In the dystopian world of anti-choice politics, there’s a Holocaust happening in doctor’s offices and women’s uteruses across the nation. Abortion is, to them, a more serious human rights violation than the killing of actual living children, than the suffering children in poverty face, than the painful realities of domestic violence.
Republicans have long struggled to explain why so many women want abortions. After all, it’s simply untenable to acknowledge the roles of unaffordable health care, rape, domestic violence, abusive families, poverty, and the stress of motherhood in abortion.
In one fantasy, women are murderers who should be punished for abortion. Their partners apparently had no role in these miraculous virginal conceptions. In the second fantastical explanation, people who believe in concepts like legitimate rape insist that women are hapless, ignorant victims who don’t really know what they want. We don’t know how our bodies work, you see, and certainly don’t understand that we have alternatives. Give us a few baby clothes and that’s all we’ll need to care for a child from birth through 18! Better yet, adopt that baby out to a Christian couple. The mother’s feelings don’t matter once the baby is gone.
The concept of post-abortion syndrome derives from this second approach. Women are victims. They are weaklings forced into abortion by uncaring partners, and Republicans completely ignorant of even basic reproductive biology have assigned themselves the task of educating us about the agony of post-abortion syndrome. Abortion clinics are trapped in the crosshairs with abortion clinics from rural Georgia to uber-liberal abortion clinics in San Francisco stuck telling women that, no, abortion won’t actually ruin their lives.
So is post-abortion syndrome real? Is the pro-choice movement denying an epidemic of abortion-induced mental health problems. Not a chance.
What the Research Says About Post-Abortion Syndrome
The American Psychological Association has no official position on abortion, endeavoring instead to provide people with comprehensive and reliable mental health information. Its Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion set out to assess the mental health effects of abortion. The Task Force concluded that there is no credible evidence that abortions cause women any specific mental health problems, and no research to support the existence of so-called post-abortion syndrome.
What they found instead is that the circumstances that lead women to abortion are what contribute to mental health problems after abortion. In other words, women already living in poverty, facing domestic violence, or concerned about their futures are more vulnerable to mental illness both before and after abortion. This supports the pro-choice position that sometimes women’s life circumstances are simply not conducive to good mental health or effective parenting.
So why do so many people believe in post-abortion syndrome? What about all those studies? The APA’s task force found that each of the study had serous methodological flaws. In some cases, these flaws were due to deliberate attempts to bias the results.
What About Women Who Grieve Their Abortions?
Women can and do feel bad about their abortions. Some even develop depression. Denying their suffering is not feminist, and certainly not pro-choice. Pro-choicers support women’s health and welfare, and the movement to keep abortion safe and legal does not depend on abortion causing no problems in any woman. After all, as many as a third of women suffer symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after giving birth. That’s a significantly higher trauma rate than even anti-choicers say is associated with abortion, and no one thinks childbearing should be illegal.
Suffering painful emotions after an abortion is just not the same as a post-abortion syndrome. Women also become sad and anxious after divorces—including divorces they wanted, including divorces from abusive spouses, including divorces that may have saved their lives or their children’s well-being—but no one calls this post-divorce syndrome. It’s simply a reaction to the circumstances surrounding a stressful life event. Women deserve help after all stressful life events, but telling a woman that a single choice she made is the source of her psychological suffering is abusive.
This false concern about women’s welfare is just one of many ways anti-choicers co-opt feminist rhetoric for their own ends. Their concern for women ends as soon as a woman agrees not to get an abortion. That’s why these are generally the same folks who believe poor women should get no welfare and the government should not fund or regulate health care. Don’t be fooled. Anti-choicers don’t care about the suffering of women any more than they care about the lives of children after they are born.
Abortion Clinics Online is the largest directory of safe and legal abortion clinics. If you are considering an abortion, ACOL offers numerous resources. To learn more, click here.
Abortion extremists have taken their fight to such extremes that women may now have to report any evidence of a miscarriage. Because most miscarriages occur before a woman even knows she’s pregnant, this means that laws regulating miscarriage could actually criminalize menstruation–in other words, simply experiencing something most women experience now subjects women in states such as Indiana to draconian regulations.
Enter Periods for Pence. The movement is fighting back against extremist legislation by phoning Indiana state legislators with information about their periods. After all, if Republicans think they know better than women’s doctors, shouldn’t women be able to call those same Republicans seeking information about their bodies? The result has been a protest that is both hilarious and profound. To learn more about Periods for Pence and why anti-abortion regulations could affect women who intend never to have an abortion, read ACOL’s piece about the topic here.
C-Clear anti fog lens cleaner is an anti fog spray or gel that also has anti static properties that is safe to use in the Medical profession. It can be used on any medical face shield, safety glasses and goggles, endoscopy scopes and other devices with cameras and lenses on them. C-Clear has been manufactured in the USA since 1977 and continues to be one of the leading anti fog lens cleaners on the market today.
The company prides itself on strong customer service and only ships freshly made products to its clients around the world.
C-Clear DOES NOT CONTAIN harmful chemicals or toxins that may cause eyes or skin to sting. All C-Clear products are also NON-FLAMMABLE and NON-HAZARDOUS and are designed for everyday use.
C-Clear prides itself on CUSTOMER SERVICE and SATISFACTION. For any reason you may exchange or return your purchased item(s). C-Clear’s aim is to exceed their client’s highest expectations in terms of both PRODUCT QUALITY and CUSTOMER SERVICE. You can get more information here: www.C-ClearAntiFog.com
Author, Katha Pollitt wrote Abortion in American History in the May 1997 issue of The Atlantic.
Ms. Pollitt’s article, Abortion in American History details the question of when human life begins, the personhood of the fetus – moral and legal status, the acceptance and non-acceptance of terminating a pregnancy and the philosophical grounds for each stance. She also covers the interests of the state, medical profession, assorted religious beliefs, and much more.
This is a must read article – Abortion in American History
Abortion Access: All Sides of the Issue by Bruce Robinson provides statistics and detailed information about abortion.
Robinson found “abortion” to be a very active topic on the Internet. In his findings, he found Google to have over 1.3 billion hits for “pro-life” and over 400 million hits for “pro-choice” as of May 2014.
The 3 main types of abortion related sites covered the following:
- 638 million Google searches referenced “pro-life” in August 2014. Pro-life sites are solely dedicated to BANNING abortions.
- 154 million Google searches referenced “pro-choice” in August 2013. Pro-choice sites are dedicated to maintaining FREE ACCESS to abortions under most or all situations.
- A mere handful of neutral educational sites were found on the internet. These type of websites are dedicated to providing information and educating women — helping them to reach their own decision about abortion.
ReligiousTolerance.org is an educational site that gives a woman all points of views on all abortion-related topics. They provide provide both pro-life and pro-choice beliefs.
Their website and the information they provide will help you to fully understand a what “pro-choicers” believe and why they believe it. And, what “pro-lifers” believe and why they believe in pro-life.
Their website covers the following topics:
- Abortion decision making
- Abortion access
- Pregnancy prevention
Both the Religous Tolerance organization and ACOL team strongly agree that all women considering an abortion should be fully informed. Their decision-making should be, as free as possible, from outside manipulation from friends and family members.
Revealing the Truth: Common Questions About So-called “Partial-birth Abortion” Bans
On April 25, 2000, the United States Supreme Court will hear Center for Reproductive Law and Policy’s challenge to a Nebraska law banning abortions. The Nebraska law, like the virtually identical laws passed in states across the country, is part of a deliberate strategy designed to overturn American women’s right to choose abortion.
Waging a campaign of deception, opponents of choice have misled the public and legislators about what these laws actually do. The truth is simple. The so-called “partial-birth abortion” laws ban abortions during the first half of pregnancy – they are not bans on “late term” abortions. These deceptive, extreme, and unconstitutional laws prohibit almost all abortions, not just one technique, and endanger women’s health.
Do these bans violate Roe v. Wade and the right to choose?
Absolutely – these extreme and deceptive laws strike at the heart of the right to choose. The central principle of Roe is that a woman has the right to make private decisions about abortion without government intervention and that she cannot be forced to sacrifice her life or health to protect a fetus. The anti-choice extremists who champion these laws argue that legislatures, not women and their doctors, should make basic health decisions – that the government should be able to prevent doctors from providing the best possible medical care for their patients.
In addition, by outlawing abortions throughout pregnancy, the so-called “partial-birth abortion” bans do away with the critical distinction Roe made between abortions performed before the fetus is viable and those performed after that point.
Don’t these laws ban just late-term abortions?
No. Using gruesome pictures and inflammatory rhetoric, anti-choice extremists have tried to deceive the public into believing that the so-called “partial-birth abortion” laws outlaw only late abortions. A close look at the actual language of these laws reveals, however, that they are not restricted to late abortions and, in fact, never even mention “late-term abortions.” According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, these laws apply to “all stages of pregnancy.” Judges across the country agree. In twenty states, these laws have been blocked or severely limited.
In the case now before it, Stenberg v. Carhart, the Supreme Court is only considering the Nebraska “partial-birth abortion” ban’s effect on abortions during the first half of pregnancy. This means that 99% of all abortions performed in this country – those done before 21 weeks of pregnancy – will be affected by the outcome of this case.
Don’t these laws ban just that one procedure shown during legislative debates and in newspaper ads?
No. The anti-choice groups that developed and championed these laws have used “bait and switch” tactics. In reality, judges across the country have ruled that the laws in fact ban virtually all abortion methods, including vacuum aspiration (the method most widely used in early abortions) and dilation and evacuation (or “D&E,” a method that is often used in second trimester procedures).
>Moreover, while the laws’ proponents now say they are trying to ban one procedure – intact dilation and extraction (or “D&X”), a variant of the D&E procedure – they have told many different stories:
FACT: In March 1996, Representative Charles Canady and five other chief sponsors of the first federal “partial-birth abortion” bill, wrote to his fellow members of Congress to assure them that this bill affected more than just the one technique known as “D&X.” Instead, they said the law would prohibit all abortions that fit the definition quoted above, “no matter what the abortionist decides to call his particular technique.”
FACT: In several states, including Nebraska, proponents of these laws have rejected attempts to limit these laws to only the D&X procedure or to late abortions.
Don’t medical groups support bans on “partial-birth abortions”?
No. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an organization that represents 40,000 physicians specializing in women’s health, opposes these laws, including the “partial-birth abortion” bill currently pending in Congress. According to ACOG, the federal bill “represents an inappropriate, ill advised and dangerous intervention into medical decision-making.”
n 1997, the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association (AMA) voted to support the federal “partial-birth abortion” bill. This decision was later the subject of an AMA internal report, which concluded that the endorsement violated the association’s decision-making processes and policies, including its historic position on abortion. In addition, the report suggested that AMA leaders were “manipulated” by Republican members of Congress who sponsored the legislation. In 1999, the AMA announced that it would not support so-called “partial-birth abortion” legislation.
Shouldn’t we pass laws to ban late abortions?
This question assumes two things: that there are no such laws now and that there are so many late abortions performed that new laws must be passed to stop them.
Roe v. Wade struck a careful balance between women’s lives and health and the state’s interest in promoting “potential life.” It held that, after fetal viability (around 24 weeks of pregnancy, depending on the pregnancy), states are free to ban abortions, so long as exceptions are made to protect women’s lives and health. Today, 36 states – including Nebraska – have laws banning post-viability abortions. It is important to understand, however, how many later abortions are performed and why.
Abortions performed later in pregnancy are rare, and post-viability abortions are even rarer. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, approximately 1% of all abortions in the U.S. are performed at or after 21 weeks of pregnancy. It is estimated that approximately 0.08% (around 1,170 – or less than 1 in 1,000) are performed after 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Those few women who have post-viability abortions have very good reasons for doing so. Often, these are wanted pregnancies that are terminated because the woman’s life or health is endangered, or because the fetus has a severe anomaly that is incompatible with life. It is these women who would bear the consequences of laws banning post-viability abortions.
Finally, it should be noted again that these so-called “partial-birth abortion” bans are not about late abortions – they affect abortions at all stages of pregnancy.
Aren’t the “partial-birth abortion” laws simply a reaction to the new procedure introduced by abortion doctors?
No. These laws are part of a long-standing strategy to change public opinion and to reverse Roe v. Wade through the courts. Following the defeat of the Human Life Amendment in the late 1980s, opponents of choice developed strategies short of a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe. In 1987, anti-choice lawyers wrote, “the most logical and potentially workable strategy for [reversing Roe] is to focus on expanding the state’s compelling interest in fetal life to encompass the woman’s entire pregnancy.” These authors further stated that their suggested strategy, “which begins by weakening ‘viability’ and ‘health’ abortion arguments, is calculated to attack the framework of the abortion privacy doctrine at its most vulnerable point. This approach offers the greatest potential for a complete repudiation of Roe. . . .” This is exactly what they have done here: the so-called “partial birth abortion” laws make no exceptions for women’s health and affect abortions throughout pregnancy.
Moreover, the one procedure they now claim they are attacking is simply a variation of a procedure often used in second trimester abortions. This variation was developed for use in situations where it helped to protect women’s health.
FACT: Abortion techniques – like all medical procedures – have evolved over time, as doctors developed new ways to make the procedure safer and easier. In passing the so-called “partial-birth abortion” bans, politicians are saying that they should be allowed to prevent doctors from making medical advances designed to protect their patients’ health.
Why can’t states just ban the D&X procedure?
>First of all, it is important to remember that the so-called “partial-birth abortion” laws do not ban simply one procedure; they ban virtually all abortions, at any stage of pregnancy. Moreover, even a very narrow ban on just this one procedure would be very problematic – and unconstitutional.
The D&X procedure is used in certain situations because it is the safest method for some women. Moreover, it is very hard to craft a legal definition that does not also affect a number of other procedures: doctors use many different variations of procedures depending on a particular woman’s health needs. If allowed to stand, a law that actually banned this procedure would set a precedent saying the government can force some women to undergo riskier medical procedures just because some legislators want to make a political point.
The anti-choice extremists who wrote this law for legislatures across the country, and who are defending it now before the Supreme Court, have used inflammatory rhetoric and gruesome pictures to divert attention away from what they are actually doing. They have lied about what this law actually bans. They have lied about the threat it poses to Roe v. Wade.
It is time to say that enough is enough. Women’s lives and health, the well being of their families, and the right to keep politicians out of private decisions are at stake.