Today is Blog for Choice Day 2013. The topic for this year is “Why are you pro–choice?”
I am pro–choice because reproductive freedom is an essential prerequisite for women’s rights. Societies where abortion is illegal are among the worst places to be a woman. Societies where opponents of abortion and reproductive freedom get their laws kill women. Reproductive freedom saves lives. Reproductive freedom is one of the most powerful ways to lift women out of poverty.
And with today being the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the need for reproductive freedom is more essential than ever. Recent times have seen record numbers of attempts in the US at chipping away at reproductive rights.
Blog for Choice mini-roundup:
Today is NARAL Pro–Choice America’s annual Blog for Choice Day. This year’s question is “What will I do to help elect pro–choice candidates in 2012”?
Well, strictly speaking, since I’m Canadian I can’t vote in any US election. If there happens to be a by–election here, I’d easily vote for the pro–choice candidate, even though it likely wouldn’t make much of a difference (I live in a safe Conservative seat). The only influence I really have on the US election is indirect, via convincing others to vote in favour of reproductive freedom.
My best option would be to continue doing what I am already doing. Arguing in favour of reproductive rights, such as by showing why it is moral, why the faux–life movement is not really anti–abortion, and so on. It is hard to convince someone as closed–minded as an anti–choicer. After all, they generally really are fighting a war on women. The best way would be to convince those who have been misled into supporting
abstinence ignorance–only sex education, pharmacy refusal clauses, and so on. I hope those are simply not as vocal as the misogynists, and are instead a quiet sheep–like majority. But the real misogynists are by far the most vocal. Update: To clarify and provide more info, the point is to show that the politicians who make the biggest issue about abortion are the ones most likely to be causing abortions due to those people’s opposition to reproductive freedom. Convincing those who aren’t against sex education, birth control, and so on is the point, although it is still far better to convince those people to become pro–choice and I will of course attempt that.
My biggest fear is somehow not doing enough. Allowing reproductive rights to be eroded around the edges (this covers more than just abortion) to be rendered so that it still nominally exists while being made impossible to utilize is, in practical terms, no different from not having that right in the first place.
Today is NARAL Pro–Choice America’s Blog for Choice Day. For the third consecutive year, I am participating.
This year’s topic is: “Given the anti–choice gains in the states and Congress, are you concerned about choice in 2011?”
The answer to that question is complex. Abortion, as it gets people riled and worked up, serves as an excellent motivator for Republican voters, as well as a fundraising tool. Since politicians will eventually learn from losing, it is unlikely that anti–choicers in the US Congress will try to eliminate such an excellent political tool. Indeed, they had complete control of the federal government for six years and only passed the PBABA, which didn’t prevent a single abortion. In addition, any ban would also have to get through the Senate and past Obama’s veto pen. For these reasons, the chance of anti–choicers making a serious attempt to ban abortion is pretty unlikely. It’s far more likely that they’ll just throw table scraps at anti–choicers, try passing an analogue to the PBABA, and make a lot of noise about abortion to keep their supporters worked up. The GOP will gladly have people continue to believe that they intend to ban abortion, however.
On the state level it is different. I agree with Melissa McEwan that the real access issues will be at the state level. There anti–choice activists will try anything to eliminate any pretense of reproductive rights. They will attempt to add arbitrary exclusions that retain a nominal right to abortion, while throwing obstacles that add serious impediments to access. They might even go after contraception as well. And the faux minimalists on SCOTUS will likely uphold most of the restrictions. It would be a kind of incrementalism, slowly eating away at reproductive rights like rust or tin pest go after metal. The end result could well be a regime where abortion rights nominally exist but are completely gutted of meaning and impact.
So in short, there are reasons to be concerned at the state level, and far less so federally.
Today is Blog for Choice Day 2010. The topic is “What does Trust Women mean to you?”
Trust women means treating women like people.
Some people don’t trust women. Those people continue to oppose free and easy access to contraception. Why? Because they don’t trust women with having reproductive rights.
Those same people continue to insist that prescriptions are needed for, and that limits be placed on the any woman can have of, the birth control pill, even though medical professionals believe that such is not necessary (cite). Why? Because those people have such a profound mistrust of women that they construct a society where women need permission to have sex.
Those same people support the right to abuse their daughters by denying them the birth control they have the legal right to use. They also want to ignorance by pushing abstinence–only sex. Why? Because they mistrust women so much that they want to control others, and would rather that children get STDs and unintended pregnancies rather than have sex.
Those same people so other things that also show that they distrust women.
I am against the people above and the misogyny they stand for because I trust women. Why? Because women are people.
Blog for choice day 2009
It’s January 28, and on this day in 1988, the Supreme Court issued its decision in R. v. Morgentaler, which struck down federal laws on abortion. Since then, Canada has had no laws regarding abortion. The decision has been compared to the American Roe v. Wade, though the issues and facts of law and are more similar to Doe v. Bolton. Although Blog for Choice is organized by NARAL Pro-Choice America, I have decided to do an unofficial second blog for choice day 2009 because I am a Canadian.
Banning abortions has nearly no impact on the abortion rate. Women will find other ways to get one if they are desperate. Well-off women will go to somewhere where it is legal and get it. Not well-off women, they are the real victims. They will end up maimed or dead from back-alley abortions. If you say unsafe abortions are a “myth” invented by the pro-choice movement, take a look at this extremely graphic photograph and say it again honest from your heart with a straight face. Legalized abortion does not have much of an impact on the abortion rate; what it does is make it safe.
Even some people who personally oppose abortion acknowledge this. According to Wikipedia, Elizabeth May, leader of the federal Green Party, has stated that she is “against abortion” and does not “think a woman has a frivolous right to choose” and that she “talked women out of abortions.” And yet May also realizes that despite her personal opposition to it, abortion needs to be legal because “[i]f we make them illegal, women will die”.
Abortion: it saves women. That’s one of the reasons why I support pro-choicers. And why you should be too.
Image is from NARAL Pro-choice America.
Blog for choice day 2009
It’s January 22, and that means it’s Blog for Choice Day. It’s question is: “What is your top pro-choice hope for President Obama and/or the new Congress?” Mine is that the Global Gag Rule be revoked and that real measures to prevent unwanted pregnancies be enacted in the United States and abroad.
Why do I support pro-choicers? Well, I am incapable of ever having to face the decision about whether to have an abortion, and for that reason, I think it’s inappropriate for me to interfere with the decision of those who are.
Another reason is that pro-choicers actually take actions that reduce the abortion rate. Many pro-life organizations are opposed to, or at least ambivalent about, the very things that reduce the abortion rate.
One such thing is contraception. In the United States, 46% of women who have an abortion did not use a birth control method the month they got pregnant.
And yet many pro-life organizations are against birth control. Well, it’s possible that banning birth control may somehow reduce abortion more than making access to contraception easy. Since this hypothesis predicts that restricting access to both contraception and abortion would reduce the abortion rate more than easy access to contraception, and well more than easy access to both, it is readily testable: you find places that do those three things and compare their abortion rate. Such a situation exists in the Americas: