The Slow (But Accelerating) Erosion of Reproductive Rights

[jamesq]

So you want to ban abortion outright, but that pesky Roe v. Wade thing keeps coming up? What do you do? Well, you could simply make it more and more difficult to get an abortion. After all, you're not actually banning it, you're simply putting up every conceivable (heh) roadblock to it. If the monetary requirements (you don't think the mandatory ultrasound is going to be paid for by taxpayers do you?) don't clobber you, then the barrage of presentations "to keep you informed" might catch you in a moment of weakness. Finally, if navigating all the roadblocks take too long you'll hit your 22 (varies by state) week time limit.

And let's not forget the lengthy, allegedly anonymous, forms you have to fill out. I say "allegedly" because, despite not having your name, they're sufficiently detailed to allow a good data-miner to figure out who you are. How many 6'4", 42-year old, males with red hair own a house in my postal code? I haven't named names, but I bet you could attach a name to that information without much effort. Same for women filling out this information. Then it gets put up on a publicly accessible database, ostensibly for research purposes. The next day a brigade of anti-abortionists just happen to show up on your doorstep.

I'd compare it to a sibling putting his finger as close to your face as they can while chanting "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you." Except that's funny and this situation isn't.

If these are successful, I predict that even more roadblocks will be put up. Multiple presentations, multiple invasive medical procedures, more detailed forms, all to "keep the mother informed". Time limits will be clawed back (Oops, sorry, but the fetus has nerve tissue now, we can't let you abort this late). The goal being to make it to expensive in terms of time and money to ever successfully get in under the wire.

When abortion is still technically legal, but effectively impossible, they'll declare victory. Seriously, I fully expect some politician to happily stand in front of a crowd and say that "We've made abortion so difficult to get in this state that no one successfully got one last year. Yay!"

Women who try to take things into their own hands will be charged with homicide. This could include self-induced abortions, using a back-alley abortionist, or simply traveling to a less-restrictive area. People who try to assist them will also be charged.

Predictions:

Pro-choice forces will come up with some way of giving women information remotely. decentralized web-sites with information on how to do your own abortion safely. Anti-abortion forces will try to infiltrate these sites, set up "look-alike" sites, etc. Legislatures will try to make the web-sites illegal.

You'll need to give personal information when buying home pregnancy kits.

Laws that outlaw helping people procure an abortion will become more draconian. Walk a woman past the clinic's protesters? That's a fine. Take her to another state? That's jail time. Hell, simply encouraging someone to get an abortion will become illegal.

It makes me glad I'm Canadian. Things aren't perfect here, but they are better. Calgary has an abortion clinic and it's generally free of protesters (due to court injunctions they have to stay well away from it - typically hundreds of feet). Of course, the fact that the building is built to withstand small explosives is testament to the fact that we're not yet as enlightened as I'd like.

Anyway, the whole thing is another attempt to punish women for all kinds of things: Chief among them having sex. Also violating traditional gender roles - married homemakers should want babies, and unmarried women shouldn't require abortions because they're not having sex. There are no other categories.

It all boils down to men making the decisions because women can't be trusted to make the right decisions themselves. It's patronizing, mean-spirited and increases the amount of suffering in the world.

Comments

maternal chealth funding

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

I actually am glad at the hard line our government is taking.

I am 100% against abortion... That being said I am also pro choice. No these do not contradict each other.

I do not believe it is my place to tell someone that my beliefs outweigh theirs.

What our government is doing is saying we accept that our population can legally get abortions. Yours can to just not with our money.

When I lived in Montreal a friend of mine was having an abortion, her boyfriend (at one point fiance) did not believe in abortion and although he paid for the abortion, he would not go with her to get it done. My girlfriend at the time told me that she was stuck going and could I go as well. Since I am 100% against abortion, I said no and no I would not give them a lift.

I am all for realistic information being provided. I am all for trying to convince someone not to have an abortion. I not for public moneys being used either for the information against abortion or helping someone have an abortion. I do not think we should make it prohibitively expensive either.

The fact of the matter is that (in all but rape) the woman chose to have sex and this is the result. You made the choice you live with the consequences.

I should not be forced (even through my tax dollars) to help you. Especially not in someone else's country

Re: maternal chealth funding

[mallt.livejournal.com]

But your tax dollars are going towards abortions in Alberta.

Re: maternal chealth funding

[snooness2]

The fact of the matter is that (in all but rape) the woman chose to have sex and this is the result.


Yes but in many places our money goes to in the third world it is to help women who are getting abortions due to rape.... or alternately due to the fact it's their 10th child and there is a good chance they could die. It would also go towards the problem of abortions being done by the women themselves. That's why Canada gave us the right in the first place - there were statistically too many deaths being caused by backalley abortions.

Realistically we should fund all options. If the government wants to encourage the non-abortion thing then they can fund some types of maternal health associations more then others - but they should not take the choice off the table. There are a lot of legitimate reasons for abortion - health, and rape are just a couple.

PS: Maybe I'm just unlucky but the only women I know who had abortions did so because the fetus went cancerous and they didn't mis-carry. The result of such a thing is the slow eventual death of the women as the cells that would have been the child continue to grow and the body does not naturally abort them (which saps the mother of strength aside from all the issues a tumour that size in the uterus causes.

Re: maternal chealth funding

[jamesq]

I suggest that if you have a moral objection to abortion, you should frame it as such. Making an economic argument ("my tax dollars shouldn't fund it") is disingenuous. Simply put, abortion costs less then pregnancy, and continuing a pregnancy is exactly as much a voluntary choice as ending one.

Re: maternal chealth funding

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

The difference J is that no one objects to continuing a pregnancy. Many people object to abortion. Also I outright stated at the front I am 100% against abortions.

Malt my tax dollars may got to abortion in Alberta, that does not mean i have to put my tax dollars to help someone in another country get an abortion.

Snoo the Conservatives are not saying the other countries in G8 can not fund abortions for third world countries just that Canada wont.

Re: maternal chealth funding

[snooness2]

To which I say that's hypocritical of Canada, and I don't agree with the position the Canadian government has taken on the basis that they are through funding saying:

Canadian women have the right to choose, and have the right to have the proceedure funded through the health care system; but you women over there in the third world - you don't have that right.

That's hyprocracy in it's grossest form, and I choose to call them on it.

This is entirely independent of my personal beliefs in abortion...
My personal belief is that it's my right to choose. I would choose not to. I've always known I would choose not to (unless it were a medical necessity). But I'd will fight tooth and nail to keep it a personal choice and not one made for me by the state declaring it legal or illegal.

Re: maternal chealth funding

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

Canadian women paid into the health care system. It is like when I see a homeless man. I chose not to give money but will by them food. I chose to spend the money. The money he/she earned from panhandling can be spent on drugs, smokes, alcohol. I am not telling him/her how to spend their money just how I spend mine (even if buying food means he has more money to spend elsewhere).

The Canadian government is not telling other governments they cant spend money on abortion just that we wont spend it on abortion for other countries

I fully agree with you. I believe it is the woman's right to choose and would be against legislation removing that right.

While I am against abortion I do not believe my morals outweighs those of mothers.

Re: maternal chealth funding

[mallt.livejournal.com]

At the end of the day, unless you are lucky & a) a political party policies are aligned to your beliefs & b) they get voted in, you have no control over how your tax money is spent.

So really what you are saying is that you dislike the fact that your tax money goes towards paying for abortions... it matters not where those abortions take place.

Personally I would be happy for my tax dollars going in aid was towards abortions because as snooness pointed out there are many good reasons why they are needed... but I don't have that choice either.

Re: maternal health funding

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

That is a fair staement and you are correct.

Re: maternal chealth funding

[jamesq]

"I am all for realistic information being provided. I am all for trying to convince someone not to have an abortion."

The point of the Oklahoma bill is not to give information (no matter what they claim), it's to force women to undergo an invasive and from what I've heard, downright painful, medical procedure that will cost them money that they might not have. You might not want your tax dollars going towards abortion, but is it fair to make women pay more then necessary to get one? The closest male equivalent I can come up with having to pay $300 to get a swift kick in the nuts prior to getting a vasectomy.

Re: maternal chealth funding

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

I believe that if the government is forcing an additional step THEN the government should pay for that additional step.

Re: maternal chealth funding

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

Oh and if the procedure is not really necessary, I do not think it should be required