Since Annie at After Abortion has been criticized a fair amount on this blog lately, I wanted to link to two good posts of hers.
First, Annie corrects Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman, who has reported an urban legend as if it were fact. Goodman claimed that before abortion was legal, “10,000 American women a year died from illegal abortions.” As this chart shows, Goodman’s number is way off base.
There were hundreds more deaths when abortion was illegal, but nowhere near the number that Goodman claimed. In the developed world, even when abortion is illegal, women can often obtain safe abortions illegally from doctors, or by crossing borders. In the US, at least some feminist groups, such as Jane, offered safe abortions as well.
(Of course, the story is different in third-world countries, where pro-life laws kill 77,000 women a year.)
In a different post, Annie (to her credit) criticizes some of the rude behavior of pro-lifers at last week’s march. (She’s posted a couple of times about rude pro-choicers, as well). She also points out that, contrary to what some pro-choicers believe, most leaders of pro-life groups are women.
(Personally, I think it doesn’t matter what sex pro-lifers are. Pro-life laws are wrong on their own merits, not based on the sex of the person proposing the law.).
Amp sez that Annie sez:
“She also points out that, contrary to what some pro-choicers believe, most leaders of pro-life groups are women.”
Calling mr. Stockholm…come in mr. Stockholm…
(Assuming she’s correct of course. Behind-the-scenes puppetry is certainly a strong possibility in such a self hating movement)
Lots of women opposed giving the vote to women too. And lets not forget Phyllis Schlaffy and her successful crusade against the Equal Rights Amendment.
So if abortion was as common prior to 1973 as you say (one million per year), and if the mortality rate was already pretty low and falling drastically, doesn’t that mean that illegal abortion was fairly safe? Making it illegal today, in other words, might not make it much more dangerous. Or what?
As I said in the very post you’re responding to, Joe, “in the developed world, even when abortion is illegal, women can often obtain safe abortions illegally from doctors, or by crossing borders.”
So illegal abortion was fairly safe for most women, yes. (Unless you want to assume that abortion was rare, in which case it was very unsafe).
But it certainly wasn’t as safe as legal abortion. Nor was it safe for the minority of women who ended up going to back-alley butcher types.
This is starting to sound remarkably like the people quibbling over the number of dead in Iraq.
Warhawks keep insisting “everything’s fine, only [triple digit number that keeps rising] U.S. citizens have died in Iraq.”
Anti-choicer’s keep insisting “everything’s fine, only [triple digit number that would have kept on rising] U.S. citizens have died in illegal abortions.”
Statements like that don’t comfort the dead or their families. In any case, one preventable death is one too many.
And of course, in both instances, the number of dead foreign citizens (Iraqis/abortion seeking women in third world countries) doesn’t even register in their minds.
I’ve heard a lot about “back-alley butcher types.” Say that they existed. Did they all go away when their operations were made legal? I’m not sure I understand why they would.
I guess there’s the theory that once abortion was legal, all these nice and professional doctors entered the business, and no one would go to the “butchers” any more. But what evidence is there that this is true?
Remember that when states try to make sure that abortions are done by legitimate doctors rather than physicians’ assistants, pro-abortion people rush into court to file lawsuits. See the Montana case, for example. And remember that physicians’ assistants typically don’t even have a college degree; all they need is two years of education. Now why would it be so important to abortionists to make sure that uneducated or untrained people can do abortions? Oh right, it’s because they care so much about widespread access to abortion (read: making more money).
Basically, I’d bet that abortion was done mostly by the same hacks, whether in 1972 or 1974. Even today, I’d bet that smart and decent medical students mostly want to practice real medicine, not hack fetuses to pieces all day long.
So where did these back-alley butchers go? How do you know that they all stopped as of 1973 and didn’t just move into “legitimate” clinics as “assistants”?
DRA says: Anti-choicer’s keep insisting “everything’s fine, only [triple digit number that would have kept on rising] U.S. citizens have died in illegal abortions.”
“Would have kept on rising”? Huh? Are you able to see the graph that Amp posted? Looks like the number of women killed by abortion dropped drastically in the decade prior to 1973.
Joe, the idea that medical students who perform abortions are somehow less “decent” than other medical students isn’t an argument; it’s a personal attack on pro-choice doctors. Don’t do it again, please: I’m not interested in such attacks.
As I said, “back-alley butchers” – which I use as a generic catagory for illegal abortion practitioners who had no idea what they were doing and were extremely likely to harm patients – were a minority. As I’ve said twice now, the majority of people who performed illegal abortions knew what they were doing (whoops! That’s three times!).
If I explain it to you a fourth time, will you acknowlege what I’ve written, or will you just continue ignoring it? Enough’s enough, Joe.
To answer your question: The extreme drop in abortion deaths is enough to prove that most of the unsafe practioners left the field as abortion was legalized.
Finally, Joe, in “the decade prior to 1973” abortion was gradually legalized in the US, as individual states legalized abortion; that’s probably what accounts for most of the drop in abortion fatalities in the 1960s. (An earlier drop was caused by improvements in medical techniques).
I would guess that there are other characteristics of illegal abortion that increases their danger as opposed to legal abortions. A woman who has obtained a legal abortion is probably more likely to seek out medical care in the case of complications arising from the abortion. I would guess that women who have obtained an illegal abortion would be less likely to seek out the same medical care for obvious reasons.
Also, and along the same lines, it seems to me that aborions done in clinic with onsite medical support are generally safer than ones done in secret whether backalley (and yeah I know they weren’t done literally in back alleys) or in relatively clean rooms.
That’s just a guess. I have nothing to back my guess up except common sense (an often poor basis for these things).
Joe sez:
“Would have kept on rising”? Huh? Are you able to see the graph that Amp posted? Looks like the number of women killed by abortion dropped drastically in the decade prior to 1973.”
There you go again. DROPPED, not VANISHED. And for the reasons explained by Amp.
And before you jump to the obvious next statement, there is no way to reduce abortion deaths to 0, just as there is no way to reduce childbirth deaths to 0. You can, however, work lower the number as much as possible, but that’s hard to do under illegality.
Jeez, it’s always quantity over quality with you folks. “We have proof that a majority in this country dissaproves of abortion” you say, never mind the fact that a duped and misinformed “majority” still can’t overrule a woman’s human rights.
Joe sez:
“Oh right, it’s because they care so much about widespread access to abortion (read: making more money).”
Oh not this again! Ok, one more time, if you were a conspiracy that had the power, resources, and influence to pass something as dramatic as Roe vs. Wade, why would you waste them on a high profile, “unpopular”, dangerous, and not that profitable sector like abortion? You would be much better off manipulating finance, or even legitimately endorsing TRULY profitable fields of medicine, as you would make a lot more money and there would be no crusaders and governmental interference (like the abortion restriction laws in most states) getting in your way.
I meant “decent” not to mean “morally decent,” as Amp seems to think, but “possessed of decent skills and training.” Anyway, if you want to think of that as an attack, so be it. Don’t most well-trained and educated medical students want to become surgeons, or cancer specialists, or neurologists, or something that actually helps heal people, unlike 99% of abortions?
Plus, I know that Amp (who is surprisingly honest) says that back-alley butchers were rare and that most abortions were safe even before Roe. Great. But most pro-abortion propaganda takes the opposite line: Displays of coat hangers over the least little restriction, the pretense that “butchers” would be doing all abortions if the Court reversed Roe (when anyone knows that it would make little difference in the vast majority of states), etc., etc. Amp can’t have missed these sorts of scare tactics; it’s how pro-abortion activists raise their money, after all. That’s more what I’m responding to.
DRA has a remarkable ability to 1) respond to things I never said, while 2) ignoring things that she herself said.
First, she claimed that abortion deaths would have “kept on rising,” even though they weren’t rising to begin with. This is obvious from Amp’s graph. She completely ignores her own falsehood, and instead tries to blame me for supposedly saying that deaths “vanished.” Instead, she says that they merely “dropped.”
Well, gee thanks. That’s exactly what I said: That they dropped.
Second, she pretends that I have theorized about some vast conspiracy to pass Roe. No. It’s really quite simple. What I said was absolutely true: Given the situation as it is, abortionists make more money if they can hire physicians’ assistants to do the abortions, rather than paying a doctor 4 or 5 times as much to do the same thing. The incentives are obvious: They want to make more money, as we all do.
But they’re not going to appear before journalists and say the truth: “We’re going to court to defend our sacred right to make more money by letting unprofessional people do abortions.” No, when they make public statements, it’s all about the sacred right of abortion, and how important it is to preserve access.
It’s a nice gig: Make more money while claiming that you’re just altruistically defending the Constitution. What’s surprising is that anyone falls for it.
Ok Joe, let’s walk you through it.
What I originally said:
“Anti-choicer’s keep insisting “everything’s fine, only [triple digit number that would have kept on rising] U.S. citizens have died in illegal abortions.”
Statements like that don’t comfort the dead or their families. In any case, one preventable death is one too many.”
I am not saying the RATE of deaths would have continued rising, I’m saying the TOTAL number of deaths would have continued rising, and that quibbling about “acceptable losses” in the name of dubious morality is disgusting.
You then eerily echo my spoof line of anti-choice dialogue (“everything’s fine, only XXX U.S. citizens have died in illegal abortions.”) with this real line: “Huh? Are you able to see the graph that Amp posted? Looks like the number of women killed by abortion dropped drastically in the decade prior to 1973.”
Like that makes it alright.
We must keep abortion legal in order to make it as safe as possible. As I said, 0 deaths is unnatainable, just as it is unnatainable with any major surgery and birth. Our goal is to minimize such deaths, and you are standing in the way.
“…the pretense that “butchers” would be doing all abortions if the Court reversed Roe (when anyone knows that it would make little difference in the vast majority of states)…”
Indeed, the overturn of Roe would make little difference…for RICH women! Poor women can’t afford to travel to a state or country where it is still legal and safe, especially if they have jobs and already existing children. I can easily see back alley butchers emerging in that scenario. Then again, I can also see JANE being re-activated…
Joe sez:
“Don’t most well-trained and educated medical students want to become surgeons, or cancer specialists, or neurologists, or something that actually helps heal people, unlike 99% of abortions?”
You’re assuming all doctors think the way you do. There are many who would consider the opportunity to give a woman control of her future, not to mention a chance of surviving a flawed pregnancy, a worthwhile endeavor. They’re quite brave, considering that there are many in your movement who are still itching to shoot or bomb them. No brain surgeon has to fear that fate.
There were a signifigant number of DIY abortions before Roe v. Wade that never made the official radar. I was fortunate to survive one myself after having 3 children in 4 years. Prior to 1973, abortion in a medical setting was available to the wives, daughters and girl friends of the wealthy, the politically connected and medical insiders. Once abortion became legal, the price also dropped. A first trimester abortion performed in a clinic cost $250 and one performed in a hospital was over $2000. Illegal abortionists charged what the traffic would bear. Before Roe, Cook County Hospital (Illinois)had one ward dedicated to patients being treated for post-abortion complications from illegal abortions. Three years after Roe, the ward was used for gyne-surg patients, post-abortion admissions having become infrequent. Before Roe, social workers were not permitted to provide information or referrals for contraception. This changed after Roe.
Joe sez:
“Given the situation as it is, abortionists make more money if they can hire physicians’ assistants to do the abortions, rather than paying a doctor 4 or 5 times as much to do the same thing. The incentives are obvious: They want to make more money, as we all do.”
How about this obvious incentive: If a doctor costs 4 or 5 times more, then his salary has to be paid at the expense of the patients, which can be prohibitive for poor women.
And my point still stands: If you’re only in it for the money then there are MUCH better and safer ways to turn medical skills and logistics into cash.
Prior to Roe, there were a couple of major developments that helped reduce the number of illegal abortion fatalities:
1. Several states loosened their restrictions on abortion, either dropping them all together or adding a mental health exception. This meant that women who could get together the money (like my mom, who got it from among her friends since she was not at all rich) could travel to the legal states or visit psychiatrists who were sympathetic.
2. Services like the Clergy Consultation Service developed to help women find safe practitioners of legal abortions.
3. The suction method of abortion, where a vacuum is used to remove the fetus from the uterus was developed. This is much safer than the D&C, where invasive instruments are used to scrape the uterine walls (a technique originally developed to complete natural miscarriages). In “Doctors of Conscience” one doctor describe D&C as scraping the inside of a wet paper bag filled with wet cotton balls and only removing the cotton balls without damaging the bag. This method, when performed by untrained people, resulted in uterine perforations (tears), infections, and sometimes death. Also developed at this time was the saline method, in which saline solution is used to dehydrate the fetus, which is then expelled naturally.
4. Many doctors became aware of the dangers of illegal abortion and began to bend the rules to help their patients get abortions via the “theraputic abortion” committees- for instance, lying about rubella exposure or suicide risks. Some even began to perform abortions in their own offices.
Right. The abortionists went to court just so that they could keep helping “poor women.” Why, the thought that they would be able to make more money just never even crossed their minds!
Come on. How naive do you think I am? Every business wants to make more money by any means possible. You expect me to believe that abortionists are just in it for purely charitable reasons?
As for there being better ways to make money, that’s true, but once again, you are inventing arguments to respond to, rather than actually considering anything that I’ve said. You are pretending that I said, “The reason people choose to become abortionists is just so that they could make the most money possible.” If I had said that, it would be rational to respond by pointing out that it is theoretically possible to make more money in other professions.
What I actually said was very different: “Given that abortionists have chosen to perform abortions as a way of making a living, they’d rather make more money than less. And gee, maybe when they file lawsuits that result in them making more money, that could be their real interest.”
Joe sez:
“As for there being better ways to make money, that’s true, but once again, you are inventing arguments to respond to, rather than actually considering anything that I’ve said. You are pretending that I said, “The reason people choose to become abortionists is just so that they could make the most money possible.” If I had said that, it would be rational to respond by pointing out that it is theoretically possible to make more money in other professions.”
Question your motivations Joe. Why are you going to such lengths to emphasize that abortion providers want to make money just like everyone else? I think it’s because you want to make people condemn them as greedy ghouls who value money more than patients. People who condemn them will then turn a blind eye as you restrict them into oblivion.
But as you are now willing to concede, greed cannot be the primary motivation of the majority of abortion providers, since there are better and safer fields for greed. Your greedy ghoul image is therefore dubious.
This does not mean there are no abortion providers out there who juggle greed and patient interests, but they are rare exceptions rather than the rule, just like in any other specialized field of medicine. In any case the reasonable solution to such rare transgressions is the normal investigative and sanctioning procedure for medical practicioners.
That’s not what you and your ilk are after though. You exaggerate not to encourage reform, but to ban.
I don’t think you are naive. I think you know exactly what you are doing. And I think it is unbecomingly cynical and duplicitous.
I’m just pointing out that abortionists are normal people — i.e., interested in themselves, interested in making more money, etc. That’s just the way people are. (How old are you, that you haven’t noticed this yet?) I’m trying to counter this image of the abortionist as the heroic noble figure who is just pureheartedly trying to defend the Constitution and never thinks of himself. Baloney.
Anyway, back to the subject, if abortionists are really interested in making abortions safe and in keeping out the “butchers,” why WOULD they file lawsuits to keep abortions from being done by legitimate doctors with actual training? They like to pretend that they are just defending the Constitution. To anyone who isn’t totally naive, it’s more likely that they are interested in money over safety.
This doesn’t mean that they are “ghouls,” which is another word that you pretend that I said. It just means that they are normal people.
Joe sez:
“I’m just pointing out that abortionists are normal people — i.e., interested in themselves, interested in making more money, etc. That’s just the way people are. (How old are you, that you haven’t noticed this yet?) I’m trying to counter this image of the abortionist as the heroic noble figure who is just pureheartedly trying to defend the Constitution and never thinks of himself. Baloney.”
Nobody was claiming they were all perfect. You on the other hand, only dwell on failed exceptions, and offer only illegalization as a solution. Your agenda is showing, and it is not benevolent despite your attempts to mask that fact.
Joe sez:
“This doesn’t mean that they are “ghouls,” which is another word that you pretend that I said. It just means that they are normal people.”
Once again playing literalist. No, you didn’t say “ghouls” but you might as well have. Here are some of the things you said about them:
“Don’t most well-trained and educated medical students want to become surgeons, or cancer specialists, or neurologists, or something that actually helps heal people, unlike 99% of abortions?”
and:
“Even today, I’d bet that smart and decent medical students mostly want to practice real medicine, not hack fetuses to pieces all day long.”
According to you providing abortions is not “real medicine” and “doesn’t help people”, and on top of that those who practice it are all out for money. I repeat, your agenda is showing.
“Anyway, back to the subject, if abortionists are really interested in making abortions safe and in keeping out the “butchers,” why WOULD they file lawsuits to keep abortions from being done by legitimate doctors with actual training? They like to pretend that they are just defending the Constitution. To anyone who isn’t totally naive, it’s more likely that they are interested in money over safety.”
I repeat, for all you know if a doctor costs 4 or 5 times more, then his salary has to be paid at the expense of the patients, which can be prohibitive for poor women (which is what YOU are after, denial of service).
Keep in mind the majority of abortion procedures, such as suction and saline injection, are very simple and very safe, and do not require a grand master surgeon to perform. Since doctors are a limited resource with finite time on their hands, making doctors mandatory for such procedures would make it even harder for poor women to obtain them. Once again, this is about YOUR agenda.
By the way, you linked to a Montana case to try and prove your point. Didn’t you even read that link? It comes down pretty much on OUR side. Here’s some of it:
“In a sweeping opinion, the Court held that the law infringed on the explicit right of individual privacy guaranteed by the Montana Constitution: “[w]hen, as in the case at bar, the legislature thrusts itself into this protected zone of individual privacy under the guise of protecting the patient’s health, but, in reality, does so because of prevailing political ideology and the unrelenting pressure from individuals and organizations promoting their own beliefs and values, then the state’s infringement of personal autonomy is not only constitutionally impermissible, it is, as well, intellectually and morally indefensible.”
And:
“Drafted by anti-choice legislators, Montana’s ban was intended to impair the ability of the lead plaintiff, James Armstrong, M.D., to provide abortion services by stopping him from utilizing his physician assistant, Susan Cahill, from performing the procedure. Cahill has provided early abortion services under the supervision of Dr. Armstrong for twenty years, with the approval of the Montana Board of Medical Examiners. Given the already critical shortage of abortion services nationwide – they are located in only 16 percent of all counties – the use of physician assistants increases access to already inaccessible medical services.
Armstrong and Cahill have been the target of extreme anti-choice aggression since 1992, including an arson attack that severely damaged their offices. Schemes hatched by anti-choice activists to have Armstrong and Cahill criminally prosecuted under various statutes have been thwarted by the courts. Montana District Court Judge Jeffrey M. Sherlock issued a preliminary injunction against the law in November, 1997.”
You’re getting sloppy Joe.
Thanks, Amp, for the shout-out.
People on both sides use words to de-humanize people who don’t agree with them. (Including me, I’m sure, at times.)
The two phrases that are the least likely to inspire a dialogue that might find some common ground are “pro-abortion” (especially when shortened into the ugly “pro-abort”, as in “the pro-aborts”) and “anti-choice”.
I’ve had people on both sides who use those words earnestly explain to me why those words are true, good, right and just.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. As Dr. Phil would say, “Is that working for you?”
I am old enough to remember when abortion was illegal. I also had uncles who were gynocologists and psychiatrists. They all said that one of the most horrific excperiences of their medical training as residents was seeing teenage girls come in dying agonizingly of sepsis from botched abortions. Nobody, especially a child, should have to die like this.
These doctors said that the experience made them vow to provide safe abortions in future to whoever requested them for whatever reason. Done properly an early abortion carries about as much risk to the patient as tooth cleaning.
I am sure from the fervor with which they spoke (and they were by no means unrepresentative) that pressure from the medical profession helped get Roe vs Wade passed.
As for the stats, maternal death stats as a whole included deaths from botched abortions.
Whether is is one or a hundred or a thousand, no young woman should have to die for this reason.
I had a quick look at the After Abortion blog.. My impression is, this is the only dramatic thing that has ever happened in this poor woman’s life. Imagine basing a whole blog on one life event. People don’t even do that with the birth of their children– well, maybe some do, but they wouldn’t get much currency. This person needs help, therapy, and lots of it. I don’t dispute her right to her opinion, but this level of obsessiveness is truly bizarre.
Well, it’s not a blog based on “one life event,” as in this woman’s own abortion. It is a blog that looks at news about the entire issue of abortion. If the author needs “help,” it is only because she realizes that she once did a terrible thing in aborting a child of hers.
Helen does bring up an interesting thought though.
The whole abortion debate is pretty much an issue of the privileged. Only people who have nothing to fear from, and rarely have to look upon, malnutrition, lack of education, lack of employment opportunities, domestic violence, high crime rates, dangerous work conditions, pay disparity, bigotry, and exposure to the elements are in a position to prioritize whiny self-righteous crusades over abstract issues like fetal personhood. The pre-born are so much easier to romanticize than chain-smoking Shakira who has four fatherless children under a crumbling tenement roof.
Joe M:
Well, it’s not a blog based on “one life event,” as in this woman’s own abortion. It is a blog that looks at news about the entire issue of abortion.
The only thing “Emily” is interested in is stories of women who regret having had an abortion. She doesn’t even particularly care whether the stories are true, let alone whether they are even remotely representative of the totality of women who have abortions. Her blog is just anti-abortion propaganda.
Helen–
In Abortion: Still A Dirty Word, Guardian columnist Julie Burchill–who has had five abortions–expresses a feeling similar to yours:
Me-ism – psychiatry, psychoanalysis, any sort of navel-gazing – has to take part of the blame for the demonisation of abortion. The idea that everything we do or have done to us stays with us forever is a reactionary and self-defeating reading of modern life. No doubt if you’re the sort of lumbering, self-obsessed poltroon who believes that seeing Mommy kissing Santa Claus 30 years ago irrevocably marked your life, you wouldn’t get over an abortion, as you wouldn’t get over stubbing your toe without professional help. But you choose to be that way, because you are weak and vain, and you think your pain is important. Whereas the rest of us know not only that our pain is not important, but that it probably isn’t even pain – just too much time on our hands.
In I’m so glad I had all those abortions, Theresa Burke and Leslie Graves of the post-abortion ministry Rachel’s Vineyard offer some thoughts on Burchill’s perspective.
Don P.–
Joe M. said about you in another comments thread, “he still doesn’t have a life outside of trying to be the Supreme Defender of Abortion On The Internet.”
I admire the passion and drive you bring to all the thinking and commenting you have done on this issue.
I’m curious about what motivates you to be particularly interested in abortion.
Don, to a great extent my blog is pro-choice propaganda. What’s wrong with that? There’s nothing wrong with using a website for advocacy.
Emily sez:
“In I’m so glad I had all those abortions, Theresa Burke and Leslie Graves of the post-abortion ministry Rachel’s Vineyard offer some thoughts on Burchill’s perspective.”
*reads link*
Ah, it’s the good old “women just naturally aren’t complete without children” shtick. I just never get tired of that *pukes*.
These people need to believe so badly that their “pain” is universal that they project it on everyone. To admit that there are healthy people who don’t consider it a major life event is to admit personal pettiness.
[Expanding on my previous post]
In fact, it reminds me of proselytizing Christians who convince themselves that EVERYONE (Hindus, Muslims, Bhuddists, agnostics, atheists, etc.) has in fact felt the “presence of Jesus” but refuses to admit it. Such christians then conclude that all they have to do is pester, harass, cajole, and culturally batter people enough that “the obviousness of Jesus” will do the rest of the converting work for them.
Trying to capitalize on your false assumptions of other people is not only a doomed strategy, it is an extremely insulting and counterproductive one.
DRA pukes (sorry, her term): “Ah, it’s the good old ‘women just naturally aren’t complete without children’ shtick.”
I challenge DRA to specify the part of the Rachel’s Vineyard article that endorses that “shtick.” She won’t be able to, of course, because there is no such endorsement and no shtick. Seems that DRA is capitalizing on her own false assumptions of other people. (I hear that that’s doomed, counterproductive, and insulting to boot.)
I don’t want to endorse that Guardian article, which was mean-spirited and insulting to women who are haunted by their past abortions.
But I do think there was a serious point in there (if you strip it of its blame-the-sufferer ideology); which is that how an event effects us isn’t just dependant on the event, but on the person.
For instance, I’ve followed a few links from “After Abortion” to stories of/by men who grieve because of the death of their still-in-the-womb child.
I once accidentally got a girlfriend pregnant; from what she said (I didn’t know about any of this until well after the fact), she had a miscarriage.
I didn’t mourn. I don’t feel bad about it, other than regretting the unhappiness my ex was put through. The main thing I felt, when I heard about it, was relief; I wouldn’t have welcomed the responsibility, and I definitely wouldn’t have welcomed having this particular ex-girlfriend become a permanent fixture in my life.
I don’t think my lack of mourning makes me a better or stronger person than men who mourn similar losses. Nor do I think I’m less loving of children or more cold-hearted than those men. I just reacted in a different way, that’s all.
But I do think people are better off (happier, better-adjusted) if they can, mentally, move on. Some of the “I regret my abortion” folks have built major parts of their lives and their thought structures around events that happened three decades ago or more. I don’t fault them for that, but I wonder if it’s the heathiest thing for them.
Then again, I don’t think people consciously choose which scars heal and which scars fester. People who can put things behind them aren’t stronger, or better; they’re just luckier, in my opinion.
But then at other moments I think, if you continually feed a scar and obsess on it, then of course it won’t ever fade.
But then, it’s not like people conciously choose to have a “feed the scar” personality or not; that too may be a matter of luck.
So then I get nowhere. Which is pretty much where this post has gone. :-)
Those are good points, Amp.
If you took a survey today of everyone who lost a family member on September 11, 2001, some of them would be much more back on their feet than others.
It’s hard to know why some people react more intensely/negatively to losses than others.
Whatever the loss, I think people do better long-term if they can identify and work through the loss sooner rather than later.
In the case of abortion (or miscarriage), some people don’t experience it as a loss initially, but may experience it that way later.
Your girlfriend’s miscarriage might take on a different meaning for you if you turned 60 without having had any other kids.
As one bereavement counselor points out, if a loss from decades ago starts to bother a person, that doesn’t mean that the pain has been there in a suppressed form all along. It might be that new life events or experiences cause the person to look back and see that old event differently and as more of a loss.
Your girlfriend’s miscarriage might take on a different meaning for you if you turned 60 without having had any other kids.
You’re assuming having kids is the point of life. It’s not fair to assume all people think this way.
To be fair, she didn’t say it “would” take on a different meaning, which would be assuming that I think that way; she said it “might” take on a different meaning, which just means it’s possible that I could someday think that way.
And it is possible. Although I hope that won’t be the case, since I wouldn’t want future-me to be unhappy.
Also, it’s possible to regret not having kids without thinking that having kids is the exclusive point of life. It might be one of many possible “points” of life, for instance.
It’s obvious to me that, for many people, raising children is an enourmous pleasure in their life. Maybe I will regret not having children – but surely everyone, looking back on their life, can find some regrets for roads not taken. It doesn’t mean that you think the road you did take was necessarily a mistake.
(Anyone else know the song “the road you didn’t take,” from the musical Follies? I love that song.)
Pangloss sez:
“I challenge DRA to specify the part of the Rachel’s Vineyard article that endorses that “shtick.” She won’t be able to, of course, because there is no such endorsement and no shtick. Seems that DRA is capitalizing on her own false assumptions of other people. (I hear that that’s doomed, counterproductive, and insulting to boot.)”
To which I respond with the following extract from the Article:
“It’s natural that interacting with a child or listening to a woman on television share about an abortion would surface Julie’s own loss.”
Julie expresses no sense of loss, in fact stating that she’s glad not to have children, but Rachel implies she’s in denial.
Julie Burchill: “I have no regrets, so if you have regrets you’re weak-minded.”
Burke and Graves: “We have regrets, so if you don’t have regrets you’re in denial.”
There seems to be some interesting symmetry going on there. Some people genuinely don’t have regrets, some people have regrets that don’t debilitate them, some people have regrets that take years of working through. The only ones I can’t understand are the ones who think availability of abortion is a bad thing because it “caused” their regrets. Everyone else, it’s all part of the variety of the human race.
DRA: “Julie expresses no sense of loss, in fact stating that she’s glad not to have children, but Rachel implies she’s in denial.”
But even if that’s an accurate reading of the Rachel’s article, it bears no relation to “the good old ‘women just naturally aren’t complete without children’ shtick,” which was DRA’s original putdown.
The Rachel’s article is concerned only with post-abortion feelings of loss. The only way DRA’s original putdown could be correct is if the article implied that ALL childless women, even those who never had abortions, must experience feelings of loss or be in denial about such feelings. Obviously, the article implies no such thing. DRA’s slag simply reflects her own [false] assumptions.
Pangloss sez:
“The Rachel’s article is concerned only with post-abortion feelings of loss. The only way DRA’s original putdown could be correct is if the article implied that ALL childless women, even those who never had abortions, must experience feelings of loss or be in denial about such feelings. Obviously, the article implies no such thing. DRA’s slag simply reflects her own [false] assumptions.”
Oh come on Pangloss, it’s implicit that what she is supposed to be regretting is the absence of a child in her life! Read the quote again:
“It’s natural that interacting with a child or listening to a woman on television share about an abortion would surface Julie’s own loss.”
“Loss” of what? If you truly want to be disingenuous you could spin it to “loss of health,” but in this context it is reasonable for me to assume she means “loss of a child,” and therefore seeks to pull off a creamy anti-choice double-dollop: Not only did she “kill” a “child,” but she violated her “child-craving female instincts!”
And let’s be honest, reading some of what Rachel has posted on that blog, and keeping in mind the conservative leaning of the average anti-choicer, is it such a stretch to assume she takes conservative gender roles seriously?
DRA sez: “If you truly want to be disingenuous you could spin it to “loss of health,” but in this context it is reasonable for me to assume she means “loss of a child,” and therefore seeks to pull off a creamy anti-choice double-dollop: Not only did she “kill” a “child,” but she violated her “child-craving female instincts!”
Of course — the loss and regret due to abortion that the article describes is the loss of one’s own child, or due to feelings of “kill[ing] a child,” in your words.
But what in the world does that have to do with the notion that ‘women just naturally aren’t complete without children’?
In other words, how the heck do you get from (A) feelings of loss/regret/guilt over abortion, to (B) “child-craving female instincts”?
Where do you get off labeling the pain of women (and men, for that matter) who regret the loss of their own child via abortion as some sort of fraudulent, instinctive behavior? (Obviously, their feelings are too politically incorrect for you to even acknowledge.)
DRA, you apparently can’t (or won’t) recognize where the article ends and your own narrow assumptions take over.
Although I’ve generally decided that Pangloss is just plain too rude to engage in debate with, I feel compelled to toss a quick comment in here.
Deep River Apartments (BTW, is that a Blue Velvet reference?), your reaction is totally reasonable. You’re not reading anything into the article that isn’t obviously there already. Rachel’s assumptions aren’t even really hidden, and I’m kind of amazed there’s any argument about it.
—JRC
Pangloss sez:
“In other words, how the heck do you get from (A) feelings of loss/regret/guilt over abortion, to (B) “child-craving female instincts”?”
and:
“Of course — the loss and regret due to abortion that the article describes is the loss of one’s own child, or due to feelings of “kill[ing] a child,” in your words.”
Julie CLEARLY states that she’s glad not to have children and dismisses the so-called pain of the past-abortion-obsessed. If she doesn’t want children and feels that abortion itself is no big deal (she’s had four or five), what is she supposed to regret? Rachel opines that Julie is in denial, using these exact words:
“It’s natural that interacting with a child or listening to a woman on television share about an abortion would surface Julie’s own loss.”
Loss of what? Regret of what? Rachel is effectively accusing Julie of lying about not wanting a child (as you yourself admit in your second quote above). And what proof does Rachel have that Julie might secretly want a child? None… except her assumption that all women must really want children, and that any woman who says otherwise is lying.
JRC sez:
“Deep River Apartments (BTW, is that a Blue Velvet reference?)…”
Thanks for the support JRC, and yes, it is a Blue Velvet/Mulholland Drive reference.
I agree that the line quoted in the article by Burke/Graves (or, as they are being referred to here, “Rachel”), which says:
“It’s natural that interacting with a child or listening to a woman on television share about an abortion would surface Julie’s own loss.”
is catty, for lack of a better word. I interpret it about the same way that DRA does.
I didn’t catch it when I re-read their article or I wouldn’t have posted the link, since I don’t want to spread that meme.
What I *did* like in their article was where they talk about how post-abortive women who are haunted by their abortions tend to have a self-hating attitude about their inability to lay that event to rest that agrees with attitudes of contempt that may be directed to them/us.
Well since you’re so nice about it Emily, I’ll confess that perhaps I was too brash in uncritically siding with Julie’s partly unfair venom. I’ve fended off so many malicious ploys and manipulative PR tricks from the anti-choice side that I tend to instinctively close ranks with anyone defending the pro-choice side, even if they are lacking in nuance…or maybe BECAUSE they are lacking in nuance. It can get so tempting to use the same extreme rhetoric as the other side after seeing them get away with it for so long.
As you can tell, I have become especially testy toward anti-choice, anti-feminist women who falsely insist they speak for their entire gender in all matters, which leads me into unfairly mistreating the genuinely hurt post-abortive minority who aren’t wittingly out to impose theocratic restrictions and bans on the rest. I just naturally assume that this minority is a political tool waiting to be exploited by unscrupulous anti-choicers, and my fear is justified given that many of them have been used in such a fashion with little complaint.
That said, I stand by the gist of Julie’s critique, and I think post-abortive women who endure effects similar to post-pregnancy disorders yet continue to suffer much longer than they should would be well served in considering the effects of culturally instilled guilt and fear on their state (as well as the possibility that they are encouraged by certain factions to blow out of proportion one of the only dramatic hardships to happen to them). How much of the “disorder” is hormonal and how much is socialized psychosomatic self-hatred? Which is a woman more likely to believe is the major cause when she has been raised in a culture torn over sexual freedom and the place of women?
I’m tired of hearing about how all of the abortion providers are in it to make money; that the increasing role that Advanced Practice Clinician’s are playing in delivering safe abortion care is motivated by some great money making scheme.
Right now, the average cost of a first trimester abortion in the United States is about $350. In the early 80’s it was $200. If abortion kept up with basic inflation, the average cost would be about $700-$800. If it kept up with the cost of most medical services, it would be more than $1000. Because the providers of abortion in this country care about access more than large profits, the cost of abortion in the first trimester has stayed remarkably low. In fact, we are fast approaching a crisis where providers might not be able to afford to provide the service.
As for PA’s providing surgical abortion care in one or two states, and NP’s providing Mifeprex and misoprostol in increasingly more states, this is serving to increase access to early abortion in remarkable ways.
While first trimester abortion is a relatively simple procedure, most dorctors who provide the service feel a great deal of pride in being able to offer an important service. Many doctors are also experts in other fields within OB/GYN. The doctors who perform second trimester procedures are very skilled surgeons. Unlike these surgeons, most surgeons don’t have to deal with providing medical care under death threats, bomb threats, and now the threat that medical practice become criminalized.
For those women who do have a hard time after their abortions, my heart goes out. If you are all in a place to do so, it is always helpful to share what might have made the process better. Was the informed consent session lacking? Can you write the clinic and share that maybe they could go further? If not, that is understandable too. We as providers are always trying to improve the quality of our service, and that is more than just the surgical technique.
Also, there is an incredible group in the San Francisco area that has put together a post-abortion hotline. They are not abortion providers, nor are the political advocates. They don’t have any religious affiliation, though they are not uncomfortable with religion entering into the post-abortion conversation. They come from the perspective that abortion is a normal part of women’s reproductive lives and that there are many different emotional reactions to abortion. Both sides of the political debate are unable to meet the needs of many of these women, so this organization is trying to do so. You can visit their website at http://www.4exhale.org/Pages/home.html or call 1-866-4-Exhale. All of their referral network is in the Bay area, but they will talk with women around the country.
DRA writes:
“I just naturally assume that this minority is a political tool waiting to be exploited by unscrupulous anti-choicers, and my fear is justified given that many of them have been used in such a fashion with little complaint.”
There is an element of truth to this.
There are people in the pro-life contingent who exploit suffering post-abortive women, and who encourage women in very early stages of healing to tell their stories in public. This serves an agenda and it does not serve the cause of wholeness and healing.
I believe that post-abortive women who are experiencing a lot of guilt can fall in with this agenda because they hope it will alleviate these painful feelings.
I agree that few complain about this, and I can see why that would cause you to lift an eyebrow.
The dynamic there is complicated. One of the complications is women not wanting to bite the hands that underwrite genuinely effective and helpful post-abortion support groups.
It would be ideal if post-abortion support groups were autonomously funded. That’s not the case (with one exception, here).
I’ll have to write more on this someday.
A quick add-on to the above. I co-lead a post-abortion support group in real life. It’s a time limited group that we do twice a year. At the end, we talk about areas for further exploration and healing.
We made a policy decision not to mention “speak out in public” groups like Silent No More to our group members.
A number of people who come to our group are people whose abortion decision was to some extent based on a desire to please someone else.
It’s hard to get over that people-pleasing dynamic in life. We don’t want to suggest activities (speaking in public about abortion regrets) to people who might feel an obligation to do that because they like us, and we helped them.
Emily sez:
“A number of people who come to our group are people whose abortion decision was to some extent based on a desire to please someone else.”
Brrrr, well you’ve got my support in that at least. The idea of having an abortion to please someone else is as repugnant to me as not having an abortion from fear of displeasing someone else. The sooner we can free women from the “please everyone but yourself at any cost” attitude the better.
need to no where the womans aborion canter is in canton,ohio
need to no where the womans aborion canter is in canton,ohio.
Shannon,
Is the abortion canter the person who sings at abortions? I wasn’t aware that such an occupation existed. Live and learn.
Shannon,
I will love and take care of your baby.
I would like to reply to these comments in my usual songblog style. If you’d like information on my pro-life songblog free MP3:
Portrait of The Last Days of Terri Schiavo, you can read the press release via this link:
http://www.catholic.org/prwire/headline.php?ID=1366
Dr. Bruce L. Thiessen
aka Dr. B.L.T., The Pro-life Song Blogger
About Julie Burchill’s article, I’ve been reading her for years and the tone she uses here is pretty much the tone she uses all the time (she wrote similarly unapolagetic article about her past cocaine use). This is just the way she writes – she’s neither in denial nor going out of her way to attack women who regret their abortions. It’s just a matter of personality and writing style.
I agree that Rachel’s website reeks of the assumption that since she feels regret over her abortion, all other women must feel that same. Ideology aside, she is incorrect. I know women who’ve had abortions and not experienced any trauma or mourning at all – they were simply relieved it was over.
I’m firmly pro-choice and would support abortion on demand, but I don’t think that it does any good to condemn people like Emily who do seem to be genuinely grieving their abortions. I think they deserve our compassion and our sympathy. However, I also think that they need to acknowledge that not all women feel the same way and that to some of us abortion really is no big deal. I think that women who regret having abortions need to own their decisions and admit that if they really believe that what they did was wrong then the fault lies not with the fact that abortion is legal, but with themselves for making what was for them a bad decision. Tehy need to acnowledge that just because it was a bad decision for them does not mean that it is a bad decision for other women.
You notice that Erin—who says she will love and take care of Shannon’s baby—-never left an email address or any means of contact, and never came back?
Yeah, that helps.