Obama's proposed executive order banning federal funding for abortions (reported by Jane Hamsher at Firedog Lake http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/... is incredibly harmful to a woman's right to choose.
Many argue that it is simply a reiteration of current law; after all, we have had the Hyde Amendment banning such funding (except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother) for over 30 years. What's the big deal?
The fact is, this is a very big deal. Although the Hyde Amendment is repeatedly renewed, it is not a law on the books per se. It must be renewed each year as part of the budget. This means that every year we have the opportunity to get rid of it (although we have as yet been unsuccessful). An executive order, in contrast, would put these provisions on the books until it is rescinded. It is much harder to rescind an executive order than to change language that must be inserted in the budget yearly. Really, what president would stick his neck out for the 1/3 of women who will need abortions? If we are to be guided by history, nobody.
Unfortunately, the dialogue on abortion dichotomizes women into good and bad, virtuous and irresponsible. Rather than attending to the reality that birth control fails sometimes, that not everyone is in a situation where they have the option to use birth control, and that due to incredibly poor access to health care for poor and middle class women not everyone can afford to get highly effective contraceptive methods, people split all women into 2 categories. They are either good women who are victims of rape or incest, or who use contraceptives perfectly (and never are in the 1-3% of women who become pregnant in a year even though they have used their method perfectly), or they are irresponsible, undisciplined women who sleep with anyone around and don't protect themselves.
The truth is that there is a lot in between these two scenarios. In terms of rape, although many agree that a rape or incest provision is appropriate, rape is a hard thing to prove; the majority of rapes go unreported. The minuscule number of abortions that have ever been paid for by the federal government shows that this provision is not very effective in helping the most vulnerable women avoid 9 months of daily reminders of what happened to them.
In terms of contraception, there are many contraceptive failures. Although some of the most hard core fundamentalists among us would argue that nobody should ever have sex unless they want to get pregnant at that time, the vast majority of Americans do accept family planning methods and agree that women should have the option to decide when they get pregnant. Women who do not use contraception perfectly often have other things that get in the way, like the cost of their method or side effects they can't tolerate. Some women are in coercive situations, where either because of their culture or because of an abusive relationship they do not have the option to use contraceptive methods or to decide when they will have sex.
Putting aside those situations, we also have situations where the life or health of the woman is in danger. Most anti-abortion measures do allow for abortion to be paid for if the life of the woman is in danger, but many (including the Stupak amendment) do not have a provision for a woman's health. I'm a physician, and I'm not omniscient. I don't know who will die from a pregnancy-related condition or who will suffer irreparable harm, such as brain damage, severe heart problems, seizures, or blood clots. Such a provision, therefore, not only depends on the opinion of the physician (who may be anti-abortion and therefore may interpret the situation as he pleases), but also on the severity of her disease. Is it really tolerable for a woman to go blind from a pregnancy, as long as she won't die? Do we really value an unborn embryo or fetus over the woman that much? How will that woman care for the child if she continues the pregnancy? Is it fair to subject a woman to that against her will?
Another situation that rarely gets an exception to the ban on funding (including in the Stupak amendment) is the case of severe fetal anomalies. I have a patient who, at 18 weeks, found out that her baby was missing most of its brain. She underwent a termination at 21 weeks. Had she not had coverage for the procedure by her insurance, she would have had to either come up with $10,000 or wait either until she went into labor on her own, at which point she would have had to push out a fetus that would likely never take a breath, or at best would live a few minutes to hours, or wait until the fetus died inside her, at which point she also would have had to either undergo a more complicated procedure than that she underwent at 21 weeks or push out a dead fetus. So the scenarios is either come up with $10,000 and go through a difficult emotional experience, or spend weeks to months dealing with the symptoms of pregnancy, knowing that the fetus will never be your child, will never grow up, will never even have more than a few hours of life in this world. I call that cruel and unusual punishment.
I encourage everyone to ask around. They will find that many of their loved ones have had an abortion, and for a variety of reasons. I appreciate Jane's efforts to bring these issues to light. Unfortunately, most people in this country do not see abortion for what it truly is: as much a part of women's lives as is carrying a pregnancy to term.
