Here is a challenge for some folks: Instead of using the phrase "I oppose abortion except in the case of rape or incest" try saying "I oppose abortion except in the case of breaking someone's nose or arson" or "I oppose abortion except in the case of cracking someone's skull open with a brick or intentionally driving drunk" or "I oppose abortion except in the case of shooting your shotgun off in a crowded bus or larceny" and try saying it with it making sense.
Can't do it? Neither can I and I've been trying for quite a while now. The truth is that I can not say "I oppose abortion." But since this diary is more focused on some of the very dangerous mythical assumptions and misconceptions (pardon the pun) that a few more than none have been espousing, I'll stay more to the topic and be honest - I can't say "I oppose abortion except in the case of ...." because it makes no sense.
It will all become evident right below the fold.
Update [2005-4-16 16:18:8 by dadanation]: It's a little after 1 p.m. pst and I need to nap. It's week 29 of interfron adn I have been amazed at how long I was able to hang here -- but now, I feel like soggy toast and need to rest. I'll be back; just didn't want anyne to think I fled the scene or was ignoring comments.
[editor's note, by dadanation]There is one specific word missing when I discuss the issue/myth of "late term abortions." That word is "elective." In the US one can not, in the third trimester of their pregnancy, walk in and seek and receive a elective abortion. This is a very critical distinction to note -- "late term abortions" implies the same type of elective and accessible type of abortions that are legal in the United States, namely those that take place within the first two trimesters of pregnancy and which precede the point of viability for the fetus.
Here is what I posted down thread where I think I probably best expressed the issue and relevance of elective and terminology and truth:
no where is it legal in this country for a woman to have an elective abortion if the fetus is viable. no where. if one can't access an electve procedure, which is what we are discussing here, because it is not legal and is unavailable, then how can this non-event exist? it can't because it doesn't.
however, under the strictest of requirements, pregnancies can be legally terminated during the third trimester. however, to confuse these procedures (which account for anywhere from 0.08% to 0.2% of all procedures annually) as "elective" would be to miss the whole point and not differentiate between two fundamentally diferent situations.
the doctor's acts in the case of terminating a pregnancy after viability must be because of a verifiable, compelling and clear case that the carrying of the child to term will and does pose grave threat to the woman (perhaps death). we have to be clear both in understanding the entirely unique sitation this represents and how it is absolutely not the same as the situation for women in either the first or second trimester of pregnancy. if you had to hang a hat on key phrases, they would be both "ELECTIVE" and "medically necesary."
this is not wordsmithing -- to the contrary. this is about precision. one of the ways in which this misnomer of "late term abortions" has been given life is the lack of clarity regarding such specific setting and environmental issues like "elective" as well as when (many of the data sources which have been trottted out to decry "late term abortions" have intentionally used data from the 2nd trimester and mushed it with statistics regarding the third trimester procedures. by doing so, the anti-choice folks then took images of these third trimester procedurtes by doctors, the procedures that were medically necessary to save the mother's life, and then cross applied these pictures/procedures to the numbers (and therefore women) who sought out legal abortions since they were in their second trimester. they intentionally did not demarcate that the procedures for a 2nd trimester abortion were on non-viable fetuses, but were quick to highlight the procedures in the photos (the very graphic ones) were done of viable fetuses. an entire world of difference separates vible from unviable-- a world of difference obliterated by the anti-choice folks. Why? Because they win when specificity and clarity of language, timing and procedure and law are blurred.
That would be my final, editorial, clarifying comment in and on this diary.
OK, before I fully launch into the diary, I do want to acknowledge that a significant number of men here have shown that the issue of choice can be understood by men, advocated by men and with a great deal of awareness as to what the stakes are in this battle. But repeatedly I have encountered a predominately guy talk that has been in diary replies of late, all speaking about choice, abortion, and women in less than fair terms. AND in all fairness, a decidedly tiny number of women here too have been in that group of folks who either aren't getting it or don't believe it. These are the folks, particularly the guys, that I am most interested in focusing this diary at - because I also think we have folks at all different levels of awareness on this whole issue and too often we speak from our level of knowledge and wonder why everyone else is not where we are.
So, I figured my vain attempt today would be sort of polemic, sort of educational, sort of synthesizing and recasting of the topic - in some minor little way that is. So, the Cliff Notes version/abbreviation of today's diary would be as follows:
- Rape and incest are acts of violence, not sex. Rethinking the phrase "except in the case of rape and violence" would do us a world of good
- There is no such thing as a late term abortion
- The anti-women forces have found a way to destroy Roe v. Wade that does not require any Senate movement to get their job done
- "Partial Birth Abortions" is a term created to define nothing except ultimately an advocacy strategy
So returning to the opening issue of the diary, and the challenge: Instead of using the phrase "I oppose abortion except in the case of rape or incest" try saying "I oppose abortion except in the case of breaking someone's nose or arson" or "I oppose abortion except in the case of cracking someone's skull open with a brick or intentionally driving drunk" or "I oppose abortion except in the case of shooting your shotgun off in a crowded bus or larceny" and try saying it with it making sense.
I can't say "I oppose abortion except in the case of ...." because it makes no sense.
Besides, what's the point? The mantra we hear, quite regularly is "except in the case of rape or incest." So what's the point of suggesting that we substitute arson or larceny or other acts of violence instead of rape or incest into that phrase?
Exactly.
Rape is not sex. Rape is violence. Incest is not sex. It is violence. That's why.
To oppose abortions for women except in the case where they have been the victim of an act of brutal physical and psychologically violence means - in reality -- that women are only able to access abortion services when they have been hurt. To designate value to an abortion only as a remedial intervention to clean up or bandage the resulting damages from a violent attack is abusive, is sexist and is in and of itself a retraumatization.
Abusive? Yes, because it reduces women's experiences of sex, power, control, destiny, choice, and health to a simple "No and No" kind of equation, with the only "Yes" being if she was brutalized. Imagine if you were told that your health care and reproductive health care was not just limited but specifically limited such that the only way to get help is to have been traumatized.
To hear folks use that phrase of "except in the case of..." what I hear is neither a compassionate nor practical compromise on the issue of women's right to have control over their own body - I hear domination and power dynamics. So, when your act of noblesse oblige is to allow women this one exception to your rule, you don't sort of metaphorically perpetuate the cycle of abuse, you treat your ability to abuse as if it is backed by divine right.
Data (from the Alan Guttmacher Institute) suggest that women who seek abortions and who do so because they have been the victim of rape or incest account for 1% of abortions annually. This means that you've chosen to silence all discussion on this issue - not just limiting access and services for women, but institutionalizing violence towards women as the only legitimate reason for a woman to seek this kind of care.
I'm not suggesting that this will create a wish-fulfillment scenario - the number of reported rape and sexual battery cases that are reported (and under-reported at that) by women each year is far too high as it is already. Men are already traumatizing women on a regular basis. I am suggesting that in this discussion about choice that we drop the language in our discussion which is equally traumatizing and insensitive, namely the "except in the case of..." language.
While I'm on the topic of changing the language we use, now is as good a time as any to get a few other things clear here. The term "late term/stage abortion" is a lie. Got it? There is no such thing. Someone made the phrase up to intentionally mischaracterize the reality of why medically-licensed professionals terminate a pregnancy in the last trimester. So, in thinking this through a bit on the macro-level, what is lost when that term is given play? We lose our respect for the women in our lives, I believe. We admit, when we use that phrase, that we do not trust women.
As long as we continue to promote the lie about "late term abortion" then we continue to actively perpetuate an environment that bears false witness to not just the law, and the facts and the providers but, most importantly, we bear false witness to our mom, our sister, your wife, our daughter, our cousin, our niece, our aunt, our grandmother, and so on and so on and so on. Every time you insist on lying by treating this term as if it is accurate, you give more and more power to the lie that women have the right to kill at will with impunity. And, unfortunately, myopia does not protect the women we love from this blanket condemnation. As long as one woman has this power (the lie from your lips to the next guy's lips and soon the web is woven) all women have this power, this right, namely this right to kill at will with caprice and immunity. All women. Parroting this coded language puts all women's deserved access to quality health services in jeopardy. Let's review then, ok? There is no such thing as a "late term abortion."
As long as you believe this myth, you keep a slow burn going for all those folks out there who have hurt women (and providers) in the past because they believe that late term abortions are real, and that partial birth abortions are real. Orwell was frighteningly accurate about that "saying something long enough it becomes real...."
So, when you keep the giving Orwellian life to the inaccurate term "late term abortion" or "partial birth abortion" you do realize that you keep stoking the fires of simplicity and reductivism - and if you aren't sure how this reductivism plays out, you aren't listening.
Here is how it goes:
"...abortion is abortion is abortion; "partial birth abortions" are the "extreme" end but the same end as a "late term abortion" which is really just another abortion with a few extra adjectives - when you strip away the fluffy adjectives, it all reads the same, namely "abortion." Abortion is abortion is abortion is murder..."
But don't take my word for it; it is playing out, in real time, right now, in front of your very eyes. Don't see what I mean? OK. Here is the deal: Partial Birth Abortion Laws are designed to eviscerate Roe v. Wade. The anti-choice groups have found a way to gut women's reproductive health services without ever having to change a judge. In fact, they've found a way to do it and get it done for cheap. How? You.
But in order to make that cryptic statement make sense, I think we need to review some of the basic, sometimes assumed (often incorrectly) realities of Roe v. Wade, trimesters, viability, etc. so that we can have an informed conversation about all of this.
First, some basic facts:
- Roe v Wade uses the concept of the trimester when discussing abortions. A trimester is roughly 3 months, or 12 weeks;
- Roe v Wade did not address the "when does life begin" issue definitively (as to determine when is an appropriate time-set-date where abortions should be legal or not) and instead ruled thusly:
- States may not restrict abortions in the first trimester;
- States may regulate abortions in the second trimester only to protect the woman's health;
- States may ban (most have) abortions in the 3rd trimester except when the life OR health of the woman is at stake.
90% of all abortions happen during the first trimester (week 1 - 12);
Only 4% of all abortions happen after week 16; less than 1.5% up to and including week 21;
Week 16 is a critical testing point for genetic defects etc. for the fetus;
No abortions take place in the 3rd trimester (week 25 - 36). Remember, not an abortion in the 3rd trimester but a critical medical intervention for which there is documented, verifiable, serious and compelling evidence (which MUST be documented by the attending and licensed provider) that the life or health of the woman is at stake in order for the provider to move forward legally.
Viability emerges as a salient issue in abortion cases (esp. with the 1976 Planned Parenthood v. Danforth SCOTUS Decision and the subsequent 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey SCOTUS Decision). In Roe v Wade, viability was believed to happen roughly at week 28; now viability "dating" is believed to be week 24.
The only way a woman can legally have her pregnancy terminated if she is in her third trimester is if and when AND ONLY IF AND WHEN her doctor has verified that there is clear and compelling evidence that the health and life of the woman is in real jeopardy. So, the next time you hear the phrase "late stage abortion" you should know that this is what is at play:
* Whoever is using that phrase is feeding you a load of horse manure no matter how the date/facts are being presented. The intentionally loaded code phrase "late term abortions" is not just meaningless in terms of the way it tries to collapse data from two fundamentally different scenarios - data which are incomparable--but also mean because it seeks to conflate disparate data into a common whole new data set to then use this new meta-data as a political tool in the more odious debate at play now, namely that regarding "partial birth abortions."
1. 2 different scenarios?
2nd trimester abortions are legal; 3rd trimester abortions are not. Data from abortions (numbers, etc.) in the 2nd trimester reflect the demographics, sites, etc. of those women who sought out legal abortion services. Data regarding the number of pregnancies terminated in the third trimester reflect only one fact - a medically-necessitated medical intervention that if not done would likely result in grave if not fatal injury to the mother. Looking in the aggregate to these very disparate periods and dubbing (in whole or part) these data "late term abortions" is not very sound if rigorous and sound scientific methods are what you care about. Drawing conclusions from two distinct data sets (i.e. 2nd versus 3rd trimester) would be folly.
2. Playing politics with women?
Sticking just with the incomparability of data across these two time periods, (we'll get to the bigger picture in a moment), when one cites these aggregate "late term abortions" it s always associated with showcasing the inhumanity of abortion and a mushing together of data about unviable fetuses and viable ones (pre week 24 and post week 24) so that this bigger problem/number is miscast as being ONLY viable fetuses, who nevertheless can, at any time according those who intentionally misrepresent the facts of what is stated in Roe v Wade, be legally aborted. This catch-all summary usually is cloaked in the code-phrase of "abortion on demand" which brings us to "abortions of convenience/whim/contraception/prom dresses." (I kid you not). Roe v. Wade does not allow for abortion on demand. It tells the states that women must be allowed access to abortion services in their first trimester, allows the state to limit 2nd trimester abortions (protecting the woman's health) and allows the state to ban 3rd trimester abortions except in the case of a compelling threat to the life of the mother. Clearly the factual merits of SCOTUS decision in 1973(and those in 1992, 2000 etc.) are at odds with opponents of abortion in fact, in accuracy and in spin - especially insofar as the lie of "late term abortions" is concerned.
While the term "late stage abortion" is just factually wrong, the phrase "partial birth abortion" is beyond the pale of decency; it is meaningless. There is no such procedure as a "partial birth abortion." But because of the efforts of the anti-woman crowd, the stage was set for this invention of a phrase to actually have meaning and it was set using the "data" regarding "late term abortions." After week 24, the "viability" date-set-time, it is scientifically acknowledged that the fetus can survive outside the womb. So, in order to orchestrate one of the more appalling distortions of fact into a successful anti-choice campaign, the anti-women groups developed a strategy to ban partial birth abortions (which are, per se, not real) by giving a reality to the meaningless data of "late term abortions" using viability as the new hook and the new look.
In Randall Terry's voice, let me condense the lobbying and advocacy efforts of these folks over the past several years. In doing so, it'll become clear how the connection between "late term abortions" and "partial birth abortions" was articulated, how they came to be seen as synonymous and how this whole process was used to try to nullify Roe v. Wade. Ready?
"Late term abortions kill of innocent babies, babies who could live outside their mommy, but who - like the baby in this photograph taken of a baby who was aborted by her mother with the help of this one physician who does this kind of "emergency surgery" all the time. Sure the anti-lifers will tell you that 90% of all abortions happen in the first twelve weeks of life, but that still means 10% of these babies are killed after the first trimester. Being pregnant for three months and all of the sudden you want an abortion? That seems far too extreme even for the anti-life folks. After all we now know that in a few weeks after week twelve, the preborn is now viable. It is a human who can live outside its mother's womb. Just like this baby here in that photo. That baby deserved to live, without a doubt you can see the baby, why the baby was VIABLE. I am sorry if what I am going to say next is offensive but you have to know the truth. In order this baby, this viable baby, they had to begin to birth the baby, which is shown here in this drawing being held up over there by Doctor Felchalot, my esteemed doctor friend from Enema-du-Lac, Wisconsin. To perform their gruesome crushing of this baby's skull, they need the baby to come down, just like being born. But before the baby is born all the way, just as the baby is being partially born, right now is where the doctor now does that procedure where he sucks the baby's brain out of its head.
Yes, that is it in a nutshell: Partially born to be aborted; partially born so that the doctor could legally murder the baby. What has happened because of Roe v. Wade is that we have set up a system where women can ask for and doctors will grant them access to such an act that made it so that this partially born baby was killed. What we need to do - in respecting the SCOTUS and Roe v Wade though is figure out how to not allow for the slaughter of these babies, these partially born babies. We need to ban these Partial Birth Abortions."
The rest is of course not just history but our reality right now. Emboldened to the point of frightening, it should surprise no one that the language of these so-called "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Laws" were written hoodwinkingly bringing to an end these acts of cruelty to viable babies but truthfully so vaguely and with no real mention of timing (trimester, etc.) such that they, in essence, made all abortions illegal, no matter the trimester, the medical necessity or the decision of the SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade. Don't believe me? Ask the State of Wisconsin.
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban is the no-longer veiled but equally not debunked method the far right has been using to severely intimidate abortion providers, the women's communities, and the country. So, with the higher courts consistently ruling these laws unconstitutional, why does the anti-woman group pursue this strategy? You mean apart from the fact that the liberal and the moderates and the left haven't educate themselves enough to see this ruse for what it is (ostensibly agreeing that partial birth abortions are wrong, that late term abortions should not be legal, taking the entire anti-woman bait hook line and sinker)? Because that is a huge boost to the anti-women crowd - when guys in particular on the left content themselves with parroting these fabrications of the Randall Terry types as Gospel, when urging the Democrats to be more reasoned and reasonable and be more willing, to be a party of openness and respecting the diversity of opinion on the issue of abortion - it's not just a huge boost for them, it's done for free.
We should return to the first point of this post: rape is not sex. It is an act of violence. And for those who would not even allow for an abortion in the case of rape or incest, perhaps you make peace with this insanely cruel position because you know that only 10,000 - 15,000 of the approximately 1.5 million abortions domestically in the US annually are requested by women who became pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Rather than make peace with allowing these traumatized women access to a service which should not be limited in the first place, perhaps it would be more compassionate to work to eliminate and or cripple the rates of rape and incest in this country. Data suggest that approximately 5% of all rape victims become pregnant as a result of their being sexually brutalized. Anyway, I guess I digressed. Back to the Partial Birth topic...
Ever wonder why so much effort has been placed on the issue of partial birth abortions? Because if you can convince the public that this is a regular, grotesque, unsafe, painful, violent and legal and capriciously chosen act of a woman and her godless doctor, and if you legislate out of existence this mythical monster, imagine how much easier it will be to take this sled down the slippery slope.
Think it through - here is the slippery slope (and again, the voice of Randall Terry is very helpful here):
Women -- underneath all their feminist rhetoric and lying and intentional deception about "it's about controlling our bodies, our selves" to the American population - well; women can not be entrusted with their bodies absent strong, clear and draconian laws. Roe v Wade gave women the opportunity to show the world that they were not going to use abortion as a form of contraception, but we all know that since Roe v Wade made it legal for a woman to terminate that living pre-born any time she wants to, sadly women have voted with their feet and show us that they are not able to overcome the urge to end a life if it was an inconvenience to her, without her husband's or dad's permission or knowledge.
That's the slope.
So, when pile-driving the Partial Birth abortion ban, Congress and its partners in the league of anti-women groups used lies, distortions and outright mischaracterizations of medical procedures to support the passage of this law. A "fact" now in the Congressional Record which helped pass this law has so much more standing and persuasion when next used as supporting documentation for a new law aimed at tinkering away at actual abortion access, availability, restrictions, locations, policies and procedures. In other words, guys, when you believe the phrase "partial birth abortion" just think of yourselves as the folks who actually made the Trojan Horse.
This is as good a place as any to stop. If in my approach I was too broad and too sweeping in my generalizations and recapitulations, I apologize. Not my intent to paint everyone with the same brush or to oversimplify somewhat complicated aspects of this issue. I just wanted to hopefully move more of us to think more specifically as to why the issue of choice IS such a deal-breaker for so many of us, men and women. That's all.
(By the way, data used in this diary was obtained from a variety of sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Organization for Women, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, some of my old ACT UP and WHAM files, the National Institutes of Health (esp. the National Institute of Mental Health), and probably a few I have just forgotten.)