Remember U.S. Rep Tim Ryan's ousting from Democrat's for Life of America's advisory board for supporting contraception? Well, it looks like he's taken an initiative from the experience to reintroduce a bill that's garnering support from folks on both sides.
Ryan co-authored the bill with Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) titled Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, which focuses on creating programs that improve access to family planning in low-income communities, reinstating Title X funding as well as fund comprehensive sex education. It's being backed by pro-choice organizations like NARAL as well as supported by a range of religious organizations and leaders.
Religion Dispatches has an excellent overview of the previous bill (that actually had anti-choice restrictions) and how the new version is encompassing so much of what reproductive health organizations have been saying all along (and doing in their work): preventing unintended pregnancies through comprehensive sex education, increasing access to family planning and contraception and supporting low-income women and their families.
The question of stigmatizing abortion around the bill is still a concern, particularly concerning the language coming from pro-life organizations that are backing the bill like Obama-instated Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships' Alexia Kelley's former organization saying that, "preventing the tragedy of abortion requires elected officials to find common ground and support comprehensive efforts to help women and families choose life." But as long as the bill itself doesn't include that rhetoric or any other abortion restrictions, people think this could be a "common ground" bill that may actually work. SIECUS said in its' statement of support:
"We recognize that the framing of this bill creates discomfort for some in its potential to stigmatize the legally recognized right to abortion. We share your concerns, but believe the important pieces of this bill warrant our support."
However, we can't let the new warm, fuzzy feelings between supporters blind folks to the reality that supporting and funding abortion care mustn't be put at the wayside. After all, solving women's financial problems isn't going to eliminate the need for abortion, not to mention the possibility of funding abortion care in health care reform is looking bleak.
Thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Can we achieve a real "common ground" on abortion? .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15201
It is a step in the right direction. If this bill passes I will be a very happy pro-choicer.
Well, the shame-tragedy-shame language kind of sucks, but as someone who really doesn't want to get pregnant, I'll give this bill a thumbs up. It's nice to see someone who's anti-abortion actually work to prevent it rather than just making noise and taking away sexual agency from women.
Now the middle ground seems to be "how do we reduce the number of abortions?" OK. Here's a real easy one, especially since most (or at least the loudest) antichoicers are male: Eliminate rape of women. Now there's something the mouths can have an effect on. As soon as ALL rapes of women are gone, we'll go on to the next step, OK guys?
I thought that the number of abortions that are sought as a result of rape is very low; like 1% of abortions.
I would love to see a decrease in rape and in abortions, but I don't think the two have a direct causal relationship.
Except that the vast majority of terminations would still occur. Most abortions are caused by any number of other reasons, not forcible sexual assault.
Economic reasons play a huge role -- can I afford this potential life? Can I afford this potential life if this potential life has major developmental problems?
Crusading against rape is awesome; blaming the majority of abortions on rape is not awesome because it's not true.
I hate the language used - not all abortions are a "tragedy" - but I suppose it's better than nothing. I still maintain that the real fervent anti-choicers have been allowed to control the debate and will never compromise, and they have already gained so much ground. Abortion is essentially illegal in many states.
Really, you don't think all abortions are a tragedy? I'm strongly pro-choice, but even when an abortion is done to protect the life of a mother its hard to argue that its not a tragedy. I mean, in that instance, I'm sure the mother certainly would think it a tragedy.
"Tragedy" isn't necessarily shaming. It'd be a tragedy if I stepped across the street & got hit by a bus. That wouldn't be shaming the bus driver though.
"Tragedy" is shaming because it means that the woman chose to enact something which is so egregious that it is pervasively sad.
While I agree with your sentiment in the overall, the use of the word tragedy does blame the woman for "killing the baby" instead of taking the fetus to term.
Have you ever known a woman recovering from a miscarriage? Just one woman? Its impossible not to call their pain a tragedy.
That's why I'd consider it more of a case by case thing. If a woman has an abortion and does not regret it at all and is completely happy with her decision, I think it's pretty infantilizing to tell her that her experience was "tragic". Saying that all abortions are tragic is, to me, implying that they are all bad or immoral, which is just not true. We need to stop considering abortion a bad choice, because it's just as valid and as "good" of a choice as adoption and parenting. Yes, there are certain cases where you might consider the procedure tragic for the woman (like a woman who wanted a pregnancy but can't carry it to term because of health risks for example), but, in general, "tragic" is not the right term for a choice that is just as morally good as any other.
If I had an abortion it certainly wouldn't be a tragedy to me. A financial tragedy maybe..but I wouldn't be sad about the procedure itself.
The rhetoric doesn't bother me much as long as the actual result of the bill is that it helps prevent unwanted pregnancies and doesn't prevent access to abortions for those who need them. I mean, at least the rherotic isn't woman-shaming, it's actually consistent with the people who insist that all life is sacred, life starts at conception, etc. etc. Although I would likely have an abortion without much emotional upset, I'd much rather never get pregnant in the first place!
Seriously, if all pro-lifers could be like Tim Ryan, I'd happily roll my eyes at their tragedy rhetoric and thank them for focusing their legislative efforts on non-access-blocking-and-non-rights-removing ways to prevent abortions.
I know I'm in the minority here (that's what happens when you're a feminist who is morally opposed to abortion!), but I really like the language of this bill. I don't think it's stigmatizing or shaming, I think it reflects the beliefs of millions of Americans: that all life is sacred, and that the fetus/unborn child in the womb is a unique individual, created in the image of God. If you believe that life begins at conception (or at any point before birth), then abortion IS a tragedy...it's a loss of human life. A majority of the American population believe that abortion should only be allowed in certain circumstances, and the most recent Gallup poll showed that more Americans are identifying as "pro-life" than "pro-choice" (by a small margin, but still.) The language of this bill is necessary for building bridges and creating common ground with people of various ideologies.
That said, this bill sounds great. I've always believed that comprehensive sex ed, access to birth control, and support for pregnant/parenting women are the best ways to reduce abortion, so I'm glad to see that some pro-lifers are finally wising up to this reality. Susan B. Anthony once compared abortion to a "noxious weed", and I think that making abortion illegal would just clip the weed without attacking the roots. This bill addresses the root causes behind abortion, so I'm all for it!
is anyone else feeling a little concerned about what affect this increasingly popular "common ground" line could be having on the long-term outlook for abortion rights? i know this might make me sound alarmist and i am towing the hard line here, but what we have here is a trend towards funding non-abortion alternatives that also affectively allows anti-choicers to say that they've made compromises in the debate (NOT true because nothing in the bill is actually about abortion itself) and to then demand the same of us. we have far less to bargain with.
also, this is funding that, although definitely going to a worthy cause, is funding not being given to underfunded abortion clinics or to expand Medicare to cover abortion, both big problems that make abortion inaccessible to women. but anti-choicers still get to point at it when confronted with the topic of abortion rights/bipartisanship.
not to mention that this bill could easily provide an excuse to continue the de-funding of abortion clinics and stall any progressive efforts to expand abortion rights/access. women's healthcare is chronically underfunded as we all know, and if this bill is successful in dramatically decreasing the number of abortions (doubt it), it will be a victory in some ways but will only make abortion more stigmatizing and harder to access (fewer abortions = less need for abortion providers).
so i guess in short form, i feel like we are being thrown a bone to make us shut up while anti-choice sneak in the back. and this doesn't even get in to the effects of batting women over the head with the abortion = tragedy speel. i guess i'm having a hard time looking on the bright side today.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm too old and radical but I don't want to find common ground with people who don't think that I have the right to control what happens to my body.
Don't get me wrong, I think that decreasing pregnancies is a wonderful goal but the same people who claim to support decreasing pregnancies don't necessarily believe in sex ed, birth control or God Forbid , emergency contraception.
This bill doesn't look like a "compromise" on abortion to me. Of course for me the only compromise on abortion is choice. Not to sound like a bumper sticker but if you're against abortion don't have one.
You have a point, except that the legislator in the article is very specifically someone who DOES believe in sex-ed and contraceptives.
I'm kind of with you on that.
I am glad that they seem to be moving toward what the pro-choice side has been saying all along (prevention, prevention, prevention)...but the language surrounding it does rankle.
The fact that religious organizations are involved irritates me.
And I just don't trust those who, at the end of the day, still question whether women have the right of personal autonomy.
I'll continue looking gift horses in the mouth.
Speaking as a disabled woman (I think that's an important detail to mention) who's attitude has progressed from anti-choice to pro-choice, I think the best we can hope to achieve is respect for each others positions. It seems there are three main attitudes to abortion (I'm basing this on the three stages I went through to get from anti choice to pro choice on this issue):
1. The totally anti-choice who will not entertain it under any circumstances.
2. Those see abortion as a 'necessary evil' only to be allowed under severe circumstances such as rape, severe fetal abnormality and cases where it is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
3. People like me who feel that it is simply a matter of each woman's right to control her own body and do not have any emotions invested in the issue.
You might get some dialogue between group 2 and 3 but I feel it is highly unlikely that you could reason with group one, and indeed I would be suspicious that they would enter dialogue with the ulterior motive of converting people to their hard-line stance.
I just wish we could put an end to the horrible ordeal women have to go through when they run the gauntlet of anti choice bullies outside clinics.
I think you're correct with your three groupings, and I agree that only those in group 2 and 3 will be able to have any sort of reasonable dialogue. Fortunately, I've found that the vast majority of those who identify as pro-life are in group 2. Group 1 is tiny...vocal, perhaps, but tiny. There will always be radicals on the fringe, and I don't see why we can't just ignore them while the rest of us work to find common ground and real solutions.
***Grammar nitpick***
in the last paragraph, that should be "wayside" not "waist side."
Oy, thanks for that. Serious brain fart there.
I think the bill will be great for getting those hard-line antichoicers to finally come out and show that they are against contraception. It will also get many in the GOP on record as voting against contraception.
I think this concept is become more obvious to people (but something we've known for years) and this will give the crazies a chance to further marginalize themselves.
It's great that there are pro-lifers who support contraception, comprehensive sex education, etc. It's something that pro-choicers have been saying for years - glad they're finally coming around :)
I have no problem with reducing the need for abortion. But common ground is impossible on one issue: pro-choicers believe women have the right to control their own bodies and make medical decisions for themseleves and so-called 'pro-lifers' do not. The right to make my own medical decisions is not an area I am willing or able to compromise on.
Joan
Well, there are also people who believe abortion is morally wrong but don't believe they have the right to control whether other people choose it.
Yes. Pro-life doesn't always mean anti-choice.
I think the real issue here is, what do we mean by common ground? On the one hand, this bill IS common ground, it's policies that both sides support. On the other hand, different folks support it for different reasons.
Looks to me that we've made a real achievement in finally getting people on all sides of the choice issue to endorse a set of policies that ultimately will help women.
If we're waiting for everybody to turn into feminists, well, that's going to take longer (and is that the law's job anyway? people are free to think what they want, as long as we make sure that our legal protections don't go away).
A clarification: "common ground" doesn't mean "agreeing on the right to abortion."
That's not the point.
Many of you have pointed out that a lot of antis don't believe women should have a right to abortion, period, and you're right. They're out there, and they're loud. There are also pro-lifers who believe very firmly that abortion is a "tragedy" and should be avoided (e.g. through prevention policies like the Ryan-DeLauro bill). Their belief in abortion as a tragedy is as strong as my belief in the necessity and blessing of the availability of abortion.
We're not going to change their minds on whether or not women should have abortions.
We're not trying to.
Here's the whole point of seeking the "common ground": despite the very opposite beliefs I and someone like Tim Ryan hold dear, we're not really that different. We disagree on the "problem" (he thinks it's the availability of abortion, I don't), we both see the root -- unintended pregnancies due to lack of real sex education and access to contraception and regular health care and improper use of contraception.
Here's our common ground: I want to prevent these unintended pregnancies so that women don't have to empty their savings accounts and borrow money to terminate their pregnancies. (aside: I get that if people could use health insurance for abortion procedures or if there were more funding for clinics, this wouldn't happen. But that's a much longer-term goal than preventing the pregnancies in the first place.) Rep. Ryan wants to prevent these unintended pregnancies so that women don't have to turn to abortion. Slightly different intention, same goal.
Not every pro-lifer is anti-choice. Language matters, and over-simplifying the situation isn't useful for reality-based policy-making. There's a pretty big difference between unreasonable hard-liners (Leslee Unruh) and those who are willing to listen and find solutions (Tim Ryan).
What are we losing by pivoting the conversation to talk about prevention rather than solely being on the defense against more restrictions?
We're not losing ground, and we're not giving up on fighting restrictions. We are, however, gaining allies on preventing unintended pregnancies, which has long been one of our goals.
This is exactly the same way I feel. Thank you for voicing it so well.
Theres this position on abortion that seems to make sense to many on both sides of the political spectrum. "No matter your opinion on abortion, we would all like to see a reduction in the number of abortions" That means encouraging everyone to make responsible decisions, having access to birth control, and increasing sexual education. I support this 100%. But after I had my own abortion, this line really started to bother me. Not so much for the line itself, but the usually attached idea that abortions are societal failures that would go away if we all tried a little harder. I consider myself pretty responsible, use birth control, and was totally surprised to find myself in a position where I needed an abortion. So I think about the young women with me in the clinic that day. Accidents happen. People make mistakes. The idea that abortions are ever going to drop to a level where nobody is going to fight about it is a lie. Sex happens. So do abortions.
No. The notion of "common ground" is antithetical to reproductive rights, because it is still based on the premise that abortion is something to be avoided, and when it comes down to it the only difference is whether or not you feel that the prohibition on abortion should be legal or simply moral. When you allow the debate to take place on that ground, you have lost because you are recognizing the very foundation of the anti-choice belief -- that there is something WRONG with aborting a fetus -- and you have no credibility in arguing that something wrong should still be legal and available as a last resort.
There is nothing wrong with having an abortion. It's the most common, and among the safest surgical procedures out there. And while an abortion does cost more money than birth control, it costs a lot less than prenatal care and raising a child.
If you begin to engage in discussions of "common ground" then you're capitulating on the moral issue.
We can certainly focus our efforts on reducing unwanted pregnancies: there is no argument about that, but we need to set the terms of that discussion, not wring our hands about what a tragedy abortion is and how that tragedy can be averted by having better access to birth control. We can talk about the expense of having an abortion versus the expense of using birth control, but we need to leave this maudlin bullcrap out of the discussion. There are women out there who view their abortions as anything but a tragedy, and I'm sure it pisses them off that everyone wants to dress them in black veils and hairshirts when they look at their lives and their families and know that they wouldn't be as happy as they are now if they'd completed those unwanted pregnancies.