I try not to explore issues that are too controversial on this blog because I don't want to alienate readers and I want a broad spectrum of views to be represented on this site. Which is why I'm always asking (although not many people respond) for guest posts. I am genuinely interested in what everyone has to say, whether I agree with it or not.
I've done a pretty good job of sticking to this rule with the exception of posts dealing with issues around marriage equality, since they affect me and my family directly. But every now and then something gets to me and I just have to stir things up.
Which brings me to (among other things) the abortion and contraception debates currently taking over our politics. Dum-dum-DUM.
A number of state-level legislative attempts that constitute back-door attacks on reproductive rights have grabbed headlines lately and have provided the presidential candidates with tons of material for debates. For example, in Virginia a "personhood" law, which would have provided legal rights to embryos at conception, was shelved for future consideration after it met with significant resistance because there may be "unintended consequences." (See this article for more details.)
Also in Virginia, a bill recently passed in the House of Delegates that would require women seeking abortions to have access to images of the unborn fetus prior to undergoing the procedure. This in most cases, would require an incredibly invasive transvaginal ultrasound due to the early stage of pregnancy in which the procedure would occur. You can read more here.
But conservative advocates haven't just restricted their legislative efforts to abortion-related bills. Recently, President Obama's effort to require companies to provide free birth control to women came under fire. The ensuing debate on Capitol Hill looked something like this:
 |
| Photo from nydailynews.com |
That's right, folks, all those people arguing about and lobbying against and attacking issues that bear ONLY on women's reproductive liberty....were men.
What is wrong with this picture?!
Let me get this straight. The same lawmakers who want to make it more difficult for women to obtain abortions also want to make accessing birth control more difficult. How, exactly, does that make any sense at all?
Conservatives generally advocate for less government when it comes to public policy - less government support for poor people, less gun control, less bureaucracy, less government spending, you get the idea. But for some reason, when it comes to what goes on in people's bedrooms or in their doctor's offices, the government should barge right in and take over.
In what universe does this make sense?
The answer it - it doesn't.
Now, I should say that when I was younger, I classified myself as staunchly "pro-life." Over the years, however, as I grew up and matured and my thinking became more nuanced, I decided I was "pro-choice." This is not to say I am some kind of abortion advocate. I think it must be pretty terrible to go through that and it is a drastic decision. I do not believe abortion should be used as birth control....and in the majority of cases, I truly don't think that's what's going on.
And, becoming a parent has made it harder for me to think about abortion as just another medical procedure. I have seen Anna's ultrasound photos and in some of them she is unmistakably identifiable - her little expressions were developing even then. So I can't imagine ever doing that if I were to become pregnant, especially now that I am watching this wonderful little person grow and change right before my eyes.
But the reality is - I don't know what that's like until I've been there. And neither do you. Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is probably one of the most, if not the most, personal and difficult of decisions a woman can face. Choosing not to have a child by using birth control is also a private health care decision. And some people that don't even need birth control for its primary purpose (including me!) use it because it can be an effective treatment for certain health conditions.
Which is why, in either circumstance, the government should butt out.
There are so many factors that play into an individual's decision about having a baby or having an abortion. It's not like 99% of the people who choose to have an abortion get up one day and suddenly decide to do that like they decide what outfit to wear. No one person's situation is the same as any others'. So why should there be a one-size-fits-all governmental or insurance company solution?
Personally, I sometimes take offense at the "pro-life" moniker. It implies that those who support abortion rights are somehow "pro-death." Well guess what - I'm not. I'm no fan of abortion. I'm simply pro-freedom for women as they make this most private of decisions. It is not the government's place to continue intruding more and more deeply into people's private lives.
Similarly, it is not the insurance companies' place to essentially deny women access to medications they legitimately need by making them prohibitively expensive, while Viagra and other "non-essential" drugs men use are widely covered.
I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this in the coming weeks and months as bills like this surface in various states and the presidential candidates debate these issues yet again...when they should be concentrating on poverty, unemployment, access to healthcare. You know, those things that actually and significantly impact a large portion of our population.
I'm going to stand before the firing squad now - hit me. Where do you stand?
I have always been pro-baby! Not pro-life because I think those people are crazy, I am not pro-choice either, because those people can be just as crazy sometimes. I am pro allowing a healthy baby to be born. That being said, I also do not think these decisions should be left up to a bunch of stuffy old men. 11 years ago I got pregnant unexpectedly and was scared and unmarried and working as a waitress and really unsure what I would do. I had always been against abortion, but I remember having a thought during that time that if I had to I could get an abortion. Ultimately I made the best decision, I had my daughter and I have never regretted it once and I changed my entire life to make her life happy. Some women don't know that there are other options besides abortion, I think they should have the right to decide but should also know abortion is not the only answer.
ReplyDeleteThe whole birth control thing is just a bunch of cranky old conservatives who don't want to spend money on women. It's stupid and archaic and makes no sense that it all comes down to money. They want government control when they want it and when it suits their own selfish needs, and want the government to butt out when they don't.
I forgot to say that in addition to not allowing men to make this decision about abortion, I would never want anyone to feel shamed and useless, we are all capable of making good and bad choices and none of us has a right to judge another based on what we perceive to be a bad choice. I also think having abortions legal makes it less likely women will die. Women will continue to have abortions whether they are legal or not, and if you don't offer women help in any other way then they will get them illegally and that is dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you said that - that is one excellent point I forgot to discuss. Politicians can debate abortion rights all day long but in the end, no matter what the decision is, women will still find a way to have abortions - and the more desperate and/or poor they are, the more dangerous that gets. That reality needs to be acknowledged so it can be done safely.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of the same way I feel about teaching kids about condoms and other birth control - the argument is that if we make it available, that will encourage them to have sex. And I think that's stupid because they're already likely to have sex regardless of what they know or don't know about sex education and birth control, it's just that providing those things and teaching kids about them is going to keep them safer, healthier....and less likely to face the decision of whether to terminate an unintended pregnancy.
Thanks for starting our discussion, Brenda! It's true, people should know what all of their options are, and I think adoption is the best option. There are so many people who can't have children naturally and would be amazing parents - so giving a child that chance is an amazing thing. I wish everyone who didn't want to raise a child made that choice. But the reality is that they won't, and as long as people are informed, like you've said, they should be able to make that decision for themselves.
ReplyDeleteMy partner Heidi got pregnant at 15 and faced the same kind of panic, and had a moment of doubt deciding what to do. And we are all very thankful that she decided to keep and raise Kelsey. But hearing about what a hard thing it was for her affected my perspective and caused me to think really nobody else should make that decision. Everyone's circumstance is different.
You're so right about the conservative view on these issues - they want certain things one way (little to no government interference) and others another way (tremendous government interference). I think that is intellectually dishonest. I also read something ridiculous recently about a minister (I think) who said that Viagra should be covered because wives should submit to their husband's desires, but birth control should not be. What is this, the 1800s?
I have always been Pro Choice. When it comes to a woman's decision about her body and her well being, it is her choice, not the choice of the Government. There should be no laws dictating what a person can, or can't do with their own body. It's already sad enough that there are millions of children in this world that are unwanted and unloved who are shuffled through orphanages and foster care. A woman should be able to decide, and it should be a huge decision, as to whether or not she will possibly add to that number.
ReplyDeleteI am all for human rights!!! Rights for all humans, in my opinion, should begin when they have DNA which I believe is at conception. One of the arguments that I find so insensitive is, "it's my body." actually the baby is in your body but not your body. All children are precious and I would hate to see one of them harmed. Maybe I feel so strongly because I want a child so badly and know others who have chosen to have abortions. Also I work with people with disabilities and find it terrible that someone would make a judgement on who's life is valuable and who's isn't.
ReplyDeleteI am always hesitant about getting into this discussion, especially online. But I'm going to say something this time.
ReplyDeleteI've been really uncomfortable lately with all the old guys sitting around and making sweeping policy suggestions that will so directly affect women's abilities to manage their own families. My friend posted a link to a piece from Huffington Post last week that made me so upset I felt sick to my stomach: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/soraya-chemaly/womens-reproductive-rights_b_1345214.html
I've been in the position of struggling to have a child (and longing for
one). I've been a foster parent several times to children who were
bouncing around the system. I've dealt with a surprise pregnancy, also,
and then found out there were two babies and not just one. It doesn't
mean I know what anyone else is going through , but my own emotions
around these issues have been different at different times. I can
imagine it from different angles.
I hate the debate on abortion. I wish it wasn't necessary. I am completely pro-life, and I think life begins at conception, and I wish I could somehow personally ensure that every life that was conceived had the chance to grow, flourish, be nurtured, thrive, and experience the world for him or herself.
But am I comfortable with our government legislating that abortion should be made illegal?
No. I'm not, at all. And it's precisely for the types of reasons mentioned by the writer of that post I referenced. Right now, women are the ones who have to deal with the ramifications of these choices, and so we are the ones who can make these choices. They are not easy choices, and they are extremely personal choices. The men making these decisions at the governmental level have NOT imagined what it might be like to be in these situations. They are too busy trying to create a world in which women do not have options, do not have choices, do not have access to resources to help them chart their own course.
If we want abortion to go away, how exactly does it make ANY sense to restrict women's access to birth control? And what company thinks it costs more to provide contraception than it does to cover health care costs for a child and his or her mother (prenatally, at birth, and beyond)?
These are decisions that people, that families, that WOMEN, should be making for themselves.It seems like we are opening a really dangerous door here...we are heading down a path into government having the final say about all kinds of very private issues - and government has no business being involved there. You're completely right, Courtney- it's dishonest. And it's wrong.
i agree with brenda. i am pro baby. there are definitely other ways to handle an unwanted pregnancy besides abortion, but unfortunatley some of those include far worse situations than the abortion itself. sure a number find good homes and loving secondary families to nurture them...... but my fear is this........ IF we take away a womans right to decide...... we will see far more healthy term infants left in tash cans, dumpsters and mutilated and abused by parents who do not want them and are too ignorant to use the system appropriately. sure you can foster them, but even they are abused at times by the people that are hired and paid to take care of them. i dont know........first the government wants to make birth control more difficult to obtain and abortions more difficult to have. i think a mother should have the right to decide when it comes down to incest/health reasons and that it should not be used as a chronic form of birth control.
ReplyDeleteWow. Thank you for so eloquently discussing this issue. I don't like to get into it either very often - in fact, I started writing this post a few weeks ago and held onto it, not sure if I should publish it for fear of pissing people off. But I did it because I feel very strongly that these lawmakers have no idea what it is like to go through these things. Consider Rick Santorum's reported comment that a woman who has been raped and becomes pregnant should accept the child as a gift from God.
ReplyDeleteYes, children are gifts from God. But how in the world is it fair to expect a woman who has been violated and traumatized to see it that way in the aftermath of rape? Really.That is one of the most ignorant things I have heard in politics in a long time. And that's saying a lot.
I had thought perhaps the cost argument would be compelling for the fiscal conservatives - after all, as you point out, covering pregnancy, delivery and the next 18+ years is far more expensive than covering birth control.
Sigh. It's just SO personal that there is no magical government solution and you're right, this intrusion opens a very dangerous door. I really appreciate the people who can separate out the issues involved and say, "This is my personal view about something and I hold it very strongly, but I and my government should not decide how other people's lives should be run." Thanks for being one of those people - and for posting that link. I was blown away by that article.
It's what I wish people who oppose gay marriage could do: realize that they may not like, or may indeed hate the fact that I am committing my life to a woman, but they should not get to dictate what benefits I may or may not receive from the government based on their own personal or religious opposition.
Anyway - you said it better than I did in my post. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Exactly. Some kids born to moms who don't want them and aren't wise enough to choose adoption suffer horribly. Which is the greater harm?
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I think women should retain the right, but at the same time, perhaps abortions could be reduced if government practiced what it preached and helped reluctant moms. Yes, people should bear the consequences of their own actions, like choosing to have unprotected sex. But the fact is that some people in that situation simply are not equipped to be good parents and could benefit from government programs that help them acquire the tools to take care of their kids, whether in the form of financial help or parenting classes or whatever. And think of how the KIDS would benefit!
ReplyDeleteI am willing to bet there are women who feel forced to choose abortion because the circumstances of their lives - poverty, abuse, youth, etc. - make it feel impossible to raise a kid. If public policy favored empowering those women and supporting them when they make the "right" choice to go forward with the pregnancy, I bet there would be a decrease in abortions.
Yes, that is a terrible judgment to make. And I agree that all children are precious. I went from very pro-life to very pro-choice and now am kind of moving back to the middle of the spectrum again - having a child really affected my perspective. I have thought more than once, what if her biological mother chose not to have her? I would never have known the joy that is Anna and she is the center of my universe. That would have been unspeakably sad. So perhaps I am technically "pro-life" but also pro autonomy for women so they can be free from government intrusion.
ReplyDeleteWhere I have trouble conceptually is with rights for unborn children. I tend to think life begins at conception but have difficulty with the idea of human rights (that are equivalent to the rights of children who have been born) attaching to a fetus before viability. I also think there needs to be consideration of a woman's rights - you're right that the baby is in her body and not really just an extension of it. But there are myriad complicating factors in individual cases that could bear on the mother's health and I think some of the legislation devalues a woman's life and health in favor of the unborn child's, and I have difficulty with that too.
What are your thoughts on what services should be provided to young women, especially poor, single mothers or disabled moms, to support them when they do decide to go through with pregnancy? I am troubled by the vehemence of the anti-abortion movement, coupled with a disturbing lack of support from government when the women do make the "right" choice. I think it would curb abortion rates if women knew there was help available to them after the baby is born. What do you think?
It's not an easy issue to be sure and I'm really glad you shared your thoughts!
Sooo, let me first say that I have absolutely no problem
ReplyDeletewith women being on birth control - since I am an unmarried guy commenting I do
have to get that out there.
I work in the prescription benefit field and we have been
hit by this recently – and I just want to correct a few misconceptions about
what is going on. First of all, until
recently businesses did not have to cover health care at all; it was a benefit
which many businesses/unions etc. would negotiate on. The cost of that benefit is directly related
to what is covered. It was probably a
bit better understood how the benefit related to your salary – but we may have
forgotten that in the last few years. In
other words, there is X amount of money coming into the company and the more
the company spends on healthcare the less money we have to pay you. The good thing about going through the
company is that the healthcare is paid pre-tax, and often you can get it for
cheaper than buying as an individual. Sometimes a company would cover the whole
thing, sometimes it would be a split between the individual and the company
etc. Now that businesses have to cover health care the government can now tell
them what they must cover. Just as a side thought, covering birth control may be cheaper in the long run because there will
be less pregnancies which are very expensive.
On to the “prohibitive cost” of birth control: I work with a
female PharmD who is young, has 3 kids, and has absolutely no problem with people
being on birth control. When I mentioned
this to her a while back her response was that the whole thing is really not a
cost issue. She feels that most people
(over 90%) can be on a generic birth control that would cost under $25 a month
(the range is about $8- $25) without insurance. People are just misinformed. I’m not sure what drug stores you have near
you, but take Rite Aid for example – if you just get their free discount card,
they have a pretty extensive list of covered birth controls at about $20 a
month. It often happens that a doctor
will prescribe an expensive brand because a drug rep just paid for their lunch,
or perhaps they just don’t know that there are so many generic forms of birth
control available…and occasionally there is a real need to be on a brand drug, but for the most part there isn't.
Again, personally, I feel that women’s bodies are their own,
and certainly you should be able to do the thing that is best for your health
both physically and mentally…but it seems there is a bit of a church and state
question going on here. Does the state
have the right to tell a religious institution to do something that the institution
feels is against their laws/moral code?
While I have no problem with birth control, as I understand the Catholic
Church may deem it similar to a type of murder.
So can the US
government force them to do something which they feel indirectly supports
murder – which, again, is against their religious code of ethics.
This is probably why the panel is all men by the way. While I believe it is mostly the efforts of
the women that allow any religion to survive (something I have been taught
growing up), it is typically the men that have historically determined the
law. The ones sitting to the left are
all religious figures from one religion or another. A few to the right are doctors – so perhaps
it would make sense to have one or two of those to be women.
It took me being a pregnant teenager to become pro-choice. I kept my daughter and I'm grateful every day that I did. That said, I learned very quickly that the politicians opposed to abortion were the very same ones opposed to welfare and education programs for young and poor parents. I remember feeling damned if I did and damned if I didn't and it made me so angry and frustrated. Some people clearly had the attitude that I had made my bed (getting pregnant while young, poor and unmarried) and now I (and my child) would be forced to lie in it (i.e., a life of poverty).
ReplyDeleteI hate even the idea of abortion except in very limited circumstances. But I also hate hypocrisy and the idea that the government should be involved in private reproductive decisions. While I believe that abortion is a moral issue, I think women are fully capable of making our own moral choices. The idea that we should substitute government control for female autonomy is appalling to me, especially when the government isn't willing to step up to the plate and support women who want to keep their children.
As for the birth control issue, I have never understood how someone opposed to abortion could also be opposed to sex education and making contraception affordable and accessible to all. To me, that just smacks of men trying to control the sexual choices of women.
Hi Melissa-
ReplyDeleteI just saw this comment - and you've given me a lot of food for thought! So I'm going to take the time to carefully think through my reply, but I wanted to quickly say that I'm glad you mentioned all of those resources - I do think that if more women knew that help was out there and knew how to access it, more of them would choose to go forward with pregnancy.
And I also tend to agree that most people who make the choice to terminate a pregnancy probably aren't necessarily comfortable with it afterward. I can see how it would be haunting. Just like I don't think people should be forced to go through with pregnancy, I also don't think people should be forced to have abortions, so that is really sad and traumatic for your friend. It's wonderful, though, that she ultimately did get to be a parent and that she has the support and caring of good friends like you.
More on the rest soon! :)
Mike - thanks for providing the info about health benefits and how all of that works. It's a really interesting issue. And I certainly agree that covering birth control would save money in the long run because health care costs associated with pregnancy are huge - never mind the 18 years that follow!
ReplyDeleteAs for the church-state question, I think the answer is that if the Catholic Church wants to avail itself of the benefits of a certain legal status, it must accept the government directives that go along with it. If it were totally private, it probably would be free to make whatever policy decisions it wanted to, but if it's going to receive money and other benefits, it has to play by the rules.
That said, though, I am all for separation of church and state. That's why I think the religious arguments have no place in govt policymaking when it comes to abortion and gay rights, for example. I don't want churches to be forced to marry me and my partner (and the laws that allow for same-sex marriage do exempt churches because they deal with CIVIL marriage only) - but neither should they get to tell us what legal agreements we can and can't enter into - besides whatever religious importance it holds for some people, marriage is at its basest a legal contract. So I do think the intermingling of church and state is inappropriate.