[Cross-posted at Femocracy .]
If you’re a supporter of women’s reproductive rights, you probably felt like you were being accused of behaving like Chicken Little during the health-care debate, when a few anti-choice lawmakers held the whole process hostage until strict language restricting abortion coverage was inserted (because apparently the Hyde Amendment didn’t go far enough for them.) Stop saying the sky is falling, was basically the message from lawmakers on the hill, who saw no problem with selling out women to win a legislative victory. No way were all those dire predictions about the increasing prevention of abortion coverages going to come to pass.
Except, oh wait, they are.
Anti-choicers have seen their window of opportunity , and they are jumping for it:
An obscure part of the law allows states to restrict abortion coverage by private plans operating in new insurance markets. Capitalizing on that language, abortion foes have succeeded in passing bans that, in some cases, go beyond federal statutes.
“We don’t consider elective abortion to be health care , so we don’t think it’s a bad thing for fewer private insurance companies to cover it,” said Mary Harned, attorney for Americans United for Life, a national organization that wrote a model law for the states.
Sure, one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime, but that’s not health care! Now a whole host of states are jumping on the anti-abortion bandwagon:
Since Obama signed the legislation law March 23, Arizona and Tennessee have enacted laws restricting abortion coverage by health plans in new insurance markets, called exchanges. About 30 million people will get their coverage through exchanges, which open in 2014 to serve individuals and small businesses.
In Florida, Mississippi and Missouri, lawmakers have passed bans and sent them to their governors. Most of the states allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Insurers still could offer separate policies to specifically cover abortion.
Three other states may act this year – Louisiana, Ohio and Oklahoma. Overall, there are 29 states where lawmakers or public policy groups expressed serious interest, Harned said.
“You are going to see more actions like this,” said Tom McClusky, a lobbyist for the socially conservative Family Research Council. “This is not something we are just going to let fall by the wayside.”
Don’t you feel vindicated now? They sky was in fact just about to fall.
Now that I’m done slamming my head on the desk, I realize I’m not
angry at anti-choicers, really. This is what they were born to do. Using
any obscure law as a political opportunity is as necessary to them as
applause is to Tinker Bell. They need to restrict the reproductive
rights of women as much as they need air to breathe, and it may even be
more essential than food for sustenance. I can’t even be charitable
about this anymore.
Where I’m directing my anger is to the Democratic party. See, I show
up at the polls and vote Democratic because they are the party that’s
supposed to more closely represent my interests, and reproductive rights
are a big part of my interests. But then they recruit vehement
anti-choicers like Bart Stupak. And then when he dropped out of the
Congressional race because people found his anti-abortion tactics
abhorrent, the Democratic establishment supported
anti-choicer Gary McDowell over pro-choicer (and feminist!) Connie
Saltonstall.
I find this beyond demoralizing. After the Newsweek article about how
our generation doesn’t care about abortion, a lot of young feminists
across the blogosphere wrote some fantastic articles pushing back
against that idea. As a young, twenty-something feminist, I absolutely
care about abortion, just like I care about over-the-counter access to
Plan B, and affordable birth control and contraceptives. I also
recognize that the feminist movement can only go so far in terms of what
can be accomplished through organizing, even if the generational gap
was bridged, even if the institutional structures were hyper-effective
in terms of outreach, education and marshaling supporters to action. I
say this not as a critique on the movement, but because ultimately, all
the organizing has to be successful in electing pro-choice candidates
who can fight for our rights at the political level. If we don’t have
influence in Congress, well, then we don’t have much power at all.
At the time health care was passed, I felt like the underlying
message was “Suck it up feminists, we had to limit abortion coverage in
order to pass this bill.” When is the last time you heard politicians
tell anti-choicers to pipe down, because abortion is legal in this
country? Lawmakers always hint to us that our rights are totally safe as
if that gives them a pass for not standing up for them – while totally
ignoring the fact that they are under attack all the time at the state
level, with a bevy of laws that require ultrasound prescreenings, for
doctors to give patients misinformation outright, or to collect and
distribute patient information in a way that would seem to violate
doctor-patient confidentiality. All the Democrats did with the health
care bill was create another opportunity for reproductive rights to be
chipped away under state laws. And for what? Because Bart Stupak and a
few anti-choice Dems were holding up the process? I find it really,
really hard to believe that a mechanism like the Democratic party
couldn’t convince these select few that the Hyde Amendment went far
enough and they should just get on board with other kinds of incentives.
Feminists know our rights are not safe. What does it take to make our
concerns heard? To stop donating? To stop voting? But you know what
would be really fantastic? Instead of a barrage of articles decrying the
ineffectiveness of establishment feminism, let’s have some articles
examining what the ultimate hypocrisy of lawmakers results in – because
what power do feminists ultimately have if lawmakers do not stand up for
women’s rights, loudly and over and over again?
28 Comments
I’m totally with you on the healthcare point. My qualm about this article is, please, please don’t say ‘anti-choicers’.
First of all, how would we like to be called ‘anti-lifers?’ That’s not fair, or respectful.
I do not believe that dehumanizing the opposition makes us any more humanizing. And, isn’t feminism about humanizing people who have *been* dehumanized?
I have met, and spoken with, pro-life people whom I respect. They are valid in their beliefs; we are valid in ours. Neither of us is evil, and calling them so brings us to a place that I don’t think we want to go as feminists.
I’m not trying to offend you, but you must be new to the feminist movement. Feminists have called our opposition “anti-choice” for years. And rightfully so. Why do they get to claim to be “pro-life”? Am I not pro-life? Of course I am. I believe in supporting the living (ie the men, women, and children who are already alive). That includes access to reproductive options. If you believe that women should not have a choice over what happens to their bodies, than you’re anti-choice. That doesn’t mean that we don’t respect you as a person, it just means that you’re anti-choice (aka against choice).
Anyways, sorry to contribute to the derailing of this post. I think you’re absolutely right, Femocracy.
Many people (of course not all) who oppose access to abortion oppose many other kinds of reproductive choice, including comprehensive sex education and birth control, and they work to take choices and options away from women. Those people I believe deserve to be called “anti-choice” because they are. They oppose women having the ability to make certain choices. I don’t see that as dehumanizing in any way, I see that as accurate.
If someone supports forcing women to continue pregnancies that endanger their physical, mental, and emotional health, for instance, I don’t see how you can accurately be called pro-life. You are pro-fetus, perhaps, but you’re placing no value on the life and well-being of the women.
The people that I will refer to as “pro-life” are the ones who feel that abortion is never an option they would choose and who don’t like the idea of abortion but who recognize that the answer is not making it inaccessible to women.
I agree with you. Some of my biggest qualms about health care reform was that it would require significant concessions from the Pro Choice community. Who needs to repeal Roe v. Wade when you have the Trojan Horse presented by health care reform? The problem feminists were placed in was do they vote against their uterus or against the rest of their body. It was a classic ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ situation. Its certainly true that woman’s health is defined by more than abortion, but this was a heavy price to pay. This may be far more effective than any repeal of Roe v. Wade.
Libbierator, it has nothing to do with “dehumanizing” anti-choicers. It has everything to do with the fact that “pro-life” is NOT an accurate term because they do not care about the life of the woman. They feel a fetus trumps the life of a woman, who may or may not have other children to take care of. And they usually do not support services which indicate a concern for the child’s life once it is born. Changing what we call ‘pro-lifers’ is about revealing the truth behind the movement. The movement is not about life. It is about restricting a woman’s right to choose the best path for her life, whether an embryo is involved or not.
In fact, if you want to talk about dehumanizing, let’s talk about how dehumanizing it is to be told that your life is worth less than the embryo or fetus inside you. Let’s talk about how dehumanizing it is to be completely overlooked in any anti-choice argument about abortion, which focuses solely on the fetus or embryo and doesn’t once address the life of the woman carrying that embryo or fetus.
Dehumanizing is not the term I would use to describe the placing of a more accurate and honest term or name on a movement which chooses to conceal its true intentions for “marketing” value to a public that is often easily swayed by emotional rhetoric such as “life”. Dehumanizing is the term I would use, however, to address the intention of a group of people or person to literally strip the autonomy of another person or group of people and completely remove them from a debate that is central to their life.
No calling them what they are? Youve got to be kidding? They are anti-choice. They arent anti-abortion since no ones pro-abortion. You cant be pro-CHOICE while simultaneously being pro-abortion. Its not our fault that they decided to use a completely loaded way of describing themselves. So the term anti-choice (or for short among feminists/pro-choice supporters the term, ‘antis’) is accurate. Theyre for taking away one side of the choice spectrum.
….and I’ve also heard alot of the so-called “pro-life” types say that they dont mind being called anti-choice. They say that its a source of pride for themselves.
“The people that I will refer to as “pro-life” are the ones who feel that abortion is never an option they would choose and who don’t like the idea of abortion but who recognize that the answer is not making it inaccessible to women. ”
That would be me, then.
“I’m not trying to offend you, but you must be new to the feminist movement.”
No, I’m not, actually. I’ve been here for several years now. Also, aren’t the people who run this blog in their early twenties, and thus relatively ‘new’ to the movement? Aren’t we all technically ‘new’ to a movement that started hundreds of years ago?
I don’t like judging other people’s ways of ‘doing’ feminism. And I don’t like it when they judge mine.
Look, I don’t disagree with either of you. I do think upholding the woman’s life and/or quality of life is just as important as upholding the unborn child’s life and/or quality of life. I think both lives hang in the balance and should both be considered equally. And I don’t think either the pro-choice OR pro-life movement does a good job of respecting both lives. The pro-choice movement tends to favor the woman, and the pro-life movement, the child. I do my best to hold the sanctity of both. Which, honestly, leaves me in neither movement.
And if we are so into preserving the lives of people already living, why doesn’t that include Republicans?
I know the answer already. Because they’re not out to preserve lives, too. But, as Voltaire put it:
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Looking out for people means *everyone*. Working on respecting people means *everyone*. I didn’t ask what you thought pro-life means or doesn’t mean. I asked that you call people what they ask you to be called.
Wouldn’t you respect a trans person who asked to be called she, he, or ze? Wouldn’t you call them what they asked to be called?
Same with pro-life people. They’re not separate issues; we always talk about actually listening to people, and calling people what they want to be called. That is what I am doing when I say, pro-life. Because I respect them as people, too.
“Sure, one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime, but that’s not health care!”
I agree with your point (that abortion is health care), but what makes it health care isn’t the fact that a lot of women utilize the option.
“And if we are so into preserving the lives of people already living, why doesn’t that include Republicans?”
What are you talking about???
“I don’t like judging other people’s ways of ‘doing’ feminism. And I don’t like it when they judge mine.”
Perfect. Then we’re in agreement here. You call the anti-choicers whatever you want, and “*everyone*” else can call them what they want. I haven’t perused this site to see if it addresses the exact issue you’re talking about, but I figured it might be helpful either way.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
Enjoy.
Sometimes we fire at ourselves when we can’t seem to make any headway firing at the political party which supposedly supports our interests.
I think the real issue at play here is that the political orientation of this country still tends to trend rightward, meaning Feminist and Progressive issues will always be subservient when it comes to staying in power. Often what has kept the Democratic Party in power have been the incorporation of conservative Democrats into the fold. That combined with the base is enough to sustain a majority. Without it, a majority is much harder to achieve.
“Anti-abortion Democrats in the House cast critical votes for the legislation after Obama also agreed to an executive order affirming long-standing federal policy against the use of taxpayer funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother — known as the Hyde amendment.
Tennessee already has enacted a far stricter ban, with no exceptions. Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen, who allowed it to become law without his signature, said in a statement it “creates a prohibition much broader than that found in current law and could unintentionally negatively impact the quality of health care options for Tennesseans.”
from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100516/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_abortion
No coverage even under incest, rape and to save the life/health of the woman. Just very sick.
“Also, aren’t the people who run this blog in their early twenties, and thus relatively ‘new’ to the movement?”
No, I think mid-20-to early 30′s. But its not about being new so much as being uninformed.
I asked that you call people what they ask you to be called.
Many date rapists would never call themselves rapists, they’d say they were just showing a girl a good time. Should we not call them rapists, then, since they don’t think they are?
Them technically these people whom are personally against abortion but arent against taking away abortion rights would be called pro-choice, not pro-life and the majority of people who call themselves, ‘pro-life,’ are actually anti-choice. Surely you dont consider yourself pro-life since thats like saying that those that are for abortion rights are anti-life. Anti-choice is objective, anti-life, or pro-life isnt, especially since life is subjective.
“Wouldn’t you respect a trans person who asked to be called she, he, or ze?”
Thats not comparable and for someone whose for transgender rights I somewhat resent you using them as an example. Its more the equivalent of a group of people asking to be called ‘The Overlords of the Universe Who Are Supreme To Everyone Else.’ Its just hyperbole, its not factual or even grounded in rational objectivity.
Thanks for this, Libbierator. While I think both “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are poor terms, and the world’s a lot more complicated than the two camps they put everyone in, I wince when I see people called “antis.”
As for this article, I bet a certain pro-life Congressperson of mine supported something similar to the measures that were mentioned. Time to write to him and suggest that if he really wants to reduce the abortion rate, he could start by supporting stuff like comprehensive sex ed and insurance for low-income kids.
It’s all just a funny sick twisted mess….
Wish I could laugh.
Gopher Id like to think that I speak for many of us when I say that youve written this more eloquently and passionately than most people couldve. Thank you both for the keen insight and intellectual rigor that youve always displayed in your comments.
I asked that you call people what they ask you to be called.
This. In my opinion, this general sort of “respect for peoples’ right to self-identify” seems like it should be a fundamental element of both feminism and just reasonable discourse in general.
“Anti-choice” and “pro-abortion” are, at their hearts, nothing more than juvenile name calling. If people feel like they need to do that, that is certainly they’re prerogative, but I don’t think it’s particularly justified on either side.
I will note that I will absolutely refrain from labeling those who disagree with me as “anti-rationalist” or “pro-offensive.”
I’ve had plenty of experiences with people who have referred to me as “pro-death,” “pro-abortion,” a “pro-abort,” etc. The essence of calling one side “pro-life” inherently labels the other side as the opposite.
I heard someone here call them “in favor of state mandated childbirth.” I think that’s pretty apt for those who wish to make abortion illegal. I’ve also called them “anti-abortion rights,” or “anti-reproductive rights.”
“Anti-choice” certainly describes the legislative efforts, as they seek not only to remove abortion as a choice, but also seek to make contraception and education on how to use it more difficult to access. These lawmakers think that the only moral “choice” involved is sex within a heterosexual marriage where the pregnancy will be continued, even if it’s not planned or wanted. Every piece of legislation described here is decidedly anti-choice. And every single piece of it was backed and lobbied by at least one community group identifying itself as “pro-life.”
PS- I strongly disagree that this is in any way analogous to referring to a transgender person by the pronoun with which they identify.
The Florida Legislature passed HB 1143 – restricting women’s access to reproductive health care and mandates what medical procedure people undergo
Republican legislation mandates medical procedures for women only undermine women’s rights and interfere with doctors’ medical decisions
Tell Governor Crist to veto HB 1143
Didn’t see anyone mention this, so I’ll throw it out there… we all realize the anti-choice crew has been and would still be pushing for what they want through every loophole they could force open or poorly-defended law they might batter into submission, right? It blows enormously that HCR has given them another opening, but the tide hasn’t been going the way of repro rights for a while.
Trying to take the long view of it, I’m not sure abortion rights have really been traded for overall health care. It may speed the process of losing rights, but the process was underway, and whether HCR passed or not anyone involved in repro rights was going to have to work on a method for stopping it. And since our political atmosphere is more or less completely polarized at this point, the only source of actual power that will hold back the onslaught rests with keeping as many anti-choicers out of office as possible (and even the shittiest Democrat can’t be worse than any Republican on this issue). If HCR had failed, the Democrats would get obliterated in November at both the state and national level, which in itself may well have led to a quicker disintegration of those rights.
Isn’t there enough disharmony between the unlike-minded people to want to avoid disharmony between like-minded people? Let’s keep the conversation civil, please. …I think that means not likening the use of “pro-life” to letting rapists not call themselves rapists. It’s vocabulary, it doesn’t change who anyone is, what they do, or what any of us believe, not in this case.
Moving on…
I’m curious about plan of action. Is there anything that can be done between now and mid-term elections? And then after that?
Like others have said, it’s not about dehumanizing them. A dehumanizing act would be to call them soul sucking urchins who don’t care about women at all (or something of the like, just and example.)
Referring to them as anti-choice, rather, frames their position in a way which aligns with the pro-choice framework. By calling themselves pro-life, they are stating that anyone who stands in opposition to them is against life, and therefore horrible villians. When really, it’s about what exactly LIFE is and who’s life we’re talking about.
Therefore, it is a pretty damn feminist act to call them anti-choice. Besides, why would this offend them? They are against the choice to abortion, right? Are we against life, on the other hand?
Interesting perspective. I think pro-choice people need to get out there more and expose the anti ways to change the sociology of the public. I mean, how many people really think that you shouldnt be able to have an abortion even when conception happened out of rape or incest or when a womans health is jeopardized or even that a pregnant woman cant travel out of state to obtain an abortion (as in ohio 228 bill proposed). When I look at polls the general publics views on abortion tend to rest about how roe v wade is written. Third trimester abortions are only allowed if something serious happens during the pregnancy, ie, health/death (including emotional), and 2nd trimester abortions are rarer than first. But anti spin confuses the public and outright lies to them. Many people actually think that partial birth abortion actually existed in spite of the fact that the Gynocological Association said that it doesnt exist and that they protested it by not associating themselves with it.
“In my opinion, this general sort of “respect for peoples’ right to self-identify” seems like it should be a fundamental element of both feminism and just reasonable discourse in general.”
From a practical perspective, this is political discourse. Campaigning relies on messaging, and when one side uses a label like “pro-life,” implying that the other side is NOT “pro-life,” then steps need to be taken to counter that message. In this case, the pro-choice side chose to reframe the opposition’s terminology into something more descriptive of their actual position. It’s comparable to people who supported the war in Iraq using that issue to call themselves patriots, thereby calling anti-war groups unpatriotic. People who were against the war countered by focusing on the right to question the government as among the most fundamental of American beliefs. Language is an essential part of our social contract, and it’s the center of politics.
I think it’s inevitable that with greater government control of the health sector comes a greater politicization of health issues. It’s like what engineers call a single point of failure: by centralizing so much power in D.C., it creates an attractive target for those seeking to restrict abortion and other dubious agendas.