Like teacherken and other Kossacks I watched the CNN/Sojourner forum on faith and politics. When she was asked by an anti-choice (sorry, folks, I refuse to call them pro-life because what they are is pro-birth and anti-choice and, in many cases, anti-woman) minister from Florida if she could work with anti-choice people to reduce the number of abortions. Hillary repeated her "safe, legal and rare" spiel which includes reducing the number of abortions, and opined that she could work with anti-choice people to bring that about. A very politic answer, and not all that unreasonable.
I also read moiv’s diary on Jim Wallis and got into a small, contained pie fight with several people who basically said that my position was wrong because we need to cooperate with moderates, the people who think abortion is morally wrong but who aren’t single issue voters.
Guess what? I am all in favor of cooperating with moderates—and Hillary’s position, which happens to be the position of most pro-choice women (including moiv) is the moderate position. We’d all like to see the number of abortions go down, due to comprehensive sex education and increased use of birth control. I will happily work with anyone toward that goal even if they oppose abortion.
Before we go any further, let me make clear what I mean by the anti-choice position. I am not referring to people like my best friend who would never choose abortion herself--in fact, she chose not to have amnio during her third pregnancy at age 40 because she and her husband wouldn’t abort even if the child were Down Syndrome—but who would not make that choice for another woman, and who wants it safe and legal for her daughters. In my book, that position is pro-choice. No, I refer to those people who want to see abortion banned or so severely restricted to saving the life of the woman. Some will even permit it if her health is endangered—or in cases of rape or incest—though many won’t. THAT is what I mean by anti-choice. Most want it not only banned, but criminalized for the doctor and the woman.
Is it still possible to work with these rigidly anti-choice types to reduce the number of abortions?
Sure, if they are reasonable. The problem is that many of them aren’t.
The best ways to reduce the numbers of abortion are education and widely available contraception. If teens are taught how to prevent pregnancies and STDs, they have a much better chance of doing so. If reliable contraception is easy to get and not so expensive that those who need it can’t afford it, there’s a far greater chance that women will use it. If Plan B is available over the counter so that you don’t have to waste time trying to get a medical appointment to get a prescription—and isn’t priced out of the reach of the average student or low-wage worker—then women will be inclined to use it when the condom breaks or they are caught without birth control "when the time is right" as those Cialis commercials would say (actually, watching those commercials, you’d think that the effect of the drug was to want to make you take a bath outdoors or dance with your wife , not get an erection).
Unfortunately, many of the anti-choice side we’d be working with are dead set against all of these above methods of reducing pregnancy. Many strongly oppose comprehensive sex education, which frankly discusses, among other things, homosexuality, masturbation, safe sex (including mutual masturbation), anal and oral sex and prevention of pregnancy and STDs. While these programs often point out that abstinence is the one surefire way of not getting pregnant or catching an STD, it does take into account the fact that most teens—about 80%--will not be abstinent by the time they turn 18. The anti-choice crew usually want abstinence only sex education for the same reason they opposed mandatory Gardasil shots to prevent HPV---because they believe it will encourage teens to have pre-marital sex, which is a sin. People, we’ve been trying the "it’s a sin" method for centuries—and it has NEVER worked. If it had, there would never be any illegitimate births. Studies also show that many of those who take the Purity Pledge don’t wait—or, rather, they don’t have vaginal intercourse but DO indulge in the riskier form of sex—anal sex without a condom. And when they finally do lose their virginity, they are less likely to use birth control and condoms—which leaves them more prone to STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
Think I am exaggerating? Here’s some proof. Here’s what James Dobson thinks sex education should teach:
• has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
• teaches that abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
• teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
• teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
• teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
• teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
• teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances...
They also like to claim that the abstinence only sex ed programs are working, that they are the reason why teen sexual activity is down.
. The truth is, most teens are not sexually active. The latest survey from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that teen sexual activity has been declining steadily over the last seven years (since about the time abstinence programs really took hold). The CDC’s 2001 Youth Risks Behavior Survey found that fewer than 43 percent of our nation’s teens had ever engaged in sexual intercourse, and just one-third said they are "currently sexually active." Clearly, teens are capable of abstaining from sex; they just need the right motivation and support.
http://www.citizenlink.org/...
It depends, of course on how you definition of sex. To most teens, sex is vaginal intercourse. Nothing else counts—oral and anal sex don’t involve losing the hymen, so they are okay. Technical virginity seems to be the goal—and lots of kids are having oral and anal sex.
Among teens ages 15 to 19 who have had sexual intercourse, the proportion who have also engaged in oral sex is 83 percent for females and 88 percent for males.
And among teens in this age group who had not had sexual intercourse, almost one in four reported that they had engaged in oral sex (24 percent of males and 22 percent of females.) These teens are of particular public health concern because of their risk for sexually transmitted diseases while they may consider themselves to be "virgins".
According to Jennifer Manlove, Ph.D., who directs research on fertility and family structure at Child Trends, "Those teens who are less likely to have sexual intercourse are more likely to have had oral sex. We found that, among teens who did not have sexual intercourse, white teens and teens whose parents had higher education and income levels were the most likely to have engaged in oral sex."
These and other statistics on oral sex among teens, along with background information, are posted on the Child Trends DataBank.
"While not all teens are having oral sex, a substantial percentage of teens who have not had sexual intercourse are having oral sex and may think of themselves as ‘virgins’," says Manlove, "We’re not sure whether these teens who have not had sexual intercourse are engaging in oral sex because they view it as a way to maintain their technical virginity or even because they regard it as an ‘easy’ method of birth control. What’s disturbing about these findings is that many teens seem unaware of the health risks associated with oral sex, such as the possibility of contracting sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Parents, health educators, and designers of pregnancy prevention programs need to address these risks."
http://www.childtrends.org/...
In a 2002 study of males and females aged 15-19, 11% of both reported having engaged in anal sex at least once.
http://sexuality.about.com/...
The facts are that kids are having sex—oral, anal and vaginal—and abstinence –only sex education, while it may help delay age of first intercourse, does not actually reduce the amount of sexual activity, just the number of partners. And the kids who are given abstinence-only sex ed don’t learn about ways to prevent pregnancy or STDs—and are at greater risk of both. How can we work with someone who wants to keep teens ignorant of methods of disease and pregnancy prevention that DO work? Refusing to teach kids the facts just leads to ignorance.
And Ignorance Does Not Equal Innocence. It is just ignorance.
The second problem we confront is even more difficult to overcome. A great many—the majority--of anti-choice supporters believe that life begins at conception. If you define life as beginning at conception, that eliminates ANY method of contraception that prevents implantation.
Here’s their take on the Pill, other hormonal forms of contraception and the IUD:
Physicians across America -- and around the world -- are now confirming that the Pill, IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant cause early abortions.
While using the Pill and other chemical "birth control" products, many women's ovaries continue to release eggs. This is called "Breakthrough Ovulation" and it occurs in millions of women each year. Once an egg has been released via ovulation, a woman can become pregnant.
You can still conceive a child . . .
If you're using "birth control" products and you have a breakthrough ovulation that releases an egg, sperm can then reach and fertilize your egg. At that moment -- you would be pregnant! Fertilization means conception has taken place...
One way the Pill causes early abortions is that it interfers with the flexing motions and the cilia movement of the fallopian tubes. These changes slow the transportation of newly conceived child from the fallopian tubes to the womb. Unfortunately, many small babies starve to death in the fallopian tubes because chemicals caused changes that prevented them from reaching the womb in time to be nourished.
4 Another way the Pill causes early abortions: If your tiny baby survives the ride down the fallopian tube to your womb, the Pill will almost always cause the endometrium (the lining of your uterus) to reject your child. Chemical reactions often cause the lining of your womb to become thin, shriveled and unable to support implantation of your newly conceived child.
This means that in almost every case, your new child will not be able to attach to the wall of your womb where he or she would normally live, grow and receive nourishment for 9 months. This means your tiny baby will starve to death and his or her remains will be passed along in your next bleeding cycle. (The "Study of Abortion Deaths Commission" estimates that this happens in women in America who use the Pill approximately 1 to 4 million times each year.)
The chemicals that cause these early abortions are called abortifacients which is the medical term for any chemical agent that causes an abortion.
Depo-Provera and Norplant both use chemicals that work in very simlar ways on a woman's body and womb. Depo-Provera and Norplant are also considered chemical abortifacients.
IUDs or Intra-Uterine Devices, are small plastic devices that are inserted into the womb. Some IUDs contain copper or a time released hormone. It is believed that the IUD causes a low grade inflammation in the lining of the womb. As a result, the lining of the womb is imperfect and the fertilized egg will not implant.
http://www.prolife.com/...
For more information on the anti-choice movement opposing contraception:
Why Dems For Life Opposed a Bill Encouraging Contraception
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/17/the_war_on_sex.php New Ta tics in the Abortion Wars}
Feminists For Life and Contraception
I actually went tot heir site and they state clearly in their FAQ that while some of their members oppose ALL contraception, the group ONLY opposes abortifacient contraception (in other words, the birth control methods with the highest success rate).
Why Mitt Romney Vetoed a Contraception Bill
American Life League
The Pill As ABortifacient
Contraception in the Crosshairs
How do you cooperate with people like this, who want to ban the most relaible forms of contraception ,as well as Plan B? A lot of the anti-choice crowd are against any form of contraception—but we are talking about the more reasonable folks who would at least permit some form of contraception to be used.
I am all in favor of reducing the number of abortions—I would love to see it become a rarity, done only for massive deformities of the fetus or to save the life or health or fertility of the woman or in cases of rape or incest. I would love to see no woman ever face an unplanned pregnancy. But EVERY method of birth control has a failure rate even if it is used correctly every single time—so there will always be unwanted pregnancies even if every single fertile woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant is religious about contraception.
There’s also an interesting aspect that a number of us raised in moiv’s diary: the attitude toward women that inspires this campaign against both contraception and abortion. A great many of anti-choice people oppose basic equality for women. Their view of women’s proper role, based on Biblical teachings, is very narrow—she should be a wife and mother and not work outside the home. For this reason, many of the staunchest opponents of the ERA also opposed abortion and birth control. Don’t believe me? Think I am exaggerating? Think I am being mean and disrespectful to anti-choice types?
In their own words, from the National Right to Life COmmittee:
For the reasons explained below, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) urges you not to cosponsor or otherwise support S. J. Res. 10, sponsored by Senator Kennedy, unless it is amended in the fashion described below.
S. J. Res. 10 proposes a federal constitutional amendment that is now apparently referred to by some as the "Women's Equality Amendment," but which has long been known as the "Equal Rights Amendment" (ERA). According to the Washington Post (March 28), "House and Senate Democrats . . . vowed to bring it to a vote in both chambers before the end of the session."
S. J. Res. 10 would add to the Constitution the following amendment: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Congress proposed the same language to the states in 1972, with a seven-year ratification deadline. S.J. Res. 10 contains no deadline for ratification.
The proposed federal amendment is very similar to the language of the ERA which New Mexico added to its state constitution in 1973, which says, "Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person." On November 25, 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled 5-0 that such language prohibits the state from restricting abortion differently from "medically necessary procedures" sought by men, and the court ordered the state to pay for elective abortions under the state's Medicaid program. (NM Right to Choose / NARAL v. Johnson, No. 1999-NMSC-005) (You can read the ruling and related documents on the ERA page of the NRLC website at http://www.nrlc.org/...
In its ruling, the court adopted the construction of the ERA urged in the case by Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, the ACLU, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. The doctrine that the ERA language invalidates limitations on tax-funded abortion was also supported in briefs filed by the state Women's Bar Association, Public Health Association, and League of Women Voters.
These briefs, and a court's agreement with their argument, should not come as any surprise to knowledgeable observers. During the 1970s and 1980s, many pro-ERA advocates insisted that there was "no connection" between ERAs and abortion, but NRLC warned otherwise. As we predicted, pro-abortion advocacy groups have increasingly employed the ERA-abortion argument in state courts, and in New Mexico we saw the devastating result of enacting an ERA that does not include explicit abortion-neutral language.
Once a court adopts the legal doctrine that a law targeting abortion is by definition a form of discrimination based on sex, and therefore impermissible under an ERA, the same doctrine would invalidate virtually any limitation on abortion. For example, under this doctrine, the proposed federal ERA would invalidate the federal Hyde Amendment and all state restrictions on tax-funded abortions. Likewise, it would nullify any federal or state restrictions even on partial-birth abortions or third-trimester abortions (since these are sought only by women). Also vulnerable would be federal and state "conscience laws," which allow government-supported medical facilities and personnel -- including religiously affiliated hospitals -- to refuse to participate in abortions. Moreover, the ACLU's "Reproductive Freedom Project" published a booklet that encourages pro-abortion litigators to use state ERAs as legal weapons against state parental notification and parental consent laws.
http://www.nrlc.org/...
A fellow Kossack said I was being unreasonable for not willing to compromise on this issue. What\ if they just disapprove? As I said earlier, I consider someone who would not choose abortion because of her personal morality but would allow other women to make a different choice, to be soundly pro-choice. It is a moderate and compassionate stance.
Someone else asked, what if it’s just banned, but not criminalized? I nearly fell on the floor laughing. A ban without criminalization of abortion and hormonal birth control is about as likely as Cheney admitting to being behind the outing of Valerie Plame. If abortion is wrong enough to ban, then most states that ban it would also criminalize it—that’s how it was pre-Roe. Quite a few states still have laws on the books that do just that—and a number have resolutions stating the intension of banning it if Roe is overturned.
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have never repealed restrictive laws ruled unconstitutional by Roe v. Wade (AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, DE, DC, MA, MI, MS, NH, NM, OK, TX, VT, WV, WI). Two states (LA, UT) and the Territory of Guam enacted "test" laws prohibiting most abortions after the Supreme Court's 1989 decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. In 1992, the Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, held that a general abortion ban would fail Constitutional muster under the new "undue burden" test. In 1992 and 1993, respectively, the Court declined to review the cases striking down the laws of Guam and Louisiana. Utah did not appeal a lower court's decision finding its 1991 abortion ban unconstitutional.
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).
If abortion is banned, it will be criminalized. Arguing that it won’t is a straw man argument.
I cannot work with people like that—and there is no way we can compromise with them. They believe abortion and hormonal contraception is murder—and I KNOW that banning abortion will result in death and injury and loss of fertility for many women. Moreover, banning the most effective forms of contraception will lead to more unwanted pregnancies than ever—and thus to more back alley abortions, if they get their wish and abortion is banned. Women’s lives are at stake here, and there is no more room for compromise with the majority of anti-choicers.
Our battle cry must be two-fold:
*Ignorance is Not Innocence!"
AND
*If You Ban Abortion, Women Will Die!"
They are the simple truth.