roe would galvanize young women to take this on...but I'm afraid this is evidence that it's not happening in places where it is effectively overturned now anyway.

    Recommending.

    •  Death by a thousand cuts (4.00 / 2)

      unfortunetely, people dont necessarily realize what is going on until it is too late.  At this point, Rowe will be brought to such a weak place that it may be better for the pro-choice postion for an out right overrule. It really will galvanize people who like to have that choice out there, those who may not see the ramification of the walls already placed.

      "Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws."

      by Progrocks on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:29:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's the Point (4.00 / 6)

      The point is that for the middle class college educated women and men who are the swing voters on this issue, none of this touches them personally and they don't really care about it.  Trust me, these are my neighbors and friends.  They are pro-choice, but this argument falls on deaf ears.  Not until Roe is overturned will they "get it."  But, once that happens, I believe that you will see a swing to the Democrats like nothing before.  It may not be everywhere, but even in the deep south with its growing suburbs, you will see a swing.  Sorry to be such a downer on this (and I have been a NARAL affiliate chair and on a national abortion rights board so I know whereof I speak) but nothing will stop this kind of incidious stuff.  Only full out reversal of Roe will wake up people, and that day isn't too far away.
      •  asdf (none / 1)

        The first sentence in to your post and I had my WTF face on, but I ended up agreeing with you about 70%.

        I would say a majority of college educated middle class folks CARE about it, but won't believe the right could be taken away and won't get LOUD about it until it is.  Many people don't want to "make a fuss" because they don't want to be public about their own choices.

        Many of the women I know who've had abortions are middle class and college educated-- most from more conservative backgrounds.  They made their choice, many times, so they could GET college educated-- first in the family to go to college, couldn't drop out for a pregnancy, didn't want to.

        In the end, I think that your statement that overturning Roe would cause a massive swing-- and they may be the only way.

      •  A distinction (none / 1)

        There are many who would agree that the social consequences of a reversal of Roe and Casey would be severe. Indeed, this diary indicates that the nation is already experiencing hidden social consequences as access to abortion is restricted in ways not forbidden by the Roe line of cases.

        I will put aside the question of whether those social consequences are or are not justified by any other values at stake in the debate. Obviously that is a question that deeply divides our society. In any event, it is important to keep in mind that many people oppose Roe and Casey for a more fundamental reason. Those cases simply do not represent good constitutional jurisprudence. Ready access to abortion may well be thought a wise and progressive social policy. However, that is not the same thing as a constitutional right and, as I have said elsewhere on this blog, an honest and deeply felt desire that something be recognized as a constitutional right does not make it so.

        The problems the abortion issue presents are many. But one of the biggest of those problems is that the Supreme Court cases announcing that one has a constitutional right to get an abortion are simply not persuasive, as a matter of law or legal philosophy, to many people. The issue has loomed way too large over the selection of federal judges for over thirty years now. It has corrupted our national politics and it has, more than any other issue, cost the Democratic Party its 20th century position as the dominant party in this country.

        And I maintain that none of this was necessary. While I would probably be called "pro-life" by others that participate here, I deeply respect the democratic process and I will accept the decision of my elected representatives (or the people themselves - see below) if the resolution of this particular policy debate comes out in a way I don't like. And there is certainly evidence that the "pro-choice" point of view may well carry the day in the political arena. The nation was trending toward liberalized abortion laws before Roe cut off the democratic debate in the state legislatures. It is true that, at least in the immediate aftermath of a Roe/Casey demise, some states would ban the procedure altogether. But such a legislative action probably would not stand, at least in some of the states that took that path, as awareness of the policy concerns took hold. For example, many western states have the referenda and initiative availabe by command of their state constitutions. I think it likely that these tools of direct democracy would likely be used in this debate if Roe and Casey are overruled.

        Moreover, a reversal of Roe and Casey would change the political dynamics of this country in a very fundamental way. Presently, many women (particulary in "red" states) can feel confident that, despite GOP rhetoric, their ability to obtain a termination of a pregnancy is not at risk. After all, neither Reagan nor Bush I, despite promises to the contrary, appointed judges to the Supreme Court that proved willing to overrule Roe. See Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter. This president, too, is unlikely to really desire that outcome. He will and has said that he does, at least cryptically, but time will tell if he really means it. Roberts replaced Rehnquist, so (assuming he would overrule Roe) that doesn't change the lineup of votes on the issue. Alito would replace O'Connor, but Roe was re-affirmed 6-3 in 1992 and so he could only give the anti-Roe justices one more vote - not enough to overrule. The time to see whether W is serious about jettisoning Roe is when Justices Stevens and/or Ginsburg retire or die. That day is not far off, either, as Justice Stevens is in his mid-80s.

        At any rate, if women were to become convinced that Republicans really do want Roe overturned, then they will stop trusting that the party's pro-business, anti-tax, anti-crime agenda is more important in their daily lives. That will mean many more votes for Democrats, which presumably would mean a much greater chance for legislation favorable to the pro-choice point of view.

        Now, as for myself, I hope for Roe's demise not only because I think that case and its progeny represent some of the very worst constitutional law ever dictated by the Supreme Court. I also think that a society cannot honestly call itself compassionate if it does not recognize unborn children, who are certainly human in every way, as being deserving of the law's protection. And I think that, until the abortion debate is returned to the democratic process where it belongs, many other issues touching on our culture's sexual attitudes and behaviors will continue to go unaddressed and ignored. We don't do enough to give our children adequate and accurate sex education and the uses and pros and cons of birth control devices and methods are not taught and many people, men and women, are amazingly ignorant on this issue.

        Moreover, we essentially ignore the epidemic of rape and sexual assault in this country, and we have a long, long way to go to teach men that respecting a woman means a lot more than calling her in the morning. And, as a father of two young daughters, I devoutly hope for an honest discussion in this country about whether it is really a good thing that so many young women (even those at ages 11-12 and in their early teens) feel so much pressure to accentuate their sexuality before they are emotionally, intellectually, spiritually, and physically ready to do so.

        It is my hope that one of the benefits to society of de-constitutionalizing an issue to which the constitution does not now, and never did, speak is that a democratic resolution will address more than just the question of when, if ever, abortion will be allowed. I hope that our society can begin to advance to a truly progressive view of women and not remain in denial about how much more still needs to be done to assure equality and respect just because some think that access to abortion is what is needed to achieve that goal. We don't assure equality by denying that, at least in reproductive matters, men and women are different. Pregnancy can be difficult, inconvenient, frightening, and obviously very stressful. I know that because I have seen my wife go through it twice and three sisters and many friends experience it, too. But pregnancy and the gift of being able to bear children is not something that should be considered a burden and we should not think that equality and respect for women is gained by licensing the killing of their offspring, especially when that license is not granted by consent of the people of this republic.

        •  asdf (none / 1)

          especially when that license is not granted by consent of the people of this republic.

          70% of Americans are pro-choice....

          •  So? (none / 0)

            Elise, whether or not something is a constitutional right has absolutely nothing to do with the degree to which the public thinks it is. It would not matter whether 100% of Americans are "pro-choice." The point is, the Constitution does not now, and never did, contain anything that grants a right to abortion. Roe and Casey, in saying otherwise, just make things up. The law, not polls, determines what is or is not a right. And the law has to be based on something objective and not just the policy preferences of unelected judges. In the matter of Roe and Casey, there is no language and not even any hint in the Constitution that the framers thought women should be able to get abortions through the first trimester or under any other circumstances. Now, of course the people could amend the Constitution through their elected representatives if those representatives were to call a constitutional convention or if an amendment was passed by Congress with 2/3 of members in favor and 2/3 of state legislatures in favor. But until that happens, the Supreme Court's belief that there is a "right to abortion" in the Constitution is simply dishonest and that reality doesn't change no matter how many people have been misled into believing otherwise.
            •  Hank...I'm not sure where you get (none / 0)

              this idea...are you reading right-wing talking points and just buying it?

              Roe was decided the way it was because certain amendments in the Constitution DO provide citizens with a certain amount of privacy. Privacy to make a medical decision...that's how Roe was decided...so, no...there is no specific "abortion" language in the Constitution...but there is specific language providing privacy for citizens.

              In fact, I would argue that the Constitution provides for SEVERAL other rights that we are typically denied by conservatives....such as a right to die, and a right to use drugs...and the right to marry or have sex with another consenting adult...heterosexual or not. Our Constitution provides us with freedom...how can we claim to be a free country if we can't CHOOSE how to live our lives?

              My suggestion to you would be to re-read the Constitution....

              •  Different wavelenght (none / 0)

                I do not dispute or doubt that the Constitution contains a right of privacy. I think that is clearly contemplated by several amendments, including the 4th and the 9th. And I think that the right of privacy covers basically all of the examples you gave except for one - abortion. Abortion involves not only the pregnant woman. It involves her partner, particularly if she is married, and also the unborn human being developing in the uterus.  The issue is not, then, about privacy, but about balancing the interests of a baby in being allowed to live, a father in being allowed to have a say in whether his child will be born, and a woman's desire to continue a pregnancy to term.  And we should never forget that an abortion always involves the killing of an innocent human being.  This is not a "right wing talking point." It is the fundamental reality of the situation, since there can be no dispute that a developing fetus is distinctively human from the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg.

                If we are going to decide, as a society, that abortion is more a question of privacy than a question of taking a life, then I think the law, constitutional or otherwise, should explicitly say so. That means we should either amend the Constitution accordingly, enact laws permitting abortions, or stop adhering to the wildly unconvincing "interpretation" of the Constitution advanced in Roe and Casey.

                •  Hank, (none / 0)

                  we should never forget that an abortion always involves the killing of an innocent human being.  This is not a "right wing talking point." It is the fundamental reality of the situation, since there can be no dispute that a developing fetus is distinctively human from the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg

                  Sorry...but NO! This is NOT the "reality"...this is YOUR opinion. MY opinion is that the fetus becomes human when it is fully developed...and therefore has NO rights until it is outside of the womb. As for a man's rights in the matter...when a man has a womb that can be used to develop the fetus, then he can have a say in whether or not/how it develops. That may seem harsh to you, but that's the way I see it. A woman's body isn't owned by her husband or the father of a potential child...a woman's body is owned by HER. She decides what will happen in and with her body. IF she wants to ask for the input of her doctor, husband, mother, brother, best friend, etc. etc....that's HER business...if she doesn't, that is also HER business.

                  You may be of the opinion that privacy to choose to have an abortion isn't in the constitution because the fetus in your opinion has legal rights as a person...but that is NOT the law. Not in most states...and THAT certainly isn't in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. This is a point on which we disagree and I don't believe we will ever achieve agreement. My point is this...I will never tell you, your wife, or ANYONE else what they can or cannot do with their body. You would like to have the right to tell others what they can or cannot do with their body. I don't believe YOU have the right to do that. I don't believe ANYONE has the right to do that. THAT is what freedom is all about. You make your choices, I'll make mine. Period.

                  •  Opinion? (none / 0)

                    Is it "opinion" that the genetic material of a developing human embryo immediately after fertilization of the egg and implantation is distinctively and uniquely human in origin?

                    Is it "opinion" that the developing embryo, and later the fetus, forms a heart, lungs, and brain and that, in the case of the heart and brain, these organs begin to function quite similarly to the way will after birth during pregnancy?

                    Since it is YOUR opinion that something that is not "fully developed" is not human and therefore "has no rights", would you also say that a baby born with severe disabilities has no right to live? Would you assert that it is morally and ethically acceptable to terminate the life of a developing fetus if ultrasound images or other medical technology determines that the baby will be mentally retarded, suffer from deformations, or be afflicted with a serious disease?

                    The American way of virtually unfettered access to abortion opens the door to a social attitude that says life is not precious. Its availability excuses men and women from taking responsibility for the consequences of their sexual behavior. It lays bare the cold reality that we as a society simply do not have compassion for the weak and the helpless, no matter what we say otherwise.

                    And please don't conclude that my view of this issue is alien to the Democratic party. Gov.-elect Kaine of Virginia is pro-life; the likely candidate against Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania is pro-life; former V.P. Al Gore maintained a pro-life stance for much of his congressional career; and former President Jimmy Carter has recently been quoted to the effect that the Democratic party should not be defined by this issue and should not impose adherence to a "pro-choice" viewpoint on its candidates. Indeed, Sen. Schumer was quoted just this week as saying that the party's candidate recruitment efforts are actually focusing on finding more pro-life candidates.

                    Thank God and thank Chuck Schumer.  

                    •  asdf (none / 0)

                      Since it is YOUR opinion that something that is not "fully developed" is not human and therefore "has no rights", would you also say that a baby born with severe disabilities has no right to live? Would you assert that it is morally and ethically acceptable to terminate the life of a developing fetus if ultrasound images or other medical technology determines that the baby will be mentally retarded, suffer from deformations, or be afflicted with a serious disease?

                      I would say that that is a decision that the woman should make with her doctor and husband/father if they are available. Once the baby is born...it certainly has the right to live. But until the baby is viable, the choice is a personal one. If a developing fetus is at a viable stage, but has severe deformations, disease, or hasn't developed properly...then yes, again, I would say that that is a choice that the woman should make with her doctor and whoever else she chooses to bring into the discussion. Frankly, if I was pregnant and in the 7th month I found that the child I was carrying would likely die weeks after birth due to an undeveloped heart muscle (or something like that) I would probably decide to abort at that point to prevent future suffering.

                      My Grandmother had emphysema for 10 years before she finally died...we found her several times close to death and each time she had "forgotten" to put her oxygen mask on....I never believed for a minute that she had "forgotten" that. She knew exactly what she was doing....did I think her choice was the wrong one? No. Who the hell am I to tell her how much pain she should have to endure?

                      And don't assume that unfettered access to abortion is a strictly "American" thing either....there are several countries that provide unfettered access to abortion. And as a result it may very well prevent people from taking responsibility for their decisions...but again, I'm not their mom....it isn't my job to punish them by forcing those people to keep a child they don't want and probably can't afford.

                      We do agree on a few things though Hank...and almost all those pro-life Senators/politicians agree with us on those things...we need to focus on getting accurate sex-ed taught in our schools...we need to have increased availability of birth control and Plan B and those drugs should be covered by all insurance companies...and we need to promote awareness of the problems of STD's and teenage pregnancy. The 95-10 plan will cover these concerns. I disagree with the parental notification, and I disagree with the "woman's right to know" crap because what they tell women is pretty much bullshit...the fetus doesn't have feeling until the 5th month...but the rest of that plan is all good. And if we were to focus on the root causes of unwanted pregnancy, then perhaps we could prevent most of them and lessen the number of abortions taking place THAT way.

                      As you can see from this diary, women will abort whether it is legal or not. I would rather they abort safely than drink a jug of bleach after school...and I would hope that you'd agree with me on that. But limited access to abortions is causing women to find ways to abort on their own...so your claim that unfettered access to abortion will make people claim responsibility for their actions is just blatantly NOT true. People WON'T take responsibility...they will just endanger their lives to the point of death. I don't wish that on my enemy...let alone my sisters or friends....

                      •  Agreeing Some (none / 0)

                        Elise:

                        I do agree that a lawful, safe abortion is better than an uninformed, dangerous attempt to terminate a pregnancy without medical assistance. No one wants women to die in the course of trying to abort an unborn baby. I certainly do not.

                        And I agree with you wholeheartedly about sex education, birth control, and STD awareness. These are vital issues that are too often neglected in the shadow of the abortion question.

                        I do respect your convictions. I just have alot of difficulty accepting that "mercy killing" of a disabled child in the womb is ever a morally acceptable choice. I also have trouble, by the way, with the idea that doctors should get involved in helping the sick aged kill themselves. And I strongly oppose capital punishment, too. My ethic lines up with the idea that all life, no matter our perception of its "quality," is precious - indeed, a gift from God - and we should not either take that lightly or act in ways that disregard such truth. And I struggle with the idea that we as a society should delegate the questions "what is a life" and "when should we protect it" to the whims of the individual.

                        On another note, I see that you have participated in some commentary on environmental issues here. You and I probably agree quite a bit on those, and I have found your comments to be quite erudite.

                        •  Right on Hank... (none / 0)

                          I am quite the tree-hugger...and honestly, I do agree with you that life is pretty miraculous...I wouldn't say a "gift from God" because I'm an atheist...but life is pretty special...

                          My feelings of personal choice trump that belief though...but in an ideal world...abortion wouldn't need to exist...and the death penalty certainly wouldn't exist either...and the elderly wouldn't need to ask for help to end their pain....of course, in my ideal world everyone would be a vegetarian too:)

                          I'm glad we had this talk. I honestly respect your opinions quite a bit...and I understand why you believe what you believe....I just don't happen to quite agree 100%. But, I really do think we should focus on what we do agree on...only good can come of that!

                    •  Also... (none / 0)

                      you should read this comment if you haven't already...I think point #6 is particularly useful...
  •  I worked for Planned Parenthood (4.00 / 10)

    In the early nineties, I worked for Planned Parenthood. I could only work there so long, it was stressful and heartbreaking. I regularly saw girls, and the friends, male and female, who drove them long distances, crashed on the couch just outside of my office. Minnesota had only four clinics where a woman could get an abortion. I'm not sure if we even have that many now. Lawsuits, expenses, and the lack of doctors trained in the techniques is slowly denying women access as sure as the laws. Most of the doctors who will perform abortions are older, from the era of the abortion wards. The situation is bad, even in the liberal states.

    I know that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... John Lennon

    by MagentaMN on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:30:30 PM PDT

  •  A vital diary (4.00 / 9)

    The fundies don't need to keep Roe around as a rallying point.  They do need a gigantic victory to feed their sense of destiny and overturning Roe will provide that.  Then it will be on to the criminalization of homosexuality at the national level as the next rallying point.

    First they came for the abortionists, then they came for the fags, then they came for the liberals.

  •  Sure, it's election day (4.00 / 6)

    and with Prop 73 on the ballot here in CA (parental notification of minor's abortion) I can't think of too many more relevant topics.

    In the car this morning on the way from the voting booths, my fiance pointed out the exact main thrust of your diary.  Making it harder to get abortions, adding these layers of laws to neuter Roe, is not acceptable.  Criminalizing medical abortion, or making it legally impossible (which are essentially the same thing) will not stop abortions, and will only endanger the lives of countless young women.  I had no idea there was only ONE abortion-providing clinic left in the whole STATE of Mississippi....

    ...

    Thank you for such a well-thought-out diary.  Recommended, and I hope others will too.

    War is NOT a preventative measure.

    by demandcaring on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:51:55 PM PDT

  •  Reality Check (4.00 / 4)

    Some states have laws in place guaranteeing the right to an abortion for women if Roe is overturned. Some have laws in place outlawing abortion is Roe is overturned.  In reality, if Roe goes away, it will return to the states and women in blue states will be able to get abortions and women in red states won't.  Not that different from now, really. There are so many laws restricting abortions right now that in most counties in the U.S. you can't get one. Period.  Many women already have to travel out of state to get an abortion, and several states are trying to pass laws limiting the ability of women to leave their state to have an abortion.

    This obsession with Roe is starting to get on my nerves. I wish people would stop pretending that losing Roe is the worst thing that could happen to a woman.  Roe is not some magical formula that guarantees that a woman who wants a legal abortion will have access to one. It doesn't guarantee a woman's right to have an abortion without having to spend the night in a city far from home, be told that abortion increases the liklihood of steriliy and breast cancer (both lies), pay not only for the abortion but also for travel expenses and a hotel - and then having to drive back home hundreds of miles after the abortion. It doesn't guarantee that a 17 year old woman can get an abortion. It doesn't guarantee that doctors will be able to perform abortions without having their lives threatened, or that clinic workers can not be harassed into leaving the abortion field. I've come to believe that if Roe is overturned, it will be a good thing, because right now many women in American have lost their ability to get an abortion, and nobody seems to notice or care... because everybody thinks that that can't happen here because of Roe.

    Well, it can happen here. It IS happening here. And the sooner we lose the illusion of the protection of Roe, the sooner people will realize what we have lost and start fighting to get it back.   Enemies of abortion have made it clear that they are going to make abortion totally unavailable, regardless of Roe.  It's time we stop pretending they can't do that. Most Americans support the right of an abortion.  If we lose Roe, then they're going to have to start voting for people who actually recognize that the right to have an abortion means NOTHING without the ability to get one.

    •  asdf (4.00 / 6)

      This obsession with Roe is starting to get on my nerves. I wish people would stop pretending that losing Roe is the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

      It is the worst thing that could happen to women. Losing the recognition that women are equal under the law to men and that women have the same right to privacy in their medical decisions as men is what will be lost. If Roe v Wade is overturned, it will mean that the 14th amendment does not apply to women. It will mean that women do not have a constitutional right to equality. It will effectively enshrine inequality in the constitution. It will also mean the government can dictate reproductive choices. I can't think of anything worse than that.

      •  Do you actually think that Roe provides that? (none / 1)

        If I believed for one moment that Roe actually meant that somehow women were granted equality, I would fight for it with my last breath.  It doesn't. Roe is a fig leaf, covering just enough of our bodies that we don't feel the oncoming chill. It doesn't guarantee ANYTHING. The religious right is taking the right to abortion away one piece at a time, and if they get their way, the abortion will be totally legal, but no woman in the U.S. will be able to get one.  

        Roe is giving us nothing but a false sense of security. We'd be better off without it.

        •  asdf (4.00 / 2)

          The significance of Roe v Wade is not that it gives women the right to have an abortion. The decision clearly uses the 14th amendment to state that women have equal protection under the law and that women have the same right to medical privacy as men do. Read the decision for yourself if you don't believe me.
          •  I'm not a constitutional scholar (none / 0)

            As I understand it, Roe doesn't establish women's equality or the right to privacy.  It simply applies those rights to reproductive freedom, specifically the right to have an abortion.  There are numerous court cases establishing women as legally equal to men. I don't think that losing Roe is going to change that basic right, except as it applies to abortion and pregnancy. Wikipedia has a nice primer on Roe. They don't mention Roe as the foundation of women's rights, and I've never heard it was such in any discussion.  

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            •  asdf (none / 0)

              Roe v Wade was one of the first (if not the first) to use the 14th amendment for women's medical privacy, which is why it is a landmark decision. Anytime there is a discussion of the series of precedents used by SCOTUS to establish the right to privacy, it's in there, right after Griswald. It did much more than simply apply those rights to reproductive freedom and has been used as precedent in other gender-based cases. Overturning Roe means overturning that precedent, and all of our rights won since then become endangered. Wikipedia is no substitute for reading the actual decision which you can find at the Findlaw site.
    •  the message the program ends with is that (none / 0)

      we are indeed losing.

      "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." Plato

      by JPete on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 08:25:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  to be really "pro-choice" (4.00 / 2)

    while i support having abortion clinics, if it really is about being "pro-choice" shouldn't feminists be as dedicated to having crisis pregnancy centers and having resources for the women who WANT to bear their children, but feel they lack resources? many of my pro-life Christian friends are involved with such emergency care efforts, and smugly like to point out how few feminists are involved with their efforts,  meaning we are really "pro-abortion" and not "pro-choice." i think they have a fair point, even as i like to point out that Planned Parenthood, with its commitment to contraception, has prevented 1000 times the abortions as it has performed. that usually manages to shut up a fair number of pro-lifers actually.
    •  Crisis Pregnancy Centers? (4.00 / 9)

      What do they do?

      Can they guide a pregnant woman to good health care during her pregnancy?  How about her medical bills before and during deliver?  

      How about a proper diet during pregnancy and the vitamins?  How about child care after her delivery?  And vaccinations and baby clothes and diapers and bottles and all that stuff that babies need? How about housing for the family?

      Do Crisis Pregnancy Centers do this?  For every woman that crosses through their door, they provide full and adequate assistance for that woman to have shelter, food, medical care, baby needs, and child care upon the delivery of that baby?  

      And, they do this for the women who KEEP their babies.

      I'm a feminist, I'm pro-choice, and I'm more than happy to help women keep their child if they make this decision.  That's why I want expanded child care, education, kindergarten, family leave without a penalty for taking time from work or school to have a child (Lawrence Summers says it can't be done), food stamps without a stigma attached.

      Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

      by bronte17 on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:34:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  to be "pro-choice" ignore CPC lies (4.00 / 10)

      crisis pregnancy centers such as these, ihlin?

      Beware of Anti-abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers

      The Pearson Foundation manual, How to Start and Operate Your Own ProLife Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center, urges antiabortion counselors to give deceptive answers. For example, it cautions, "Do not tell the client that she is or is not pregnant." Instead, counselors are advised to only say whether test results are positive or negative.

      They show shocking and misleading films and pictures of mutilated fetuses and stillborn babies. They won't let women leave until the end of the video or until they have looked at all the antiabortion information, even when the woman realizes she has made a mistake going there.

      They attempt to make women feel guilty.

      They refuse or fail to provide contraceptive information. The Pearson Foundation manual explicitly instructs counselors "never to counsel or refer for artificial contraceptives or sterilization." They advise unmarried women to abstain from sex, presenting abstinence as the only way to avoid pregnancy.

      Their offices are filled with information that is one-sided.

      Some of these centers offer ultrasound (also known as sonograms). But that does not mean the personnel operating the equipment are medically trained.

      you know, ihlin, if your "pro-life christian friends" support efforts such as these few i've listed above, i'd suggest you find some new friends. to my way of thinking your "pro-life christan friends" are at the root of the problem, not feminists.

    •  That's nonsense (4.00 / 11)

      Planned Parenthood is one of the leading providers of prenatal care to poor women.  When they say "family planning", they don't just mean "abortion", they really do provide assistance in creating healthy babies when a woman wants to have one. There are a lot of ways to provide help to women who want babies other than working at a center that is focused exclusively on preventing abortions and there are a lot of liberals are working to help women have healthy babies.  
    •  Pro-choice IS both sides (4.00 / 7)

      It's about women being able to make decisions about their health -- and their lives -- without religious and political harassment. That's whether a woman wants to become pregnant, see a pregnancy to term, or receive the best pre-natal care possible.
      .
      I don't know where you got the ridiculous idea that feminists -- female or male -- oppose the right of any woman to get sound, reliable health care whether seeking abortion services or getting health care related to other issues involving reproductive rights.
      .
      Perhaps your Christian friends should become better informed about efforts to make healthcare available to all Americans. Desperately needed programs like Medicaid have been shut down by "pro-life" extremists currently leading the Republican Congress and squatting in the White HOuse -- just to keep funding more tax-cut bonanzas for the wealthiest 1-3%.
      .
    •  CPC is to choice the same way (4.00 / 5)

      that Bush's "Clear Skies" has to a cleaner environment. Don't kid yourself. The CPCs are propaganda for anti-abortion efforts, not pro-life once that little fetus emerges from the womb. Then you made your bed, bitch, you lie in it.

      "And tell me how does god choose whose prayers does he refuse?" Tom Waits

      by madaprn on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 07:07:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  why would feminists be involved with (none / 0)

      theeir efforts?  There is tons of support offered by feminists working in pro-women centers around the country, in schools, etc.

      "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." Plato

      by JPete on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 08:28:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Woen's lives are at stake. (4.00 / 5)

    I was fortuante not to have to have an abortion
    the time I thought I was pregnant--they changed my birth control pills, and I was OK.  But they were among ngest couple of weeks of my life, waiting until a pregnancy test would be valid (EPT wasn't around in 1973).  The second time, again before EPT and waiting for a test, I had a two-week late period--probably, the nurse midwife advised me, a spontaneous abortion.  NO WAY could we ahve afforded a baby at that time. I would have HAD to abort.

    I have escorted rape victims to pLanned pArenthood for pregnacy and STD tsting,  d yes, abortions--past crowds of ranting picketers calling us babykillers. Apparenmtly they don't realize or care that the MAIN thrust of Planned Parenthood is low-cost eaethcare for women and providing access to ocntraception--not abortions

    And I have seen clinics clos, so thatonly a few doctors even KNOW the procedure, let alone perform it (Mayo Bloomberg required EVERY hospital without religiousaffialitions to teach it).  I don't blame them. They run a risk of being killed by wackos, have pickets stand outside their hous and yell at them through bullhorns, worry that their children and spouses may be harassed (it's happened), and worry that the next person through the door of the clinic might be a suicide bomber--or that some nutjob planted explosives with a timer set to go off in the middle of the day.

    The fewer doctors and clinics there are, the harder it will be for poor women, working class women, and students to have access to safe, legal abortion.  Rich women won't suffer--they can fly to a Blue state or overseas for a procedure.  But the rest of us--women like I was the two times I thought I was pregnant--will be compelled to carry to term.  They will be SENTENCED to pregnancy for the crime of having sex--and a birth control failure.

    Then there are the teenagers who must notify their parents. Good Goddess, don't they know that in Red States that could get you beaten?  That girls who don't go to their parents (most do), usually have a good reason not to--like an abusive and vioilent father or a father who might also be the father of the baby?

    There is also a very real chance that Red States might pass laws that define life as beginning at birth--which means  ban on the IUD, Pill, PAtch, depo shots, etc.  The msot reliable forms of birth control would be GONE.  SO would Plan B or RU486--becasue theyprevent implantation.  

    The same prolifers who want to ban or limit abortion also want to see abstinece only education int he schools--whichmeans info on birth control will be far less accessible, and the pregnancy rate will skyrocket.  Teens will have sex with or without access to birth control, becauset hey always HAVE--and even taking the RIng Pledge just reduces the number of partners and cnreses the likelihood that they will have anal instead of vaginal sex (that hymen is what must be rotected after all) which leaves girls open to easier infection from HIV and other STDs.  

    Keep abortion safe, legal and rare---back comprehensive sex ed, unvioersal coverage for birth control  in inurance (and in Medicaid) , and fioght to keep ROe v,. Wade from being overturned.

    Because lives are at stake.  Yours and you daighters'

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:02:27 PM PDT

    •  goals? (4.00 / 3)

      The same prolifers who want to ban or limit abortion also want to see abstinece only education int he schools--whichmeans info on birth control will be far less accessible, and the pregnancy rate will skyrocket.  Teens will have sex with or without access to birth control, becauset hey always HAVE--and even taking the RIng Pledge just reduces the number of partners and cnreses the likelihood that they will have anal instead of vaginal sex (that hymen is what must be rotected after all) which leaves girls open to easier infection from HIV and other STDs.

      I wonder. Is the real goal increasing the birthrate?  I know there is a tendancy to view celebacy as a goal.  But obviously if everyone practiced it, there wouldn't be a humanity.  If abortion and all forms of contraception are outlawed, there will be a rise in the birthrate.

      Are they part of the white supremacist worry that they're being outbred?

      We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

      by ScrewySquirrel on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:39:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it's bigger than that (4.00 / 5)

        The real goal is moving society toward their religion.  They want people to act in ways that they feel that the Christian God would approve of.  Somehow this is supposed to bring blessing on the country. It makes sense when you think about it from their perspective  - Sex is bad, therefore school teachers shouldn't talk about it to vulnerable kids, who might then act on the information. Providing information about birth control will only encourage children to have sex, so we shouldn't.  Abortion is murder, so it should never be allowed.  Virginity is Good, so it should be encouraged.  God told us to "Go Forth and Multiply", so birth control is bad.  Women in the bible were mothers, not workers, and were supposed to be obedient to their husbands, so women in the U.S. should be obedient to men and should raise their children without bothering their husbands too much. These people want us to live in a theocracy.  They want the 10 commandments on the wall of every house of justice, because they belive that these are the foundation of all of our laws (they aren't). We call them "The American Taliban" as in insult, but it really is an accurate description.
      •  Yep (none / 0)

        It's a major theme for the screwier (is that a word) of the libertarian/space-people faction among the rich that we need more people and those selfish women just aren't having enough babies.  The not too hard to figure out hidden agenda is to get more young, desperate, broke workers to tend the machines in their dark Satanic mills.  Ben Wattenberg among others has written some horrid books touting this nonsense.  It's one of the things they hate about Europe that it has an aging population full of older workers who don't take as much shit from employers as younger, broker ones in other countries do.

        These guys don't usually care about religion and when they do it tends to be more of the Raelian, Scientology or saucer cult variety but they're happy to use it to further their ends.

        Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy."

        by Event Horizon on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 07:41:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  he he. that was yours truly. (none / 1)

    the <i>"as some preciously naive poster commented a few days ago -- 'Americans are liberal and pro-choice,' women would still keep access to safe and legal abortion care"</i> comment was mine.
    and, they are. liberal and pro choice, that is.
    just no way Abortion Rights go down.
    Roe may go down in flames, but something will take its place, so...
    who cares what that something is? we'll always have some form of abortion rights.
    why we continue to wring our hands over Roe is beyond me. it only serves the Repub party. our focus on the abortion rights issue should be "rare, safe and legal." and, we should further focus on "the morning after" pill, ensuring that thing is accessible to girls/ women 16 and older.
    just no way Americans throw out abortion rights wholesale. we won't be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
    •  You may be very wrong/ (4.00 / 8)

      Roe is the best way to insure thsoe rights.  

      How about we jsut roll back Brown v Education? Or the Civil Rights laws? SOME states will keep civil rights going.

      SAME THING,asshole.  Why is it always OK to suggest we nto worry about WOMEN?????:??????????

      "Soem form" isn't good enough.  It has to be universal and it has to be a lot less limtied thant hey want to make it

      The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

      by irishwitch on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 03:17:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Tell that... (4.00 / 2)

        ... to a 17 year old girl in rural Mississippi. Or Texas. Or Louisiana. Tell her how Roe is protecting her right to an abortion.  Tell her how she can get an abortion anytime she wants.  She isn't going to believe you, because she knows that you are living in a fantasy world, not the real world. Not HER real world.

        Brown v. Board worked because the federal government stepped in a enforced it.  Nobody is enforcing Roe.  Just the opposite. It is bad law, with enough loopholes to drive a truck through, and there are many politicians working every day to make sure that those loopholes are exploited to effectively elmininate abortion options for women.

        •  asdf (none / 0)

          Brown v. Board worked because the federal government stepped in a enforced it.

          Not until compelled by the judiciary. Busing was a judicial remedy, not a legislative one.

          •  The judiciary were interpreting... (none / 1)

            ...laws writting by congress and the constitution.  So is the current supreme court, when they allow more and more restrictions on abortion rights.  Until we get laws passed that provide real protection for reproductive freedom, we will see our right erode.  The thing conservatives are best at is making use of loopholes.  
            •  And our chance of gettign a federal law insuring (none / 1)

              legal aboprtions is as likeley as one recognizing gay marriage.The Christian RIght will continue to be a strong influence for years to come--and they are prolife generally.  States will continue to pass laws whittlign away at Roe, and sopmetiems they will win, soemtiems lose--but at elast there won't be wholesale BANS in half the sttates (see my psot abopve with the FACTS).

              The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

              by irishwitch on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 08:29:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  asdf (none / 0)

              No, the judiciary was not interpreting laws written by Congress in Brown v. Board of Education. Brown v. Board of Education reversed Plesy v. Fergusan, the "separate but equal" approach to segregation. Had Congress done a damn thing about segregation, the judiciary would not have had to step in.
        •  And overturnign it would be GOOD? (none / 1)

          To overturn it, you have to overturn Friswald, really.

          And if you turn it back to the states--well, I live in GA, and I live on under $15K a year,so IU think I knwo something about both the SOUTH (a aplce I laothe but am stuck in for another 18-24 months while my husband finsihes school) and being working cklass/poor. Now that we''ve gotten rif of the "rich white female"
          stereotype, let's looka t wehat will immediately happen If ROe  is overturned.

          • 16 states (AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, DE, DC, MA, MI, MS, NH, NM, OK, TX, VT, WV, WI )plus D.C. still ahve bans on thebooks--thsoe bans will immedaitley be able to be enforced.

          • Two more states  LA, UT) plus Guam have test laws/

          *Three states have laws declaring that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion is to be prohibited (IL, KY, LA). Moreover, five states have laws declaring their intent to ban abortion to the fullest extent permitted by the Constitution (AR, MO, NE, ND, PA), and three other states have declarations stating their policy to protect the unborn as persons under state law (LA, UT). Three states have resolutions in opposition to the Freedom of Choice Act, a proposed federal law that would codify Roe v. Wade (LA, ND, WV

          Let's see 16 plus D.C equals 17. Add the two test laws--19. Three more would ban if ROe is overturned--22.  Five more have alws declaring their intent to ban--27/  Gee, I thinkt hat'smore than half of the states who would ban if Roe is overturned.

          *Eighteen states have mandatory waiting periods (DE, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MS, MT, NE, ND, OH, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, WI). Eleven of these states currently enforce their waiting period laws (ID, KS, LA, MS, NE, ND, OH, PA, SC, SD, UT). Thirty states have an informed consent law for abortion (AL, AK, CA, CT, DE, FL, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, ND, OH, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, UT, VA, WI). Such laws were held unconstitutional under Thornburg v. American Col. of Ob. & Gyn., but are generally upheld since the court reversed itself in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

          *Five states have laws prohibiting the use of public facilities for abortion (KY, LA, MO, ND, PA).

          *Five states have laws that prohibit insurance coverage for abortion unless a special premium is paid (ID, KY, MO, ND, RI). The Rhode Island law was ruled unconstitutional. Another state (PA) has a law that requires insurers to provide policy alternatives excluding abortion. Seven states have laws that prohibit insurance coverage for abortion in certain circumstances when public funds are used or public employees are insured (CO, IL, MA, NE, PA, RI, VA). The Rhode Island law has also been held to be partially unconstitutional. At least two states exclude abortion coverage from state health care programs (IL, MN).

          http://hometown.aol.com/...

          You may consider Roe"bad lawe" which means you proobably think Griswald is bad alw too--but it has been the law for 30 years, and it is the BEST protectionw er have for reproductive rights.

          You  REALLYT want to let the states decide?  HALDF have already said they'd abn it or have laws banning it onthe books if Roe is overturned.

          DO you honestly htink it iwll get easier for poor women to get an abortion if it's overturned--they'd have to travel for a day or two to FUIND an abortionist. And yes, I am VERY aware of the shrinking number of clinics. I think I covered that int he psot you responded to, but apparently didn't udnerstand.

          Going back to the states would be a FUCKIN' Disaster.  Abortions are hard enough to come by NOW--the states would onlymake it worse.

          YOU need to wake up and smell the coffee.

          The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

          by irishwitch on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 08:26:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Caklifornia is going to ban abortion? (none / 1)

            LOL. That's good.  I really don't have time to do the research to critique what you wrote, but one fact I'm sure of... California is NOT going to ban abortion if Roe is overturned.  Go check your facts.  Roe isn't working.  I just want our focus to get off of Roe and back where it belongs - on women's reproductive freedom, which is being lost bit by bit as people like you fight to protect a decision that isn't protecting us.

            I don't think that overturning Roe will make it easier for poor women to get an abortion.  I also don't think it will make it much harder for them to get an abortion.  All I'm saying is that Roe is NOT protecting our right to an abortion, but it IS keeping people from fighting to protect that right, because most people think the right is protected by Roe.  Of course going back to the states would be a disaster. But sometimes it takes a disaster to wake people up.  You said it: Abortions are hard enough to come by now.  They are getting harder to come by.  At some point they will be impossible to come by. But people like you at least we have Roe.  It could be worse. Just how bad does it have to get before you admit that Roe isn't working?

    •  I care very much (4.00 / 6)

      what that 'something' would be.  Women will die.  Unwanted children will be born, which means more children will be abused, neglected, and killed.  It matters very much.

      Emergency contraception, whether it's the morning after pill (or mega doses of the correct kinds of birth control pills, same thing), only works within 5 days of the sex act.  If you are a clueless kid, or you are using birth control and it fails (and even a tubal ligation has a 3-5 in 1000 failure rate), you won't know you are pregnant until long after that.  If your partner threatens to kill you when he finds out you are pregnant, it's too late for emergency contraception. Etc.  

      We need universal, national, private access to abortion without any undue burdens, period.

      "Civility costs nothing and buys everything." - Mary Wortley Montagu

      by sarac on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 04:09:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're simply wrong about this (4.00 / 9)

      It's not just a concept to bat around at the water cooler or a hat to put on, like a baseball cap for a "team" you support.
      .
      That's the problem with treating access to abortion services -- and medical and pharmaceutical services related to women's sex and reproduction -- as an abstract issue.
      .
      This isn't just about whether you heart life or not. We're talking about women's lives. It's about the right of women to make our own medical and moral choices, and to have access to sound, current, reliable health information and services while doing so.
      .
      Women are sick and dying NOW because of bigotry and the intentional disinformation of the public by extremists and cynical politicians who use them to get elected.
      .
      Religious and political extremists have willfully distorted information related to cancers and the transmission of disease (eg, STD's) simply to score political points or create an warm-fuzzy "pro-life" impression in the media. (Refer to recent diaries about religious fanatics preventing the availability of therapies to prevent cervical cancer and other diseases affecting the female reproductive system.)
      .
      Women and children are being condemned to poverty, illness (physical and mental stresses) and squalor because of this. Teenagers (male and female) and men and are also at increased risk of STDs and other health-related issues because of this.
      .
      It's a disgrace for any civilized society to take away people's right to decent healthcare advice and services just to flatter and appease ignorant fanatics.
      .

      by Peanut on