-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 1
Deciding when and whether to have kids is one of those huge questions that bundles together an examination of just about every variable in a woman's life-including finances. So how has the recession complicated an already-complicated decision?
Lauren Sandler, a recession mother herself, crunched the numbers on The Big Money:
While stocks tumbled in the first few months of 2009, Nielsen reports that sales of condoms and morning-after pills rose more than 10 percent in the United States. Essure, a permanent method of contraception for women, has seen a jump in sales of 28 percent over last year. In Iowa alone, the number of women seeking contraception is up nearly 40 percent. Also up 40 percent are clicks on physician profiles at Vasectomy.com, which Maya Wank, whose name may have fated her position as the company's chief operating officer, told me is the point at which visitors are "decision ready" to get snipped. She added that many urologists say vasectomies are up because salaries are down; clients tell them their sudden desire for sterility is motivated by fear of job loss and that they are rushing to get the procedure while they still have health insurance.
On Double X, Annie Murphy Paul looked into the economics of abortion, arguing that even if the recession has increased abortion rates, money is hardly a new factor in the decision:
A report by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health, demonstrates the persistence of economic concerns in women's decisions about whether to have a child. The study, titled "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions," draws its results from a survey of 1,209 abortion patients, and in-depth interviews with 38 more. When asked why they were having an abortion, the second most common reason, given by almost three-quarters of the respondents, was that they "could not afford a baby now." The most common reason was that children would interfere with their education, work, or ability to care for dependents-concerns that are also largely economic in nature. (According to other Guttmacher research, 57 percent of U.S. women obtaining an abortion are economically disadvantaged, 61 percent have one or more children already, and 67 percent are unmarried.) The study was published in 2005-when the Dow was still riding high and the housing bubble seemed it would never pop.
Meanwhile, Deborah Seigel writes on Recessionwire about the optimistic terror-and forced flexibility—of having a baby, or two in her case, when you can't afford motherhood on paper:
Marco's unemployed status is prompting us to ponder with conscious intention a new configuration of work and parenting tailored to our modern lives....[snip]...I have no idea how we'll achieve this worthy goal. I have no idea when our apartment will sell, or when Marco will find steady work, or how we'll afford that night nurse that friends who have had twins tell me we just can't live without."
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 1
Deciding when and whether to have kids is one of those huge questions that bundles together an examination of just about every variable in a woman's life-including finances. So how has the recession complicated an already-complicated decision?
Lauren Sandler, a recession mother herself, crunched the numbers on The Big Money:
While stocks tumbled in the first few months of 2009, Nielsen reports that sales of condoms and morning-after pills rose more than 10 percent in the United States. Essure, a permanent method of contraception for women, has seen a jump in sales of 28 percent over last year. In Iowa alone, the number of women seeking contraception is up nearly 40 percent. Also up 40 percent are clicks on physician profiles at Vasectomy.com, which Maya Wank, whose name may have fated her position as the company's chief operating officer, told me is the point at which visitors are "decision ready" to get snipped. She added that many urologists say vasectomies are up because salaries are down; clients tell them their sudden desire for sterility is motivated by fear of job loss and that they are rushing to get the procedure while they still have health insurance.
On Double X, Annie Murphy Paul looked into the economics of abortion, arguing that even if the recession has increased abortion rates, money is hardly a new factor in the decision:
A report by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health, demonstrates the persistence of economic concerns in women's decisions about whether to have a child. The study, titled "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions," draws its results from a survey of 1,209 abortion patients, and in-depth interviews with 38 more. When asked why they were having an abortion, the second most common reason, given by almost three-quarters of the respondents, was that they "could not afford a baby now." The most common reason was that children would interfere with their education, work, or ability to care for dependents-concerns that are also largely economic in nature. (According to other Guttmacher research, 57 percent of U.S. women obtaining an abortion are economically disadvantaged, 61 percent have one or more children already, and 67 percent are unmarried.) The study was published in 2005-when the Dow was still riding high and the housing bubble seemed it would never pop.
Meanwhile, Deborah Seigel writes on Recessionwire about the optimistic terror-and forced flexibility—of having a baby, or two in her case, when you can't afford motherhood on paper:
Marco's unemployed status is prompting us to ponder with conscious intention a new configuration of work and parenting tailored to our modern lives....[snip]...I have no idea how we'll achieve this worthy goal. I have no idea when our apartment will sell, or when Marco will find steady work, or how we'll afford that night nurse that friends who have had twins tell me we just can't live without."
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 7
Just when you thought the right was dead or dormant, and it was safe to say the word "abortion" on the campus of a Catholic university, reality hit back hard. In his commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame yesterday, President Obama said all the right things (clips of the speech are below). He acknowledged "admirable" convictions on all sides. He said abortion had heavy moral and spiritual consequences. He did not stop at the old tepid "safe, legal, and rare" but took it one step further, saying he wanted to work to reduce unintended pregnancies, and make adoption easier. Still, a woman outside called him "the worst baby killer in the nation."
So is the culture war back? To argue this, people point to the surprising Gallup poll that came out last week. For the first time since 1995, a majority of Americans (51 percent) call themselves pro-life. The number has jumped seven points since last year, with women making up the bulk of the increase. Seven points? Doesn't that seem like a lot? What could have changed in a year that would account for such a big jump? Well, politics of course. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" have become political labels, much like Republican and Democrat. My suspicion is that those numbers reflect a counter-balance to Obama, and nothing more—not a change in people's morality, or advances in science, or anything else that might actually shift opinion on abortion.
There is another more important Gallup question that asks whether abortion should be legal or illegal under any or certain circumstances. This is not merely a label but gets closer to real life circumstance. Except for a blip during the culture war of the early '90s, responses to this one have not shifted much at all. Twenty-three percent say legal under all circumstances, 22 say illegal under all, and 53 percent say legal under certain circumstances—essentially the same percentage as in 1975.
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 7
Just when you thought the right was dead or dormant, and it was safe to say the word "abortion" on the campus of a Catholic university, reality hit back hard. In his commencement speech at the University of Notre Dame yesterday, President Obama said all the right things (clips of the speech are below). He acknowledged "admirable" convictions on all sides. He said abortion had heavy moral and spiritual consequences. He did not stop at the old tepid "safe, legal, and rare" but took it one step further, saying he wanted to work to reduce unintended pregnancies, and make adoption easier. Still, a woman outside called him "the worst baby killer in the nation."
So is the culture war back? To argue this, people point to the surprising Gallup poll that came out last week. For the first time since 1995, a majority of Americans (51 percent) call themselves pro-life. The number has jumped seven points since last year, with women making up the bulk of the increase. Seven points? Doesn't that seem like a lot? What could have changed in a year that would account for such a big jump? Well, politics of course. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" have become political labels, much like Republican and Democrat. My suspicion is that those numbers reflect a counter-balance to Obama, and nothing more—not a change in people's morality, or advances in science, or anything else that might actually shift opinion on abortion.
There is another more important Gallup question that asks whether abortion should be legal or illegal under any or certain circumstances. This is not merely a label but gets closer to real life circumstance. Except for a blip during the culture war of the early '90s, responses to this one have not shifted much at all. Twenty-three percent say legal under all circumstances, 22 say illegal under all, and 53 percent say legal under certain circumstances—essentially the same percentage as in 1975.
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 16
The striking jump in the new Gallup poll of people defining themselves as pro-life—7 percentage points in one year, for a total of 51 percent—doesn't explain itself. You may be right, Hanna, that scientific advances or a truly deep shift in attitude aren't the rationale, given that the breakdown didn't change when Gallup pinned people down further by asking them if they think abortion should always, sometimes, or never be legal. But the words "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have long been as freighted with meaning as they are now. No event in the last year I can think of rocked the definitional boat on this one.
So I'd love to hear from anyone out there who used to think of herself or himself as pro-choice, and in the last year or so has had a change of heart. Why? What accounts for the shift in your thinking? Post a comment if you're up for doing that, or send me an email at bazelon@slate.com.
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 16
The striking jump in the new Gallup poll of people defining themselves as pro-life—7 percentage points in one year, for a total of 51 percent—doesn't explain itself. You may be right, Hanna, that scientific advances or a truly deep shift in attitude aren't the rationale, given that the breakdown didn't change when Gallup pinned people down further by asking them if they think abortion should always, sometimes, or never be legal. But the words "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have long been as freighted with meaning as they are now. No event in the last year I can think of rocked the definitional boat on this one.
So I'd love to hear from anyone out there who used to think of herself or himself as pro-choice, and in the last year or so has had a change of heart. Why? What accounts for the shift in your thinking? Post a comment if you're up for doing that, or send me an email at bazelon@slate.com.
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 7
Regarding President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame, I pretty much agree with Hanna that he said all the right things about abortion. I especially related to his anecdote about the Christian doctor who wrote Obama to complain that his campaign Web site referred to all pro-lifers as right-wing idealogues. I’m about as pragmatic as you can get and still be a pro-lifer, so I’m right with the president on his call “to reduce the number of women seeking abortions … reduce unintended pregnancies” and make adoption easier.(Other pro-lifers are not swayed so easily, as 40 protesters were arrested trying to get onto Notre Dame’s campus Sunday.)
What I’m curious to see now is whether that talk turns out to be just that. Finding “common ground” means both sides have to give a little. Obama promised a “sensible conscience clause,” but he has long supported the Freedom of Choice Act, which would toss out any limitations on abortion up to the time of viability and could even “invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states,” as Melinda Henneberger pointed out in Slate last fall. True, he did say recently that FOCA is not his “highest legislative priority.” But one of his first acts in office was to restore funding to overseas family-planning groups that provide abortions, and he’s working to reverse the conscience clause that President Bush pushed through before leaving office. If it’s really common ground he’s looking for, he could impress a lot of us on the right by vocally dropping his support for FOCA.
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 7
Regarding President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame, I pretty much agree with Hanna that he said all the right things about abortion. I especially related to his anecdote about the Christian doctor who wrote Obama to complain that his campaign Web site referred to all pro-lifers as right-wing idealogues. I’m about as pragmatic as you can get and still be a pro-lifer, so I’m right with the president on his call “to reduce the number of women seeking abortions … reduce unintended pregnancies” and make adoption easier.(Other pro-lifers are not swayed so easily, as 40 protesters were arrested trying to get onto Notre Dame’s campus Sunday.)
What I’m curious to see now is whether that talk turns out to be just that. Finding “common ground” means both sides have to give a little. Obama promised a “sensible conscience clause,” but he has long supported the Freedom of Choice Act, which would toss out any limitations on abortion up to the time of viability and could even “invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states,” as Melinda Henneberger pointed out in Slate last fall. True, he did say recently that FOCA is not his “highest legislative priority.” But one of his first acts in office was to restore funding to overseas family-planning groups that provide abortions, and he’s working to reverse the conscience clause that President Bush pushed through before leaving office. If it’s really common ground he’s looking for, he could impress a lot of us on the right by vocally dropping his support for FOCA.
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 16
This week, Hanna, Meghan, and I inaugurated the Double X weekly podcast, called the "XX Gabfest" in tribute to some of our Slate offerings, the "Political Gabfest" and the "Culture Gabfest." We hashed out our thoughts about Obama's speech on abortion at Notre Dame, Nancy Pelosi's troubles, and this spring's slew of mommy and daddy books. Like everything else about our dear beta site, we're feeling our way, but you can check out our first effort, or subscribe to the podcast RSS feed, or sign up for it on iTunes. And tell us what you think.
Illustration by Deanna Staffo
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 1
I’ve been mulling the responses I got, via e-mail and comments, to my question about why a recent Gallup poll might show a seven-point jump in the percentage of people who define themselves as pro-life (from 44 percent last year to 51 percent this year). Several theories from readers:
The Election
I think this past year forced me to think about how I really felt. The election has something to do with it ... Obama’s mother also set me on a course of reflection. As an intelligent, curious single mom who struggled to give her son the best, I could relate.
I really want to be liberal, but in my life the most tangible support as a poor, single mother came from people who looked, acted, and talked just like Sarah Palin. Other high-status women didn’t give me chances; they were the first to complain when I needed time off for a sick child. Academics can write about women’s issues but the evangelicals made sure I could afford to go to work. In contrast, my university still doesn’t offer onsite child-care.
The Aging Population
Perhaps when folks pass the age at which their daughters may be faced with this decision, they can more easily be moved to a tenuous pro-life position when asked by a pollster. I suspect that the opinions on this subject may be broad, but very, very shallow.
Having a Baby
When I went with a friend who had a scan at eight weeks and could see the baby and hear his heartbeat—technology that wasn’t available to those of us who have been pro-choice since the ‘70s—then it all changed.
Scientific Advances
From Commenter LadyP: after having fertility issues and finally having children, I have changed my views in terms of late-term abortions. I think that science and the amount we know about fetal development has altered my viewpoint.
Changing Definitions
My impression from the occasional college paper I receive on this topic is that at least some young women are calling themselves pro-life and supporting that label with pro-choice positions. Basically, they argue that they're pro-life in a sort of nuanced way that is indistinguishable from being pro-choice. They don't actually want abortion to be illegal, they just don't want it to be taken lightly.
Taking a look at the Gallup poll, that's actually what it shows. Fifty-one percent call themselves "pro-life" but 78 percent want abortion to be legal in some circumstances. The whole debate is about those circumstances, but Gallup doesn't ask about that. It's like asking who's in favor of "thou shalt not kill" without asking about the death penalty, war, hunting, or abortion.
