Pro-Lifers’ Self-Defeating Abortion Strategy
August 8, 2008 by Tracee Sioux
Filed under Parenting
Conservative single-issue Pro-Lifers waste their Presidential vote on an ineffectual abortion strategy. Not because they are necessarily wrong in their moral beliefs, but because the strategy is completely ineffective for preventing abortion.
These one-issue voters make their vote for President all about how he feels about the issue of abortion. This is completely ineffectual, and therefore quite frustrating, because the President of the United States is actually the LEAST powerful person to address the issue.
A vote for George W. Bush, for instance, equated to the prevention of not one single abortion.
A vote for George H. W. Bush equated to the prevention of not one single abortion.
A vote for Ronald Reagan equated to the prevention of not one single abortion.
A vote for John McCain would equate (whether he wins or loses) to the prevention of not one single abortion.
Why? Because Presidents have only the power to appoint a Supreme Court Justice. That is their single power on the abortion issue. They don’t get to do it at all unless one of the justices dies or resigns. Its been 35 years and conservative pro-lifers have yet to prevent a single abortion with this strategy.
There are EFFECTIVE strategies to preventing abortion.
Giving women access to healthcare in the way of Free Family Planning Clinics, has prevented 20 million unplanned pregnancies. That’s an estimated 9 million abortions prevented in the last 20 years.
Imagine how many more abortions would be prevented if every woman had equal access to her personal Ob/GYN and had the dignity of exercising responsibility and power over her own reproductive health?
We’re talking millions of abortions prevented in a compassionate and dignified way.
Pro-adoption marketing campaigns are also a very compassionate way to prevent abortion. The more we glamorize the gift of adoption, the more women will choose to carry the child to term.
Boundaries are effective. All or nothing thinking about abortion brings it to an ineffective stand-off.
It’s been 35 years, surely I can’t be the only one tired of the stand-off?
Some pro-lifers are given to extremes on the abortion issue. I totally get that you love all life, but it would be more effective to legislate certain types of abortions that you find most offensive.
For instance, I hear a lot about “partial birth abortion” as a reason for voting for John McCain. Do you realize John McCain is the least powerful person in government to do anything about partial birth abortion? Your STATE Senator and your STATE Congressperson have ALL the power to decide whether to make a law allowing or banning partial birth abortion. It’s ineffective to vote for a presidential candidate based on this issue.
Be Effective. Write state senators and state representatives a letter and get them to pass a law against partial birth abortion. Or run for office and write a bill against partial birth abortions yourself.
The fact is that the MAJORITY of people who call themselves pro-choice believe in abortion boundaries.
The Supreme Court ruled that states can’t prevent all abortion when the fetus is not viable. That word viable leaves a lot of room for legislative action in STATE Government.
Every year, and with every new scientific discovery, babies become viable earlier and earlier.
When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, babies weren’t viable at 25 weeks. Now babies have a decent chance a living at 25 weeks, for instance. That leaves room for a lot of state legislation with every passing year and every scientific miracle of viable.
Pro-Lifers would serve their own agenda better byfocusing on the boundaries that Pro-Choicers and the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice Majority also find agreeable.
Pro-Lifers would also serve their own agenda better by not aligning with anti-contraception crazies. If you are personally against using birth control – whatever, I believe in your right to have 14 children if you want.
But, don’t. make. me. Do you realize that 16 states entertained “pro-life” bills to prevent women access to birth control last year? Pro-lifers don’t winning any sympathy from the average family by being all wacko about contraception.
Lastly, don’t discount what Roe v. Wade did for women’s physical autonomy. It was instrumental in making it illegal for your husband to rape you, which was still legal until 1979. Prior to Roe v. Wade – women had virtually no rights over their own bodies. Roe v. Wade, if nothing else, made every woman’s physical body protected as her own under the Constitution of the United States.
I don’t know a single woman – conservative or liberal, pro-life or pro-choice – who would reverse that. If we – pro-life and pro-choice alike – acknowledge how much every woman demands we must keep autonomy over our own bodies, we can make serious headway in making reasonable laws that serve as boundaries for abortion, without taking women’s autonomy back 35 years.
Birth control effectiveness has come a long way in 35 years as well. Back when Roe v. Wade was passed the pill was only around 75% effective. Our prevention methods have become extremely reliable with lots of choices and alternatives.
Abortion is at an all time low this year. We’ve never had better numbers.
With Universal Healthcare for every woman on the table we have a real chance – a wonderful opportunity – to give every woman access to her own doctor and access to contraception and that’s going to prevent more abortions than all the Supreme Court appointments John McCain could make.
Image source: Masakhanecenter.org
Great post. I’m pro-choice and most people I know have been trying to make the same points. Just outlawing abortion won’t do anything to actually prevent abortion, just send it back underground. Better health care, access to contraceptives, and more support for mothers will do a lot more to lower abortion rates.
Bravo! Especially the point about what other benefits we have gained as a result of Roe. Unfortunately, so many pro-lifers see this as a black and white issue w/ no shades of gray. And the Rove machine is hard at work keeping those issues on the ballots to turn out those voters.
Well spoken like a true NONprolifer! lol
I am PRO-LIFE and my vote IS for John McCain. For one thing I will not vote for anyone who thinks partial birth abortion is OK. NEVER. Simple as that. Anyone who thinks it is Ok to do that to an innocent child is scary to me. You can tell prolifers how to vote, but we already know how and WHY we vote the way we do . I could argue it..(and yes I really could) till the cows come home but most won’t change their minds no matter what side of the fence they are on.
And believe me, prolifers do not need others to tell them WHY we should vote the way we do..we already know. Adoption? YES! It is wonderful. But to say that will cause less women to have abortions is hogwash..adoption has already been around for a LONG time.
Oh, and abortion is at an all time low..and hhmm…yep a REPUBLICAN is in office.
My vote is ALWAYS for the babies.
Except that you have yet to save a single baby Tarah. That’s what is tragic about your strategy.
This is what I’m talking about. Republicans are currently pushing a bill that makes it harder for women to obtain BIRTH CONTROL.
* This regulation could undermine good state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape survivors and ensure that pharmacies fill women’s prescriptions for birth control.
* The proposal could allow health-care corporations (hospitals, HMOs, and health plans) to refuse to provide services or make referrals for birth control.
* The proposed regulation could affect Medicaid and the Title X family-planning program. For instance, staff at clinics or health-care plans that contract for Medicaid services could refuse to provide contraception.
What the Bleep is wrong with you? How is that “for the babies?”
That is sexism – big, bold, sexism – plain and simple. Medical sexism.
Interesting post. I am also sick of the war b/n pro-life and pro-choice. Having infertility has caused me to lean more toward pro-life, since I would give anything for that baby that they don’t want. However, I am also a victim of rape, and understand that if a baby were conceived by rape it would be detrimental for both the mother and the baby.
Right around the corner from me is an abortion clinic and people are constantly picketing right outside of it. While I understand freedom of speech, I think of the possible girls who did conceive from rape and/or incest and have made the hard decision to abort, is it really fair to those girls to show up to a mass of picketers? Such a touchy subject, my husband and I debate often on it since I’m more pro-life and he is a definite pro-choice. (Actually I think those picketers have persuaded him to be so pro-choice). The odd thing is that we are liberal-independent party people, but like I said at the beginning, infertility has certainly tainted my view on this topic.
I appreciate your comments Alicia.
I think – like your husband and yourself – we can let go of our rigidity about this issue reduce abortion together.
If we make appropriate boundaries and limits about abortion that don’t infringe on women’s autonomy and that give women more compassion (instead of being punitive) we can reduce the numbers of abortions.
Also, I feel more women would feel morally obligated to carry the child to term – and put them up for adoption for parents like you – if she had access to health care and contraception.
Oh, and I truly hope you get your baby.
While I might agree with you one some of your points, one major point where we don’t agree is how little power the president has.
Obama has promised Planned Parenthood that he will sign a bill that will essentially roll back every single law that has been passed at the state level placing restrictions on abortions – ANY restrictions.
This means in a state that has passed laws requiring parental consent before a minor can get an abortion – gone. But let a minor try to get their ears pierced in the same state by an ear piercing kiosk in the mall, and FORGET IT. They will NOT be able to get their ears pierced. They can’t even get an ASPRIN at school without permission from a parent or the school could be liable… but that same school can take that child to an abortion clinic and NO ONE has to find out.
That means that all the informed consent laws that have been passed will be repealed. That would be the laws that require physicians to inform a patient of the risks of a procedure. Don’t YOU want to be told about the risks of a medical procedure, even if they are not pleasant? Not a whole lot of people know that women actually do still DIE from abortion procedures. Perforated uteruses, septic infections from little bitty body parts being left inside, internal bleeding, increased thoughts of suicide and suicide, infertility, death, things like that. If Obama gets his way, Abortionists will no longer be required to recite any of the risks of the abortion.
One incident in 2007 – a Massachusetts woman died as a direct result of an abortion procedure. The doctor has now been indicted for manslaughter. It does still happen.
Overturning the pro-life laws passed over the last however many years means people like George Tiller can once again terminate “fetuses” up until the 9th month, way past the viable stage.
How much do you want to bet they’ve already got the bill written and his fancy pen is at the ready…
Also, you can see by his actions while in the Illinois Senate that he is THE most radical pro-abortion candidate ever – more than Nancy Pelosi, more than Kennedy, more than ANYONE.
Case in point… In 2002, Obama voted AGAINST the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that would require a physician (including abortionists) to provide immediate and appropriate medical care to an infant that was born alive as a result of a botched abortion. His time on the floor debating the bill started out with questions about physician liability. NOT with concern for the infant, but concern for how the doctor would be held accountable. The grotesque part of this bill if it had not passed would have been that infants would not have the same Constitutional rights as any other baby in need of medical care and could have legally been left to die, as many were. NARAL wasn’t even opposed to the bill! Now that’s radical.
Laws regulating abortion PROTECT women and are supposed to hold abortionists accountable for their practices. But as we speak, and despite all the regulations on abortions, the industry is one of the most highly UNREGULATED industries in the United states. Laws are not enforced and Planned Parenthood claims that informing patients if the risks of the procedure is a “terrible, terrible barrier” to abortion and interferes with the doctor/patient relationship.
Uh, isn’t a doctor SUPPOSED to tell the patient risks of a major medical procedure? Why would ANYbody be opposed to warning people of risks? Do they not have the right to know?
I’d like to see the credible reference to this “promise” from Obama. If we’re not citing credible references then we’re arguing the point of extremists who WANT us divided because it furthers their own political ambitions.
Lots of politicians use abortion as a distraction with fear mongering to keep you from focusing on real issues that might also be of concern to you.
As far as I know Obama requested a “except in the case where mother’s health is at risk” in an bill to stop “partial birth abortion” and Republicans refused the amendment to the bill. Does that sound like a spirit of compromise?
Or a spirit of respecting and promoting the health of women? I’m sorry, but the mother’s health is not secondary.
Credible Source: Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama.
“Joel Hunter is a conservative, Republican megachurch pastor in Central Florida. He’s giving the Democrats some free advice, if they care to hear it: Even if you stick with Roe V. Wade, you can show evangelicals that you are the pro-life party by showing us how you will actually reduce abortions—and how you will support “life” in other areas besides abortion.”
The low-down is this: The GOP sucks at preventing abortion because they are using it as a distraction tactic – distracting Pro-Lifers by using their emotionally overwhelming love for the babies.
Healthcare REALLY prevents abortion. It encourages women to keep from getting pregnant and it encourages women to carry the baby to term for adoption. So far it’s prevented 9 million abortions.
Think about it.
Here’s more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zack-exley/will-the-real-pro-life-pa_b_119146.html
reformedfaith, I think you’re giving some very good and moving points..but I think some of your information is actually proving Tracee’s point. Some pro-lifers are so extreme in their cause that they’re not willing to compromise at all. The only way things get done in Washington is through compromise. I dont’ think any of us wants partial birth abortions..or abortions, period. The thought is sad and unsettling. BUT, the fact remains that non of your evangelical, extreme Pro-life candidates are going to make it to the Presidency..(don’t even try to say John Mccain is either evangelical or extreme pro-life – just because he’s kissing up to those people now doesn’t make him a moral man). Most republican PEOPLE are moral people..most republican politicians are IMMORAL people. There’s wires crossed somewhere and maybe that’s why abortion is still thriving. Maybe, just maybe these Rep. candidates ARE using this issue to get sincerely GOOD people to vote for them.