A key ingredient of the contemporary first-person abortion narrative is the author’s declaration that she was not “allowed” by pro-abortion-rights people to feel ambivalent about her abortion.
“A story about abortion is not allowed to be a tale of nuance,” declared Monica Heisey in a Gawker essay published on Jan. 22. “For the right, recovery means repentance. For the left, you weren’t supposed to have to recover at all,” wrote Molly Crabapple in a 2013 Vice essay. “Emotions, I learned, could be regarded as a chink in the pro-choice armor,” wrote Kassi Underwood in a 2011 New York Daily News piece. “I shut up about my feelings because I valued my community, but my community was unsupportive — suspicious, even — of my gloom.”
In recent years, we have seen growing discontent from women who have had abortions about the terms of the abortion debate. The central criticism, as Heisey wrote, is that a purported focus on ideology “forces women’s lived experiences into opposing camps.”
These women have a right to their feelings, even if those feelings are contradictory. But feelings are not in danger of being outlawed. Abortion is. That’s why politics and ideology still matter. Claiming that both sides in the abortion debate are equally guilty of silencing women is like saying Vietnam War protesters spat on returning soldiers: There’s simply no evidence to support it.
In my days as a clinic volunteer, I was called a whore, a slut and a murderer by clinic protesters — and treated with nothing but respect by clinic employees. Some anti-abortion activists care about women’s emotional and physical well-being. But they are not the ones standing in front of clinics shrieking at teenage “whores.” Outside the clinic door, only one side spews misogynistic invective, exponentially compounding the pain of a potentially wrenching choice.
As Peg Johnston, the executive director of an upstate New York clinic and chairwoman of the Abortion Conversation Project once put it, “We know that finding a middle ground for women to tell their stories without political overtones is helpful to their emotional health.” According to Planned Parenthood’s website, “Only you can decide what is best for you. But we are here to help.” NARAL Pro-Choice America recently posted a link to a 2015 Guardian piece that includes stories from women who were anguished by their abortions as well as from those who identify as anti-abortion. The National Abortion Federation’s website counsels women to talk to clinic staff about their concerns if they are feeling pressured by parents, partners or friends to have an abortion.
The Guttmacher Institute, which Underwood describes as promising women post-abortion relief, devotes a section of its website to “helping women cope after having an abortion,” explaining that “it is not unusual for a woman to experience a range of often contradictory emotions after having an abortion.” SisterSong, a reproductive justice collective for women of color, operates on the principle that “every woman has the human right to have a child, not have a child and parent the children she has” and devotes a page of its website to Trust Black Women, a partnership of women who “are both pro-choice and pro-life and are not divided over the misleading debate on abortion.”
I believe that women who complain of low cultural tolerance for nuanced abortion narratives really do feel stigmatized. There is a stigma surrounding abortion — but it’s one that abortion-rights advocates have spent decades dismantling.
Abortion-rights groups are simply not in the business of blaming, shaming or denying a voice to women. Do individual women regret getting abortions? Yes, some do. Just as some women regret having children or getting a divorce. But the government and private organizations are not obligated to protect adult women from making sexual or reproductive choices they might one day regret.
Pro-abortion-rights organizations and people should be and are honest about the potential downsides of abortion. As their websites reveal, they are open to hearing painful and conflicted stories from women who have had them. But it is the duty of pro-abortion-rights groups to uphold a woman’s right to make choices, not to provide her with therapy if she’s uncomfortable with the choices she makes.
In her Gawker essay, Heisey wrote, “There are as many reasons to have an abortion as there are women who have had them.” I couldn’t agree more with her point that women’s choices are varied and complex. But it is naive and damaging to conclude that respect for these choices requires a shift away from ideology and politics.
It’s not pro-abortion-rights people who made abortion a political issue. Women’s choices have been politicized by those who, unable to convince a majority of people that abortion is categorically wrong, are instead focusing on making it illegal.
This has nothing to do with nuanced think pieces and everything to do with the daily lives of women. Freedom to air your feelings is great, but the freedom under threat is the right to decide whether or not to bear a child.
aÂ·borÂ·tion: n. 1. Induced termination of a pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or fetus that is incapable of survival. 2. A miscarriage. 3. Cessation of normal growth, esp. of a body part, prior to full development or maturation. 4. An aborted organism. 5. Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.
âWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.â
So wrote the founders of our country: the authors of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. They stated that one of our most undeniable rights, as a citizen in this country, is the right to life. But when does life begin? It is the question that has fueled the debate over abortion since the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. Although the controversy regarding the issue has traditionally fallen to a more religious and moral debate, it still has powerful political implications and can easily stir great amounts of emotion in the political arena. Women had been obtaining abortions illegally for countless years before Roe, and the public was calling for change. The political fervor led to a climax when âJane Roeâ entered the courts challenging the abortion law in her state of Texas.
The Texas State law regarding abortion had remained virtually unchanged since its establishment in 1857. The law stated that it was a crime to âprocure an abortionâ except in the event that it was âprocured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.â Jane Roe (a pseudonym since she wanted to remain anonymous) brought her case that challenged the law to the Supreme Court. Roeâs lawyers realized that by the time the lawsuit would be heard, the plaintiff would no longer be pregnant; therefore, they brought the suit on behalf of all women with unwanted pregnancies. The Supreme Court Justices heard the case and the outcome is one of the most memorable rulings in the history of the Courtâs rulings. The judgement, which the Justices by a 7-2 vote declared the law unconstitutional, voided any state law that restricted a womanâs right to obtain an abortion. Under the new decision, a woman is permitted to terminate her pregnancy for any reason provided that the fetus in not viable. After viability, states can prevent abortion except if it is necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother.
The decision to declare the law unconstitutional was made by a mostly liberal, Democratic panel of Justices. Some analysts have suggested that the decision should have been made by a demographically elected legislature instead of âappointed for lifeâ Supreme Court Justices. As public opinion polls showed, the courtâs determination of the value of embryonic life differed completely with that of the masses.
Antiabortion groups were outraged by the decision. These same groups often equated the legalization of abortion to the Nazi holocaust and the case was compared to that of Dred Scott v. Samford, the infamous 1857 case that declared that blacks had no rights. In both instances, the court ruled that a group of âpeopleâ (slaves in Dred and human embryos in Roe) to be ânonpersons.â It was also argued that both rulings were made to invalidate certain instances: in Dred, the Missouri Compromise was voided and in Roe, it âinvalidated the efforts of state legislatures to reform their abortion laws without surrendering state jurisdiction over abortion.â
In the years following Roe, several new laws were introduced and rejected. For instance, a law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain an abortion in all cases was argued and struck down. In another trial, the court ruled that the father could not override a womanâs decision to terminate her pregnancy. However, pro-life groups won some victories, as federal funding of abortions was greatly restricted.
Those opposed to abortion were given a glimmer of hope when Congress attempted to overturn the now eight-year-old decision with a new piece of legislature. In April of 1981, Senator Jesse Helms (R, N.C.) and Representative Henry J. Hyde (R, Ill.) proposed a controversial statute that would define human life as beginning at conception. In effect, this new bill would make abortion equivalent to murder under United States law. After debating the issue for a long time, still no conclusions had been reached. âThe issues that provoked the strongest disagreement were those of the constitutionality of the bill, its potential to create complicated legal tangles in the cases where the mother would conflict with those of the unborn child, and its possible application to matters beyond abortion, including some birth control methods.â Debate ceased for a while, but Helms reentered the legislation to the floor. In response, liberal senators began a filibuster that successfully tabled the bill in September of 1982, despite President Ronald Reaganâs support for the Helms proposal. Antiabortion groups once again tasted defeat and looked elsewhere for some triumphs in their crusade to end abortion.
During Reaganâs presidency, the tide began to turn in favor of the antiabortion groups. Several of the Justices in support of the Roe decision were getting close to retirement age and it was up to Reagan to appoint their replacements. Sandra Day OâConnor, the first woman justice and a Conservative, took Justice Potter Stewartâs seat in the Supreme Court in 1981. Chief Justice Warren Burger retired in 1986 and his position was given to Justice William Rehnquist, one of the two justices in opposition to the Roe ruling. Another Conservative, Antonin Scalia was appointed to fill the vacancy and when Justice Lewis Powell retired in 1987, Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy. With these appointments, the pro-Roe majority of 7-2 was now reversed to be a 5-4 majority opposed to the former ruling.
In 1989, the framework to the Roe ruling began to crumble. The Missouri State Attorney General, William Webster brought charges against Reproductive Health Services for failing to implement a Missouri state law requiring that fetuses be tested for viability. The clinic used Roe as a defense, stating that unless abortions are performed during the third trimester of pregnancy, viability testing is a unnecessary waste of time and money and claimed that they were protected under Roe. The case was brought to the Supreme Court, who ruled that fetuses can be tested after twenty weeks gestation. This decision was a major blow to the pro-abortion movement, and it was followed by another defeat. Two separate cases involving parental notice were decided in 1990: Hodgson v. Minnesota and Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. The Supreme Court ruled that if a minor does not receive written parental consent or the parents are not given notice by the doctor performing the procedure 48 hours prior to the abortion, the minor must secure approval from a judge. Since these decisions, the political tide has been turning and it is very possible that the Roe ruling may be overturned within a decade.
Abortion has been a very controversial topic politically in our time. Beginning long before 1973, there were generally two views regarding abortion: pro-life and pro-choice. Pro-life groups regard life as sacred, whether in the womb or living and breathing on this earth, and that there is be no excuse for the purposeful theft of life. Pro-choice groups believe that women are in control of their own body and have the right to do whatever they want to with it. However, in the early 1980âs, the pro-life group split into two separate groups regarding abortion: the original pro-lifers and a new wing called situationalists. Situationalists believe that the right to obtain an abortion depends on the circumstance of pregnancy. For instance, if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant as a result of that incident, situationalists may be in favor of terminating the pregnancy.. I personally am a situationalist. I do not believe in abortion except when performed because of rape, incest, or the threat of losing the motherâs life as a result of the pregnancy. There are many different views in this group as to when abortion is permissible.
When the two pro-life groups split, there was a general fear that the movement would die out and the abortion laws would remain indefinitely. At the heart of this anxiety was a proposal by Senator Orrin Hatch that was defeated in the Judiciary Review. The legislature stated that states could create their own abortion laws and when the laws came into conflict with those of the Federal Government, the most restrictive law would prevail. The bill failed to pass with a 50-49 vote opposed. Senator Jesse Helms refused to vote, declaring that the bill did not outlaw abortion, it merely restricted it and his beliefs did not support that view. Many pro-lifers and situationalists felt that this feeling would destroy any efforts towards anti-abortion laws being passed.
The controversy regarding abortion plays a critical role in politics, all in different aspects of the government. As the eventual reversal of Roe v. Wade becomes more and more likely, elections will see a much more focused interest in politicianâs views on the issue. âAlready several U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and gubernatorial elections have focused in part on abortion, at least one lieutenant governorâs election has hinged almost entirely on the issue, and the abortion controversy has been central in numerous state legislative elections.â Unfortunately for these politicians, they face two opposing groups who see the abortion issue as one in which compromise is entirely impossible.
Despite the belief that Roe will eventually be reversed, fewer than 10 percent of Americans take a strict pro-life position. These voters however, are very likely to vote in elections on the single issue of whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice. Candidates who take a strong pro-life or pro-choice stance are able to win a small percentage of the vote and are probably able to generate more money to their campaigns as contributions by different activist organizations. However, taking such a strong stance can be damaging as far as votes needed. If a candidate is strongly pro-life, pro-choice voters (the majority of Americans) may automatically not consider that person. On the other hand, strict pro-choicers (those who believe a woman can choose to terminate her pregnancy at any point in the term for any reason) can seriously cast doubt in the minds of situationalists, who, when unified with the pro-lifers, can easily turn an election.
I believe that it may be possible for the pro-life and situational groups to pull together to reverse Roe v. Wade decision. History has shown that it can be done. In the 1994 election, the Christian Coalition united together and turned the Congress Republican. Before that, the labor unions, unsatisfied with the Republican Party, worked hard to regain majority in Congress. The challenge that the group needs to overcome is their inability to compromise. Both sides need to give a little bit of slack to unite and become powerful.
The United States is a country where politics is involved in everything, and everything involves politics. This philosophy applies directly to the issue of abortion. Whether it is the Supreme Court, the Presidency, Congress, or a governorâs office, this issue has been involved in, in one or more situations.
âAbortion,â The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd ed., 1997.
Collins, Carol C, ed. Abortion: The Continuing Controversy. New York: Facts on
Files Publications, 1984.
Cook, Elizabeth Adell. Between Two Absolutes: Public Opinion and the Politics of
Abortion. San Francisco: Westview Press, 1992.
Goldstein, Leslie Friedman. Contemporary Cases in Womenâs Rights. Madison:
The University of Wisconsin Press, 1994.
Mount, Steve. âThe Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of
America.â The US Constitution Online, 1999;
http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html (6 Dec. 1999).
âRoe verses Wade,â Roe verses Wade,
http://users.telerama.com/~jdehulla/abortion/abroe.htm (4 Dec 1999).
Tribe, Laurence H. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. New York: W.W. Norton &
Word Count: 1887