Lynn Gazis-Sax of Noli Irritare Leones asks how birth control came to be left out of most healthcare legislation.
Sharon Lerner at DoubleX ponders how birth control came to be a politically toxic issue.
...
On the one hand, I can understand why birth control wasn’t included in the minimum benefits package. When you’re making a big change, and not including birth control simply leaves the status quo (rather than actively making the status quo worse), it’s easy to run from the least whiff of controversy, just to keep your bill intact. On the other hand, it’s discouraging that birth control, of all things, which practically everyone uses, should be controversial.
Actually I can say exactly how contraception became toxic in Congress so long ago. It’s actually the issue that first inspired me to start a website back when I thought I could become a regular political web-logger back in the days before actual blogging tools. That old website is now so long-gone I can’t even find the (hand-coded) source files.
Anyway, while I evidently no longer even have notes for my sources I learned the answer in an old print-based Washington Monthly from back in what must have been the early 1990s. What they said was that beginning in the 1970s pressure politics was such that no conservative Republican Senators would allow any legislation referencing birth control to move forward if it included support for abortion. No liberal Democratic Senator would support anything that didn’t include support for abortion. And no matter who brought it up or how reasonable the proposal was it always turned into a fight that would often spill over into other bills, with pro-choice attachments showing up here and anti-choice attachments showing up there and, since passions ran quite high, no possibility of resolution.
The result was a cordial agreement on both sides not to even bring it up. By the time the Monthly published the story the agreement was already nearly 20 years old. It would have been more than 30 years ago now.
What was particularly disgraceful was that at the time contraception itself wasn’t particularly controversial. Not for liberals, obviously, but also not for non-Catholic, pre-Reagan-revolution conservatives. And so absent the abortion issue what little legislation that did make it through tended to pass by overwhelming majorities in both parties.
Warn’t them the days though? Bipartisanship sure was great back then.
Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon says
...even though most people, when pressed, don’t have the nerve to force women to have babies against their will, anti-choicers aren’t entirely wrong about their ability to use female sexuality to stir up anger and fear. The problem is that when you get people to think about this logically, they’re pro-choice. But when you appeal to them emotionally, they’re all too easily sucked into hating on sluts, believing female sexuality is dangerous, and wanting it to be controlled. When asked specifics about how it should be controlled, people balk—-they want it to be controlled, but they don’t want there to be actual force involved, in part because most Americans have female sexuality as part of their own sex lives, and they don’t want their own bedrooms invaded. The key to creating a sex panic is making the panickers believe this is about Other Women. And unfortunately, 65 Democrats are convinced that this amendment is about punishing Other Women, not their own voters.
Elsewhere in her post Amanda links to an interesting article from 2000 called “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion” When the Anti-Choice Choose. In my own conversations with women’s and family-services professionals it turns out that “good” women seeking “moral” abortions are a healthy proportion of the clientele.
Funny thing, though, is this notion of, I guess, “immoral” abortion isn’t exclusive to ‘wingers. The other day I was grousing about the Stupak debacle to an educated, progressive-to-radical woman and her angry reaction was “well, does he just think a good alternative is more of these twenty-four year old girls having six different children by six different fathers instead?!?!”
Can I just say how frustrating that is?
For the record, though, about six in ten women who have abortions already have one or more children. Roughly a third are married and a quarter of those who are unmarried live with a male partner, which my very poor arithmetic says that adds up to 49.7 percent. Stereotypes about “godliness” are not — 78% say they’re religious. The fact that 88% live in metropolitan areas would be a stereotype-affirming gotcha… if not for the fact that 79% of everybody lives in metropolitan areas. The stereotypes about income do hold up — 57% are economically disadvantaged. (But even there, not to put too fine a point on it, but back in the days before Roe vs. Wade we noticed that the daughters of upper-middle-class families had a disproportionately high rate of “appendicitis.”)
I mean, yeah, I guess, even though it’s more a production of racist/classist/conservative fantasy than reality there are women who match the stereotype of multiple pregnancies by multiple partners. But in absolute terms it would be about as accurate… if also just as much a caricature… to say the stereotypical abortion seeker is a lower-middle-class midwestern married or long-term partnered suburbanite who doesn’t see herself as one of “those people” at all.
If the “pro-life” community was really “pro-life” instead of just anti-abortion then you’d expect them to give a rat’s ass about, oh, say, pre-natal care. As a movement they don’t. You’d expect them to care about infant mortality. As a movement they don’t. You’d expect them to care about stilbirth. As a movement they don’t. You’d expect them to care about maternal mortality. As a movement they don’t.
And since miscarriage “stops a beating heart” roughly as often as abortion (about one in four first pregnancies, about one in ten later pregnancies) you’d expect them to care about that too. As a movement, as individuals, as caregivers, and as “crisis-pregnancy” advisors they don’t.
My pro-choice partner and I got a good look at it when our planned, wanted first pregnancy ended in a miscarriage and the best we got from “pro-life” crowd while it was still on-going and presumably still rescuable was a chipper “oh well, just keep trying, I’m sure she’ll be pregnant again in no time.” Gee, doesn’t get any more “pro-life” than that, does it?
So! If you’re a reporter, a constituent, or just someone passing one of these “principled men,” (and it was overwhelmingly men) who voted for the Stipak amendment, and you have an opportunity to ask them questions, on or off the record, how about asking…
“Have you ever given an instant of thought about any of the above? Has anyone you know? If not how does this make you ‘pro-life?’”
I thought anti-choice monsters on the right (regardless of party) and their Stockholm-syndrome-stunned fellow travelers had already skinned reproductive rights to the bone in the “negotiations” previously. This feels like they just wanted to pour salt on raw wounds. Just because they could.
Stupack and his masters also obviously crafted it as a bomb to be dropped at the last minute — I can’t believe how unprepared the House managers were. I’m pretty sure that if they hadn’t been so blindsided they might have mounted an effective opposition instead of letting it get to a floor vote.
For instance it would have been nice if anybody had asked for a CBO score on the Stupak amendment. Hard to imagine a $500 termination hitting the Federal Budget harder than $10,000 for a health term delivery, or $20-30,000 for a c-section, let alone $100,000+ for care for a woman who had a preeclampsia-induced stroke late in an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy.
That might have been a zero-cost no-brainer now, while coverage can still be declined because pregnancy is a preexisting condition. But presumably the new bill is going to stick both private insurers and any public providers with an itemized bill.
A CBO score will almost certainly reflect that. And it’s not too late! While it’s too late for the House version a big fat CBO score would complicate its survival in the Senate and during reconciliation.
Add this to the list of things to be done sooner than later.
Something else we can work on to stop this, from Matt Yglesias: bring pressure to bear to make sure the composition of the conference committee and the rules it operates under keep this abomination out of the conference report. After Saturday’s ambush is something else that should not be left to chance. Anymore.
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones gently pushes back at what’s effectively becoming a feminist ethnic slur before asking a really, really critical question about insurer’s reaction to the thuggish anti-abortion amendment in Saturday night’s House healthcare reform bill.
God knows we liberal dudes can be clueless sometimes, but are any of us really saying that this is no big deal? That’s hard to believe. What I can imagine us saying is that Bart Stupak had the votes and we didn’t. That’s a huge problem. But not a big deal? Hardly.
On a related note, I wonder what the insurance industry thinks of this? I know that if I were an insurance company, I’d sure rather cover an abortion (cost = $500 or so) than a pregnancy carried to term (cost = $10,000 or so). But they’re probably too scared to speak up.
I’m tempted to digress and point out that that would be $10,000 for a routine pregnancy with no complications. The million or so c-sections a performed a year cost considerably more. Not even counting perpetual care the cost for treating a woman for a stroke from preeclampsia from an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy can quickly top $100,000.
Instead I’ll just say that there are procedures that have been used all year to obstruct assess the cost of various measures. So let’s start by asking the CBO to score Stupak’s hateful thuggery.
Hortense of Jezebel says
By a vote of 290-194, the U.S. House of Representatives has just passed an amendment that bans the use of federal funds to cover abortions for anyone covered under a proposed government-run health care plan.
According to the Associated Press, “the amendment also prevents private insurers from covering abortions for anyone getting federal subsidies to help pay their premiums.” [AP]
Cowards. I totally get the logic of the thing. And there’s a better than zero chance that it’ll get “lost” in the conference committee that reconciles this bill with the Senate version. And once it looked like it was going to pass anyway a bunch of vulnerable Dems were able to pile on, since it really is a problematic issue in a lot of districts.
But it’s still a major blow and a real toss reproductive rights under the bus move. And not, exactly, what we elected the moral cowards to do just over a year ago.
Heather Corinna, founder of Scarleteen.com and author of pure as the driven slush is a patient advocate at a local, independent women’s clinic that provides, among other services, pregnancy termination. Her post yesterday is almost literally a picture-perfect illustration of the meaning of “pro choice” and how that’s not just different but quantitatively different from being simply claiming to be “pro life” or, more directly, anti-abortion. Or even pro-abortion. Unless you’ve been to a clinic yourself it might be eye-opening even if you’re pro-choice.
We had protestors yesterday, one of whom walked right by a teen client in front of the clinic (and broke the law here in WA by doing so on our property) who was already upset, and who was already being pressured TO terminate outside by her boyfriend and family.
Anyway, it’s a cool, cool post.
I was able to get her inside, take her downstairs to my sitting room, and give her open time to talk about all of her feelings, what she wanted, and how she felt she was given no permission by anyone to make up her own mind. She was able to say she felt very unsure, and was considering termination, but had also wanted to consider adoption but was told this was “selifsh” I gotta say, I hadn’t heard that one before about adoption, but you hear something new every day. She also informed me her mother had told her she could legally block her from remaining pregnant, which I let her know was false. We were able to discuss both options in some depth, and she was able to hear someone tell her  and mean it  that ANY choice she made was an acceptable choice which could be her best one, and that none of her choices were selfish save that this was about her and it was really important she think of herself. I was also able to open the pressure valve by letting her know that no matter what, when we have a client come for a procedure who says they are here due to being or feeling forced by others and/or says they do not want to terminate, we will not and cannot do a termination that day, and that I’d be happy to inform anyone she needed me to that that was our policy and my firm decision on that. I let her know she was welcome, if she decided for herself she did want to terminate, to come back, even the next day if she liked, and we could still talk more about all of this regardless, but she did not have to worry about making up her mind that day.
The next few paragraphs are about a mediation session the client requested with her boyfriend who… well, to be fabulously generous let’s say he’s swallowed standard narratives about what teen pregnancy, and single motherhood, and, um, being female, period, so deep the hook’s caught in his rectum. Such that his own shit comes out of his mouth any time the line gets tugged on. Anyway, after some (highly readable) processing Heather ads
I can’t know what she wound up deciding unless she does come back, but in the end, my sense was she was going to be likely to terminate, and was feeling that may have been best for her from the start, she just needed everyone to back the hell off so she could get all the information and breathing room she needed to consider her options, and so she could make her own choice. This is actually a pretty common occurrence, especially with teens who also tend to face people not giving them autonomy in most things, so they often already feel talked over and controlled as it is.
It doesn’t matter to me what she chooses, but my sense is whatever it is, it’s a lot more likely to be her choice now, and whatever she feels is best.
Choice. It’s what human beings do. And not because humans always make some pre-determined right choice, even when given all the information, space, and freedom to make it. But because at the end of the day it’s human being, her or himself, who lives with their own choice. As opposed to surviving the imposition of other people’s choices.
I thought last September that Twisty Faster of I Blame The Patriarchyhad permanently gone off to the Austin-ian hinterlands to ride her horse (Lester?) hang out with her dog (Zippy?) and return to civilization only occasionally for fresh Chardonnay Oak-Smoked Fleur de Sel sea salt at Whole Foods. Instead she had killed two stereotypes about men, women, and technology by switching to a new newsfeed.
Twisty Faster of I Blame The Patriarchy notes that in rescinding the global gag rule President Obama said
[I]t is right for us to rescind this policy and restore critical efforts to protect and empower women and promote global economic development.”
Twisty would have preferred he’d put even more directly
“It is right for us to rescind this policy because women are human beings who are entitled to personal sovereignty.”
I think that’s about right. Women are human beings. Human beings are entitled to personal sovereignty.
An awful lot of problems in this world would be a lot more solvable if human beings recognized that there are more human beings in this world than they’re willing to recognize. (And yes, while I often mangle syntax and grammar I meant that last sentence word for word.)
Twisty and I part company in places, but it mostly has to do with whether it’s possible for humans to do that or not. She leans pessimistic, I lean optimistic. She’s also right about Chardonnay Oak-Smoked Fleur de Sel, though typically, wrong about it being good on watermelon.
—-
The bit about economic development in the President’s executive order would sound more like a non sequitur if economic development didn’t tended to go up when, where, and to the extent women’s personal sovereignty (especially in but not limited to reproductive choice) is recognized. Seems to me there are a couple reasons for this. First, because women with personal sovereignty can decide to do something besides have and raise children if they want to… like, oh, read, write, teach, work, invent, and lead. Second, it takes work to deny human beings personal sovereignty which means that by acknowledging women’s personal sovereignty men have time and energy for something else like, surprise!, reading, writing, teaching, working, inventing, and leading. All of which paves the way for authentic (i.e. non-resource-extraction-for-export) economic development. Bit of a win/win then.
Heather Corinna of the sex-ed site Scarleteen, and others, remind us that
September 25th is the last day to submit public comment on the proposed HHS regulations which are not only superfluous, but more importantly, would further limit access to reproductive healthcare (and other healthcare) services in the U.S., particularly for those who already have the greatest limitations to care, like teens.
It’s so important to have public comment on this, so if you have not done so yet, take a few minutes tonight and be sure to get something in.
- *
I am writing to urge you to stop efforts to block women’s access to basic reproductive health services.
I understand that the proposed regulations that the Department of Health and Human Services released on August 21, 2008 expand existing law to allow more health care providers and institutions to refuse to provide needed care.
As written, the regulations could allow institutions and individuals — based on religious beliefs — to deny women access to birth control and permit individuals to refuse to provide information and counseling about basic heath care services. Moreover, they expand existing laws by permitting a wider range of health care professionals to refuse to provide even referrals for abortion services.
For those of us working in healthcare, the onus is on us to choose a clinic or an area of practice where we know we want to provide the healthcare services offered to clients, and which we feel is in alignment with our personal values or religious beliefs. It should not be on those seeking needed health services. It is our responsibility — and we have the greater agency as as workers — to seek out the work we want, and leave the work we do not want, or do not feel we can live with, to those who are supportive and can honor any given job description. It is also our responsibility to take a job earnestly, not disingenuously. In healthcare, we have an extra responsibility, which is to put our clients needs and their physical health — not our ideas about their spiritual health — ahead of our own, and to care for them in the way which is best for them, objectively, rather than in the ways we feel would be best for us, or feel our religion would mandate.
It’s a pretty big deal and your comments (pro or, I guess, con) can make a big difference. The reproductive-health website passes along a link to an online comments form at Physicans for Reproductive Choice and Health. You can write your own comments or just use the template letter they provide. I’ve added mine, please consider adding yours.
Thank you!
figleaf
Dodi of Jezebel has a nice reminder about reproductive self-determination and women’s expected roles as child-bearers. (The “production” part of reproduction, a point Dodi makes in her post title as well.)
While women in the U.S. often struggle with infertility, it can be truly devastating for women in other countries around the world, reports Newsweek. “If you are infertile in some cultures, you are less than a dog,” says Willem Ombelet of the Genk Institute for Fertility Technology in Belgium. In certain societies, infertile women may not be invited to weddings. Often, people see them as having a “bad eye” that can make other women infertile, too. In Chad, a proverb says, “A woman without children is like a tree without leaves.” In the Hindu religion, a woman without a child, particularly a son, can’t go to heaven. In Muslim cultures, women without children aren’t always allowed to be buried in graveyards or sacred grounds. Since the consequences of infertility can include ostracism, physical abuse and even suicide, Yale professor Marcia Inhorn says: “It’s a human-rights issue.” But in addition to treating infertility, shouldn’t we also address the intolerance? I grabbed her whole post from here.
Last year when I was reading a lot about the history of chastity and marriage I also noticed the issue of “productivity” came up a lot. And it wasn’t just about the production of heirs (a significant issue among aristocracy and other moneyed classes since marriage was… and in parts of the world still is… how families transacted economic or political alliances, and live offspring cemented them.) In much of history and in much of the world today grown children are the retirement plan… the social “safety net.” But even more important, production of children means production of labor, critical, particularly, in subsistence-farming and subsistence-extraction societies.
Anyway, one point that came up in, I’m pretty sure, Stephanie Coontz’s Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage, is that in much of American pioneer and settler days — the era people often associate with “tradition” when we say “traditional American” — it was pretty standard procedure for a couple to wait till a first pregnancy was confirmed before getting married, rather than the other way around. Once again in farming and extraction economies the economic and, sometimes, survival hazard of infertility (on either partner’s part) made it too risky to marry and then find out whether you could have children. And, to be fair, if you remember how much of Alaska’s settler population has been extraction based it’s possibly not as surprising that the old-fashioned reversal of marriage and pregnancy might not be considered noteworthy. (Although also to be fair, as Matt Yglesias has been stressing lately, that’s not even the biggest cultural difference between modern Alaska and the rest of the country.) End of (that) digression.
Getting back to the main point, while we don’t necessarily encounter it directly in the 1st world (or at least in the lower 48 states plus Hawaii) the issues Dodi highlights are also issues of reproductive freedom. Unlike the one-note “pro-life” movement, the pro-*choice* movement covers all that. Working to prevent forced pregnancy in the U.S., sure, because that’s a big deal here. But “pro-choice” also means opposing force abortion in China or the Marianas Islands and ending discrimination against women who won’t or can’t have children at all.
(Oh, and speaking of Matt Yglesias, children, and social safety nets...)