40 Million Votes Up For Grabs - Vol. 1

Yup.  40 million votes.  They're laying on the table.  Who wants them?

And who are these 40 million votes?

Women who've had abortions, that's who.

A diarist several days ago made the point that these numbers are significant.

I made the point in the comments that these numbers could mean victory for the right candidate in the upcoming Presidential election.

And these 40 million women already voted pro-choice.  They voted with their feet by walking into a clinic.

More below the flip.

40 million votes.

The estimates of the Evangelical Christians that supposedly won the 2004 election for George Bush are only 20 million.

40 million votes.

Women who've had abortions.  Now, just to get the picky picky numbers game out of the way, let's discuss the reality.  Actually over 45 million women have had abortions since 1973.  OK, so there are some duplications.  Yes, some women have had 2, or maybe 3 abortions.  But then, there are the 40 million men that also participated in the abortion situation.  So, give a few, take a few.  I'm using 40 million as a baseline, as a qualifier, as a benchmark.

Why would the Democrats ignore a constituency twice as large as the Evangelical Christian voting block on the crucial social issue of abortion?

For 33 years, inside-the-beltway pro-choice groups have avoided discussing the shear numbers of abortion patients for what reason we don't know.  If you do the math, you're talking 40 million women, 40 million partners, 40 million family members...or 120 million Americans who've been affected directly by the abortion decision.

So, politicians don't be afraid.  Recognize this constituency.  Deal with this consituency.  Respect this constituency.  

Why can the Republicans respect 20 million Evangelicals and why do the Democrats refuse to respect 40 million women who've had abortions?

40 million votes.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the pro-choice organizations should handle this.  They obviously haven't.  And if the truth was told, you'd find out that most pro-choice organizations have people at the top who've never even been to an abortion clinic or met an abortion patient.  How can they possibly know what's really going on?

Candidates for office...you don't have to be afraid of abortion any more.   40 million women weren't afraid of it.  

40 million votes.

An easy cop-out is "safe, legal and rare".  That seems to make everyone comfortable, but it's a dodge.

Abortion is safe.  
Abortion is legal.
Abortion is not rare.

Abortion is still the most frequently performed surgery in the United States.

40 million votes.

Abortion is a difficult decision, like 400 other difficult decisions in a woman's life.  But, other decisions are harder to deal with, like:

Why am I still living with an abusive husband?
Why am I not being paid the same as a man?
Why am I supporting 4 children because my good-for-nothing ex-husband won't pay child support?
Why do I have to work 2 jobs just to get by?
Why can't I get into college?
Why am I being discriminated against in buying a house?
Why can't I get affordable healthcare?

All of these are important daily decisions, yet women survive.

And, why, in a second generation of legalized abortion, are women still being harassed and attacked by these right-wing Evangelical Christians who won't mind their own business?

40 million votes.

So, here's what I'd like to hear candidates say:

"The beauty of Roe v. Wade and the reason that it's lasted for 33 years is because it gave respect to women to be the masters of their own destiny.  Whether I agree or disagree with abortion is not the issue.  It goes back to the caveat that if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.  Nobody is forced to have an abortion, and nobody is forced to not have an abortion.  In that equation is the inherent respect for the intelligence of American women."

Don't listen to the DLC political operatives that have lost the last 2 Presidential elections...against an inferior candidate who started an illegal war.  Listen to the numbers.  40 million of them.

First, the candidates need to validate the women and families who've had abortions.  Then they need to speak directly to them in a respectful manner.  That will motivate them to get registered to vote and to vote for pro-choice candidates.

•  Promising strategy

  This is an excellent, interesting diary proposing a possibly viable strategy for gaining votes for the Dems.  That said (don't you hate the "that said"?), I do have a couple of nits to pick.  I'm sorry this comment is first, because I hope this diary gets a lot of readers and a lot of respect.

  My daughter is good friends with a principled evangelical who is dead against the right to choose.  One reason his passion is so strong is that his mother had an abortion when young and has spent the rest of her life feeling guilty.  I mention this to point out that emotions here are strong and complex.  There may be a good reason, other than the right to privacy of these women and their families, that pro-choice groups stay clear of this area.  I'm just recommending caution and research here, not arguing strongly one way or another.

  Please allow me to push one of my peeves here.  I find the debate on choice frustrating in the manner in which the sides talk past one another.  There are 2 different debates:  the one that's just a political, manipulative shouting match, and a much smaller one that is between people who show integrity in their beliefs.  In terms of the real debate, I object to the use of the common argument you put forward.

  It goes back to the caveat that if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

   I find this disrespectful to people whose concerns aboout abortion are genuine (as opposed to politically motivated bs).  To them, this would be like saying, if you are against murder, don't commit one.  It is not a respectful response.  There are many grounds for supporting a woman's right to choose, which I support fully, but I find that argument to be unresponsive to the concerns of our opponents in this debate.

  Back to my daughter, she told me the argument which had some traction with her evangelical friend.  She convinced him that women were going to have abortions, legal or not, as they have always done.  She told him that his stance was simply one of refusing to take any responsibility for that fact.  She challenged him to decide between two real choices:  women having safe abortions or women having unsafe ones.  This made him think.

  I hope I haven't hijacked your thread too offensively.  I really appreciate your diary.  I was amazed by the 40 million number.  I'm sending this along to my daughter.

  by geomoo on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:10:53 AM PDT

  •  The main reason...

    women who've had abortions may not feel good afterwards is that anti-abortionists and others don't support them in their decision.

    Imagine always hearing that what you did was awful, was wrong, was "murder".  That can get pretty lonely.

    As for "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one".  I think that the bottom line on this is that nobody is forcing any woman to walk into a clinic and get an abortion.  Women vote with their feet when they walk into a clinic.

    Don't mind the comments...and I don't think you're hijacking.

    I just think that politicians and the public in general needs to respect the decisions of women.  

    by annrose on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:16:35 AM PDT

  •  There ARE psychological studies

    A well-known claim made in anti-abortion propaganda to shame and frighten women and demonize abortion and abortion providers is the specious assertion that all, or a large percentage of, women who have abortions of their own free choice will have subsequent serious psychological-emotional problems directly caused by the abortions.  Extensive surveys and objective psychological studies have firmly established that the vast majority of women who have had abortions adjust well and absolutely do not subsequently suffer significant psychological or emotional problems. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress." Independent researchers have also found that the most important predictor of emotional well being in post-abortion women was their well being and ability to function with mature self-confidence and independence before the abortion. This assertion does not deny the fact that some women terminating an unwanted pregnancy may feel sadness and a sense of loss. It appears, however, that the overall negative social and political climate surrounding abortions has more to do with creating the psychological difficulties some women face than the abortions themselves. A lack of social support for an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, misleading "pro-life" messages that are designed to inflict fear, guilt, and shame, and "pro-life" groups that harass and intimidate patients at clinics have more to do with the experience of emotional distress than the actual abortion itself. To understand the real impact that safe, legal abortion has had on the well being of countless women, one needs only to remember the hundreds of thousands of women who have died or suffered in attempting to obtain illegal and dangerous abortions due to the desperation and other emotional distress they felt in having an unwanted pregnancy.
         
    Serious and objective psychological studies of representative women with psychological and emotional problems after abortion have demonstrated that their problems actually result from exacerbation of preexisting emotional dysfunction by the totality of the stressful circumstances surrounding unwanted pregnancy, not from just the abortion per se. Furthermore, serious psychological distress and illness is much more common following full-term childbirths, and even during sustained pregnancies, than after elective abortion, so a case could quite reasonably be made for abortion as an effective preventive measure for emotional distress and mental illness in many women, as it surely is, and has been unequivocally demonstrated to be, for the vast majority of women who choose abortion of their own free will. Portraying women as spineless and fearful victims of "the abortion industry," as "pro-lifers" regularly do, expresses an extremely low opinion of women. Compare the difference between "pro-life" and pro-choice opinions of women: Advocates of the right to choose abortion believe that women are resourceful, intelligent, and generally perfectly capable, certainly as capable as men, of responsibly making their own decisions concerning the serious matters in their lives. "Pro-lifers," on the other hand, claim that women are passive and helpless victims of exploitation who cannot be trusted to make responsible and "right" choices for themselves. Which viewpoint is more accurate and expresses more respect for women?  

    I completely and unequivocally agree that women will sometimes make mistakes they will later regret if allowed the freedom to do so. Like men do. Such is the nature of freedom. Freedom inevitably carries the burden of personal responsibility and the risk of mistake or failure, and therefore the risk of regret. I can think of no example of freedom that does not carry the risk and personal responsibility for mistake, failure, and regret. Some women who have abortions later have second thoughts and regrets. Similarly, some people regret getting married. Others regret not getting married. Some people regret having children. Others regret not having children. Some people regret missing a ball game by being in church. Some people regret buying a minivan. Some people regret not going to law school. Some people regret having eaten enchiladas last night. Some people regret buying eToys stock at $185 a share. Et cetera. The list is endless. Should we therefore attempt to abolish all the countless sources of possible later regret by coercive and restrictive law to prohibit the fundamental freedom of individuals to make their own major and minor life decisions for themselves? Wouldn’t decisions made by others also be sources of regret? Should women just be made to forfeit all their freedoms because they might fail or might make what they will later look back on as mistakes and feel regretful about? In that case, who should step in and decide for women? Men? Male judges? Pandering (predominantly male) politicians? The celibate authoritarian Pope and his celibate authoritarian male priests devoted to, and of solemnly sworn allegiance to, centuries of misogyny and authoritarian tyranny? Other men and women who think everybody should be forced by secular law to think, feel, believe, and behave just like them or just like their authoritarian religious beliefs dictate? Who? Whose responsibility would then be the mistakes these others make in women's behalf?    

    Basic rights must not be denied for fear that some might later regret the results of their exercise of those rights!

    "Pro-life" counselors are probably truthful in their assertions that "all" the post-abortion women they counsel have emotional problems, often many years later. They are probably right about this for three obvious reasons: [1] Believe me, there is not a person alive who does not have emotional problems, and "pro-life" counselors, out of their bias, strongly tend to falsely attribute the emotional problems of their clients to their past abortions, no matter how much more complex and varied the actual causes might be. [2] Again out of their own bias, "pro-life" counselors tend to "rub the noses" of their clients in their "mistakes" of abortion, engendering exactly the shame, guilt, fear, depression, and other signs of emotional distress (signs of emotional "illness") they expect and want to find. [3] It is obviously only the relative handful of women who feel they are having emotional problems "caused" by their abortions who are likely to seek the services of a "pro-life" abortion "trauma" counselor in the first place.  

    Women would be much better off protected from anti-abortion prejudice and misinformation - from deliberate efforts to engender shame, fear, and guilt - than from freedom of choice - better allowed the degree of self-determination guaranteed all citizens by the covenant upon which this nation was founded than "saved from themselves" by sanctimonious, self-righteous, know-it-all zealots who are deluded that they know what is best for everyone else, demand that their uninformed and misinformed puritanical prejudice based upon their religious beliefs be mandated for all by oppressive law, and are willing to use tactics of inducing unnecessary and groundless fear by lying about the nature and risks of abortion to achieve their goals.

    Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by Beket on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:43:29 AM PDT

    •  Wow...

      that was beautiful.

      I think you should make that a diary on it's own.

      Expand on it a bit, and put in references.  This needs to be disseminated.

      Wow.

      by annrose on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:58:04 AM PDT

    •  As you, annrose and I know

      the unvarmished truth you lay out here is not the political Flavor of the Year. Instead, cowardly politicians are facilitating the religious right's agenda of dragging women into deep water.

      That shouldn't surprise anyone these days, when so many Democrats ride to the statehouse or to Congress mounted astride Trojan donkeys.  

      The same kinds of tactics are being used to similar effect in our state, where Texas Christian right groups -- the Texas Catholic Conference, the Roman Catholic Bishops of Texas, Texas Alliance for Life, Texas Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America, the Texas Conservative Coalition, Texans for Life,  the Texans for Family Values PAC, The Justice Foundation and its Operation Outcry project, and FOF's Texas outpost, the Free Market Foundation -- packed an all-night House State Affairs Committee hearing on abortion-related bills last week.

      Their central argument, repeated for hours by witnesses professing to speak for women, was that women are passive victims who cannot be trusted to act as their own moral agents, or to understand their own best interest.

      Lukewarm support of reproductive freedom such as "I'm personally opposed to abortion but still believe that a woman should have the right to choose," or framing abortion as a "sad, even tragic choice," or even the ubiquitous mouthing of "safe, legal and rare" are not pro-choice positions.

      They all promote a pernicious agenda that enables the further condemnation of abortion, and the social pariah status of every woman who has one. And so far, every major candidate from either party seems to be just fine with that.

      by moiv on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:50:39 AM PDT

      •  Yes, as you said . . .

        . . . "As you, annrose and I know," me being the "you" in that statement. Trouble is, as you know, only we deeply embedded insider know this - and few outside the deep enclave even care - until it strikes them personally.

        by Beket on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:19:26 PM PDT

    •  Wow!

      I agree, you should make this a post of its own.

      by blueisland on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:54:42 AM PDT

    •  Even though I think you are absolutely correct

      in your beautifully argued assertions, not everyone is in agreement.  My interest is in, first, encouraging truly respectful debate and second, in strategizing the best arguments for the pro-choice side.

      To be clear, I think it a waste of time to try to argue logically with the many anti-abortion fanatics who are incapable of open debate.  I think that group can only be dealt with politically and legally:  use force to keep them from blocking access, deny them the right to misinform, prosecute those who commit crimes against physicians or health workers, etc.  I am not imagining a debate with these people, so please hear my argument accordingly.

      In this charged atmosphere, it is easy to fall into black and white thinking.  I appreciate the information you provide about psychological studies.  I agree with annrose that it would make a useful diary.  Still I want to insist that, despite the truth of what you say, we live in a world in which misinformation has been sown and there are plenty of women who have had abortions who are now against the right to choose.  I believe I am correct in saying the principal in Roe v Wade is now against abortion.  Right or wrong, this fact must be considered when forming a political strategy.  The cynical right is certainly capable of creating a mainstream spectacle of women who received abortions and have since "found Jesus."  I am pleading for moving beyond the righteousness of your cause to engage in strategic political thinking.  In what way might it be helpful to focus on women who have exercised their right to abortion?  In what ways could it backfire?

      As to the other issue I raised above, I want to respond but I am sensitive to the fact that it is beside the point of the stimulating political argument annrose is raising here.  Still, I think it is important to the genereal debate.  I ask this question:  do you feel it is ethical of you to allow murderers to commit murder, because that is their right.  I assume not.  If you put yourself in the place of someone who feels abortion is murder, surely you can understand that they will not be completely convinced by your arguments for personal freedom.  Valid arguments against the claim of murder must involve such things as an appeal to the unique relationship betweeen mother and fetus, the question of when a being acquires rights as distinct from her mother's rights, and other much better arguments than I am conversant in.  The argument "don't have one" is nothing more than a bumper sticker to me, the equivalent of vote Democratic, which has its place in the intellectually boring political fight but does not stand the test of respectful debate.  By debate, I mean debate with someone such as my daughter's friend, who is truly pro-life in that he opposes capital punishment and is against war.

      Okay, I'll listen quietly now.

      by geomoo on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:57:03 AM PDT

      •  Acorns are not oak trees, but . . . (0 / 0)

        We are very much in agreement, geomoo. In fact, my response to what you have written is, "Amen." I like your sign-off: "I don't believe in evolution. I am convinced by the evidence." The implied converse should be equally true, i.e., to quote Mark Twain, "Faith is believin' what you know ain't so."

        No, it is certainly not acceptable to commit murder even if you do believe in it. I have long thought that we will never win this debate unless we can somehow convince enough people that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are not "babies," and, to be blunt, that they are no more "miracles" of God than the very similar recombination of DNA that produces a steer out of which the majority of us have no compunction about making hamburger. Is that too blunt? Probably is, politically - I would not make a good politician.

        However, as long as the antiabortionists keep flashing those pictures of bloody, dismembered, and dead late term fetuses everywhere we turn, with the false (but persuasive to many who are willing to uncritically believe) implication that these images realistically portray abortion, I fear our efforts to combat them in the public at large are doomed.

        Has your daughter's friend contemplated the following (from an essay I wrote), and would it matter to him?

        The World Health Organization has estimated that in those parts of the world in which abortion is illegal, about 70,000 thinking, feeling, often desperate women and teenage girls die every year from illegal attempts to abort unwanted pregnancies. That is more than one every 10 minutes DEAD because they are prohibited by law from accessing a reputable legal clinic for safe, legal, professional abortion care. Many times that number are seriously injured and maimed for life. This is simply the unadulterated factual truth.

        In addition, every minute, night and day, no holidays or weekends off, around the world

        • one woman dies of complications of pregnancy and childbirth (every minute),

        • ten teenage girls undergo unsafe illegal abortions (every minute),

        • thirteen infants under twelve months old die (every minute),

        • fifty seven people contract an STD (every minute),

        • eleven people are infected with HIV (every minute),

        • and the already-burgeoned-beyond-the-planet's-capacity-to-sustain human population increases by one hundred fifty more people (every minute),

        all sanctioned, encouraged, and even required by our callous right-wing-dominated government through international interference with and withholding of funding from worldwide reproductive health programs. This is simply the unadulterated factual truth.
         
        There are 525,600 minutes in a year. You do the arithmetic. The numbers are so huge as to be virtually impossible to contemplate, but those are the kinds of numbers we deal with when describing events in a world population of 6.5 billion individuals that is growing exponentially toward the point of severe degradation and destruction of the biosphere upon which all life depends.
         
        In the United States we are vastly more fortunate. Almost 4,000 women every day obtain professional abortion care in the United States that is legal, professionally provided, and therefore extremely safe. Approximately 40% of all adult women in the country have had an abortion. 40%. Maybe your sister – the teenage girl next door or down the street (yes, no matter how perfect her Sunday School attendance) – your daughter – your best friend’s daughter - your wife – your mother – your teenage son’s girlfriend! You just aren’t likely to hear about it because they fearfully keep it secret. It’s one of those taboo subjects most people don’t feel free to discuss. Nor do many people want to hear about it, preferring to bolster their comforting beliefs that it just couldn’t be so by screening out and denying factual knowledge of it. This is simply the unadulterated factual truth.
         
        Abortion was not always so safe in the United States, because it was illegal in most states here, too, until January 22, 1973, when the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Roe vs. Wade. Prior to that momentous decision, which declared unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable, all state laws prohibiting abortion, the statistics in the U.S. were similar to those quoted above for illegal abortion forced underground in the third-world, and many major U.S. hospitals were forced to provide entire (and often overflowing) wards for the victims of injuries from illegal abortion attempts – those who didn’t wind up on slabs in morgues. Even so and tragically, there are today those willfully ignorant and misguided persons and their narrow and uncompromising political, legal, and religious organizations in this country who are fervently struggling to throw history into reverse and turn the clock back to those horrific times. They strive to recreate the blood bath and the wrecked lives that existed prior to Roe vs. Wade as one especially pernicious plank in their ardent campaign to transform our free society into a religious tyranny – motivated by much the same sort of fervent and uncompromising beliefs that moved other religious fanatics of a different religious persuasion to guide large airliners full of people into large buildings full of people on September 11, 2001. (I’m merely connecting the dots.)

        I agree with the concept of attained personhood that was the philosophical backbone of Roe v. Wade. From the same essay:

        I have been asked a question that is simplistic, ignorant, and misleading: "Just what is the magic of passage through several inches of birth canal that makes the difference between abortion and murder?" My answer to that question is just to state the honest, simple, obvious factual truth, as far as I can know it: "Nothing." No magic - and no difference in my opinion when the fetus is far enough along in development to be sentient and to survive outside the uterus. Implied in this answer is that I am no supporter of unrestricted elective third trimester abortion, or unrestricted abortion after the age of independent viability of the fetus - that is, the age at which a fetus can be expected to survive outside of a woman’s body.
         
        However, let's go to the other end, to the beginning, of the 38 weeks-long period of fetal development deep inside the corporeal domain and deeply personal jurisdiction of a woman's body, and consider the same question from the other direction. The question becomes: What is the magic that makes its destruction "murder" in the estimation of some when the DNA of a sperm and the DNA of an ovum share a common cell membrane when just a moment ago, before the event of conception, or fertilization, the same two clusters of DNA were just as alive, and each, one a living sperm and one a living ovum, was contained within its own cell membrane, and their destruction would have borne no moral significance whatsoever, or relatively very little? I think the honest, obvious answer is exactly the same: "Nothing." No supernatural magic - certainly not as far as anyone can know.

        • Is a newborn baby a person? Yes. Of course. It has developed into what we have through many centuries of legal and moral tradition defined a person to be.

        • Is a fertilized egg, or zygote, two DNA clusters occupying the same space inside a single cell shortly after conception, a person? No. Of course not. It can and might develop into a person, although most actually do not under natural circumstances.

        As for the belief that there is no difference, or no difference in value, between even a very early embryo or fetus and a newborn baby or child, consider this analogy: What do you have if you have a bowl containing a mixture of flour, sugar, shortening, baking powder, and eggs? Cake batter. Not a cake. It has all the ingredients, but it is only a potential cake - a cake-to-be in the making, not a cake. It must be placed in the proper atmosphere in the proper vessel and subjected to the proper conditions for the proper span of time before it can be considered a cake.

        Actually, an even better analogy pertaining to the early stages of embryonic development is that of a blueprint (DNA) for construction of a building before the building materials have even been ordered. A bit simplistic perhaps, but a fetus is a baby-to-be in the making, not a baby. It is human life, as is any cell or group of cells in a human body, but not a human life, not a human being, not a person - not until it becomes "ensouled" at the time it takes its first breath some believe, while others believe "ensoulment" takes place earlier, even as early as conception, and still others determine the emergence of personhood upon other criteria that are more objective than varied and conflicting religious beliefs about "ensoulment." (Question: Multiple pregnancies result from division of the very early embryo after conception. If "ensoulment" occurs at conception, does a twin therefore have half a "soul?" A triplet one-third?) Similarly, we differentiate between an acorn and an oak tree. Scrambled eggs are a popular breakfast entree, not scrambled chicken.  

        I’ve been asked questions of the nature of, "By the way, my wife was adopted, so I look at her and think what would be if she weren't around." To this sort of question I reply, "Well, yes, but that's one of those ‘BIG IF's.’ Sure, she wouldn't be here IF she'd been aborted, or IF her biological mother and father had not ‘done it’ that time, or IF her biological mother had not ovulated that cycle, or IF the condom hadn't burst that time, or IF the embryo that became her had gone the way of the majority of early embryos and spontaneously aborted (‘miscarried’) - or IF her mother had had a headache that night. And what IF she ‘weren't around?’ Well, just as in cases like the aforementioned, she would not then exist, and you'd be married to someone who does exist. Why, you might as well dwell on all the millions of unfertilized eggs and spontaneously aborted embryos, any female one of which might have been your wife IF they had only been fertilized, gestated, born, and then grown up to meet and marry you. There is no bigger subject in the world than what might have been nor one any more irrelevant to what is."

        You might not want to believe it, but uncountable billions of early human embryos are thrown into the garbage or flushed down the sewers on used tampons and pads by women who didn’t even know they were pregnant prior to their very early miscarriages, but this is not regarded as a great tragedy by any but the most ardent "pro-lifers." Their deaths are not solemnized in funeral rituals. Used tampons and pads are not buried in cemeteries in graves marked by marble monuments. We are issued certificates of birth, not certificates of conception, a pregnant woman requires only one passport when traveling abroad, and she is counted as one in the census, not two or more. Not only citizenship, but many other ages-old principles of law and legal status depend upon this distinction. This is simply the unadulterated factual truth.
         
        Many ardent Christian believers describe themselves as "born again" Christians, not "conceived again" Christians.
         
        There are profound differences between prenatal and postnatal life, and previable and viable life, that we acknowledge in various ways every day. Therefore, the concept of attained personhood, which underlies the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that in effect legalized abortion nationwide, is not frivolous or unsubstantial. It is of central importance in this controversy. A zygote can become a baby, but is not one now. A baby was once a zygote, but is not one now. Between these two extremes, personhood is attained as the result of slowly progressive development and differentiation of what did indeed begin as what, in the beginning, could reasonably, if not precisely, be called "just a blob of tissue" – a single cell and then a growing cluster of undifferentiated embryonic cells beginning a long and complex journey of multiplication, differentiation, and specialization toward becoming a person.
         
        • Should we be obligated to fully include a baby in the social contract that defines the legally protected rights of all persons and grant to it a right to life? Yes. Of course.
         
        • Should we be obligated to include in this secular social contract and grant a right to life, independent of a pregnant woman’s consent, to a zygote, a single cell composed of two DNA clusters sharing the same cell membrane, unconscious and insentient, visible only with the aid of a microscope, that is totally dependent for that life upon the 24/7 donation of one specific woman’s body outside of which it cannot live? No. Of course not.

        At least that seems reasonable enough to me.

        So, in my opinion, since abortion is not murder, I personally regard "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one" as a sensible slogan, although I agree it might backfire politically by virtue of its being so easily countered by the more simplistic (and IMO wrong) slogan "Abortion is murder." As I said, I'm no politician.

        by Beket on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:53:18 PM PDT

        •  Yes, that is the crux of the argument

          I have to run, so could only skim your article.  I'll read it later.  Yes, that is the argument that got him thinking.  She told him he was refusing to make a decision about facts as they exist, which she got him to agree was true.  So, we'll see where it leads.  Unfortunately, the problem isn't really with good-hearted thinking people like him, it's with people who are being riled up about abortion so they'll ignore so much other forms of actual murder taking place.  Oh well.

          Good article.  I'll send it on to my daughter.  She's in medical school; women's health, especially reproductive rights, is her passion.  She worked at Planned Parenthood as an undergrad.  She keeps me well-informed.  Happy Mother's Day, whether you are one or not.  It's been nice chatting and learning a lot.

          by geomoo on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:38:13 PM PDT

        •  Now that's a solid argument

          I just got back and read your piece.  Thanks for the facts and clarity.  There is a lot of ammunition in there that I will use if I get a chance.  It tackles the issue head on, and with devastating effect on the "pro-life" stance.  I know it would never fit on a bumper sticker, but I prefer it so much over the other approach.

          Please see my comment below to annrose for perhaps more clarity as to why I object to the "don't have one" argument.  If you consider it the equivalent of "they'll pry my gun from my cold, dead hands," then so be it and more power to you.  To me it conveys the precisely identical claim of having rights independent of mutually accepted law.  You and I know that the government has no business intruding between a woman and her fetus, but there are some who disagree who deserve more of a response than, "I have the right to do whatever I want to do."  I'm sure I'm a bit naive when it comes to political fighting, but I think this sort of thing damages public discourse in the same way the polarizing right has damaged our civility.

          Did you see this nuanced and well-reasoned review in the Atlantic?

          My daughter is passionate about this.  I fear that she will one day face arrest if abortion does become illegal, so committed is she.  I truly worry about her future in all this.

          I don't know that there is room for such a straight shooter as you in politics.  Besides, your services are desperately needed in what you are doing.  Thanks

          by geomoo on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:05:40 PM PDT

          •  Don't be afraid.

            If a person came up to you because you were a smoker and 30 people came up to you and started screaming at you that you were a murderer, would that be OK?

            I've never smoked, but I've never organized 30 people to harass or comdemn anyone on their personal choice.  I would just disapprove.

            You've got to keep remembering that abortion is legal.

            Some people believe it's a questionable legality.

            We must stop apologizing for exercising our legal rights.

            It's easy to intellectualize about the morals of abortion, but when you're in the middle of it and you see that 30 people picketing the house of an abortion provider, that's abusive of your personal right to have a different opinion.  Then the question is...whose morals control?

            Whose morals control is where your morals end and my morals begin.

            by annrose on Mon May 14, 2007 at 04:30:02 AM PDT

      •  If you believe abortion is a person's choice...

        then it's the ultimate personal choice.

        In the end, the only thing is "what is your personal choice?"

        If you choose murder, you're punished for it because it's illegal.  It's a truly moral decision because who decides your morals but you?

        Abortion is uniquely a moral decision because it's legal and you're free to decide to do it or not do it.  That's what morals are all about...not what the law says.

        It's not illegal to fuck around on your wife.  But, it's immoral.  In the end, you won't go to jail for it, but it's up to your inner self to decide what to do.

        "If you're against abortion, don't have one" is not a bumper sticker because it takes away all the debate and makes it a personal decision.

        by annrose on Sun May 13, 2007 at 03:24:34 PM PDT

        •  Are you an anarchist?

          I'm not sure I understand your point here.  I agree that morality is a personal thing and cannot be legislated.  Yet, unless you are an anarchist (a defensible stance), you agree that to live together in civil society we agree on laws.  The question is whether abortion, like murder, should be made illegal.  In fact, I pray to god I never have to discuss morality with a rightwing zealot.  I relunctantly accept the necessity of discussing the law.  When an anti-abortion person says abortion is the same as murder and therefore should be illegal like murder, I feel an honest response needs to explain why abortion is not like murder.  The reason I dislike the "don't have one" argument is that it completely ignores the ground of their objection.  To me, it is tantamount to namecalling.  They scream "Murderer!" and we scream "Fascist!"  No communication.  If I grant my opponent the integrity of being offended by abortion the same as they would be offended by a mother's murdering her children, I owe her the respect to engage over why abortion is not murder.  Loudly proclaiming my right to "commit murder" seems insulting to the opponent.  I know it is hard to be respectful when so much disrespect and abuse has come from the other side, you bet I do, but I believe that hidden inside the idiocy is an honest debate that needs to happen.  I also think we win the honest debate.

          Incidentally, Beket's argument above "acorns are not oak trees" seems to tackle the anti-abortion argument head on and with devastating results for the "pro-lifer."  I am pained by the screaming and polarity when I know there are honest, good people on both sides of this debate.  The political cynics and hypocritical fundies have made it very, very difficult to talk respectfully, but I am still for trying.

          Thanks for the diary.  I hope you are rescued.  Between you and Beket, there is an awful lot of good stuff here.  I would like to have seen a lot more discussion of your idea of tapping this potential voting bloc.

          by geomoo on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:44:30 PM PDT

          •  Thanks. This was rescued.

            And I'm going to post a similary diary every day.

            But, to your point...

            I stopped "debating" or "arguing" with anti-abortionists years ago.  It's a no-win situation.

            God gave women a mind to use and it's up to us to make the right decisions.  I've been working with abortion clinics and abortion patients since 1976.  After 30 years, you'd think that the American public and women in general have decided with their feet that abortion is OK...and in esssence that women who choose to have abortions are OK.  Politicians and candidates need to keep up by telling us (yes, US) that abortion is an OK choice and they will defend it to the maximum.

            I don't even like them saying:  

            "Abortion is such a painful decision and I don't like it but it's your choice."

            In this politically charged environment where anti-abortionists are constantly harassing us and trying to make abortion illegal and trying to make it harder to get, the above thinking just plays into that.  People don't know how they really feel about abortion until they're faced with the situation.

            Abortion should be easier to get, not harder.

            by annrose on Mon May 14, 2007 at 04:22:59 AM PDT

            •  Well, we're in agreement on everything

              except I really don't like that saying.  I know it is very succinct and satisfying to say, but to me it is mocking and disingenuous.  I've been trying to think of one I like better, but alas, they all lack the directness and power.  BTW, if I could know that that saying is effective in creating support for reproductive rights, I would drop any objections in an instant.  My eyes are on the prize.

              "Keep your laws off my body, including my fetus."
              "My fetus does not have rights over me."
              "A woman's rights begin with her body."
              "When I birth is none of your business."

              Well, they all lack punch.  I guess it's just impossible to put complexity on a bumper sticker.

              Congrats on being rescued.

              by geomoo on Mon May 14, 2007 at 08:24:05 AM PDT

•  Then there are those with regrets.

  The Supreme Court apparently took those documented regrets heavily into account in the last anti-choice decision. It was not scientific - there were no studies to show how many abortionees have regrets, but the regretters IMO unduly influenced the Court.

  I believe that medical procedures should be between a patient, their doctor, and, if applicable, their god. The courts should not be involved in medicine, and especially should not be involved in legislating particular procedures.

  by sailmaker on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:22:35 AM PDT

•  regrets

  I think the number of women who experience significant regrets for their personal abortion is small, with another larger slice that may have had some twinge of regret within a general frame of acceptance/relief. But that doesn't mean that the big slice (30 million? 20?) with no regrets at all would necessarily vote pro-choice on this issue. Having spent some time with abortion patients, I was surprised to find that they are not necessarily pro-choice. They certainly are not as political about it as the staff. Some seem to feel that while their own abortion is justified, the abortions other patients have may not be.

  by blueisland on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:55:03 AM PDT

  •  That can be changed...

    with straight talk from our politicians.

    I believe if the politicians talked directly to women who've had abortions, reminded them of the importance of the right, and staunchly supported it, that they could be motivated.

    It's just too big a voting block / constituency to ignore.

    by annrose on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:57:42 AM PDT

  •  As an abortion provider (MD)

    I performed a first trimester abortion on a college senior some years ago. Prior to meeting me she had told a clinic counselor that she was the president of her campus "pro-life" organization. Think about that. That must mean that she was one of their most committed and hardest workers against legal and safe professional abortion care for several years, but when she got pregnant herself, she was in the clinic having an abortion within a week of her positive pregnancy test. We see that degree of hypocrisy, and worse, regularly. However, it is not always simple hypocrisy. Many women (and men) just don't "get it" until they are personally faced with unexpected and unwanted pregnancy in themselves or in someone they care about. That’s just often the way it works – it’s often hard to relate to or understand until you experience it personally in yourself or in someone close to you. Abortion is a decision that's very easy to judge when you're not in the position of having to make it for yourself.
     
    As I completed her abortion, I asked her what she was now going to do about her affiliation with that anti-choice club. Startled, she gasped, sat abruptly up on the operating table, and with horrified expression and gaping eyes blurted out in tremulous voice, "Y - you’re not going to tell them, are you?" I, of course, assured her we were not going to tell anyone. She likely returned to her hypocritical role of being the champion antiabortionist on her campus – unalterably opposed to safe, legal abortion for every woman in the world but herself.

    Many "pro-lifers" believe abortion should be outlawed with only four exceptions: endangerment of the life of the pregnant woman or girl, rape, incest, and "me."

    Many others would omit the first three.

    by Beket on Sun May 13, 2007 at 10:01:00 AM PDT

    •  What a perfect story for our times!

      That is an amazing story, and somehow perfect for the slipperiness of this debate.  I hope you do put together some diaries on this issue.  That story is useful information for others involved in this fight.

      I do think there will be an enormous backlash if abortion becomes illegal for the middle and upper class.  I'm afraid that won't happen, though, until enough people like your college client experience horrendous tragedy.  These days it seems that every issue calling out for compassion is being responded to with abuse.  It feels to me as though all sensitive people I know are showing the effects of abusive politics, while people like your client are cynically trying to grab what they want.  Ugh!

      by geomoo on Sun May 13, 2007 at 10:16:40 AM PDT

      •  Ain't it the truth?

        These days it seems that every issue calling out for compassion is being responded to with abuse.  It feels to me as though all sensitive people I know are showing the effects of abusive politics, while people like your client are cynically trying to grab what they want.  Ugh!

        Well said! I second that UGH!

        by Beket on Sun May 13, 2007 at 10:21:42 AM PDT

•  Tips?

  Thank you.

  by annrose on Sun May 13, 2007 at 07:58:37 AM PDT

•  Following on from the Viet Nam references

  evangelicals like to scream "baby killers" because it can be emotively applied to being anti abortion, anti stem cell research and anti leftist/centerist.

  This kind of evangelical political rhetoric has several layers to peel away before their absolutist positions are exposed as nothing more than THEM telling YOU what YOU can and can't do.

  They can't "save" any terminated pregnancy, any more than their rhetoric can bring back to life dead babies in Iraq or feed any hungry children in the world.

  There's a fire in an in vitro clinic, you only have time to choose to save 10,000 blastocysts or one 6 month old baby, which will you pick?

  Their only moral standpoint is to prevent any more in the future, but symptomatic of all rightist beliefs without taking any societal responsibility for the consequences themselves.

  ----

  The people who chose choice outnumber the beliefs of the anti choice. It should be repeated and addressed, but I'm not sure we should use the situation to garner votes, but just stand firm defending the right to determine your own freedom.

  by UniC on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:01:22 AM PDT

  •  We should get votes wherever they are.

    I know of no other issue where politicians demean potential voters by marginalizing an issue.

    There are 40 million votes out there of women and men and families who've had abortions that nobody is benefitting from.

    by annrose on Sun May 13, 2007 at 08:21:39 AM PDT

  •  Citizen Ruth

    is a terrific look at what happens when a pregnant huffer (Laura Dern)gets yanked around as a pawn between the Christianist "Babysavers" (led by Burt Reynolds) and the militant pro-choice women. Totally twisted, beginning to end.

    by peaceloveandkucinich on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:30:17 AM PDT

•  Maybe we need to examine very closely why the

  GOP and pro-lifers have been so successful in politicizing the private decisions of women and to make it a dispute even among Democrats.  

  "And, why, in a second generation of legalized abortion, are women still being harassed and attacked by these right-wing Evangelical Christians who won't mind their own business?"

  I don't like the numbers on either side of the issue because they tell me nothing really useful other than they can be made to say whatever the writer wants them to say - much like all data sets or statistics.  

  If abortions need tracking, my preference would be in accordance with the economy, health care availability and affordability, and many other issues that likely correspond to the rates at which abortions happen.  I think age is an important factor and something I have seen locally is folks of means who believe that young women, instead of having an abortion, somehow owe the folks their baby, and there is actually a pretty slick baby mill that was shut down post WWII in many ways.

  I think you have posed an important question which is almost impossible to answer because the reasons are so numerous as to be difficult to enumerate.  

  Interestingly, in my experience with clinic defense and working with women, sometimes the "pro-life" politicians are the first to avail themselves of abortion services, either for their girlfriends, their wives, their daughters, or their sons girlfriends.  And since the clinics operate on a very strict confidentiality belief, no one disperses this information.  

  Bet the former Attorney General of Kansas who managed this past year to obtain abortion clinic records which is morally outrageous is not likely to dissiminate the information concerning his buddies of the GOP who have used the services.

  As you might recall, during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, there was a fair number of Republicans who claim to be pro-life (anti-abortion) for political expedience, more tr than from a personal preferance for their own girlfriends, wives, or ex-wives.  

  That makes me wonder why we don't examine more closely what GOP elected officials positions are and if they have moved over the last 10 years.  Did they ride the anti=abortion trojan horse to Washington after changing their personal positions?

  My own personal belief is that it is none of our collective business who has one abortion or repeated abortions.  I believe that women who c arry genes for specific gene pools who hope to get a different line up of genetics in an additional pregnancy have that right to do so.  If they are hoping, desperately to have a pregnancy that might result in an absence of a tragically deformed fetus and a child that might not be able to sustain life.  

  But what would make me the most pleased was if these decisions were to the medical office and remained between a family, their physician, their family counselor whether it be spiritual, psychological, or religious.  I don't want to invade this very private area of decision-making.

  If this were a medical decision, we wouldn't have to ponder why any of it comes to pass.  The GOP and right to lifers have been effective at disseminating false medical and psychological information and it works because they get it into the schools.  They are at the clinics.  The put on signs at their homes and in fields along the highway.

  Very simply, the GOP has been successful at politiciaing a very private medical decision and even depriving women of safe, dependable birth control.  We are in an era of pharmacists who can refuse to fill birth control prescriptions.  The right has done everything they can do to stop women from having control over their own bodies in every way, not just decisions about abortion.

  I will pray today, Mother's Day, for the women who made the most difficult decision in their lives to end a pregnancy, each and every one of them without any concern for what motivated their decisions because I know the prolife kooks are continually praying for the fetuses, stealing them from clinic refuse, and even staging burials.

  Happy Mother's Day to all,
  PaintyKat

  by PaintyKat on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:52:58 PM PDT

  •  What will the neighbors think?

    This question seems to lie at the heart of hypocritical attitudes about sexuality, especially from the right.  My daughter tells me that it used to be fairly common for doctors to help women who were having trouble getting pregnant by providing them with viable sperm.  The husband was often not even informed.  I dislike intensely the guilt, shame, and manipulation underlying the secretive, hypocritical behavior of people who worry about their public image.  But I think it important to accept as fact that sexuality is very complex and many people are going to lack candor, to put it mildly.

    One reason I think it is difficult to mount an active campaign in favor of reproductive rights is that pro-choice forces feel the issue is fundamentally a private matter; anger, intellectualizing, and external debate are quite out of place.  The issue calls for quiet discussion between mother and daughter, teenager and cleric, patient and doctor.  Now that it is being used by fascists, however, public agitation is needed.  In addressing the issue publicly, I think it important to remain respectful of women who have a sense of delicacy and privacy around sex.

    by geomoo on Mon May 14, 2007 at 08:46:51 AM PDT

•  This diary is recommended because

  it has generated one of the most outstanding sets of thoughtful comments I have seen on this site in awhile.

  I think the diary makes a really interesting and provocative point, but I agree with the posters who suggest translating those experiences into pro-choice votes might be a complicated effort.

  I do agree that progressive politicians can be unnecessarily defensive about this issue, though.

  by Femlaw on Mon May 14, 2007 at 12:22:47 AM PDT

  •  They shouldn't be defensive.

    There are over 40 million American women out there who've had abortions that need to be converted into Democratic votes.

    I'd be glad to consult with a good progressive advertising agency to translate this into an ad that would attract these women to

    1.  Registering to vote.

    2.  and Voting for pro-choice politicians.

    by annrose on Mon May 14, 2007 at 04:33:11 AM PDT

•  choosing to mother

  I am very glad that this diary got rescued! Thank you to joyful as well as to AnnRose. At the same time, I want to point out that the description of the diary being rescued is somewhat misleading.

  In her thought-provoking observations, annrose reminds us of the importance of honoring the women who choose to be mothers while at the same time respecting the women who choose not to be.

  Women who have abortions are not choosing not to be mothers. 60% of them already ARE mothers, and their sense of responsibilty towards the child(ren) they already have is a big part of their decision not to continue their current pregnancy. The other 40% who are not currently mothers, are generally young women who will eventually choose to be mothers. One of the reasons that it is so important to keep abortion safe and legal is to preserve the fertility of women who are not in a position to raise a child now, but who will desperately want to be mothers at some point in the future.  

  by blueisland on Mon May 14, 2007 at 08:31:39 AM PDT

•  hard to fathom

  Really great, indepth thoughts on subject  here, thanks.

  It is hard to believe we have to keep 'fighting' for the same rights, over and over.....for 30 years now.

  Glad women like you are on watch.

  by shano on Mon May 14, 2007 at 01:07:03 PM PDT