A Gallup poll taken in 2003 found similar evidence of regret among the childless. Gallup found that about one-third of Americans over age forty do not have children and only one-quarter of those say that they would have no children if they had it to do over again. Forty-six percent of childless Americans over age forty wish they had two children, 10 percent wish they had one, and 15 percent would have preferred three or more.23
What does this mean for women?
Once a woman has the facts about her fertility, what is she supposed to do? Certainly not every thirty-year-old woman ought to rush out and commence procreating. But women should educate themselves about fertility, not only the role that age plays, but also factors such as sexually transmitted diseases, weight, and smoking. Armed with this information, women should carefully weigh their options and make a plan for how they can best achieve their goals.
One high achieving woman interviewed by Hewlett offered young women this advice:Ask yourself what you need to be happy at 45. And ask yourself this question early enough so that you have a shot of getting what you want. Learn to be as strategic with your personal life as you are with your career.24
That’s good advice. In addition to thinking carefully about their own priorities, women should talk to their doctors and other healthcare professionals. They should monitor breakthroughs in medicine, but take care to learn about the limits of new treatments so that they’re not overly optimistic about their potential effectiveness.
This is a tough issue that will require many women to engage in soul searching and make difficult decisions. But there’s no benefit to ignorance or to allowing ourselves to believe that we can put off childbearing without consequence. As in most areas of life, information is power, and it’s key to helping women to make decisions in their long-term interests.
Chapter Ten
ABORTION
Discussions about abortion typically revolve around questions of morality and whether the procedure is the equivalent of murder. Pro-lifers believe that abortion is the killing of an unborn human being, with rights that merit government protection; pro-choicers believe that abortion is a medical procedure that’s critical for women to maintain control of their lives and destinies.
This debate is as critical as it is contentious. Yet it overlooks several important issues surrounding abortion. Conversations about the legality of abortion are also often based on some faulty assumptions. Young women, in particular, tend to receive a one-sided (pro-choice) point-of-view from women’s studies programs and media. To have a healthy debate and understanding of the issue, it’s important that both sides are properly represented and treated fairly.
This chapter does not attempt to tackle the question of abortion’s legality. Instead, it explores some of the incomplete information given to young women about abortion and delves into a few issues rarely covered in the current debate.
Guess what?
The treatment of abortion in women’s studies and the media often begins with the assumption that most young women are—and ought to be—pro-choice.
When it comes to abortion, European countries often have more restrictive policies than the United States.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would merely move the fight over abortion from the courts and federal arena into state legislatures and referenda.
Pro-life is not anti-woman
Women’s studies courses tend to work hand-in-hand with feminist organizations on a political and policy agenda—and abortion rights are at the center of that agenda.
Undoubtedly, it’s important for women to understand how changes in the laws governing reproduction have affected them throughout history, and to consider the arguments for keeping abortion legal. Arguments in support of the “pro-choice” position are that control over reproduction gives women the ability to define their lives and control their destinies; women who aren’t ready to be mothers—due to their age, the lack of a partner, or alternative life plans—shouldn’t have to be; it’s cruel to bring children into the world who are going to be poor or unwanted; and finally, since the pregnancy takes place within the woman’s body, it’s her right to determine whether or not to continue it.
Women are regularly presented with these arguments in support of abortion rights on college campuses and in popular media. But women—particularly students—also need to hear and understand the other side’s position.
Unfortunately, in many women’s studies textbooks, and in popular media, the pro-life position is rarely articulated or when it is, it’s caricatured.
An Introduction to Women’s Studies: Gender in a Transnational World contains six essays in the section entitled “Population Control and Reproductive Rights: Technology and Power”—not one represents the pro-life point of view. The section covers how reproductive issues have evolved throughout history, including how advances in reproductive technology have made contraception and abortion more readily available, and the ugly use of coerced abortion and sterilization in the name of population control or based on racism. All of the essays focus exclusively on the rights of the woman. None explores the argument that the fetus or unborn child also has rights.
Issues in Feminism: An Introduction to Women’s Studies by Shelia Ruth, contains a more egregious example of distorting the pro-life position as one based on a desire to repress women. Ruth presents the pro-life movement’s supposed concern for the fetus as nothing more than a smoke screen:The matter of reducing women to “delivery systems,” of ignoring the fact that women are people, with needs, feelings, goals, values, even when we are reproducing, is a crucial concept, for it is the heart of the antiabortion issue. It is that, the erasing of our personhood, together with a similar but opposite logical maneuver—the elevation of a fetus to the status of “person”—that makes the antichoice campaign work. It is what makes the rhetoric so effective even though it is often false and misleading....
For several years and with growing intensity, the antifeminist, antichoice advocates have thrown up a smoke screen against their very real agenda: control over women’s lives, our self-determination, our right to make decisions for ourselves, and our personal, economic, and social destinies.
What a Feminist Icon Said:
“No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.”
From The Revolution, a paper published by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, quoted by Kate O ‘Beirne, http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/obeirne200601230842.asp
This is not how most pro-lifers—who generally believe that life begins at conception and that the unborn have rights—would describe their reasons for opposing abortion,
You may disagree with this view and believe that the entity waiting to be born should not be considered fully human, with the right to life until after birth (or upon reaching a certain stage of development, such as being viable outside of the uterus). However, it’s worth considering—especially in an educational environment—the arguments of the other side. Surely pro-choice women would object to textbooks that describe their position as motivated by a blood thirst and hatred of children, rather than an honest concern for the rights of women.
What Roe v. Wade Really Says
With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capacity of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulations protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
—The Opinion of the
Court, Roe v. Wade,
January 22, 1973
The treatment of abortion in women’s magazines and media often begins with the assumption that most young women are—and ought to be—pro-choice. The August 2005 issue of Glamour contains an article, “The Mysterious Disappearance of Young Pro-Choice Women.” It includes a serious examination of the shift in attitudes among young women, a majority of whom had supported unrestricted abortion rights ten years ago and now have greater sympathy for restrictions on abortion. The author considers the factors that have contributed to this trend, including an increased trust in birth control and greater acceptance of the belief that a fetus is a human life, due to the prevalence of sonogram images.
The underlying tone of the article suggests that women are mistaken in their shift of support or are deviating from their natural state. They hypothesize that supporting abortion restrictions is a luxury women can afford only because abortion is currently legal and accessible. If that were to change, those who now are critical of abortion would switch back to supporting abortion rights. The article closes by quoting Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood, who is confident that if Roe v Wade were overturned women would once again take to the streets and asks young women, “Why wait?”
The September 2004 issue of Cosmopolitan was even less subtle. Under the headline “How Your Rights Are Being Robbed,” author Liz Welch details “the assault on women’s rights” inherent in the Bush administration’s support for pro-life policies. She warns women: “Just as the Supreme Court gave women the right to choose in 1973, it can take it away in 2004. Or 2005.” The article closes urging women to vote for pro-choice candidates. Similarly, the April 2004 issue of Glamour included a one-page call to arms, “Your Most Fundamental Female Rights—Stand Up for Them,” which urged women to participate in the abortion rights rally in Washington, D.C. You can be sure that no similar ink was given in anticipation of any pro-life event.
This one-sided representation of the issue is a disservice to young women. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates have deeply held beliefs that are based on a moral foundation. Young women should be challenged with the best arguments, not shielded from debate and force-fed propaganda.
Roe v. Wade’s real role
Roe v. Wade is the best known Supreme Court case today and abortion’s battleground. Protecting or reversing this decision is the focal point for activists on both sides.
In April 2004, an estimated one million women and men descended on Washington, D.C. to participate in a rally organized by feminist groups, including the NOW and the Feminist Majority. The event was held on the National Mall and dubbed “The March for Women’s Lives.” It was a call to arms to defeat Republicans and President Bush and to defend Roe v. Wade—both missions were depicted as vital to the very survival of women.
In discussions about abortion and the role of the Supreme Court, it’s important to understand what would really happen if the Court were to reverse Roe v. Wade. Contrary to most rhetoric, overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal in the United States. It would grant state legislatures and the Congress greater latitude to place or enforce restrictions on abortion. For many American women, the end of Roe would have little practical impact.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, the leading advocacy organization for abortion rights, analyzed existing laws in the states and concluded that twenty-one states are “at the highest risk” of having some restrictions on abortion if Roe is overturned. Some of these states currently have laws on the books that restrict abortions that would become enforceable if Roe is reversed. Others were judged as have state legislatures likely to pass new restrictions. The Center for Reproductive Rights concluded that in twenty states, abortion rights are established in the state constitutions or in statute, and therefore are unlikely to be threatened by new legislative action. They judged the outlook “uncertain” in the remaining nine states.1
Other groups see a reversal of Roe as having a more limited impact, at least initially. The non-profit Life Legal Defense Fund conducted a similar analysis and concluded that only seven states (Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Arkansas) have laws on the books that would prohibit abortions and so would be immediately affected by the overturning of Roe. In many other states, actions would likely be taken to activate new restrictions.
How Reversing Roe v. Wade Would Likely Affect Abortion Access in the 50 States
Abortion Likely Restricted Abortion Availability Unchanged Outlook Uncertain
Alabama Alaska Arizona
Arkansas California Georgia
Colorado Connecticut Idaho
Delaware Florida Illinois
Kentucky Hawaii Indiana
Louisiana Maine Iowa
Michigan Maryland Kansas
Mississippi Massachusetts New Hampshire
Missouri Minnesota Pennsylvania
Nebraska Montana
North Carolina Nevada
North Dakota New Jersey
Ohio New Mexico
Oklahoma New York
Rhode Island Oregon
South Carolina Tennessee
South Dakota Vermont
Texas Washington
Utah West Virginia
Virginia Wyoming
Wisconsin
Source: The Center for Reproductive Rights
What these analyses ultimately reveal is that in a post-Roe scenario, abortion would become predominately a state issue. Federal legislation could be implemented, but most likely it would be up to state legislatures to determine the availability of abortion. Women in more liberal areas of the country—such as the Northeast and West Coast—would be unlikely to face significant restrictions on abortion. Women in states where support for abortion rights is low, such as the Mid-West and South, would likely face new restrictions.
A federalist approach to abortion causes great alarm for many pro-choice women, particularly those in more conservative, “red” states, and gives pro-life women hope that overturning Roe could reduce the number of abortions. However, it’s important for women on both sides of the debate to understand that overturning Roe would not be an end of the fight over abortion; it would merely move that fight from the courts and federal arena into state legislatures and referenda.
Abortions overseas—Europe is not as liberal as you might think
Europe has a reputation of being more socially liberal—supportive of gay marriage, out of wedlock births, and casual sex—than puritanical America. It surprises many to learn that when it comes to abortion, European countries often have more restrictive policies than those currently in place in the United States.
In the United Kingdom, abortion is legal for the first twenty-four weeks of a pregnancy, if continuing the pregnancy involves a greater risk to the health (physical or mental) of the woman or her existing children than does terminating that pregnancy. Abortion is allowed after twenty-four weeks (roughly the fifth month of pregnancy) only if there is a risk to the life of the woman, evidence of a severe fetal abnormality, or risk of “grave” physical and mental injury to the woman. Two doctors must agree to the need for an abortion.2
Abortion is illegal in Ireland unless the mother’s life is in danger.3 In Sweden, abortion is allowed only up to week eighteen, after that abortions are limited to “extraordinary circumstances.”4 In France—often touted as the pinnacle of enlightened liberalism—abortion is available up until the twelfth week of pregnancy.5
Clearly, Americans are not alone in trying to balance the rights of the unborn with the rights of the woman. While American media tends to depict the U.S. pro-life movement as an outgrowth of the “Religious Right,” the same concerns for the life of the fetus are apparent in these more secular European countries.
Abortion as a health issue
Each year, more than one million pregnancies end in abortion.6 Researchers estimate that between one-third and half of all U.S. women will have an abortion by the time they are forty-five.7 Fifty percent of all abort
ions are obtained by women under age twenty-five; one out of five is obtained by a teen.
While abortion is most commonly examined from a moral standpoint, it’s also a health issue. If up to half of American women are going to undergo this procedure during their lifetime, it’s important to consider what it may mean for their health.
Most research indicates that abortion is generally a safe medical procedure, especially when it’s performed in the early stages of pregnancy. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, less than 1 percent of all abortion patients experience a major complication, such as infection, hemorrhaging, or damage to the uterus. Women typically experience a number of unwelcome, temporary side effects after undergoing an abortion, including abdominal pain and cramping, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.8
According to the CDC, in 1998 and 1999, fourteen women died from complications from induced abortions.9 The risk of death associated with abortion that year was .6 per 100,000 abortions, while the risk of death from child birth was 6.7 per 100,000, or ten times greater.10
Abortion Is More Dangerous Than Taking Aspirin
Abortion may be a relatively safe medical procedure, but it still carries physical health risks. This is just one of the reasons that Americans overwhelmingly support laws that would require a minor seeking an abortion to obtain parental consent before doing so. Yet in six states and in Washington, DC, a minor can obtain an abortion without getting permission from a parent, and in many other states, laws that would require minors to obtain parental consent are currently working their way through the courts.
When it comes to many other less serious health issues, parental involvement is expected and required. Most public schools, for example, aren’t allowed to provide students with basic over-the-counter medicines, such as aspirin, without a parent’s permission. In New Hampshire—where a parental consent law is currently being challenged and reviewed by the Supreme Court—children under age 18 must have a parent’s permission to use a tanning machine and those under 14 must have a note from a doctor. Similar restrictions on children’s access to tanning machines exist in California, where a child can get an abortion without parental notification. New York has no parental notification requirement when it comes to abortion, but it does have one for a child who wants to get a tattoo or have his or her nose pierced.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism Page 13
