For Senator Obama, A Series of Go Read Its: Are Democrats Backpedaling on Abortion Rights?

Dear Senator Obama,

Your recent discussion of "mental distress" among women who must choose late-term abortions set off alarm bells among many of your supporters. Myself included. Your meaning was convoluted and indistinct, and it was too easy to interpret your words as either pandering to anti-choice religionists or reneging on your commitment to pro-choice policies, or both. The thought of our Democratic nominee losing resolve on protecting a woman's private right to choose is not simply upsetting, it's chilling. The subject is already so loaded with emotional triggers that it's hard to keep from reacting on that level alone.

But. Before we accept an excerpt from an interview as the substitute for an entire career of voting to support a woman's choice, numerous statements you've made in support of a woman's right to choose, or take the excerpts as the substitute for a legislative action like co-sponsoring the Freedom of Choice Act, let's take in more information on what late-term abortions are all about.

It's no wonder late-term abortion is a topic few contemplate willingly or easily. Terminating a pregnancy is almost unimaginable at 22-24 weeks, and a horrifying prospect after that. And yet, there are women who face this situation every day, whether through ignorance/incapacitation of some kind, poverty, lack of access to an abortion provider, or diagnosis of a fetal genetic anomaly that wasn't detectable earlier.

So the first Go Read It is this one: an astounding diary by AnnRose at DailyKos that talks about why and how women undergo late-term, or "mercy" abortions, written by a healthcare professional and abortion-rights activist. She supplies many facts (such useful things). And some of the stories told in the comments will break your heart.

The second Go Read It is this piece by Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling asking the crucial question: "Are Democrats Backpedaling on Abortion Rights?" Both are longtime activists, authors, and advocates for a woman's right to choose; both are also "strong feminist Obama supporters." Michelman was head of NARAL, Kissling is currently a visiting researcher at the feminist think tank Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.

Michelman and Kissling point out that you, Senator Obama, should unequivocally reject the "triangulating" calculation of "abortion reduction" rhetoric (whose central mouthpiece seems to be Jim Wallis of Sojourners) if you hope to maintain or increase strong support from women, who, mirroring the general population, form a pro-choice majority.

In a recent interview with ABC News, Wallis said he planned to talk to his "good friend" Barack Obama about an abortion reduction plank, and said he had discussed the idea with party chairman Howard Dean and had the support of at least one member of the Platform Committee, the Rev. Tony Campolo. "Abortion reduction should be a central Democratic Party plank in this election," Wallis told ABC News. "I'll just say that flat out."

...

Sojourners, the organization headed by Wallis, does not include contraception as part of its abortion reduction strategy, and Democrats for Life, the political group most vocal about abortion reduction, refused to endorse the family-planning provisions of the bill it initiated, "Reducing the Need for Abortion Initiative," also known as the Ryan-DeLauro bill.

Wallis should stop moralizing about "abortion reduction" to women and activists on the issue. They're already well aware, and work to ensure, that successful family planning strategies and women's health policies aim to keep abortion safe, legal and--ideally--rarely needed.

And *you* should stop listening to him or the Daschle-Durbin school of accommodating the right by "sacrificing the mental health exception in order to appear reasonable in the context of the post-viability abortion debate," as a Guttmacher Institute researcher labeled the tendency.

This is the third Go Read It: "Abortion Restrictions and the Drive for Mental Health Parity: A Conflict in Values?", by Cynthia Dailard of the Guttmacher Institute. She calls out the right-wing move for what it is: a used anti-choice hankie for the 1.4% of women who undergo a late-term abortion, as cover to sweepingly eliminate under an anti-choice penumbra safe legal abortions for the remaining 88% who terminate in the first trimester.

Senator Obama: please stop. It's inauthentic to who you are and a potentially fatal piece of unnecessary miscalculation. And it unnerves those of us who are familiar with your strong pro-choice record.

Michelman and Kissling point out that a far more productive focus of your energies is the passage of two current pieces of legislation. They urge you to support

Two perfectly good bills [...] languishing in Congress. One, the Prevention First Act, was introduced by Sen. Clinton; the other, the Reducing the Need for Abortion Initiative by Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Rep. Tim Ryan, a pro-life Democrat. These bills need to move forward and perhaps be consolidated. (The Clinton bill does more for family planning, and the Ryan-DeLauro bill more for women who want to continue pregnancies.)

The Prevention First Act is one of several women's pro-choice health initiatives stuck in Congress (listed here). You can track its progress here. The Ryan-deLauro Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act's progress is charted here.

In short, to co-opt some of your soaring language on how we're falsely polarized by blue state/red state divisions, and to extend the literary conceit to describe the complexity of the seemingly simple right/left, anti-choice/pro-choice split:

There are some in the pro-choice movement who believe life is sacred and would never choose an abortion for themselves, but fight to protect that right so others can use it. And there are some in the anti-choice movement who believe no one should have access to an abortion but may have had one themselves (or would get one if they needed it), and were thankful for the option.

We are complicated, and filled with paradox. We may neatly label gestation into thirds, but life will impose grey areas and sometimes it's all we can do to choose the least worst act. We, meaning legislators, abortion providers, advocates for and against, are contradictory and complex. And most of all, the women who have abortions face life decisions that are as complicated and paradox-filled and destiny-altering as confronts any epic hero--because a woman's life is a story, and she is the sole author determining beginning, middle, and end. Her body, her circumstances, her right.

Please leave the "mental health exception" alone, because it's handing anti-choice activists a wedge to hack you apart. They're all too happy to have you practice the Politics of Contronyms when you use their framing of the issue and language; like the word 'cleave' that means 'to sunder' and 'to adhere,' you enact more separation than unity with it. And worst of all, you're divided from your better self.

Sincerely, and with utmost wishes for your successful election to the presidency,

Jane Chu Public

H/T to AnnRose's Diary at DailyKos and the commenters there, for the Guttmacher article, and so much more. Photo credit: Louise Docker, Stock Xchange.

Cynematic blogs at P i l l o w b o o k. She is a stalwart Obama supporter. Because McCain is not an option.

Comments

[AnonyMom]

Although I've never had to face this choice (both my pregnancies were planned), I volunteered for a few years as a clinic escort in the 1990's. I helped women get into clinics, past the anti-choice protesters, back in a time when there was a lot of violence against abortion providers and clinics. Many of these women were just going in for exams or birth control or even FERTILITY treatments (oh, the irony). I witnessed violence on more than one occasion, and testified in court against a protester who attacked another clinic escort who had tried to photograph him. I literally put my life on the line for Choice. So this was hard for me to hear.

But I truly believe Obama is just saying what he needs to say -- playing to moderates, etc -- and will ultimately protect our right to choose when he is in office. I have to hope so, anyway.

[cynematic]

AnonyMom, bless you for having volunteered for clinic defense. The '90s were indeed polarizing and extreme times. Hopefully a few more women felt safer entering and leaving the clinic because you were there to prevent them from being harrassed.

I have to believe that Obama is giving the religious right a few cheap words on "mental health exceptions" with his splitting of the difference on "mental distress." His actions thus far have spoken more reliably on his record than his words.

I just don't want to see the opposite happen, where the anti-choice language starts to creep into his actions.

[jaelithe]

An excellent post. Brava.

[John J.]

The problem for Obama is that he falls into the category you describe near the end, "There are some in the pro-choice movement who believe life is sacred and would never choose an abortion for themselves, but fight to protect that right so others can use it." And yet he is attacked and vilified in emails saying that he (like all Democrats apparently) dance in the blood of unborn fetuses and throw abortion parties. Clearly he doesn't, as I believe no pro-choice person does, but he is backed into a corner because the right has controlled the language for so long.

Because of the language of the debate, any hope in fewer abortions immediately means restricting abortion rights. That's a false dichotomy that has been enforced by forty years and more of rhetoric from the right. Many pro-choice supporters (I hesitate to say most, but I expect that is the case) want to see fewer unwanted pregnancies, but that phrase that we are left with makes people on the right and uninformed (or poorly informed) voters think that pro-choice supporters want to encourage, or to push women, to have abortions -- removing choice in the opposite direction.

That is why Obama is trying to fight to take that language back. He understands on a personal level the falseness of the pro-choice/pro-life split. The rhetorical corner we who support women's rights are trapped in is far too shallow to represent the full spectrum of the issue.

I think we need to watch his actions very carefully, as well as his rhetoric. But we need to keep this linguistic trap in mind when evaluating what he says and be careful that we don't fall into the mindset of those on the far right on this issue.

[cynematic]

John J., I understand what you're saying about not letting anti-abortion folks capture the market on the sanctity of life, and I even understand Obama's impulse to try to find common ground between two very entrenched and polarized positions. But I cringe whenever a pro-choice person uses the words "partial birth" abortion (language mined from "pro-life" activists' efforts in the People's Republic of China in connection to their one-child policy and coercive abuses of the policy). And the hair-splitting on "mental distress" versus "mental health" seems calculated to find common ground over shaming and vilifying those cavalier, careless flaky women who get abortions at any old time (those who elect out of "mental distress")--which feels to me a bit like conjuring the mythical Welfare Queen who drives a caddy, has three kids, and yet collects food stamps. So we're letting the exception define the norm? That move is creepy.

For me, the rubber hits the road on policy. Will we be seeing attempts to legislate morality into the availability of second- and third-term abortions--good "mental health" exceptions vs. bad "mental distress" abortion seekers? Will there be an attempt to change the pro-choice plank of the Democratic Party platform? Because "abortion reduction" without funding family planning and contraceptives is no kind of real work toward making abortion rare. Besides, the CDC statistics in the article I linked to above show that the number of women having abortions in the U.S. is declining *anyway*.

I still believe Obama was giving the right some lip service on the issue and will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, but the phrasing sent up a warning flag for me.

Also, Obama's campaign borrows heavily from Daschle, both in staff and his political coattails. I'd hate to think this piece of triangulation was borrowed from Daschle (50% NARAL rating) too.

[debbie]

read this while waiting in the pharmacy for anti-anxiety meds; was so gripped by it that I missed my number being called.

excellent, incredibly well-written post, C. so glad we're getting married. i loves me a smart-talking fiance.

[cynematic]

Deb: I loves you back. Glad you found the piece gripping; I thought AnnRose's diary was incredible, moving, and concrete. Wish the world would go read it.

Hope the pharmacist didn't bounce you to the end of the line when you missed your turn.

[progressive gal]

Cynematic - I agree about AnnRose's diary - "mercy abortion" is a more accurate term for late term abortions.

As for Obama, I'm, like the rest of you, hoping that his policies will reflect our agenda, but very skeeved out at the fact he does seem to be using both their language and theoretical foundations (that ultimately wrap abortion in shame and fear yada yada yada).

I don't know - both NARAL and PP have endorsed him. I guess that has to be good enough for me. I just hope that as President, his initiatives do the talking with supporting more family planning funding, putting emphasis on Michelle's area of interest - teen pregnancy, etc.

Kinda off topic - I'm working on a study right now on what makes a state more likely to enact restrictive reproductive healthcare choices and through some initial, VERY initial mind you, findings, I am finding a HUGE correlation between women legislators. Not THAT shocking I guess, but definitely something for us to think about and rejoin our efforts to be active in who, not just our Federal leader is, but who our state and local leaders are...schoolboard members, city councils, state House and Senate members...all very important.

Great diary!

[cynematic]

Progressive Gal, your research sounds interesting! Can you email us [at momocrats (at) gmail (dot) com] and let us know who you're doing the research for, and what the final results are?

I'm guessing you mean there's an inverse correlation--with greater numbers of female legislators, there's less chance of restrictive reproductive healthcare policies? Hope I'm not misconstruing your work.

Keep us posted. And thanks for reading and commenting.

[progressive gal]

Sure Cynematic!

The research is for a state comparative policy study I'm doing for my PhD. We are analyzing the data now and hope to get it submitted for publication by this fall. I was interested in finding out what variables are most likely to influence a state's reproductive healthcare policy - political, socio-economic, or religious. We are testing about 11 variables, it is pretty interesting! You are right - there is an inverse correlation between the number of female legislators and the state's level of restrictiveness towards reproductive healthcare (we used NARAL's scorecard). I'll definitely keep you updated and would more than love to share if we get published ;-)