
This piece is a very clear illustration of just how damaging to life as we know it will be changed if McCain/Palin are elected and able to pick the next justices for the Supreme Court. It's not just about the legality of abortion - but the legality of contraception itself.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-swenson/obama-plays-offense-asser_b_127490.html The author is the Executive Editor at RH Reality Check, an award-winning, daily online publication covering global reproductive and sexual health news and information. Obama Plays Offense Asserting Pro-Education, Pro-Prevention, Pro-Choice Values No one will be able to accuse Sen. Barack Obama of not making his pro-education, pro-prevention, pro-choice values clear in this election. Unlike ghosts of Democrats past that hemmed and hawed, straddling hot-button issues like abortion by playing defense against the harsh tactics and misinformation spread by far-right social conservatives, Obama has clearly stated his beliefs and aggressively defended his values. He shaped his party's platform to reflect values that both pro-choice and pro-life Democrats embraced, and spoke clearly to all Americans by saying in his acceptance speech "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in this country." Polling has consistently suggested that a majority of Americans agree abortion should remain legal with some restrictions, but few candidates have been willing to take on the more aggressive far right and their extreme tactics. Even Congressional Democrats who regained the majority in 2006 have been reluctant to stand up to the far right on issues like abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, contraception and reproductive health issues. Democrats (pro-life and pro-choice) along with pro-choice Republicans made efforts by introducing pro-education and pro-prevention legislation, but when votes were required on continuing abstinence-only funding and integrating reproductive health services with HIV prevention in the US global AIDS legislation known as PEPFAR, the far-right held Congress hostage. The Associated Press today talks about how Sen. John McCain, "seems content with the public's perception that he's more moderate on the issue" of abortion while Obama is educating voters about McCain's real position which advocates making abortion illegal. The GOP platform rejected pro-choice Republicans completely, calling for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. McCain touts his pro-life record, says he will appoint Supreme Court Justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade, and selected a running mate in Gov. Sarah Palin who believes abortion should be banned even in cases of rape and incest. Politically, Obama's embrace of the education and prevention agenda long encompassed in the phrase "pro-choice" represents a shift away from abortion politics as usual. Too often mainstream media and advocacy organizations on both sides have missed the nuance of sexual and reproductive health issues, and assumed a candidate's position on abortion defined them on many other issues. McCain seems to adhere to the far right playbook of the '70's and '80's that many voters are familiar with: run to the right in the primaries and then attempt to appeal to moderates in the general election, and finally govern from the far-right if elected. As soon as his nomination was secure, statements about his wife's more moderate position on abortion started to emerge, and even Palin repeated the correct talking point about "reaching out to the other side" in her interview with Charlie Gibson. In this election, the attention to the full range of sexual and reproductive health issues in the mainstream media coverage, sensational as it often is, is giving voters and candidates a chance to talk about how these very personal and private issues translate to public policies in our pluralistic democracy. Susan Cohen, director of government affairs at the Guttmacher Institute said, "Obama's strong stance on prevention and his common-sense positions make for smart politics, and it makes sense that he would want to let the electorate know where he stands on the issue. His views on abortion rights more closely correspond to where the majority of Americans stand than those of John McCain." "Obama's positions and votes in favor of making abortion less necessary by promoting a real prevention agenda are light years ahead of McCain's, who has actually voted against policies and programs that would make a real difference in reducing unintended pregnancy to begin with," Cohen added. NARAL Pro-Choice America issued a poll earlier this year about how pro-choice values play, particularly in swing states. According to an article about the poll in U.S News and World Report, "women voters in states including Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, [pollster Al] Quinlan says that Obama gained 13 points among pro-choice independent women and 9 points among pro-choice Republican women once they were presented with what the pollsters called 'a balanced description of the candidates' respective positions on choice.'" Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America said, "Sen. Obama is consistently strong in expressing his pro-choice values, and that message not only energizes our pro-choice base but it connects with swing voters, especially the moderate independent women who will decide this election. The Obama campaign's approach underscores what we've known for a long time: choice is a winning issue." Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund said, "When it comes to women's health and rights, including protecting Roe v. Wade, the choice is clear. Barack Obama has a long and consistent record of standing up for women's health. John McCain has voted against women's health 125 times, including voting against affordable birth control. He wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. Not enough voters know how out of touch McCain is when it comes to women's health. The more voters, particularly women, learn about the striking differences between Obama and McCain on women's health, the more likely they will be to support Obama." During the campaign so far, voters have had a chance to get beyond the surface slogans and really examine pro-choice vs. pro-life values on a range of sexual and reproductive health issues. Last week the nation was treated to a teachable moment on age appropriate comprehensive sex ed as the McCain campaign attacked Obama in ads that have been widely criticized as being inaccurate, both about the Illinois legislation the ad questioned, and fact that most people think it is in children's best interest to grow up with a healthy sense of body and self, and be able to protect themselves from pedophile priests, teachers, family members. With Gov. Sarah Palin's explosion on the national scene we've also witnessed discussion about the failures of abstinence-only-until-marriage-programs and the reality of teen pregnancy. Voters are discussing what works and what doesn't with respect to education and prevention, within families where all private choices should be made and respected, and as a matter of public health for parents who are concerned about the education and information given to their children. Parents can and should teach sexual health and respect in the home, but eventually they encounter the world, and comprehensive sex ed is about creating a base line of factual, age appropriate, evidence-based, reliable scientific data all parents and kids can use to learn respect and personal responsibility. Often overlooked, voters are also seeing how candidates deal with the difficult issue of violence against women and rape, and the subjugation stemming from a culture that allows women to be abused. Voters also have a front row seat for the Quadrennial Catholic Intramurals with Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. Biden's ability to separate his private faith from public duty, a view shared overwhelmingly by lay Catholics, raised the hackles of the far more political hierarchy of the church, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The one issue that has not yet been explicitly discussed by the campaigns is contraception, which is currently under a very real and dangerous threat from far-right social conservatives. McCain was asked about insurance coverage for contraception, relative to the fact Viagra is widely covered, and was visibly uncomfortable before making no comment. The Bush Administration is already attempting to make contraception access more difficult, which is counter-intuitive to most Americans who use contraception to avoid unintended pregnancies and thus reduce abortions. The final few days for public commenting on a rule change proposed by the Bush Department of Health and Human Services are ticking away (Sept. 25 is the deadline, register your comments here) and it seems logical that if the campaigns are going to talk about all of these other sexual and reproductive health issues, a more direct conversation about contraception access and affordability is also in order. Looming over all of these discussions about sexual and reproductive health is the Supreme Court and the appointment of the next two or three Justices. If Roe v. Wade is overturned abortion will be banned in 23 states in an instant and the door will be open for Congress to legislate a federal ban in all 50 states, ensuring the extreme politics of the far right will continue to divide the nation. Banning abortion will not stop abortion, only make criminals out of women and doctors, and endanger their health and lives. In addition, one of the precedents upon which Roe is based, Griswold v. Connecticut, could also be threatened. Griswold challenged a law prohibiting the use of contraception based on a privacy claim, underscoring yet again the threat to contraception, even though access and affordability remains an issue for far too many people. |
I have a question. Much has been made about Palin being against abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Let me preface by saying that I'm pro choice. I'm just barely pro-choice-- I am only pro choice because I know that people WILL get abortions, and I would not want to see young girls or women dying in an effort to terminate a pregnancy. I was much more pro-choice before I had kids, but having been pregnant with a wanted pregnancy, and having seen what a fetus looks like at 9 weeks on ultraound kind of changed my viewpoint.
That said, if you are pro-life, how can you make an exception in cases of rape or incest? Never mind the quagmire of trying to/having to prove that you actually got pregnant due to rape or incest. But, you either believe that life begins at conception or you do not. You either believe that a woman has a right to abort a fetus, or you believe that a fetus is a life and nobody has a right to terminate that life. If you believe that life begins at conception, is that life any different because it was conceived by rape? To me, if you believe a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy caused by rape, then you are not pro life; you are pro choice. Is there a rational argument to the contrary? BTW-- I do think a pro-life person can rationally allow abortion when the life of the mother is at stake; if mommy dies, so does baby/fetus. I just don't understand the rape/incest exception. |
I agree that there is a consistency to the argument that if you accept that the fetus is a living human being with the rights that entails, then it deserves protection no matter how it was conceived. Nevertheless, I also see a view that says that the fetus has rights that must be balanced against the mother's right to control her body. When the conception is due to a choice made by the mother, the argument that her rights outbalance the fetus's rights is weaker than when the birth is forced on her by rape, so I can see making the distinction. I'll leave the incest case to others. BTW, I'm pro-choice. |
I have often wondered the same thing about rape and incest exceptions in pro-life rhetoric.
On a side note I find it interesting that having had children makes some people less pro-choice. The experience of pregnancy and the birth of my daughter made me far more pro-choice than I've ever been. Pregnancy isn't easy for everyone and neither is raising a child and if someone has the foresight to realize they don't want to do it, they absolutely should no be forced IMHO. It seems to me that the moral arguments from the pro-lifers come down to blaming women who get pregnant by accident and want abortions as having loose morals and thus needing to be punished with a pregnancy and a baby, whereas a woman that has been raped does not have those loose morals and thus does not have to have the same punishment. The pro-life folks often don't seem to want to admit this as such, calling people that have abortions murderers, and what not, but that seems to be the crux of the argument to me, and thus has absolutely nothing to do with when life actually begins. The when-does-life-begin red herring is much more of an issue where birth control is concerned, to me, and thus just about controlling women. I've been worried about access to birth control for a while now, and it's one thing to worry about how our teenagers that are having sex would get and learn to use birth control, but what about the rest of us who are happily married but want intimate relationships with our spouses yet don't want more children? I know it's not the intent of this thread but I'm curious to hear how pregnancy has changed or pushed other women's feelings about abortion one way or another. |
I am the OP of this thread - and, while I am as pro-choice as ever, pregnancy definitely changed my views on abortion. I am pro-choice because I strongly believe in women's right to control their own bodies. However, the experience of my pregnancy - and, in particular, the many sonograms and especially the sonogram during my amniocentesis - has also made me more uncomfortable with abortion than ever before. During my amniocentesis, I watched my daughter when she was a fetus move to the other side of my uterus in response to the invasion of her environment by the needle. This was sometime around 12 weeks - and, if I had needed to make a decision to terminate after receiving the results, it would have been after an additional 2 weeks of fetal development. Nevertheless, I think there is a distinction between "life" and a "human being" - is their "life" at conception? Well, yeah. There is "life" in every cell in our body. When does a fetus become a "human being"? I don't think there is a definitive answer about that. So, I am more uncomfortable with abortion - but also, like you mentioned, more certain than ever before that every child should be a wanted child. Fwiw, I am also uncomfortable with the use of surrogates to give birth because of the potential for women's procreative power to be reduced to yet another thing that poor women are forced by life circumstances to put up for sale. But my discomfort about any of these things does not mean they should be illegal. It means that they are simply not things that should be considered lightly. Which is highly appropriate. |
"The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion, which is war against the child. The mother doesn't learn to love, but kills to solve her own problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want." |
I'm 18:09 from yesterday. As background, I went to Catholic school for most of my life, and had pro-life views forced down my throat, with very little explanation. But I fell into the pro-choice camp, both because I thought a woman should have a right to choose, but also because I didn't consider a fetus a "baby." With my first pregnancy, I had the standard 20 week ultrasound, but didn't "see" the baby until that point. So it didn't really affect my views. I mean I didn't even tell anyone other than my husband and my closest friend that I was pregnant until after the 1st trimester because I had no idea if the pregnancy would stay viable. But I had an ultrasound at 9(ish?) weeks with my second and was astonished how much that fetus looked like a baby. And had a heartbeat. That was sort of when it hit me; to me that WAS a baby. I know how tiny she was at the point...but seing her blown up on the ultrasound screen kind of makes you lose perspective of that. That's pretty much when my mind changed. In addition, I have recently had close friends struggle with infertility and start looking into adoption. I know pregnancy is hard on the body, but there are so many people who can't have children...
So, I guess my heart is pro-life, but my head is pro-choice, if that makes sense. To me, it's not AT ALL a moral judgment about the woman who got pregnant. It's 100% about how much later 1st trimester fetus resembles a human being. I agree that every child should be a wanted child; there are just so many people out there that DO want them. But again-- this is such a sensitive issue and I can't imagine laws forcing a 14, 15, 16 year old kid to go through with a pregnancy if she doesn't want to. I don't pretend to know what other women's lives are like or what circumstances led to pregnancy, or what a pregnancy could do to their body or their lives. For that reason, I do think outlawing abortion would be a bad idea, which I guess keeps me on the pro-choice side. |
You really are completely out of your mind if you think contraception OR abortion will become illegal. Just plain old paraniod, conspiracy, idiot thinking, or lack there of.
And who again plays upon the politics of fear? |
Excuse me? Abortion will become illegal in 23 states almost immediately following a possible reversal of Roe v Wade. Contraception - talking about barrier methods here like condoms and sponges - WERE illegal not even 100 years ago. And the rationale used for those laws were EXACTLY the same as the rationale used for trying to make abortion illegal. Go back and read some historical source documents if you doubt this. I have. Any arguments to the contrary are misinformed at best. |
Everyone needs to realize that once Roe v Wade is overturned it will switch back again, no matter who you vote into office. The judicial process is not designed to keep reversing themselves, it is a signficant event.
If McCain/Palin win it will be with an enormous debt to the conservative, pro life factions and it will not matter in the least that the majoroty of the country is not in this camp. Supreme Court justice nominees will be ones with a clear position to overturn Roe v Wade. If you are pro choice, you do need to realize that a fundamental right that we have had for 30 years will be gone based on your vote in this election. |
You can always tell when the left is getting worried that they might lose -- they start pulling out the scare tactics. Yes, let's listen to the Huffington Post to tell us what McCain REALLY thinks on the matter. In fact, if I recall correctly he has admitted to using birth control himself. The fact that he did not vote for a bill that would have mandated that insurance companies pay for contraception does not mean that he does not support contraception. If you look at it from a fiscal standpoint -- how much money would it cost to regulate and enforce that law? No law comes for free. So it sounds to me like he was being fiscally conservative.
Also, have people forgotten that Supreme Court Appointees (as well as many federal judges and other appointees) must be approved by the Senate, which by the way is controlled by the Democrats. |
You are just so off base here. It's not about what McCain thinks or feels about contraception - it's about the legal landscape that would exist if Roe v Wade is overturned. There are already efforts (very well-funded efforts) to limit women's access to various contraceptives. And, as I said before, the legal and moral arguments for limiting access to or making contraception illegal are and always have been essentially identical to those used to make abortion illegal. If these arguments you are presenting are from some Republican source, you need to consider the possibility that you are being grossly manipulated and misinformed against your best interests. |
"The fact that he did not vote for a bill that would have mandated that insurance companies pay for contraception does not mean that he does not support contraception. If you look at it from a fiscal standpoint -- how much money would it cost to regulate and enforce that law? No law comes for free. So it sounds to me like he was being fiscally conservative."
Fiscally conservative for whom? This was a business vote over women's access to health care. This was a vote to support business profits and insurance companies. |
He favors a free market approach/less regulation at the federal level, and makes no apologies for that. I know nothing about the bill itself. But insurance companies, for the most part, are regulated at the state level. I DO know something about that. Plus, it's a whole lot more expensive for insurance companies to pay for the result of the lack of contraception (pre-natal care isn't cheap) than it is to pay for birth control. You may be stuck with generic, but I bet more plans than not cover it. If they don't, then the coverage of that plan overall is probably pretty limited and is a case of you get what you pay for. |
I find it interesting that some of the liberals are hysterically hyping that no pro choice woman would support Palin-esp. in the Hilary camp. I am an indpendant and can say that I am supporting the republican ticket this time (for a variety of reasons not brought up on this thread). I have the same feeling that I see of a lot of pro choice woman. I am pro choice but..by a hair. I think legistlation and science have not caught up with each other and frankly I think there needs to be waaaaaaaay more restrictions on abortion so having some prolifers in the oval office might do this country good. I do think it's from becoming a mom that I just can't ignore that there is a life there and the fact that you are switched to going to the emergency room for pregnancy problems to Labor and Delivery at 20 weeks because technically a baby could be born alive then gives cause for pause. I am also tired of hearing that if you don't agree with everything the NOW says that you are not a feminist--keep it up ladies and I will never consider voting for a democrat again. |