Jill at Feministe wrote a good post about abortion called Beyond Legality. She was responding to a fascinating Alternet article, from a hotline which tries to help women get access to abortion:
“Could you ask your friends for $40? If they say ‘no,’ maybe ask for 20 or even 10?” I hear her ask in her calm voice. Later she tells me that this woman has been evicted from her house for lack of rent, and is crashing with her three children at a friend’s. To another caller, I hear her say, “Well, do you have anything you might pawn? Some jewelry? A TV set?” And to another, “Is it possible you could postpone your car payment until after the abortion?”
Laura’s case management is strikingly labor intensive. She averages about 15 phone calls per case — with the client herself, with the various abortion funds, with the clinic that is the potential site of the abortion — whether in the end the woman successfully obtains sufficient funds for an abortion or not.
Jill puts together a really cogent argument about everything which is wrong with abortion access in the united states, but begins:
With all the focus on simply keeping abortion legal, we often miss the fact that access to abortion remains highly limited and even impossible for some women.
I have to confess that I don’t understand abortion politics in the united states. I don’t understand why access is something that you need to be reminded about. Access means whether or not women can get abortions – I think that’s actually the only way to evaluate abortion policy.
Legally abortion is treated as a crime in New Zealand. It is covered under the crimes act and considered a crime except under circumstances:
(1)For the purposes of sections 183 and 186 of this Act, any act specified in either of those sections is done unlawfully unless, in the case of a pregnancy of not more than 20 weeks’ gestation, the person doing the act believes—
(a)That the continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger (not being danger normally attendant upon childbirth) to the life, or to the physical or mental health, of the woman or girl . . .; or
(aa)That there is a substantial risk that the child, if born, would be so physically or mentally abnormal as to be seriously handicapped; or
(b)That the pregnancy is the result of sexual intercourse between—
(i)A parent and child; or
(ii)A brother and sister, whether of the whole blood or of the half blood; or (iii)A grandparent and grandchild; or
(c)That the pregnancy is the result of sexual intercourse that constitutes an offence against section 131(1) of this Act [sexual contact with a dependent family member]; or
(d)That the woman or girl is severely subnormal within the meaning of section 138(2) of this Act.
In order to have a legal abortion in this country you have to have two specially licensed doctors verify that you meet those conditions. I don’t have a right to an abortion in this country. But I’d rather have an unwanted pregnancy here than anywhere in the United States.
If I got a positive pregnancy test I’d go to the doctor (that’d be free because I’m pregnant), then I’d go to the local hospital for two seperate appointments (they’d both be free). At these appointments the required number of doctors would sign up that continuing the pregnancy would damage my mental health and we’d be away (98% of abortion in NZ are done under the mental health provisions). It may not be what it used to be, but we do have a socialised health system and New Zealand – and that does far more for abortion access than any statement of rights.
Now I am lucky, I live in a large city, other areas of New Zealand aren’t so well served (this post gives all the details). But New Zealand women who need to travel to get abortions, and can’t afford to, should be able to get money from their district health board or work and income (our welfare service). It’s not ideal, but it’s far better than having someone at the end of a phone line asking you what you could pawn.
In New Zealand we lost the rights battle so concentrated on winning access (which we did), it seems to me that it worked the other way round – and this has hurt reproductive rights in really serious ways.
In the United States we lost on access as soon as the Hyde Amendment was passed. It became clear that the only women who had a right to choose were women who could afford it. Even if Roe vs. Wade were repealed it would be a difference in scale, not a difference in kind – rich women would be able to make it to New York. Maybe publicly funded abortion for all women aren’t winnable in the US now. But maybe they would have been if that had been what abortion rights groups concentrated on since 1973. Maybe access would be more secure too, because all women would feel like they had something to fight to protect, not just the ones with money.
Also posted at Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty.
Pingback: aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South
Pingback: feminist blogs
Pingback: Feministe
Pingback: aTypical Joe: a gay New Yorker living in the rural South
It’s not ideal, but it’s far better than having someone at the end of a phone line asking you what you could pawn
As you say, it’s better for you. I wonder what your conclusion would be like if you compared one of those women who “should be able to get money” (but perhaps can’t) and have to pay to travel to, say, an affluent woman in a liberal urban US city, who doesn’t have to pawn anything and doesn’t have to get permission slips from two doctors to have an abortion.
Access is important. So are rights.
I think the situation in Canada is sort of between New Zealand and the United States. In Canada, there are no legal barriers to abortion. The Supreme Court has ruled (and the rulign has been repeatedly upheld by the courts), that the fetus has no inherent right to life, and no legal protection as a person until it is born alive. Abortions are funded by the government health insurance, and are free for citizens and permenant residents. However, access to abortion is another matter entirely. If you live in much of the maritimes or the North, forget about it.
Philosophically, I think you’re way off. There’s nothing inconsistent about saying that you have the right to do something, but also that other people have the right not to be forced to pay for it. And personally, I’d much rather live in a society where people are expected to take responsibility for their own choices, rather than pushing it off onto others.
That said, given where we are now, I don’t think subsidizing abortion for the indigent is such a bad idea. A woman who can’t afford an abortion almost certainly can’t afford to pay for childbirth, and probably can’t afford to raise a child, either, so if she goes through with the pregnancy, taxpayers will be on the hook for the birth and possibly for welfare once the child is born.
And personally, I’d much rather live in a society where people are expected to take responsibility for their own choices, rather than pushing it off onto others.
I assume this is the usual code for ‘I don’t want a dime of my own money being spent on anyone but me’. There are plenty of developing nations where you can live in just that way, and not have to worry about paying taxes or subsidizing infrastructure (or, for the truly consistent, receiving anyone else’s money in the form of direct or indirect benefits). I suggest people disgusted with having to support such things as regulation of food safety pick up and move to one of those nations.
The problem in the US is that, thanks to our home-grown wackos, we don’t treat abortion as a usual medical procedure, paid for or not paid for as any other medical procedure. And the ‘save tax money’ argument doesn’t dent these morons; they’ll accuse you of wanting to kill innocent babies to save money.
But that’s not comparing like with like. If you compare affluent women living in cities (which is basically what I am), then I’d still rather live here, because you have to be pretty affluent not to miss a $500 US. If you compare poorer women living in the provinces then there’s just no contest.
Mythago:
I assume this is the usual code for ‘I don’t want a dime of my own money being spent on anyone but me’.
That’d be a Type M argument, and it cuts both ways. I could, with equal validity, say that a lot of the stuff I read here is the usual code for “Give me free stuff!” But I don’t think it’s productive to do so.
In any case, you’re wrong. I’ll grant that I prefer to get as much enjoyment as I can out of the fruits of my labor, but I’m willing to pay a reasonable amount—say, 5-7% of my income—to be sure that those who are poor through no fault of their own are able to get by, and that poor children get educated. What I object to is the moral hazard created by a massive welfare system that forces me to bail out people who screw up their own lives through bad choices. When you subsidize bad behavior, you get more of it.
There are plenty of developing nations where you can live in just that way…
I addressed the problems with this bogus package-deal argument earlier this week. Basic governmental functions are separable from the welfare state, and there’s nothing inconsistent about wanting one but not the other.
I suggest people disgusted with having to support such things as regulation of food safety pick up and move to one of those nations.
You know, this suggestion doesn’t really make sense when a leftist addresses it to a libertarian. Sadly, there really aren’t that many countries that come closer to the libertarian ideal than the US does. But it does make sense in reverse. Europe is filled with countries that come much closer to the leftist ideal than the US does. And if you don’t want to go that far, or can’t speak any foreign languages, there’s always Canada. So why don’t more of you pack up and move to Europe or Canada, and leave just one semi-free country for those of us who want one?
And the ’save tax money’ argument doesn’t dent these morons; they’ll accuse you of wanting to kill innocent babies to save money.
I know. I was just explaining why I agree that we should subsidize abortions for the poor.
I could, with equal validity, say that a lot of the stuff I read here is the usual code for “Give me free stuff!”
That’s pretty much what you said originally. By the way, as long as we’re talking logic, don’t assume that the opposite of “Libertarian” is “leftist who wishes we had a social welfare network equal to Europe’s”.
If you compare affluent women living in cities (which is basically what I am), then I’d still rather live here, because you have to be pretty affluent not to miss a $500 US.
And you’d have to be pretty affluent to be able to afford the cost of visiting two different , “specially licensed” doctors to sign off on your abortion (in addition to the costs of travel, taking time off work to get to visit the doctors, etc).
You’re entirely correct that rights are useless without access. What I don’t understand is your dismissal of the importance of rights because you, having resources, don’t have a problem getting access.
Mythago – sorry if I wasn’t clear – all appointments – including any appointment with a doctor while you’re pregnant are free. The specially licensed doctors are on site at the abortion clinic. You don’t have to find them, pay for them, or anything like that. There’s no need to trick them or pretend, they sign off on abortions
Time off work is an issue, but again I’d rather be in NZ for that than America (we have a minimum legal entitlement to sick leave – and the clinics provide medical certificates that don’t give specifics). Although obviously there are access restrictions for women who need childcare.
I don’t think you understand the situation in New Zealand. It’s not my resources that give me access. It’s the really hard work of feminist women who fought the battle on a site by site basis to subvert the law. Because abortion facilities have everything you need to comply with the law, you don’t need any extra resources to get these facilities. The access differentiation isn’t between rich and poor in cities (because the process is free), but between cities and provincial areas (and then there’s a differentiation between rich and poor, but there are two forms of state help for people to help them travel).
The only women who would definately be better off in America are the extremely well off. Women who are not permanent residents (and so not eligible for free health care) may be better off in America, but I expect generally they would be in the same situation either way.
I’m not arguing that rights don’t matter – I hate our law, and have a life long goal to dance on the grave of every man who voted for it (only men voted for it). But I am saying that for women who are seeking abortion whether or not it’s free is going ot make more of a difference, than if you need to get three more forms signed.
Just out of curiosity, how do you get a law passed that only men vote for?
There were 4 MPs who were women in New Zealand in 1977 (and about 80 male MPs), all the women voted agaist any legislation that restricted abortion (as had the female MPs in the previous parliament).
I imagine it would be possible in America as well for example to have all the women in the senate voting the same way on a piece of legislation.
Maia, Kiwi who moved to Oz in 1989 here. (Originally from Wellington – Cannons Creek, Porirua to be exact.) I agree completely with your position on abortion rights in NZ. We need rights and access. It speaks volumes though, I think, that abortion is virtually available on demand because of a wide understanding that to force a woman to carry and have a baby she doesn’t want is detrimental to her – even if her ‘mental health’ is stated as what is most at risk. That is supportive, but also kind of insulting at the same time. It would be far, far better to be free to simply make a choice because you have that right.
Do you remember the close 1981 election that produced this feminist graffitti:
As I’ve posted here before – in OZ this year the women from different and opposing political parties co-sponsored a bill to make EC in a particular pill form available to Australian women, and then, in the whole parliament vote which passed it, all but 3 (I think – a v. small number anyway) women voted for it. So, there are two demonstrations of how important it is to get as many women as possible into the top end of politics.
Curses those blockquotes! Sorry if that made the comment confusing….
[Fixed! –Amp]
Maia – Gotcha, thanks.
A little O.T.
Take what is being claimed here and apply it to the bill of rights.
All rights are worthless without the ability to freely excercize them.
N.Z. is a parlementary system. I am not aware of a constitution. If there is no constitution there is no guarentee of any rights. Period. (full stop for you commonwealth types).
But regardless the right is in name only if ability to exercize that right is not with in your ability. In the U.S. in the circles I move in (about 70% of the time) It is said the the second amendment to the bill of rights guarentees all the rest. At the end of the day all government law is only paper until enforced. And enforcement depends on the mood and culture of the enforcers.
Therefore most real power flows from culture national mood and willingness of enforcement. Rights are a nice way of saying we really oughta do it this way with suggested penalties for not following them.
I understand some may disagree please feel free to criticize. I enjoy thoughtful, polite debate.
Well, I’m not sure about NZ but Australia is a parliamentary system and we do have a constitution, but no bill of rights. The constitution in our system sets out the workings of government and separation of powers and so forth. It does set out some rights, but again they’re directly related to the above. I have a suspicion that NZ would have a similar setup (and I’m sure those actually *in* NZ will correct me if I’m mistaken. :)
Worth noting on the flip side–this outcome (mental health is always at risk in a unwanted pregnancy) is EXACTLY why US pro-lifers are so vehemently opposed to mental health exceptions in anti-abortion law.
I have to confess that I don’t understand abortion politics in the United States.
I’m going to take a shot at this. I’ll try to make the language neutral, or at least balanced. I’m sure that in a few paragraphs I won’t get everything right or all the details.
Many people in the United States feel that a fetus is part of a woman’s body at least until it can live outside the woman’s body, and until that point the woman has the right to control her own body by having an abortion and that no one has the moral right to interfere.
Many other people in the United States believe that a fetus’ potential to become a human being makes it a human life from conception (or soon thereafter at various points), that a fetus’ right to live is supreme over the rights of the mother, and that an abortion is close to or equals murder. Many of these people base their position at least in part on their religious beliefs.
Both sides feel pretty strongly about their positions. The language/rhetoric surrounding this issue is the most extreme of all political questions in America.
Up until about 1972, the latter group held the upper hand against the former; there was no Federal law regarding abortion, and most State legislatures had passed laws putting various restrictions on abortion, up to and including outright bans. Then a court case for a woman who wanted an abortion, Roe vs. Wade, reached the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court (the top of our Judicial branch of the Government) determined that the Constitution of the United States includes a right to privacy. This is not something explictily spelled out in it, but the Supreme Court imputed it from various parts of the Constitution, and then determined that this right of the mother overruled any other rights that anyone else might have, at least up until such time as the fetus might reach a developmental level that would allow it to live outside the mother’s body. Abortion in the U.S. became legal, and the States had to re-write their laws.
The advocates for a right to abortion saw this as a victory of civil rights for women over improperly restrictive laws and attempts by a patriarchial society to dominate women. The advocates for restrictions to abortion viewed this as a selfish destruction of natural law and the rights of a fetus to live and be born.
Because the derivation of the right to an abortion from the U.S. Constitution is somewhat less than clear and staightforward, and because the decision overrode the legislative function, and because it involves issues of life and death (including many women who died getting illegal abortions), many members of the electorate have not accepted this question as settled. One of our major parties (Republicans) opposes abortion – one (Democrats) supports it. The ebb and flow of politics means that limitations and restrictions on abortion come and go as various politicians pass legislation and appoint judges whose job it is to interpret it. For example, the makeup of the Supreme Court is determined by appointments by the President that are approved by the Senate. Right now, the President is Republican and the Senate has a small Republican majority, so the most recent two Supreme Court justices (out of 9 total) are expected to support the right of States to further restrict abortion and to not overturn State laws to that end that come before them for review. There are many who hope and many who fear that another such appointment will eventually result in the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and allow the States to once again ban abortion.
O.K., folks, take a shot at me if you want. But I’ve tried to summarize a big issue in a small post without putting characterizations and emotions in it.