-
Not surprisingly, and nevertheless unwelcomely, the Bush administration yesterday officially issued a rule barring clinics and hospitals that receive federal funding from refusing to hire medical staff who say they won't participate in procedures because of their moral or religious convictions. This is a bad and confusing idea; it takes a step down the path to nurses and druggists deciding whether you get the morning-after pill on the day you want it. Dahlia has pointed out the contradictions and hypocrisies here: The Bush administration is evincing much concern for the morals of pro-life health care workers even as it dictates a script of contested and medically inaccurate information for abortion providers. Obama will surely revoke this rule, but he can't do it with a quick stroke of the pen. In the meantime, let's at least refrain from calling this "the conscience rule," as the administration urges. It's really a rule about why your conscience is better than my conscience.
-
Planned Parenthood has an alternative for Indiana shoppers who were uninspired by this year's exceptionally bleak and cheerless Black Friday. Instead of stocking stuffers, residents of the Midwestern state can instead give their loved ones gift certificates in increments of $25 that can be credited toward any of the organization's services and products from birth control to abortions.
According to Chrystal Struben-Hall, VP of Planned Parenthood in Indiana, the gift certificate campaign will provide options to women who, in light of winter expenses and the economic climate, may have shunted health care costs to the bottom of their priority lists.
Struben-Hall maintains that the certificates aren't specifically intended to dissuade the cost of abortion, but critics of the program have objected to the lack of an official restriction preventing this. I have less of a problem here. In theory, the financial empowerment of women to take advantage of their right to use contraception or abort seems like a good idea to me. And while the organization would certainly take a financial hit if the demand for abortions and birth control slumps along with the economy, Planned Parenthood's marketing scheme seems motivated more by genuine concern than capitalism. Struben-Hall's point about women's health care sinking in priority during economic hard times is a valid one. And if women feel financially pressured to cut corners on birth control or regular pap smears, this could lead to life consequences for them that persist even after the recession subsides.
In practice, however, I can't imagine a scenario in which the presentation of a $50 gift certificate to Planned Parenthood would be either desirable or appropriate. Which market is Planned Parenthood targeting here--the boyfriend-husbands? The parents? Forget the holiday sweater that's worn once out of sheer politeness; these certificates--be they for morning-after pills or pelvic exams--take the reception of unwanted Christmas gifts to new levels of awkward, potentially encroaching upon more than a woman's fashion sense. At best, the certificates may be considered an unsolicited bodily imposition. At worst, they could be (and have been) misinterpreted as commercializing some extremely personal choices that have already received an uncomfortable amount of criticism this year.
-
XX Factor contributors Emily Bazelon and Melinda Henneberger appear on Bloggingheads.tv today to discuss all things Obama and Hillary and also talk a little about abortion.
In this first clip, Emily and Melinda talk about whether Hillary might be too much of a neocon to be President Obama's secretary of state, and how unfortunate it would be if Bill Clinton's finances torpedoed his wife's shot at the job.
And here, Emily and Melinda discuss the seemingly outlandish claim that Catholic hospitals would be forced to shut down under Obama, if the Freedom of Choice Act passes. But Melinda's done some digging, and the act could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. And she says that church leaders could decide to shutter the hospitals rather than sell them.
-
I'm a pregnancy cliché, much of the time. Weepy one moment (hello, Obama-mercial), enraged the next (did you forget to buy milk!?). Most of the time I can ignore the emotional lability or laugh about it. But sometimes that righteous ire is for good reason. The obscene amount of unsolicited advice one receives, for example—all aimed at some kind of collective fetus care that totally eclipses the rights of an individual. (The other day a complete stranger reminded me I shouldn't take "hot baths" lest I hurt my child. Thank you!) But much more importantly: the legistlative means states have taken to ensure fetal rights.
Last night I received a new short video produced by the National Advocates for Pregnant Women that narrates the full impact the various fetal rights initiatives on ballots next week will have if they pass (it's six minutes but it's at minute one that the really intense bits creep in, after the pitch to vote "no"). Colorado has Prop 48, a definition of personhood amendment (McCain has come out in favor of it), which would define life—and, most importantly, human rights—as beginning at the moment of conception. South Dakota has measure 11, mostly banning abortion. Normally these measures are seen as simply means of chipping away at abortion rights, and it's true that's part of their intended impact. In the video Lynn Paltrow, executive director at the NAPW, explains how these amendments end up compromising the bodily integrity of all pregnant women.
NAPW is part of a grassroots movement of women from both sides of the abortion debate who are arguing for the rights of pregnant women not to be ignored or overtaken by fetal rights—something that sounds inherently intuitive but is, in many states, painfully most definitely not. In a letter to the editor of the New York Times two weeks ago, Paltrow explained that "Such measures are used to control, and sometimes punish, women who do not want unnecessary Caesarean surgery; who want to have vaginal births after previous Caesarean surgery; women who love their children but can't necessarily overcome a drug or alcohol problem in the short term of a pregnancy; and women who suffer unintentional stillbirths."
In the video, vignettes give anecdotes about the consequences of these legislative interventions: like the case of Amber Marlowe who, in 2004, discovered Pennsylvania had the right to represent the right of her fetus when her hospital, determining the baby would be too large to deliver vaginally, got a court injunction that superseded Amber's rights for the child, forcing legal, surgical intervention. Amber fled the scene and delivered without complication elsewhere. Laura Pemberton, in Florida, was arrested, put in handcuffs, and forced to have a ceasearan. Both women consider themselves pro-life and both were caught in the peculiar dragnet of fetal rights.
-
Sarah Palin striking out on Supreme Court cases she doesn't like, other than the old faithful Roe v. Wade, is painful television. Joe Biden's answers to the same set of questions from Katie Couric seemed odd for a different reason. Biden said he supports Roe, “Because I think it’s as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours.” Call Roe brave if you want, call it essential for women, call it a victory for equal rights—but a consensus? Given how divisive abortion politics have proved to be, that seems like wishful bordering on magical thinking. Biden defends the trimester-by-trimester structure of Roe, pointing out that it allows for progressively more government regulation. And he ends on, "not consensus, but as close as it's going to get." That's a little better, I guess.
I give Biden points for panning the Supreme Court's 2000 decision to strike down part of the Violence Against Women Act. Biden acknowledges that he wrote the law and had a personal interest in the ruling. It does stand as an unfortunate high water mark of the court's federalist revolt. Which has since lost its moxie.
-
What I'm stuck on is that image of Bristol Palin and her betrothed holding hands up on stage last night, along with the rest of her family, as the party of Bill Bennett and the Family Research Council applauded. It isn't that I think she should have been locked in a closet somewhere, or shipped off for a "year abroad'' in nearby Russia. But when my best friend got pregnant in high school in the conservative town of 8,000 where we grew up, I do not remember anybody throwing her a parade; nope, pretty sure that did not happen. (I also don't remember anybody thinking that our mayor was qualified to be president, but that might be my small-town humility talkin'.) So, is the takeaway that the Republican Party is getting more tolerant, or that, as Hanna says, the only thing that matters is that she's carrying the child to term? Maybe, but when I try to imagine an Obama (or any Democrat's) daughter up there in a similar situation, my guess is no; if that happened, wouldn't we be hearing about how that's what liberal permissiveness and Hollywood and rap music and Bill Clinton hath wrought?
-
Maureen, I suppose whether or not you find the Republican stance on abortion hypocritical depends on point of view. From a pro-choice perspective, yes, a commitment to banning abortion is government intrusion on a woman's body. If you look at it from the perspective of the unborn child, the platform stance is an attempt to recognize the sanctity of life for everyone, born or unborn.
Republicans, as a party, are not trying to ban birth control. (Yeah, I know there are some extremists out there. I don't like ‘em, either.) And I will defend to the death a woman's right not to have sex. But biology sucks. Blame God if you're religious; otherwise blame Mother Nature or evolution. Women have babies. Men don't. We trash our girlish figures and lose hours of sleep on those 2 a.m. feedings. It's not fair. Aside from birth control and abortion, there's no getting around it. Birth control prevents the creation of a life, but if you're pro-life, you believe that abortion ends one.
When Republicans say they don't want government intruding in their lives, it's because we trust people to make decisions that are sound for them, we trust people to take care of themselves. But when you're pregnant, you're not making decisions just for yourself. You're making them for another person. And believe me, I don't buy the load of crap that South Dakota is selling, that a woman who gets an abortion is terminating a "whole, separate, unique, living human being." No other "unique" person has ever made my back ache or caused my ankles to swell to elephantine proportions. At the same time, that "clump of cells" isn't going to turn into a watermelon, or a puppy, or a ficus tree. It's a human being.
Almost everyone, regardless of ideology, accepts some form of government regulation in their lives, largely in the name of protecting us. We accept speed limits and drunk-driving laws to keep us safe on the roads; we trust building codes to keep us safe in our homes and public places; etc. If, at the end of the day, a platform that respects the life of the unborn still represents a hypocrisy, well, then call me a hypocrite. It's a charge I can live with.
-
Rachael,
Thank you for the moving story about your origins. Your parents rock! I just want to point out, though, that when your mothers' relatives were trying to coerce your mother into an abortion, they were trying to overrule her choice. Outlawing abortion is similarly coercive, since it forces a woman to carry to term, whether she wants to or not. Either one is the opposite of choice.
In unrelated news, when I broke things off with a woman I was dating last year—the first woman I'd mentioned to my family after I left my partner of 19 years—my father was very disappointed. He had metastatic cancer and wanted to see me settled with someone before he died. (Sorry, dad.) But he took a deep breath and said, "Well, just because you're pregnant doesn't mean you have to get married."
The joke was on him. I'm pretty sure I'm too old to get pregnant.
EJ
-
Dahlia, when you're right, you're right; just walking around with a uterus is enough to get you committed in the court of public opinion, so why perpetuate the whole woman-scorned stereotype with self-destructive, Bat-lady behavior? Yes, rage is its own (and only) reward. But Medea never gets a night off; crazy is a full-time job.
I do not agree, however, that "a vote for McCain is a vote to overturn Roe.'' Or assume, as you say you do, that the Hillary Holdouts "don't care'' if Roe is overturned. Of course they worry about that possibility—and in the end will probably be frightened into returning to the Democratic fold on that basis. But though an entire industry exists to argue otherwise, to keep us afraid and divided and donating, Roe is not going to be overturned. And putting all our energy into either warding off that constant threat or keeping alive that constant hope is not just fighting the last war; it's fighting a phony war, one that continues to distract and drain us but effectively became theater a long, long time ago.
Case in point: In Evansville, Ind., where my parents live, there have been banner headlines this week about the latest local abortion fight—in a county where (in theory, anyway) no abortions are performed. Under cover of darkness, i.e., without any public input, the Vanderburgh County Commissioners passed an ordinance that would force abortion providers, if there were any, to have hospital-admitting privileges in case something went wrong and to give patients info about where to get follow-up care in case of complications. Indiana Planned Parenthood strongly protested and put out this statement: "No abortions are performed in Vanderburgh County. There are no facilities and there are no providers ... it appears as if the commissioners took action to fix a problem that does not exist ... This type of regulation does nothing to improve health care in our state. It just further restricts a woman's ability to make decisions about her own future.'' An editorial in today's Evansville Courier & Press suggested that the real goal was purely political; one of the Republican commissioners, who is up for re-election, was trying to look like a hero to his peeps in his race against a pro-life Democrat.
On the national level, do you think John McCain meant it back in 1999 when he said he wouldn't bother trying to overturn Roe? ("In the short term, or even the long term,'' he said then, "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.") Or does he mean it when he says now that overturning Roe will be a priority in a McCain White House? The moment I wrote about last week, describing McCain in the fall of 2000 looking out the window in embarrassment as Lindsey Graham and I got into a whole big discussion about when life begins, convinced me that he would rather eat worms than hear the word abortion. Bush v. Gore made plain that the Supreme Court IS a political body, and politically, the Republican Party has no, I repeat, no interest in overturning Roe.
The perceived enemy of choice has changed, too, when a lot of you either weren't looking or didn't want to see: Even many self-described pro-lifers—and that term means different things to different people, believe me—have shifted the focus away from changing the law to changing the moral consensus and addressing material needs. When the conservative but pro-Obama jurist Doug Kmiec says that "merely reversing a single court decision such as Roe ... as best I can tell, would directly save no unborn life,'' he speaks for a lot of us who see the conversation we've been stuck having as an incredibly narrow way to look at "life issues.''
I think we can probably agree that criminalizing abortion would not stop it but would radically alter the political terrain to the benefit of the, to my mind, often anti-life GOP. And as a Colorado pro-life Democrat named Chris Rose told me for my book on women voters, the Republican Party can't end abortion: "Ending abortion isn't something they know how to do, because that would require an enormous change in our country and in our government,'' including programs to help women provide for their children and avoid unwanted pregnancies. "If you believe government can't do anything right, then you can't end abortion.''
So Hillary fans: It's your party, you can cry if you want to. But don't cry to me if, for thousands of reasons other than Roe, the result is not quite as satisfying as you'd hoped. For the lady in the attic, there is never a happy ending.
-
Most of the time, the Constitution doesn't let employers refuse to hire people on the basis of religious conviction. This has the comforting ring of a bedrock American freedom. But lately, it's being manipulated. First by pharmacists who say they refuse to dispense emergency contraception on the basis of their religous beliefs. And now by the Bush administration, which this week ordered family-planning clinics who receive federal grants not to refuse to hire nurses and other medical staff who object to abortion "based on religious beliefs or moral convictions." And not just surgical abortion, but “any of the various procedures—including the prescription, dispensing, and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
There's some serious accordionlike expansion of categories going on here—from objecting to abortion based not only on a religious belief but on a presumably secular moral one. And from D and Cs to emergency contraception. Worse, however, is the way in which the administration's directive feeds into the conflation of religious freedom with the idea that people have a right to a job even if their religious beliefs mean they can't do it. What does a nurse who objects to abortion do in a family-planning clinic? Sit out the procedures she was hired to help with? Hang protesting posters in the waiting room? I don't get it.
There have always been exceptions to the idea that employers can't discriminate. If you need to be Christian or Jewish or Muslim to fill out the four corners of a job description, then you can be denied the position if you're not. Example: An evangelical college can interview only Christians for the post of president. A synagogue can hire only Jewish Hebrew-school teachers. This isn't discrimination, in any legally recognizable sense of the word. Here's the family-planning parallel: If you are a nurse who feels she can't assist at an abortion or give a patient the emergency contraception the doctor prescribed, it doesn't matter whether your refusal is for religious or moral reasons or because you're not in the mood. You can't do the job. Maybe the Bush directive allows for this, in the sense that it's only protecting job candidates who could object to abortion and do the work that's required anyway. They also presumably wouldn't hang graphic posters of fetuses in the waiting room. I hope that's the right interpretation, anyway.
-
Rachael,
All right, you caught me on my own overheated rhetoric (see what I get for posting at 6 p.m. on the Friday before a holiday weekend? I had a great time at Boston's beautiful fireworks, by the way—hope you had a fab weekend too!). No, I do not believe that being willing to perform abortions should be a requirement for getting and keeping a medical license. However, polls show that for the past decades, upward of 80 percent of Americans believe that abortion procedures should be legal at least in some circumstances. Presumably, then, that's also true of upward of 80 percent of physicians.
So, why aren't life-saving abortion procedures taught in medical schools' ordinary ob-gyn classes? Why don't 80 percent of women's ob-gyn practitioners offer the procedure, at least sometimes? Why must the procedure be ghettoized in special clinics, performed by only the few who are willing to risk their lives to save women from having their uteruses pierced by coat hangers, protected by extreme security procedures?
Because performing abortions at all—in any circumstances—brings in credible death threats, murder attempts, and sometimes murder. The 20 percent (or fewer) of Americans who believe it should never be legal to free a woman of an unwanted pregnancy—even if doing so would save her life—have scared the rest. That's what I mean by the overheated rhetoric. I should have added "and homicide."
EJ
-
EJ,
I hope you had a great holiday weekend. I don't want to wade into general disagreement territory, either—I suppose most of us have our heels dug in deeply enough that we're not going to change one another's minds. But I wanted to address a few points that you made.
If indeed the "harsh rhetoric" has made abortion less accessible, isn't that a reflection of the unease that a large segment of the population has with the legality of abortion? Just because it's legal doesn't mean that we pro-lifers are going to sit quietly on the sidelines. And, no, just to be extra-super clear, I'm not condoning murderous scare tactics like clinic bombings. But speaking out against abortion, protesting outside clinics, and voting for pro-life candidates are fair and legal ways for pro-lifers to express our belief that abortion shouldn't be legal. It's not a perfect analogy, but death-penalty opponents haven't been quieted by court rulings that uphold the legality of executions, and indeed their protests and agitation have led to more humane executions and more challenges to the death penalty.
You ask, "Why doesn't every ob-gyn offer this surgery?" You wouldn't compel doctors to perform abortions, would you? Even I don't like the South Dakota law that forces doctors to say things they don't believe. It would be far more troubling to force doctors to perform a surgery that violates their own moral code or, in their eyes, the Hippocratic oath (which originally mentioned abortion). How many wonderful doctors would we lose because pro-lifers wouldn't go into the specialty? And what about doctors who are pro-choice but uncomfortable actually doing the deed? What an incredible internal conflict! A doctor could spend most of her day working to bring healthy children into the world and then spend another fraction of it doing the opposite. How do you walk into one exam room and tell a woman that, despite years of trying, she won't be able to have children of her own and then walk into the next room and tell someone else that you'll terminate her unintended pregnancy? Surely there are some doctors who see only the woman as their patient and can make that separation, but there have to be some who see the woman and her child as patients.
-
This abortion ruling strikes me as a lot like the religious culture-war debates, where we spend a lot of time fighting about symbolics and very little about things that matter (a creche vs. faith based funding, abortion language vs. actual access) The language suggested by the South Dakota law seems wholly beside the point. For one thing, sonograms make it obsolete. By now, women requesting an abortion usually have to undergo a sonogram to make sure there is a heartbeat, etc. If that doesn't shove in your face the reality of what you're doing, I'm not sure what will. For another, this is yet another case of a liberal straw (wo)man that hasn't existed for at least 10 years, if it ever did. Things have changed a lot since the "My Body, My Choice" protest days. In the literature, in the movies, on TV, there hasn't been a portrayal of a woman casually undergoing an abortion since, since ... Murphy Brown? No wait, she was an unwed mother. Even she didn't get an abortion. ... In fact, I don't know if there ever was one. And it's been a few years since even Naomi Wolf occupied middle ground. What woman desperate for an abortion will bother reading the fine print? And if she does, what will she feel more than the pang that was already there?
-
As if Emily's article hadn't left me appalled enough about South Dakota's Orwellian new abortion "disclosure" law, I actually clicked over to read the 8th Circuit's appalling decision. Fortunately, no one else was in the office—everyone's sensibly headed out for the Fourth of July holiday—so they couldn't hear the astonished and foul language erupting from my corner.
Let me add some thoughts to what Dana has been saying. First, I have trouble believing that any female in the country has failed to think about what's happening in her tummy (to use the technical term) when she's pregnant. I remember imagining it when I was in grade school, putting my hands on my tummy just like my mother did, and thinking about something growing in there. Maybe I was an unusually imaginative child, but every girl knows the story: that collection of rapidly dividing cells could become a human being if not stopped. That's the whole point of getting an abortion: to prevent that cluster of cells from becoming an actual person who is your responsibility. It is insanely paternalistic to suggest that girls and women haven't considered what they are doing—especially, as Dana suggests, if they must make the 350 mile drive to the clinic.
Second point: that 350-mile drive. Rachael, to me, the point of noting that distance isn't to decide whether or not this dearth of full ob/gyn health clinics in the state is an evil conspiracy, or a consequence of the harsh anti-abortion policies and rhetoric of the past 30 years, or just a neutral fact. The point is that a lot of thought and planning goes into making that trip, and into pulling together the gas money and funds to pay for the procedure.
Third point: To force doctors to mouth nonsense language that they flatly can't believe about a blastocyst being a human being, or about unlikely and unproven possible consequences—well, I don't think I can finish that sentence. It's appalling. The very fact that the law must mandate such statements reminds you that there is a furious national debate over precisely this question. Which tells you outright that the 8th Circuit was on crack when it said there isn't a free speech issue here: The government is forcing doctors to mouth political beliefs that they do not agree with. What's worse is that the 8th Circuit says that a court shouldn't easily overrule duly elected representatives. Well, yes—except when the government is trying to violate an individual's basic rights. As it is trying to do here. Isn't that why we have a Bill of Rights and constitutional review: to protect the individual from the overreaching state?
Fourth, the dearth of abortion services IS a consequence of the harsh rhetoric, et al., of the past 30 years. Why doesn't every ob/gyn offer this surgery? Wouldn't they all, if they'd seen the deaths and maimings of women that came before Roe, and could see that legal, medically supervised abortion is a lifesaving procedure? Yes, I am writing this even though, for decades, I have had zero risk of accidental pregnancy. (It always used to be fun to answer a new doctor's or nurse's questions: "Are you sexually active?" Yes. "What contraception method do you use?" None. Their doubletakes were very amusing.) But I have friends, sisters, cousins who need to control their own sexuality and fertility. And I care about women being able to have a say about what happens inside their own organs.
I realize that I am aiming now into basic disagreement territory, so I will stop. Besides, it's time to start celebrating the July 4th weekend.
-
Dana,
Even though we sit on opposite sides of the abortion debate, I am also uneasy with South Dakota's law compelling abortion doctors to tell women that they are terminating the "the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." There are a million and one better ways to reduce the number of abortions, from better sex education and better access to birth control to charities who work tirelessly to support women who choose to keep their child or keep the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption. And while I do think pre-operative counseling for women seeking abortion is beneficial and would support laws mandating such counseling (it seems like some in the pro-choice movement are acknowledging the emotional and psychological difficulties that some women who choose abortion face, as there are pro-choice groups springing up that offer counseling to women post-abortion), this particular law seems unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
But I'd like to address another part of your original post. The fact that there is only one abortion clinic in South Dakota is not that remarkable and I'm guessing has little to do with the state's abortion laws. South Dakota's population hovers below 800,000. North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming—states with similarly huge square mileage and tiny populations—also have a single abortion clinic each, at least according to Abortion.com. For the Dakotas, at least, it's been that way since the late 1980s. Such a lack of services isn't limited to abortion providers. Any kind of medical specialist could be a half-day's drive away, depending on where you live. An ob-gyn can be an hour or more away. You might find the dearth of abortion providers unfortunate, but it's not a conspiracy.
-
But the point, Melinda, of my hypothetical story about the pregnant woman in South Dakota is that neither she nor her doctors necessarily hold the belief that abortion is the taking of a life. The doctors who require her to sign aren't "pointing out" that there's "a person in there" (or "a human being," in the carefully parsed words of the bill). They're being compelled by the state to go through the motions of simulating that belief, which, I'm sorry, is a Stalinesque absurdity that serves no purpose I can see besides terrorizing that individual patient and driving a wedge into Roe v. Wade nationwide. Doctors in South Dakota, or anywhere else, who are morally opposed to abortion have an option: They can work in a practice that doesn't offer the procedure. In fact, that's what the vast majority of women's health practitioners in South Dakota already do. But for women seeking what is still, whatever one's personal beliefs about it, a legal medical procedure, the options in South Dakota (and if copycat legislation has its way, elsewhere as well) are rapidly narrowing.
-
Actually, Dana, I am a big fan of moral bullying, and wish it had been more effectively used to keep us out of Iraq. I'm hopeful that eventually, through better moral bullying, we will join other civilized nations in outlawing capital punishment. And it is only by building a moral consensus - bullying, if you prefer - that we'll ever see a real reduction in the number of abortions performed in this country every year. I'm not so sure I approve of the particulars of the law Emily wrote about; if the evidence is iffy on whether having an abortion is any more likely to lead to depression than giving birth is, for example, then doctors obviously shouldn't pretend otherwise. But as to whether they are being "forced to lie'' when they point out that there's a person in there, we will never agree. I get that if you don't see an abortion as the taking of a life, you'll see this exercise as offensive. But if you did see it that way, why would you blanch? (You'd still expect doctors to behave with compassion -- and if these are the same doctors who perform abortions, why wouldn't they?) But why would people who sincerely feel lives are at stake think, "Darn, I'd like a shot at saving those lives, if only I didn't have to go so far as to make women read a piece of paper and then sign it; that I will not do!'
-
Emily’s piece about the new abortion bill set to go into effect in South Dakota has me madder and sadder than anything I’ve read in some time. (Actually, the last thing that got me into this state was also in Slate: In Steven Greenhouse’s story about the scarcity of vacation time in America, he mentions that the United States is one of four countries in the world without required paid maternity leave. The other three are Swaziland, Liberia, and Papua New Guinea.)
But back to South Dakota. Imagine you live there—in Rapid City, say—and you want an abortion. Who knows why? Maybe you’ve been raped; maybe you’re in an abusive relationship with a partner on whom you’re financially dependent; maybe you’re only 15. Or maybe, for reasons that are nobody’s business, you just really don’t want to have a baby right now. The point is, you need, with some urgency, to schedule a medical procedure that’s been legal in this country for 35 years.
So you get in your car, if you’re lucky enough to have one, and drive 350 miles to Sioux Falls, where the state’s lone abortion clinic is located (let me repeat that: a state with an area of 77,121 square miles has only one clinic that will perform abortions). How you get time off work to make this six-hour-each-way drive, what you tell your family about where you’re going, or how you get past the protesters screaming outside the clinic is not my concern here. No, I’m thinking of the moment when, filling out the paperwork for a procedure that (like many medical events in life) may already have you ambivalent, worried, and scared, you’re asked to sign a statement attesting that what you’re about to do will “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” To translate: We’ll help you terminate that pregnancy right away, little lady—as soon as you admit in writing that you’re a murderer.
The trauma induced by this forced confession probably will scare a few women out of the clinic (hell, all it took for Juno was an ugly waiting room), and thus slightly increase the population of South Dakota. But it seems incredible that the state legislature, with its Justice Kennedy-inspired concern for the “depression” and “increased suicidal ideation” that abortion supposedly brings about, haven’t considered the harm that might come as a result of being forced to sign such a document (in the presence of a doctor who, as Emily points out, is also being legally compelled to lie about his or her beliefs). I’d hope that even those opposed to abortion, whether for themselves or as a matter of public policy, would blanch at the idea of such state-sponsored moral bullying.
-
I'm saying, Emily, that it's not acceptable, much less a Fast Pass, to question feminist dogma on choice within the ranks of "mainstream media"—though I'm sure there are no shortage of book contracts to be had at Regnery. Until the Times hired Bill Kristol, weren't such voices almost exclusively consigned to conservative outlets? Maybe you're thinking, "Sure, isn't that where they're supposed to be?' (And maybe you're not, though ah, how much easier to win arguments with myself; I also enjoy solitaire Scrabble.) But it does seem to me that that is the one issue on which there is little to no diversity of opinion at news organizations that otherwise try to present all sides.
-
Emily: Ha! Here's a question in answer to your question about whether women who take on feminist orthodoxy are making a wily career move: How many pro-life female journalists do you know?