Religious extremists attacking a PP in my state

[Boozy]

All of the other physical risks to the mother are actually greater if she choses to deliver the baby.

Quoted because it needs to be repeated. Again and again, it would appear.

There are currently no valid studies to indicate that abortions are riskier than pregnancy and delivery.

Besides, let's not pretend that the major concern for the anti-choice movement is the woman. Her body and her life are afterthoughts.

[BlaqueKatt]

Did you even read the fact that NO MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY RATES have been released by the CDC for 20 YEARS!!!!

you cannot say that without having ALL the DATA you ONLY have the risks for childbirth. The camparisons are from current stats on childbirth to 20 year old stats on abortion.

I personally know about 50 women that have been damaged to the point of not being able to have children(which they desperatly want) due to having an abortion in their teens and 20's-one had to have her bowel resectioned(the doctor that damaged her is still working-she tried to sue for malpractice he had no insurance, and the nurses at the clinic told her-why are you tring to sue you got what you came for). I used to work in a crisis pregnancy center that offered counciling to women both before and after their choices. I never saw as much psycological pain from any of the women that we hooked up with adoptive families.

Also to realise where I'm coming from-I was told no less than 6 times by 4 different doctors to abort my son due to the "possibility" that I'd have complications delivering(apparently they had never heard of a c-section)-the last time I was told I should have an abortion by a medical doctor was when I was 7 months pregnant-at 7 months I could have scheduled a c-section and he would've been in NICU, but I was told to have either a saline or partial birth abortion. They tried getting my husband to sign the consent forms for it telling him I might die during delivery if I didn't have one immediately.

And I think you'd feel differently if you had found out your mother had tried to abort you, and the doctor screwed up-he killed my twin though. I was born 5 months after my mother's attempt to abort me-no one realised she was still pregnant until around 6 months.

[TheRoo]

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm

[DexX]

From some of the ways you've phrased things, it seems as if that comes as a surprise to you - almost as if you expected pro-choice people to want to have abortions. As if we think of it as a primary form of contraception, or a casual thing. Is that a common belief among anti-choice folk?

Nah, my views were already changing by the time I made any female friends who had abortions (or at least any who told me about it). Besides, I wasn't an unreasonable psycho until I lost Jesus and became rational and reasonable - I always thought that women who had abortions weren't evil, but just made a bad decision.

Ahhh, the follies of youth...

I find that black and white thinking is a product of a lack of imagination. Remember a few years ago when John Kerry (I think) talked about something being "nuanced" and the conservative side of US politics had a field day, calling him a wishy-washy flip-flopper because he wasn't a narrow-minded git who always thinks in black and white terms.

*sigh*

[Amethyst Hunter]

there are studies that show after an abortion it becomes very difficult to concieve/carry a child to term(a D&C results in scar tissue that forms over the fallopean tubes resulting in an 85% chance of ectopic pregnancy), but women going in for the procedure are never told this.

That's got to be news to all the women who've had abortions and then later went on to have children without any problems.

Done *incorrectly*, under less than sterile conditions, yes - an abortion (as in, illegal) would have the potential to irrevocably damage the female's body. Which is why I firmly believe abortion must remain legal and accessible. If it's driven underground like other issues (Prohibition comes to mind), it will only become incredibly unsafe and you'll wind up with women who are desperate enough to pull a DIY (and I would be one of them).

As Seshat said, it's nigh-impossible to find a pro-choice person who actually thinks of abortion in terms of "yay, let's go have an abortion party" or some such. It's something that should be avoided whenever possible - I agree that using it as birth control is foolish - but when it's necessary it should be available to prevent further misery. It's not something to celebrate, but it shouldn't be something that someone should be made to feel ashamed of.

They are also not told about the 17 seperate studies done in sweden and china that show abortion increases the risk of breast cancer by up to 280%.

No. This is a very popular lie spread by the anti-choice crowd as a scare tactic. To date, there is no solid evidence that points to abortion being a direct cause of breast cancer (or any other cancer, for that matter).

And speaking of China, seriously, would you really trust anything coming out of a country that's slapped lead paint on toys, contaminated untold numbers of pet food, and has an atrocious human rights record?

I used to work in a crisis pregnancy center that offered counciling to women both before and after their choices. I never saw as much psycological pain from any of the women that we hooked up with adoptive families.

I personally distrust these so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" because most if not all of them are fronts for anti-choice and/or abusive religious practices. A common tactic of anti-choice groups - the notorious Operation Rescue, which DOES have ties to extremists who have committed violence against clinics, is known to have done this - is to force out women's clinics, either through violence (not usually their preferred method due to the attention it receives, but one they've shown they have no reluctance to resort to) or by buying out the property and evicting the tenants in order to set up their own center (more commonly employed).

The abusive religious cults will manipulate the women into not only having a child they may not be prepared to handle, but into giving up this child into their hands for adoption...which ordinarily I wouldn't have a problem with - IF said child wasn't going into a potentially abusive household. There are even some centers that will explicitly state in their contracts that the baby MUST go into a particular type of dominionist household, or any financial aid that pregnant woman was hoping to get will be ganked. It's little more than blackmail.

Incidentally, dominionist households have a higher likelihood and rate of violence in regards to child abuse; there have been cases where teenagers have been sent to boot camps (for offenses including talking back to parents and coming out as homosexual) where beatings severe enough to leave permanent markings have been reported, and contact with the outside world - even with family members - has literally been cut off completely in order to prevent those kids from gaining a different perspective or even flat-out escaping (it's not uncommon for them to be kept under literal lock and key). The problem is severe enough that one such 'boot camp' known as Love In Action (based out of Kentucky, if memory serves me) was actually shut down by government authorities after one too many reports of physical abuse got their attention and an investigation was rendered.

Also, notorious "psychologist" (and I use that term very loosely) James Dobson (of Focus On The Family infamy) has been outed - in his own books, no less - as favoring *beatings,* not just for children that disobey their parents for ANY infraction, but INCLUDING INFANTS for "sins" such as crying (which, as anyone knows, is just what babies do). Yes, you read that right. Dobson has also admitted to beating the family's then-pet dachshund (no doubt as a 'lesson' to his children) in the same books.

Given their at-best disturbing penchant for rigid control beyond what most people would consider acceptable limits, these are not the kind of people I would feel comfortable trusting with any child's life.

Also to realise where I'm coming from-I was told no less than 6 times by 4 different doctors to abort my son due to the "possibility" that I'd have complications delivering

Don't know why that many doctors would say so, but I agree that pressuring someone to have an abortion against her wishes goes against the grain of personal choice.

And I think you'd feel differently if you had found out your mother had tried to abort you

It depends on the individual, IMO. For myself, it would be a moot point regardless, because I wouldn't be around to talk about it. If I never existed, how can I either approve or disapprove?

[Seshat]

Nah, my views were already changing by the time I made any female friends who had abortions (or at least any who told me about it).

Okay. Just an accident of phrasing, then.

Besides, I wasn't an unreasonable psycho until I lost Jesus and became rational and reasonable - I always thought that women who had abortions weren't evil, but just made a bad decision.

(laughs)

I don't think Christians are unreasonable psychos. I was just curious because of the phrasing.

I find that black and white thinking is a product of a lack of imagination.

I agree.

The camparisons are from current stats on childbirth to 20 year old stats on abortion.

*Assuming that abortion technology has been improving at a rate comparable to childbirth technology,
* Assuming from context that the abortion damage-and-mortality rate from 20 years ago is lower than the childbirth damage-and-mortality rate,

I conclude that abortion must be even safer than childbirth than it was 20 years ago. Those two assumptions make abortion look a LOT safer.

<a great deal of information about lack of informed choice, poor quality surgery, and malpractice>

That experience is far from the experience over here in Aussieland. Based on the people I know who've had abortions, and on my own experience dealing with our Family Planning/Planned Parenthood equivalents: that just wouldn't happen here.

Here, the FP/PP equivalent is at least as clean as any other doctor's office I've been into: the biggest difference is the subjects of the plethora of available information. In most doctor's offices, it's 'get your moles checked' or 'help is available if you care for the elderly or infirm': stuff targeted at the mainstream. In the FP/PP types of places, it's what street drugs do to you, how to avoid STDs and where the hostels are. And most doctors' offices don't have a bowl of brightly packaged condoms on the reception desk.

Here, doctors who perform abortions are under the same regulations as any other surgeon, the expected standard of behaviour is the same, and the informed consent rules are the same.

If the complication rate was as extremely high here as you report in your locale, there would be an inquiry and heads would roll.


I cannot make any informed commentary on abortion in your area, but I can say that where I am, it's as safe a procedure as any other abdominal surgery on delicate organs. Which is to say that there are definitely procedures which are much safer, but it's as safe as can be expected given the region of the body affected.

[ThePhoneGoddess]

I would like to add also think of the MEDICAL issues(at least in the states)
1, the abortion industry has NO REGULATION-they "police themselves"
2, a doctor that performs abortions is the only doctor not REQUIRED BY LAW to have malpractice insurance
3, abortion is the ONLY medical procedure where INFORMED CONSENT is not MANDATED by law

Banket statements are rarely correct, especially when referring to the US, since so many of our laws are relegated to the states. In fact most medical regulations are decided by the states individually, not just abortion regulations.

http://tiny.cc/BeC4p

This map shows exactly what regulations are in place in which state. As you can see, they vary widely. Some states have few regulations. Others have regulations so strict some of them have been declared unconstitutional.

Malpractice insurance, as well, is an issue that is left up to the states. Some states don't require any kind of Doctor to have malpractice insurance, as long as they display that fact prominently in their office/clinic for their patients to see. Some allow Doctors to use other pre-arranged assets in place of malpractice insurance, such as bank letters of credit, etc.

Mandatory malpractice insurance does not enable a person to sue for malpractice. Any Doctor can be sued at present--insurance or no insurance. Mandatory malpractice insurance only does one thing---increase the profitability of lawsuits.

ETA: the site won't let me post the awesome map I found, it thinks I'm trying to type code or something. So click on the link, it will take you to the tinyurl site, saying it can't take you directly to the link, but it displays the full link there and you can click on it. It should start with www.pbs.org.

[Amethyst Hunter]

And they're at it again... *sigh*

Oh, the lawsuits, they are a-flyin'...Just read on a local newssite that the anti-choice bunch is lobbing yet another lawsuit, this time against the Planned Parenthood itself (the second known one to date), the city (second or third suit known to date) and the city's zoning board. The beef that they're using is the claim that the PP came into town "under falsehood" because they used their subsidiary's name on most of the legal documents instead of the more well-known PP name.

Let's look at the closer picture. PP's subsidiary's name (Gemini) is not widely known by the populace at large, but it isn't exactly concealed either - with a bit of looking one can find it with not much trouble. Representing oneself under a different name is NOT illegal so long as the officials approving the zoning are aware of this real name and it still remains readily available to public knowledge (which the city officials knew of in advance, have spent money to have no less than three separate lawyers review all the paperwork and applications for zoning, and the real name would have come out to the public eventually anyway once the facility was completed and opened). I distinctly remember, even, a small ad in the legals section of one of the newspapers stating PP's intention and declaring their operation under the name of Gemini (the ad used both names in the same blurb).

The PP here took advantage of that legal loophole in order to PROTECT their workers from the kind of nuttery their opponents would subject them to - it wasn't until a former construction worker leaked the news that the fury erupted, and even before then there were *documented reports* of anti-choice zealots taking photographs of workers' license plates. Stalking and harassment, anyone? As you can see, it's totally understandable just why PP would try to keep their new building as quiet as possible until they were already in place. They're well aware of the kinds of nuts they come up against and the tactics they use.

Of course this is what pissed off the anti-choice bunch: that the PP was "allowed" to "sneak" in and subvert a lot of their ranting. As a result, several lawsuits have been tossed at the city by the anti-choicers, all of which have been shot down so far. This is just the latest one of their tantrums.

It's also worth noting that there is a similar PP under construction out in Colorado at present, which was also using the Gemini subsidiary name - until the anti-choice bunch in Illinois trumpeted it far and wide to their fellow zealots - and has also come under similar zealot harassment re: the photographing of workers' license plates and/or faces. (Another related note: ThePhoneGoddess made an earlier comment about an amendment proposing legal status on fetuses and embryos; there is in fact a movement under way out in Colorado started by a 20-year old to get a certain number of signatures for a petition to have an amendment (on the state level, I believe) stating that a fertilized egg, or an embryo/fetus, is essentially the same thing as a fully-grown adult and deserves the same legal status; this would in fact declare BIRTH CONTROL illegal and put those who miscarry into potential criminal status - which is *exactly* why such amendments and proposals are dangerous and ought to be turned down. They don't protect anybody, they just make it easier for zealots to oppress women.)

[Sylvia727]

(Another related note: ThePhoneGoddess made an earlier comment about an amendment proposing legal status on fetuses and embryos; there is in fact a movement under way out in Colorado started by a 20-year old to get a certain number of signatures for a petition to have an amendment (on the state level, I believe) stating that a fertilized egg, or an embryo/fetus, is essentially the same thing as a fully-grown adult and deserves the same legal status; this would in fact declare BIRTH CONTROL illegal and put those who miscarry into potential criminal status - which is *exactly* why such amendments and proposals are dangerous and ought to be turned down. They don't protect anybody, they just make it easier for zealots to oppress women.)

Just a quick nitpick here: I know nothing about this Colorado legislation, but legislation granting legal status to zygotes/embryos/fetuses would not automatically outlaw all forms of birth control, just those that destroyed z/e/fs. And it wouldn't automatically condemn women who had miscarriages, which is patently ridiculous. If I watch someone blow his brains out in front of me, I don't get arrested for murder. I've heard a stat that 2 out of 3 pregnancies terminate themselves before the mother's next period, so that she never knows that she was ever pregnant. It would be nigh impossible to prosecute women for miscarrying, not to mention the absence of a legal precedent.

Besides, I thought US Supreme Court trumped Colorado constitution?

[Boozy]

I wouldn't say you are nitpicking, Sylvia. These details seem to be very important to people on both sides. They should be understood.

There are really only a few birth control methods that I know of that prevent implantation of the blastocyst (fertilized egg). These include the morning-after pill (which is not a prescribed method of primary birth control) and the IUD.

And in both of these cases, the vast majority of the time the pill and the IUD prevent fertilization before it even occurs. Although these methods have been known to prevent implantation (thereby forcing the expulsion of the fertilized egg), most of the time they've done their job before the process reaches that point.

In general, I think more information about the female reproductive system is needed on both sides of this issue.

[Seshat]

. . . and I use an IUD.


Actually, the pro-choice side is worried about laws like that for good reason - I'd consider the extreme version of what that sort of law could lead to a 'straw man' argument, except that it's happened.

Ceausescu's Romania.

If those two words aren't enough for you, here's a summary of women's life under Ceaucescu.

The people in the pro-choice movement know that that's an extreme case, but if the rights of the foetus come to trump the rights of the mother, then that sort of extreme becomes possible. Unlikely, but possible - and it has occurred, and very recently.

[Boozy]

Actually, the pro-choice side is worried about laws like that for good reason - I'd consider the extreme version of what that sort of law could lead to a 'straw man' argument, except that it's happened.

I agree there is a slippery slope here. All the more reason to be sure that people have complete and accurate information.

It appeared to me that a few people misunderstood what birth control does. That's not good for either side.

[Sylvia727]

That's a horrible story. I hadn't heard anything about it before, but it does sound like the worst-case scenario. However, all things in moderation. In a society properly educated and able to provide for offspring, with access to safe and effective prevention, the number of people who needed an abortion would be very small, and the embryo/fetus could be granted legal rights without damaging peoples' lives.

The USA might not be ready for that, yet, but it could be done.

[Saydrah]

I don't think you can guarantee a fetus rights without taking rights away from adult women, no matter how educated and able to provide for offspring the woman is.

If I were finished with my college degree and making more than double what I am now, and amply able to provide for a child, and if despite the very effective birth control methods I use I became pregnant, I would still have an abortion. Sure, I COULD suffer through the health risks, invasions of my privacy, and general pain and discomfort of pregnancy just to give up the baby for adoption- but why, when I could have a simple medical procedure with relatively few risks when done during the first trimester, and avoid adding another life to a very overpopulated world?

Okay, so what if birth control were 100% effective, and all women not trying to conceive took it? Great! Fabulous! But should you give rights to fetuses then? Heck, no. What happens then when Sally Everwoman, who's trying to conceive with her husband, is raped by a stranger and becomes pregnant?

There will always be some unplanned pregnancies, and that means women will always need and deserve the right to make reproductive decisions, including abortion.

[susfubb]

Religious Extremists Attacking

I am probably far older (57) than most women here, but I want to share a bit of ancient history with all of you. Before "Roe vs Wade," few states had abortion rights, women who could afford it went to Europe & elsewhere, And those who could not were stuck with bearing a child the father refused to support, they were unequipped to raise properly (even resent), or resorting to fly-by-night (back-alley/ coat-hanger) abortionists.

I worked as a horticulturalist (nursery/ garden-shop/ greenhouse) worker which involved a great deal of manual labor (I was one of the first forklift drivers license by OSHA) and knowledge. A few years later, I as one of the first women to pass the nearly 4 hour test on first try to become a CCN/ California Certified Nursery Woman (now nursery worker)- those folks such workplaces advertise as 'we have experts on site.' I had to FIGHT every inch of the way. No raise(s) ever appeared.

During that period of the early/mid 70's, I took several college courses in 'women's studies." One of these became far more than a "class" to its members (ages 17-79); we continued together as an off-campus club. It was THERE that I attended several instructional demonstrations on the sterility of "suctioning out" another woman's "period" before it began. This method would, of course, also SAFELY empty all her uterine contents at ANY time of suctioning, including any first-trimester pregnancy.

I continue to donate money for the minimal equipment necessary - sterile vaginal speculum & attaching device similar to a turkey-baster, but more far more sealed/ sterile. I hope I can recruit others to help so these can be passed out free to all attendees of such women's educational groups. The info was already "old" when I learned it, and in the intervening years, the processes have been demonstrated to more than 3 million American women.

If those who believe they can "regulate" an American woman's use of her own body according to a supposed 'morality' she does not share, then they probably also believe that women are ignorant and willing to allow such tyranny.

Got news for those wanna-bee terrorists: Won't happen HERE. Mothers pass on to daughters/ nieces/ friends/ even strangers they will never meet - and no LAW WILL EVER ENSLAVE US to being the chattel of males again. ~jill