Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Putting Anti-Abortion Movement On Defensive
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties > Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Archive
Beamer
QUOTE
http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml

Norm Scheiber

02.16.05
PUTTING THE ANTI-ABORTION MOVEMENT ON THE DEFENSIVE: Easily the most tactically brilliant flourish in Hillary's Roe speech a few weeks back was her suggestion that people on both sides of the abortion debate can agree that abortion is a tragedy, that they all want to reduce the number of abortions, and that the best way to do that is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. This doesn't exclude promoting teen abstinence, as Hillary concedes. But it clearly includes guaranteeing access to birth control.

What makes this tack so brilliant is that, in addition to being true, it obviously puts anti-abortion groups on the defensive: Their preferred solution to lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies is, I suspect, for fewer people to have nonprocreative sex (at least fewer unmarried people)--which is not exactly what you'd call a winning position. Still, I didn't appreciate just how vulnerable anti-abortion groups were on this point until I read the following in today's New York Times:

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice, said the organization was saving its ammunition to fight judicial nominees who might overturn Roe v. Wade. "We are standing strong in the next Supreme Court battle," Ms. Keenan said.

There are "bigger issues to fight," she added, "to draw attention to the broader issue of reproductive health." For example, in this week's edition of the conservative Weekly Standard, Naral placed an advertisement asking abortion rights groups to "please, help us prevent abortions" by increasing access to birth control.

But Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life Foundation, dismissed the invitation as an effort "to get the pro-life movement into a debate over birth control," on which her organization takes no position. Ms. Tobias called the Democrats' talk "pulling the wool over the eyes of voters."

Takes no position? That's it? That's your response? As far as I can tell, the only way you could be an anti-abortion activist and not think of birth control as directly relevant to what you do is if you really weren't interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Maybe that's the case. But it would be a pretty alarming admission.

Seems like Democrats need to get in the habit of asking anti-abortion politicians and activists straight up whether a.) they favor reducing unwanted pregnancies as a way to reduce the number of abortions in the United States, and b.) (assuming the answer is yes) what's wrong with honest, responsible, hard-working adults using birth control as a way to accomplish that. I'm dying to hear their answer. (Well, Tim, I just don't think people should be having nonprocreative sex... Somehow I don't see that going over so well.)
amy
Birth control to prevent pregnancies and "safe' sex education to decrease the alarming number of STD cases in the U.S.,particulary in young people. Unplanned pregnancies and STD are the issues that can force a reality check on the self- righteous, unrealistic, anti-abortion, abstinence only sex ed. proponents.

From the American Social Health Association: http://www.ashastd.org/stdfaqs/statistics.html

STD STATISTICS:
Estimating how many STD cases occur is not a simple or straightforward task. First, most STDs can be "silent," causing no noticeable symptoms. These asymptomatic infections can be diagnosed only through testing. Unfortunately, routine screening programs are not widespread, and social stigma and lack of public awareness concerning STDs often inhibits frank discussion between health care providers and patients about STD risk and the need for testing.--ASHA.Sexually Transmitted Diseases in America: How Many Cases and at What Cost? December 1998

The estimated total number of people living in the US with an incurable STD is over 65 million. Every year, there are approximately 15 million new cases of STDs, a few of which are curable.

Two-thirds of all STDs occur in people 25 years of age or younger.

One in four new STD infections occur in teenagers.

Cervical cancer in women is linked to high-risk types of HPV

Of the STDs that are diagnosed, only four--gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia and hepatitis B--are required to be reported to state health departments and the CDC for statistical purposes. Hepatitis B is recent addition to that list.

Hepatitis B is 100 times more infectious than HIV

STDs, other than HIV, cost more than $8 billion each year to diagnose and treat, both the disease and their complications.

It is estimated that as many as one in four Americans have genital herpes, yet at least 80 percent of those with herpes are unaware they have it

At least one in four Americans will contract an STD at some point in their lives.

Overall, herpes is the most common STD in the United States, with more than 45 million individuals having this lifelong (but harmless) virus. In a given year, however, it is estimated that more people will become infected with HPV than with herpes. More than 1 million people acquire herpes each year and over 5 million people acquire HPV each year. Some researchers believe that HPV infections may self-resolve and may not be lifelong like herpes.

Less than half of adults ages 18 to 44 have ever been tested for an STD other than HIV / AIDS.

At least 15 percent of all infertile American women are infertile because of tubal damage caused by pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), the result of an untreated STD.

Approximately two-thirds of Hepatitis B (HBV) infections are transmitted sexually, HBV is linked to chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis and liver cancer.

ASHA is a trusted partner with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and operates the national AIDS, STD, Immunization and Public Response Hotline
so angry I could spit
and yet many of those on the right are going on about how artificial contraception is immoral as they consider hormonal contraception may hinder implantion of a blastocyst when ovulation does occur AND the egg is fertlized. Allowing contraception is disordered thinking since an ova that may possibly be fertilized does have more value than a woman even when her life is in danger. The guy on this blog says he's not pushing to outlaw contraception but:

morality of contraception
amy
QUOTE(so angry I could spit @ Feb 16 2005, 09:49 PM)
and yet many of those on the right are going on about how artificial contraception is immoral as they consider hormonal contraception may hinder implantion of a blastocyst when ovulation does occur AND the egg is fertlized.  Allowing contraception is disordered thinking since an ova that may possibly be fertilized does have more value than a woman even when her life is in danger.  The guy on this blog says he's not pushing to outlaw contraception but:

morality of contraception
*


The Catholic Church position is what is outlined, here. That will never change. But, I bet that the majority of American Catholics have used or are using some form of contraception to limit the size of their families.
You know what's amazing about sex ed. in public schools? Students have the right to opt out of those courses if they so desire, at least in my son's school. I imagine that's true for every school district in the U.S. So, what's the problem for the abstinence only people? Their kids can opt out of a full sex ed. program and read abstinence only literature as others are learning how to protect themselves from STD and unwanted prenancies, IF they do have sex before marriage, which is likely.
so angry I could spit
QUOTE(amy @ Feb 16 2005, 10:07 PM)
The Catholic Church position is what is outlined, here. That will never change. But, I bet that the majority of American Catholics have used or are using some form of contraception to limit the size of their families.
You know what's amazing about sex ed. in public schools? Students have the right to opt out of those courses if they so desire, at least in my son's school. I imagine that's true for every school district in the U.S. So, what's the problem for the abstinence only people? Their kids can opt out of a full sex ed. program and read abstinence only literature as others are learning how to protect themselves from STD and unwanted prenancies, IF they do have sex before marriage, which is likely.
*


My problem is the fundies are also using this position and there's no latitude for contraception to save a woman's life because they consider hormonal contraception abortion (even in the case of GDT) and they do want to abolish access to contraception. Do you really think the women who are now against abortion b/c they're going through fertility treatment & IVF desperate to have a baby, would stand by the "pro-lifers" if they knew that the pro-lifers consider them murderers & wanted to outlaw IVF as well?

I thought the opt out policy is for the parents to refuse consent for their child to take sex ed (not for the child to opt out on their own). My best friend's aprents didn't let her take sex ed &, as SOuthern Baptists, there was NO discussion of sex at home aside from "it's immoral outside marriage, you don't need to know about it until you're married" She lost her virginity without knowing she'd "gone all the way" (she's also the one who's 3 children were all the result of contraceptive failure)
amy
QUOTE(so angry I could spit @ Feb 16 2005, 10:19 PM)
My problem is the fundies are also using this position and there's no latitude for contraception to save a woman's life because they consider hormonal contraception abortion (even in the case of GDT) and they do want to abolish access to contraception.  Do you really think the women who are now against abortion b/c they're going through fertility treatment & IVF desperate to have a baby, would stand by the "pro-lifers" if they knew that the pro-lifers consider them murderers & wanted to outlaw IVF as well?

I thought the opt out policy is for the parents to refuse consent for their child to take sex ed (not for the child to opt out on their own).  My best friend's aprents didn't let her take sex ed &, as SOuthern Baptists, there was NO discussion of sex at home aside from "it's immoral outside marriage, you don't need to know about it until you're married"  She lost her virginity without knowing she'd "gone all the way" (she's also the one who's 3 children were all the result of contraceptive failure)
*

Well yes, it is for parents to sign an opt out for sex ed. By the time their kids are teenagers, I imagine it would be hard for them to deny their teenager the right to take a full sex ed. course, if they wanted to take the class. BUT that's the point! It's for the parent to work that out with their child. Also, on the other side of the coin, if my son's school had an abstinence only course, we would supplement his sex ed. with info we feel is vital for his well being.
Beamer
QUOTE(so angry I could spit @ Feb 16 2005, 06:49 PM)
and yet many of those on the right are going on about how artificial contraception is immoral as they consider hormonal contraception may hinder implantion of a blastocyst when ovulation does occur AND the egg is fertlized.  Allowing contraception is disordered thinking since an ova that may possibly be fertilized does have more value than a woman even when her life is in danger.  The guy on this blog says he's not pushing to outlaw contraception but:

morality of contraception
*



I am a Catholic and trying to reconnect with the Church, but these kinds of hypocricies are too much. Do you see the logic in this position?

QUOTE
Q: “Why does the Church sanction drugs that are used to help aid in natural fertilization, in an attempt to induce pregnancy, and yet condemn the use of condoms to try to prevent it? If it is a deinal of God’s will when you use a condom to prevent pregnancy, how is it not also a denial of God’s will to try to induce a pregnancy that God has consistently denied?”

A:  Excellent question.  First of all, we have to understand that fertility is a natural extension of the human body.  That’s the way we were created.  We also know that because of sin we are susceptible to pain, to disease, to anguish (Gen 3:19 “ By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken; For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return.”) and ultimately death.  So simply because one person is infertile either because of genetics, because of an accident, or any other reason, all that means is that is an affliction (caused ultimately by sin, not God) that person must live with.  Some people have cancer, some people are born deformed, some are maimed and hurt by other people, etc.  So I think its wrong to assume that because one can’t get pregnant, its the result of God denying it. 

So continuing on in that line of thought we can see that using drugs that we have discovered to heal ailments in our bodies is a good thing.  Using penecillin to keep millions of people from dying is a good thing.  Because it preserves life and restores our bodies closer to the state that we were created to have.  Therefore, it is correct that the Church should encourage the use of non-harmful drugs which can help restore a person’s body to its intended function or purpose. 


People are infertile because of sin?! Condoms are wrong?!

I think what the writer in the New Republic was pointing out is that not many people are against contraception. Therefore, forcing the anti-abortion forces into an argument about preventing abortions through birth control would tilt the argument in our favor.
so angry I could spit
QUOTE(beamer619 @ Feb 16 2005, 11:19 PM)
I am a Catholic and trying to reconnect with the Church, but these kinds of hypocricies are too much.  Do you see the logic in this position?
People are infertile because of sin?!  Condoms are wrong?!

I think what the writer in the New Republic was pointing out is that not many people are against contraception.  Therefore, forcing the anti-abortion forces into an argument about preventing abortions through birth control would tilt the argument in our favor.
*



The plan to beatify a woman who chose not to terminate a pregnancy that was discovered the same time as her cancer was. I think she was in the first month of pregnancy, the cancer was considered treatable w/chemo (that would have ended the pregnancy). The baby was born at 6 months, she died 3 months later. Having spent the past two days looking at data from pre-term babies (not all as early as hers) and seeing not only how bad the mortality rate is, but how sickly they are in the months they live and how few survive without some pretty significant problems I still don't understand how if they think all life is sacred how anyone could so easily condemn women to a most definite death just to ensure live birth (with a high mortality rate).
TheRestofUs
Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,

If a sperm is wasted God gets so irate!

Let the heathen spill theirs on the dusty ground,

God will make them PAY for each sperm that can't be found!

- Monty Python
- The Meaning of Life
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.