When I toured the country screening the trilogy, in every community I heard stories like the following from clinic workers: Anti-abortion activists, who demonstrate on the sidewalks outside clinics, experience a change of heart if they become unintentionally pregnant.They would come to the clinics they had been picketing,now asking for help, feeling many of the same feelings any woman might feel, but also ashamed and apologetic. If they requested an abortion, they would usually say first:"My situation is different, I am not like those other women who come here." Then, they would explain their situation, which was exactly like what those "other women" go through. Abortion clinicians are trained to make no judgments and these women are served respectfully.
But here is the
strange part that reveals how deeply these anti-abortion feelings are supported
by ideology. Over and over, clinic workers reported that soon
after these women get abortions, most of them would be back on the
picket lines.The most vivid story about this
phenomenon,which I will never forget,is this: In Montana, I met a
family doctor, who also performs abortions. He showed me a full page ad,
accusing him of murder, which appears every year. Every year it is signed by
hundreds of "pro-life" community members.
And every year, he takes a yellow magic marker and quietly highlights the names of the dozens of women, who have signed their names to the ad,for whom he has provided abortions. He doesn't post that ad anywhere, he just tears it out, and keeps it filed away to help him remember to keep things in perspective. So, as you can see, one of the major emotional blocks for those who take an anti-abortion stance -to feeling empathy for women who chose abortion-is denial.
What a powerful image. Even after Roe v Wade, [1973] opponents of abortion rights never gave up. In the March 11th Alternet article, Meet the man behind Utah's New Law Criminalizing Miscarriages, Rep. Wimmer is quoted as saying, "The overturning of Roe is a definite goal. I don't know if this will happen in my lifetime, but I won't stop trying." They've successfully eroded access to legal services through several strategies: legislative and through clinic protests. Before we talk about the ways they did this, can you tell our readers what the results have been? Exactly how much has access to legal abortion been curtailed, largely as a result of these tactics?
I'd like to start by going over some recently updated statistics. First of all, an overarching reality is the fact that there is a significant lack of available services in the United States. Recent surveys confirm that more than 80% of all U.S. counties simply have no safe, legal abortion services. When no service is available locally, the result is significant economic segregation. If a woman with money becomes unintentionally pregnant, she can still pay (as women did a century ago) her own gynecologist to privately terminate a pregnancy. Or she can fly elsewhere.
Low-income women must travel long distances, often by bus, missing work, or find alternative solutions. These range from finding an illegal abortion to giving birth and giving the baby up for adoption. Certain legal restrictions also affect low income women: seventeen states prohibit certain private, federal, and/or state funded insurance plans from covering abortion services Another problem looming on the horizon is that 57% of the doctors who perform abortions are over the age of 50. Who will replace them? Medical students who observe what these doctors suffer - particularly threats of violence and harassment are understandably hesitant to become targets themselves. Their fears are substantiated by these facts.
Last year,
alone, there were more than 10,000reportedacts of violence and
disruption aimed at abortion providers. Plus, doctors and others
who don't want to participant are increasingly protected by law. Forty-seven
states and the District of Columbia, with support from the federal
government allow certain individuals or entities to refuse to provide women
specific health services, information, or referrals.
The decline in services and accessibility is due partly to the steady rise in legal restrictions. Between 1985 and 1999, throughout the United States, an average of eleven new legal abortion restrictions were enacted each year. Since 2000, the rate risen to an average of sixteen per year. These laws are coupled with technically unconstitutional and legally unenforceable "bans", which despite their illegality, are carried out. Thirty two states have laws subjecting women seeking abortions to biased counseling and/or mandatory delays. Eight of these laws are fully or partially unconstitutional. Twenty states have unconstitutional, unenforceable bans that could outlaw abortion as early as the 12th week of pregnancy, with no exception to protect a woman's health. à ‚¬ ¨
One of the most humiliating effects of restrictive legislation is the impact on a women's dignity and personal freedom. Eight states have unconstitutional and unenforceable laws that require women to obtain the written consent from, or give notice to, her husband prior to receiving abortion care. Another group suffering as a result of new laws are young women. Twenty-eight states restrict young women's access to abortion by requiring parental consent. Some of these girls are terrified of their parents' reactions, sometimes because their fathers are physically abusive. These laws and bans are just the tip of the iceberg. More statistics and which states have enacted these laws and bans can be found at: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/maps-and-charts/
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
