General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsabortion SHOULD be rare
For the same reason dental fillings and teeth pulling should be rare not because there is any shame to it but because it is an invasive procedure that can usually be avoided through proper knowledge and application of said knowledge.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)That's a fact. If everyone used effective contraception who wanted to avoid pregnancy, the abortion rate would drop to near zero. Abortion would be rare. It's really, really simple. The right-wing wants to make contraception difficult, which says much about their concept of women. It's ugly.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Not the bs abstinence classes in many Texas districts. In my district they call it 'abstinence plus' . This means they teach about contraception, but mainly to tell the students it doesn't work and the only safe sex is no sex. By that logic I am practicing safe down hill skiing by laying here on my couch and abstaining from it.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Saying it should be "rare" indicates - clearly - that it is happening more than it should be and that there are 'good' and 'bad' abortions. Abortion is one of the most stigmatized events of a woman's life and the widespread "rare" mantra propagates that.
Calling for it to be "rare" proposes that there is something wrong with abortion. It places the procedure as a very different type of health care. One in which the goal is reduced use rather than expanded access and enhanced quality. And this has contributed to the significant decline in the number of locations where abortions are performed in the United States. The result is also fewer physicians - good physicians - who are even taught abortion care. Less than half of all OB/GYN's residency programs offer training in abortion care.
Saying it should be rare legitimizes efforts to restrict access to abortion.
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. Its 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 thats 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 womens 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 womens 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.
This comparison to cardiac or dental procedures is crazy, IMHO.
If there were well funded and hugely successful efforts limiting access to other procedures and preventative care, sweeping legislation being passed to stop them, protesting and bombing clinics and hospitals, killing surgeons, etc, then maybe.
Aso, it's not typical that a cardiac patient is judged by society for their personal history behind the surgery. They should have exercised, eaten better, oh, it is a genetic abnormality... We are only glad that the procedures exist to help those who need it. I feel the same way about abortion.
It's OK to wish that those procedures weren't needed, but to publicly wish them to be "rare" in the midst of significant and major attacks on access being imposed on them and clinics closing at record pace with some states bring limited to a single facility is, frankly, insane.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)willingness to use it. Safe sex should be taught just as proper dental hygiene should be taught - thus making cavities and unwanted pregnancies less common.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)How many bills have been passed trying to stop root canals in the past decade? How many orthodontists offices have been bombed? Oral surgeons killed?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Great post Nikki. Thank you.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)and that is why they say/said such outrageous things like 'abortion should be safe, legal and rare.' Or maybe, the disparity in violence against dentists and against abortion providers in no way whatsoever negates the fact that both provide services that are legit medical procedure that should be safe, legal and rare.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Or that two thirds of the people you mentioned died a decade or so ago and, as such, are not aware of the sweeping legislation which has made it inaccessible to millions of women or that women are being jailed for suspicious miscarriages.
It was coined a generation and a half ago. Things have changed in regards to abortion access and rights. and not for the better. We need to change and take this issue back fill force, head on, own it and change the narrative.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)harmful, antiquated and was removed from the platform, and you can put your fingers in your ears and ignore me. Deal?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Cute attempt, though!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And that is the trap we've walked into.
missingthebigdog
(1,233 posts)Not getting pregnant in the first place is safer than either.
The options are not have an abortion or have a baby. The options are use safe, effective, birth control; have an abortion; or have a baby.
Those of us who believe abortion should be rare are not making a moral judgment. Abortion is an invasive medical procedure that would be rendered almost completely unnecessary by proper education and access to contraceptives.
Focusing solely on abortion rights instead of a broader approach which encompasses all reproductive rights does a disservice to women and continues to divide people who should all be on the same side.
There are ALWAYS going to be times when abortion is necessary. Even very reliable contraception sometimes fails, and human nature is such that unprotected sex is going to happen. Sometimes, people decide they are ready for a child, then change their minds.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Increased availability of contraception will follow naturally. That is a given. Not sure why it's anyone's concern that it wouldn't. It saves money and would be available in all the same outlets.
But if we keep giving abortion the stink eye, we will never get there.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)rather than abortion, or teeth cleaning rather than cavities. Though conservatives are against birth control too, so that opening does not mean a lot to many of them.
But it could be convincing to a lot of people - drop your opposition to it and focus on birth control, and abortion will be rare. Problem is right wingers are too fanatical to do that. The ones who want abstinence won't go for it.
jen63
(813 posts)We need abortions to be more easily accessible, not rare. The use of the word "rare" is just another way to make women who have abortions feel shame for their valid choice.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)To be clear to those who seek to limit my medical choices (and I know you're not among them, PeaceNikki): It's between each woman and her doctor, whether wanted or needed. And I think the whole "rare" thing is a bunch of judgey horseshit.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Heidi
(58,237 posts)you are spot on. and good morning from CMW, The Wiley and Excellent Boy Cat Named Ginger, and me!
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Greetings to your entire adorable family.
IS judgey bullshit. +1
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Why are we having this conversation again?
onecent
(6,096 posts)200%
bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)in an effort to stake some kind of compromise position. It has the effect allowing Republicans a foot in the door to attempt to ram through all kinds of restrictive legislation which they've been doing with zeal on a state level.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That's the message and it's bullshit.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)All invasive procedures should be made as rare as possible through prevention. That isn't bullshit
it is common sense.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)and implying that HRC isn't solid on choice is just goofy.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)The party platform did years ago. The climate is different, our rights and access are in serious jeopardy.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)but those rights will be best protected by electing the person who shares our values on the subject, not by slamming that very person for her choice of words.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)And it's not about hating Hillary or making look bad. Hell, I *have* voted for HRC and I will again.
As a supporter, I would very much like her to drop the antiquated phrase which was removed from the party platform years ago, with good reason.
I think that you're projecting your defensiveness of her on me. I get it, it's rough here during the primaries, but this is important to some of us. I've taken 2 female Democratic gubernatorial candidates to task face to face for using this phrase and I would with Hillary as well.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I didn't say you were slamming her. Others in other threads have.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I went into explicit detail above as to why I and others think the phrase and notion is harmful and all you saw was a "slam" on Hillary?? You ignored every point I made and every question I asked. Instead of thinking about it from the perspective that I posed, you got stuck on that.
That's sad. Really sad.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Can't accept an apology land.
Sad indeed.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)It's a valid criticism of Hillary or any party leader or candidate and I explained why.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I totally agree with the sentiment. So no.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)And what it was about was the debate over President Obama removing the restriction on financing family planning clinic abroad that George W. Bush had instituted during his residency in the White House otherwise known as the Mexico City Policy (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/MexicoCityPolicy-VoluntaryPopulationPlanning/). Republican Congress people were objecting to that idea and Hillary Clinton was defending financing family planning clinics even if they did offer abortion as a choice to women.
The words that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used in that video had NOTHING to do with the Democratic Party platform or domestic policy.
Context matters.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)csziggy
(34,136 posts)The Democratic Party has changed, the country has changed, Hillary Clinton has changed. The entire circumstances in which she made that statement is no longer the same.
I don't know when the Democratic Party removed that statement from their platform, but even so it was probably convenient for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to use that phrase in those hearings. I suspect her personal opinion of abortion is far more liberal than she could espouse in her official capacity as Secretary of State.
I'm not a super fan of Hillary Clinton, though I do have to admit that I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 because I liked her (better than I liked him). I didn't vote for her in the primaries in 2008.
I think that nit picking her on this issue on the basis of the quote from a 2009 video of a hearing in which she was defending the official White House policy in her capacity as Secretary of State is irrelevant to Hillary Clinton as a private individual or as a politician.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)It's about the sweeping legislation against reproductive freedom. It's about changing the narrative, owning the issue and making abortion less rare.
It's good to have the discussion, it's deeply important to many of us.
onecaliberal
(32,854 posts)There should be as many abortions as necessary. Contraception and honest accurate information for people would go a long way. Bottom line, a woman's body and her healthcare are her business period!
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)so that they can exercise their autonomy to the max. Finding yourself in need of an invasive surgery because you thought you couldn't get preggos the first time you have sex or that contraception doesn't work well so why bother with it is a shitty situation and can been avoided. That is the 'rare' part. Pretty simple.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I knew a grown woman with two kids who asked my sister what a douche was. Just because someone has had sex and given birth doesn't mean they are properly educated on the subject of how to prevent a pregnancy.
jen63
(813 posts)have to do with sex education, or preventing pregnancy? Many women have gone their entire lives without having to use a douche; this one included. Your post is condescending and somewhat ignorant.
onecaliberal
(32,854 posts)It plays straight into the hands of those who aren't going to vote for Clinton anyway. Educating people is awesome, it is indeed the way to lower the abortion rate but playing word games isn't the way to go about it.
Rare doesn't mean education. Rare would hopefully become product of education, but it's a tired phrase that needs to be retired.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)Why should we have to justify our medical choices as "needs"?
onecaliberal
(32,854 posts)Because the same morality police that would starve those kids once they are born can feel better about it.
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)Thats actually the real reason for "Safe, Legal, and Rare". Its a way to be completely pro choice without seeming extreme.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ted_Kennedy
freshwest
(53,661 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Frankly it is another way of saying we should have fewer unwanted pregnancies through education and that abortion should be a safe and legal option when an unwanted pregnancy occurs. I first heard it from Ann Richards. Ted Kennedy used it a lot. Apparently it is controversial when HRC says it.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Oneironaut
(5,494 posts)The more abstinence is pushed, the more unwanted pregnancies there are. Abstinence is not realistic or useful. Anti-abortion fundies are almost invariably anti-contraception / pro-abstinence.
In a society where abortion is totally accepted, abortion would be ironically rarer.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)than any other force in American society by keeping sex ed. Out of schools.
cali
(114,904 posts)that is language that HURTS the pro-choice movement. It hurts women. It was a mistake. It was giving in to the framing of the anti-choicers.
fuck that language.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)They want it to be illegal and non-existent. Which, as we know, is a policy that simply makes it unsafe and illegal. And if it is getting rare everyday then that is the result of education. So good. I wish every pregnancy was a wanted one.
Safe legal and rare is a pro-choice framing of the issue -and frankly a good goal for any society.
cali
(114,904 posts)Abortion is a constitutional right. And it's incredibly safe. How about "Keep abortion safe. Make it accessible.?
From and article last August:
"Safe legal and rare" first became a pro-choice rallying cry during the Clinton administration, and has been invoked by media-makers and politicians like even President Obama has called the mantra "the right formulation" on abortion. It's a "safe" pro-choice answer: to support abortion, but wish it wasn't necessary.
And it's a framing that Hillary Clinton perhaps the next president of the United States supports.
But "safe, legal and rare" is not a framework that supports women's health needs: it stigmatizes and endangers it.
In a 2010 research article, Dr Tracy Weitz, Director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) program at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote that "rare suggests that abortion is happening more than it should, and that there are some conditions for which abortions should and should not occur".
<snip>
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/09/hillary-clinton-abortion-legal-but-rare
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Whatever Hillary says YOU automatically agree with.
William769
(55,146 posts)Just goes to show you what the other side is actually about.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Rare in the sense that it isn't necessary, rather than being used 'sparingly'.
Bit we don't live in a perfect world.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Most dumb ass magic thinking of all time
dembotoz
(16,802 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Not unreasonable, surely?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Feron
(2,063 posts)Abortion is a medical procedure done for many reasons and not just because of a contraception failure.
Abortion, like contraception, should be accessible and affordable. Period.
Your feelings do not matter regarding someone else's personal medical matters. And when qualifiers like 'rare' are used, it stigmatizes the procedure you claim to support.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)but I respect your opinion (on my list of favorite posters here). I think it simply recognizes that unwanted pregnancies are preventable (through much needed comprehensive sex ed.)
Anyway, hope you are well.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Women-with so many denied acess, and I think part of the reason many are passive about the politics of it is than they think it sounds like that noble goal. Safe and rare confuses voters I think.
And thanks for saying all that Arley, I think that's one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me here. I'm well- very busy at work bit good. Happy spring is here! How are you doing?
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)safe, legal and rare.
locks
(2,012 posts)and the "right-to-lifers" had "rescued" all those millions of fetuses since Roe v Wade what would have happened to them? Would all these people who feel they have the high moral ground have fed, clothed, educated and kept them in good health? Are they saving the millions of born children who are dying in refugee camps or getting killed in wars? Are they adopting all the unwanted and neglected born children in their neighborhoods? Are they promoting sex education, contraception and family planning?
These same people are passing laws all over the nation to restrict abortion and criminalize women and doctors under the pretense that they are "protecting women's health." Colorado's Family Planning Program which has cut teen-age pregnancy in half is in jeopardy because the "personhood" people have convinced the Republicans to not fund it because "using an IUD is having abortions and young women would take more risks."