Playing Politics with Women’s Bodies
Bill Day, Cagle Cartoons
For a women’s magazine editor of half a century ago, the Planned Parenthood-Komen Foundation ugly furor recalls the time from introduction of the Pill when women, no matter what their circumstances, were without safe, reliable birth control and, before Roe v. Wade, had the choice of bearing unwanted children or being butchered by back-alley abortions.
From the start, those new alternatives, sanctioned by science and government, were fiercely opposed by those of strong religious beliefs, who were not above using scare tactics to discourage their use. Ever since, women’s bodies have been a political battleground
By 1965, with five million women on the Pill after five years on the market, there was no reliable research about side effects and possible long-term dangers. As editor of McCalls, I put up $15,000 to find out what members of the American Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were seeing in their practices. They distributed a detailed questionnaire and analyzed the results.
Almost 7,000 gynecologists answered, and the overwhelming majority found oral contraceptives safe and effective. There were a few doubts that would become subjects of later study, but the clear result was to allay women’s fears about the Pill that were being spread by whispers.
In the early 1970s, Betty Ford was in the White House. Undergoing a mastectomy for breast cancer, she spoke about it in public and wrote an article for me to encourage women to go for early screening.
Back then, a generalized fear of the unknown bound both surgeons and patients into accepting radical breast removal as the only acceptable choice. But Dr. William Nolen, a surgeon who wrote a monthly column for the magazine, reported on the effectiveness of less drastic lumpectomies, combined with radiation and chemotherapy.
This was followed by the account of a writer who tracked down the surgeon pioneering the treatment: “I said ‘No’ to a group of doctors who told me, ‘You must sign this paper, you don’t have to know what it’s all about.’”
MORE.
36 Responses to “Playing Politics with Women’s Bodies”
“For someone who has seen it all, that’s some progress, although it does not answer the underlying question of how people who claim to be pro-life can be so fierce in protecting fetuses, while giving their support to politicians who “don’t care about the poor” and rail against a “a food-stamp president” in stigmatizing the needs of those children after they are born.”
We have to take progress where we can find it, and rejoice if more awareness of the necessity of breast cancer screening is a result.
We should also give those people who are pro-life the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are unlike the politicians who would deny any services to the poorest of the poor – unless they vote for those same politicians.
Morality in the ballot box is a double edged sword for some.
We should also give those people who are pro-life the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are unlike the politicians who would deny any services to the poorest of the poor – unless they vote for those same politicians.
It makes no sense to hold an individual voter responsible for every single position a candidate they vote for might take. No matter who I vote for in November it will be for someone who I disagree with a lot.
Not to mention that with the possible exception of Ron Paul there is no candidate that will “deny any services to the poorest of the poor”. The disagreement is over which services will be provided.
And all philosophies are double edged swords.
excellent Robert. Your being an elder with long memory is so valuable.
I remember when Dr. John Rock and others later broke the news about ‘the pill’. It was electric that there was a pill that could keep women (in our community women often had many many children with their husbands, and often suffered terrible physical consequences trying to follow a church regimen that told them no contraception, only abstinence could occur. even within marriage, and some werent sure that abstinance wasnt also a form of sinful birth control… it was a tough time) I was a teenager then, but could see the open lesions and painful varicose veins on many a multi-para woman’s legs from her having carried so many, one after the other, not to mention prolapses and fistulas, increasingly dense gestational issues.
People, as you know, focus on what they see as ‘the sexual revolution’ that bc in this form seemed to have coincided w. Not sure it brought more sex as by my sights people have been having sex whenever/wherever the oppty arises… but for certain it brought to some, far less conception.
Too, there were issues with the pill that brought ill health to some. And those have been brought more to the fore over this last 50 years.
And you are right, to have breast cancer in the past was to literally be mutilated. I wrote an article at TMV about holding a woman’s heart in hand because her brutal mastectomy took the flesh, the muscle and left only the skin over her heart. And too, we buried many many more in those days who did not survive, and the screenings at first for decades were only for those who could afford them… leaving legions of children without their mothers as the rate of c amongst the poor was left undiagnosed and untreated til far far too late.
Your last para is excellent. Let its remedy and mercy be a prayer that is answered. Thank you again Robert.
dr.e
DG
Of course no politician would deny any services to the poorest of the poor – as long as they can pass any test the politicians can devise. If they can’t, then many services are denied including abortion, housing and food stamps.
Most politicians make their positions known on these vital services. If one votes for them, one is agreeing that the services should be denied and can no longer be given the benefit of the doubt that they are like the politicians.
Mr. Paul’s distinction is that he would deny many more services than some other politicians and most even without tests being involved.
“it does not answer the underlying question of how people who claim to be pro-life can be so fierce in protecting fetuses, while giving their support to politicians who “don’t care about the poor” and rail against a “a food-stamp president” in stigmatizing the needs of those children after they are born.”
Yes there is much more caring for the embryo than for the child once its born by the GOP.
And their candidates communicate this by their silence as much as their statements. Has Mitt Romney spend more than a few minutes of the many hours of his appearances talking about how he can improve the life of a child born into poverty?? Rick Santorum was caught defending the drug company’s need to make a profit when an audience member asked how he should pay for an expensive drug for his child. And Newt is just chomping at the bit to cut down the number of families receiving food stamps.
Of course no politician would deny any services to the poorest of the poor – as long as they can pass any test the politicians can devise. If they can’t, then many services are denied including abortion, housing and food stamps.
If someone felt abortion was murder, they probably wouldn’t consider providing money for an abortion much of a service.
I don’t understand why you are trying to tie together abortion and providing for the poor. Someone who felt abortion was murder would see a huge moral difference between preventing what they thought was a murder and giving someone money.
I also disagree with your premise that a voter should be judged by the worst aspect of the candidate they vote for.
But a recurring political phrase for those against abortion choice continues to be “pro-life.”. I understand the criticism to follow with “if pro-life, what about the life that is here, present and needy?, ..and also what of the rabid support for the death penalty, if the phrase is pro-life.”
They may indeed be separate issues, caring for the poor, and battling abortion. And I know plenty of conservatives who give a great deal of time, money and effort toward caring for the poor, just as I know many liberals who would choose not to abort a fetus as a convenient means of birth control.
What might be interesting to know would be how many against abortion choice end up choosing to go through with one, and how many champions for the poor don’t give a nickle’s worth of their time, effort or money in actually helping the poor.
It’s hard to calculate how to measure the voter responsibility of her elected politician. I grew up in a completely Republican family. I guess the first time the question came to my mind was with televised Watergate. We just didn’t talk about it much. But it happened again with those endless Iran-Contra testimonies at Reagan’s “I dont remember” finale, and most seriously in my adult life with the Bush years Iraq war fiasco and the whole torture thing, both vehemently defended by his administration and party, and the voters who supported him to the end.
However I can report that the only impeachment proceedings in my lifetime were related to Monica Lewinski and a stained blue dress.
As voters, how should we answer to these things?
Everyone is “pro-life”. Not everyone is anti-choice – fortunately. (yes, words matter)
I don’t understand why you are trying to tie together abortion and providing for the poor. Someone who felt abortion was murder would see a huge moral difference between preventing what they thought was a murder and giving someone money.
I also disagree with your premise that a voter should be judged by the worst aspect of the candidate they vote for.
I’m connecting them because that’s what this article is about. Candidates that see a huge moral problem with providing money for abortion but no moral problem whatsoever with not providing other life-sustaining necessities. “Giving someone money” can make the difference between healthy productive citizens and citizens (many of them children) facing malnutrition, infections, and disease that can result in death. I have a hard time disconnecting them.
I can see no way to consider a voter other than who they vote for. A candidate may be the worst in one aspect and the best in another, as far as we can see, and we each have to determine which outweighs the other. That’s why we often have such a hard time deciding who to vote for.
Which is why I said, we should consider pro-life voters really pro-life depending on who they vote for; not the worst aspect of that candidate but the overall effect that candidate’s votes will have on all citizens.
Maybe the phrase should be changed to pro-embryo– or pro-blastocyst– they definitely cannot be considered pro-life. Especially the fanatics who have gunned down abortionists.
I am consistently bemused by people who, now some 40 years after Roe v. Wade, continue to act as if the abortion question is the same exact question as birth control and who insist that it is a “religious” issue. It is now 2012 and we know that about half of all women in the United States consider themselves “pro-life” and a majority of women in the United States would support greater restrictions on the procedure than the law currently allows. That includes tens of millions of women who were not even born when Roe v. Wade became law.
Given that the pro-life view is an entirely mainstream view, casting dark aspersions about insidious “religious extremists” increasingly strikes me as very much akin to the McCarthyite aspersions of hidden “Communists” under our beds. The pro-life view is a mainstream view, one many moderates, religious and non-, sympathize with.
Even the very phrase “playing politics with women’s bodies” is Orwelleian, as it denies the pro-life stance that there are two bodies there not one–and it denies the more than 100 million American women who consider themselves pro-life and consider abortion immoral and think there should be legal restrictions on it.
In fact I think we should just call these dark aspersions about “religious extremists” what they are: thinly-disguised religious bigotry on the part of so-called “liberals” who are all for freedom of religion until a religious person happens to disagree with you.
Yes, as it happens, a lot of religious people are involved in the pro-life cause. You will find that an awful lot of them are also doing things like running homeless shelters, soup kitches, orphanages, adoption agencies, and foster care. So can we please stop with the religion-bashing, and please stop acting as if the abortion question is uncomplicated? Or that you are somehow standing up for “women’s rights” with a strong pro-choice stance when about half of all American women do not agree with you, some two generations after Roe v. Wade?
“I don’t understand why you are trying to tie together abortion and providing for the poor.”
Because poor women who have more children become more poor.
“Or that you are somehow standing up for “women’s rights” with a strong pro-choice stance when about half of all American women do not agree with you, some two generations after Roe v. Wade?”
Of for goodness sake. That half of women can choose not to have abortions if they don’t want them. The right to choose is just that. (Lots of them, in fact, do choose to have abortions, but evidently, their abortions are the only ones that are ok.)
That strikes me as an evasion. A majority of American women view abortion as immoral and would support greater restrictions on the procedure than are currently the case (source to non-partisan Gallup poll).
It is Orwellein to suggest that somehow this is all about “religious” values of “extremists” unless you consider a majority of women to be religious extremists, and it is furthermore Orwellein to suggest that somehow you are standing up for “women” as a group when as a group women do not see it your way and do not particularly want your support in this matter. You stand for your own opinions, or the opinions of some women, not for “women” as a whole.
Try talking some time to a pro-life feminist–they exist. Try talking to a pro-life atheist–they exist too. Heck just look at Susan B. Anthony’s writings on the topic; she referred to abortion as a gross violation of women’s rights that should be opposed and made illegal as an exploitation of women.
The pro-choice side of the abortion debate has been slowly losing this argument for some time in the public eye; the American populace is as against abortion or even moreso than it was 40 years ago. Democrats finally figured out back in the 1990s that this was a losing issue for them until they started acknowledging that this was a complicated issue that divided women as much as men and that decent honest everyday people could and did disagree, and agreed on a formula that abortion should be, in their phrase, “safe legal and rare.” That’s come out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth for goodness sakes. Is she a religious extremist?
DE
I’ve looked at your statistics, again, and it does say the majority of women consider abortion immoral 51%-39% (where the other 10% stand is unavailable so we don’t know if it’s really 61%-39% or 51%-49% or somewhere in between, but it’s a majority).
It doesn’t say that they support greater restrictions, it says they support none, some, or few restrictions. It would be hard to place more restrictions, in some states, and leave the procedure legal.
The poll also says 24% of women would make abortion illegal. Now possibly not all those 24% are religious extremists, but some of them probably are. The main point is that 78% of men and 73% of women think abortion should be legal – which it is.
I agree that abortions should be safe, legal and rare which was what Bill Clinton said. You can provide a link to Hillary’s statement, no doubt.
Religious extremists, on the other hand, want Roe v Wade overturned and seem to be willing to go to any length to see that done. Or do you dispute that?
“A majority of American women view abortion as immoral and would support greater restrictions on the procedure than are currently the case”
I don’t think individual rights should be left up to the public vote. When you go get a medical procedure, I don’t get to throw in my two cents as to whether or not I find it morally to my liking.
And please don’t pretend that you’re the only person who knows pro-life “feminists” or pro-life athiests. You don’t actually have a lock on those groups.
And you know, my great-grandmother was incredible woman, filled with kindness, and raised her family by working during a time when women rarely worked, because her husband had his legs crushed in an industrial accident during a time when there was no public safety net. She was a great woman. Yet her ideas on integration were that we should be allowed to vote to keep the black folk out of white neighborhoods because they lowered housing prices of everyone when they moved into the neighborhood. So Susan B. Anthony was an aweseome, transformative woman, but that doesn’t mean that her understanding of the world was as it would be today. Hell, the methods of abortion weren’t the same, and there was no “the pill”. So times change. Besides, my understanding of her position is that she feared that since men owned their wives, husbands would take their wives and make them get abortions. This would, as you indicate, be a violation of women’s rights.
I think that the point is that the women (and more generally people) who want to outlaw or severely restrict abortion are on one extreme, while the other extreme exists with those who can abide no restrictions at all. I think (correct me if I’m wrong of course) what Dean is trying to point out is that many of the viewpoints expressed here at TMV represent that other extreme.
OH- it’s not a matter of people who support restrictions wanting MORE than what currently exist in their state. In some cases undoubtedly that’s what people are saying but more often it’s just that they support KEEPING the current restrictions which include things like parental notification, more robust informed consent including ultrasounds and information about pain perception at different fetal stages, and also restrictions on federal funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment). As long as we have a sizable number of blog authors and commenters here who write from the point of view of opposing all of those things, I think it’s appropriate to point out that that’s not the mainstream view in America, including among women.
“it’s not a matter of people who support restrictions wanting MORE than what currently exist in their state.”
That’s just not true at all, CStanley. Perhaps that’s your view, but that’s most certainly not the view of most of the pro-life movement. In 2011, more laws were proposed and passed restricting access to abortion, putting more limitations on the circumstances, enforcing costly and intrusive non-value-add procedures for women who want abortions, than any other year ever.
CStanley
I can only go by what the poll says and repeat.
It doesn’t say that they support greater restrictions, it says they support none, some, or few restrictions. It would be hard to place more restrictions, in some states, and leave the procedure legal.
If there is a poll that says most women support all the restrictions you list, I’ll be happy to look at it. That would be more informative than suppositions from either side.
That’s. Not the point I was tryiing to make though roro. I was responding to OH who took issue with the polling data as presented by Dean. He said that just because someone answered that they favored restrictions doesn’t mean that they want to increase from the status quo. That’s true, but it certainly does mean that they don’t favor reducing the amount of restrictions, which is the view of you and many other writers and commenters here.
OH – I have seen some polls that break it out like that. Can’t search for it now but if possible I’ll look for it and post later.
Just a question though- are you unconvinced that the majority opinion is somewhere in the “some restrictions” zone.? Because that much, to me, is pretty clear at least. Also clear to me is that this opinion isn’t the one expressed by most writers here at TMV. I’m not complaining about that, they’re entitled to their views. I just agree with Dean that it’s important to step back and realize what most Americans think on this issue may not be what you personally think is right.
Roro- isn’t it also true that on most any issue, activists represent the more extreme views while the general ideas can be quite mainstream?
CStanley
Just a question though- are you unconvinced that the majority opinion is somewhere in the “some restrictions” zone.? Because that much, to me, is pretty clear at least. Also clear to me is that this opinion isn’t the one expressed by most writers here at TMV.
I’m convinced that the majority opinion is somwhere in the “some restrictions” zone. The poll shows that. And the original Roe v Wade decision reflected that. I urge everyone, once again, to re-read it.
I’m not sure about most commentators here at TMV. This is an issue that people have a pretty strong opinion on, and those with the strongest opinions are the ones who argue most fiercely, and most often, for their viewpoint. As they should.
roro will probably never convince DE, nor he convince her, but it is interesting to see the interplay of ideas and get a different perspective somtimes.
My observation was about using polls that do not bear out the assumptions made. I also think, though I may be wrong and you may find a poll which shows that, that most people think there are too many restrictions and too many coming along.
If we have so many restrictions that abortion becomes all but inaccessible to most women, the law will have been successfully circumvented.
It is much like the restrictions on voting accessibility, if too many restrictions are enacted, voting will be all but inaccessible to too many people.
My understanding is that due to Roe V. Wade, is currently legal in most circumstances, and that whatever restrictions there are are pretty few and far between. Am I mistaken there?
Anyway, the Gallup poll breaks up the question this way, and among women it goes like this:
Abortion should be legal in any circumstances: 22%
Abortion should be legal in most circumstances: 8%
Abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances: 37%
Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances: 24%
What these numbers tell us is that feeling abortion is immoral and wanting legal restrictions on it is a completely mainstream opinion among American women. This thus punctures the tires of anyone who wants to compare this issue to the civil rights movement of the 1950s: not only does that dodge the question about whether that thing in a woman’s belly has any rights, but it ignores the fact that the staunch pro-choice side of this question does not have unwavering support among those they say they represent: women.
How far do you suppose the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s would have gotten if a solid majority of blacks said “we really don’t want you to give us the vote or we maybe want a few things different but we do prefer our current status overall?” There were a few who said that but not too many. The whole thing would have collapsed otherwise methnks.
A reality that I think a lot of contributors here seem to be missing is that the pro-life position is a solidly mainstream position among American women, and is not an “extremist” position, nor is it necessarily a particularly religious one. And that remains so now some 40 years (two generations by some counts) since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
I, for one, will never look at those pink ribbons quite the same, without asking where the money went. You can see my latest front page entry for more on that.
I think I get a vote on who you must share your bloodstream, organs, and particularly your gentilia with, Dean, if you get a vote on what I do with mine. Deal?
Roro80: As it happens, I do think society has some say in what I do with my bloodstream and organs.
On the other hand, I have declined (and continue to decline) to state anything about my personal opinion on abortion.
I have noted the fact–and it is a fact–that a majority of American women have a problem with abortion and a majority support significant restrictions on the procedure. Thus I suggest you take your argument up with the women of America rather than changing the subject to me. I am not your enemy.
“Thus I suggest you take your argument up with the women of America rather than changing the subject to me.”
Oh for goodness sakes. Again. I mean, what kind of answer is that? Whatever, have fun.
That majority of women who have a problem with abortion may choose not to get one.
Problem solved unless we are convinced abortion is, at the very best, murder, or as the bumper sticker says “abortion stops a beating heart.”
But the premise of personhood has been debated countless times among clergy, philosophers, medical practitioners and the courts, without agreement and without consensus. To pretend this is a cut-and-dried majority consensus is not accurate.
Has outlawing abortion ever had a particular resultant influence on any society that has advocated it? The answer is yes, and the results may surprise many if they choose to look at it.
Jeff P
We can only go by the law of the land which is the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision which did not afford the fetus any rights prior to birth and placed certain restrictions on when an abortion could obtain.
I’m not sure to what you are referring in your last paragraph. Perhaps you could explain?
Here is a different recent Gallup poll which asked about specific types of restrictions on abortion:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148631/common-state-abortion-restrictions-spark-mixed-reviews.aspx
I was a bit surprised that a majority opposed the prohibition of federal funding of clinics that perform abortions but then realized that was different from whether or not people agreed with the Hyde Amendment provision barring those funds being used for abortions. The question really should have been asked in both ways IMO.
Cstanley — thanks for the data, very interesting.
I always wonder how thoroughly people think through these answers. Like, would their opinions change if the actual situations they were being polled on were more acurately explained? For example (not necessarily asking you, CStanley, but more generally), would the answer to the most popular restriction change if it were asked like this: would you prefer your daughter be able to get an abortion without your permission, or go get an illegal abortion from someone not licenced to perform them safely? Or, another example: do you think it preferable that a woman should be subject to a mandatory costly vaginal probe with absolutely no medical benefit before she gets an abortion?
CStanley
Those results are surprising to me. People will have a chance to enjoy more restrictive laws, especially in Ohio.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/abortion-laws-may-get-tighter-this-year-1306589.html
Those numbers make perfect sense to me…and my opinions matches a lot of the pro-life questions..
Doctors should be required to tell their patients about any medical procedure, including abortions. This is a no-brainer isn’t it?
Minors should not be allowed to get an abortion without parental consent. We can’t let them take a school trip without consent, but an abortion should be ok? Of course parents should be involved.
I am against partial birth abortions. Once the fetus hits air, imho, it is then its own entity and protected by law. Late term and partial birth abortions are different topics and should not be lumped into one question.
Ultrasounds are stupid, unless there is a medical reason to show one.
Anyone running a business that provides health care should be required to supply legal pharmaceuticals that are prescribed by a doctor.
the last question isnt worth answering.
I pretty much match the majority of the people polled in that survey and I am very pro-choice.
I don’t think anyone should be surprised by those results….
and dont forget…mainstream America is still very Christian and their opinions are still based on religious teachings. So this argument that “mainstream” America feels this way, so it isn’t a religious issue is kind of silly..and illogical.
The Ohioan:
I was referring to that data that was talked about in Freakonomics, where the society outlawed abortion, and the results for that society.
Of course it was contested and debated and “de-bunked” etc. Some will look at numbers and see it one way, others another way, or will just look the other way entirely.
However I recall that abortion as a societal wedge issue seems to have come about during the time of Francis Schaffer’s attempt to really politicize it on the right. I don’t know how often it was put on a bumper sticker prior to that point, but things have evolved, certainly.
From the medical perspective, I remember when I first graduated that an “abortus” was considered any birth less than 24 weeks, or less than 1500 grams. Those babies would just be left to die in comfortable surroundings. Can you imagine that in this day of Surfactant and modern NBICU care?
So definitions of life and personhood evolve with technology, with new philosophies, and arguments in religious settings. But I remain totally unconvinced that there is some “consensus” that some majority agrees to.
JeffP
I agree that there is not a consensus of when life begins that the majority agrees to, as seen in just this small segment of the population that are in this thread.
I also agree that definitions of life and personhood evolve with technology, but we are stuck with the Supreme Court’s decision that personhood starts at birth. A neonatal unit can, at great expense, extend the earliest viable birth, but then we run into society’s willingness and ability to pay that price.
I had to look up Freakonomics and would offer this WHO report which is straight statistical reporting with no extrapolation which I found interesting.
[A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.
Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html
Kathy Gill gave this link which is a lengthy article about the history of abortion in the US. I think you are referring to Phyllis Schafly? who did play a large part in the anti-abortion beginnings.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all
Thanks, I’ve bookmarked those pages and will read with a little more time available.
Agreed on your post, also.
The book I was thinking about in regard to politicizing (in my lifetime recollection) was Frank Schaeffer’s book
http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-God-Helped-Religious-Almost/dp/0306817500/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328712965&sr=1-2
In the 80s, it was C. Everett Koop and Schaeffer’s “How Shall We Then Live?” series and multiple abortion debates on our medical campus that brought the issues closer to my doorfront.
We had (and I was a part of at that time, the “Christian Medical Society” put arguments forth with their OB/GYN staff, along with others who argued against more restriction.) But isn’t it interesting and predictable regarding the safety of the issue legal versus illegal.
Have a great week–