So, I just read this article in the Post about some pro-life activists who have decided that overturning Roe v. Wade is an insurmountable goal, at least for the next four years.  Instead, they are focusing on ways to assist pregnant women , hoping to reduce the numbers of abortions. 

"Some of the activists are actually working with abortion rights advocates to push for legislation in Congress that would provide pregnant women with health care, child care and money for education -- services that could encourage them to continue their pregnancies. " (emphasis mine)

My first thought-- AWESOME!  Affordable/Free access to healthcare, child care, and more money for education are all things that I am 100% behind! Some women who want to have children can't because they don't have access to health care and wouldn't be able to afford child care for their children.  Paid maternity leave (although it is a controversial topic) would also be very helpful to women who are worried about being financially able to carry a pregnancy to term. Heck, equal pay for equal work would also be helpful for women questioning their financial capability of raising a child.  Maybe the pro-lifers can slide that into their list of goals as well.

The issues of better, more affordable health care, affordable day care, and access to affordable education have been on the minds and in the legal pushes of feminists for quite a while, but they (we) have made very little headway. Yes, there are some childcare subsidies for low-income women who have children. Yes, there are some healthcare centers and government-sponsored healthcare plans that will provide assistance with the high price of delivering a baby. Yes, there are some scholarships and programs for low-income women with children to go to school. But, obviously some is not enough!! I don't by any stretch of the imagination think that the few anti-choice groups who have decided to take this new approach will be the deciding factors in putting pro-woman legislation through.  What I do think, though, is that it's always better to have more people lobbying on your side.  Legislation to help women have affordable access to healthcare, childcare, and education can only HELP women, and that is what we, as feminists, should want to do.

Then, of course, there is the other side of the issue. If these anti-choice groups assist in making legislation that helps women, at what cost?  The legislation will have to pass their standards, which can be wildly different from the standards proposed by pro-choice advocates for the same kinds of legislation.  Obviously, if access to abortion or information about abortion is limited by any of the legislation, then it isn't helpful to women.  This really becomes an issue with things like CPCs--these centers, as many other feministing posts have pointed out--do not give out factual information and use the guise of helping pregnant women to further the center's anti-choice agenda.  So, if healthcare, childcare, and education access are only given through institutions that do not give women choices, then they're not very helpful. 

And of course the article is quick to point out that while these particular anti-choicers are joining up with pro-choicers to lobby for support for pregnant women, they definitely aren't on board for any kind of measures that might prevent unintended pregnancies.

"To preserve the coalition, activists have avoided taking positions on the more sensitive aspects of the issue, such as laws that restrict abortions, contraception, sex education and abstinence-only programs. "

And to me, access to affordable contraception and sexual education is paramount to the pro-choice movement. I feel like having the choice to take a pill or use a condom is one of the ways that women have control over their bodies and their reproductive lives.

Also, I'd like to point out that access to affordable healthcare, childcare, etc. is important to all human beings, not just women considering abortion.  In addition, access to these does not mean that access to abortion is no longer needed.  While some women facing an unintended pregnancy might choose to carry the pregnancy to term if given access to healthcare, childcare, education, and support, others might not make this choice. The key, of course  is choice. And of course some women facing an unintended pregnancy might not need better access to health care and child care, and might still choose abortion. It's the woman's choice , not any kind of rule dictated by whether or not a woman can financially support the child or has access to support.  

But, if anti-choice people want to help pass legislation for more affordable healthcare, childcare, etc., I am all for it (if, as i said before, it doesn't include anti-choice wording in the legislation). It may help reduce the number of abortions in the US or it may not, but it will certainly help women, especially lower class women, who deserve affordable healthcare, childcare, and education.

2

You recommended

1 Comments

November 20, 2008 4:10 PM

[0+]  sarahAharas said:

Thanks Heather (and Jessica for an earlier post). While I agree with you on many of the points made regarding CPCs and the potential underlying assumption that a woman would only deserve access to healthcare if she were pregnant, I want to point out something that I only just recently learned regarding some pro-life groups. Until last year I had never had much experience working with faith-based organizations and assumed that most, particularly the Catholics, were both anti-choice and anti-woman. However, after working with a Catholic group doing powerful justice work, I realized that what groups like those mentioned in the Post article are actually doing is attempting to overcome the monopoly on morality that right wing groups have had for years. Left-leaning Catholic groups get no media time so we should applaud the fact that this made front page. Although Catholic traditions are deeply social justice oriented, the right wing (politically and within the church) uses issues like abortion, stem-cell research and gay marriage as divisive wedges to divide and control people. While I don't know exactly what these groups are trying to do by supporting legislation that will provide more social supports for pregnant women, I do know that there are MANY feminists within the religious left who do believe in contraception and are not necessarily opposed to abortion. However, in order to maintain legitimacy and not be immediately marginalized they are focused on winning back the church from the right win nutjobs. I think that there is more opportunity than we think for pro-choice feminist groups to work with faith-based groups and we need to be critical of immediately writing off such groups. There are Catholics who are struggling to redefine what it means to be Catholic.

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)