The New York Times had an interesting article last week about passing the reproductive rights torch.
While I found the piece thought-provoking, there's a lot that I take issue with. (Outside of the fact that yet again an article on women's rights is relegated to the Style section.)
But here is the question: As Ms. Baker's generation approaches retirement -- women whose commitment to abortion was forged in the pre-Roe v. Wade days -- will younger women take their places at the clinics?"We worry about that a lot," said Sally Burgess, executive director of the Hope clinic, who is also chairwoman of the National Abortion Federation, the main professional support group for abortion providers. "Younger women have always had access to abortion care, they don't fully appreciate the battle that was fought to have it available to them. And more important, I don't think they know how precarious the option is at this point, even with Obama's election."
"What I observe for women in their 20s and 30s -- there are fewer who really have the fire in the belly for this," she said.
Ah, the old "young women take their rights for granted" bit. Never mind that one third of the protesters at the March for Women's Lives in 2004 were under 25 years old. Let's ignore the college activism around choice issues, and the blogs and magazines run by younger women. Not to mention the amazing organizations out there. Sigh.
That said, I do understand the concern over a new generation of abortion providers - most abortion providers are over 50 years old and 2% of Ob/Gyns perform over 50% of the country's abortions. So there is a problem, obviously. But let's not resort to painting young women as politically apathetic and unaware - because they're not.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Passing the repro rights torch.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12438
Thanks for sticking up for us younger gals
-a 22 year old with "the fire" in my belly
I am 24 and understand how important these rights are, but I can also see the other side of the story, the anti-choicers can really use this to get those who are on the fence. I need to vent a little: I am from MT and on Friday the House is voting on the Constitutional Ammendement about Personhood. I am sure some of you have heard about the race between us and North Dakota on this issue. I don't think it will pass and if it does our governor (pro-choice) is expected to veto it. But it still scares me. When I read that it had passed our senate (26-24) I cried. I can't imagine what this would truly to women of our state. I can't be there to testify on Friday, but I am writing up something that will be given to the Reps and I am also writing my Rep. I am doing everything I can to make sure this doesn't pass and that we don't have to worry about it. It has such far reaching consequences such as access to birth control and also dealing with women who have miscarriages. I know that our pro-choice movement is alive here in MT and I know that a lot of the pro-choicers are younger than 30. We do what we can and we must continue to educate and work for ALL women. This bill is so radical, it does not even make any sense. I love my state, but at times like these I hate it. Its so frustrating, because these are the same politicians who want to pass this into law, but refuse to increase any kind of funding for CHIP. Really? Only care about pre-born, but once they are born....what? A big FU to those kids? AHHH I am so angry at the legistlatures right now!
Since when have young women been able to sit back in comfort, knowing their reproductive rights are protected?
Aren't these rights under constant attack, on the state-by-state and (in the last 8 years) federal/Supreme Court levels??
When I read this article, I thought, "I'd LOVE to have one of these jobs" (counselor, director, etc). I keep looking for them, but I can't seem to find them. How does one find one of these jobs? If they let me know, I'd happily take that there torch! :)
FYI: Medical Students for Choice is currently hiring. Check it out: http://tinyurl.com/dhr2ov
I see a big problem with what Ms. Baker said. Besides making a false generalization about all younger women, what she said it simply isn't true. Many people my age and I don't really have true access to abortion care, between those who can't afford it, parental consent laws, and the lack of an abortion clinic around here for miles. That is not access to healthcare. Sure, it's better than it was in 1950, but that doesn't meant it's as good as it should be.
Thanks for posting,
A 15-year-old who does not take reproductive rights for granted.
I love to hear teenagers speaking up about this stuff -- it's really motivating for a 30-year-old like me. Hope that doesn't sound patronizing :)
As a 26 year old feminist activist who has been an abortion counselor for the past 4 years, I was incredibly offended by this article. I have a lot of respect for Anne Baker and The Hope Clinic for the work that they do, but I am exactly the person who the Times writer and Anne Baker said did not exist.
I have counseled thousands of women before, during and after their abortions and I LOVE what I do. I have consciously chosen to continue in this line of work and consider it a career choice.
I am looking to network with other abortion counselors to speak out about this!
Please email me at katemcgovernpalmer at gmail dot com.
I want to say thank you for being a counselor. About a year ago a counselor helped me with my choice. You don't know how much you really mean to people who are going through a rough time and just having someone listen and care. SO THANK YOU!!:)
My co-blogger Shira, who, like me, is a 17-year-old abortion activist, writes about this over at Women's Glib.
No young women are interested in reproductive rights? BULLSHIT!
I say this as a 21 year old WS minor, and I would LOVE a job in the movement, these just aren't offering us any! >:(
I know plenty of young women who have walked away from the traditional organizations of the pro-choice movement because of how they were treated by older activists that couldn't stop going on and on about how young women don't care...to the young women right in front of them. This whole "young people just don't understand" is a b.s. strawman for a movement that has become a lot more establishment-driven than they'd like to admit.
As for the number of younger providers, I think that has a lot more to do with the lack of training in med schools (an aspect certainly not under the control of 20 and 30-somethings), problems in our current healthcare system, and the ghetto-ization of abortion than it does with the attitudes of younger doctors.
What you say about the lack of training is true. Most med schools just pass the buck and say, "You can learn that in residency." So it also has to do with the absurdly small number of residency programs in this country that offer abortion training, because the administrators are afraid it will hurt their recruitment. And the way insurance costs for clinics skyrocket the second they start providing abortions.
Arrgh. I happen to be a leader in Med Students for Choice, so this kind of thing is really close to the bone for me.
I'm a med student too, and I have no desire to see or perform abortions. 99% of med schools allow med students to observe/assist in the procedure if they so wish. So your training opportunity is already there. What you are asking for is to make the training MANDATORY for everybody and thats unacceptable. If you want to mandate that every med school offer the OPPORTUNITY to observe/participate thats one thing. But NARAL and MS4C goes too far in the opposite direction.
I believe abortion should be free, legal, and rare. But its wrong to FORCE people to observe/participate. Keep abortion training as an optional elective, which is how it stands already in the vast majority of med schools.
Why shouldn't you HAVE to learn it to be a doctor? Why should it be an elective?
In my future chosen profession (archaeology), I may have to deal with people's bones or mummies. I have serious personal, spiritual, and ethical objections to dealing with people's remains (I think they're gross and creepy; I believe that it is damaging to one's soul to touch any dead that are not your own; and let's not even get into the discussion of who's bodies end up being the one's that students like me examine). But I couldn't get an Anthropology degree (prerequisite to Archaeology at my school) without taking a class where I had to learn about and handle the remains of people even though I really did not want to. In the interest of my chosen profession, I sucked it up and did it. End of story.
Seriously -- if you don't want to learn one of the most common medical procedures in the world, maybe "doctor" isn't the job for you.
Cosmetic surgery is ALSO one of the most "common medical procedures" in the country too, yet med schools dont force you to train in it.
Abortions are provided by ob/gyns. Its a subspecialty skill set thats not required or necessary to be a doctor unless you are specifically going into OB/GYN. It makes absolutely zero sense to force a plastic surgeon, or a pediatrician, or a radiologist to learn them.
Lets analyze how your mandatory training model is going to work though. About 50% of medical students are male. Its well known that women seeking abortion services greatly prefer female ob/gyns for a variety of reasons. So with your mandatory training model, what are you going to do, FORCE the women to accept a male medical student observing/doing their abortion? Because thats the only way you can get all the males trained.
There's no reason that ob/gyns should be the only ones providing abortions. That's sort of the whole point in wider training.
Could you quote your statistics about this "99% of medical schools"? I've seen data on medical school curriculum - the vast majority don't include any sort of information on abortion, and a whole lot of them don't even teach contraception. In fact, many spend more time teaching about Viagra than abortion and contraception combined. That's a real problem.
I'm a tad naive, so I was going to suggest that perhaps a lot of young women's activism just isn't on the former generation's radar. It's on the campuses, supported by blogs like this. These are media my mum doesn't use. (But then again, my mum doesn't complain about my lack of activism.)
But your experience somewhat negates that. Jeez, that's frustrating. Someone just denying you're there.
I agree with you, Glauke. I think perhaps the 2nd wavers are looking for the same kind of activism they engaged in and don't see a lot of it, so they assume its not happening. I think there is no shortage of younger activists, but their activism plays out in a different way. The way I see it, this happens for 2 reasons - the first being that people currently interact and communicate differently than in the past, especially with the technology we have now. Information and communication are literally instantly at our fingertips. That makes for a strikingly different dynamic in organising. Second, if you live in a place where abortion is currently legal(ish) and there are providers available, then obviously you are not going to be working on legalizing abortion and making it available. I know there are a lot of assumptions and generalizations in that argument, but I am just making the point that the movement's needs are also different now from what they were before, and so of course our current activism is going to look different.
As the 25 year-old president of my medical school's chapter of Medical Students for Choice (www.ms4c.org), an organization that is actively working to correct the abortion provider shortage by CREATING them, I say, respectfully, HORSESHIT! Obviously, this woman has never met the hundreds of amazing young pro-choice med students in this country.
Also, while I'm on the soapbox: We talk a lot on this blog about barriers to access for patients, and while that's an important topic, did you know that one of the reasons there is a provider shortage is the barriers states put up for doctors who want to provide abortions? For example: Some states have a law that requires any clinic that provides an abortion to have ITS OWN ambulance in case there is a complication. That may sound perfectly reasonable to a non-medical person, but ambulance services are prohibitively expensive, and not really necessary, since the nearest hospital can easily send one. There are lots of examples of laws like these, which sound like protections for the patient, but are really just ways of making it more difficult for the doctor to provide abortions in his or her practice.
Okay. Rant over.
Which brings up the question (or statement, if you already know - I don't) of why it seems like it's only free-standing clinics that provide it and not hospitals. Seems like it would make a lot more sense to have all of that stuff together.
You have the anti-choicers to thank for that. There are still a few hospitals that do offer abortion services. That said, most hospitals have very conservative boards of trustees that are super concerned about what kind of publicity they're getting. So when you have crazy people picketing the hospital, the trustees get nervous. And that's how abortion got relegated mainly to small clinics.
I've been worried about this - not in a generational way, but in an absolute way. I just got back to the US after spending 6 months in India. I got pregnant unexpectedly (and, had I wanted the child, miraculously) and researched my options.
Well, abortion is legal in India. There are some restrictions, similar to the US. I was relieved that abortion was a real option for me, until I tried to find a clinic. The only place within a long, long ways that provided abortions was a public hospital that had recently been under investigations for poor sanitation and a host of other unattractive issues.
My story is longer than I'll put here (though you can read all the gory details here: http://www.svsapien.net/wordpress/2009/01/09/choices/). Here's the short version of what I learned...
Right is only half the battle - opportunity is equally important. Where there are no legal providers, women will try folk methods or violence against themselves.
Around the world and in the next county over, people could get a legal abortion - if there was someone to provide it.
There is no visibility for the jobs available in abortion services. I think that girls aiming toward medical jobs need to hear about abortion services as a specialty in need of people. I think that everyone looking for work (and there are plenty of us) ought to consider volunteering in a clinic during the other half of the day. One can only spend so much time applying for jobs.
This is in addition to the work that needs to be done in legal realms (sigh, anyone else want to take a nap thinking about all the work there is to do?), but I feel that it is very important.
How can we staff our abortion centers? How can we create abortion centers? How can we encourage OB/GYN docs around the world to add this to their list of specialties? Because they know how - they do them in case of incomplete miscarriage. What can all of us who are not doctors or nurses do to make abortion more readily available for more people?
How can we staff our abortion centers? How can we create abortion centers? How can we encourage OB/GYN docs around the world to add this to their list of specialties? Because they know how - they do them in case of incomplete miscarriage.
1. Eliminate the harrassment. Start sending people to jail for 10 years and eventually there wont be any more harrassers left because they'll all be in prison. Make it easy to sue those jerks, take away their savings, take away their pension, garnish their wages, take their house, etc. Make the consequences of harassment so damning that it becomes unthinkable.
2. Expand the abortion pool. Midwives are ready and capable of delivering abortion services. Start training them to do it and you'll have tens of thousands of more abortion providers.
3. Tamper down the ridiculous medical malpractice environment. OB/GYNs are the most sued group of doctors in the country, and it has nothing to do with them committing medical errors at a higher rate than other specialties.
Attack the problem of abortion providers with these 3 tactics and our troubles will be over very quickly....
Cecilia - we were writing at the same time! I'm interested in the barriers for doctors who would like to provide abortions but don't. Would you post some more information, or some links, or email me?
You might be able to find some statistics at ms4c.org, on their resources page. They also have some great links on their "Allies" page, to NARAL scorecards and the like. I'd especially recommend checking out the website of "Law Students for Reproductive Justice," as they would know more about laws state-by-state than I do.
I can tell you this: Once a clinic decides it want to provide abortions, insurance prices immediately skyrocket, no matter what state you are in. You are always picketed, period, and sometimes there is violence. This frightens doctors and hospitals, and makes it very, very difficult to hire clinic staff. There are some very tricky laws, but as I said, these vary by state.
Thanks! (Rolling my sleeves up.) Let's see what I can do...
Also, I neglected to say this, and I am embarrassed:
Thank you, thank you. Cecilia and everyone else providing abortions, providing support services at abortion clinics, or volunteering in any capacity - thank you. You're the ones who save the day (or life).
Once a clinic decides it want to provide abortions, insurance prices immediately skyrocket, no matter what state you are in. You are always picketed, period, and sometimes there is violence.
This may be a dumb question but is there some reason that more abortions can't be done at a regular hospital not a specialized clinic? Even at these clinics I know that many procedures are done, not just abortions, but that is the perception and that is why they are targeted. If most abortions were done at a hospital, where the patients going in and out can't be identified as to what procedure is going to be done, would it reduce the picketing and violence?
I know someone who had an abortion years ago (1980s) at a large hospital and there was no picketing. At least not back then. Maybe things have changed and the pro-life folks now target large hospitals if they do any abortions at all even if it is a tiny percentage of what they do.
Thanks in advance to anyone who wants to answer this question.
Big reasons:
1) Money: hospitals don't want to deal with controversy that could interfere with their bottom line.
2) Religious mergers: many hospitals are run by religious groups that are anti-choice. In my state, 66% of hospital beds are catholic. More info: http://www.mergerwatch.org/
Thanks for the reply and the link to MergerWatch. Things really have changed in the past 20-25 years.
I'd like to take the conversation in a couple of different (but related!) directions. First I think the pro-life movement has done a better job at really taking ownership of the abortion discussion, and we've not been really good at countering their argument. They have what I consider the "sympathy" factor going for them when they talk about babies being torn limb from limb and whatnot. That's much more powerful emotionally, and pro-choicers need a better counter to it (besides the erroneous science because that apparently doesn't sway a lot of folks).
The other thing I'd like to see in the next decade or so is a more complete discussion of reproductive rights. I'd like to see young feminists focus on *choosing* to parent and providing resources for those women. I'm working on putting together a program in my local area for teen moms. I hate that we've allowed the repro rights discussion to consist solely of discussions about access to abortions. While that's an important issue, I think there can be an over-emphasis on it, and that's something I'd really like to see us remedy as young(er) feminists.
Sometimes I think they keep repeating this line (young women not interested in feminism/abortion rights/whatever) because they WANT it to be true. Cynical, I know.
I'll share some Indigo Lyrics that seem fitting:
did they tell you it was set it stone
that you'd end up alone
use your years to psyche you out
you're too old to care
you're too young to count
did they tell you, you would come undone
when you try to touch the sun
undermine the underground
you're too old to care
you're too young to count
i said go go go
I wonder if this has anything to do with the rising age of RNs; 41% of us (no matter where we work) are over 50 (at least that was true in 2004), and our average age is 46.8.
This has been a trend for years; even though young people obtain licenses, they quit nursing early and go do other things. I wonder if the average age for MDs in stressful professions is going up, too.
I think that young women are just as dedicated to reproductive rights as second-wavers, but the tone of it is different. Second-wavers were agitating for rights, and younger women are agitating to keep them. I think that the fear that rights are going to be stripped away is just as compelling as the desire to gain rights.
One area, however, that I do think there is a generational divide is amongst the doctors themselves. The doctors that are currently at the age of retirement are the docs that saw all of the botched abortions, and the doctors that chose to provide abortion services after the legalization have been extremely pro-choice. One doctor that I worked with was determined to keep performing them for as long as he was physically able to do so, and he was pushing 80 when I moved away.
This isn't to say that docs that give abortions aren't dedicated, you have to be in the kind of environment that exists, or that the lack of opportunities to learn the procedure isn't a barrier. I just think that if more doctors were facing the huge numbers of women in the ER bleeding out from botched abortions, more of those residents and doctors would make a point of learning the procedure. Not that I want that to ever happen again, it is just that to see the women and girls in those kinds of numbers was VERY affecting.
Thank you for defending young feminists. I've worked for years with young women in college feminist organizations and online social networks. Sure, there are some women who are very intelligent and well educated, but who have nonetheless rejected feminism (the term usually, not the ideology or lifestyle) for various reasons. I do think *some* young women fail to understand past, present and future struggles, but it is a gross misrepresentation to say that young women are going to let abortion clinics die out because we don't care. I'm in my 30s and I still meet with this odd "wait your turn" ceiling when working with older women. How can young(er) women be both apathetic and simultaneously too pushy about leadership roles in feminist organizations?
I think that the issue is larger than women and feminism, that it simply reflects the reality that the Baby Boom generation is larger than either the Gen X or Y generations. The Boomers also failed to plan for retirement (in general) and plan to work longer. This leaves little room (unless you build your own -- kudos Jessica) for young women to contribute of themselves, to show the fire in their bellies. After so long of being shut out, told to "wait your turn," "pay your dues," "why are you so apathetic," "slacker" -- well you start to give up, little by little, the dream of making a difference. Why fight to contribute when there is no room for you anyway?
Yes. This this this!!
ps, http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/03/future-abortion-providers-0
i didn't even realize the nyt article was in "style." my mom showed it to me.
On the subject of the article's placement, I sent an email to the author, with the caveat that she was probably not the one who chose its location. This response:
"I'm surprised you're so upset about where it appears-- isn't what it says the real issue and that the NY Times would pay for me to travel to the midwest and spent over a week reporting such an important story?"
The problem is, that there are a lot of people who will never even get close to reading it, as it's in a fluff section. Oh, but that's where women are reading. And this news is only pertinent to women. Gosh, maybe if abortion doctors were more fashionable, us lady-folks might think about being one of 'em!
ARgh.
Funny Story.... I am one of those young feminists who protest protesters outside the Hope Clinic. I have stood out there in the freezing temperatures of midwest winters to the sticky, sunny, and roasting hot endless summers for hours enduring insults about my faith, sexuality, opinion, gender, age, and everything else. I understand the point Burgess's point, but when I read some of her comments it makes me resent the work I doing at her clinic. I am 18. I am in high school. I can only work a half shift on the Saturdays (which is one of two days I work) to go protest protesters. I have got the fire in my belly.
I apologize if this sounds vaguely heated, but it makes me resentful when I am trying to help an organization and that help is ignored.
I think I will make a new placard that references the fire in my belly, but that may just be bad form.
Who here think that Roe v. Wade was a good decision, or should be upheld on the grounds of stare decisis?
Who here think that Roe v. Wade was a good decision, or should be upheld on the grounds of stare decisis?
Who here think that Roe v. Wade was a good decision, or should be upheld on the grounds of stare decisis?