BlogHer - Podcast: Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards spoke with Suzanne Reisman about reproductive rights - Comments

Roe v. Wade is here to stay, if you can access it

Suzanne Reisman — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:06:28 -0500

I agree with you that Roe v. Wade is here to stay. However, with the types of amendments and restrictions that are being imposed, abortion will be safe, legal, and never available. No one is claiming that people think there should be no limits on access to abortion. The current Roe v. Wade law does provide for limits. This is why we don't need further laws - like how wide a hallway at a clinic should be, mandatory waiting periods that imply that women don't think through their decisions, mandatory sonograms, and protections for people who block access to reproductive health care because they don't agree with it.

These are exactly the types of laws that John McCain supports, and it goes way beyond abortion. He has voted time and time again to allow health insurance companies and other providers to deny women access to birth control. I think it is fair to say that most Americans believe that the best way to prevent abortion is to offer better access to contraception (although I cannot provide a stat at this moment). I think most people believe that a pregnant woman has a right to life, and if she were to be in a situation in which her life is threatened due to pregnancy, she has the right to decide how to proceed. Some women may very well choose to continue a pregnancy even if they may die as a result. That's their choice, and it is not my right to interfere, even though I think it is insane. But it is also a woman's right to choose to undergo a medical procedure that would save hers. Banning certain types of abortions that are already offered under very restrictive circumstances (like to save a woman's life) takes that right away from women.

No one said that all women agree that we have the right to self-determination. However, I believe that my body is mine, and if I want to take birth control pills, no one else has the right to prevent me from doing so because it is against her religion. I'll never force another woman to have an abortion or take birth control because I believe that my moral code is superior to hers and I know that is best for her. I appreciate when people treat me the same way.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Read Roe v Wade

Queen1 — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 12:23:41 -0500

The Supreme Court envisioned limitations on abortion in the original decision. That's where the whole idea of trimesters and viability arose. The Court never imagined that their decision would be used to justify aborting babies up to the minute a woman goes into labor.

Queen1

www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com

Abortion SHOULD be limited

Queen1 — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 12:19:41 -0500

Google the abortion question--poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal, but that limitations are in order. Most Americans do not believe you have a right to abort a baby that would be viable outside the womb, but have less of a problem with aborting at 12 weeks. To portray a McCain presidency as a return to back-alley abortions IS hysterical. Supporting a candidate who believes that a baby who accidentally survives an abortion should be denied nourishment and medical care is mind-boggling to me.

Name a state where a women can't get an abortion. And I don't find it horrifying that a woman might have to travel a few miles to a big city in order to find an abortionist. If doing abortions is profitable, then doctors who do so will set up shop everywhere. If not, then they will concentrate themselves where it is, and women will just have to adjust to market forces when it comes to "reproductive freedom." I don't think my paycheck should be used to fund someone else's perception of "reproductive rights."

There is good legal argument that the abortion question is best left to the legislative process. Were Roe v Wade to be overturned (which most conservative court-watchers find unlikely), the matter would return to the states, where it probably belongs.

What I am objecting to is your and others' ridicule and contempt for those of us who disagree with you from a moral standpoint. I believe abortion is murder. While I am content to let the legislative process take place--which means that abortion will always be available--I find the insistence on "abort anytime, anyplace, at any stage" to be loathsome. And that is what I hear coming from the "reproductive freedom" crowd.

It is so easy in this day to avoid pregnancy; abortion should be much rarer than it is. And i find it interesting that abortion-rights advocates gloss over the racial demographics. Almost half of black pregnancies end in abortion. Where is the outrage over that? All the vehement abortion-rights women I know are middle-class white women--the people least likely to be unable to find an abortion should they want one.

What I am saying is that the original post's view that a vote for McCain is against my interests is wrong--and I know many women who agree with me. I also find her portrayal of what a McCain presidency will mean to be egregiously inflammatory. What I hear in her post is a "no limits" stand on "reproductive freedom." Do you really think most Americans agree with that? If so, you are WAY out of touch.

Queen1

www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com

Most Americans believe abortion should be limited?

Liz Rizzo — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:43:43 -0500

Do you have a cite for that statement?

Further, you say, "legal abortion is here to stay." I seriously wish that were true, but I'm sure that the Americans who have to travel to far off cities and other states for an abortion would heartily disagree with you.

Finally, to characterize Suzanne's tone as "hysterical" is extremely offensive. There's nothing hysterical about serious concern for human rights and freedoms.

Middle ground? How can there be middle ground when you say incendiary and mischaracterizing things like this:

"Those of us who believe that human life is just that human life at conception have just as valid a position as those of you who believe that a baby who accidentally survives an abortion should be left to die."

Who are you referring to when you say this? I didn't read anything like that in Suzanne's post.

Liz Rizzo

I blog at Everyday Goddess.

Women and "Reproductive Rights"

Queen1 — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:35:03 -0500

Perhaps there are women who disagree with your position. To paint a John McCain presidency as a world where abortion is illegal and contraception is unavailable is specious. Most Americans, including women, believe that abortion should be limited. The hysterical babbling about Roe v Wade being overturned is unproductive--legal abortion is here to stay. Let's have a conversation about reasonable limits and be respectful of others' opinions. Those of us who believe that human life is just that human life at conception have just as valid a position as those of you who believe that a baby who accidentally survives an abortion should be left to die. Surely there is a middle ground.

Queen1

www.whenwearequeen.squarespace.com

Podcast: Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards spoke with Suzanne Reisman about reproductive rights

Suzanne Reisman — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 07:09:50 -0500

A few weeks ago, it occurred to me that reproductive rights were not the number one issue for all women voters in the country. In fact, it seemed to not even be the number one issue for women of childbearing age or women who care about women of childbearing age. As someone obsessed with my right to self-autonomy, I wondered what was up. A quick investigation into the matter led me to conclude that many women didn't prioritize reproductive rights as an issue because they falsely assumed that both candidates supported the full spectrum of reproductive rights. However, as the Reproductive Rights Law Profs report, when women learned that John McCain does not, in fact, support access to birth control or abortion, they changed their stance on supporting his candidacy. Translation: when people feel threatened, reproductive rights seems to become a priority issue for women.

To find out more about the role of reproductive rights in national, state, and local elections in 2008, I spoke to the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards. We discussed everything from John McCain's anti-choice voting record (out of 119 votes he cast on reproductive rights issues, 115 are construed as anti-choice by NARAL) to abortion rights as part of the Democratic party platform to critical issues in state elections, such as the California ballot initiative for parental notification and South Dakota's ballot initiative to ban abortion. Richards insight into the issues should not be missed.

Before our talk, I had no idea that extremists in South Dakota are again attempting to flout the interests of the public and ban abortions. I was also ignorant of the attempts of one billionaire to force all young women to notify their parents before obtaining an abortion. (According to the Guttmacher Institute, "most teens" already involve their parents if they seek to have an abortion, and notification laws can endanger young women.) Did you know that Colorado has a ballot initiative underway to ascribe "personhood" to all fertilized eggs? (According to the Feminist Daily News, "This "personhood initiative" declares that a fertilized egg is a "person" who enjoys "inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of the law." The measure would threaten not only abortion itself, but IUDs, emergency contraception, in vitro fertilization clinics, and stem cell research.")

Listen to the podcast, then take action. Across the country, women's self-autonomy is in danger.

Download the podcast by right clicking this link and selecting "save as": Cecile Richards from Planned Parenthood interview or use this audio player to listen to the interview:

Suzanne also blogs about life at Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants She is currently seeking submissions for an anthology of essays on menstruation at Congratulations, You're a Woman Now!