First Amendment Madness in Maryland

A few weeks ago, I performed my very first "active" duty as a pro-choice activist and attended the "Summer of Choice" rally in Germantown, Maryland.  Germantown, right in my very backyard, just happens to be the home of Dr. Leroy Carhart, one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers.  Like Dr. George Tiller, Dr. Carhart is on the very vanguard of the abortion debate, often singled out and/or blacklisted by the religious right.  Since Dr. Tiller's assassination, Dr. Carhart's precarious position has been all the more apparent:  there are people, many people, who want this man dead.

Accordingly, the "Summer of Choice" rally was populated with Dr. Carhart's passionate defenders.  Some had had abortions; all were thankful that their reproductive rights were protected should they ever need one.  The pro-life representation was surprisingly small, although there were the customary crucifixes and banners depicting dismembered, bloody fetuses.  One man allegedly told the patrolling cop that he should "turn his gun into the clinic and shoot the Baby Killer."

I was most surprised by the atmosphere of anxiety and even, at times, paranoia:  it definitely served as a harsh reminder of the reality of clinic violence that I will face every day if I do become an "abortionist," as the pro-lifers so lovingly call them.  This violence will become more than mere rhetoric:  it will become my Sword of Damocles.

I will admit, however, that I was somewhat disappointed by the protest.  My primary objection was the strong preponderance of female protestors, and I initially assumed that men were largely absent because they simply did not care.  I very quickly realized, however, that a pro-choice rally is often not a comfortable place for men, with feminist rage and man-hating running rampant.  Reproductive choice, women insist, is synonymous with radical and often divisive feminism.

I take issue with this viewpoint because I feel that making reproductive rights a "women's issue" cheapens the cause, making it something that only pertains to 50% of the population, something to be sequestered to the back of the store with tampons and Vagisil.  Reproductive rights and family planning are issues for everyone, not just Women's Studies majors on summer break.  Birth control, population, quality of life - these affect us all, and we should all be invested.   

Logic & Fallacy

Confronted with any one of the many justifications for abortion, a crisis pregnancy center or other pro-life entity will have some quick, ready-made, and single-minded response at hand.    If a fetus is severely genetically deformed, a clinic protester would proclaim that it is better to suffer as long as "God sees fit" than not to live at all.  If the mother is simply unprepared or unwilling to have a child, the CPC would insist that the "baby" would still prefer to live, regardless of the conditions it would be born into.

 

Obviously, a 2-month-old fetus cannot choose anything, so a fully-developed human can only retroactively make this "choice."  In essence, the pro-life argument is that regardless of the quality of one's life, it is always better to come into existence than not to do so.  Philosophically, the water that this argument holds is pretty likely to break.  Haha. 

If my mother were, by chance, not pro-life - and the fact that she gave birth to me does not automatically negate that possibility - then I would not be conscious to regret that fact.  Now that I already exist, I suppose that I am grateful for the events that made my birth possible, but that in no way implies that the world would somehow be worse off if I had never been conceived or born. Given that a hypothetical person who does not exist is ambivalent of that fact, non-existence cannot really be a negative.  Pain and unfortunate life circumstances, however, are decidedly less neutral states of being.

The absurdity of this line of reasoning was highlighted much more aptly by everyone's favorite atheist, biologist, and sometimes pro-choice philosopher, Richard Dawkins.  Even though I think Dawkins is often unnecessarily confrontational (not to mention overly arrogant for a biologist who has essentially no significant scientific findings to his name) I have included the following fairly brilliant article below, with full rights to Dick.  Enjoy.

The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy

Q: The conservative Christian group Focus on the Family is sponsoring a pro-life ad, featuring football star Tim Tebow, during Sunday's Super Bowl. Should CBS show the ad? Should CBS allow other faith-based groups to buy Super Bowl ads promoting their beliefs on social issues? Is a major sporting event, or a TV ad campaign, an appropriate venue for discussing such vital and divisive culture-war issues like abortion?

I gather that Tim Tebow is extremely good at football. That's just as well, for he certainly isn't very good at thinking. Perhaps the fact that he was home schooled by missionary parents is to blame.

The following is what passes for logic in the Tebow mind. His mother was advised by doctors to abort him, but she refused, which is why Tim is here. So abortion is a bad thing. Masterful conclusion.

It is a version of what, following the great Nobel-Prizewinning biologist Peter Medawar, I have called the Great Beethoven Fallacy.

Versions of the Great Beethoven Fallacy are attributed to various Christian apologists, and the details vary. The following is the version favoured by Norman St John Stevas, a British Conservative Member of Parliament. One doctor to another:

"About the terminating of pregnancy, I want your opinion. The father was syphilitic. The mother tuberculous. Of the four children born, the first was blind, the second died, the third was deaf and dumb, the fourth was also tuberculous. What would you have done?"

"I would have terminated the pregnancy."

"Then you would have murdered Beethoven."

It is amazing how many people are bamboozled by this spectacularly stupid argument. Setting aside the simple falsehood that Ludwig van Beethoven was the fifth child in his family (he was actually the eldest), the falsehood that any of his siblings was born blind, deaf or dumb, and the falsehood that his father was syphilitic, we are left with the 'logic'. As Peter Medawar, writing with his wife, Jean Medawar, said,

"The reasoning behind this odious little argument is breathtakingly fallacious . . . the world is no more likely to be deprived of a Beethoven by abortion than by chaste absence from intercourse."

If you follow the 'pro-life' logic to its conclusion, a fertile woman is guilty of something equivalent to murder every time she refuses an offer of copulation. Incidentally, 'pro life' always means pro human life, never animal life although an adult cow or monkey is obviously far more capable of feeling pain and fear than a human fetus. But the profoundly un-evolutionary nature of this terminology is another story and I'll set it on one side.

The sperm that conceived Tim Tebow was part of an ejaculate of (at an average estimate) 40 million. If any one of them had won the race to Mrs Tebow's ovum instead of the one that did, Tim would not have been born, somebody else would. Probably not such a good quarterback but - we can but hope - a better logician, who might have survived the home schooling and broken free. That is not the point. The point is that every single one of us is lucky to be alive against hyper-astronomical odds. Tim Tebow owes his existence not just to his mother's refusal to have an abortion. He owes his existence to the fact that his parents had intercourse precisely when they did, not a minute sooner or later. Then before that they had to meet and decide to marry. The same is true of all four of his grandparents, all eight of his great grandparents, and so on back.

Religious apologists are unimpressed by this kind of argument because, they say, there is a distinction between snuffing out a life that is already in existence (as in abortion) and failure to bring life into existence in the first place. It's not a distinction that survives analytical thought, however. Look at it from the point of view of Tim's unborn sister (let us say), who would have been conceived two months later if only Tim had been aborted. Admittedly, she is not in a position to complain of her non-existence. But then nor would Tim have been in a position to complain of his non-existence, if he had been aborted. You need a functioning nervous system in order to complain, or regret, or feel wistful, or feel pain, or miss the life that you could have had. Unconceived babies don't have a nervous system. Nor do aborted fetuses. As far as anything that matters is concerned, an aborted fetus has exactly the same mental and moral status as any of the countless trillions of unconceived babies. At least, that is true of early abortions, which means the vast majority.

The fact that the Tim Tebow advertisement is a load of unthought-through nonsense is no reason to ban it. That would infringe our valued principle of free speech. The best that the rest of us can do is point out, to anyone that will listen despite our lack of money to pay for such advertisements, that it is nonsense. As I have just done.

A Free Lunch

I have great news for those of us who would like to keep our uteruses vacant for the time being.  This past week, the Institute of Medicine released a much-anticipated report defining contraceptives as "prevention," categorizing birth control along with such services as mammograms or childhood immunizations.  No shit, Sherloch, right?  But the awesome implication of this classification is that, if the federal government accepts the report's findings, birth control, IUDs, and birth control injections will now be offered by insurance companies without copays.  Free at last, free at last.

http://philip.greenspun.com/images/pcd0155/gay-parade-19

The IOM now recommends that birth control methods be made available free of charge in order to stem the high number of unintended pregnancies (and yes, abortions) that occur in the US each year.  And shockingly, according to a recent poll, about 71% of Americans agree with this suggestion.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/daily-money/will-new-health-care-bill-mean-free-birth-control/1473/

Childhood immunizations are one of the primary intro economics examples of a positive externality:  protecting the majority against infection will lessen the overall population's risk of infection, making us all healthier as a result. Thus, immunizations are offered without copays and are considered to be worth the cost.  Preventing unwanted pregnancies, by comparison, is a positive externality in the same vein.  Fewer unwanted pregnancies spell lower Medicaid costs, better career prospects for women, and fewer kids with shitty childhoods.  According to a 2010 Norwegian study, free birth control greatly decreases the rate of unintended pregnancy, and halves the abortion rate.  If these projections hold true in America as well, then both the pro-life and pro-choice sides should have something to celebrate.  This, America, is compromise.

Now, let's not get too excited just yet:  we are already hearing from the Catholics, and I have no doubt that the chronically pugnacious Republicans will soon be chiming in.  But nevertheless, I am elated, and not only because I might soon be saving around sixty bucks a month.  First, maybe mainstream attitudes towards contraceptives are not as medieval as my Negative Nancy self had believed.  Second, this report forecasts a very positive and palpable shift in women's health.  No-cost birth control will not only save taxpayers an enormous amount in the long run, but will also produce a profoundly positive trickle up, down, and around effect.  Margaret Sanger is smiling.

Doubleplus Terrifying

In sifting through a never-ending deluge of pro-life articles, blogs, and propaganda, I am particularly rankled by a particular sort of rhetoric.  My pro-life counterparts have an uncanny ability to transform seemingly positive words, such as "life" or "family," into creepy code words for what I term "breeding mentality."  That is, when used as pro-life doublespeak, these words refer to the disturbing, but not uncommon, notion that women (and men) exist for the sole purpose of reproduction and child-rearing.  Hash-tagged too are the misogyny, homophobia, and rejection of science typically associated with the "culture of life" movement.  If you don't believe me, just check out Life Site News, Focus on the Family, or Right to Life.

 

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pro-life_group_shut_out_at_duke_university/ 

Take, for example, the so-called "Heartbeat Bill," which was passed this week by the Ohio House of Reps.  Under this law, abortions could not be performed after the first detection of a fetal heartbeat - at about 6 weeks post conception.  Thus, if ratified, this sweet-sounding bill will essentially override Roe v. Wade and spell an end to abortion rights in that state.  For other such examples, see the Protect Life Act and the unratified Sanctity of Life Act.

Well, at last someone has made a cinematic portrayal of the abject terror the pro-life movement at times elicits from me.  "The Life Zone," a pro-life horror film which premiered June 6 at the Hoboken Film Festival, is essentially a low-budget M. Night Shyamalan flick meets the Left Behind series.  Plus a good dose of Catholic-style afterlife torment.

 

The Life Zone

So, I probably won't be lining up in costume for the midnight showing of this one.  But I think that in attempting to make its point artistically, the "The Life Zone" hits a little too close to home.  For many women, the loss of reproductive rights would mean being trapped in a horrifying (virtual) Purgatory, forced to bear and raise an unwanted child.  Pro-life activists:  it may be that while you hide behind your Virgin Marys and Precious Moments dolls, your doublespeak is masking the fact that you place the rights of a fetus before those of a woman, and that you would willingly force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.  Those are some real family values.

One in Three

If you know three or more women, then it's fairly likely that one of them has had an abortion.  According to the Guttmacher Institute, 35% of US women have undergone this procedure.  Of those women, 61% already have at least one child.

Yet you're not likely to have a happy hour conversation with your best gal pal about the abortion she had last year.  Thus, comedienne Chelsea Handler, who frequently makes light of alcoholism and celebrities' eating disorders, made some waves last week when she openly admitted to having had an abortion at the age of 16.  "Because that's what I should have done.  Otherwise, I would now have a 20 year old kid."

Chelsea Handler:  One in three.

The stigma surrounding abortion is no secret.  Thus, any woman, famous or not, who "comes out" about her abortion is likely to face some hostility or criticism.  Fortunately, the Safe Abortion Project is an organization dedicated to reversing this trend.  This group  encourages women to speak up about their experiences with abortion in order to keep the procedure safe and legal.  There are also forums, such as the National Abortion Federation's blog, which publish women's abortion stories judgment-free to shed light on the myriad reasons why a woman might choose to have an abortion.  These are steps in the right direction.

http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/68790-i-had-an-abortion/

This takes balls

The movement to "break the silence" has unfortunately been co-opted by the other side as well, with religiously-affiliated organizations like Project Rachel and Silent No More.  These groups encourage women to tell discuss their (negative) experiences with abortion in order to address the mythical "Post Abortion Syndrome," and to frighten women out of having abortions themselves.  Nevertheless, women of any religious or political leaning are still more likely than not to clam up about undergoing the most common medical procedure performed in America.

While flipping through channels on any given day, you can see around three shows about boob jobs or facelifts or weight loss surgery, and hear the claims subjects give that this procedure will raise their self esteem or better their lives in some way.  You can also choose from an enormous selection of pregnancy- and baby-related programming, including "Birth Day," "Deliver Me," "A Baby Story," and "Sixteen and Pregnant."  

But the topic of abortion will never rear its head without awkward silence and harsh judgement, because we as a society not only do not respect a woman's right to choose, but barely understand or accept that she might not fucking want to have a kid.  We can accept the idea that plastic surgery or weight loss can positively impact a woman's health or self esteem, but can't acknowledge that the prevention or termination of unwanted pregnancy could have even more profound effects on a woman's ability to support herself financially, finish her education, or better care for already existing children.   Successful women like Rep. Jackie Speier or even Chelsea Handler have attained success in part because they were able to delay childbearing in favor of education and career.  Let's see a TLC two-part special about that.

The Culture of Death

“The Culture of Death” is a phrase that gets tossed around a lot in certain circles.  Very creepy circles, to be fair, so you might not have heard this particular turn of phrase if you don't spend a lot of time researching reproductive rights.  First coined by Pope John Paul II, this emotionally-laden and contrarian saying refers to the prevalence of birth control, abortion, and euthanasia in Western society.  It is also used as the official Root Of All Evil by those who hold to the belief that we somehow desperately need more people in the world.

http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/blogs/2010/tv-news/peta-takes-a-dig-at-the-duggars/

Last July, during the commemoration of “the Pill’s” 50-year anniversary, a coalition of Evangelicals hosted an enormous conference in San Antonio, TX, called "The Baby Conference:  A Historic Family Summit on the Triumph of Life Over the Culture of Death."  Highlights of the conference included discussion on the Pill’s adverse effects on society, a vigil for the pre-born victims of abortion and miscarriage, a lecture on "not believing the lie of overpopulation," and a speech by Michelle Duggar on accepting God’s gift of children. The convention center was bedecked with images of chubby white babies and of Terry Schiavo, who has become the unofficial “face” of euthanasia (though her actual cause of death was withdrawal of care, not euthanasia or assisted suicide).  At the root of the discussion was the theme that creepy crawly secular culture was diffusing its “fascination with death” throughout America.

http://www.visionforum.com/news/blogs/doug/2010/04/

This terrifying alternate reality is brought to you by 

Toys R Us & George Orwell

I doubt that attendees ran out of conversation during the conference.  Fifty years after the release of the Pill in America, 88% of sexually active women report having taken hormonal contraception at some point in their lives, and the average fertility rate is 2.04 children per woman.  Ninety-five percent of Americans have had premarital sex, and 43% of women have had at least one abortion.  With all these insults against "pre-born lives," it seems like the "culture of death" may truly be pervading the US.

On the other hand, let me introduce you to the Culture of Life.

http://www.stolenchildhood.net/entry/child-soldiers-recruitment-flourishing-in-democratic-republic-of-congo/

In the DR Congo, abortion is illegal, contraception essentially unheard of, and the fertility rate 6.7 children born to each woman.  Infant mortality is the second highest in the world, at 7.8%, female literacy is 55%, and about 5% of the adult population is HIV positive.  What lesson are we to take from a culture which really truly knows how to accept God’s precious little gifts?

The "culture of death" conversation is laden with both a flippant disregard for real-world problems and a sinister attack on individual freedom and fulfillment.  There is plenty of inherent misogyny, yes, but even deeper than that is the notion that we, all of us, are nothing more than breeders.  There is an outright rejection of humanity and quality of life, a lack of concern for the planet or for the plight of others, a denial that there are some things worse than death.  Absent is any desire to better the world, to create a world worth living in.  Though this group typically dismisses evolutionary theory, they have nevertheless completely co-opted natural selection by making procreation the greatest possible good.  Furthermore, the proponents of the "culture of life" blatantly ignore the fact that the philosophy is completely untenable.  Being able to stand in a sanitary auditorium in front of your nineteen healthy children would not be possible if everyone followed the calling to reproduce as much as humanly possible.  Barring an actual Rapture occurring within the next 50 years, the problems of unrestrained reproduction are going to have to be addressed by scientists who put education and the pursuit of a greater good ahead of procreation.

Worst of all, the sentiment behind the "culture of death" conversation isn't confined to a few Bible-thumping breeder weirdos in a convention center in Texas.  It's behind the House's latest decision to defund the UNFPA, behind abstinence-only sex education, behind bans on condom advertising:  in short, the religiously-fueled idea that we live to procreate is inherent in everything I've ever discussed on this blog.  Rise up, secular world.  We are more than the sum of our parts, and so too should we be more than the fruit of our loins.

Pain in the Ass

An bill making its way through the Ohio legislature has attracted a lot of attention lately for proposing that abortions be outlawed after a fetal heartbeat can be detected - which occurs about 6 or 7 weeks after conception.  This law - HB 125 - is not only in direct defiance of Roe v. Wade (which mandates that abortion rights not be violated prior to viability, currently defined at 24 weeks of gestation), but was also recently the subject of a court case in which a pregnant woman was given a ultrasound in the courtroom when her 9-week-old fetus was called to "testify."

Similarly, many states require that a pregnant woman have an ultrasound and listen to her fetus' heartbeat prior to obtaining an abortion.  These ridiculous bills are founded on the sappily sweet "Touched by an Angel" sentiment that a beating heart on an ultrasound could never cause anything but joy and reverence.  Naturally, however, lots of organisms have circulatory organs just as complex as the heart tube found in the 7-week fetus:  the cattle and pigs we don't hesitate to slaughter for meat, for example.  Maybe McDonald's patrons should be legally required to listen to a bovine heartbeat before deciding whether to order a McRib.

As does a major myocardial infarction, fatass

What worries those of a slightly more scientific, less sentimental nature is the issue of embryonic brain development and fetal pain.  After all, no brain, no pain.  The fetal pain argument has recently led five US states (Kansas, Nebraska, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Idaho) to ban abortions after 20 weeks of gestation - once again, in direct opposition to Roe v. Wade.  Now, since I just finished writing a paper on fetal cortical development for my Developmental Biology course, I'll try to reproduce the gist of the argument here to dispel any and all concerns for fetal pain in abortion.

The cerebral cortex, the portion of the brain necessary for thought, language, and pain sensation, begins forming around 8 weeks post conception, when the anterior and posterior regions of the dorsal telencephalon start secreting signals to pattern the cortical layout.  From this point, cortical progenitor cells in the subventricular zone begin differentiating into glial cells and neurons, and neurons begin the process of migrating upward to the cortical plate.  Once they have reached their destination, they will undergo myelination and form synapses with other neurons, in a process which will continue throughout development and even after birth.

http://www.humpath.com/spip.php?article5287&id_document=4056

The brain of a 22-week-old human fetus

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 88% of abortions occur prior to 12 weeks of gestation.  At 12 weeks after conception, the regions of the cortex have been specified, but neuronal migration is just beginning, and will not be completed for at least another month.  The neuronal circuits that are needed for sensory perception will not form until much later, 24 weeks at the earliest.

Neurons beginning their migration

Neurobiologists are and have been in agreement that a fetus cannot feel pain prior to 24 weeks of gestation, since the circuits needed for sensation are simply not present before that time (seriously, no brain, no pain).  Less than 2% of abortions occur after 20 weeks of gestation, and abortions are performed after the 24-week mark only in the most dire of situations.  So, an aborted fetus can not and will not feel pain.  Questions answered?  Problems solved?  If only.

Mother's Day

Happy Mother's Day!  As I write this post, I am feeling pretty satisfied about the state of my life:  I sent my mom a homemade card, med school applications are underway, I am not myself a mother, and I might just have put my finger on exactly why the pro-life movement bothers me so much.

It came to me while I was thinking about my own sweet mother.  For years, this woman helped me with infernal science fair projects, drove me to violin lessons and birthday parties, and endured my tantrums with a patience that astounds me more and more the older I am.  She made sure that I ate my vegetables, paid for my braces, and allowed me to host slumber parties that would inevitably result in my giggling and screaming pre-pubescent friends running all over the house in the middle of the night.  Even now, almost a quarter century after giving birth to me, she pays for my education, sends me cute cards and letters "just because," and loses sleep over my well-being.   She does all this in spite of the fact that I am a legal adult.  And it's the same with my dad.  Parenthood really is a life sentence, or at least a binding contract.  

Pro-life protesters trying to deter women from entering clinics often call out helpful incentives to keep their babies, such as offers for a free baby blanket or pacifier.  This is a huge insult, as it implies that the pocket change needed to purchase baby supplies is the biggest obstacle an accidental mother will face.  Leaving aside the enormous financial investment that a baby requires, raising a child demands maturity, patience, stability, and life-long devotion.

http://cdn.keyj.com/files/2011/05/adult-baby-250x200.png

Not to be entered into lightly

The crisis pregnancy centers that manipulate women into becoming mothers and the pro-life activists who just succeeded in defunding Indiana's Planned Parenthood are, in essence, grossly undervaluing the enormous commitment that parenthood entails.  Parenthood doesn't end after a 9-month gestation, nor after 18 to 26 years of tax dependency.  While I'm celebrating my mother today for choosing to have me, I fully acknowledge that she didn't have to do so.  Women deserve every chance to decide whether to enter into the biggest (and longest-lasting) commitment of their lives.  And children deserve parents ready and willing to make that commitment.  

"Population," or "The World Is Not Enough"

When the Supreme Court delivered its famous Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, it upheld a woman's right to choose based on the Constitution's guarantee of a right to privacy.  This makes perfect sense:  the prevention or termination of pregnancy is, and should be, a private matter, and thus the decision to end a pregnancy belongs to the woman alone.  I contend, however, that the opposite does not hold true:  the decision to give birth is not a matter of privacy.  A woman who has an abortion affects only herself; bringing another human being into the world, on the other hand, immediately impacts the mother, the newborn individual, the larger community, and the very fate of the planet.

The concept of a population's carrying capacity is something we all learned about in high school.  The idea is that a population of organisms will increase in size until it reaches a set number, determined by resource availability and competition pressure.  After this point, large scale death will prevent further population growth.  population size will oscillate around the point of the carrying capacity, but increased death rates and reduced reproductive fitness will not allow population size to increase further.

http://www.goldiesroom.org/Note%20Packets/22%20Ecology/00%20Ecology--WHOLE.htm

We usually discuss such concepts of population in relation to yeast cells, mice, deer, etc.:  organisms to which we have no particular emotional attachment.  We have to be a lot more careful, though, when talking about the growth of the human population, since most of what we do is already an effort to deny that we are, by definition, animals, constrained by biological precepts.  The notion that we are somehow different from yeast cells, mice, or deer is enforced by the observation that our population's growth curve currently shows no indication of approaching a carrying capacity limit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa/evolution/humansrev1.shtml

The fact that our population's growth curve has so far been uninhibited by starvation or disease seems to be testament to our high level of "success," reproductively speaking.  Nevertheless, though our world population will reach 7 billion this year, hunger, disease, and conflict are still taking their toll, killing millions each year even as new births more than compensate for this loss.  A little less than half of the world's 7 billion people currently live on under 2 USD a day.  And these are the communities whose populations are growing the fastest.

In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins advanced the idea that exercising moderation in reproduction could actually be evolutionarily advantageous.  Producing many more offspring than can survive under certain environmental conditions is, evolutionarily speaking, wasteful.  Likewise, reproducing at an unchecked rate will quickly deplete resources and is also a terrible evolutionary strategy.  For these reasons, the population of a certain organism will stay relatively constant over time, and when population pressure begins to increase, the organism will (unconsciously, of course) curb its rate of reproduction to avoid a dangerous scarcity of resources somewhere down the line.  

Human reproduction, however, has proceeded at an explosive rate, which Dawkins attributes to modern medicine, the welfare state, and complete failure to look to the future.  We may have been reproductively successful during the last five hundred years, but that is small change in the span of evolutionary time.  Our current reproductive strategy is, to say the least, unsustainable, and may prevent us from seeing another five hundred years.  As Dawkins says, "The one thing animal populations do not do is go on increasing indefinitely."

http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/ballantine-books/14

Unfortunately, population discussions are not politically correct, and tend to conjure up dystopian images of calculated killings and mass sterilization programs.  Furthermore, the discomfort with the issue belongs to those at every stage along the entire political spectrum.  Regardless of the environmental or societal impact, argue conservatives and liberals alike, the human right of reproduction is too sacrosanct to curtail.  Thus we talk about population growth in positive, rather than normative terms:  "How will we emend farming techniques and colonize other planets to keep up with the human race's inevitable increase?" Yet the human population has the potential to double in less than a hundred years; we can't afford to be so magnanimous forever.  In a stand-off between biology and political correctness, biology will always prevail in the end.

A Hole in Our Rubber Soul

The simple mechanics of pregnancy prevention are straightforward and, luckily, cheap.  Nevertheless, though condoms are plentiful, easy to use, and ribbed, scented, and flavored, about fifty percent of American pregnancies are still unintended.  This is not, as many religious sources would have you believe, due to the incredibly high rate of condom failure.  Not surprisingly, it's the result of layer upon layer of prejudice and misinformation.  Several centuries after its invention, the rate of condom failure is still much lower than the rate of condom ignorance.

It begins with the way that the media depicts condoms, and the way that it presents sex.  Sex is everywhere on TV, including on the Disney Channel and the Food Network.  Yet condom commercials are much harder to come by. You certainly haven't seen them on ABC, home of the wholesome "Gray's Anatomy" an "Desperate Housewives," which refuses to air any condom advertising.  Other networks may allow condom advertisements, but most have restrictions on the types of commercials that can be shown, and the times that they can run.  Perhaps most egregiously, Fox and CBS mandate that any condom advertising shown on the network "must not focus on pregnancy prevention."  In the same way, birth control pills can be advertised, as long as they are marketed as primarily as treatments for acne and PMS.  Interestingly, these same restrictions do not apply to commercials for products such as Viagra or Cialis.

Condom Ad Rejected by Fox

I am certainly not belittling the importance of HIV prevention. Yet mandating that condom commercials focus only on disease prevention, and not on unwanted pregnancy, seems a bizarre dichotomy to draw.  In fact, prior to the emergence of the AIDS crisis, condom advertisements were not allowed on TV at all.  Focusing on HIV risk makes sex dirty and dangerous, while advocating pregnancy prevention would imply that fun, non-procreative sex is something to be celebrated.  I guess that Fox executives can congratulate themselves on having made pregnancy prevention an obscenity, and one even greater than sex itself.

The mere logistics of purchasing condoms is further testament to the disconnect between our views of contraception and our appetite for sex.  In most drugstores, condoms are segregated to a special shelf, usually right below the pharmacist's watchful eyes; in other cases, they are locked up, and store patrons must have an employee assist them in their embarrassing purchase.  It is awkward enough to remove condoms from their glass prison when you're in your twenties or thirties; I can only imagine how difficult it is for a 16-year-old to ask someone to unlock a condom case.  Unfortunately, condoms have been locked up primarily because they are so often shoplifted, likely by those too embarrassed to bring them to checkout.  Then the condoms are locked up, the awkwardness increases, and an infinite cycle begins.

http://thecurvature.com/2009/02/12/cvs-limits-condom-access-for-some/

These magical locked cases can only be opened with a wedding ring.

To better promote safe sex amongst teenagers, progressives such as Joycelyn Elders have advocated dispensing condoms in high schools.  Massachusetts has implemented this practice in many of its schools, with great significant reduction in teen pregnancy rates.  Yet I doubt that other states will take the cue from Massachusetts any time soon, because I'm just not that naive.  Indeed, the "War on Condoms" is being waged full-force in high schools, as well as in our drugstores an on our airwaves.

http://www.zazzle.com/if_used_correctlynot_100_effective_condoms_e_tshirt-235300270078506145

Seriously, ya'll!  If used correctly, not 100% effective condoms everytime!  Wait, what?

In the abstinence-only programs served up to most of America's teenagers, condoms are only mentioned as being so ineffective that they are not worthy of discussion.  This is the direct of the widespread fear that frank discussion of condoms will incite premature sexual activity, in the same way that not teaching teens about condoms has successfully kept sex a complete secret.  For this reason, teenagers educated in abstinence-only programs are far less likely than their more savvy counterparts to use condoms when they inevitably become sexually active.  I feel like it's understood that essentially all products have some non-zero failure rate, yet condoms, with their 98% rate of effectiveness, are held to the highest standard and get by far the worst rap.  Notice how we never see "Chemotherapy:  Not 100% Effective" or "Prayer:  Not 100% Effective"?

Amid the shame, secrecy, and slander surrounding condoms, thousands of lives are still being ruined each year by unintended pregnancies in tragic and needless accidents that could have been prevented by a 25-cent piece of latex.  I expect that someday I'll get around to making the choice to have a child, and when I do, I will love that child enough not to value an arbitrary standard of morality over his or her safety.  My kid will get a big gift-wrapped box of condoms on its 16th birthday.

The Shutdown Gets Shut Down

Last week, an epic struggle over abortion rights was waged on the Senate floor, the most dramatic such debate in at least two weeks and the likes of which will only be seen five or six more times before the end of 2011.  With just an hour to go until complete and total anarchy (in the way of closed post offices and a parking free-for-all), the government shutdown was halted when the Republicans conceded defeat in their Game of Chicken and generously agreed to devote 0.008% of the federal budget to Planned Parenthood.

http://thefeministgriote.com/?p=775

Here are just a few things that we learned in the week leading up to the Shutdown:

• "Big Abortion" is something we should be worried about.
• Abortion constitutes over 90% of Planned Parenthood's services.
• You can get a mammogram and a Pap Smear at Walgreens.

http://www.newshounds.us/2011/04/12/brian_kilmeades_misogynistic_mocking_of_planned_parenthood.php

Now, while it is evidently permissible in political discourse to use absolutely any fabricated fact or preferably a bullshitted statistic to support your argument, it still remains the case that abortions constitute only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services, and Section 1008 of Title X already prohibits these abortions from being funded by federal dollars.  Yet, in just the same way that all women entering a PP facility for any reason are harassed indiscriminately, so too were the 97% of PP services that are not abortion-related to be defunded in the right's war of attrition on abortion and women's health.

This all leaves me utterly baffled as to what's truly at the root of the debate, because its clearly not the deficit.  I do, however, have my pet theories.  First:  America's religious, corn-fed middle and lower classes care more about fetuses than about women, to put it simply.  Babies have the fortune of being cute and innocent, whereas women have had sufficient time to fuck up in some aspect of life.  I can't tell you how many times I've come across this viewpoint just in perusing other Blogspot blogs and Facebook pages:  babies are sweet, innocent, and "gifts from God," and women who are not interested in producing more of them are whores, murderers, or both.

Second: America is viscerally afraid of and opposed to sex.  We are dedicated to denying that sexuality is a natural and universal aspect of life, whether we are married or single, straight or gay, trying to procreate or not.  Women's health services pertain to STDs, pregnancy, and the general state of having genitals - all of which are matters relate to sex.  Thus, Planned Parenthood falls into the category of "things your parents get awkwardly silent about and hope you don't notice," along with condom commercials and softcore porn mags.  So why devote funds to preventing the byproducts of sex - STDs, pregnancy, and cervical cancer - when these things only happen to bad people who are just getting what they deserve?

Luckily, the joke is on detractors of women's health, because donations to Planned Parenthood have increased 500% since the funding debate first began.  Evidently, there are people other than myself who feel that saving money by not providing condoms to low-income populations may not be the best cost-reduction approach in the long run.

A Call to Arms (and to Scalpels)

Three cheers for America's judicial system.  It may be the least-appreciated branch, the "Holy Spirit" of the federal government, so to speak, but for almost 40 years now it has firmly upheld Roe v. Wade against countless legal attacks to repeal and undermine it.  In the past few decades, however, slander, intimidation, and yes, even pro-life terrorism have been much more successful than legislative initiatives at chipping away at the right to choose. The pro-life side has managed, through numerous back-door approaches, to make obtaining an abortion difficult and humiliating, if still technically legal.  Today, the biggest threat to abortion rights in the US is not the legality of the procedure, but rather the logistical access to abortion services, due in large part to the near crisis-level shortage of practicing abortion providers in the US.

Abortion remains one of the most commonly-performed procedures in America, and is certainly one of the most often discussed.  Therefore, it probably surprises most people to learn that physicians who perform abortions (or "abortionists," as they are so often called) are few and far between.  As in "entire states of separation" far between.  If you need an abortion and live in Wyoming, Missouri, Mississippi, or, God forbid, Hawaii, you are shit out of luck:  these four states lack a single abortion provider.  Even in states with relatively progressive abortion laws access to abortion is hindered merely by the scarcity of providers.  In fact, the 1.21 million abortions performed in 2008 were provided by just 1,793 facilities, with half of these services provided by just 2% of OB-GYNs.  In contrast, the nation is blanketed by well over 4,000 crisis pregnancy centers.

http://www.catholicvoteaction.org/americanpapist/index.php?tag=pro-life

It's not difficult to imagine why so few physicians provide abortions.  Clinic bombings, "abortion hit lists," Bill O'Reilly's abortion witch-hunt, and the 2009 assassination of Dr. George Tiller have all achieved their intended effect:  terrifying physicians out of providing a legal and judicially-protected procedure.  There are additional factors at play as well.  Catholic hospitals, which employ around 16% of American doctors, prohibit their employees from performing abortions even to correct an ectopic pregnancy or other life-threatening complication.  Many OB-GYNs aren't even trained in the procedure, as fewer than half of residency programs require this training.  And even physicians who identify as pro-choice may be reluctant to perform abortions due to societal pressures and the awkwardness of rarely being able to discuss their work in polite conversation.

http://worstgenerationseed.blogspot.com/2009/03/truth-truck-meets-tiller-killer.html

As a very pro-choice pre-med, these matters have been on my mind for some time now.  The nation needs abortion providers.  Women need abortions, and they will not stop needing (and procuring) them just because their doctors are incompetent or untrained.  I will someday need a specialty, and I believe in providing a service that millions of women want and need.  Of course, now is not the time to commit to a career:  even by the most optimistic estimates, it will be more than five years before I have my MD.  And regardless of how passionate I am about the cause, I'm not sure whether I'm prepared for a career that will spell a lifetime of harassment, fear, disdain, and maybe even a bullet to the head.  But it's something to consider.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66908&page=2

The Rosaries in the Ovaries

In spite of the Catholic Church's continued and unwavering stance against birth control, it turns out that most American Catholics are, not surprisingly, hypocrites.  According to the National Survey of Family Growth, about 98% have used a form of contraception banned by the Vatican at some point in their lives, and 40% identify as pro-choice.  No word yet on whether these sins come up during Confession.

http://puzzledponderer.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/most-ridiculous-catholic-clothing-ever/

Yet in the developing world, particularly in Latin America and Africa, the Pope's anti-birth control, anti-condom opinions are taken more seriously.  In Catholic nations such as the DR Congo, Peru, and Haiti, rates of birth control use are negligible, and are inversely correlated with rates of HIV infection and unwanted pregnancy.  In Kenya, there have even been widely-reported instances of condom-burnings at the behest of Catholic bishops.

Now, even Pope Paul VI, composer of the treatise Humanae Vitae, acknowledged that couples might "decide not to have additional children" after giving due consideration to "physical, economic, psychological, and social conditions."  And so, to "keep up with the times," ta-da! - thus was born the Catholic institution of Natural Family Planning.  NFP is a complicated system of tracking fertility by taking one's temperature, recording daily levels of cervical mucus secretions, and filling out charts.  This enables a Catholic couple to attempt to avoid pregnancy by abstaining from sex on likely fertile days, while not "perverting the purpose of the marital act."

http://www.learkentfool.com/?p=1678

First, let's be honest:  NFP is birth control.  It's just complicated and ineffective birth control.  Second, Catholicism seems to be very arbitrary with its endorsement of all things "natural:" naturalness is something to be embraced in contraception, but to be shunned when keeping PVS patients alive for decades via ventilators and feeding tubes.

Third, I don't see how this birth control method stands up even to Catholic logic.  The line of reasoning seems to go:  "Sex that isn't open to procreation is wrong.  If I use a condom then God will be displeased, because I'm trying to prevent pregnancy.  But if I have sex according to an intricately-designed calendar, God won't be able to see through my intention.  God wants me to have babies whenever he chooses.  God can do anything.  But he can't surmount a latex barrier even when he really, really wants to."

http://babymakingmachine.blogspot.com/2009/04/natural-family-planning-techinique.html

Sure gets me all hot and bothered.

Anyway.  Couples hoping to marry in a Catholic church are now required to attend four-month classes in Natural Family Planning, to learn the ins and outs of cervical mucus charting and the evils of secular methods of birth control.  For those unable to attend a class, the marriage requirement can be fulfilled with a "home study" class for just $161.  Nevertheless, NFP use is not very common in the developed world, even among Catholic women.  In fact, only about 3.6% of Catholics practice NFP.  Still, for the very high and holy, Natural Family Planning is the one and only way to go.

Given that the Catholic stance against birth control is so often criticized for the plight of starving, HIV-ravaged third world countries, I was curious to see whether NFP had made its way to Latin America and Africa.  Surely, since the Church acknowledges that everyone might not want to procreate constantly, and since it is so concerned with preserving human life, it would try to promote its one approved method of birth control in the third world.  I discovered, however, that NFP courses are available - in English and Spanish only - in all of fifteen nations worldwide.  The majority of these nations (the US, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, Argentina, Spain, South Africa, and inexplicably, China) are already highly developed.  NFP classes are taught in just six countries total in Africa and Latin America.  Furthermore, according to Natural Family Planning International, current efforts are focused on bringing NFP to the Czech Republic, a country with a fertility rate of 1.24 births per woman, whose people have suffered from "secularism and immorality."  In third-world majority Catholic nations, however, I suppose that the "suffering" has not been so great.

One rare instance I could find of Catholics promoting NFP in the third world comes from my very own Jesuit Georgetown.  A cohort of Jesuits affiliated with the Institute for Reproductive Health is attempting to dispense "cycle beads," rosaries for counting days of the menstrual cycle instead of Hail Marys, in Rwanda, Guatamala, and the DR Congo.  The sad fact is, though, that in the DR Congo, the so-called "rape capital of the world," where girls are often married off at puberty, even a woman's husband is unlikely to respect her wishes to abstain from intercourse during a fertile period.

If Catholic couples truly want to practice Natural Family Planning, then of course that is their right and their choice.  What I'd like to see, however, is some admission that this form of birth control is an elitist luxury, akin to buying organic food or running in Nike Nakeds.  For reasons logistical, economic, and societal, NFP is available almost exclusively in the developed world, while those without easy access are still told that condoms and other forms of "artificial" contraception will drag them down into the depths of Hell.  Yet even faced with these criticisms, the Vatican is as determined as ever not to waver in its resolve.  Pope Benedict XVI, speaking in 2008 on the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, firmly supported his predecessor's treatise, and reminded the world's one billion Catholics that the Church's stance against birth control is "so crucial for humanity's future."

And I would have to agree with him there.

To Those Who Wait

In a grand gesture that infuriated many but shocked no one, the South Dakota legislature this week passed a new law, HB 1217, which will require that women wait a minimum of 72 hours before having an abortion - which, as many have pointed out, is less than the mandatory waiting time to purchase a handgun.  The feigned motive behind the bill is to ensure that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is "voluntary, uncoerced, and informed."  Yet no one believes for a moment that SD has taken women's informed consent and reproductive autonomy to heart.  Governor Dennis Daugaard, who signed the bill, proudly states that he hopes "women will use this three-day period to make good (i.e. correct) decisions."

The law doesn't go into effect until July 1, but it already has many of us reeling.  Twenty-nine states (including my own native Georgia) currently have mandatory waiting periods for abortions, but South Dakota's is by far the longest span of time that a woman is required to "sit and think about what she's done."  I would say that the "third day" idea is some kind of Biblical allusion, but Jesus was actually only dead for 36 hours or so.

http://echealthinsurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/South-Dakota.jpg

You still have a choice in South Dakota... technically.

The implications of HB 1217 are enormous, even from a merely practical standpoint.  According to the Guttmacher Institute, 76% of South Dakotans live in counties with no abortion provider, so women facing an unwanted pregnancy in SD already have to make a pilgrimage to the state's one and only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls.  Under the new law, that trip will now require at least three nights at a hotel and four days' leave from work.  Alternatively, obtaining an abortion could necessitate driving back and forth from Sioux Falls several times in a week, scheduling multiple appointments with the abortion provider, and arranging for childcare.  Add to that ordeal a nice visit to the friendly neighborhood crisis pregnancy center.  Of course, it is useless to raise such criticisms of the bill, as these complications are precisely what SD lawmakers are hoping for.  Though they cannot overturn Roe v. Wade, they can make obtaining an abortion as difficult and annoying as possible.  I won't be surprised if we begin seeing 8- and 9-month-long waiting periods.

http://www.cafepress.com/+south-dakota-pro-choice+mugs

The waiting period, however, is not the worst part of this legislation.  Far and above more ludicrous is HB 1217's requirement that women undergo "counseling" at a state-funded, medically unlicensed crisis pregnancy center.  Ah, this is where those "good decisions" are to be made.  Furthermore, lest the pro-choice side start getting any ideas about offering counseling, the bill proffers an exact definition of a CPC:

“The pregnancy help center has a facility or office in the state of South Dakota in which it routinely consults with women for the purpose of helping them keep their relationship with their unborn children; that one of its principal missions is to educate, counsel, and otherwise assist women to help them maintain their relationship with their unborn children; that they do not perform abortions at their facility, and have no affiliation with any organization or physician which performs abortions; that they do not now refer pregnant women for abortions, and have not referred any pregnant women for an abortion at any time in the three years immediately preceding July 1, 2011.”

Thus, the establishment required to give women pre-abortion "counseling" must, by definition, be staunchly pro-life.  This clause was introduced under the widespread misconception that Planned Parenthood encourages women to have abortions, that it somehow has something to gain from doing so.  In fact, Planned Parenthood does provide counseling, including information about parenting and adoption, to women who are considering abortion.  The difference is that this counseling does not have an agenda to push, whereas CPCs are all hellfire and medically inaccurate ideology. These centers already outnumber abortion clinics eleven to one in South Dakota.  Now, under HB 1217, their presence and influence will be even more far-reaching, and they will have even more license to guilt, terrify, and bully girls into making "the right choice."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-01/crisis-pregnancy-centers-mislead-women-new-laws-fight-back/

One of the many tools that will be used to help you make "good decisions."

Given that these centers are unabashedly religiously-affiliated, I have no idea how this clause can be constitutional; given that they force-feed their "patients" blatant and deliberate medical lies, I feel like we may be moving quickly into a post-medical dystopian society of government-sponsored deception.  Now, before I get ahead of myself spewing conspiracy theories, the absurdity and theocratic implications of this bill have already been duly noted by nearly everyone.  Article links about HB 1217 have been popping up on my Facebook newsfeed almost continuously, and the subject has come up constantly in conversation.  Rachel Maddow has already spoken out strongly against the bill; Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota have promised to take it up in court.  We haven't heard the last word on HB 1217.  Yet it's encouraging and even somewhat of a relief to hear some healthy indignation, because this is the only thing that is going to keep abortion rights in America even at a measly status quo.