In the days since Dr. Tiller's assassination, I have read and heard the word "legal" too many times. The procedures were legal. Women were exercising their legal rights. Etc. In fact, Rachel Maddow is doing it right now (6/10). This bothers me for two reasons.
First, use of the modifier indicates the precariousness of reproductive rights. Thirty-six years after Roe v. Wade, more than a generation since the days of coat hanger desperation, the right to abortion should be thoroughly ingrained into our societal fabric. Yet women in most counties of the United States have to travel, sometimes quite a distance, to access a procedure which, particularly during the first trimester, should be offered in every clinic and hospital in the nation. Women, especially minors, can't reliably access convenient and affordable contraception.
Second, use of the modifier is a weak argument and suggests timidity in supporting a basic human right to choose when to reproduce.
Legal ≠ moral.
Legal is the argument the previous administration tried to establish to justify torture. Slavery was legal at one time. It's legal to prevent some demographics from forming a family unit or adopting a child. Many morally abhorrent things were or are legal. Is it any wonder that such a pallid defense of reproductive rights elicits sneers off contempt?
I can't entirely fault the anti-abortionists for protesting when our major argument is to whine, "Why are they so mean? It's legal." Let me posit that if Guantanamo had been located within the U.S., we would have protested just as strenuously as Operation Rescue protested Dr. Tiller's clinic.
Many in the anti-abortion movement truly believe Dr. Tiller killed 60,000 viable babies for no other reason than the woman's "convenience." The same type of fantastical thinking fueled the satanic ritual abuse hysteria.
Proof Lacking for Ritual Abuse by Satanist
Tales of satanic ritual abuse, with well-organized cults sacrificing animals and babies and engaging in sexual perversion and cannibalism, is the stuff of tabloid television. Now the first empirical study of its actual prevalence, based on information from district attorneys, social service workers, police officials and psychotherapists, suggests that these tales are usually just that -- figments of imagination.
Skeptic's Dictionary
In the 1980s, the office of District Attorney Ed Jagels prosecuted 46 people in eight alleged molestation rings. Twenty-two of thirty convictions were later reversed, including that of Jeffrey Modahl. Eight had the charges dropped and eight plea-bargained to keep them from doing time in prison. One of those convicted died in prison. The rest served out their sentences.* The last of the accused, John Stoll, served 20 years in prison before his conviction was overturned in May 2004.
By basing our arguments for reproductive care on its legality we fail to rebut the fantastical arguments which win over so many people to the anti-abortion cause. As an aside, I cannot imagine living in such a world where one believes these horrors are not only possible but commonplace. Frightening indeed.
Again, I must make the comparison to torture. The methods an instances of torture have been well-documented by numerous reliable sources including the Red Cross, the United Nations, and photographs of and by the participants and victims. Not so the lurid claims made by the anti-abortionists.
Where do they get their data? 60,000 abortions? Who says? Is this count the number of women who entered Dr. Tiller's clinic in one year? Lack of evidence from a reliable source automatically casts doubt on this.
Living, healthy babies aborted days before birth on whim? Heinous without a doubt. And entirely as fantastical as ritual satanic abuse. Kansas, and states which allow late-term abortions, have regulations in place as to timing, method, second opinion, and justification. Not a single, solitary state makes such an abortion legal.
Late term abortion for convenience? Yeah, right. That's my idea of a night on the town. Legal justification, extensive travel, expense, running the gauntlet of protesters, all culminating in major surgery. I fail to see how any reasonable person believes this is possible.
Most people oppose abortion? Not quite. And, I believe, even fewer would if the had accurate and reliable information about it.
The arguments as to whether life begins at conception or some other point will never be settled. Outlawing abortion won't eliminate abortion. These two points are irrefutable.
In order to protect our reproductive rights we need to argue as passionately and persuasively as we did prior to Roe v. Wade. We need to smack down the opposing arguments including, and most importantly, the fantastical ones. We need to OWN the issue with facts, statistics, and personal stories. We need to argue the moral, ethical, and practical aspects of the issue. Only then can we jetisson the legal label.
Let us follow Dr. Tiller's three-pronged argument quoted in the New York Daily News of June 1, 2009.
What I am doing is legal, what I am doing is moral, what I am doing is ethical.