In a letter to the editor of The Washington Post last week, Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts bit back at the critics of their anti-choice amendment:
We are not looking to restrict access to abortion, only to preserve the right of conscience for the more than 70 percent of Americans who believe that no federal funds should subsidize abortions or plans that include abortion.
The deal is, Pitts and Stupak (and those who voted for their amendment) are singly-handedly undermining the precedents and policies that abortion rights stands on. No one's human rights should be determined by a roll-call vote or be at the mercy of the latest public-opinion poll.
It is high time that Americans have a real conversation about abortion rights that goes beyond endangering a mother's life, incest and rape. I am confident that feminists would be able to move the barometer of the public's resolve on abortion legality to economic grounds, resulting in no woman being forced to give birth to a child she cannot afford -- and further protecting the right to privacy. This strategy would enable us to call attention to the infamous TRAP laws that lead to clinics being slapped with regulations that make it financially prohibitive to provide abortion services. It would also allow us to make progress in the overall conversation and even restore economic policies that make it difficult for women to parent the children they already have.
It is true that this strategy would not get at, in its entirety, the fundamental
reason why abortion rights have been a cornerstone of the feminist
movement: that women have a fundamental right to decide what is best for their bodies, regardless of their reasoning. But mark my words: Economic justice will be the path to protecting women's rights in the next phase of the debate.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Beyond Stupak: The next phase of the abortion debate.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17110
I am confident that feminists would be able to move the barometer of the public's resolve on abortion legality to economic grounds, resulting in no woman being forced to give birth to a child she cannot afford"
Interesting post, Rose. I think that if the Left attacked promoted this argument three things would happen. 1st, the Right would say, 'if you can't afford a baby, don't have sex' (they've been saying this since the '60s). 2nd, Moderates would say, we don't want our tax dollars being used to support abortion, full stop (even tho their tax dollars undoubtedly fund through welfare $$$ for poor children). Finally, a lot of people on the Left & the Right will argue (with some reasonable support) that this borders on eugenics.
The reason the Hyde Amendment passed when it did is because it was overwhelmingly popular. It still is. The country has essentially reached a Libertarian position on abortion: you can have one if you want one, but don't use my money for it.
That said, the Stupak Amendment is a giant step backward even from Hyde. We can win that battle because economics are not the issue. Stupak would prevent women from using private $$$ for abortion. It is an anti-Libertarian position.
Gah, the whole "right to conscience" argument gets me every time. What about the folks who are anti-war and didn't want their tax dollars going to Iraq? I don't recall them being able to claim such a "right to conscience."
THIS. I've been saying this for ages. Why is one moral code considered so much f-ing more important than another? My tax dollars go to plenty of things I don't support. I can protest and I can call my Senator and try to change things, but at the end of the day my taxes are sometimes going to pay for things I personally disagree with.
I'm curious to know how one would propose economic equality and put it into action. Perhaps we should all put our heads together on that one.
"The country has essentially reached a Libertarian position on abortion: you can have one if you want one, but don't use my money for it."
Excuse me for stooping to cliche, cattrack2, but in what country have you been living for the past 35 years? At what clinic can a woman obtain an abortion using her own money without being harassed and threatened by people convinced beyond the reach of argument that no one should have an abortion under any circumstances? In what forum can one even discuss abortion without being denounced as a baby murderer? If you actually think this country is anywhere close to a Libertarian position on abortion, please come to Washington next January and see for yourself the annual "March for Life", or whatever they are calling it now. (It is in fact the scariest hatefest I have ever seen, but that's another post.)