Sen. Hank Erwin (R-wingnut) has proposed a bill that would ban all abortions in Alabama except in the “extreme” case of danger to the mother’s life. This is the same Hank Erwin who hypothesized that God sent Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to punish the people of Louisiana and Mississippi for their sins, conveniently forgetting to mention the damage to the coasts of Alabama and Texas. Sen. Erwin and buddies like Rep. Gerald Allen love to propose wacky bills that burst on the scene to great fanfare and then die in obscurity, and this one should join the others.
I’m conflicted on the issue of abortion, and I expect that makes me a part of the majority in this country. No one I have ever spoken with or read on this issue is pro-abortion. But for the most part, they don’t want to see it banned. If they think about it for a few minutes, they can imagine a circumstance in which abortion would be the best of several hard choices, even if there was no immediate physical threat to the mother’s life.
A twelve-year-old who is raped and impregnated does not deserve the additional violation (not to mention health risk) of being forced to carry the pregnancy to term. A woman carrying a late-term fetus that either dies in utero or is not viable outside the womb does not deserve to be forced to maintain the pregnancy, knowing that the baby will be stillborn or die shortly after birth.
These are pretty extreme examples. And even if Hank Erwin’s ban passes, I expect a doctor could be found to terminate the pregnancies. The catch? The patients would have to be wealthy enough and mobile enough to go elsewhere and pay a premium — and in the latter case, the woman might have to stay out of Alabama for weeks or even months to keep the pregnancy police from interrogating her, targeting her local doctor, and demanding access to her medical records.
So lower-income women, those who can least afford prenatal care, childbirth in a hospital, and the ongoing expense of raising children, will be those most likely to be forced to carry unwanted or unintentional pregnancies to term. And given the current climate, they certainly can’t expect much in the way of financial help to ensure that their children have shelter, clothing, food, and the opportunity to get an education. There’s a major shortage of quality affordable child care that would permit moms to make a living. Medicaid funding continues to be cut, and private health coverage is out of reach for many working families. The government will be happy to force a woman to have a baby, but after that, mother and child are on their own. It seems the right to life ends at birth.
But what about all those couples waiting to adopt a baby? Surely all these children could end up in good homes. Yes, if the babies are white and healthy. Otherwise, not so much. Most of the couples waiting to adopt babies of their own want children who resemble them, and few of them are prepared to take on a child with special needs.
I’m not throwing stones here. I know of adoptive parents who’ve had problems getting their special needs child covered under their health insurance. And even with insurance, the expenses associated with specialized care and/or instruction can be prohibitive. Beyond that, it has to take tremendous emotional resources to parent a child with physical or mental handicaps — or both. I don’t fault any prospective parents who evaluate themselves and their resources and conclude that they aren’t capable of parenting children with special needs. I don’t think I could do it.
As for nonwhite children, there might or might not be a good home available. Currently, the biggest “market” for black and biracial babies born in the United States is Canada. American couples aren’t lining up to take them.
Well, what about abstinence? If these women don’t want to accept the consequences, they should just keep their legs closed, right? Surely that logic doesn’t apply in the face of coercion, violent or not. But reality ought to have some meaning here – boys and girls are hitting puberty earlier, and men and women are marrying later, than in the past. Premarital sex has been around since the dawn of time, and it’s not going to stop just because some people throw a fit over it. If sex between humans truly were intended for procreation only, women would periodically go into heat, just as other mammals do, and they would become pregnant every time they had intercourse. That’s not the case. Sex between humans can be pleasurable at any time, and it’s an important expression of love and intimacy between partners. But women are the ones who get pregnant. Men can, and do, walk away with no visible proof of their “transgressions”, and no demands on their future. Insisting that women, and only women, deal with unwanted pregnancy by forced parenthood is inequitable at best.
But shouldn’t these people use contraception? Absolutely! I’m a big proponent of condoms myself; they’re relatively cheap, easy to find, and good protection against sexually transmitted diseases as well as pregnancy when used properly – despite what Bush’s abstinence-only programs tell us. Unfortunately, some of the same people who adamantly oppose abortion under any circumstances also oppose the use of contraception, insisting that certain methods are tantamount to abortion as well. They also maintain that educating our kids about sex and contraception is the same as telling them to hop into bed and boink like rabbits.
This whole mess is a lose-lose for women and the children they might conceive. When the powers-that-be stop demonizing sex and start encouraging education and responsibility, and when they support research into safer and more effective methods of contraception, then they’ll see the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions fall sharply. Yes, women might actually have sex, inside or outside of marriage, without guilt or consequences. And the vast majority of children will be born to parents who are absolutely thrilled about the blessed event. I don’t know about you, but I can live with that.
[...] Uh, oh. It looks like State Senator Hank Erwin (a.k.a. aspiring Pat Robertson-ite) is at it again. This man just doesn’t know when to stop hacking everyone off. All I can ask is that he please review his Southern Baptist background from the early 1990s: separation of church and state. [...]
My mommy wanted me to tell you, you did a great job on this post. Mommy and daddy are what you call a “inter racial” marrage. Mommy is from El Salvador and Daddy is what you humans call “white”. Mommy agrees with you! Especially with the lack of demand for “inter racial babies”.
In the school paper at Mommy’s university there were always ads asking female white students to donate eggs for infertile couples. In return the white female would recieve A LOT of money. I don’t think mommy would have donated her eggs even if she was “white” but who cares, her eggs are not as valuable to society anyways.
But if you can donate any fur, I woun’t discriminate. Cat fur, Dog fur ect it’s all fur in the end.
Thanks, Cairo (and Cairo’s mommy). If you need fur, we have all you could possibly want – white, black, brown, blond, red – enough to cover every piece of clothing in our house with a contrasting shade. And it’s all beautiful. Animals are like children that way, gorgeous no matter the color.
Senator Irwin seems to be out of touch because he WANTS to be out of touch — at least out of touch with me, as you can see in my remarks about him in my report on the 2006 candidates for Alabama offices @ http://www.doctoriq.com/report.htm.
It’s a very complicated issue, despite the hysterical rantings of the radical right. I mean did you see the quotes from the South Dakota supporters of their ban. The only exception in the case of rape would be if the girl was a devote Christian, a virgin, and the rape had to be particularly brutal, or else no exception. My thought is if a married woman was raped, is it just her tough luck? Or if she were a devote Muslim girl is that her tough luck? I’ve yet to meet a person that was pro-abortion myself. But if you listen to the average right winger, they believe we are all running an abortion clinic in our basements.
Wnen I posted my earlier comment I was in a rush to start on my morning walk, so I left the following unsaid: Kathy, I too am conflicted on this issue, and I agree with everything you said. You must have given this considerable thought and study because you have expressed yourself in such a thoughtful, compassionate, and comprehensive manner. While males may be able to walk away from an unintended or unwanted pregnancy I feel that anyone who does is weak and cowardly. Females have to live with the consequences of her actions if she was a consenting partner, and decide what is her best course of action, not only for her own life, but also for the new life growing within her — and that is the one that most concerns me.
Don, thank you for your kind words. As the mother of daughters, I do have to spend a lot of time thinking about issues like this one. My plan is to give my girls good information and to encourage them to develop life goals that will deter them from premature sex — I’ve read some good studies that indicate teens who are really engaged in building their own futures are much less likely to get pregnant or impregnate someone else. I’d prefer my girls to take that approach rather than try to teach them sex is something forbidden and dirty (a lesson that can be hard to unlearn even in adulthood). Of course, I’d like to see every child in the world grow up with the hopes and dreams that will lead them to accomplish great things.
And the response by Sen. Erwin’s office to your emails: disturbing, but not really surprising. Wingnuts like him are completely wrapped up in their little agendas and not really interested in input from constituents.
Jamison, I did see the comments about the “ideal” rape victim, and if I had that idiot right here in front of me, I believe I’d slap him into next week. I thought we’d moved beyond the idea that only Christian virgins can actually be victims of rape and that all other women were asking for it somehow. This guy needs to go back to his cave. I hope his wife and daughter(s), if he has them, ripped him a new one for his ignorant remarks.
Thanks for spelling it out so well, Kathy.
Rude Pundit has a darkly-humorous solution for South Dakota (warning, vulgar!): http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/solution-for-south-dakota-more-fucking.html
I suspect that’s partly why Alabama won’t ban abortions, in spite of all the politicians’ efforts to out-righteous each other. Just a few years ago, it was the height of rebelliousness in some areas for white high school girls to not only get pregnant, but for the father to be African American.
The South has changed. Somewhat, anyway. A law on the books? So what? Those with means will still find a way; those without will be the ones to suffer.
I can’t let this post go by without commenting. I am finding this is my soapbox, and I may have to become an abortion rights activist if this insanity continues. You see, it is quite personal to me. I have 2 daughters, and of course I agree with Kathy’s above comments about adolescent sexuality. THey are young enough now that I don’t really worry about them right now.
I am a family physician, and my practice is predominantly young women. I have counseled untold young women about their birth control options, and never has someone inquired about abortion as an option. It is NOT being used as birth control! I detest that arguement! No, what I see, and it breaks my heart every time, are the women who become pregnant due to birth control failure (a burst condom is a very scary thing!) or failure to take birth control properly. Never have I had a patient who was cavalier regarding her options. I always go over every option available; I want them to make a fully informed decision. They know what abortion is, but I find I have to educate them on how it is done now (RU487, not extraction if early enough). Invariably there are tears. It is always a painful decision. I could tell you all kinds of stories.
And that’s what makes it personal. It IS personal. Each of these women is a person with a story. To turn them into criminals or force them into a role they are not ready for is beyond cruel. The easy arguements are in case of rape and incest or health of the mother, etc. But please don’t neglect the story of the 20 something year old engaged woman who just got her first job, or the 17 year old who was dumped by her boyfriend 4 weeks ago, or the woman with 3 kids who was considering divorcing her abusive husband. No one makes this choice lightly, but it is her choice to make.
Oh, and this is a must-read: http://www.womensservices.com/Information/tabid/61/Default.aspx
I honestly think men like Mr. Erwin have the medieval worldview that women are inherently dirty and evil and that pregnancy is their just punishment for spreading their nasty legs. (Sorry, I hope my language isn’t putting your blog on some kind of censored list.) It certainly explains why they are so willing to forbid both abortion and contraception. Unfortunately, there must be a lot of self-hating women who share this view; as DH likes to point out, the sisters comprise 51% of the population, and if we all voted pro-choice, the matter would have been settled long ago.
In a way, the prohibition against abortion even in cases of rape or incest is more intellectually honest than allowing for those exceptions; if you really believe that personhood begins at conception, then why should the person “created by God” in a rape victim’s uterus be less deserving of life than one inside a careless college student or married mother of four? I only hope that the repugnance most people seem to feel at the idea of a rape victim being forced to bear the rapist’s child will force them to recognize the fact that they don’t really, honestly believe that “life begins at conception.” And that the college student or mom who’s got all the kids she can handle shouldn’t be forced to carry a conceptus to term any more than the rape victim should.
And yes Jeff, DH also likes to point out that most people approve of abortion “in cases of rape, incest, or my daughter.” As your second link makes abundantly clear.
Jeff, that reminds me of a scene from The Big Chill:
Michael: I don’t know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They’re more important than sex.
Sam Weber: Ah, come on. Nothing’s more important than sex.
Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?
And I think the Rude Pundit nailed it.
Thanks, Renee! I’m going to turn you into a radical yet. And you can speak with authority and compassion — a rare combination these days.
“And yes Jeff, DH also likes to point out that most people approve of abortion “in cases of rape, incest, or my daughter.” As your second link makes abundantly clear.”
Exactly, Del! I really wish Erwin and his cronies would butt out and let everyone else’s daughters make their own decisions.
I’ve had an abortion (and at the B’ham clinic that was bombed, no less). And at the time I remember being so grateful that I lived in a country where such an option was safely, legally available to me. Now it’s looking like that won’t be the case for future generations of women. It saddens and disgusts me that holier-than-thou legislators are so hell-bent on taking away a woman’s right to choose.
It is NOT being used as birth control! I detest that arguement! No, what I see, and it breaks my heart every time, are the women who become pregnant due to birth control failure (a burst condom is a very scary thing!) or failure to take birth control properly.
That’s the reason I became pregnant and consequently had an abortion. My now-husband and I were religiously using condoms, but those little bastards aren’t 100% effective. I’ve known a few women who’ve gotten pregnant while on the Pill AND using condoms.
Yet another reason we need more research dollars to develop safer and more effective contraceptives!
I may have found some clues to Erwin’s mindset by checking his bio on the Senate website. It says, “He and his wife, Shelia Joyce Erwin, are the parents of two children: Andrew and Jonathan.” So!! He doesn’t have a daughter to be concerned about and when he is cavorting on Goat Hill he may leave Sheila at home locked into a chastity belt and he has the only key tucked away in his twisted drawers. His “B.A. degree from Southwestern Bible College and an M.A. degree from Dallas Seminary” probably explain a bit more. All of that theological training and his present church activities didn’t seem to teach him to practice “total abstinence” or to keep his trousers on and his fly zipped up though.
Has Hank been “cavorting” on Goat Hill like that other guy they caught with a woman after hours? There’s an image that could make me ill.
Hmmm…..often the meaning of a word (which can have many) that people apply to it discloses where their mind is at the time. By cavorting, though, I mean dancing around, and I think the majority of legislators are accomplished at dancing around tough or important issues, and prancing around promoting less worthy issues.
Do I hear an “Amen”?
Amen, brother! I suppose my mind went where it did because so many “godly” men have been caught with their pants down — literally. Okay, now I have that image in my head again. Ewww.
This really doesn’t have anything to do with Christanity.
One can provide any number of real or hypothetical scenarios, both pleasant and unpleasant, regarding the circumstance under which a woman becomes preganant.
Why, though, will nobody talk about MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE? When it’s a welcome pregnancy, the embyo/fetus is instantly referres to as, “our/my child”. When it’s an unwanted pregnancy, it’s referred to as anything but “my/our child”. In the latter circumstance, the primary concern is for anything BUT the child.
Questions arise such as:
“How will we afford this?”
“Why shouldn’t I have an abortion? I was raped!”
“I’m expected to raise this child on my own, even though the father left me?”
The list could go on…
Men walk away, etc.; women are saddled with the decision; What of the child? Let’s not mince words here: it’s a death sentence. THAT, MY FELLOW AMERICANS, IS THE FACT THAT NOBODY CONSIDERS BEFORE PASSING THAT SENTENCE ON THE PERSON WHO IS TO BE ABORTED.
I know reading this infuriates some of you, but philosophy and reason settled this question long before Roe v. Wade began it publicly for this country: Life MUST begin at conception because it CANNOT begin anytime else.
I refuse to put away from discussion or allow anyone here to (because it’s uncomfortable) the FACT that every person IS created at conception and when abortion is chosen, a life is lost. It is a life every bit as precious as mine, yours, and anyone else that we love or hate.
What of the unborn child? If we cared, wouldn’t we be more concerned with that above all else. I mean, after all, how would we react if it were our lives someone held in TOTALCONTROL?
Now, what possible justification can one provide for taking YOUR life? Money? Inconvenience? Dealing with a crime perpetrated against you?
You all know that we are dealing with the most innocent among us and we are throwing them away in favor of PRO-CHOICE.
I am so impressed with this blog. I love the content of this page. Keep the site rocking.Very good job.