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

Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

Why is it misogyny to not be willing to pay for someone else's mistake?

I have not read bill c-510 or c-484

I do not feel it is misogynistic to not be willing to spend money on something I am totally opposed to.

How dare you compare being anti abortion as being hatred against women.

As I say I believe a woman has the right to choose (even if here choice is something I don't support). I, however, also have a right to chose. I choose not to be willing to spend money for her to make a choice I am against (that being said if I got someone pregnant and they chose abortion, while I do not support it, I would pay my share and if she could not pay her share then hers to. For the same reason that I do not believe the government should pay for abortions, because I was responsible for the pregnancy).

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[mallt.livejournal.com]

"someone else's mistake"
What if it wasn't a mistake? Who's mistake is a failure of a contraceptive?

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[jamesq]

Your argument, writ large, could be used against universal health care for victims of "preventable" diseases (i.e ones related to poor life-style choices). Maybe you're OK with that. After all, if people were simply responsible, then they wouldn't need health care. You hear this in the states a lot: "Why are my tax dollars being used to help out those undeserving people."

If you're against your tax dollars being spent on private health matters between a patient and their doctor in this case, why not others? That's a serious question - what makes type-2 diabetes brought on by a lifetime of overeating eligible where pregnancy does not? Both were preventable, neither were desired.

_grog_ can certainly defend herself, but I'd like to interject that I agree with her: It is misogyny. Anti-abortion forces might argue that they don't hate women per se, but they are advancing legislation that says "We know better then you". It designed primarily to shame and punish women with pregnancy. They call themselves pro-life, but the fact that they make exceptions for incest or rape is telling: exceptions to anti-abortion laws coincide with situations where the woman had sex against her will. Sex where it was the woman's choice requires punishment.

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[oblivions.livejournal.com]

It takes two to make that mistake. Never forget that.

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[jamesq]

More to the point, are you willing for your tax dollars to go towards curing sexually-transmitted diseases?

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

Malt. That is one of my biggest dislikes about funding abortion. There are those who use abortion as a form of contraceptive.

J I never looked at the not funding from the preventable point. It is something to consider. But the difference is that those are helping where as (IMO) abortion is killing that is the big difference.

I make the exception for rape (never considered the incest side and don't honestly know how I feel on that one) because the rape itself is brutal on ones psyche. For a woman to have to give birth to the rapist child is adding insult to injury, but all the power to her if she makes the decision to go through with the pregnancy.

J it is not hatred of women to prefer life. I prefer life. I feel a woman has the right to chose to abort or not. I just don't like the idea of someone other than those involved paying. I also do not see it as punishment to not pay for someone else mistake. The person made the decision to have sex, they should be responsible for the consequences.

I also make a significant exception for when the health of the mother is at stake. I fully support aborting if the health of the mother is at stake. In that case you are putting the yet to be alive child against the now living mother. Once again though I fell that is the mothers choice and should not be made for her. She should be allowed to risk her life for her unborn child if she chooses

Oblivions, I fully agree it takes to to make the mistake and I think the donor should also take full responsibility. That being said it is the woman's decision and not the mans on whether to follow through with the pregnancy or abort (as it should be).


For all, I use the word mistake. Lets make things clear, I use this word because if the person is choosing to abort then the pregnancy was a mistake.o

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[mallt.livejournal.com]

I agree that abortion should not be used in place of contraception. What I was referring to is when a couple is being responsible, using a contraceptive & that fails which results in an unwanted pregnancy. That's not a mistake it's an accident over which they had no control.

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

I would agree with you partially.

Even when being responsible and using contraceptives, you are correct there is the possibility of an "accident". That being said, you should be prepared for that possibility.

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[mallt.livejournal.com]

No contraceptive 100% effective and I don't want to be pregnant... if I take abortion out of the equation I am left with no choice but abstention.

Re contraception

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

You are correct. But you are choosing to have sex. That is your choice. Making the assumption that someone has taken all the precautions but still becomes pregnant, I still believe they made the choice to have sex. They should know the potential consequences and dela with them, without my money.

As I have said...

While I am against abortion, if I got a lady pregnant and she chose to have the abortion, I would pay my share (and hers if she could not afford it). I just would not go with her to have it done. I do not feel it my right to tell her she can not have an abortion. And since I would have been responsible for the pregnancy I would do my share.

Why should others pay for our mistake/accident

Re: Re contraception

[mallt.livejournal.com]

Yes it's a choice but you have to be realistic as well... it's not realistic for a government to expect all the people in its population to abstain for sex (unless they are trying for a child) for the entire of their fertile lives. As such they put in place such things as free contraceptives, abortions etc... these things take money so it comes out of their tax revinue. As snooness pointed out, if these things were not funded by the government they'd end up with different expenses due to the increased number of pregnancies.

Re: Re contraception

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

I agree these are things to consider. Unfortunately we live in a society that believes we owe them something. Why does the Canadian population OWE someone an abortion?

Re: Re contraception

[danceintheabyss.livejournal.com]

As a person who had an unwanted pregnancy (but not in the end an unwanted or unloved child) I feel I should put in my two cents on the emotional toll an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy can have on one. I never personally never considered an abortion as I personnally believe that abortions should only be had if it is a health issue or in the rare case that rape or incest has resulted in pregnancy. (If you want one thats your choice, I won't pervent you or tell you your wrong, this is simply my personal philosophy on the matter okay.) Anyhoo. I went thru months of self doubt, self recrimination, major stress as I worried about money and the fact that the man I was with (incidently now my hubby) I was not sure of how I felt about him anymore. I used to dream of having a miscarriage, then beat myself up for thinking such an awful thing. I have no doubt that this worry and stress all during my pregnancy led in large part to my post partem deppression. One of the few things that got me thru those months was the fact that I KNEW I HAD A CHOICE if it ever came to it. If I didn't have that choice, if my options were to carry the baby to term and raise it, I'm certain I would have gone quite nuts and quite possibly ended my own life. Knowing that you have a choice, that that option is out there is so important.

Re: Re contraception

[mallt.livejournal.com]

A person is no more owed an abortion as owed having, say, their leg fixed because a car hit it... she did not choose to get pregnant, he did not choose to get hit by a car... she had a choice about having sex, he had a choice about crossing the road, she could have made a mistake or had an accident, so could he (crossing when he should or shouldn't)... are we saying we don't mend his broken leg?

Other thoughts on the way home...
Why not go through with a pregnancy... it's RISKY even in this country with good health care... death is rare here but the mother may still need special care, the baby could be premature & that's hugely expensive, etc.

Which works out more expensive to the tax payer in the long run... an abortion or child support? I don't know about here but in the UK a mother gets child support regardless of her income & is paid until they are 18 or longer if they are in full time education.

Re: Re contraception

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

Once again the difference is a broken leg is being fixed and healing
an abortion is not IMO healing it is killing.

Re: Re contraception

[mallt.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to get started on that, you are entitled to your opinion.
However it has no bearing on whether or not someone should be able to get a government funded abortion.

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[evilscientist.livejournal.com]

By this logic we shouldn't provide medical care to soldiers, since they knew full well that their job might involved getting shot. Simply a consequence of their choice right?

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

sure I'll bite at this red herring...

big difference here

a soldier is doing a duty for his/her country. Getting pregnant is a result of having sex.

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[mallt.livejournal.com]

but to some killing is killing regardless of the cause making war & serving in a war as abhorant as abortion.

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

We could take the debate on killing to many levels, I don't think that is where J wanted this to go. We can take it to euthanasia, we can take it to capital punishment, we can even take it to War where one poster has chosen to take it.

before this derails in a discussion on the war or any of the other places it can go (I am willing to debate all those if we must)
...
let me just say support the soldier even if you don't support the war they are in

[mallt.livejournal.com]

I had to do a years worth of "Christian Perspectives" at school on exactly those topics... yeah I think I've had to discuss them enough! :)

At the end of the day there are very few things that our taxes get used for that everyone is 100% happy with... there will always be some that people have problems with... "Why should we pay benefits to immigrants, let their own country feed them?" (that's a quote from a guy on the train yesterday!), why should we pay for unemployment, drug/alcohol/gambling rehab, homelessness... all of these are controversial issues & there are people who don't want their hard earned money to go to these people... but what kind of country would we live in if our government stopped supporting them? I've lived in countries that don't... I'm happy to pay my taxes if it means I get to live in a country like Canada.

[jamesq]

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[jamesq]

I think people want to see if you're consistent in your views. If you oppose paying for a medical procedure based on the victim's choice of engaging in a risky behavior, then why is this particular risky behavior bad and others acceptable. Why is sex a problem and driving in sports cars (for example) not?

If it's the sex, then spell out why.

Conversely, if it's the fact that a potential human life that's the issue (and not the sex), then we can take this a different direction: At what point do you think it's acceptable to take a life? If I was kidnapped to provide dialysis (via my kidney) for someone, and they were going to die if I disconnected them, I'd have zero remorse about walking away. I shouldn't be made to jump through hoops to retain control of my own body. It certainly shouldn't be made illegal - even if it might be a compassionate thing to do for the person dependent on me. If the state is the only agency which can help me retain that right, then it better be able to do it with a minimum of fuss, otherwise

Of course, we don't get our kidneys co-opted, just our uteruses (uteri?).

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

It is the killing aspect that I oppose. I however am also against someone imposing their morals on someone else (as stated many times above) as such below is a cliffs notes on each of the subjects

Yes I oppose abortion but am pro choice
Yes I am in favor of euthanasia (right to choose/quality of life)
Yes, while I think suicide is a cowards way out, it should be legal
No I am opposed to Capital Punishment (to many chances of being wrong i.e. Donald Marshal case) Actually I used to be a die hard abolitionist
No I am opposed to war but see it as a necessary evil and in favor of supporting our soldiers
Yes I think a soldier is risking his/her life for what our country (IS SUPPOSED to) believe in.
Yes I think we should ban smoking. I have had in my mind a ways that would ban it but not take away any current living (including fetus') rights. I just have to write it down in legalese and see if I can ever get someone to pass it.

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[evilscientist.livejournal.com]

Yes, but soldiers voluntarily put themselves in high risk situations where chances are high that they will need expensive taxpayer funded medical care. The premise of your argument is that you, as a taxpayer, shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of someone's voluntary high risk behaviour. If it applies to one group it has to apply to all groups that voluntarily engage in high risk behaviour. So those people who voluntarily take high risk jobs, or engage in high risk leisure activities such as high-marking, motorcycle riding or sex, all deserve to feel the full consequences of their actions and so the taxpayer shouldn't be liable for their medical bills.

I mentioned soldiers because I can already hear your objection as that other high risk activities don't involve killing, though that is debatable with high-marking given recent events. The main function of the soldier is to kill other people. Therefore since they are killing other human beings, by your argument like a pregnant woman, they don't deserve taxpayer recompense for the consequences of their actions.

If you like we can look at abortion doctors. Presumably you have no problem with ensuring that they have to pay full freight for their medical expenses when some wingnut pro-lifer shoots them. After all, it's merely a consequence of their voluntary choice of profession.