Current location: Wisconsin
Member since: Sat Apr 14, 2007, 05:49 PM
Number of posts: 19,966
Current location: Wisconsin
Member since: Sat Apr 14, 2007, 05:49 PM
Number of posts: 19,966
My intent was never to 'drive a wedge', 'be the word police', or 'be divisive'.
I wanted to discuss the harm, stigma and confusion that can be caused by the words we choose. ESPECIALLY with people who support choice and may not realize the potential harm or that the party has updated the language. The words in question of this thread are "safe, legal and rare" - specifically taking note of the word rare. In context of abortion (not unwanted pregnancies, abortion). The national party removed it because of the fact it's open to interpretation... and all of the reasons outlined in the OP.
*I* get that you and other liberals are very very likely to fully support choice. *I* get what you *MEAN* by rare. We *all* want to make unwanted pregnancies rare... but do you not see, even a little, how using the "rare" language can be harmful? There have been massive attacks in every state on abortion since 1989. And they are getting worse. And, as such, I feel it's incredibly important to discuss how our language forms our societal beliefs and vice versa. To quote LeftyMom from another thread...
I have had at least 2 conversations here with people who literally said, "oh, hey. wow - I really hadn't thought about it like that, I will change my language". Others have been nasty, combative, dismissive and rude. And there's been a lot in between.
Bottom line - it's a discussion. This is a discussion board. It's an important topic to me and I thought to many other DUers. Again- the word that causes confusion, anger, harm, etc was REMOVED from the party platform for these reasons. It's just weird that so many DUers are fighting it.
Here is this is the Democratic Party altered platform (with "safe, legal, rare" removed):
Protecting A Woman's Right to Choose. The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman's decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.
See? It's possible to support all of the things we discussed and leave the frequency out of the policy discussion to avoid the confusion and/or potential harm.
Ideally, abortion rates drop as a byproduct of the rest but we keep the focus on what it should be. We typically don't fight to expand access to something we want to be rare.
It's not that controversial.
Posted by PeaceNikki | Mon Nov 11, 2013, 11:49 AM (0 replies)
Safe, legal, rare.
Saying it should be "rare" indicates - clearly - that it is happening more than it should be and that there are 'good' and 'bad' abortions. Abortion is one of the most stigmatized events of a woman's life and the widespread "rare" mantra propagates that.
Calling for it to be "rare" proposes that there is something wrong with abortion. It places the procedure as a very different type of health care. One in which the goal is reduced use rather than expanded access and enhanced quality. And this has contributed to the significant decline in the number of locations where abortions are performed in the United States. The result is also fewer physicians - good physicians - who are even taught abortion care. Less than half of all OB/GYN's residency programs offer training in abortion care.
Saying it should be rare legitimizes efforts to restrict access to abortion.
Prior to 1989, laws interfering with a woman’s right to abortion were ruled unconstitutional. The shift in the composition of the Court under the Reagan and Bush I administrations led to the 1989 and 1992 Webster and Casey Supreme Court decisions establishing a threshold of “undue burden” for the constitutionality of state-based restrictions. Under this new legal regime, states can demonstrate a preference against abortion through the implementation of waiting periods, parental
involvement, mandatory information, and scripted provider speech requirements; since 1994, almost every state has done so. These laws vary in their construction and studying the effects of these laws is difficult but suggests that additional barriers to abortion disproportionately affect traditionally vulnerable populations.24 For example, the most severe waiting periods require two in-person visits to the clinic with a prescribed time between visits. In a world where many women lack paid sick leave and childcare, access to a provider in their community, and affordable transportation/lodging, a two-visit requirement may be insurmountable to some women.
Using this phrase is a linguistic trick of affirming the right to abortion while simultaneously devaluing it is both harmful and ineffective as a strategy to securing rights. The desire to help an individual woman achieve her reproductive desires by avoiding an abortion is a laudable goal, not because it reduces the need for abortion, but because it is what that woman wants for her life.
Credit for several portions of this to:
J Womens Hist. 2010;22(3):161-72.
Rethinking the mantra that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare".
Worth every penny to buy the whole article, btw.
Posted by PeaceNikki | Fri Nov 8, 2013, 07:18 PM (127 replies)
I don't who this guy is, but he's explained it in the simplest of terms I've seen yet. It's going viral on FB and I am posting the whole thing here. Spread it far and wide:
Summary for anyone who is interested and who wants to more fully understand what is happening with our federal government right now:
Posted by PeaceNikki | Wed Oct 2, 2013, 12:33 PM (44 replies)
I haven't posted in a few months but I felt compelled to share the news that one of the DU originals who became a good IRL friend to me and many others has passed. He died suddenly this morning.
Some reading this will remember my friend as a shit-stirrer and he was. He was also ferociously hilarious, unendingly compassionate and incredibly wise. And I miss him. Remember the Laura Branigan wars? Or when he ran for pope? Or Veep? He always had such high goals.
To borrow some words of some friends I've shared this grief with today: You know how you meet someone in person once and you feel like you've known them forever? Sometimes once is all you get. Cherish that. Tell people that you like them. Or even that you love them. Tell them why you appreciate them as friends. It will save you regret later. Nobody likes regret.
So please join me, if you will, in toasting my friend. Our friend. I love you, Shawn. I am a better person for having known you.
Posted by PeaceNikki | Wed Aug 28, 2013, 05:42 PM (201 replies)
Posted by PeaceNikki | Tue Jan 8, 2013, 06:18 AM (1 replies)
Which hurts society more: A medical procedure involving a woman and her doctor or an unwanted child dumped into our already overtaxed community?
We both know.
ETA this that i found on the internets:
Perhaps an "informed consent" law for continuing pregnancy?
Posted by PeaceNikki | Fri Jan 4, 2013, 10:29 PM (0 replies)
On January 28, 2013, Canada will celebrate 25 years of reproductive freedom. Since our Supreme Court struck down Canada's abortion law in 1988, our country's experience is proof that laws against abortion are unnecessary. A full generation of Canadians has lived without a law and we are better off because of it.
Canada is the first country in the world to prove that abortion care can be ethically and effectively managed as part of standard healthcare practice, without being controlled by any civil or criminal law. Our success is a role model to the world.
After 25 years with no legal restrictions on abortion whatsoever:
- Doctors and women handle abortion care responsibly.
- Abortion rates are fairly low and have steadily declined since 1997.
- Almost all abortions occur early in pregnancy.
- Maternal deaths and complications from abortion are very low.
- Abortion care is fully funded and integrated into the healthcare system (improving accessibility and safety).
- Further legal precedents have advanced women's equality by affirming an
unrestricted right to abortion.
- Public support for abortion rights has increased.
Responsible abortion care: Since 1988, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has successfully managed abortion just as it does for every other medical procedure -- by applying policy and encouraging medical discretion for doctors, subject to a standard code of ethics.
Doctors abide by CMA policy and guidelines, and follow best medical practices based on validated research and clinical protocols. Criminal laws are inappropriate and harmful in medicine because they constrain care and negatively impact the health of patients.
Much more at link: http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2013/01/benefits-decriminalizing-abortion
Joyce Arthur is the founder and Executive Director of Canada's national pro-choice group, the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), which protects the legal right to abortion on request and works to improve access to quality abortion services.
See more of her work here:
Posted by PeaceNikki | Fri Jan 4, 2013, 08:09 PM (36 replies)
At Caernarfon Crown Court earlier this month, a 49-year-old man was convicted of raping a teenage girl. Jailing the rapist, the judge told him: “She let herself down badly. She consumed far too much alcohol and took drugs, but she also had the misfortune of meeting you”.
This blame the victim mentality will most likely continue as long as people believe rape is a crime of sexual desire. It is not, these men don't have an overwhelming sexual desire, they wish to dominate, control, and cause pain.
I don't think it's a new phenomenon or isolated to sexual abuse, either. There seems to be a resurgence of victim blaming in many cases surrounding violence against women. The 'war on women' we have witnessed this year has added to this. The linked article discusses the Aiken comments we all know about as well as the Julian Assange case that was dismissed as “bad sexual etiquette”.
It's a sad state of affairs ingrained in culture and society.
Posted by PeaceNikki | Sat Dec 29, 2012, 10:12 AM (98 replies)
His left hand hugged my right hand just after I took this. It was cool. The end.
Posted by PeaceNikki | Fri Jun 1, 2012, 02:12 PM (54 replies)
Numbers mean nothing without context. If the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#1) represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.
On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low. If that’s the case, then what is an appropriate response? How do we best support women and their reproductive health? Do we dare admit that increasing the number of abortions might be not only good for women’s health, but also moral and just?
What if we stopped focusing on the number of abortions and instead focused on the women themselves? Much of the work of the reproductive health, rights and justice movements would remain the same. We would still advocate for legislation that helps our families. We would still fight to protect abortion providers and their staffs from verbal harassment and physical violence. What would change, however, is the stigma and shame. By focusing on supporting women’s agency and self-determination, rather than judging the outcomes of that agency, we send a powerful message. We say that we trust women. We say we will not use them and their experiences as pawns in a political game. We say we care about women and want them to have access to all the information, services and resources necessary to make the best decisions they can for themselves and their families. That is at the core of reproductive justice. Not reducing the number of abortions. Safe – yes. Legal– absolutely. Rare – not the point.
Posted by PeaceNikki | Mon Feb 6, 2012, 07:08 PM (0 replies)