There are no anti-abortion bills in the South Dakota Legislature's hopper yet. But Rep. Peggy Gibson (D-22/Huron) and Sen. Angie Buhl (D-15/Sioux Falls) have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 1001, to recognize this coming week as Reproductive Rights Awareness Week. My initial reaction is that this resolution dies fast, but believe it or not, HCR 1001 has one more Republican sponsor than Democrat.
The resolution comes on the 39th anniversary of Roe V. Wade Sunday. It also comes on the heels of a new World Health Organization study that finds banning abortion is really counterproductive in reducing abortion and protecting women:
Countries with restrictive abortion laws did not have a corresponding decrease in abortion rate - in some cases, the reverse was true.
Professor Beverly Winikoff, from Gynuity, a New York organisation which pushes for access to safer abortion, wrote in the Lancet: "Unsafe abortion is one of the five major contributors to maternal mortality, causing one in every seven or eight maternal deaths in 2008.
"Yet, when abortion is provided with proper medical techniques and care, the risk of death is negligible and nearly 14 times lower than that of childbirth ["Dangerous Abortions 'On the Rise' Says WHO," BBC, 2012.01.19].
Banning abortion makes moral granstanders feel good, but it doesn't stop abortion. It drives women to more dangerous abortions. The frequent overlap between anti-abortion sentiment and anti-contraceptive sentiment may mean you end up with more unwanted pregnancies, more abortions, and more women dying.
Tell me again, who's pro-life here?
Dr Richard Horton, the Lancet's editor, said: "These latest figures are deeply disturbing. The progress made in the 1990s is now in reverse.
"Condemning, stigmatising and criminalising abortion are cruel and failed strategies."
...The UK Department for International Development part-funded the study, and International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell MP said it was a "tragedy" that the number of "back-street" abortions was rising.
"Women should be able to decide for themselves whether, when and how many children to have - but for many this is not a reality as they have no access to family planning" [BBC, 2012.01.19].
Let's kill fewer moms and fewer babies. Support Gibson and Buhl's HCR 1001, support reproductive rights awareness... and let's not waste any Legislative time with any more harmful abortion restrictions.
Well, I read the study, and here are some interesting facts, despite the emotional charging "assessments" that are being advertised.
Problem number one: the study itself says that "Thus, as in previous efforts to estimate abortion incidence and consistent with WHO practice, we used the operational definition of unsafe abortions, which is abortions done in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, and those that do not meet legal requirements in countries with less restrictive laws." Just so you are all following, according to this study, if an abortion takes place in a country with highly restrictive abortion laws, regardless of its actual safety, the researchers classify the abortion as unsafe. Please tell me you see the flaw then with saying things such as "the rate of unsafe abortions increased in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws."
Problem number two, if one reads the study and directs their attention to Table 2, they will see that since 1995, only two regions in the world have had an increase in abortion rate (Middle Africa, with an increase from 35 abortions per 1000 women in 1995, to a whopping 36 abortions per 1000 women in 2008. Northern Africa with an increase from 17 abortions per 1000 women in 1995, to a whopping 18 abortions per 1000 women in 2008). Every other region in the world has seen a decrease in total abortion rate. The only reason they say that the unsafe abortion rate is on the rise, is because since 1995, certain countries have adopted more restrictive laws, therefore making their abortions (even though they are at a lower rate) "unsafe".
Problem number 3, here is another direct quote (sorry for the length):
"We used empirical evidence of safe abortions done outside the bounds of the law and unsafe abortions done despite liberal laws when this information was available. In India, abortion is legally permitted and available under broad conditions, but many abortions nevertheless take place outside of health services legally authorised to do abortions; some of these are deemed safe and some unsafe.13 In Cambodia, abortion is legal upon request through the first trimester of pregnancy, but half of all abortions nevertheless take place in women's homes and other settings outside of formal facilities;14 we deemed such abortions to be unsafe. In sub-Saharan Africa, abortion law is liberal in Zambia and South Africa, and abortion is legal if it is to preserve the health of the woman in seven other countries. With the exception of South Africa, however, these laws are largely not implemented, and most abortions in these countries occur under unsafe conditions. Some abortions in South Africa are also still unsafe, despite the more widespread provision of safe abortion services since the liberalisation of abortion law in 1996.15 Small percentages of abortions are also known to be unsafe in some eastern European and other countries with liberal laws that were formerly part of the Soviet Union.16 There is evidence that some women rely on unsafe abortions in the USA despite the liberal abortion law,17, 18 and the same is probably true for other developed countries with liberal laws, but these numbers are negligible where they have been estimated."
In conclusion, I posit that it does not matter if a country has liberal or restrictive abortion laws in regards to the safety of the woman getting an abortion. Even in those countries where safe abortion is legal and available (India and Cambodia), abortions are still taking place in "unsafe" conditions. They conclude their study well "We found that abortions continue to occur in measurable numbers in all regions of the world, regardless of the status of abortion laws. Unintended pregnancies occur in all societies, and some women who are determined to avoid an unplanned birth will resort to unsafe abortions if safe abortion is not readily available, some will suffer complications as a result, and some will die. Measures to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion—including improving access to family planning services and the effectiveness of contraceptive use, and ensuring access to safe abortion services and post-abortion care—are crucial steps toward achieving the MDGs (UN Millennium Development Goals)."
But who am I to disagree with the American Ideal of "It is My Right to Attain Pleasure Quickly and to Skirt the Consequences".
And to finish on a positive note, the wonderful Akech Ayimba in Kenya who is used as a case study on the BBC news site decided to be pro-life after her experiences, and is now helping those women who suffer from post-abortion syndrome.
Joseph, we know that "post-abortion syndrome" is a myth.
To suggest that abortion is a casual facilitation of cheap sex is degrading to women.
To suggest that we ought to outlaw abortions and thus force women to seek abortions in inherently less safe conditions is cruel and unusual punishment.
Cory,
The link to the BBC that you provided brings up post-abortion syndrome, specifically Akech Ayimba in Kenya who "claims" she had it, and also claims that she helps women with it. I did not realize that there is a whole political quagmire surrounding the issue. I have since read the studies, and it does appear that the consensus is that the first abortion does not increase the risk of mental health, although there may be correlations to woman who have multiple abortions (but there appears to be the problem of the chicken in the egg, are the women having abortions because of mental health concerns, or do multiple abortion cause the mental health concerns?) Regardless, there do appear to be women in Kenya who are suffering from something, and at least from their view, it is a result of getting an abortion. But maybe if you go tell them it is a myth, they will feel better?
I disagree that it degrades women to say that abortion facilitates casual sex. This is merely a logical fact. I am willing to go out on a limb and say that the majority of people having sex, for the majority of the time, would rather not produce a baby. We have therefore facilitated the people with the availability of methods of preventing the birth of a baby: IUDs, condom,s contraception, and abortion.
I also disagree with your statement "To suggest that we ought to outlaw abortions and thus force women to seek abortions in inherently less safe conditions is cruel and unusual punishment.", but on a grammatical point, as you seem to say that merely suggesting the laws is cruel and unusual punishment. :)
I think we are at least willing to agree that there is a demand for abortions in our country, and that studies have shown that if a woman wants an abortion, she will find a way to make it happen, regardless of whether safe abortions are available (and in some cases, still perform unsafe abortions despite the availability of safe abortions). According to the study you cited above, the legality of abortions does not affect the number of abortions taking place. That leads me to think that to truly reduce the number of abortions, the social mores concerning sex and its relation to child production needs to be shifted. Ideally to where people understand that children are a natural consequence to having sex, and that if you do not want to have children, do not have sex. Additionally, the idea and concept that abortion is a socially acceptable way to prevent a child from being born should cease to be couched as an option, as is almost every other type of murder in our country (the exception being capital punishment, which also needs to see a mores shift, but that is another conversation (parens in parens questions, why is capital punishment, i.e. state sanction murder left to the states to decide, but abortion is not?))
But, of course, this is only my opinion, and until I assume role as the Emperor of America, they will probably not be implemented into law ;)
Isn't it fun arguing about abortion? As David Hume said "Truth springs from argument among friends"!
Telling women there is no such thing as post-abortion syndrome won't by itself solve their problems, but it will keep us from chasing an imaginary cause of the problem and help us focus on the real conditions leading to their troubles.
I have difficulty making the logical conclusion that the opportunity to have an invasive surgical procedure makes casual sex significantly more appealing. Ascribing abortion to a desire for casual sex ignores the fact that a lot of the sex we're talking about is women forced to have sex by their husbands in patriarchal societies. I might make a better case that banning abortion facilitates patriarchy and oppression.
Grammar point: accepted. Let me rephrase by adding the word advocate: your suggestion advocates cruel and unusual punishment. Anti-abortion activism all too often boils down not to a concern for life but a misguided, overgeneralized desire to punish women for having sex of which we disapprove.
I'm all for shifting mores and keeping this debate out of the legal realm. Women have a constitutional right to personal bodily autonomy. We have an obligation to teach young women to use that right responsibly... which the example of Europe suggests would include teaching them how to use effective contraceptive methods and making contraception less stigmatized and more accessible.
Fun? I appreciate your sincerity, intellect, and openness, Joe, but whenever I debate abortion in the public sphere, I get nervous that we are just one vote or one Supreme Court justice away from reducing my wife and daughter (and yours!) to second-class citizenship.