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.

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.  

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.

Preaching to the Choir

With a little less than half of the U.S. self-identifying as Pro-Choice, it's easy for us to stick together.  When you're young, hip, sexy, and buying quinoa from Trader Joe's, it's even easier.  Sex and Choice are natural conversation points at parties.  Supporting Planned Parenthood is taken as a given.  Some of us may even blog for an intended audience already in agreement.  For people like us, there are rallying points like this great video:

Wesleyan University - "I Have Sex"

And this more cloying one:

Second City - For Those With Vaginas

But preaching to the choir only goes so far to effect actual change.  Eventually, we actually need to mobilize our fervent energy and bring our concerns and our message to the other side, to those who don't already agree with us, to those who are uncomfortable with our position.  Accordingly, today I performed my most futile of civic duties:  I wrote a letter to my Senator, ultra pro-life Saxby Chambliss (R - GA Douchebag).  Note how I pretended that "budget cuts" are really the issue at hand:

"Dear Senator Chambliss,

I am writing to express my concerns about measures currently under consideration regarding reproductive health.  In the ongoing Congressional debates on FY2011 budget cuts, you have voted to defund both the United Nations Population Fund and Planned Parenthood.  I ask that you reconsider your stance on these issues, and lend your support to these vital organizations.  I am one of your constituents, and a citizen concerned both with the nation’s growing deficit, as well as with the impact of unintended pregnancies both at home and worldwide.  I believe not only that these two causes are related, but that they are intricately and inextricably linked.

First, I urge you to vote in support of providing funding to the United Nations Population Fund.  This organization does not fund abortions, but rather provides desperately-needed access to family planning resources and education to millions of young women and men around the world.   In addition, the UNFPA also provides medical care to pregnant women in an effort to decrease the enormous number of maternal deaths and injuries that occur each day.  These measures, which allow women in the developing world to determine the size and spacing of their families, have proven their positive impact.  Nations with fewer unintended pregnancies, smaller family size, and fewer maternal deaths are more stable socially, economically, and politically.  Such improvements would spell positive changes for our global community.

Second, I ask that you support federal funding for Planned Parenthood, an organization which provides family planning and health services to millions of Americans.  The mission of Planned Parenthood is to prevent unwanted pregnancy, allowing women and girls to complete their educations and further their careers, and saving millions of dollars each year in Medicaid and Welfare costs.

I understand the severity of the nation’s current financial situation, but I firmly believe that cutting funding from family planning programs is not the way to save money.  I am sure that you have heard the saying that every dollar spent on family planning measures saves four down the road.  Thus, in this time of economic crisis, it would behoove us as citizens of Georgia, the United States, and the world to invest in women’s future and in fiscally-sound family planning measures.

Thank you."

Naturally, my letter is going to end up being ignored.  Actually, it's not even going to be ignored by Saxby Chambliss; it's going to be ignored by Saxby Chambliss' secretary's intern.  But I'm glad that I finally voiced my dissident opinion to someone who is supposed to be representing me.  And maybe a hundred such letters would be harder to ignore.

Happily, Planned Parenthood is safe for now, but the failure of H.R. 1 bought only about three weeks of time.  The threat of budget cuts is not going anywhere.  So I'm going to go all PSA on ya'll and beg you 1) To donate to Planned Parenthood, and 2) to write to your Senators and Representatives.  Feel free to copy and paste my letter, emend it, or ignore it and write your own.  If you give a shit about this cause, please tell someone.  And don't let me be that someone.  Make it someone who doesn't already know.

Crisis

http://www.impact73.org/Lifeboards.php

Project Lifeboard offers you "options," but not "choice."

This week there was some good news in the world of Choice.  According to the NYC city council, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, pro-life organizations which disseminate ads like the one seen above, must now specify in their ads 1) what specific services they provide, and 2) whether or not they hold a medical license.  Baby steps, but steps in the right direction.  This is some progress, but I am far from satisfied, for numerous reasons.

These centers usually present themselves as medical clinics offering abortions and other pregnancy services, though their true purpose is to dissuade girls experiencing an unwanted pregnancy from having an abortion, and often to win Christian converts along the way.  Most centers are in fact unlicensed and staffed solely by religious volunteers and medical assistants – people who have had less than 6 months of medical training.  The only services offered are pregnancy tests and ultrasounds.  Even more absurd are the tactics used to wheedle girls into choosing to keep a baby:   “patients” at these centers are shown footage of a fetus’ beating heart, are encouraged to marry the baby’s biological father, and receive blatantly incorrect medical information about the dangers of having an abortion. 

According to the website of Ramah International, an alliance of pregnancy centers,  there are a few things I should know if I am considering an abortion:  1)  Abortion is a risky procedure, often performed in unsanitary conditions.  2)  Following an abortion, I am 33% more likely to experience an ectopic pregnancy, 50% more likely to develop breast cancer, and 600% more likely to experience abruptio placenta. 3)  Following an abortion, I have a 50% chance of developing “Post-Abortion Syndrome,” which leads to depression, anxiety, and suicide.  4) My fetus can feel pain beginning at 9 weeks.  And, most ridiculous, 5) I should first take a pregnancy test at the center, because THE DOCTOR WHO TOLD ME I WAS PREGNANT MAY HAVE LIED IN ORDER TO SELL ME AN ABORTION.

These claims are all false, as well as ridiculous (honestly, has a doctor ever told someone he had cancer in order to “sell” him a surgery?)  It is one thing to run an establishment dedicated to spewing hellfire and damnation of the religious variety on women who are in genuine distress.  It is quite another, however, to disseminate deliberately false medical information in an effort to terrify and manipulate women into making what will probably be one of the most important decision of their lives.  Imagine a scared, pregnant 16-year-old girl entering what she thinks is a medical clinic, being told that she has a ~50% chance of dying from the long-term effects of an abortion, and making a decision to keep and raise a baby based on that information.

But lest you think that this is the last stop on the Crazy Train, 20 US states currently provide funding for these Crisis Pregnancy Centers (my own native Georgia being one of them).  These are tax dollars, being spent on a service that masquerades as something it’s not and then lies directly to its clients.  This is like spending state money on a fire station which pretends to be a restaurant and then tells customers that too much friction during sex will cause a forest fire.  And these are the tax dollars we can’t afford to allocate for family planning.

Though NYC has voted to begin regulating its centers’ advertising and similar measures have been enacted in Maryland, such legislation has failed in most staes.  Nationwide, crisis pregnancy centers outnumber abortion clinics 4 to 1, and receive approximately $25 million of state and federal assistance.  Using tax funds to encourage teens to marry and raise children, without providing them with the appropriate pre- or post-natal care or contraceptive options?  Makes fiscal sense to me.

Pregnant?  Alone?  Confused?  For the love of God, go to a real doctor.

The Barren Middle Ground

I am glad that I have access to adequate dental care should I need a cavity filled.  That said, having a tooth filled is a pain in the ass:  it's expensive, time-consuming, and just generally unpleasant.  This is why I floss.

Stripped of its surrounding controversy, abortion is essentially the same as a tooth filling or root canal:  it is a medical procedure you're glad is available, but you hope you won't have to take advantage of.  No matter how pro-choice you are, I can guess that you aren't hoping to be put in a position that requires you to choose an abortion.

This is a perfect example of the often-overlooked middle ground between the typically so starkly-divided choice and life camps.  Both sides agree that abortion is not an inherent good, and that the fewer that are needed, the better.  From religious, social, economic, and medical perspectives, limiting the need for and occurrence of abortions, both legal and illegal, should be a common goal.  In place of debates on the legality of late-term abortions, technicalities of "forcible rape," and issues of spousal and parental notification, discussions of preventative measures against unintended pregnancy - contraception and education - might bring us farther in the effort to improve women's health.

But those interested in achieving any degree of compromise in  are few and far between.  Instead, discussion gives way to incoherent shouting, and polarizing rhetoric fuels the fight on both sides.  Arguments addressing "a woman's right to choose" are shot down with appeals to "a child's right to life."  Clever and incendiary bumper stickers stare each other down in the nation's parking lots while accomplishing absolutely nothing.    Ultimately, the issue has polarized us so much that the idealism on both sides - but particularly on the right - refuses to bend for the sake of practicality.

http://www.bible.ca/oral-birth-control-NO.gif

The pro-life movement is generally disinterested with preventing the need for abortion through access to birth control and education, because as I've said before, this movement is as much about sex as it is about abortion.  Sex is a sin, as is abortion:  religion is not a relativist institution, and it knows not how to choose "the lesser of two evils."  For many, the sole measure acceptable for the discussion of pregnancy prevention has long been, and continues to be, abstinence.  Efforts to increase access to birth control, to develop programs for comprehensive sex education, and even to provide the potentially life-saving HPV injection to adolescent girls have all been viewed by the right-wing as an invitation to, and tacit approval of, premarital sex. Statistics that show abstinence before marriage to be an unreasonable expectation do little to change religious arguments, and sexuality continues to be discussed only in normative terms.  Pro-life leaders are too idealistic to compromise, and no solution can be acceptable if it acknowledges the inevitability of extramarital sex.

http://www.nicodetourn.com/img/abstinence-life-control.jpg

Accordingly, numerous family-planning measures have recently been felled before the unwavering sexual idealism of the right wing.  In addition to the widely-publicized defunding of Planned Parenthood, and last year's decision to continue funding abstinence-only education programs, a measure to provide monies to the the United Nations Population Fund also floundered in the House just last week.  Interestingly, this organization does not provide funds for abortion.  Instead, it grants access worldwide to family planning resources, sex education, and maternal care, with the expressed goal of decreasing the number of unsafe abortions.  This is a cause we could, and should, all get behind.  Unfortunately, this extending of the olive branch is unlikely to happen any time soon, since it would mean acknowledging that sex does not necessitate marriage, and that pregnancy need not follow sex.  Lest you were wondering, the Ten Commandments are ever-present in our legislature... though I know not of any measures based on the presumption that we do not covet.

Sex: Crime & Punishment

It appears that the U.S. is experiencing a disturbing trend with regard to beliefs on abortion.  According to the Gallup Values & Beliefs Survey, 2009 marked the first year that more Americans self-identified as "pro-choice" than "pro-life."  Remarkably, the percentage of Americans who describe themselves as "pro-life" has been climbing gradually since the mid-90's.

This change over time is so depressing to those of the pro-choice persuasion that it's barely worth talking about.  However, what I find more interesting is another result of the Gallup survey:

Evidently, the percentage of Americans who see the issue completely in black and white, who feel that abortion should be strictly legal or illegal, is relatively small.  The majority of those polled actually believe that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.  These "certain" circumstances always boil down to exactly two:  1) To save the life of the mother, and 2) In cases of rape or incest.

First, it is fairly difficult to find someone opposed to abortions performed to save a mother's life (although  the pale green line at the bottom of this graph indicates that these folk do indeed exist).  This is one circumstance rarely (and thankfully so!) subject to public debate.

The second clause is one that has generated a great deal of discussion, particularly recently.  Just this past month, the House got its panties into a wad over the precise definition of "rape," arguing whether federal funds should be allocated for abortions in all cases of rape, or merely for those cases John Boehner deems legitimate.

Biologically, a fetus is a fetus, whether it was conceived through rape, incest, or consensual sex; it is the same entity in question.  However, in these certain cases, an abortion crosses a fine line from the "murder of innocents" to an understandable and necessary course of action.  What is it that sways public opinion in these cases?

Ultimately, it is the willingness of the mother.  If a woman was raped, and presumably did not enjoy the violent act, then she need not be burdened further with bearing and raising a child she did not intend to conceive - she need not pay the price for a crime perpetrated against her.  On the other hand, if a woman had consensual sex, and especially enjoyable sex, then the subtle implication of the "in all cases except rape and incest" argument is that an unwanted pregnancy is the punishment she deserves.

Ultimately, the abortion debate is as much about sex as it is about the termination of pregnancy, because the one act so clearly predicates the other.  To me, this smacks not of sincere people genuinely concerned with innocent fetal life, but rather of those who view sex as a crime, and pregnancy as just desserts for loose women.  If you are going to be truly pro-life or pro-choice, at least be consistent in your arguments.  Either that, or acknowledge that the issue is a thousand shades of gray.

"Life," and other such loaded words

Does life begin at conception?

It's a ridiculous question.  It is impossible to deny that a newly-fertilized zygote is alive, simply because it is not the clear alternative.  Cellular metabolism occurs from the beginning, and replication, the classic hallmark of life, soon follows.  Similarly, one must acknowledge that an unfertilized egg is also alive.  In fact, each one of a human female's 1 to 2-odd million ova has existed in a state of "suspended animation," somewhere between Meiosis I and II, since sometime early on in her own development.  Furthermore, since every living cell is the product of a mitotic division which produces two (usually) identical daughter cells, every ovum, sperm, or neuron, for that matter, is a sister of the very first primordial cell, traceable back through an unbroken and living line, bringing the "lifetime" of that single ovum to approximately 4 billion years.  Yes, a zygote is alive.

But this is not the true debate.  A bacterium is also undeniably alive, as is a cancerous tissue (as well as the chicken to be slaughtered and served for the church potluck), yet this biological definition of life is irrelevant.  The true question under consideration is whether "human-ness" begins with the fusion of a sperm and an ovum.  This is the question currently (and perpetually) at the heart of the debate on abortion, emergency contraception, and stem cell research.  An extreme version of this debate recently waged in Colorado, where lawmakers tried to pass a piece of legislation known as the "Fetal Personhood Amendment" (Amendment 62), a measure which would confer full legal standing on a human zygote, with understandably wide-reaching implications.  Yet this bill failed, perhaps because many of us, no matter how conscientious, no matter how religious, have an inherent difficulty equating a fetus with a person endowed with all the honors of human-ness.


To many, this human-ness is nothing other than a soul, a mystical essence of being which forms (or is in some way imparted by God Himself) precisely at the moment of fertilization, and persists in the individual until a car wreck or cancer forces it out of the lungs and up into Heaven.  Fortunately, most souls do not have to wait too long to make this escape - of all fertilized embryos, 50% do not implant in the uterus, and another 30% or so abort spontaneously because of congenital defects.  Most of these miscarriages occur even before the mother knows she is pregnant.  Thus, for every one child born, there are four zygotic or embryonic souls in Heaven.

http://docinthemachine.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/embryo-brochure.jpg

This is an 8-celled human embryo.  In which cell does the soul live?

Human-ness necessitates a capacity for feeling, for thought, and most importantly, for self-awareness - all functions which require a developed central nervous system (and more than 8 cells).  This is a quality that arises gradually, through the development of sensation and cognition and the acquisition of personal experience.  One might recall Aristotle's three-fold soul (vegetative, sensitive, and intellectual), whose layers each give rise to the next, and of which only the intellectual confers humanity.

I don't eat meat, but for those who do (and those who care to validate this practice), a plausible justification for the killing of beings fully capable of sensing pain is that animals - with some notable exceptions - do not possess the self-awareness necessary to fear death.  But then how much more so is this true for the fetus?