I’ve already linked to a post of Amanda’s at Pandagon disdaining the “let Roe go back to the State Legislatures” arguments. We all know what states such as California, New York, Alabama, Georgia, and my home state of Indiana (shudders) would choose to do with Roe right off the bat. Constitutional protections for our basic civil rights ensures that they will exist even if they’re “unpopular” to a segment of the population, and secure them against impulsive politicians eager to create a bandwagon to gather more potential voters, and guard them against “in the heat of the moment” lawmaking on the floor of Congress (the Schiavo case and the Patriot Act comes to mind). How popular were Brown v. Board of Education and the Voting Rights Act with Southern Whites who were racist? How popular is flag burning, but the Constitution protects that anyway to prevent a slippery-slope that could lead to government sanctioned censorship–especially when it comes to criticizing politicians? Civil rights should not be based on convenience, a whim, or which politician is in the mood to deal with them. Via Feministe, I found this wonderful article by Katha Pollitt of the Nation who too is not persuaded by the “it’s more democratic” stanza at the core of the ‘let Roe go back to the state’ argument.
[…]Legislative control might be more “democratic””“if you believe that a state senator balancing women’s health against a highway for his district represents democracy. But would it be fair? The whole point about constitutional protection for rights is to guarantee them when they are unpopular”“to shield them from majority prejudice, opportunistic politicians, the passions and pressures of the moment. Freedom of speech, assembly, worship and so on belong to us as individuals; our neighbors, our families and our legislators don’t get to vote on how we use these rights or whether we should have them in the first place. Alabamans may be largely antichoice, but what about the ones who aren’t? Or the ones who are but even so don’t want to die in childbirth, bear a hopelessly damaged baby or drop out of school at 15″“or 25? If Roe goes, whoever has political power will determine the most basic, intimate, life-changing and life-threatening decision women”“and only women”“confront. We will have a country in which the same legislature that can’t prevent some clod from burning a flag will be able to force a woman to bear a child under whatever circumstances it sees fit. It is hard to imagine how that woman would be a free or equal citizen of our constitutional republic.[…]
It’s hard to imagine because it’s true. Women won’t be free and equal citizens if Roe goes, or even if Griswold suffers the same fate. It would come down to how convenient our right to autonomy would be in the eyes of the mostly male politicians who would decide this.
Your introductory points are very well put.
I for one would like to see Roe go and be replaced by clear and firm Federal legislation spelling out the protections and liberties to remove the ambiguity and threatened position that we find ourselves by it being an interpretation of the court. Talk about political third rail though… if politicians took it to task, just think we could all move on to other issues that need attention. (Like National Healthcare.)
While we are at it, how about guaranteeing care for expectant mothers and care for children? It is an established fact that countries that provide for mothers and their children have the lowest abortion rates. If women feel secure in the choices they make they are less apt to abort, lowering the rate without impeding those that choose to do so. Blessings.
I’m in Ohio, where Tom Brinkman recently introduced bill 228 in the house. Essentially it calls for a ban on all abortions and would make it a felony to leave the state for abortion.
This is enough for me to know that I do not want my state in control of reproductive rights.
The issue of healthcare is roped inextricably to that of abortion–since abortion is one facet of women’s healthcare. Even if we were in any danger of getting single-payer anytime soon, you can rest assured that the same fuckwits who don’t think women should have birth control from private pharmacies will complain about them getting it through Federal-run or -funded pharmacies as well;To cite just one example. And I’m sure that if the passage or failure of single-payer rested on winning over a half dozen pro-life zealots, millions of women would be told by the usual know-it-all liberal/progressive men to suck it up, take one for the team, yadda yadda yadda.
Blecch. :(
“And I’m sure that if the passage or failure of single-payer rested on winning over a half dozen pro-life zealots, millions of women would be told by the usual know-it-all liberal/progressive men to suck it up, take one for the team, yadda yadda yadda.”
Alsis, help me out, I do not understand your point here. (Really, call me slow but I need some help.) Can you explain what you mean? Blessings.
You mentioned “National Healthcare,” Rock. Which I translated to “single-payer.” Sorry for the confusion. It’s a pet issue of mine, so I frequently forget that it’s not everyone’s pet obsession. :o You can find more about it here if you like:
http://www.pnhp.org/
Sorry for the drift, All. As you were.
Gotcha!
We are definitely on the same page. Thank you for the site, I was not aware of it.
It is a no brainer the way I see it too. We could help lots of folks who need independence and care, while taking a chip away from Big Business to hold over their workers just for starters. (Plus, it is the right thing to do.)Blessings.
I always have this argument with my brother, who thinks the “reasonable” compromise is so obvious- let the people vote in each state! Yes, that worked out great with slavery.
As a blue-state right-to-lifer, I think half a loaf is better than none. However, abolition is much preferred. You really think that pro-lifers want a woman to bear a child against her will? She already has, but the question is whether that child dies within her. The family of humankind relies on one another for shelter.
Fielder – If you say that crap about the “family of humankind” while ignoring that women may not want to BE mothers yet (or at all) is definitely not sheltering them, my friend. I just don’t feel that the 6,450,000,000th fertilized egg right this moment needs to become the 6,450,000,000th person. Or to put it another way, I’m relying on you to treat the female citizens of our shared country like PEOPLE and not like uteruses, and allow them to decide when, where, how, and why they will reproduce, if ever. We do not get to decide IF we conceive (no matter how hard we try to prevent it), but we do get to decide if we reproduce.
Prohibition is never a good thing, respecting CITIZENS of this country is a good thing… and those citizens are asking you not to force your “women must reproduce if they conceive” views on them. They are not forcing you to abort if you conceive… you can conceive and choose to deliver, can’t you, Fielder?
Oh, and before you try the “we prohibit murder” line, I’ll stop to point out to you that if you come into MY house and threaten MY life, I’m going to use my .45 Glock to blow your chest in. When it threatens my life, I get to kill it, even if that “it” is a fellow citizen like yourself, with a name and a self-aware identity. But that’s an issue that was overwhelmingly decided by guys like me (and, I suspect, you) — that we get to “destroy life” in our own self-defense.
Many have a problem both with guns and with killing even in self-defense, but we tell them to shut up and sit down; and simply make the choice not to kill for themselves, or use guns, in their own situations. But those are issues that affect men directly… when it comes around to women choosing not to have their health threatened by a pregnancy (or choosing not to breed with the idiot they decided to screw because he was cute but was too stupid to breed with, and have that demon-spawn ruin the rest of their life), suddenly everyone’s got a problem with it.
What it really does boil down to is that we think it’s okay to kill for “manly” reasons, but not for womanly ones. And so I’ll repeat it again and again until you all get it: TRUST WOMEN. Trust them to make moral/ethical/medical decisions that are appropriate for them, and stop trying to turn them into baby factories because you are squeamish about denying a fetus access to her body’s resources.
My concern with the “let it go to the states” argument is that it would mean abandoning our red state sisters to whatever creepy Handmaiden’s Tale style madness that their local legislators can dream up. Frankly any time I hear my blue state brethren suggest this my first thought is “stop being such a selfish ass”. Sure, this would work out fine for me since I live in California, but what about my high school buddy who lives in Houston? What about all the other women in the red states, especially the ones who won’t be able to travel to other states if they need an abortion? I don’t think it’s morally or ethically acceptable to abandon them.