A friend of mine sent me a link to the web site What Does The Internet Think? which, according to the description, uses search engine results to get a general sense if the Internet is positive, negative or neutral on any given topic.
So of course what's the first thing I do? Search for reproductive-health related topics, duh.
The birth control pill stikes out too, for some reason (although as soon as you don't put it in quotes the popularity shoots up. A commentary on the Internet's favor for birth and pills, perhaps?)
But! Ladies, there's hope. The Internet loves IUDs!
And finally, of course, abortion. I dreaded the search, but surprisingly?
Just like the rest of America, when it comes to abortion, the Internet isn't quite sure.
Obviously, this is just for fun, and no real measure of public opinion etc. I'd be fascinated to know just how they get their results. What do you think? Acurate? Could anything be throwing the results off?
In the wake of Dr. Tiller's assassination, I've been hearing a lot of questions about what it means to get an abortion in the late second or third trimester of your pregnancy, and why women would seek them.
To anyone who hasn't had to think about this issue before, or who's only heard about it from anti-choice groups' rhetoric, the question makes sense. Jodi Jacobson has a great piece up at RH Reality Check about the specifics of the procedure -- namely that they constitute about 0.2% of all abortion procedures conducted in the U.S., that they're severely restricted by law under Roe v. Wade and are performed when the continuation of the pregnancy poses serious risks to the woman's life or health and could cause irreparable harm to the woman.
The heartbreaking part is that often times the women who elect to have this procedure done do so under dire circumstances, with pregnancies that were wanted yet for the woman's own safety simply cannot continue. And to that effect, I thought it would be worth sharing some of their stories.
Gretchen Voss has a powerful first person story in the Boston Globe which won a Maggie. Her piece also appeared in Marie Claire.
The site A Hearbreaking Choice has a collection of personal stories posted by women who traveled to Kansas to see Dr. Tiller.
Self Magazine has a great piece on the tragic pregnancies at the center of late-term abortion debate.
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has an amazing piece on 'Who is Dr. Tiller'
And these two powerful editorials are also worth a read:
USA Today editorial: Our view on death in Wichita: Activists mount militant assault on abortion rights
Washington Post editorial: Clinics in the Cross Hairs
Last week at the fabulous Words of Choice performance, an audience member was speaking about his time as a TV writer, and how difficult it was to even mention the word abortion in a script.
And that got me thinking -- why is it so rare to see stories about abortion (unless they're cautionary tales that is) in mainstream pop culture?
Penny Lane, the creator of the great documentary The Abortion Diaries has a wonderful resource up on her site: a timeline of when abortion has been mentioned in pop culture. And it's pretty rare! Or at least pretty rare when the character considering an abortion doesn't a) change her mind or b) have something horrible and life-threatening happen to her.
For me, it's a no-brainer that there's so much stigma attached to the issue when we can't even talk about it in the mainstream media. But what do you think? Why are networks so afraid of presenting the procedure when it doesn't have dire consequences?
Neither did I, until I read Megan's fascinating piece over at Jezebel on the history of imagery of the human embryo.
The whole thing is a really interesting piece of not only how images can be changed and interpreted differently, but on how our views on abortion and pregnancy have changed as a society. Definitely worth a read.
Salon.com reports that the UK might start airing ads for pregnancy services, including abortion, on TV.
On the one hand, why not? On the other hand, I can see how this might make people uncomfortable. So I'd love to hear from our readers -- what do you think? Should the UK allow ads for abortion services on TV? Should the US?
In 1993, Dr. David Gunn was assassinated, the first provider murdered by an anti-abortion extremist. March 10 was set aside in 1996 as the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers to commemorate him.
Let's take today to pause and honor the men and women who put their lives at risk to make reproductive choice a reality. Thank you for all you do everyday to ensure that we have quality health care services and access. Thank you for standing up for what is right in difficult times and for providing life-saving care for women.
Glamour Magazine has a great piece on abortion up this month. While many feminist and reproductive rights publications write about this issue over and over again, this is the first piece I've seen in a glossy magazine to give such a balanced and thoughtful take on the issue. The whole thing is definitely a must-read, but one of my favorite parts was this intro:
In the end there’s little drama to the procedure, but that doesn’t make it a simple experience. How could it be, when abortion inspires culture-quaking political and religious debates and feels too charged to discuss, even woman to woman? “No one talks about abortion on a personal level—there’s too much stigma attached,” says Aspen Baker, the cofounder of Exhale, an after-abortion counseling help line.
In a perfect world, no woman would ever need to end a pregnancy. But in reality, one in three women will have at least one abortion by the time she is 45, and these women run the gamut of ages, races, backgrounds and beliefs. “I’ve seen every type of woman in my office, from Catholics to Muslims to mothers with three kids,” says Dr. Oyer. “I’ve even treated someone I recognized—because I’d seen her before, protesting right outside my clinic.”
Let's hope this fair and balanced take on the issue is a sign of the times, and that there are many more pieces like this to come..
But via Salon, president Obama's talking about abortion, and well, as they say, it's best to just let his words speak for themselves:
"On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.
While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.
On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere."
My favorite part? He uses the same messaging we do.
The New York Times has published several letters to the editor in response to last Monday's article on PPNYC's report on Dominican Women's reproductive health. They make for some interesting reading.
Among the reactions are those talking about mistrust of the health care system, a reminder that the cost of abortion still makes it unaccessible to some, talking about the Hyde amendment, and one woman who notes:
New York women do not have to live with 19th-century care. Poor women in other states may not have a choice.
A few months back, Planned Parenthood of New York City released a study (pdf) based on several focus groups we'd conducted with Dominican women living in New York City and Santo Domingo (DR). Among some of the key findings were that thanks to alienation from the U.S. healthcare system, women in both NYC and Santo Domingo were regularly self-inducing abortion.
Jennifer 8. Lee of the New York Times has written a beautiful piece on the study and the larger problem, which appeared in Sunday's paper. I highly recommend reading it.
BRAND: All right. So come January 20th when there's a new president in town, can't he just simply over turn these regulations?
ROVNER: Well, actually, the new president can't overturn these regulations, but because the administration has waited so long, it's possible that the new Congress can. There's something called the Congressional Review Act and because these regulations are coming so late in the administration they are falling within the window of that Congressional Review Act. There are expedited procedures. Congress would only have to get a majority vote in the House and Senate. And in the Senate it couldn't be filibustered and because these regulations are so controversial. It would be likely that this would be the type of regulation that could be taken up and overturned under the Congressional Review Act then the new President would merely have to sign it.
BRAND: But it sounds like a fairly lengthy process.
ROVNER: It's not that lengthy. It's certainly a little more lengthy than some of the other things that President-elect Obama is expected to do on the Reproductive Rights front but it's certainly easier than having to go through the entire regulatory process again, to put through an entire rule and to go in and take more public comment.
"The patient has an interest in obtaining legal health care services….This must be balanced against the statutory right of the provider in the context of a federally funded entity to not be discriminated against based on a refusal to participate in a service to which they have objections, such as abortion.”
RH Reality Check has twoarticles up so far analyzing the rule. More to come on exactly what it means for you. One thing worth mentioning, however. Since the rule was issued within 30 days of Obama taking office, it will become official, and will therefore be harder to reverse.
In the very recent history of actual abortion blogs, comes the latest from the tumblr Un-expecting. Similar to the pioneering What to expect when you're aborting, Un-expecting chronicles a girl's experience as she goes through the procedure from start to finish, from worries to choices to how she feels once it's over.
As "What To Expect" first noted, there aren't a lot of pop culture places for a woman to turn to see examples of other who've actually had an abortion, so these ladies figured they'd start their own.
Especially helpful is Un-expecting's latest post where she puts together a checklist for things she was happy to have during the procedure.
Stephanie Simon has an interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal today on the future of the anti-choice movement. File this under good and bad news -- she reports that many anti-choicers are moving more towards a platform of reconciliation, choosing to focus more on pregnancy prevention than on criminalizing abortion.
The bad news? She reports that:
"With state courts continually resetting the rules, gay marriage feels more fresh and urgent to voters than abortion, which has settled into a status quo that polls show a large number of Americans can accept."
Sigh. So while I'm all for people finally approaching reproductive rights from a sensible standpoint that puts the health of women first, the implication that it has to be at the expense of someone else's rights makes me sad.
Good morning! Here are a few key repro-rights related news stories from this weekend:
- California budget cuts are threatening the state’s family planning funding - All hail Obama! Washington Post reports that our President-Elect is planning on rolling back as many regulations in place for “overtly political reasons” as possible, including ones related to stem-cell research and reproductive health! - But, as the Houston Chronicle reminds us, that won’t stop the Bush administration from trying to sneak through as many last-minute changes as possible. - And, in the news of the horrific department, the AP reports on a Tusla abortion clinic, the main such facility in the state, fighting a state law that would have required women seeking an abortion to not only get an ultrasound beforehand but to listen to the doctors describe to her what the fetus looks like.
The Catholic bishop Kansas City, Robert Finn, urged Catholics not to vote for Barack Obama in a radio interview today -- warning they put their souls at risk by supporting Obama's "fanatical" stance on abortion rights.
"You make yourself a participant in the act of abortion and you mustn''t do it because your eternal salvation is tied up with that important choice," Bishop Finn said.
It’s Wednesday, otherwise known as hump day! Here is your appropriately-reproductive-health-themed news roundup:
According to Newsweek, more than $1million has been donated to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin’s name. Who knew an anti-choice candidate could do so much good for women’s health?
A clinic in Iowa is holding a birth control party! Called “Smart and Sexy,” it’s apparently just like the traditional Tupperware parties of the ‘50s, only this time they’ll be talking about how best to prevent pregnancy instead of how best to store leftovers.
File under gulp: Syphilis is on the rise in Knox County, TN! So in case you were planning any late-October romantic jaunts to the deep south, you know, be careful. As a bonus, public health officials are helpfully warning that either paying for or trading something for sex may put you at a higher risk.
According to a new survey by the Office for National Statistics, UK women aged 16 to 49 prefer the pill to condoms when it comes to contraception. Insert requisite joke about the Brits’ oral fixation here..
Laura McGann over at the Washington Independent has a nice roundup of Sarah Palin’s coded anti-choice views.
A federal appeals court heard arguments yesterday on whether a Virginia law punishing doctors for performing a late-term abortion procedure called dilation and extraction should be upheld. Although the court is expected to take several weeks to make its decision, if the law is overturned it would make only ten, not eleven, states that have laws banning the procedure.
Amanda Marcotte over at RH Reality check has a great piece up reminding us to not only call for the removal of abstinence-only education, but the implementation of comprehensive Sex Ed. Because the only thing worse than simply telling our kids not to have sex is telling them nothing at all…
Via Broadsheet: Although the Daily Show is a little late on this one, Samantha Bee reports: “John McCain has finally put the concerns of women where they belong; in derisive air quotes.”
A hospital in Tarzana, CA, just outside of Santa Monica, has banned all elective birth control procedures. This includes not just pregnancy termination, but measures such as tubal ligations for vasectomies; a procedure that, until this decision, the hospital performed about an average of seven times a month. According to KTLA news in Los Angeles, Providence Health System bought the hospital in September and has now implemented a policy that adheres to Catholic teachings prohibiting abortions and surgical methods of birth control on hospital property.
Although perhaps they should have listened to Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., adjunct professor of religious studies in Arts & Sciences at Washington University, and author of the Encyclopdia of Catholicism (2007). He argues that the Catholic Church has not, in fact, always been opposed to abortion, but rather that its position has been an evolving one. He also points to Joe Biden as proof that there are many ways of interpreting Catholic theology when it comes to reproductive health(via).
And finally, we can add yet another option to the multi-faceted birth control fray: Barr Pharmaceuticals has announced FDA approval for its newest pill, low-hormone Seasonique (or LoSeasonique). The pill boasts its period reduction qualities, claiming women who take it will only have 4 periods a year. For an interesting take on why pharmaceutical companies market birth control with language on period reduction and not, say, contraceptive effectiveness, please see Sarah Haskins.
The How Much Time Should She Do? campaign is being run by NARAL Pro-Choice to highlight the extremist positions of John McCain and Sarah Palin by asking them: if you think that Roe vs. Wade should be over turned, how much time should a woman who has an illegal abortion serve in jail? After all, in many states abortion would become illegal automatically if Roe vs. Wade were to be overturned, and many others would move to outlaw the procedure very quickly after such a ruling.
The McCain campaign has responded by saying that it's preposterous to suggest that McCain wants to send women who have abortions to jail. But that leaves a pretty big question: why not? If a woman were to have an illegal abortion, she would be breaking the law. And the reason anti-choicers claim for wanting to outlaw abortion is that they believe it's "murder." Don't murderers go to jail?
What this campaign does is expose the truth behind anti-choice rhetoric. It's easier to be opposed to abortion personally and therefore want to legislate your views before thinking about the consequences. Some have argued that this campaign only heightens the rhetoric from anti-choicers, forcing them to propose a prison sentence, and is therefore dangerous. But personally, I have to ask -- what is wrong with anti-choicers heightening their rhetoric? Doesn't that only benefit us, by making the pro-choice side look far more reasonable -- which of course it is? I certainly think so. Many people want to "stop" abortion, without of course realizing that outlawing abortion doesn't stop it. A lot fewer people want to actually treat women like criminals, including particularly ardent anti-choicers:
One thing this video shows, in addition to the illogical nature of anti-choice arguments, is how very little those who oppose abortion actually think about the women who have them. How could one campaign to make abortion illegal for so long, without ever having thought about what might happen to women as a result? I'll let you draw your own conclusions there.
The How Much Time Should She Do? campaign does a few things:
1. It points out the extremism of the anti-choice view, including those held by public officials running for high offices.
2. It causes the viewer to think about the real consequences of outlawing abortion.
3. It brings the focus back to women, their health, and their well-being.
And I'd say there's a whole lot to like about that. We're never going to win the support of the most vehement abortion opponents. But the fight is for the hearts and minds of those whose views fall somewhere in between ours and theirs. Many people who oppose abortion do so because they're simply trying to do the right thing. I think it's about time we reframe what "the right thing" is, in a way that people who are uncomfortable with abortion can relate to.
But! Ladies, there's hope. The Internet loves IUDs!
And finally, of course, abortion. I dreaded the search, but surprisingly?
Just like the rest of America, when it comes to abortion, the Internet isn't quite sure.
