Tuesday 28 June 2011

The Real-World Costs of Abortion Restrictions


Right wing, religious, anti-choice proponents have realized that their best strategy to outlaw abortion is to chip away at it piece by piece. For example, in Nebraska (and some other states) they've outlawed abortion after the 20th week based on BS studies that are meant to look scientific. Since submitting to dogma is more important than the women this harms, I wonder if they even care about the actual cost in terms of people's lives. For example:
Last fall, Danielle and Robb Deaver of Grand Island, Neb., found that their state’s new law intruded in a wrenching personal decision. Ms. Deaver, 35, a registered nurse, was pregnant with a daughter in a wanted pregnancy, she said. She and her husband were devastated when her water broke at 22 weeks and her amniotic fluid did not rebuild.

Her doctors said that the lung and limb development of the fetus had stopped, that it had a remote chance of being born alive or able to breathe, and that she faced a chance of serious infection.

In what might have been a routine if painful choice in the past, Ms. Deaver and her husband decided to seek induced labor rather than wait for the fetus to die or emerge. But inducing labor, if it is not to save the life of the fetus, is legally defined as abortion, and doctors and hospital lawyers concluded that the procedure would be illegal under Nebraska’s new law.

After 10 days of frustration and anguish, Ms. Deaver went into labor naturally; the baby died within 15 minutes and Ms. Deaver had to be treated with intravenous antibiotics for an infection that developed.

Apparently, stupid ideology is more important than the health of the mother or the developing fetus. And, given the prevalency of slut-shaming that happens in the anti-choice movement, how will they shame this woman who is married and was actively seeking to have a child? (Here's a great post from a former anti-choice advocate who talks about slut-shaming and how it's all about shaming women.)

Meanwhile, in states like South Dakota, lawmakers are requiring women to go to pregnancy crisis centers before they can have an abortion. Nevermind the fact that these centers are not licensed, don't offer medical services, offer debunked and misleading information, and are really just vehicles for Xian ghouls to try and "save souls" by preying on women in vulnerable positions (link). The real cost, of course, is that of the women who are constantly being hounded, slut-shamed, proselytized to, made to jump through hoops, and told that they aren't able to decide what is best for their own bodies because they are simply too stupid or too emotional or too female to have their own opinions.

It's time to end these misogynistic attacks on women's reproductive freedoms. Women are not here to be baby incubators, they are not property, they are fully able to make decisions and act as autonomous units, they do not need to be slut-shamed, they do not need to hide their sexuality away as some delicate flower never to be touched until they are ready to be owned by some man in marriage and made to have offspring. If a woman wants to wait until marriage, that's her choice. If a woman wants to engage in the very human act of sex, that's also her choice. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, that's her choice. If her contraception fails and she chooses an abortion, that's her choice. It's past time for anti-choice zealots to realize these simple truths.

8 comments:

ifyoureallyknew said...

Ironically, abortion kills the future women of the world...

GCT said...

Abortion allows for women to control their bodies. And yes, both male and female embryos may be aborted. Your point in posting the blatantly obvious was?

Anonymous said...

his point, I believe, was that you are critiquing pro-lifers for not caring about life when clearly their main objective is protecting life. nobody wants people to die, this is a weak argument against the majority of pro-lifers. however it is a very legitimate argument against extremists that would rather murder a woman and a baby than just a baby, but you are refering to rare circumstances (relative to the total number of abortions that occur for less than such obviously understandable reasons.)

GCT said...

"his point, I believe, was that you are critiquing pro-lifers for not caring about life when clearly their main objective is protecting life."

No, their main objective is the subjugation of women.

"nobody wants people to die, this is a weak argument against the majority of pro-lifers."

This case and others show that anti-choice people are actually less concerned with people dying (the mothers) than they are with following dogmatic rules. Look at the latest catholic edicts about leaving mothers to die instead of practicing abortions to save the life of the mother.

"however it is a very legitimate argument against extremists..."

I don't think it's an argument against just extremists. What possible stance can a "non-extremist" anti-choice person possibly use that isn't harmful to women?

Anonymous said...

I think the important takeway here is not the dysfunction of pro-life ideology, but the dysfunction of the state of Nebraska.

GCT said...

Except that it's pretty systemic within the anti-choice movement.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.