Keep Abortion Safe and Legal? Yes. Make it Rare? Not the Point

one too many Ctl-V

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024004413

A linguistic trick of affirming the right to abortion while simultaneously devaluing it.

Safe, legal, rare.

Saying it should be "rare" indicates - clearly - that it is happening more than it should be and that there are 'good' and 'bad' abortions. Abortion is one of the most stigmatized events of a woman's life and the widespread "rare" mantra propagates that.

Calling for it to be "rare" proposes that there is something wrong with abortion. It places the procedure as a very different type of health care. One in which the goal is reduced use rather than expanded access and enhanced quality. And this has contributed to the significant decline in the number of locations where abortions are performed in the United States. The result is also fewer physicians - good physicians - who are even taught abortion care. Less than half of all OB/GYN's residency programs offer training in abortion care.

Saying it should be rare legitimizes efforts to restrict access to abortion.

Prior to 1989, laws interfering with a woman’s right to abortion were ruled unconstitutional. The shift in the composition of the Court under the Reagan and Bush I administrations led to the 1989 and 1992 Webster and Casey Supreme Court decisions establishing a threshold of “undue burden” for the constitutionality of state-based restrictions. Under this new legal regime, states can demonstrate a preference against abortion through the implementation of waiting periods, parental
involvement, mandatory information, and scripted provider speech requirements; since 1994, almost every state has done so. These laws vary in their construction and studying the effects of these laws is difficult but suggests that additional barriers to abortion disproportionately affect traditionally vulnerable populations.24 For example, the most severe waiting periods require two in-person visits to the clinic with a prescribed time between visits. In a world where many women lack paid sick leave and childcare, access to a provider in their community, and affordable transportation/lodging, a two-visit requirement may be insurmountable to some women.

Using this phrase is a linguistic trick of affirming the right to abortion while simultaneously devaluing it is both harmful and ineffective as a strategy to securing rights. The desire to help an individual woman achieve her reproductive desires by avoiding an abortion is a laudable goal, not because it reduces the need for abortion, but because it is what that woman wants for her life.


Credit for several portions of this to:

J Womens Hist. 2010;22(3):161-72.
Rethinking the mantra that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare".
Weitz TA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20857596

Worth every penny to buy the whole article, btw.


Also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4015405

I wanted to discuss the harm, stigma and confusion that can be caused by the words we choose. ESPECIALLY with people who support choice and may not realize the potential harm or that the party has updated the language. The words in question of this thread are "safe, legal and rare" - specifically taking note of the word rare. In context of abortion (not unwanted pregnancies, abortion). The national party removed it because of the fact it's open to interpretation... and all of the reasons outlined in the OP.

*I* get that you and other liberals are very very likely to fully support choice. *I* get what you *MEAN* by rare. We *all* want to make unwanted pregnancies rare... but do you not see, even a little, how using the "rare" language can be harmful? There have been massive attacks in every state on abortion since 1989. And they are getting worse. And, as such, I feel it's incredibly important to discuss how our language forms our societal beliefs and vice versa. To quote LeftyMom from another thread...

LeftyMom
19. That's the political genius and moral cowardice of the phrase.
To pro-choice people it means "unplanned pregnancies shouldn't be common, for women's sake." To the mushy middle it means "abortions for deserving women but not for those trampy other women." To anti-choicers it means "let's whittle away at legalized abortion even if we can't get a ban past the Supremes yet."

It's a political Rorschach ink blot. It means what you want it to mean.

I have had at least 2 conversations here with people who literally said, "oh, hey. wow - I really hadn't thought about it like that, I will change my language". Others have been nasty, combative, dismissive and rude. And there's been a lot in between.

Bottom line - it's a discussion. This is a discussion board. It's an important topic to me and I thought to many other DUers. Again- the word that causes confusion, anger, harm, etc was REMOVED from the party platform for these reasons. It's just weird that so many DUers are fighting it.


Here is this is the Democratic Party altered platform (with "safe, legal, rare" removed):

Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.


See? It's possible to support all of the things we discussed and leave the frequency out of the policy discussion to avoid the confusion and/or potential harm.

Ideally, abortion rates drop as a byproduct of the rest but we keep the focus on what it should be. We typically don't fight to expand access to something we want to be rare.

It's not that controversial.




Carry on.

If a woman does everything "right" and still gets pregnant it's morally acceptable for her to have an abortion.

Otherwise, well, you know.

I guess I missed the thread that spawned this one. It's probably best.

TN's Amendment 1 passed and I'm not going to get over it anytime soon.

Thanks for your efforts on DU and elsewhere, btw.

States are passing sweeping legislation restricting access and our 'supporters' are soft and allow it to happen. We need to change the narrative. Abortion is a moral & positive choice that liberates women, saves lives, & protects families. Period.

They are making abortion "rare" in Texas and many other states. Is that what we support?

schools so that people have more information and protection for themselves.

As for abortion I think that is the business of the person and those she includes in her decision making process.

Too bad not everyone got the memo.

http://www.upworthy.com/dont-ask-hillary-clinton-about-abortion-if-you-cant-handle-her-answer

Sec. Hillary Clinton: Congressman, I deeply respect your passionate concern and views which you have championed and advocated for over the course of your public career. We obviously have a profound disagreement.

When I think about the suffering that I have seen of women around the world, I've been in hospitals in Brazil where half the women were enthusiastically and joyfully greeting new babies and the other half were fighting for their lives against botched abortions. I've been in African countries where 12 and 13 year old girls are bearing children. I have been in Asian countries where the denial of family planning consigns women to lives of oppression and hardship. So we have a very fundamental disagreement and it is my strongly held view that you are entitled to advocate, and everyone who agrees with you, should be free to do so anywhere in the world and so are we.

We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive health includes access to abortion, that I believe should be safe, legal, and rare. I've spent a lot of my time trying to bring down the rate of abortions and it has been my experience that good family planning and good medical care brings down the rate of abortion. Keeping women and men in ignorance and denied the access to services actually increases the rate of abortion. During my time as First Lady I helped to create the campaign against teenage pregnancy. And while we were working to provide good information, access to contraception, and decision making that would enable young women to protect themselves and say "No", the rate of teen pregnancy went down. I'm sad to report that after an administration of eight years that undid so much of the good work, the rate of teenage pregnancy is going up. So we disagree and we are now an administration that will protect the rights of women including their rights to reproductive health care.

I understand this to mean that she is advocating for better access to contraceptives for all women which would help eliminate unwanted pregnancies. By reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, you would decrease the number of abortions being sought by women. I've always considered that end to be the "rare" part of her comments. I have never thought that she was stigmatizing women who have abortions.

In particular how this thinking puts a huge number of women into the "made a bad choice" category. And it concedes that there is something "wrong" about abortion such that we should make it "rare". There is nothing wrong with abortion. Abortion is a "culturally healthy" choice, to echo a recent sub-thread in this forum that expressed the opposite view.

It's a pleasure to have feminists like you fighting beside and for us.

I sort of obliquely agreed with HRC's statement but bc of reading opinions here and elsewhere regarding women and seeing how his debate has played out, I see how "rare" is problematic phrasing. Unintended by Clinton? I don't know.

The teen pregnancy rate indicates we have a problem on the front end, thanks to the bush admin and their abstinence only bullshit. What could have been prevented with a simple condom ends up a medical procedure as a last line of defense. That's a failure of public health policy.

It SHOULD be rare. Not as a matter of policy, or shaming trigger words, but as a natural consequence of a comprehensive sex ed public health policy nationwide.

Abortion is perfectly culturally healthy to me, but it is much more expensive than condoms and other forms of contraception, it is much more resource intensive than any other form of contraception, and more medically risky than most other forms of contraception. (most but not all, on the latter metric there.)


I'll be thrilled when abortion is rare, as a consequence of solid access to contraceptives and family planning options. Not the least of which, it will take away a wedge issue the politically right wing uses to great effect.

We can see, clearly, how abstinence only bullshit has increased the teen pregnancy rate. An increase in abortions in that demographic is not a moral condemnation of those women. It's a condemnation of *me* as a member of a society that engineered that problem by misinforming a generation in schools that aren't supposed to promulgate religious bullshit like 'sex is bad' in the first place.

We need far better services and education and an end to the past failed policies that are based upon ignorance.

and young men: by perpetuating the idea that there is anything wrong with it... that it is the lesser of two bad choices, etc. We are letting the Religious Right get away with saying that it is wrong to have an abortion. It is a foundation for a guilt trip.

The word "rare" is almost like a trigger word. Use it and you're toast, some number of people are going to go from zero to WTF in a split second.

This makes it hard to have a rational discussion.

Unwanted pregnancies are, well, not wanted! And abortions that may be had following these are, I would hope, unwanted abortions.

Nobody wants an abortion, nobody wants an unwanted pregnancy. Both have medical risks and I'd prefer that fewer women face risks, period.

So it follows that greater resources to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions would be preferred to a greater number of pregnancies and abortions.

You nailed it:

The expression of the hope that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare" preceded both Clintons. It goes back, in fact, to the context of the Roe v. Wade decision. It was never intended to shame any woman.

What was actually being advocated was impediment-free access to contraception by all sexually active women who wanted it. Change the background. Is it easier and safer to take blood pressure medication or to have surgery for an aneurysm? Same comparison here. Is it easier and safer to take contraceptive medication (or employ barrier methods) or to undergo a surgical procedure? That's where the "rare" part comes in. There are always risks to surgery. Except for women with drug sensitivities, medication is almost always preferable.

While I agree that the choice to have an abortion should always be entirely up to the pregnant woman and that it's no one's business but hers, I think this writer has missed the mark in her reading of "safe, legal and rare."

We can focus on keeping abortions safe and legal. We should also work harder to make sure they're affordable, accessible and judgement free. But let's not bolster anti-choice rhetoric and activism by calling for them to be "rare" – especially since there are so many working to ensure that "rare" is an enforced standard, not just a talking point.

That pretty much lays down the really important point and why calling for abortions to be rare is utter rubbish politics.

If Hillary calls for anything like this, I do not know how I could support her. (That's a big if, BTW. This seems to be a bit of a straw man.)

As in... more contraceptive = less pregnancy = less need for abortions. (not getting pregnant at all is still safer than having an abortion)

I usually think of it more as contraception is much safer than pregnancy - including the end of the pregnancy, whether it be from birth, miscarriage and abortion. Just as avoiding heart disease is better than getting a triple bypass.

For me, being pro-choice means the choice to get AND stay pregnant, not just the choice to have an abortion.

But I'd never really considered it in these terms. I can certainly see how it can be taken that way. But that is not how I ever took it. I just figured that she didn't want the Republicans to have a field day if she said pregnancy should be rare.

Last edited Fri Nov 14, 2014, 10:37 PM - Edit history (1)

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/24/changing-the-debate-katha-pollitt-talks-about-pro/?_r=0

You might think of it as "contraception is much safer than pregnancy" but that is not how the Clinton's were using it and it is not how the debate is being framed today, as Katha Pollitt makes rather clear in her book.

Sorry, didn't make that too clear... just more of a stream of conscience post from a very tired woman.

What I was trying to say is: I've always thought of it this way, but this article certainly does make good points, enough to make me re-think how I looked at it.

I've personally never used that term because it is easy to see that some people mean it different that what I think of when I hear it.

But, of course, the same people who can't stand abortions are the exact same ones trying to make it next to impossible to have sex without risking pregnancy. Because the reality is they hate the fact that people might have sex for 'fun', as opposed to 'God-sanctioned' procreation, and therefore you need to be 'punished' by getting pregnant and being forced to give birth if you dare to have sex.

not entirely but mostly , doesnt.

You might say I am a two issue voter, or lets say 3, no make it 4...

1.Abortion access as it would be if men got pregnant, on every street corner.

2. Gay folks marrying and having equal rights.

3. Voting and registration on same day and make voting as easy as anything we ever do ever and outlaw voter id as it is unconstitutional

4. Nationalize all of the commons and necessities other than food and housing

I'd rather have birth control that works. It's less disruptive. I had to take 2 days off from work, it was painful and I had cramps for several days after. Morally and emotionally I was happy and relieved it was available and done on a medical emviornment. I was working a low wage job so it really cut into my food budget. I didn't have a ride and this was back when you had to go to NYC to have an abortion so I had to take a bus and 2 trains back and forth. My friend went with me but he didn't have a car either. So if I say make abortion rare it's because it is difficult to have one, not morally but for all the disruption. And now it's even harder and more expensive.

I don't have a vagina so I have no opinion on abortion other then all woman should have the access to it. Their reasons are for them and them alone.