Bodily Autonomy

Abortion.

It’s a thorny topic. Just saying the word out loud makes most people squirm. And there are passionate people on all sides of the debate that feel equally strongly about their positions.

I was just challenged by a conservative Christian friend of mine to read a post from the “The Matt Walsh Blog” on the “bodily autonomy” argument for abortion. I read it, and now I’m responding. This post will make a lot more sense to you if you first read the original article, which you can find here. Read that first and then come back here.


Are you back? Okay, let’s get started.

First I need to point out that whoever wrote the original letter to Matt was very misguided in their use of language. Calling names and berating people does not strengthen your argument, nor does it help the person you’re having a discussion with see your point of view and take it seriously. So there’s that. I wouldn’t have written the letter in quite the same way.

But anyway, here is my point-by-point rebuttal of the rebuttal to the argument. Again, if you haven’t read the original post, or at least skimmed it, you’re going to be completely lost. So read it and follow along.


1. Matt is correct that the relationship between mother and child is different than the relationship between you and a random stranger. Of course it is. There is nothing quite so meaningful as the bond between a mother and her child. As a mother, I’m astutely aware of this. But I think the fundamental misunderstanding comes from the fact that the bodily autonomy argument isn’t necessarily meant to be an argument about morality; it’s about legality.

What we are saying when we say that a woman should have the sole right to determine what goes on inside their own body is that the government should not have a say in what you do or do not use your body for. Whether you think having an abortion is “moral” or not isn’t really the question. The question is who gets to make that decision for you? You, or the government?

A better analogy would have been this: if your child needs a kidney transplant, should the government compel you to give them your kidney? Again, keep in mind that I’m NOT asking whether or not you would do it (I think we all would if we could). The questions is, “should the government compel you to do it?” And if they should, should it only be for biological children, or adopted children as well? I cannot stress this enough: this is not about morality or what you would do in a specific situation; it’s about what the law would compel you to do, and who gets to make that law, enforce it, and carry out the punishment for it.

And before you ask, yes, I am also in favor of legalized prostitution, drugs, piercing, and pretty much whatever else you want to do with your own body.

2. How a person gets pregnant is irrelevant. Pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting should not be a punishment for having sex. It’s easy to say that everyone who has ever had sex was making a mature decision and they should live with the consequences, but that’s just not the case. Have you met a teenager recently (or ever been one)? How a person gets into the condition they’re in shouldn’t be relevant to the treatment they receive or their ability to control their own body. If I am injured while snowboarding, should I just deal with the broken leg?

3. Again, this goes back to point number 1. It’s not about the morality of the situation or what we think a “good parent” should do. It’s about whether or not they should be forced to do it by the government, or thrown in jail for it.

4. I don’t even know how to comment on the whole “natural order” thing. It assumes that there is a god that created a natural order that we always have to stick by no matter what. If that’s the case, then I guess we also can’t ever use birth control, or shave our legs, or eat Hot Pockets®. It sounds like Matt thinks we shouldn’t ever go against the “natural order,” so does that mean we should eschew dentistry too? I’m just leaving that one alone.

5. The first problem I have with this one is his terminology. The use of the term “abortionist” is specifically meant to make a doctor sound like a criminal, which I guess is his point, but it really bothers me. I’ve met abortion doctors, and they are anything but creepy, trench coat wearing butchers (although, when we make abortion illegal, we will see many more of those types around). They are doctors trying to do what is best for their patients. They are not doing it to make money (or else they would be charging a helluva lot more). I have the same problem with the term “abortion industry.” There is no abortion “industry.”

But I digress. Matt claims that abortion involves an embryo or fetus being “crushed, dismembered, poisoned, or torn apart,” which leads me to believe that he doesn’t actually know how an abortion is done. Depending on the stage of pregnancy, there are different methods, and the later the pregnancy is, the harsher the method becomes. I won’t lie; it does make me uncomfortable. But I keep coming back to the same question: “Is it the government’s job to tell another woman what she can do with her body?”

I don’t know the circumstances of every pregnancy. What I do know is that if you’re seeking a late-term abortion, you probably aren’t there because you just didn’t feel like being pregnant anymore. Often times there is a fetal defect, or a life-threatening condition for the mother. Since I don’t know what’s going on in every case, I shouldn’t be the one making the decision. And neither should my congressman. I know that it’s easy for some people to look at women who are having abortions as “careless,” and “selfish,” but keep in mind that you do not, and cannot possibly know what is going on in every situation. That’s what it comes down to.

6. He’s right. The argument does put me in the precarious position of allowing for a woman to do harmful things while she’s pregnant. I really hate it, but I don’t think it should be illegal for a woman to do reckless things while she’s pregnant. I think she should be encouraged not to do them, and assuming she wants to have a baby, she won’t do them, but at the end of the day, I don’t think she should be thrown in jail for them. Because again, it puts the government in control of what she does with her body.

7. Please refer to point number 5. Here’s where I have a problem. He uses the word “moral” again. This is not a discussion about morality, it is a discussion about legality. You may be surprised to know that I am a lot more bothered by late term abortion than by first-trimester abortion. But my solution to this is not to outlaw ALL abortion. It’s to make first trimester abortion more accessible to women who are seeking it. Unlike a lot of pro-lifers (who equate an embryo with an infant), I DO think there is a difference between a 2-day-old zygote and a 35-week-old fetus. However, since the question of “when life begins” can be a muddy one, depending on what you consider to be “life” and what your specific religion (or lack thereof) tells you, I think the most reasonable course of action in the law is to make life begin at birth. Again, we are talking about legality, not morality.

8. This one gets into the semantics of the word “body.” The bodily autonomy argument only addresses the use of your body and its parts. What Matt is talking about here is really a philosophical argument that I don’t think applies. Pregnancy requires more or less the same thing of every female body it is affecting. Parenthood does not.

For example, I could have chosen to breastfeed my children, but I didn’t. Did I get thrown in jail for it? No, because there are alternate means of feeding a child and the government doesn’t require me to use my body to nourish another person, even if I gave birth to them. It would be easy for someone to make a moral pronouncement about what a “bad mother” I am, if they didn’t know I did it for medical reasons. I was on a medication that was unsafe to take while breastfeeding. Fortunately, the government did not step in and make that decision for me. I made it with the help of my doctor, the way medical decisions should be made. And you know what? Even if I just “didn’t feel like” breastfeeding, I shouldn’t have been thrown in jail for not doing it, because it’s my body.

9. Come on. Just, come on. Really? Doing what you want with your body is not the same as doing what you want anywhere with your body.

10. See point number 8.


The crux of the issue here is that pro-lifers seem to think this is as easy as making a decision about what you would do or what a “good person” should do. But it’s not. It’s a thorny issue precisely because it has to do with pregnancy and motherhood, which are profoundly important things. But being pro-choice does not mean “I think abortions are great and I think everyone should have at least one.” Nor does it mean “every unplanned pregnancy should end in an abortion.” All we are saying is “abortion should remain legal.” At the core, that’s really it. We’re not “pro-aborts” as Matt so callously refers to us. We are people who think that the government has no place in telling us what should or should not go on in our uterus, and that our lives are complex enough that we are in the best position to make decisions for ourselves. At its heart, it’s really a Libertarian ideal, which is why I find it perplexing that Libertarians such as Ron Paul are anti-choice.

It’s hard to be in agreement on this issue because we are starting from different points. The pro-life community generally starts with the premise that every fertilized egg is a “soul” that God has sent to Earth for a specific purpose. When you’re an atheist, as I am, you don’t see it that way. You see that embryo as a potential person, but not one that is equal to the living, breathing woman that is currently pregnant. In my view, that is probably the single biggest reason that we’ll never agree on this issue. 

There are many, many other issues that cause division when it comes to abortion, but this post has already gotten extraordinarily long, and it is supposed to be focused on the bodily autonomy argument, so maybe I’ll tackle the other arguments and issues another day. You can read more about my views on abortion here.

But let me end with this statement. I really wish the pro-life community would do less judging of the women who have abortions, and work harder to prevent the need for them in the first place. Birth control, comprehensive sex-ed, assistance for people living in poverty; all of these things reduce the need for abortion in the first place, but the pro-life community in general seems so determined to NOT provide these things either. There is SO MUCH we could do together to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but when you spend all of your time trying to outlaw something that will still happen if it’s illegal, you miss the opportunity to really make a difference. And that makes me sad.

Abortion Exceptions

There is a lot of newsworthy stuff going on this week, but there is one thing in particular that's been on my mind for awhile now. With all of the hoopla surrounding Congress and various states trying to pass abortion bans with different levels of success, much of the discussion seems to revolve around the issue of exceptions for rape and incest.

And you know what? I think abortion exceptions are bullshit. Yes, you read that correctly: Bull. Shit.

And here's why. I know it seems to be the popular thing for pro-choicers to bring up this issue to show how unreasonable the anti-choicers are being (they don't even want exceptions for rape or incest!!), but I think it only serves to reinforce the idea that some women deserve abortions and others don't.

I mean, if you're against abortion because you think it's murder, then why in the world would you think that any exceptions are okay? Murder is murder, right?  So to me, it seems like what we're really saying when we talk about these exceptions is that, okay, we agree that abortion is bad, but can we at least agree that the "non-slutty" women can get them?

Why don't we just make a law that says you can only get an abortion if you promise that you only had sex once and agree to never do it again? It seems just as ridiculous to me. We shouldn't be conceding that AT LEAST rape and incest victims should have access to safe abortion, we should be arguing that ALL women can decide for themselves if they want to carry a pregnancy to term or not. The manner of conception should have no bearing on the pregnancy itself. A woman who is not raped should have just as much agency over her own body as a woman who is raped. If not, then you've created a situation where a group of people get to decide for you what is "legitimate rape" and what is not (which is exactly what we see happening now).

In the pre-Roe days, it was actually possible in some places to get a legal abortion. But you know what you had to do? Get at least a couple of different doctors (almost always men) to say that you really needed one. That, you know, you weren't just having one for fun. Or, you could go in front of a medical panel (again, male doctors) and convince them of your case.  If they thought you had a convincing argument, then maybe they would let you terminate the pregnancy. If not, you were SOL.

It seems to me that pushing for abortion exceptions only furthers the idea that men need to "regulate" what kind of sex women are having. Once the government determines what kind of sex you had, then they will tell you whether your body belongs to someone else for nine months or not. And if you were having sex just for pleasure, well. . . . .

I know we're trying to make the best out of a bad situation, but the whole thing seems much more damaging in the long run than it is helpful right now.  Or am I being totally unreasonable about this?

The Crisis Project

"The Crisis Project" (not to be confused with my cousin Drew's awesome rock band, "Crisis Line") is a website that posts secretly recorded videos of visits to crisis pregnancy centers around the country.  I heard about it while listening to one of my many favorite podcasts, "Reality Cast" which is produced by RH Reality Check.  So I immediately hit the web and found their site, and let me tell you, I could watch these videos all day.

Needless to say, I have a huge problem with crisis pregnancy centers.  If you don't know what they are, think "Birthline" if you have one of those in your area.  It's a religious organization pretending to be a clinic.  They are the ones who post all the "Pregnant? Need help?" ads everywhere you go.  They advertise free pregnancy tests, and then when unsuspecting women go there for their free test, they get hit with all kinds of religious propaganda and medical misinformation.

These centers are a key source of all the misinformation floating around out there in regards to abortion and contraception. For instance:

• Did you know that abortion causes breast cancer?  Well, no, it doesn't, but that doesn't stop them from telling women that it does. 
• Did you know that abortion can lead to depression, alcoholism, and even suicide?  Well, again, no it doesn't, but if a person in a white lab coat says it, it must be true, right? 
• How about your boyfriend?  Did you know that you guys will probably break up because of this abortion?  Well, since I couldn't find any good scientific info on this one, I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume that co-parenting is at least as challenging to a relationship, if not more so, than choosing to terminate a pregnancy.
• And did you further know that abortion is even more dangerous than childbirth and can lead to death!?  Well, according to a report published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, "Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion." 

So basically, these places trick women into thinking they're getting unbiased medical information, when they're really just getting incredibly biased religious misinformation.  I would feel a lot better about these places if they would just be honest about their intentions.  If they just advertised as a place to get a free pregnancy test and some religious counseling, or at the very least did not advertise that they provide "abortion counseling" (because they don't) I would feel slightly better about the fact that they are receiving my Minnesota tax dollars to operate. 

Think I'm exaggerating about how these places operate?  Go to the site yourself and check out some of the videos.  Or if you'd like a longer, more in-depth assessment, check out the HBO documentary "12th & Delaware."  Then tell me these places don't have an obvious religious agenda that has no excuse for operating with taxpayer money.

Ultrasound Politics

I just caught the tail end of an NPR show discussing the new Virginia ultrasound law that requires women seeking abortions to have a vaginal ultrasound to help them better understand the decision they so flippantly made about terminating their pregnancy.

I've been hearing about this issue a lot lately, but finally feel the need to put my 2 cents in. 

First of all, I've had a vaginal ultrasound, and let me tell you, it ain't fun.  I had to get one during my last pregnancy, and as a person with sexual assault in my background, it made me very queasy.  Not to be indelicate, but we're talking about a rather large probe here.  I did it without (too much) complaint, because I was having a very wanted and planned for pregnancy, and my doctor assured me it was in my best interest.  But I can't imagine being pushed into this procedure for absolutely NO medical reason, especially if I had been seeking an abortion because I was raped.  Let me repeat that: having a pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound serves absolutely NO medical purpose.  The purpose is clearly to get the best image possible of the embryo in the hopes that the woman seeking the abortion will change her mind.  After all, you know how emotional and wishy-washy we women are about making personal decisions.

The woman in the NPR discussion had written an article about the new law that described the ultrasound as a form of rape, since the law does not allow for the woman to give her consent to be vaginally probed; she either does it, or she doesn't get the abortion.  The author of the piece was roundly chastised for this point of view, but I think she made a good point.  Doesn't the government forcing you to be vaginally probed fall somewhere along the lines of sexual assault?

This law is nothing more than yet another attempt to slut-shame women who had the audacity to have sex with someone in an instance where bearing a child was not the ultimate goal.  It is also an attempt to continue pushing the lie that women who have abortions do so casually, and without really knowing what they're doing, which of course implies that women just aren't all that smart to begin with.  And you know what, if women keep voting for the people (mainly men) who are passing these ridiculous laws, then maybe we're not so smart, are we?

Reproduction Education

So I need to rant here for a minute.

I've been in the hospital twice in the past 2 weeks with my Crohn's disease (hence my lack of riveting new blog posts).  Every time I go to the ER, they ask me if I'm pregnant or not.  When I reply that I'm not, they ask me if there's a chance I could be pregnant.  When I reply that there's not, they ask me how I know that there's no chance that I'm pregnant.

Now, I understand that they need this information.  For one thing, I'm presenting with severe abdominal pain.  So obviously, it would be good to know if a pregnancy is contributing to or causing the pain.  Also, they generally want to do an x-ray, which I've heard is a no-no if you're pregnant (although that didn't stop them from doing one anyway when I was actually pregnant).

My problem is this: How do I know I'm not pregnant?  Well, let me see.  For one thing, I've been pregnant twice, so I have an idea of what the symptoms are.  For another thing, I've been in possession of this female body for 34 years and have some idea of how it functions.  Oh, and there's all those birth control pills I take.  Which leaves only one matter up for discussion: sexual activity.

Now, I'm married, and I don't think my sexual habits are anybody's business, least of all some nurse I just met.  But after I've given them my last menstrual period date and the knowledge that I'm on a strict contraceptive regimen, they still prod me as to how I know I'm not pregnant.  If they want to know when the last time I had sex was, why don't they just come out and ask me?  Maybe the fact that it's a Catholic hospital makes them squeamish to mention the word "sex;" I really don't know.

But my main beef with this whole process is the fact that they even have to ask me how I know I'm not pregnant in the first place.  It implies that most women don't know how one becomes pregnant.  If I could just answer them that yes, in fact, I know there's no chance I could be pregnant, and they could trust me at my word, that would mean that women are fully educated about how and when they become pregnant.  But sadly, this is not the case in America.  Too often, women have very little idea of how the actual reproductive process works.

When I worked at Planned Parenthood, we had many teenagers that would come in for pregnancy tests who had no idea what their period had to do with pregnancy.  In some cases, the girls had not yet had their first period, but were scared they might be pregnant.  And to me, the problem is plainly that we discourage education about sexuality and reproduction.  As if, should we mention it to kids, they will get the idea to do it (because we all know that kids don't think about sex until someone suggests it to them).

Maybe, if we actually let the schools educate the masses about our reproductive systems, then I wouldn't have to answer personal, patronizing questions every time I have to go to the emergency room in excruciating pain.  I once had to tell the doctor that I hadn't had sex in "X" number of months, in front of my poor mother!  No mom should have to hear that kind of thing.

So America, lets pull our heads up out of the sand about sex, and let me go to the hospital in peace for once.

Rant finished.

What Planned Parenthood REALLY does.

With all the current controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood, my head has been spinning with the sheer volume of misleading and simply untrue things being said about the organization.  I used to work at Planned Parenthood, so I figure I'm in a position to put at least some of these untruths to rest.

I worked in one of PPH's many small town family planning clinics.  We did not do abortions at our clinic, as most PPH's don't.  Only one PPH clinic in Minnesota actually performs abortions.  The other 23 do pretty much the same thing as my clinic did. We provided birth control to people.  As well as pap smears, breast exams, STD tests and treatment, and pregnancy tests.

I think much of the controversy surrounds what takes place after those pregnancy tests, so I'll tell you exactly how we handled them.  First of all, we did the test, which took five minutes to run.  Unlike the crisis pregnancy centers, we didn't tell the woman the test would take half an hour and then force her to sit in a room looking at images of fetuses.

When I was trained in to deliver pregnancy test results, here's what I was told to do: 

If the test was negative, I was to encourage the woman to come back to get birth control (which usually involved getting a pap smear, which is why they would have to come back). 

If it was positive, the first step was to ask them if they were surprised by the result and if they had thought at all about what they would do if the test was positive.  Most of them had, since they were already there for the test. 

If they said, "I want to keep the baby" then we handed them a pregnancy resources guide which had the names of maternal help organizations, along with an application for Medicaid if they weren't insured. 

If they said. "I've been thinking about adoption," then we handed them the same pregnancy resources guide which also had the names of several adoption agencies in it.

If they said, "I'm thinking about getting an abortion," then we handed them the same pregnancy resources guide which also had the phone number for the Planned Parenthood clinic which did abortions.  If they asked for more information on abortion, we were not allowed to give it to them.  We simply pointed again to the phone number and told them to direct all their questions to the people at that phone number.

And under no circumstances, ever, were we instructed or permitted to try to influence the woman in any way as to what she wanted to do about the pregnancy.  That was her decision to make, not ours.  We simply provided her with the resources she asked for and let her take it from there, using her own judgement and support system.

When I hear PPH being so demonized by Michele Bachmann and her ilk, it really makes me angry.  Not only because of how wrong they are in their assumptions, but also because they are defaming the many wonderful, caring people I worked with over the years.  I never once met a co-worker who was there to benefit from the windfalls of "big abortion."  My co-workers were genuinely warm and giving people who were there to help women (and men).  They were there because they deeply believed that all people should be able to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy.  We tried our very best to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with, and when that failed, we allowed women to  decide their own futures with whatever help they needed from us.