The Washington Post has a piece up about the anti-choice movement's next moves now that Obama has been elected. Some movement leaders are abandoning their strategy to overturn Roe, instead focusing on ways to reduce the number of abortions. (Well, not really - but I'll get at that in a minute.)
Some of the activists are actually working with abortion rights advocates to push for legislation in Congress that would provide pregnant women with health care, child care and money for education -- services that could encourage them to continue their pregnancies....Although the activists insist that they are not retreating from their belief that abortion is immoral and should be outlawed, they argue that a more practical alternative is to try to reduce abortions through other means.
And yet, contraception is not mentioned once. I think that increased health and child care opportunities for women are a great thing - and frankly, it's about time the folks who blather on about fetuses start supporting social programs that actually help people - but the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. That means birth control.
Despite efforts from pro-choice groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America - who launched their Prevention First campaign calling on anti-choice groups to support increased contraception access for a mutual goal of decreasing unwanted pregnancies - and proposed legislation like the Prevention First Act, anti-choicers continue to turn a blind eye. That's because reducing unwanted pregnancies isn't their goal, and they don't want women to realize that anti-choice groups don't support access to contraception - something 98% of American women will use at some point during their reproductive lives.
I also must admit that I'm wary of what kind of legislation anti-choicers have in mind when they talk about programs to support pregnant women. It's not like conservatives and anti-choicers have done such a good job in the past trying to "encourage" women to be mothers and wives.
So really, I fail to see how this is a change of strategy at all - anti-choice groups are going to continue to try and block access to contraception and limit women's reproductive choices. Sounds like the same old shit to me.
Heather at the Community blog has more.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Anti-choicers switching up strategy?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10543
I think that these are three major issues that we all have to abide with people do not understand what we have to go through as women because we do not have equal rights.
I don't think any organization with a goal to outlaw abortion can be pro-woman, even if they mean well with some of their efforts. There are some anti-choice organizations that believe in helping pregnant women and poor mothers. But they believe that women have to sacrifice their right to bodily autonomy in order for their kids to get the right to nutritious food, shelter, clothing, and education. Pro-choice and feminist organizations believe that motherhood shouldn't be a burden without taking away women's fundamental right to control their own bodies. We can prevent unintended pregnancies to the point that abortion can be nearly non-existent (excluding those abortions that are performed for health reasons). But the right to abortion must always exist, because a ban on abortion sends women the message that they are baby-makers for the country first and autonomous beings second.
"Some of the activists are actually working with abortion rights advocates to push for legislation in Congress that would provide pregnant women with health care, child care and money for education -- services that could encourage them to continue their pregnancies."
In a country with the wealth and resource of the U.S., shouldn't ALL women have access to health care and education? Do we really want to tie these basic human rights to pregnancy?
While I agree that birth control and adequate education are probably the MOST important factors in preventing abortion, and are sorely missing from this plan, I don't think that it is all bad. There are probably lots of women out there whose pregnancies are not so much "unwanted" as "not feasible." If I were to get pregnant right now, for example, I'd probably want to keep the baby, but would be totally incapable of paying for childcare, or even giving birth to it since taking that much time off would totally get me fired. Abortion is a good solution for women who do not want to keep children for whatever reason. But shouldn't there also be support for solutions for women who do want children and can't afford it? It doesn't seem fair to qualify women's rights by only applying them to certain women with certain needs or values.
I completely agree that prevention should be a top priority and it pisses me off that it's being pushed to the side. That being said, I am also glad to see that they (the anti-choicers) are finally willing to help these women who choose not to have abortions instead of just abandoning them the minute they give birth. I just hope they actually follow through with these programs and don't push their anti-choice agenda. Both sides have the same, basic goal- to reduce unwanted pregnancies, thus reducing the number of abortions. Contraception, duh.
Jessica, thanks for calling attention to this article. I would caution, however , not to paint all anti-abortion individuals with the same brush.
These new leaders highlighted in the article are a different breed than the hard-core religious right (see, as was noted in the article, that the old-guard in the anti-choice movement is very critical of these new efforts). While you are right that contraception is not emphasized in the article itself, it is a key component of the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, a bill (which is mentioned in the article) that many in this new coalition are mobilizing to support.
I think you would be surprised at the level of support among the general population and among religious Americans for this kind of legislative approach that combines prevention with support for pregnant women and mothers (see here: http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/content/post-electionpoll/#Abortion) and the support in the Evangelical community for birth control, specifically (see here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/features/poll.html ).
While the feminist and pro-choice community will have some strong, principled differences with some of these folks’ positions, there is also a great opportunity to forge some unlikely alliances and help make pass some legislation that will make real improvements in women’s lives
[satire]
Jessica, you ignorant slut. Don't you know the way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is for all those unmarried, teenage girls to keep their legs closed?
[/satire]
Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't think we should dismiss this. Building common ground on this stuff is a good thing, and both sides really do want to reduce the number of abortions. We strongly believe that access to contraception is part of that and they strongly believe that it isn't, but at least we agree that pregnant women need these resources and that will help a lot of people. Let's not scoff at progress.
I would worry that being too cynical about these efforts just makes us look like we would rather argue than accomplish something. As long as these benefits aren't tied to anything (the way getting a pregnancy test is tied to enduring anti-choice propaganda at CPCs) I think we should celebrate the fact that more people want to help (some) women. Isn't something better than nothing?
I find this terminology objectionable: "blather on about fetuses." Whether or not one believes in the right to abortion (and I do), fetuses are NOT just a talking point, not just raw material, and there are obvious huge ethical issues to be considered.
"As long as these benefits aren't tied to anything (the way getting a pregnancy test is tied to enduring anti-choice propaganda at CPCs) I think we should celebrate the fact that more people want to help (some) women. Isn't something better than nothing?"
I see your point and part of me agrees, but it seems like this plan already ties these benefits to a huge pre-condition: being pregnant & staying pregnant. The idea of education and healthcare being allocated based on the "empty/full" status of woman's uterus doesn't make sense to me. That is, while I can see trying to find common ground with those on the right, I think that the dangerous precedent here (even more dangerous than agreeing not to include contraception in this particular plan) is the precedent of treating pregnant women as more valuable than non-pregnant women by using fundamental rights as "incentives" to give birth. I think we need to stand firm and insist that allocating proper healthcare and education access to ALL women is (statistically speaking) an important part of reducing unwanted pregnancies (an thus abortions (for those who feel this is the priority)). It's also (obviously) good for women themselves (for those who care about women as well as fetuses).
Always interesting when my comments don't appear on this blog. Seems to happen with some consistency.
Don't be fooled. Like several people have said, most of these antichoicers are not like the majority of the religious extremists who protest abortion. Now that they don't see overturning Roe v. Wade as a possibility, their goal is to make abortion so difficult to obtain, that it won't matter if it is legal or not. Their goal is to ramp up protests and media pieces stigmatizing abortion, to portray it as "hurting" the woman (the 'dumb bunny' argument), and to pass as much legislation as possible introducing barriers to care. In fact, in one pro-choice argument I read where the woman said that abortions should be safe and legal because abortions happen anyway even when they're illegal, an antichoicer argued that abortions SHOULD be dangerous and harmful, so that it's harder and more stigmatizing to get one.
I think this is something we need to be VERY aware of. The increased protests and stigma are already occurring at the clinic where I work. Check out www.prolifestrategy.com
Don't be fooled. Like several people have said, most of these antichoicers are not like the majority of the religious extremists who protest abortion. Now that they don't see overturning Roe v. Wade as a possibility, their goal is to make abortion so difficult to obtain, that it won't matter if it is legal or not. Their goal is to ramp up protests and media pieces stigmatizing abortion, to portray it as "hurting" the woman (the 'dumb bunny' argument), and to pass as much legislation as possible introducing barriers to care. In fact, in one pro-choice argument I read where the woman said that abortions should be safe and legal because abortions happen anyway even when they're illegal, an antichoicer argued that abortions SHOULD be dangerous and harmful, so that it's harder and more stigmatizing to get one.
I think this is something we need to be VERY aware of. The increased protests and stigma are already occurring at the clinic where I work. Check out www.prolifestrategy.com