Dropping the "apologetic" language for supporting abortion rights

[marmar]

Abortion Isn’t a Necessary Evil. It’s Great
Progressives should admit it: We like abortion.

BY Sady Doyle


(In These Times) Katha Pollitt’s Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights is a deeply felt and well-researched book which argues that abortion, despite what any of its opponents might claim, is a palpable social good. Progressives, Pollitt says, can and must treat abortion as an unequivocal positive rather than a “necessary evil”; there is no ethical, humane way to limit abortion rights. The fact that Pollitt needs to make this argument in 2014, however, seems to indicate that pro-choicers have long been a little too nice for our own good.

Which is something Pollitt herself points out, many times. There are the obvious truisms about abortion ideally being “safe, legal, and rare,” sure. Pollitt also cites Roger Rosenblatt's formulation of “permit but discourage,” which makes it sound like reproductive autonomy is a form of social faux pas, like taking the last slice of pizza at the pizza party. Not criminal, sure, but are you sure you need it?

But the language of apology for abortion has seeped ever deeper into our language:

Anywhere you look or listen, you find pro-choicers falling over themselves to use words like “thorny,” “vexed,” “complex” and “difficult.” How often have you heard abortion described as '”he hardest decision,” or “the most painful choice” a woman ever makes, as if every single woman who gets pregnant by accident seriously considers having a baby, only a few weeks earlier the furthest thing from her mind, and for very good reason?

The end of the line, Pollitt says, is the sort of ridiculous decision made by Planned Parenthood in 2013 to move away from the term “pro-choice,” which “was itself a bit of a euphemism: Choose what?” We can hardly be expected to defend abortion effectively if we can't even call the procedure by name. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://inthesetimes.com/article/17216/abortion_isnt_necessary_evil_its_great_pro_choice

[PeaceNikki]

1. Afreakingmen. And we can drop the word "rare", too.

To quote the amazing abortion rights activist Joyce Arthur, "Change the rhetoric: Abortion is not a “necessary evil.” Abortion is a moral and positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families."

The Case for Repealing ALL Anti-Abortion Laws

[HereSince1628]

2. imo a strong argument is that abortion is self-defense

Even way-to-the-right conservatives respect self-defense.

[99Forever]

3. Great read.

And so true, we must quit ceding the acceptable framing to the right, not just in this issue , but all of them. They hold no ownership of deciding "morality."

[Nye Bevan]

4. Most DUers support "safe, legal and rare".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023976002

[PeaceNikki]

5. And we are losing our access and rights. It's time to change the narrative.

The Democratic party removed that phrase from the platform for a reason. Those 43 DUers are lagging years behind.

[Nye Bevan]

7. I actually tend to say "safe, legal, accessible and rare" these days.

I want "rare" to be a result of improved sex education and easily accessible contraception, as opposed to the shutting down of abortion clinics.

[leftstreet]

9. 'Rare' is for steaks and stamps

What's wrong with just saying 'safe, legal, and accessible?'

[Nye Bevan]

12. Because contraception is better than abortion for everyone.

I would prefer that my daughter use condoms to her having an abortion due to an unwanted pregnancy.

[leftstreet]

16. 'everyone' should mind their own business n/t

[PeaceNikki]

11. And I will tell you what I told in in your ridiculous "poll".

"Rare" is an adjective that describes how often something happens. It's subjective. And bullshit.

Words mean things. Catch up, Nye. It's 2014.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Yeah, wasn't that Ted Kennedy such a bullshitter?

In 1987, Kennedy delivered an impassioned speech condemning Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork as a "right-wing extremist" and warning that "Robert Bork's America" would be one marked by back alley abortions and other backward practices. Kennedy's strong opposition to Bork's nomination was important to the Senate's rejection of Bork's candidacy. In recent years, he has argued that much of the debate over abortion is a false dichotomy. Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, he remarked, "Surely, we can all agree that abortion should be rare, and that we should do all we can to help women avoid the need to face that decision." He voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ted_Kennedy

[PeaceNikki]

15. The party dropped the language in 2008, catch up, Nye.

Abortion Safe and Legal? Yes. Make it Rare? Not. The. Point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1152484

I know a lot of people are 'personally' opposed to abortion and claim that they would never have one or encourage a loved one to. I hear and see a lot of Democrats using the "safe, legal, rare" phrase and, honestly, it bugs the SHIT out of me. Why? Because the "safe, legal and rare" language still stigmatizes women's health care choices. We don't owe anybody an explanation when we need abortions any more than we do when we need breast exams or pap smears, and their frequency is a medical matter, not a legal one.

I see Democrats reference party icons like Kennedy, Clinton and the party itself using this phrase. Thankfully the Democratic Party dropped that seriously antiquated language in 2008: http://thecoathangerproject.blogspot.com/2008/08/reclaiming-morality-of-abortion-and.html

And here is a good piece summarizing my feelings on this matter: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/04/26/safe-legal-rare-another-perspective

A common narrative in the political and cultural discussions of reproductive health focuses on reducing the number of abortions taking place every year. It’s supposed to be one thing that those who support abortion rights and those who oppose abortion can agree on, the so-called common ground. The assumption is that we can all agree that abortion itself is a bad thing, perhaps necessary, but definitely not a good thing. Even President Clinton declared (and many others have embraced) that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. According to the Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all pregnancies among American women in 2005 were unplanned or unintended. And of those, four in 10 ended in abortion. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) In other words, between one-fifth and one-quarter of all pregnancies ended in abortion. Without any other information, those statistics can sound scary and paint a picture of women as irresponsible or poor decision-makers. Therefore reducing the number of abortions is a goal that reproductive health, rights and justice activists should work toward, right?

Wrong. Those numbers mean nothing without context. If the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.

On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If that’s the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?

What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves? Much of the work of the reproductive health, rights and justice movements would remain the same. We would still advocate for legislation that helps our families. We would still fight to protect abortion providers and their staffs from verbal harassment and physical violence. What would change, however, is the stigma and shame. By focusing on supporting women’s agency and self-determination, rather than judging the outcomes of that agency, we send a powerful message. We say that we trust women. We say we will not use them and their experiences as pawns in a political game. We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions. Safe – yes. Legal– absolutely. Rare – not the point.

[Nye Bevan]

17. Kennedy wasn't spouting the party platform in that speech.

But of course, you are free to disagree with him and me and 77% of DUers on this issue.

[PeaceNikki]

18. Yes he was. And I will disagree with you. It's antiquated and was removed for good reason.

He's not here for me to disagree with any longer. But I have and will continue to have frank discussions with any current candidates and Democrats who use that antiquated language.

[uppityperson]

27. 77% of the 57 DUers who voted, not "DUers" as a whole. nt

[marmar]

6. 55 votes with two options is most DUers?

[leftstreet]

8. LOL 55 DUers voted n/t

[Nye Bevan]

10. As a proportion of active DU participants, that is an excellent sample size.

Certainly the margin in the results vastly exceeds the margin of error.

[leftstreet]

14. How many 'active' DUers were there in Nov 2013?

[uppityperson]

25. I think there are more than 57 DUers. eom

[Nye Bevan]

26. Here's another poll which had a similar outcome:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023978611

[uppityperson]

28. Did you even read the choices in that poll with 5 voters? Fail!

Abortions should be rare, safe, legal-4
Unwanted pregnancies should be rare-1

[gollygee]

19. It was never a good idea to include "rare"

When it was included, the thought was, "Safe, legal, and rare because everyone will have easy access to birth control and therefore it won't be needed as much." But now birth control is getting less accessible, and as that happens abortions will be less rare. The wording gets misunderstood - people think "rare becasue it isn't good" rather than "rare becasue access to birth control makes it needed less."

[LittleBlue]

20. We don't have to pretend abortion is a good thing to argue it's a necessary thing

It is not an optimal outcome, obviously, as it's used when precautions fail. Regardless, the alternative is women dying from coat-hangers and dodgy do-it-yourself pills.

Why do we have to pretend when we have the best argument? It just makes our position look weak when in fact it is strong.

[PeaceNikki]

21. Many of us know abortion is a "good thing". We're not pretending.

[PeaceNikki]

22. Are welfare, food stamps, open heart surgery and root canals not "good things" because they aren't

the ideal outcome?

These and abortion ARE all "good things".

[Nye Bevan]

23. I want root canals and food stamps to be rare

because I want everyone to have access to quality, affordable preventive dental care, and I want everyone to have decent well-paying jobs.

[PeaceNikki]

24. Of course you do.

But they are still good things.

[LittleBlue]

29. Bingo. And arguing otherwise makes us look like losers

We don't need to twist reality in order to win an argument. We have the winning argument. That's what losers do, cling to ideologies that don't fit with reality. The optimal outcome in those cases is clearly not surgery and social safety nets.

Honesty and forcefulness will get us farther than ideology and delusion.