How the Pro-choice Movement Saved America, by Cristina Page

In this book, Page provides a recount of the efforts of the pro-life side to take away women's autonomy. You would think that pro-lifers would be supportive of efforts that could actually help reduce the number of abortions, support efforts that make sense and are scientifically-grounded, and encourage comprehensive sex education so that people can have healthy and informed sex lives. But not only has the movement not just been against abortion, it's been about limiting education and women's access to services that actually prevent abortion. In effect it is the movement's attempt to limit free sex and non-conventional lives for women.

The pro-life movement has worked hard to limit access to emergency contraception (EC), something that would actually prevent abortion since it keeps an egg from implanting on the uterine wall. The irony for the pro-life movement is that if more women were not prevented from getting the EC pill, there would be fewer abortions. It is sickening to hear how many pharmacists have turned women away (even rape survivors) despite having a doctor's prescription for EC.

Another key way in which the pro-life movement has in effect encouraged abortions during a later term in the pregnancy is by requiring women to wait a month or so before having one. One, this is setting a woman up to be criticized by those of that very pro-life movement. They want her to wait, and if she has one later in the pregnancy, she's a monster, a baby-killer. Two, this implies that somehow a month after finding out she's a pregnant, a woman's situation, feelings, fears and health might magically change about something as huge as a pregnany and becoming a parent.

The pro-choice side, on the other hand, has actually been more about preventing abortions than the pro-life side. This movement believes in providing all women access to EC, such that a pregnancy does not happen in the first place. The pro-choice movement also sees that terminating a pregnancy as soon as possible is better. The earlier on the abortion, the fewer the cells that are being removed from the uterus and the farther along the abortion happens, the greater the chance of terminating the pregnancy when the fetus could actually survive outside of the womb. But somehow for the pro-lifers, scraping a few cells from the uterine wall has become equated with murder.

Further, pro-choicers are supportive of comprehensive sex education. Imagine that: kids being taught how to use a condom, information on how their bodies work, etc. so that they can be safer and prevent pregnancy and STD's, rather than being ignorant and being taught that talking about such things is taboo and inappropriate. Not having comprehensive education makes kids (even adults for that matter) embarrassed about asking important questions and makes communication (and particularly for women, assertiveness) with one's partner that much more difficult.

Pro-lifers have looked at only their religious beliefs and the fetus when determining policy. The problem with that is, one cannot do that without considering the woman who is the one that has to go through a pregnancy in order to actually give birth to that fetus. There are some pro-lifers who are a little more to the left and agree that abortion should be legal for those whose pregnancies were a result of rape or incest. I can have a little more respect for that. However, would a life conceived in such a way not be one of god? (Guess that is a question pro-lifers need to answer for themselves.) And many pro-lifers also have the argument that a woman needs to go through with a pregnancy as a way to take responsibility for her irresponsibility with sex. Well one, I've already stated that comprehensive education is not widely available and in that sense many women have been pressured into sex without being equipped with assertiveness skills. In effect those situations have been rape. Two, Page uses the great analogy that if a person develops cancer through an unhealthy lifestyle, do doctors tell them that they are not entitled to treatment? And three, where is the man's responsibility? According to our laws, he has none. Lastly, I've had one person tell me that abortion is also not an option for a married couple. Well one of my cousins has had two high-risk pregnancies. I'm sure she and her husband are making sure she doesn't get pregnant again but should she get pregnant, neither of them would want her to go through another pregnancy given how much time she's had to spend in the hospital during the pregnancies of both their children. But pro-lifers believe she *has* to go through with it.

I often consider how drug policy has been similar to abortion policy. Drug use, something that really just impacts the body of the person using it, is illegal in the US. But in countries in which drug use is not criminalized the use and addiction rates are actually lower than that in the US. When there is comprehensive education on such issues, people make more informed and healthier choices. But for some reason, we in the US want to dictate what others do to their bodies despite not providing programs that could actually support healthier and more fulfilling lives.

Finally, I think we need to be vigilant about the language that we use since it can have impact our thinking and values. Particularly in the abortion debate, I believe language has really distorted what's going on. One, "pro-life" implies the other side is "pro-death." Two, I don't like the phrase "deciding whether or not to keep the baby." That literally means a woman is holding a baby and she's trying to decide whether or not to throw it out the window. What she really means is, "I'm trying to decide if I want to be pregnant, to have children." Lastly there's the term "abortion rights." Though I totally agree that a woman has that right regardless of how she found herself pregnant, it kind of sounds like "voting rights." Like we all have that right and we *should* exercise it, pro-lifers have made it sound like women are going to get knocked up just to go out and put themselves through an uncomfortable procedure. What it really is, is a "right to decide the fate of one's body."