Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- I’m Black and I Want More “Stuff” and “Things”: An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
- 'Corporations Are Not People' in Montana, Colorado
- For Obama, a Bigger Win Than for Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Bush or Bush
- From Liberal Victory to Disempowerment in Six Easy Steps
- Worst Case Climate Projections Likely: Study
- For Obama, a Bigger Win Than for Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Bush or Bush
- From Liberal Victory to Disempowerment in Six Easy Steps
- Bailout 'Of the People, By the People' Exposes Bankers' Greed
- I’m Black and I Want More “Stuff” and “Things”: An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
- FBI's Abuse of the Surveillance State is the Real Scandal Needing Investigation
Popular content
Today's Top News
Abortion is Not the Only Fight
Women in the US are tired of seeing their rights being ignored or abused under America's lopsided healthcare system
Finally, a feminist health campaign telling it like it is: American women are being thrown under the bus for an insurance industry-friendly motion towards "health reform." Enough with the handwringing, Jane Fonda seems to say in this video for the "Not Under the Bus" campaign. It's time for women to stop that bus and start driving it.
The healthcare bill currently headed for conference committee station in Congress is troubling to progressives on several accounts, but for women, it will have the ironic effect of making a medical procedure less accessible. The Senate's abortion "compromise," extorted by Ben Nelson of Nebraska (along with a pile of cash for his state), ostensibly means that women who want full coverage will have to write two checks: one to cover abortion, and one to cover everything else.
Analysts worry this will amount to a Stupak-like ban on all insurance coverage for abortions - how many insurers, not to mention employers, are going to put up with separate checks? And that's only a question for "blue" states that won't ban abortion coverage entirely. If the expected happens, it will mean that women will have to pay more out of pocket and travel even longer distances to exercise what Roe versus Wade supposedly codified as a "right."
Last month, feminists were shocked at Stupak-Pitts, then outraged. Now, Jane Fonda is looking outright panicked on Youtube: "Help end discrimination against women," she pleads. It may well turn out that the decade's greatest threat to abortion access wasn't George Bush, but Obamacare.
Odd as it is to say, I find Fonda's panic somewhat comforting. In both its boldness and its generality, it signals the women's movement to regroup at square one, to focus on women rather than on a procedure. After all, the right to abortion is based on broader Constitutional rights to autonomy and bodily integrity and the privacy to make decisions about what happens or doesn't happen to one's body. And if we apply these rights broadly, not only to a woman's "right to choose" to terminate a pregnancy but also her right to choose to carry that pregnancy to term, and her right to choose what happens or doesn't happen to her body at the time of childbirth, then we would see that all pregnant women are being denied these rights.
Case in point: Joy Szabo of Page, Arizona, pregnant for the fourth time. In order to exercise her rights, she sought long and hard for a provider and had to travel 300 miles away from her family for care. But Szabo wasn't seeking an abortion; she was seeking a vaginal birth. You see, Szabo gave birth previously by cesarean section. She is among the hundreds of thousands of U.S. women who seek vaginal birth after caesarian (Vbac) each year, though nearly half of hospitals won't allow it. Szabo was denied the right to deliver at her local hospital unless she delivered surgically. She was even threatened with a court order. You thought abortion was controversial? Ask a nurse about Vbac.
Szabo also told it like it is: "Page Hospital: Enter my body without permission, sounds like rape to me," she wrote in lipstick on the back of her minivan. Szabo's ordeal ended happily on 5 December, when she gave birth vaginally in Phoenix. But the majority of American women in this situation are scheduling repeat surgery - either on their doctors' recommendation or insistence - though research has shown it is more likely to result in a baby's admission to neonatal intensive care for prematurity and breathing problems, to say nothing of the risks to mothers.
The Vbac ban is only a subset of a much larger problem. Decades of research tell us that optimal maternity care is something very different from what most American women receive. Optimal care means that the physiological birth process is supported with minimal intervention: labour begins spontaneously, women are free to move around and push in upright positions, and providers avoid surgical intervention unless absolutely necessary.
Meanwhile, the majority of labouring women are confined to hospital beds, strapped to mandatory but ineffective fetal monitors, induced or sped up with artificial hormones, and consequently experiencing unnecessary pelvic trauma and the highest cesarean section rate on record, at 32% (10-15% is considered the maximum we would expect for health reasons). If you question whether this has anything to do with women's bodily integrity, talk to a woman who's had an infected caesarian scar or an episiotomy that tore further into her perineum.
Perhaps the biggest loss for women's health reform is that with all the drama over abortion, maternity care has remained a huge blindspot - and a costly one, at that.
The US spent $86bn on maternity care in 2006 and another $26bn caring for babies born preterm, now also at a record high of 12%. Prematurity is a leading cause of infant death, yet the majority of premies are induced or surgically delivered too early. This over-medicalisation means that childbirth costs Americans more than twice per capita what other countries with better outcomes spend. Medicaid picks up nearly half the bill in the US. If we gave just a little attention to improving care, we could literally save billions.
"Improve quality and reduce costs" - this has been Obama's mantra for health reform. How is it that instead of addressing real threats to women's and babies' health, "reform" has led us toward rolling back abortion access? Advocacy groups have been defending "abortion rights" and, to a lesser extent, "birthing rights," but it's possible that such a single-issue focus has helped to marginalise. To what other bodily system or medical procedure do we attribute rights? We don't have endocrine rights or MRI rights; men don't have testicular rights or Viagra rights. Rights belong to human beings. We have rights.
Or do we? A society that would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy would also force her to have major abdominal surgery. Women won't get real health reform until we reform this fundamental lack of respect for women. The bus stops here.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
24 Comments so far
Show AllI mentioned on another post that I watched Rep Bart Stupak for two hours on C-Span last night. He has 80 supporters for his ammendment, 20 of which are pro-choice Dems, for good reason - he is a great speaker with great command of his subject.
Stupak's main contention is that abortion is not a health care issue and should not be mentioned at all in this legistlation. However, since it was addressed and since the earlier bills violated the existing Hyde Ammendment to prohibit federal funding of abortion, Stupak introduced his ammendment, which in essence, assures that the Hyde ammendment will not be violated.
I am pro-choice and have always believed in the woman's right to chose. The Stupak ammendment does not remove the woman's right to chose - it eliminates all federal funding options for that choice.
The above author does not make a clear case as to why abortion is a health care issue and why the Hyde Ammendment should be overturned. I love Jane Fonda, read her book, and saw the trials and tribulation she had following her 'riding the North Vietnamese gun' photo op. However, it is important to define how abortion is health care and why the Hyde Ammendment should be overturned - an ammendment that will never be overturned in the foreseeable future.
One of the alleged drivers of health care "reform" is the fragmentation of the US system that adds costs and diminishes health care.
The Senate Bill adds more fragmentation by prohibiting gov. subsidies to any insurance company that cover abortion for any of their policyholders even if the non-subsidized policyholders pay for the coverage with their own money.
This rule is 1) a direct assault on a woman's right to chose and 2) disproportionately increases health care costs for women (women are already paying more than men).
Stupak's amendment is a pig no matter how good he is at putting lipstick on the pig.
Hi Mookie,
RE: Abortion being a health care issue:
I know someone who needed an abortion for health reasons after she contracted a virus while pregnant. Post virus, the fetus was irreparably harmed, my friend became quite ill, and was advised by her doctor to get an abortion.
In this case, it clearly was a health care issue to her and her doctor.
Thanks,
esabi
I had to seek an abortion for health reasons. If I hadn't had the abortion, I would not have lived to carry to full term. It's a health care issue: You go to doctors for it, it is a surgical procedure, it affects the body, it is something you need recovery time and intravenous painkillers after, it can potentially result in complications or infections, and it's not easy psychologically.
Yeah, sorry, I just don't see how abortion isn't a health care issue.
If you imagine yourself pregnant, you may understand why it's a BIG health issue. Since pregnancy quite completely involves the human body as host.
And removing a fetus is surgery.
Compare that to the (usually, and relatively) minor issue of taking an aspirin. Also involving health.
I hope that helps.
lets face it america has devolved since ronnie ray guns
into a fundamentalist nation. these wingnuts like stupak
are no different then some ayatollah.only serious protest
the likes of which this country hasn't seen since the
sixties early seventies is going to change the psychotic
monstrosity it has become. everyday it becomes more of a chore
to see another struggle to overcome in what has become a rancid beast. i was watching a documentary last nite and kids in
sweden were playing a video game where the us has invaded
their country (sweden) and they were fighting them in the
streets. they were also going to anti war rallies which
are huge outside this country. we have to make the madness
stop. this is interrelated because its ALL about human
repression!
Now that the Obama and the Congressional Dems have sold out a woman's right to chose, I wish I had voted for Ron Paul. During the 2008 primaries, Paul was to the left of Obama on everything except this issue.
Once you start electing religious fanatics this is but the beginning of what they intend to do. Bush appointed many religious nuts all over his government and the military has become home for christian missionaries parading as commanding officers and crusading mercenaries. The courts are filled with these people who hide their hatred and contempt of women with moral arguments about abortion based on their superstitions. Both parties are playing to this fanaticism giving it more credence than ever. I think Jane is on to something.
Women are now the majority yet are STILL treated as third-class
citizens, and worse as we seek to tell them what they are allowed to do WITH THEIR OWN BODIES!
This is indeed fundamentalists at work. Yet is there a specific commandment against abortion in the Bible? No. Thou shall not kill is all they got. Yet we are fighting two wars where children are treated as "collateral damage." Where is their outrage about that?
Gary
The Liberal/Left has sat on its hands as regards abortion too. Early on when abortion meant more free sex, the left supported abortion, but when it seemed women wanted abortion to equate to control over their own bodies in sex too, they abandoned their activity on behalf of women and abortion, and suddenly discovered the rights of the fetus (or just went passive).
The entire spectrum of sex education, contraception, and abortion has always been concerned with controlling women, and their place in society. The strategy of the wing-nuts has always been to completely ban abortion; failing that, put so many restrictions in place as to make access impossible. Contraception would be next. A recent tactic has been to have "believing" pharmacists refuse to fill RU486 prescriptions. The previous post, citing religious fanaticism, is spot-on. The representatives or senators may not themselves be fanatics, but they know it pays to pander. In terms of cesarean delivery, surgical procedures make for a higher profit. It's that simple. It's about money - not women or children.
This seems to be plain enough to me. No person should have an abortion paid for with tax payers money with the natural exceptions of rape, choice of parent or child.
That said, no one should be able to stop any company from offering abortion coverage to any woman or couple that wishes to buy it.
I personally don't favor abortion, but I, nor anyone else is able to make that choice for another human being. Nor should they be allowed to. No government has the right to intrude on a womans private decisions.
Jane Fondas opinions are irrelevent as always.
"No person should have an abortion paid for with tax payers money with the natural exceptions of rape, choice of parent or child."
I suppose you also think taxpayers should not pay for any social services for the children of poorer women.
Three, four, five, six ....
This just demonstrates the bullshit argument "pro-life" proponents are resting on. Why would an abortion in the instance of rape or incest be moral? Aren't you trying to protect the fetus? Outlawing abortion leads people to other solutions, namely abandoning children in dumpsters and fields. Which is the greater immorality; The termination of an undifferentiated lump of cells, or wholesale infanticide?
OT, but:
Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality! – deadline this Thursday..
http://www.savetheinternet.com/fcc-comments
Repeal the Hyde Amendment. Federally fund abortions, and under a single payer health system, by opening Medicare to all U.S. residents.
Every advanced westernized nation in the world today has universal health care, except for the United States. And all of these nations provide abortions, too, unless it's illegal - for example, Portugal up to a few years ago - which had achieved "universal" health care through its NHS - if you can consider it universal if it doesn't cover such a basic reproductive service. It now being fully funded through the NHS with its legality.
It's legal, of course, in the United States (we ARE - theoretically - among the advanced westernized nations in THAT respect), so, the rest of this is absurd. Tell these sick old white men in Congress who are unnaturally interested in the bodies and private health matters of over half this country, i.e. women, when they are not that gender, to GET OVER IT.
I mentioned on another board, that in Portugal, women were crossing the border into neighboring countries in order to get legal abortions and IF they could afford it. Likely still do, since it's still only legal within the first trimester. (Where - btw - those countries' health care systems have also been bearing the burden of what the Portugese government failed to do for half of its citizens. Out of the vestiges of religious chauvinism, ignorance and superstition.) In rural areas, however, poor, uneducated women were abandoning newborn babies in fields -- a widespread practice of infanticide rather than the "evil" of abortion or the "evil" of taxpayers supporting this surgery for others in their NHS system.
The anti-abortion laws there were supported by the Catholic Church, but a local Catholic priest who worked with many of these women for years -- and thus saw first-hand the consequences of such legislation -- called the anti-abortion laws, "the real infanticide." And this was someone who was *personally* opposed to abortion.
We need to stop this "long good-bye" with 12th century barbarism. Put an end NOW to this nonsense about basic reproductive services, and really provide secular, scientifically-based health care for all.
If someone doesn't like abortions, then don't have one! But yes indeedy, your tax dollars SHOULD and SHALL go in the pot with everyone else's and relative to your ability to pay.
As we walk forward, with science, reason, and education, and into the 21st century, and with real hope towards the 22nd.
Of course, the insurance industry must make a lot more money on policies if they can sell abortion riders, and, women will end up having to pay more for insurance, and when they still make less. And the lobbyists, no surprise, are kind of like children (not to insult children) whose parents never set limits clearly and definitively enough.
Wouldn't universal single payer combined with strong reproductive freedom laws fix this mess?
I as a male don't see how the current system does women or men any favors.
I really wish people would see that, and I'm talking about those opposed to universal single payer. None of this would be an issue under it.
The Neo-Cons and their Religious Reich want to turn all of us into domesticated corporate food stocks like H.G. Wells' Eloy. They have already castrated the Republican men and many of the Democrats as well.
They want to perpetuate poverty. If there is a full-on ban on abortion and birth control, you can guarandamntee the elites will be able to get abortions, birth control, and condoms. It won't apply to the 1%.
If they banned homosexuality, you can bet the gay elites would be having gay sex somewhere.
It's about control. If The Right truly gave a piss about morality, they wouldn't be starting wars, polluting the planet, and basically screwing everyone over.
"A society that would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy ... The bus stops here."
Does this society force a woman to have sexual intercourse such to risk pregancy
(except either in the no-choices of the case of rape/incest, or over against a severe health risk in carrying-to-term).
Or is that the proper "pro-choice" position, taking the decision/choice when/at the time of potentially conceiving a new life? And not to choose then using abortion as birth control, which is the vast majority of "choices" unfortunately made.
How about talking about "the buck stops here." Grown-up, responsible people (male and female) need to act responsibly.
"Does this society force a woman to have sexual intercourse such to risk pregancy?"
At times, in a sense, yes.
I disagree with you, sniffles.
First of all, birth-control methods are NOT 100% foolproof--they can and sometimes do fail.
Secondly, what if a woman is sexually assaaulted, either by a friend, acquaintance, or even her husband, and an unwanted pregnancy results from that? Should the woman be penalized by being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, which came about under circumstances that were beyond her control? Oh, no, I don't think so.
Thirdly, I don't think that a teenager who has one night of unprotected sex and ends up pregnant should have to pay for that, either. It's true that teens must be taught and encouraged to take responsibility so that they won't end up like that in the first place, but, in any instance, I'm prochoice; I'm for keeping abortion safe, legal and accessible for those who need/want one.
Hmm, are you sure you mean "buck"?
In any case, your high-minded implication that universal abstinence ought to be not only the "logical", but socially-enforced standard is as shallow and puerile as Nancy Reagan's infamous "Just Say No!" as a rallying cry for The War on Drugs.
Even the old-school-- or should that be "old-church"?-- parish priests growling, "If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the train?" were themselves likely as not frolicking in the altar boys' caboose.
· Yr Obd't Servant
re: the other part of the article, i helped my wife deliver our three daughters without seeing hide nor hare of a doctor. or even a midwife, and my six grandchildren were also born in the same way....one was just born last week, i wasn't there but my wife helped my daughter.....