Mermaid Musings

Is the goal of reducing abortions really common ground for evangelical anti-abortion folks and the reproductive justice movement? A really good article examines some of the foundations of this new common ground.

I can’t really argue that reducing the need for abortion is a laudable goal, but as the author of the above article points out, anti-abortion forces have long regarded reducing the numbers of abortions performed as their goal and they are willing to erect any number of barriers that limit a woman’s ability to obtain a safe, legal abortion. Some of those barriers include waiting periods, no public funding for abortion, parental consent/notification laws, forcing women to view ultrasounds before a procedure and the latest from North Dakota: legislation declaring that a fertilized egg has the same rights as the woman in which it resides. Can reproductive justice advocates really feel comfortable finding common ground with folks who’s interest is in eliminating abortion, rather than ensuring women’s human rights?

In North Dakota, should this legislation be signed into law, will create conflicts between women’s rights and the rights of her fertilized egg. I’m no lawyer, and I definitely wouldn’t want to be one practicing in North Dakota right now, but I can see this creating nightmare legal questions. Indeed, until we can agree on a common agenda for a woman’s right to her own body, this common ground of abortion reduction only paves the way for localities to decide for themselves what rights women have when it comes to dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.

Truly, if we want to reduce the number of abortions performed, we first have to ensure universal access to abortion care. When any woman can choose to have an abortion at will, then we can begin to create programs and incentives and policies that will support women choosing NOT to have an abortion. But without universal access as a prior condition, we are simply perpetuating the injustice of women not being guaranteed autonomy over her own body. Comprehensive sexuality education and access to reliable birth control should be givens for anyone interested in reducing abortions, whether they are interested in just reducing the numbers or reducing the need. It is heartening to see the right wingers come around to recognizing the need for these things. However, even with universal access to contraception, no method of birth control is 100% effective; there will ALWAYS be a need for abortion services.

I would be much more comfortable finding common ground if there was general acknowledgement that we can do much more to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy in this country (currently about 1/2 the pregnancies that occur in the US are unintended), but there will always be a need for abortions and even if we cut the abortion rate to 10% of what it is now, those 10% of women still seeking abortions have an absolute right to do so and deserve access to abortion services without having to overcome barriers established for the sole purpose of discouraging abortions.

What we need is a woman’s guaranteed right to control her reproduction. It seems silly, but in the absence of federal guarantees, states like North Dakota are going to take matters into their own hands and grant a handful of cells the same rights as grown women. And that shit has just got to stop.