Culture War Flashback

conscience clause

By: Vville222 | Wed, 05/20/2009 - 07:45

Hanna, On the XX podcast you sounded pretty unconcerned about the effects of the conscience clause. As I understand it, this kind of legislation allows health care providers to not only refuse service (such as pharmacists selling birth control pills) but it also allows providers to NOT tell their patients about options they don't approve of, and to NOT refer them to other providers who can perform the disputed practice. With so few doctors in rural areas, this seems to me a denial of service for a client with a serious dilemma.

IMO, health care providers should be well aware of the demands of their profession when they undertake the training, and should be compelled to provide any service that is legal and sanctioned by medical science.

Part Politics, Part Medical Advances

By: phpeter | Tue, 05/19/2009 - 09:20

Maybe I opt to not attribute as much to politics as others, but I think the changes are in part to advances in medical information and imaging. My wife is 21 weeks pregnant and at 12 weeks we had an ultrasound (which is not something we had for our 3 year old daughter) that is used to determine risk for Down Symdrome. At 12 weeks, to be able to see the head, bridge of the nose, arms, hands etc. was a real eye opening experience. I have showed these images to others who have remarked that they had no idea how develped the child was at that time. The knowledge that at that early stage (first trimester), your cluster of cells is now a developing human is remarkible information that has no doubt changed peoples opinions about abortion. By takeing the vague idea of a fetus and adding a face, my whole opinion has changed about not only if it is acceptable, but when.

Bad News

By: _Nancy_ | Wed, 05/20/2009 - 14:42

I see this a little differently.

While there may be something to these labels being essentially political, I do think people are more ambivalent about abortion these days. It isn't necessarily to do with advances in technology (though certainly, less about pregnancy is left up to the imagination than ever before).

I think it's more that women's needs are increasingly pitted against those of children - and children almost always win.

In a funny way, it reminds me of the breast-feeding discussion - the way it's quickly reduced to a question of what's best for the baby - as if you could abstract an infant from its mother under those circumstances. It's not really to do with children's actual nutritional needs so much as a shifting sense of where women's' priorities should be: almost-as-good-as-breast-milk isn't good enough. Breast is best and good mothers breast-feed even if puts an unreasonable burden on them. It's a set of priorities that women accept to a great degree. And that, is where I think these polling numbers are coming from. It's an extension of the way we've deprioritized of women's needs relative to those of children or in this case, even "potential" children.

Hanna's right - this doesn't indicate a fundamental shift in what people think about the availability of abortion. When it comes down to it, most people are pragmatic in the event. So, at least in my experience, most people who refer to themselves as "pro-life" stop short of wanting to ban abortion all together. It's a matter of "I wouldn't have one, myself, but I wouldn't presume to make those decisions for anyone else." (Personally, I think this recognition of women' moral agency really is a basis for common ground - but I'll save that for another time). I don't think views on the availability of abortion is going to change much one way or another.

The thing that really bothers me though is the extent to which pro-choice campaigners have embraced these shifting priorities. "Safe, Legal and Rare" fudges the question. Rights aren't conditional. We either have them or we don't - and if we don't have the courage to argue for the right to abortion, even late abortions, we risk creating a situation in which abortion is safe, legal and largely socially unacceptable.

There will always be women who need not to be pregnant and this accommodation to the idea the issue is about balancing the interests of a woman and her potential child will make things much harder for them - on all sorts of levels. It will also reinforce this notion that women's need matter - EXCEPT when it comes to children...

Is fighting about abortion the American way?

By: JHowze | Mon, 05/18/2009 - 06:25

I've lived in London for 6 years now and when I moved here I expected a polarised view of abortion. After all, in Ireland, it's still illegal. But for me what's surprising about watching the recent Notre Dame brouhaha is how long it's been since the topic of abortion has come up in political discussions in the UK. It's simply not seen as important as issues such as leadership during the economic meltdown, British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the poor quality of child protective services.

It's more apparent to me than ever that "abortion" as an issue in the US is not about abortion at all but a kind of calling card different groups use to show "what they are about". Isn't that why anti-abortion groups or leaders talk more about the harrowing facts of abortion than anything they're doing to prevent it or help women who need support after the birth of an unexpected baby?

The Gallup Poll

By: KateCal | Mon, 05/18/2009 - 00:57

The gallup poll makes for an interesting read and no matter which statistic is highlighted, I think its clear the USA has seen a shift towards a pro-life stance. This is more than just a reaction to Obama: not only has abortion has become a focus for political identity, but political identity itself has become a simplified one or two issue concept. This does nothing to safeguard women's rights, and ultimately abortion and politics need to be uncoupled.