Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Right Wing Watch 👀 Rep. Bob Good Says the GOP Must Be Even More Extreme on the Issue of Abortion in the Wake of Election Losses.


On Tuesday, voters in Ohio enshrined protection for reproductive rights in the state constitution, while voters in Virginia gave control of both legislate chambers to Democrats, thereby thwarting Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s plans to enact abortion restrictions in the state.

On Wednesday, Republican Rep. Bob Good of Virginia appeared on the “Victory News” program, where he declared that in the wake of these losses, Republicans must become even more uncompromising and extreme on the issue of abortion.

“We are right on every issue; the Democrats are wrong on every issue,” Good proclaimed

That’s why they frantically cling to abortion as the only issue that they think may work for them, and in some cases it has demonstrated that it does. Part of the problem is that we surrender and we default to the media narrative, the left’s narrative that this is a loser for us . . . We need to be unflinchingly, unapologetically pro-life. I think when you have moderation, you have tepid, vanilla, benign statements on the issue of life. . . 
Continue reading @ Right Wing Watch.

Even More Extreme On The Issue Of Abortion

Alternet ✏ In the days since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which had established the constitutional right to an abortion, some Christians have cited the Bible to argue why this decision should either be celebrated or lamented.

Melanie Howard

But here’s the problem: This 2,000-year-old text says nothing about abortion.
As a university professor of biblical studies, I am familiar with faith-based arguments Christians use to back up views of abortion, whether for or against. Many people seem to assume the Bible discusses the topic head-on, which is not the case.

Ancient context

Abortions were known and practiced in biblical times, although the methods differed significantly from modern ones. The second-century Greek physician Soranus, for example, recommended fasting, bloodletting, vigorous jumping and carrying heavy loads as ways to end a pregnancy.

Soranus’ treatise on gynecology acknowledged different schools of thought on the topic. Some medical practitioners forbade the use of any abortive methods. Others permitted them, but not in cases in which they were intended to cover up an adulterous liaison or simply to preserve the mother’s good looks.

In other words, the Bible was written in a world in which abortion was practiced and viewed with nuance. 

Continue reading @ Alternet.

What The Bible Actually Says About Abortion May Surprise You

Valerie Tarico ✏ Unexpected pregnancy? Wrong time? Wrong partner? Wrong circumstances? Too bad. That’s the attitude of Christian Right fundamentalists, and conservative politicians who think that sucking up to fundamentalists will get them reelected.


Most people—including religious people—including Christians—don’t think this way. But fundamentalists and their lackeys are doing their damnedest to make pregnancy the price of sex by outlawing abortion while also driving down birth control knowledge and access. If they wanted to, they could make abortion almost obsolete by broadcasting information about the most reliable birth control methods and making them cheap and easy to get. They could also fund research on even better methods, including options for men. Instead, they spread misinformation about modern birth control options, shout about risks while being zipper-lips about bonus health benefits, and falsely claim that the most reliable methods work by turning your body into an abortion factory. What does that tell you?

One thing it tells me is that this isn’t just about abortion. ( See:  Children as Chattel–The Common Root of Religious Child Abuse and the Pro-Life Movement) Another is this:  Spreading accurate information about birth control options is an act of defiance.

So here goes the list. It’s organized from most trustworthy to least, because some methods are literally 100 times more reliable than others. But first, some quick comments:  

  • With regular unprotected sex, 85 out of 100 couples will get pregnant within a year. Unless you are trying to make a baby, unprotected sex is pregnancy roulette.
  • Bedsider.org has the most accurate, up-to-date birth control chooser on the web.  
  • No one method fits (or works) for all of us, and none is perfect.
  • How often contraception fails depends a lot on how much effort it takes, how often.
  • Lastly, apologies in advance, guys: Your non-permanent options stink; you deserve better. In the meantime, if you have sex with females you should know what they are using and what options they have.

Implant (3-5 years) —The implant is a flexible rod the size of a matchstick that goes in the underside of a female arm. From there, it slow-releases hormones that prevent eggs from developing. It is the most reliable method currently available, with a 1 in 1000 annual failure rate. Another way to say this: If you used an implant for 1000 years, you could expect one pregnancy. That is because long-acting contraceptive devices like the implant or IUD flip the default setting on fertility to off making pregnancy “opt-in” instead of “opt-out.” Downsides: Costly up front if not covered by insurance. May cause irregular periods or hormonal side effects like headaches or sore breasts, especially at first. Upsides: Quick outpatient insertion. Get it and forget it for up to five years; quick return to normal fertility whenever removed. Safe for smokers, people with hypertension, and diabetics. Ok while breastfeeding. Bonus health benefits: May reduce PMS, depression, or endometriosis symptoms.

Hormonal IUD (3-8 years) —An IUD is a T-shaped bit of plastic that fits into the uterus; it is the birth control method most preferred by gynecologists for themselves and their partners. (Some people even turn samples into earrings.) This IUD releases a local micro-dose of progestin; and the female body responds by sealing off the cervix like it would during pregnancy, an internal barrier. Like the implant, it has a 1-in-1000 yearly failure rate. Downsides: Insertion, though brief, can be painful. May cause cramps at first. Some bodies spit that puppy right back out. Upsides: Get it and forget it. Lighter periods or none at all, so good for athletes or people who suffer from anemia or strong menstrual cramps and bleeding. Can reduce endometriosis. Quick return to normal fertility. Good while breastfeeding.

Vasectomy or Tubal Ligation (permanent) —A vasectomy is the only truly dependable method that lets a man control his own fertility. As in a tubal ligation for women, a tiny tube in the body is snipped so that gametes (sperm for males, eggs for females) can’t travel to the place they would meet. Both methods are almost as reliable as the implant or hormonal IUD. Downsides: Requires a medical procedure, and you can’t count on reversing it if you later change your mind. Upsides: One and done. No medications, no potential side effects, no repeat medical visits.

Copper IUD (10+ years) —Thin wires wrapped around the arms of this IUD release copper ions that make it so sperm can’t swim. The amount needed is so small that a copper IUD can work for a decade or more as an internal, hormone-free spermicide. (I had mine for 23 years.) Once settled into place, it has a 1-in-100 annual failure rate. Downsides: Insertion, though brief, can be painful. May cause cramps or backaches. Usually causes heavier periods during the first few months, so not good for women with anemia. Upsides: Get it and forget it till you want to get pregnant or menopause kicks in. Hormone-free for those who don’t do well on estrogen or progestin. Immediate return to normal fertility upon removal. Normal periods for those who want them. Good while breastfeeding.

The Shot (3 months) —The Depo-Provera shot suppresses ovulation–no eggs released to meet up with sperm. The annual pregnancy rate is 4 in 100—almost twice as good as the pill but a lot worse than IUDs and implants. Downsides: This is the only method with documented weight gain for some users. May cause irregular spotting. Can cause hormonal side effects like headaches or depression. Requires quarterly medical appointments. Upsides: Effort free for 3 months. Shorter, lighter periods. Works for people who don’t tolerate estrogen in birth control pills. (Note: Self-administered and six-month versions of the Depo shot are in the works.)

The Ring (1 month) —A soft, flexible ring around the cervix delivers the same estrogen-progestin combination as some birth control pills. Out of 100 users, 7 will get pregnant in any given year. Downsides: Must be changed out every 3 or 4 weeks. Same side effects as similar pills. User needs to be comfortable inserting and removing the ring with their fingers. Upsides: Benefits of pills without having to remember every day. Lighter, less crampy periods, less acne. Monthly periods can be skipped if desired. Some protection against bone thinning, ovarian and endometrial cancers, anemia, and some infections.  

The Patch (1 week) —Similar in look to a nicotine patch, an estrogen-progestin patch works pretty much like birth control pills except you only have to remember once a week rather than every day. Like the shot, ring and pill, it keeps eggs from being released. Out of 100 users, 7 will get pregnant in a year. Downsides: Need to swap out weekly. Potential hormonal side effects. Upsides: Lighter, less crampy periods, less acne. Monthly periods optional. Some protection against bone thinning, ovarian and endometrial cancers, anemia, and some infections.  

The Pill (every day) —A variety of birth control pills offer different combinations of estrogen and progestin, or just progestin (called the mini-pill), which let people try out which formulas work best for them. Out of 100 users, 7 will get pregnant in a year. Downsides: Hard to remember—85 percent of women miss three or more doses each month. Potential hormonal side effects. Upsides: Lighter, less crampy periods. Monthly periods can be skipped if desired. Estrogen-containing pills reduce acne and protect slightly against bone thinning, ovarian or endometrial cancers, anemia, and some infections.  

Condoms (every time) —The condom is the only nonpermanent option for men who want to manage their own fertility, and it is the only method that protects against sexually transmitted infections. But as birth control goes, condoms aren’t very reliable: Thirteen out of 100 couples relying on condoms will face a pregnancy within a year. Downsides: Can reduce sexual pleasure, high effort, easy to get it wrong. Upsides: inexpensive, no prescription required, no side effects, protection against STIs.

Periodic abstinence (one week every month) — Some couples, for religious or other reasons, prefer simply to avoid sex during the female partner’s fertile days. Periodic abstinence has been used to avoid pregnancy for generations; now a variety of tools can help to track monthly cycles or even detect signs of ovulation. On average, these methods result in pregnancy each year for about 15 in 100 couples, but tracking tools are getting better. Downsides: Requires careful monitoring, effort, discipline, and a certain kind of couple. Substantial pregnancy risk. Upsides: Inexpensive, no prescription or side effects.   

Diaphragm, female condom (every time) — Diaphragms and female condoms are barriers made from silicone or rubber. Inserted before intercourse, they block sperm from reaching the uterus. Around 1 in 5 couples relying on these methods will get pregnant each year, half again as many as those using male condoms. (My mom had five diaphragm babies.) That said, the female condom is the one female-controlled method that protects against STIs. Downsides: Substantial risk of pregnancy. Takes practice to insert consistently and correctly. Can irritate the vagina. Upsides: No side effects, condom offers STI protection, diaphragm reduces pelvic infections.

No one method works for all people. Some, like me, have medical conditions that mean they shouldn’t take hormones (in my case migraines). Some have personal or ancestral trauma and don’t feel ready to have a healthcare provider put something inside them. Some trust shots; others hate them. Some can remember to take a pill at the same time every day for years on end, while most of us can’t. Some want lighter, less-frequent periods while others like their monthly cycle. For any given person, one or more of these considerations may be worth a higher degree of pregnancy risk. We all make trade-offs.

But to do so, we need to know what we are and aren’t trading offEveryone who doesn’t want to be pregnant right now deserves to know their options. How well does each birth control option stack the odds in favor of—birth control? The differences, as I’ve already said, can be huge: A couple relying on condoms is 100 times more likely to face an unsought pregnancy and a potential abortion quest than a couple relying on an implant or hormonal IUD.

Abortion rights and sex ed and contraceptive access for young people are under siege in much of the United States. Some Christians and politicians think the price of sex should be pregnancy roulette and then parenthood, however unwanted or mistimed. Women are being treated like moral degenerates or criminals because they chose not to incubate an unsought or unhealthy pregnancy. In other words, the stakes are high, and spreading accurate information is an act of defiance.

So do it.  

Valerie Tarico
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. 
She writes about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society.

What Every Red State Resident Should Know About Birth Control Options

Valerie Tarico ⚡But this regression is coming from the Left.


Imagine that you went to a doctor for athlete’s foot and they said, “We have fifteen different treatment options, and I’m going to present them to you in alphabetical order.” Imagine that the doctor did this despite the fact that some of the methods worked ten times better to fix your condition. Even for something as minor as foot fungus, that just seems like bad medical care. You know your body, but they know the world of medicine. It’s their job to differentiate, and after checking for possible allergies, lifestyle patterns and so forth, to recommend whatever is most likely to get the job done. Now imagine that there were five kinds of COVID vaccine, and some worked ten or even 100 times as well as others, and the doctor presented them to you in alphabetical (or random) order. You might think that was incompetence or malpractice.

But that is how some reproductive health providers treat birth control options.

Consider, for example, the generally well regarded Reproductive Health Access Project, which supports clinicians who provide contraceptive and abortion care, and miscarriage management. Among other tools in their store is a “patient fact sheet” titled Your Birth Control Choices that they promote and sell. Their website describes the fact sheet thus: “This patient fact sheet compares different birth control choices in a colorful and easy-to-read chart. . . . Ideal for health centers, doctor’s offices, and school clinics.”

But the sheet doesn’t lead with the methods that are most likely to help patients seeking birth control actually attain their top goal, meaning those that work best to prevent unwanted surprise pregnancies. It’s in alphabetical order. And it just so happens that alphabetical order puts some of the very least reliable methods at the top, where people might normally expect the best. To make matters worse, all of the most trustworthy and genuinely modern methods—various kinds of pills, IUDs and implants, are relegated to the back side and don’t even show up if someone is just scanning their website.

Take a look.


If you squint, what you’ll see is that the leading methods are condoms and diaphragms—methods that are now more than half a century old, and each of which can be expected to fail for somewhere between 10-20 percent of users each year.

A few years ago I was cleaning out my mother’s house so that she could move into a retirement community, when I came across a small blue box tucked into the headboard of her bed. I’m the oldest of six children, and when I opened the box what I found was her diaphragm—and five little maternity ward baby bracelets.
Mom’s Diaphragm with Five Baby Bracelets

Five diaphragm babies. And sixty years later that is what the Reproductive Health Access Project is showcasing top-of-the-fold, Page One.

Three years ago, before Your Birth Control Choices was revised, it aligned more with what one might expect from a menu of medical options—it led, as people generally trust their doctors to do, with the stuff that was most likely to work. Now the opposite is true. And because we know that people are modestly more likely to choose from the top of the list when they don’t have a strong preference, this new exception to standard medical practice means that more people are going to end up with a mistimed or unwanted pregnancy.

What is going on here?

What’s going on is a misguided attempt to avoid anything suggesting that healthcare providers have opinions or preferences when it comes to what kind of treatment or prevention they deliver. It is precisely because people are somewhat more likely to choose the headline option, that long-acting IUDs and implants (the kind of contraception most often preferred by reproductive care providers for themselves and their family members, by the way) are no longer there. Some advocates in reproductive justice nonprofits conflate leading with LARC (long-acting reversible contraception), with nudging, with pressuring, with coercing, with forcing—with the unconsented sterilizations that took place during the early part of the 20th century and that disproportionately affected Black women.

Reproductive coercion is worth worrying about. Throughout human history women have been pressured, threatened, and raped into bearing children—as economic assets for their husbands or masters, as foot soldiers for the state, and as devotees to the gods. They have been sterilized or forced to use fail-safe contraceptives when someone else decided that their tribe was too degenerate or prolific. With America in the middle of a racial reckoning, this history and this threat are front and center.

The folks who decided to alphabetize birth control options are swimming in this sea. And no doubt they genuinely mean to protect reproductive freedom. But if so they should remember that even in their own movement, it’s not the thought that counts—it’s the effect. Leading with a diaphragm that will fail almost 1 in 5 women during a single year over an implant that will fail 1 in 2000 leads to less reproductive empowerment, not more. One might think of it, in fact, as a form of stochastic coercion: You don’t know who is going to get forced by contraceptive failure into a baby they didn’t want, but you know for sure that someone will.

Some social justice advocates have become so focused on fixing conversational dynamics and social standing—what words we use, who sits where in which pecking order—that they have lost interest in the practical tools that build equity and opportunity—things like education, and living wage jobs, and reliable family planning.

With the Religious Right trying to force pregnant people to act as incubators and then give birth, with GOP appointees stripping away the safest and most effective forms of abortion care, one might think that the Left would be deeply invested in letting people know about the most trustworthy contraceptives around—and in broad uptake by those who find their interest piqued.

One way to reduce unmet need for abortion is to reduce need for abortion. And the most powerful means we have of doing that is to ensure that everyone knows about state-of-the-art contraceptives that take human error out of the equation for months or even years at a time until a person decides they want a child. Birth control is a personal decision, and no one method suits everyone. But trustworthy birth control is power. People deserve to know that some options drop the risk of an unwanted pregnancy to near zero–and others don’t. That information is right up front at Bedsider.org for example, which provides up-to-date information about birth control to the general public.

Bedsider.org Explore Birth Control Options
Why is their chart organized the way it is? Here’s why.

Two years ago one of my friends was diagnosed with brain cancer. When she talked to her doctor, she wanted to know all of her options. But she sure as hell also wanted a medical opinion about which course of treatment would best stack the odds in her favor. Alphabetizing is for people who have long lists of information to sort through. It’s for finding things in a hurry when you know what you are looking for, and it works very well for that. But it is no substitute for thoughtful input from a medical professional, one who explores what you are trying to accomplish and then offers their knowledge of what might work to get you there.

Valerie Tarico
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. 
She writes about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society.

Abortion Isn’t The Only Part Of Women’s Healthcare That Just Lost Half A Century

Valerie Tarico🤰Abortion access—or lack thereof—affects the lives of men almost as much as the lives of women. Why are we treating men as mere allies?

12-November-2022

Allyship used to mean people who shared a mutual interest or who faced a common threat, people who were pulling in the same direction as partners. But in the parlance of progressive activists, it now means someone who is willing to support tribes other than their own. Specifically, it means white people lining up behind Black people, straight people lining up behind queer people, and men lining up behind women. Allyship now means using your power and privilege in support of somebody else’s quest for power and privilege, by which I mean the kinds of privilege that are merited by all people: dignity, respect, sufficiency, freedom, and equality under the law. Members of the vulnerable tribe set the agenda, and allies follow their priorities and echo their words.


That is how we have been treating men in the abortion fight.

The problem is this fight doesn’t affect only women or people who can get pregnant. It affects us all. The goal of abortion access, just like the goal of contraception, and sex ed and marriage equality is this: All human adults should be able to form the families of their choosing at the times of their choosing with the partners of their choosing.

The fight for abortion rights, and reproductive freedom more broadly, is just one small part of the struggle to reach this much bigger goal. Abortion is simply a tool that allows imperfect people using imperfect contraceptives to end a mistimed or unwanted pregnancy and start afresh. For a person who finds themselves with a mistimed, unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy, abortion care is a mercy, a grace, the gift of a do-over. But that mercy, grace—that gift of a fresh start—doesn’t benefit just the pregnant person. It flows to everyone who loves her and everyone who relies on her, to everyone who shares her joys and sorrows and all the lives that are entangled with her. Most especially, because of how we form families, it flows to her children and her partner.

I’ve been a parent for 28 years, and looking back, the pregnancy part doesn’t loom large in my mind—though it did at the time. My husband, too, has been a parent for 28 years, as fiercely committed and deeply involved with our girls as I have been. Like mine, his life has been profoundly enriched and constrained by parenting. Pregnancy was fascinating and labor sucked, but almost immediately both were displaced by the day-to day-challenge of muddling through work when sleep deprived; and then later the delight of bedtime stories, and the hair-tearing frustration of trying to get kids out the door to school on time, and the angst of illness and injury, and the wonder of watching our daughters emerge as strong, independent beings who love life and love us and sometimes still need us. That was a long process—an everyday commitment for 10,220 days so far (as compared to the 270 days that I spent incubating each child).

I don’t mean to trivialize pregnancy, or the fact that the lives of young women are disproportionately threatened by the loss of abortion access. Yes, pregnancy can injure or break a human body. It kills over 700 women per year in the U.S., and in any given year, approximately 50,000 American women live with significant short or long-term disability caused by pregnancy or childbirth. And yes, yes, I believe that where there is disagreement, the decision to either carry forward or abort a pregnancy must default to the person most affected, the one who is pregnant. And no, a woman cannot fully participate in our democracy or our economy unless she has reliable means to manage her fertility—else every commitment she makes has a great big contingency clause.

But on that last point, the same may be said for young men, many of whom care deeply about becoming good dads when the time and partnership are right. Like a young woman, a young man can have his education, his career and family plans, and his secret wishes and dreams utterly derailed by a surprise pregnancy. This has always been the case, but it may be more so now than ever. When I was young, a good father kept the house from leaking and the bank account flush, and occasionally “helped” with the kids or disciplined them. Even after I started my career as a psychologist in the 1980s, I remember reading a study in which kids were asked how they knew their mom loved them, and then how they knew their dad did. In describing a mother’s love, kids recited long lists of caretaking and nurturing activities. How about Dad? The common answer was, “He tells me so.”

Social and cultural evolution take time, but things have changed a lot in two or three generations. We now expect men to be full partners in parenting—nurturing, slogging through caretaking chores, transporting, playing, putting on bandaids, snuggling, and singing little ones to sleep. And then come soccer games, and tutoring, and waiting in the ER, and college applications. Young men want this level of involvement and expect it of themselves. Even our legal systems recognize the changes. Laws that used to routinely grant sole custody to mothers have gotten more complicated. And DNA makes minimal financial obligations binding.

We can’t have it both ways—embracing these changes and celebrating the ability of men to be more fully themselves with their children—and then treating them as mere allies in the abortion fight. Parenthood is too enormous and too important for us to trivialize the impact of surprise pregnancy on men. If a quarter of women end up needing an abortion at some point in their lives, that means close to a quarter of men do, too. And for these men and their children—and everyone with whom their lives are entangled, the consequences of stripping away abortion access are huge.

As I said, I believe—strongly—that when there is disagreement the decision to abort or carry forward a mistimed or unwanted (or unhealthy) pregnancy must default to the person most affected, the one who is pregnant. But much of the time, abortion decisions are made in partnership as two people who care about each other face the future side by side. I was fortunate to have such a partnership when it was my turn.

Right now, men are particularly vulnerable to mistimed or unwanted pregnancy. State-of-the-art IUDs and contraceptive implants for women have failure rates (meaning unwanted pregnancy rates) ranging from 1-in-500 to 1-in-2000. They toggle the fertility switch to “off” until a person wants it on, and they last for anywhere from three to twenty years. As some providers like to say, they are get it and forget it. By contrast, couples relying on condoms have a one in ten chance of getting pregnant each year. In other words, between the ages of 20 and 50, a guy using the best contraceptive technology available to him could expect about three pregnancies. “Perfect use” statistics for condoms are better, but people aren’t perfect. That’s why get-it-and-forget-it contraceptives are such an improvement.

In my ideal future, all people will have reliable means to manage their own fertility. This won’t be a matter of men relying on women or women relying on men. It will be a matter of each person owning their own body and babies getting created by mutual consent of the two people chipping in DNA. When that happens, most need for abortion will be a thing of the past. Except under rare circumstances, abortion care will be obsolete. But we won’t get there until somebody spends the half-billion dollars it will take to develop a truly safe, reliable, reversible contraceptive for men. That is why, right now, abortion is important for all of us. It’s time we start talking about men not as mere allies, not as mere muscle power or megaphones or extra votes in a battle for women’s rights, but as partners and parents and vulnerable brothers and sons. As family members. As people who care about reproductive empowerment not only because they care about women but because they have loves and dreams of their own.

Valerie Tarico
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. 
She writes about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society.

Men Are More Than Allies When It Comes To Abortion Rights

Hemant Mehta ✏ The anti-abortion church spent years interfering with the health and safety of Planned Parenthood’s clients.


A judge in Spokane County, Washington ruled on Friday that “The Church at Planned Parenthood” (TCAPP) violated the law when it blocked patient care outside a clinic, and the Christian group will now have to pay $110,000 in damages to the abortion providers.

So that plan backfired on the right-wing extremists.

For years now, members of Covenant Church in Spokane protested outside Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho. While protests are legal, this one was intended to block people from using the clinic’s services through intimidation. They used speakers to loudly denounce abortion even though state law prohibits excessive noise and intrusion at health care facilities. They got right up outside the doors of the clinic.

This wasn’t a constitutionally protected form of debating ideological differences; this was harassment, plain and simple.

In September of 2020, Spokane Superior Court Judge Raymond Clary put a temporary stop to it. His preliminary injunction required TCAPP to stand at least 35 feet from the building and begin their “gatherings” at least an hour after 6:00 p.m. when the clinic stopped accepting new patients for the day. Clary added that TCAPP couldn’t block the entrance, trespass on the clinic’s property, or “unreasonably [disturb] the peace” with their noise.

Continue reading @ Only Sky.

Judge Orders “The Church At Planned Parenthood” To Pay $110,000 In Damages

Matt Treacy ✒ Yesterday, October 27, marked the 55th anniversary of the granting of Royal Assent to the British 1967 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. 

28-October-2022

The provisions of that have subsequently been extended to Northern Ireland with the support and complicity of Sinn Féin and the SDLP.

Since that time there have been over ten million abortions carried out in England, Scotland and Wales. The annual figure is now over 200,000 compared to 35,000 in England and Wales in 1968.

The statistics for the first years of legalised abortion appeared to indicate that the number of illegal abortions – estimated at up to 200,000 by the Liberal MP David Steel whose private members bill formed the basis of the Act – had been grossly exaggerated.

Ending “back street” abortions and alleviating the pressures on working class families were the two main reasons given by those who spoke in favour of the legislation. Curiously, the current narrative that abortion is somehow part of the liberation of women was little rehearsed, in Westminster at least.

Nor was support for abortion a default option for all of the left. While only a small number of MPs voted against the Bill, it should be noted that among those who did support it was Margaret Thatcher, while several of the most powerful speeches opposing were given by left wing Labour MPs, two of them from Irish backgrounds.

One of these was Simon Mahon who was the Labour MP for Bootle who said that his previous support for abortion had ended when he had met the parents of one of the “subnormal children” whose destruction it was assured would help to make them more prosperous and happy. Mahon, who had been in the British army in World War II, pulled no punches in making the comparison between abortion and what that war had been about.



Another Labour MP, William Wells, stated that abortion “undermines respect for the sanctity of human life,” and dismissed as a canard the claim that it was part of creating a “progressive society.” Kevin McNamara, one of the few Labour MPs who consistently supported Irish unity, pointed out that the experience of other countries including Japan, Sweden and Hungary, was that legalising abortion did nothing – as was being claimed – to reduce the actual numbers of abortions.

The Labour MP for Pontypool in Wales, Leo Abse, declared that passing the Act would represent “a proclamation of defeat on behalf of the community,” and place them philosophically alongside “the great life deniers” of the National Socialists in Germany against whom he had fought. Referring to those on the left who regarded abortion as something to do with socialism, Abse said:

I am not impressed by the argument that because the rich do something stupid working class people should follow their example…. Some of my Friends should not think that they are waging the class struggle . . . 

While supporters avoided the triumphalist rhetoric of many of their later Irish imitators – including those TDs whose highpoint of their political careers was the copying of British abortion legislation – some of the key devices were similar. There was a focus, for example, on the danger to a woman’s life through the possibility of mental health issues leading to suicide.

Supporters within the general community both highlighted this and in many cases claimed that doctors would so rarely recommend an abortion on “mental health” grounds that the overall incidence of abortion would decline. Now of course, the vast majority of abortions in the UK are facilitated on that basis – so more than 9 million abortions have been carried out on that ground.

The main philosophical argument was typical of the liberal left of that period – and shared more cynically by utilitarian free market “conservatives” – was that aborting children likely to become a social burden would reduce both the pressure on working families and reduce the overall economic costs of supporting them.

I think the latter position, which was evidently shared by Thatcher and other Tories, was adequately answered by William F. Buckley in his response to libertarian novelist Ayn Rand’s support for abortion which led her to oppose Reagan because of his stated intent to curb the impact of Roe versus Wade. Buckley considered the Randian libertarian right’s support for abortion to be part of what he agreed with Whitaker Chambers was an “unfeeling meritocratic” individualism.

The left liberal position was best put by Dr. David Owen who was then a Labour MP and later leader of the Social Democratic Party. Owen clearly believed in something called “social medicine,” which was part of the “progressive and inevitable” improvement of humanity under the benign watch of societal engineers.

Owen claimed that legalising abortion would give doctors the power to deal with the problems which he claimed led to women seeking such a recourse, and that through the enlightened intervention of chaps such as himself and the promotion of better sex education and the greater availability of contraception, that maybe the incidence of abortion would actually be reduced.

Of course, Owen’s naïve belief in our capacity to “control the evolution of humanity” has been demonstrated to be a myth. Not least of all by the manner in which abortion has become in all too many cases not an option of last resort but, as Tory MP Jill Knight pointed out, something that would lead to a situation in which any woman who “felt that her coming baby would be an inconvenience would be able to get rid of it.”

The failure of the human race to live up to the expectations of the w-uld be moulders of a “person of a new type” is proof of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s dictum that if human nature does change, and there is no evidence from history that it does, it evolves at a geological pace. A comparison of where Britain is now compared to where it was in 1967 offers no solace to those who would claim that abortion leads to a healthier society.

Of course those in Ireland who still believe as their counterparts have done for generations that adopting English “civility” is the way to do probably do not care. At least the proponents of abortion in Westminster made some sort of pitch that it was part of the brave new world that appeared possible back then. Their late imitators make no such claims, nor do they care about much other than ticking another box on their “progressive” bucket list.

Matt Treacy has published a number of books including histories of 
the Republican Movement and of the Communist Party of Ireland. 

Thatcher Supported Legalising Abortion In Britain ✑ While Many On The Left Were Opposed

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Three Hundred And Twenty One

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Three Hundred And Ten

Valerie Tarico ✒ There are two ways to reduce unmet need for abortion: Increase abortion access or reduce unwanted and mistimed pregnancies.

24-January-2022

US federal protection of a woman’s right to abortion will effectively end in 2022. Even if the Supreme Court shocks close observers and does not kill Roe outright, it will surely remove the precedent’s teeth. What does this watershed change mean for Cascadians? First off, it is a backward step that will cause real harms throughout the region, and disproportionately so for people of color and low-income people. Planned Parenthood clinics serving Spokane, Pullman, and rural Oregon are scrambling to build capacity and find funding for a flood of uninsured women traveling from Idaho, Montana, and even Texas for abortion care. Without additional funding, says Karl Eastlund, CEO of the eastern Washington and North Idaho affiliate, they may be forced to reduce preventive care, primary care, and mental health services in order to meet the urgent need for abortion. Staff also are bracing for an influx of roving, re-emboldened protesters who, as clinics in red states close, can now redouble their focus on those that remain.

Replacing Roe: Telemedicine with at-home self-managed abortion pills

Given these developments, Cascadia’s standing as a pro-choice stronghold is more important than ever for people wishing to choose whether, when, and how they have children. It is some comfort, then, that even as the area must gird itself to serve more patients, six key facts and trends will reduce the impact of the US Supreme Court’s whims with regard to Roe.

1. Abortion Rights And Coverage Will Remain Intact For Or And Wa Cascadians


Much of Cascadia has robust legal protection for abortion as well as strong systems of care. In Cascadia’s most populous parts, essentially nothing will change legally post-Roe:


Further progress is afoot with regard to abortion medication that patients take in the comfort and convenience of their own homes. In 2017, Canada nationally removed restrictions on the abortion medication Mifepristone. Research at the University of British Columbia confirmed that the medication can be prescribed by any doctor or nurse practitioner and taken at home with no decrease in safety. On December 16, the US Food and Drug Administration, citing similar research, made permanent a set of rules that allow medication abortion to be dispensed via telemedicine, improving access for women in rural areas and “healthcare deserts”—critical for many across Cascadia.

2. Roe’s Protections Are Already Weak At Best For Many Women, Including In Id And Mt


Legal rights are meaningless unless people have the means to act on them, and federal abortion rights have failed to create a uniform landscape of access. Idaho has abortion providers in only 3 out of 44 counties. This figure is about to get worse: the fall of Roe will trigger an Idaho law that bans all abortions save for rape and incest.

But even today, mandatory waiting periods, bogus “safety” regulations, and consent laws have driven up costs and created insurmountable barriers for some women while forcing others to seek care across state lines, if they can afford to do so. In Montana, abortion is already severely restricted, with parental notification requirements for teens and felony charges for some later-stage procedures.

In sum, while the eight million in blue-state coastal Cascadia are not at legal risk of losing their health freedoms and the one million women in red-state Cascadia are, this has been increasingly true even with Roe in place. Thanks to other trends in service provision, however, these women do not have to go back to coat hangers or coerced childbearing…

3. Transportation Networks And Providers In Secure States Are Ramping Up To Serve Women Who Must Travel For Abortions.

Idaho and Montana are not so terribly far away from Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Today 20 percent of abortion patients at Planned Parenthood’s clinics in Pullman and the Spokane Valley come from Idaho. A small fund, Women in Need, already helps pay for travel to specific clinics in the greater Seattle area. The Northwest Abortion Access Fund does the same thing for women in Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Idaho; and the Portland City Council recently channeled $200,000 to this group to prepare for any post-Roe surge in need.

Just so, a National Network of Abortion Funds connects women who need abortions with organizations that can help them with travel, lodging, or medical expenses. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom says the state may become a “sanctuary” for those denied abortion care in places like Arizona and Utah. Newsom convened a group of abortion advocates, providers, and lawmakers that has produced 45 recommendations for how best to serve any influx. When SCOTUS ends Roe, watch for similar steps by leaders in Oregon and Washington.

4. A Network Of International Organizations Support And Supply People Choosing At-Home Self-Managed Abortion


Aid Access, founded by Dutch doctor Rebecca Gomperts, offers medication abortion via online consultation. Medical professionals screen patients and either connect them with mail-order pharmacies or ship medication themselves. Videos and FAQs provide information on how to self-manage the at-home process. The total typical cost is $100–$200, and one Washington doctor said she was able to serve over 200 women monthly through this program.

Along the Texas border, activists in Mexico are likewise preparing to move medications to women who need them. The ease of medication abortion from across state and national boundaries may be one reason that abortions dropped less than opponents hoped (and advocates feared) after recent Texas restrictions went into effect. But for those who care about voluntary childbearing, that’s not the only good news.

5. Need For Abortion Has Been In Steady Decline For Decades


As various regions modernized family planning during the last half-century, reliance on abortion tended to decline. In the US, abortions per capita peaked around 1990. For decades, approximately 1 in 3 women had an abortion in her lifetime. Today that number is around 1 in 4 and still dropping. Advocates for Youth had to rename its abortion storytelling project from the “1 in 3 Campaign” to “Abortion Out Loud.”

Though restrictive laws likely have played a role in pushing this number down in some states, the main explanation for this drop in abortions is a broader decline in pregnancy, and unsought pregnancy specifically. For example, in Montana, teen pregnancy fell by over 40 percent between 1988 and 2013 (the latest available data). In Idaho, it fell by half.

The change appears to flow from both cultural shifts and a revolution in contraception—a transition from intermittent abstinence or withdrawal, to error-prone barrier methods and pills, to modern “get it and forget it” contraception delivered via IUDs and implants.

State-of-the-art contraceptive devices are so effective that they can make virtually obsolete the most common kind of abortion. More than 90 percent of abortions are first-trimester procedures that are motivated by mistimed and unwanted pregnancies. (The remaining abortions include those motivated by risks to the physical health of the mother, fetal anomalies, and sexual assaults, as well as those delayed because of financial or logistical obstacles.)

For upper- and upper-middle-class women, those early abortions are becoming a thing of the past. As one acquaintance put it, “In the 1980s, my mom took my friends to get their abortions. Instead, I’m taking my daughters’ friends to get their IUDs.” The challenge has been getting the same high-quality-but-expensive contraceptives to young women of color and women with lower incomes. Reasons include cost, insurance coverage, and institutional reproductive medicine’s history with these communities. Consequently, when it comes to preventing mistimed or unwanted pregnancies, there are deep chasms between haves and have-nots in terms of their freedom to plan their families as they wish.

6. Smart Private-Public Partnerships Are Bringing Top-Tier Contraceptives To More Women

In 2014, Delaware teamed up with a nonprofit, Upstream USA, to transform contraceptive care across the state. Through Delaware CAN, professional trainers and university faculty taught primary care providers across the state to screen for pregnancy intentions, routinely asking women One Key Question during primary care visits: “Would you like to become pregnant in the next year?” (Oregon pioneered this practice, proactively asking women about pregnancy desires during routine doctor visits and then shaping care based on their personal pregnancy desires.)

Upstream taught providers to offer the full range of contraceptive options while respecting patient preferences and to provide IUDs and implants during that same visit rather than making the patient schedule a second appointment. They included birth-spacing conversations in prenatal care and, when desired, provided immediate post-partum IUDs and implants to new mothers. The result was that both unplanned births and abortions plummeted. There was no decrease in access to abortion care—simply a profound change in need.

A similar contraceptive access upgrade in Colorado had similar results. And it can work across the country. Today Upstream is working in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Washington State. Its partnership with Community Health Association of Spokane, which serves over 16,000 women annually, is showing others how it’s done.

Where Can We Find Hope Post-Roe? By Keeping Our Eyes On The Bigger Prize

The loss of Roe v Wade is a serious setback for Cascadia’s eastern states of Idaho and Montana, with more women being forced to travel long distances for abortions and the constant threat of punitive laws hanging over those who take matters into their own hands.

But Roe—and even abortion access more broadly—has always been a means to a higher end, and despite all, we can continue to make progress toward that end. The end goal of the abortion fight is that people should be able to form the families of their choosing at the time of their choosing with the partner of their choosing.

Opponents of abortion frame the procedure in the terms of a moral crusade; and in turning to counter them, we supporters too often forget that, for us, this never was about a specific medical procedure. We leap into the fray and match their battle cries with our own. But in the heat of clashing passions, we get drawn away from the ordinary clinical changes through which people quietly gain the freedom to form the families of their choosing, even in the midst of chaos and conflict. Improving medical practice along the lines of Upstream USA—asking better questions like One Key Question, developing and then offering better contraceptive technologies like get-it-and-forget-it IUDs and implants, upgrading medical practice to offer same-day, one-appointment care or in-hospital care for new parents who have just given birth. This strategy isn’t sexy. It gives no one an adrenaline rush nor a sense of moral righteousness. The emotions it arouses are neither triumphal nor apocalyptic. But these changes are powerful, and in the long run, that power is transformative.

Our prize is a world in which potential parents can chart their own course and children are born into families that are ready to welcome them with open arms. With that in mind, there’s a whole lot we can do to advance the cause, even without Roe.

Our region has the opportunity to double down on intentional parenthood as a path to greater opportunity, health, and human flourishing—in ways that have the side effect of making unmet need for abortion even more rare.

First published at Sightline Institute.

Valerie Tarico
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. 
She writes about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society.

Cascadia And The End Of Roe