"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"

Simply classic.

When the Anti-Choice Choose
By Joyce Arthur
Copyright © September, 2000

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/writing.html

also, Daily Kos and elsewhere

BTW, "Physician, Colorado"

"After explaining to her that I do not perform abortions for people who think I am a murderer or people who are angry at me, I declined to provide her with medical care. I do not know whether she found someone else to do her abortion."

is why health care providers should not judge. That doctor became anti-choice by refusing an anti-choicer service, as surely as a male Fundie pharmacist or MD refusing to serve women practicing choice. What if she later harmed herself or was forced to deliver? The patient's circumstances and politics are not the professional's business.

"A few doctors actually refuse to provide abortions to anti-choice women for liability reasons."

That and safety could be valid concerns, not politics or simple belligerence.

"At times, clinic staff understandably become frustrated and angry when they have to deal with abusive, hostile, or hypocritical patients. And it is rare for anti-choice women to express appreciation for the service they've received. But most clinics perform abortions on anti-abortion women because they feel it's their obligation to help all women. They provide more thorough and specialized counseling to these women to ensure they take ownership of their decision, as far as possible."

Precisely. It is an obligation. And such people with whom one cannot agree are precisely the ones who may need additional assistance like counseling. They cannot simply be judged.

"When a woman expands her need for care beyond herself, you no longer have an 'anti'."

Yes, one needs to drop the self-interest, and the privilege to get it. Many people (like the underprivileged, or who belong to cultures which value raising families) don't have the same choices or money (e.g., for the procedure and care) they do.

And this is surprising how? Plenty of anti-choicers have abortions. Bob Barr, one of the most virulently anti-choice fuckwads ever to serve in Congress, arranged for his second wife to have an abortion before he dumped her for wife #3. He admits to having paid for it, but allegedly drove her to the clinic.

"That doctor became anti-choice by refusing an anti-choicer service, as surely as a male Fundie pharmacist or MD refusing to serve women practicing choice. What if she later harmed herself or was forced to deliver? The patient's circumstances and politics are not the professional's business."

It is certainly the doctors' business if a would-be patient is deliberately causing trouble for either the staff or the other patients, or if they're insisting on special treatment and refusing to follow the clinic's procedures. If someone is maliciously disrupting a medical environment, then the doctors are within their rights to refuse service. They are not abortion-providing machines.

As for your implication that the doctors may have been condemning this woman to self-inflicted harm or forced birth, I call bullshit. The woman had the option of cooling off, returning to the clinic, apologizing, and politely agreeing to follow the clinic's proper procedures.

Yeah this is typical hypocrisy by the conservative right! A good analogy would be politicians who fight for harsh laws punishing non-violent drug users, but then when someone in their own family turns out to be an addict, they get sent to treatment, not jail.

The Big Three: "A woman may only be allowed an abortion if she is a) a rape victim, b) pregnant by incest, or c) in immediate danger of death."

The Other Big Three: "A woman may only be allowed an abortion if she is a) MY wife, b) MY daughter, or c) MY mistress."

"It is certainly the doctors' business if a would-be patient is deliberately causing trouble for either the staff or the other patients, or if they're insisting on special treatment and refusing to follow the clinic's procedures."

Yes, that's the safety and liability issue, which could be valid concerns.

"The woman had the option of cooling off, returning to the clinic, apologizing, and politely agreeing to follow the clinic's proper procedures."

I don't know what your background is, but you'd be surprised to see the kind of people health care professionals are OBLIGATED to serve. For example, we've got a woman who PUNCHES nurse's aides IN THEIR STOMACHS when they attempt care as innocuous as putting her in clean clothes (my internal voice upon hearing this yesterday was immediately, FUCKING A, what if the aides were pregnant?!). This woman is also physically combative with nurses, male and female, though I have never experienced her near daily episodes myself. My coworkers all call me fortunate.

We are NOT allowed to use restraints, physical or chemical. No wrist straps, no tranquilizers. We are certainly not allowed to abuse her in any way including psychologically or through neglect (i.e., leaving her alone because she can be so abusive). No, we treat her like anyone else, because it's our job, and she's a human being.

My hospital also serves criminal suspects and convicts in police custody, handcuffed and escorted at all times, no matter what their crime. In a community like mine, they've probably harmed someone we know. IPV, rape, murder. They still need to be patched up.

Perhaps you have a different view on what professional obligation means. I myself do not get criminal defense attorneys who defend known criminals.

Again, readers would prefer not to allow conservative or fundie physicians or pharmacists to have a choice about whom they serve, asserting, e.g., that they should get out of the profession if they cannot provide EC or abortion on demand. This professional obligation should extend both ways. Anti-choicers must serve pro-choice clients? Understandable. Then pro-choice professionals should serve anti-choice clients.

As can be seen in Arthur's findings, respectful, compassionate care can even result in people switching sides. Honey, flies, vinegar?

"Plenty of anti-choicers have abortions."

According to Joyce Arthur:

[start quote]

Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981 (1) found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally." A 1994/95 survey (2,3) of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians. Many of these women are likely anti-choice. The survey also showed that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic. (4)

[end quote]

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

It's hardly surprising. I believe it was pointing out the hypocrisy (or in the case of Arthur's writing, the simple ignorance) of the anti-choice crowd. Yes, there's nothing quite like being a part of an issue oneself to form an opinion, or to change one's mind.

“a study done in 1981 (1) found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement”

When I was 19 I found myself in a very vulnerable position, I was pregnant by my boyfriend of 3 years. I must say it was a very difficult decision for me; I struggled between it being immoral and unfair. Immoral if did or didn’t do it because if I had the abortion I would kill a potential human being, but if I didn’t I would bring the child into this world and I obviously didn’t have money, or the support to take care of it. What is morality really? Who defined this for us? Was it immoral to not have it or to let it live and not provide it the right tools for survival? Just so it can be one more tortured child in the system. Not only was this some ethical battle in my head but I had also previously believed that girls who got pregnant were so stupid. They didn’t use protection and were careless. And there I was a contradiction of my earlier “more moral” self. I chose to have the abortion. If I could go back and make that choice again, I would make the same one, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think about it every day. I would have had a 3 year old by now. It’s not something I regret just think about. Regardless of what anyone thinks I don’t think I was solely to blame for getting pregnant, I was on the pill and I was trying to prevent it from happening but it did. And frankly even if I wasn’t I STILL shouldn’t feel embarrassed or ashamed for getting pregnant because I DON’T get to control my fertility. It is like huger or thirst, something my body regulates on its own so when I got pregnant really had nothing to do with me or my morality, more with this body. Therefore because this body is mine and I am capable of higher thinking, I chose morally to not have it so that one day when I have the means to support a child I will.

Maybe if morality (cough cough religious right) wasn’t so black and white women wouldn’t have to feel ashamed and morally wrong for doing what was best for their bodies. Just because something is considered morally wrong by someone doesn’t mean it is wrong. I actually know two other women who consider themselves right wingers and both had abortions even though they are pro-life. Such a contradiction, like I was, maybe they’ll figure their way out of that moral/immoral struggle as well.

Absolutely, it's quite common for receivers of abortions to be anti-choice. A pamphlet I once read at an abortion clinic explained that some women feel such remorse about terminating a pregnancy that they convince themselves they shouldn't have been allowed to make such a terrible choice. From there, I guess, it's just a short step to making it one's mission to "protect" other women from making the same mistake.

And, of course, there's always the hypocritical logic of "it's not bad when I do it!"

I'm really conflicted about the physician's right to refuse to provide this service for someone who is anti-choice:

On the one hand fuck those guys. I mean seriously, there are just some people I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. Adults who protest abortion or womens health clinics with those gross photoshopped signs are among that group.

On the other hand if there is anything I can do to prevent those assholes from procreating then I kind of have to be all for it.

Your example of combative criminals is flawed, A male. Abortion is, in the cases outlined in the article, an elective procedure -- the would-be patients are not bound to get sick and/or die if they're not granted abortions.

Please note that most medical procedures don't require counseling beforehand. Abortion does, and part of the counselor's job is to determine whether the patient is psychologically able to handle getting one. If the counselor decides that the answer is no, are they being "anti-choice"? No, they're using their professional judgment.

I don't think that abortion providers should refuse service to all anti-choicers, LogrusZed -- that would cause more harm than good. But I think that clinic staff are perfectly within their rights to require patients to behave themselves and to follow all the mandatory preliminaries: medical history, blood tests, and counseling.

This isn't just a matter of maintaining a peaceful atmosphere in the clinic (though that's important for the psychological health of the other patients), nor even that the patient might try to sue later; someone who behaves irrationally about getting an abortion may put her own health at risk later:

"An anti-abortion woman is likely to be uncooperative and will probably not follow post-op instructions or instructions on how to deal with complications. There is actually a case where an anti-abortion patient failed to go as directed to Emergency for an unrelated complication. She ended up dying..."

Also, I'm not a doctor, but I really don't think it's a good idea to perform a medical procedure on someone with whom you're angry. If the person is going to die if you don't, fine, do what you gotta do... but if it's elective? Avoid it.

"On the one hand fuck those guys. I mean seriously, there are just some people I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire."

Think of this: you want a bigger anti-choice population?

"But I think that clinic staff are perfectly within their rights to require patients to behave themselves and to follow all the mandatory preliminaries: medical history, blood tests, and counseling."

You seem to favor precautions. Some people in favor of abortion on demand want the procedure to be as quick and barrier free (i.e., no counseling) as possible. The mind of the person practicing choice is made when they make the appointment and walk in the door.

Basically, any argument that can be used to refuse an anti-choicer service can be used against people who believe in choice. An anti-choice pharmacist or MD may find reason to disagree with *your* attitude or politics. I have seen what readers post about anti-choice pharmacists or MDs. It could be ugly. For example, telling them that they should get a new job if they are unwilling to provide the service.

So, it's ok to deny an anti-choice person service because abortion is an "elective procedure", eh? Well, right back at you. Yet Feministing readers are up in arms when they are forced to seek another provider who actually supports choice. That may involve crossing state lines, or driving for hours, or finding a hotel room to serve out a "waiting period."

"the would-be patients are not bound to get sick and/or die if they're not granted abortions."

Again, right back at you when you ask an anti-choice pharmacist or MD for EC or an abortion. They can claim you won't get sick or die to have a baby.

As much as the hypocrisy of an anti-choice activist getting an abortion and then going nack to the picket lines sickens me, I don't think a person's politics should be the basis of denying medical care. If a woman is deemed psychologically unfit to have an abortion, maybe. But b/c she thinks abortions are wrong? No.

As an aside, there are other medical procedures, such as cosmetic surgery or weight-loss surgery, that require prior counseling.

That's the point, Jessica F. In most surgical procedures (and all others I can imagine, as a nurse/former nursing student) informed consent is policy when doing something as innocuous as handing Tylenol to people with pain. [Prospective] clients are educated involving their situation and options, with diagnostic data such as an ultrasound or other imagery; and time permitting, a battery of tests may (should) be performed. Forms must be signed declaring the client/representative understands their procedure, possible outcomes including the negative, and their available options and rights; and the professional should be confident they really do understand before proceeding. Even if the O.R. is waiting, if the patient indicates they don't understand something, I am obligated to put a halt on everything and physically get the doctor in to explain it to them.

I AM in favor of abortion on demand. However, some advocates of abortion appear to support removing any barriers to performing the procedure, such as a wait, or counseling (including being informed of rare but possible after effects or risks) or the woman being shown an ultrasound, on the grounds that it may influence their decision to have the abortion (not to mention DELIBERATE, concerted efforts to block abortion like informing schools and parents). Some want to remove the element of another human being in the process, making it an at home process with an over the counter medication. Some people want nothing to stop a woman from having an abortion, because their decision over their health and body is all that matters.

Fine. But that choice should be open to all. It was awfully nice of the source and the reporter to release that private medical information, and for media to spread it around. Perhaps you would not want your sexual status or medical information (indeed any private info you do not already share here) released to the public by people who do not agree with your politics in an attempt to shame or discredit you, as it might affect how you live. The Joyce Arthur article illustrates how anti-choicers, like other women, may fear seeking safe, legal, accessible abortions, with the same pressures other women face. And the addition of possibly lacking emotional support from those around them, and certainly carrying the additional baggage of being taught "Abortion is murder" or that they are murderers (and sluts).

Some women might react or behave poorly under these conditions, but they are seeking the service, nonetheless and expect to get it. An extra effort may be needed to serve them on the part of the providers, including an extra thick skin.

"The Other Big Three: "A woman may only be allowed an abortion if she is a) MY wife, b) MY daughter, or c) MY mistress."

You've hit the nail on the head. The flip side of the coin is the pro-life husband, father, cheating husband making the wife, daughter, mistress go through with a pregnancy SHE doesn't want because HE thinks he should have the final say on what she does with her body. Than of course, an abortion would be immoral in his view. The hypocrisy of pro-life conservative men just astounds me.

"an anti-choice pharmacist or MD... can claim you won't get sick or die to have a baby."

And they'd be wrong. Pregnancy and childbirth are more dangerous than contraception or abortion. You know this yourself, so stop playing games.

"You seem to favor precautions."

Gee, what was your first clue? That pretty much all of my arguments come from this position? If your primary focus had been on listening and exchanging ideas, instead of "winning" or getting the last word, you'd have realized this already.

You know what, A male? You're not worth the frustration it takes to deal with you. You keep promising to rein in your obnoxious and disrespectful behaviour, and then you keep right on as before. Screw it, you're clearly not interested in learning better. Poke me with a fork, I'm done with you.