Barely Legal
New legislation is chipping away at a woman’s right to choose.
In college, I took a class called “The History of Reproductive Rights.” Growing up in a liberal community – and with the kind of parents who agreed that a class called “The History of Reproductive Rights” was a solid part of my academic growth – I remember being amazed by both the amount of abuse women took and the lengths they went to ensure they got the sexual health care they needed.
At that time, a group of Chicago women, collectively known only as Jane, became heroes of mine. Jane was an underground abortion service run by women in the Hyde Park neighborhood from 1969 to 1973. A doctor taught the women how to do the procedure, and over those four years, until the passage of Roe vs. Wade, Jane provided more than 12,000 safe (and totally illegal) abortions in the city.
Reading about these women as an 18 year-old in the time of Clinton (Bill, that is), I was sure there would never again be the need for a group like Jane. Was I ever naive.
There are a number of ways anti-choice groups and legislators are currently battling the right to choose:
On March 24, South Dakota became the first state to implement a 72-hour waiting period between the time a woman requests and gets an abortion. The bill also mandates that she get what amounts to anti-choice counseling from a crisis pregnancy center (CPC), even in cases of rape and incest. Governor Dennis Daugaard (R), signed the bill into law and it goes into effect July 1. Just for comparison, in 2009, the state voted to repeal the 48-hour waiting period to purchase a gun.
In addition to the legislative implication that women are flighty, rash or are simply not smart enough to know what they want, this is a huge problem logistically – especially in South Dakota. There is but one abortion provider in the entire state. If you don’t live close to Sioux Falls, or can’t afford to travel there on multiple occasions (which means you probably can’t afford a baby, but there’s nothing to indicate that the Governor is worried about that), you won’t be able to get an abortion.
Then there’s the CPC. Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, explains, “They’re not licensed, they’re not regulated, they’re not accredited and they’re openly ideological.” According to Ms. Stoesz, CPCs are often run by anti-choice activists who aren’t licensed to practice medicine. Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) plan to take legal action.
Earlier this month, Senator Mark Christensen of Nebraska decided it would be good to legalize killing doctors who perform abortions – he got the idea from his cohorts in South Dakota – so he introduced a bill allowing murderers to use the “justifiable homicide” defense for killings intended to prevent harm to a fetus. The South Dakota version, which didn’t pass, would have only applied to a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents or her children, while the Nebraska legislation would also apply to any third party. If this bill passes, anyone can go ahead and walk into a Planned Parenthood and kill a doctor without consequence. Meanwhile, in Nebraska, it remains illegal for a mother to give her daughter a perm without a state license. Christensen claims that he didn’t intend the bill to allow for or encourage murdering doctors and is reportedly revising the language.
In Ohio, a fetus took the stand. State Rep. Lynn Wachtmann’s heartbeat bill would “prohibit women from ending pregnancies at the first detectable fetal heartbeat,” which can come as early as 18 days after conception, a time when most women don’t even know they are pregnant. The groups, Ohio Right To Life and Faith2Action, put on quite a show when they gave two pregnant women ultrasounds while lawmakers listened for fetal heartbeats. One March 24, the vote was postponed; Watchmann said the bill “wasn’t quite ready.”
Nationally, things aren’t much better. On February 18th, the House voted to cut off all funding to Planned Parenthood, using language to imply that federal money is being used to fund abortion – which hasn’t been the case since the passing of the Hyde Amendment in 1976. Luckily, the Senate defeated the bill allowing Planned Parenthood to continue providing preventative care including STI testing, HIV testing, breast cancer screenings, cervical cancer tests and access to birth control to more than three million women a year.
But the fight isn’t over. Meet H.R.3. The bill known for finally defining rape as “forcible,” is going after private insurers. Here’s how it works: If a company provides health care benefits and that plan includes coverage for abortion, the company becomes ineligible for the federal tax deductions and credits usually granted to companies that provide benefits. This will impact 87% of private insurance plans. Meaning, more employers will seek the coverage that doesn’t specifically exclude abortion coverage and fewer women will have insurance that covers this legal procedure.
And, as if your taxes aren’t complicated enough, if H.R.3 passes, the IRS will be looking to get in your pants. “Under standard audit procedure, a woman would have to provide evidence to corroborate facts about abortions, rapes, and cases of incest,” Marcus Owens, an accountant and former longtime IRS official told Daily Kos. If a taxpayer received a deduction or tax credit for abortion costs related to a case of rape or incest, or because her life was endangered, then “on audit [she] would have to demonstrate or prove, ideally by contemporaneous written documentation, that it was incest, or rape, or [her] life was in danger,” Owens says. “It would be fairly intrusive for the woman.” Yes, fairly.
2011 is already a newsworthy year in the history of reproductive rights. I’m doing what I can: emailing and calling my legislators, donating to Planned Parenthood and talking about this with anyone who will listen. But, I’m from Chicago. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, I may be calling Jane to learn a new skill.
Photo via u2canreed
30 Best Quotes About Staying Well Physically ...
Now & Then: The History of the Trench Co ...
Dished Out Sex With a Side of Burlesque
Celebrate Fat Tuesday With Swedish Semlor
The Insider’s Guide to Life: 10 New Sel ...
March 27th, 2011 at 9:05 PM
I found this really shocking! I cannot believe that people can restricted so much for having choice in their pregnancy. Makes me very glad that UK has national rules for abortion and that it is so liberal compared to the US.
March 27th, 2011 at 10:58 PM
Thanks for your comment, Zoe. Abortion is legal nationally per the Supreme Court, so the fact that states are creating technical barriers to something that is legal – even for those who are victims of crimes – is pretty galling. It’s like how Southern states used to mandate tests and fees and other hindrances to keep black Americans from their legal right to vote.
March 28th, 2011 at 1:20 AM
This is bullshit. Women & men are no different. Ladies & Gents, stand up for your rights!
Thanks for the article.
March 28th, 2011 at 12:58 PM
The South Dakota version, which didn’t pass, would have only applied to a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents or her children.
March 28th, 2011 at 5:49 PM
<3 this! It's great to see people finally realizing that this isn't a woman's rights issue, it has to do with the unborn baby and its rights. w00t!
March 28th, 2011 at 5:50 PM
Why not call them pro-life like they want to be called? We don’t call you Anti-life or Pro Death.
You don’t even try to understand the the other side. A fetus is alive to us and what is being done is killing a living being. We fight for this child to be allowed life. I know I’ll get slammed and say well do you adopt or do you support the death penalty, those are not valid arguments against what I’m saying. Counter the statement that a fetus is a living and growing being.
March 28th, 2011 at 6:05 PM
Uh, yeah…I’m pretty sure men and women are VERY different from each other. Seriously, go take an anatomy class.
March 28th, 2011 at 6:36 PM
Do you try to understand the pro-choice side. The view of the pro-choice lobby requires that they believe a fetus is a life and that therefore abortion is wrong.
Libby’s pro-choice view is that it is a woman’s individual choice and none of your damned business. Additionally, many pro-choice advocates express deep anger over the assumption that they do not know what is right for themselves.
Neither of those views really lend themselves to understanding the position or opinion of the other side.
March 28th, 2011 at 6:47 PM
None of baby’s damned business either, whether he gets to die or survive.
March 28th, 2011 at 6:48 PM
We understand your point of view perfectly, and restating it ad nauseum lends nothing to the argument. It doesn’t matter if it’s alive *to you* since it isn’t inside you, it isn’t changing your body, and it doesn’t represent a life-long economic and life-changing commitment on your part.
In fact, your position requires nothing of you. It’s really easy for you to order other people around when you don’t have to pay for the consequences, isn’t it? You restate your beliefs over and over as if they’re relevant, but they aren’t because it’s none of your business.
Your beliefs are relevant *to you*, which is why it’s called pro-choice. You can choose anything you want when it happens to you.
March 28th, 2011 at 6:52 PM
People do have a choice in their pregnancy, aside from rape victims, who make up about 1% of all abortions. Don’t want a baby? Use a condom, take the pill, get the snip, pull out. Got preggers by accident? There’s waiting lists over five years long for couples who want to adopt because they can’t have their own baby. If the fetus doesn’t get to vote against his abortion, Mom shouldn’t be allowed to vote for it.
March 28th, 2011 at 7:16 PM
See? This is one of those arguments (and there are fairly few of them truly) where neither side will ever be willing to see the others.
March 28th, 2011 at 7:23 PM
Just like all the prime examples of manhood that want to live with their past decisions and stay around to help out financially and emotionally when a child is born instead of taking off. Get real.
We are (both men and women) biologically driven to procreate. Science has given us many aids in choosing when and how often (which religion often calls heretical), but the biologic need is still very present.
March 28th, 2011 at 8:09 PM
All religious people are crazy. Especially if they belong one of the three Abrahamic desert blood cults and their offshoot groups.
March 28th, 2011 at 8:51 PM
I think this is absolutely fantastic!
This enhances choice!
You can still choose to “choose” but now with the benefit of me not paying for it.
March 29th, 2011 at 12:33 AM
You are not paying for it anyway, and haven’t for decades. No federal dollars go to abortion, ever, period, and that’s the law. It’s been that way for years. This is a myth promoted by the pro-life crowd but it’s inaccurate.
March 29th, 2011 at 12:38 AM
Hi David,
Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not comfortable with the term pro-life because I think of my own take on abortion as pro-life–the life of the woman rather than the life of the fetus.
This also ties directly to your statement about the fetus as a living being. There are numerous arguments about when life begins, and I don’t think rehashing those here will do us much good. I firmly believe that the woman facing an unwanted pregnancy–who has undoubtedly been living her life for numerous years–is the one with the right to life, and the right to live that life in the way that is best for her.
-Libby
April 6th, 2011 at 3:36 PM
This is so depressing. But what’s worse are the callous comments by the pro-lifers. Let’s get real. They aren’t pro-women or pro-fetus – if they were, they’d do something about it WAY before babies come into this world. You know, all that stuff about thorough sex education they abhore, the availabity of contraception, and how they turn the other cheek with regards to violence against women and children.
You want to stop abortions? Start by ending the politicalization of our bodies. Better yet, vagina-havers should stop sleeping with anyone who doesn’t care about female sexual/reproductive health.
May 17th, 2011 at 7:00 PM
u00a0Killing baby’s is nothing like keeping people from voting!
May 17th, 2011 at 7:04 PM
u00a0Where you been Sara…planned parenthood gets MILLIONS from Tax payers to kill baby’s! Do your home work before you comment !
May 17th, 2011 at 11:41 PM
u00a0How about you read the article before you tell me to do my homework, Gman? If you did, you would have read the part that explains that Planned Parenthood does NOT receive federal dollars for abortion. The Hyde Amendment, a federal law, has banned it for decades. It is pure rhetoric from conservatives that taxpayer dollars go to abortions. They don’t, period, end of story. They just factually, provably do not. It’s a myth. Go do YOUR homework.
May 25th, 2011 at 7:06 PM
It isn’t my job to supply a baby to a infertile couple. I’m not a charity.
June 4th, 2011 at 9:41 AM
This is an excellent reminder why the USA disgusts me.
I was the ‘pro-life’ arguments here and well I don’t care how you turn it but fact remains that a child won’t be very conscious of their own actions until after PUBERTY, abortion when it’s 2 weeks or killing it when it’s 1 year old, the child won’t realize what’s going on and therefore I say it’s not ‘wrong’.
It’s obvious that people want to stand up for something that doesn’t have the tools to defend itself against the practice. But hey, isn’t that what parents are for? Making the right decisions for children that can’t yet? Teaching them, taking care for them?
If a mother is too young to handle it, has no finances to back it up, got pregnant because of a destructive relationship, or whatever situation it may be that will mean a bad childhood for the fetus, I think that it’s the right thing for the child to have an abortion.
Look around at all the people that have had poor childhoods. Abusive, divorce, teenage moms that had no choice but to send them to daycares, how much pain does that amount to in this world? And if you’re about to say, well there’s good help for those people think again. Particularly in the USA professional help is not only extremely poor, it’s also very commercial. It costs you a truckload of money and you hardly get anything for it except for some lame diagnoses the insurance companies like to hear (while a good and knowledgeable friend can help you more and often for free).
Seriously have you witnessed what shit people go through as a result of a bad childhood? It’ll break your heart. And THAT is something you don’t wish for your fetus. That is why there is abortion. I hope for the love of God that a group of narrow minded men aren’t going to be suppressing this right.
Another thing, if a woman is simply being stupid and makes the choice for an abortion, would they have been smart enough to raise a child anyway? And if women are smart and still chose for an abortion because of the bad circumstance, then doesn’t that save her to be child a lot of agony?
Protecting something that can’t protect itself is fine, so long you don’t come up with worse solutions then the problem.
Who Linked To This Post?