Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
16. The need is never going to go away.
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:51 PM
Jan 2016

In countries where good sex education and contraception are readily available, abortion continues to be utilized and needed. In some years the rate goes up; in others it goes down. Teenage abortion rates go down with better education, but adult women continue to need them.

And the "rare" formulation feeds the rightwing idea that there is something wrong with it, and the ideal number would be zero. They propose there is a moral hazard in women doing what they deem fit with their bodies. To me it's another flavor of the pretend "concern" behind these TRAP laws.

Birth control will always be less than completely effective. Rape and child abuse will always happen. Individual health concerns will always require women to be able to make the decision to end pregnancy. It's not "sad and tragic" or a "necessary evil." It's health care.

So why support the idea we should be equally concerned with getting rid of something that will always be necessary?

But it’s also worth reiterating, as Adele Stan did this weekend and reproductive rights activists have been saying for years, that if you’re more than nominally pro-choice, you cede important ground by embracing the “safe, legal and rare” formulation that Douthat cited as a consensus. As the National Network of Abortion Funds tweeted, “Let’s reject ‘rare.’ If abortions are legal & accessible, number of abortions performed should = exactly the number of abortions necessary.” [/b Contrast the following data points — the 87 percent of U.S. counties that lack an abortion provider, the financial barriers that right-wingers would like to increase with insurance bans, and the significant stigma around abortion — with the fact that almost half of all pregnancies are unintended. Suddenly, “rare” becomes more about a lack of real choice rather than choosing from an abundance of options. If, as a matter of public health policy, we are doing a terrible job of preventing unintended pregnancies, and some women want abortions and can’t have them, then the current rate is too low.

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/21/debunking_the_rights_contraception_myths/
Death by a thousand cuts. The "right to life" movement makes all kinds of noise bullwinkle428 Jan 2016 #1
they have no interest in overturning Roe. they're achieving their goal w/o it. nashville_brook Jan 2016 #23
+++ "Rare" framing led us directly into these TRAPS. DirkGently Jan 2016 #2
gee nothing is ever the GOP's fault it is always the Clenis dsc Jan 2016 #3
TRAP laws and sellout "rare" framing are at fault. DirkGently Jan 2016 #4
yes it would be much better if we had a billion unplanned pregnancies a year dsc Jan 2016 #5
Would barriers to heart surgery reduce the need for them? DirkGently Jan 2016 #6
No but as someone whose dad had his first bypass at age 46 dsc Jan 2016 #10
So show me the vast numbers of abortions in Oregon. jeff47 Jan 2016 #13
I didn't say we needed regulation dsc Jan 2016 #17
actually, HRC has done more than most to ensure that regulations/restrictions happened nashville_brook Jan 2016 #21
that is utter bullshit dsc Jan 2016 #22
it' not a "hater's club" -- it's the truth, and you can ignore it if you like. nashville_brook Jan 2016 #24
sorry dsc Jan 2016 #26
there's no quotes from those sources. but, feel free to cast aspersions. nashville_brook Jan 2016 #27
that was my reference to du being the Hillary hating club dsc Jan 2016 #28
take responsibility or not. it won't change the truth of the matter. nashville_brook Jan 2016 #29
"Rare" is how you line up votes for chipping away at abortion rights. jeff47 Jan 2016 #32
You are obtuse. nt awoke_in_2003 Jan 2016 #8
Great post awoke_in_2003 Jan 2016 #7
Exactly. We're not dealing with DirkGently Jan 2016 #9
compromise, in this arena, has led to the destruction of women's lives. nashville_brook Jan 2016 #25
Agreed. nt awoke_in_2003 Jan 2016 #30
+++ a million. In this context, this type of compromise = appeasement = death. DirkGently Jan 2016 #34
"Safe, legal and rare" is not just a "Clinton-era mantra". Obama has said it too. Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #11
And it was just as wrong when he said it. (nt) jeff47 Jan 2016 #12
Plenty of us support "safe, legal, and rare". Odin2005 Jan 2016 #20
Because "safe and legal" is terrible? jeff47 Jan 2016 #31
It started in the Clinton era of triangulation. DirkGently Jan 2016 #14
I like "safe, legal, accessible and rare". Nye Bevan Jan 2016 #15
The need is never going to go away. DirkGently Jan 2016 #16
Why put "rare" in when it's a natural outcome? jeff47 Feb 2016 #37
K&R smirkymonkey Jan 2016 #18
I think one issue is that we Millennials have no memory of the world before Roe v. Wade. Odin2005 Jan 2016 #19
The problem is that "rare" was the wrong word. haele Jan 2016 #33
Yes, how dare some people have ethical qualms with abortion! Odin2005 Jan 2016 #35
No, ethical qualms not acted on other than by the person who has them are morals. haele Jan 2016 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The real threat to aborti...»Reply #16