Anti-Choicers Switching up Strategy?
The Washington Post has a piece up about the anti-choice movement's next moves now that Obama has been elected. Some movement leaders are abandoning their strategy to overturn Roe, instead focusing on ways to reduce the number of abortions. (Well, not really - but I'll get at that in a minute.)
Some of the activists are actually working with abortion rights advocates to push for legislation in Congress that would provide pregnant women with health care, child care and money for education -- services that could encourage them to continue their pregnancies....Although the activists insist that they are not retreating from their belief that abortion is immoral and should be outlawed, they argue that a more practical alternative is to try to reduce abortions through other means.
And yet, contraception is not mentioned once. I think that increased health and child care opportunities for women are a great thing - and frankly, it's about time the folks who blather on about fetuses start supporting social programs that actually help people - but the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. That means birth control.
Despite efforts from pro-choice groups like NARAL Pro-Choice America - who launched their Prevention First campaign calling on anti-choice groups to support increased contraception access for a mutual goal of decreasing unwanted pregnancies - and proposed legislation like the Prevention First Act, anti-choicers continue to turn a blind eye. That's because reducing unwanted pregnancies isn't their goal, and they don't want women to realize that anti-choice groups don't support access to contraception-something 98% of American women will use at some point during their reproductive lives.
I also must admit that I'm wary of what kind of legislation anti-choicers have in mind when they talk about programs to support pregnant women. It's not like conservatives and anti-choicers have done such a good job in the past trying to "encourage" women to be mothers and wives.
So really, I fail to see how this is a change of strategy at all-anti-choice groups are going to continue to try and block access to contraception and limit women's reproductive choices. Sounds like the same old shit to me.
This entry is cross-posted from feministing.com, where Jessica Valenti is Executive Editor.
What do you want to bet this is a way to try and get federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers and/or reinstate the gag rule? Because, yes, the maternal-health, prenatal-care and daycare/education efforts that anti-choicers have opposed in the past do give some help to poor women who would like to continue pregnancies, but any place that does those things is also going to have women coming in the door saying, "I don't want this pregnancy, can you help me terminate it?"
And it seems unlikely to me that the anti-choicers would be willing to fund anything that results in abortions or referrals for same, even if the numbers are lower than they would otherwise be.
November 19, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Right! It's a trap.
November 19, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if they are coming around to a rational concern for the good and welfare of children who are already born -- fine. For too long the anti's have been totally unwilling to strongly support what is actually necessary to raise a child, as a single mom or in a marriage where both parties, of necessity, must work. This should have always been a given in this debate, but it hasn't been -- and all too many anti's have been like GWBush -- no stem cell research, no sanction for reproductive choice, no birth control --- but on top of that, no Children's Health Insurance, no way, no how. And before any coalitions are formed with the anti's or former anti's -- recognition of the whole list of what one might call "children's rights" with reference to Health, Education, some degree of economic security, needs to be part of any coalition package.
The Pro-Choice position is quite different however, as it recognizes the singular and unique right of any woman to make her decisions about reproductive issues. Her rights to decide are not diminished by her gender. I doubt if the anti's will ever accept this proposition (which is the law) nor will any of their movements and in particular, the institutions that support them. It is critical that these matters forever remain separate and distant -- Health and Welfare rights of Children being one issue, and the civil rights of women to reproductive choices quite something else. Any potential coalition needs to make that very clear.
November 19, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much thanks for using the correct term, "anti-choice."
November 19, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Likely "faith-based programs" - which, as some have said above, may be more focused on scaring the pregnant person that helping her. But I am all for any of these folks who want to stop abortions stepping up to the plate and personally guaranteeing childcare and food, clothing, shelter type assistance to a person who is pregnant and for whatever reason feels she simply can't handle having (another) baby.
November 19, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's worth trying to work with the faith-based community on this issue. A pregnant woman is already pregnant--so much for the contraception discussion for the moment.
The problem that will have to be resolved is the question of how many choices a pregnant woman has. In the faith based world, she can choose to keep the child or give it up for adoption. In what some of us like to call the real world, she can also choose to terminate the pregnancy.
Working together to provide three good choices for pregnant women is a good idea. The faith-based folks will need to deal with real pregnant people and acknowledge that abortion is one path they can take. Those who favor abortion will need to make their case.
Sometimes when people who don't agree try to work together it's a fiasco. But sometimes, the tension forces a higher level of respect, compassion and good sense from everybody. I think this is worth a shot.
November 20, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
@Erica:
I would also add that there are many in the faith-based community--albeit not the Evangelical or Catholic hierarchy (which represents only a segment of the faith-based community)--who are pro-choice.
November 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink