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

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.

[mallt.livejournal.com]

Exactly!

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

[mallt.livejournal.com]

And you feel that having your tax dollars go towards something you don't believe in is someone imposing their morals on you?

If so... tough! There are lots of people in your position, I stated that above.

As James' quote so elegantly put it, that's the price you pay for living in a civilized society!

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

Wow talk about taking the last comment out of context.

You will note that it was mentioned that they where seeing if my views where consistent. Hence I showed where ,my views where and their consistency.

I started in this discussion because I am pleased our government is taking the hard stand that they will not support abortion abroad and do not feel that this is misogynistic in any way

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[jamesq]

You're willing to allow Canadian women to make a decision you do not agree with, but you're happy that foreign women don't have the exact same courtesy?

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

we are back to that again

The Canadian government is not funding the abortions abroad but they are not stopping the other governments from doing so
They have the ability to chose just with someone else's money and not ours

Re: Its not a hatred or mistrust of women

[jamesq]

"The Canadian government is not funding the abortions abroad but they are not stopping the other governments from doing so"

Then they're gutless. They're pandering to the anti-abortion forces in this country and counting on the fact that it's not a dear enough issue to people here to cost them votes. Hell they may even be right.

But the fact remains: They're taking a side and using the bullshit excuse "we're not actively stopping them" to claim that they're being even-handed.

What happens to the third-world woman looking for an abortion when the only doctor she has access to is a Canadian? She can't just hop on a bus and get better treatment at the Belgian clinic next door.

Claiming they have a choice in who provides medical care to them is disingenuous when the vast majority of them don't have a fraction of the resources that Western women have. They don't have the time, the money or the options we do. Those lack of options go beyond simply which doctor to see. They might not have the option to refuse sex, or to demand that their partner uses birth control.

Canada has an opportunity to make a difference and we're pissing it away because the Conservative Party of Canada sees this as an chance to shore up support among social reactionaries.

[mallt.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[mallt.livejournal.com]

It wasn't a single statement but the impression I gained from all of the responses you have made.

in that case

[wild-wanderer.livejournal.com]

While there are many things I do not like with the government including some of the laws, I accept them, as I live in this society. I pay my taxes and I vote. This means I have a right to a say, even if it is different than the majority. This also means that I accept that certain aspects of my tax dollar go where I do not want them to. I however also reap rewards from other peoples tax dollars that I am sure they would prefer I didn't.

I accept all that. What you are asking for is a double standard. You want me to accept that but are not willing in turn to accept. Our government has made a decision. If it is against your beliefs, then you have the ability to voice your opinion (most strongly at the election). If they are re-elected then the majority voted against you.

In your own words "tough! There are lots of people in your position, I stated that above.

As James' quote so elegantly put it, that's the price you pay for living in a civilized society"

whats good for the goose is good for the gander

Re: in that case

[mallt.livejournal.com]

Yes it is tough... who says I'm not willing to accept that?... I can still be appalled. About all I can do is write to my MP but I have accepted that there's very little I can do right now as the government has made its decision. If there is a party in the next election that supports my beliefs then I will vote for them, knowing that in Alberta the conservatives will win anyway & it'll probably make no difference to the big picture.

"whats good for the goose is good for the gander"
I don't believe I ever stated anything contrary to this.

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.