I assume there are sincere people (mostly, but not exclusively, male) who bought into the myth that prohibiting abortions was all about “saving babies.” In the wake of actual bans, the incredible dishonesty of that assertion has become harder to ignore.
The avowed “pro life” activists have been conspicuously silent about the fact that– In the wake of the Dobbs decision–in states like Indiana that have stringent bans, women have died or suffered extreme medical consequences in greater numbers than before. While most women already knew that the purported “pro life” concerns about “life” didn’t extend to the lives of women, those activists have been equally silent about the sharp rise in infant mortality. As the linked report shows, in the year and a half following the Supreme Court Dobbs decision, hundreds more infants died than usual in the United States. The vast majority of those infants had congenital anomalies, or birth defects, and it is likely that a number of those babies experienced painful deaths.
The refusal of ideologues to understand that abortion availability is an essential part of healthcare has meant that women suffering miscarriages have been denied adequate and timely treatment, and that pregnant women who very much want to carry their babies to term are having difficulty finding an ob/gyn to provide prenatal care and deliver those infants. The state’s abortion ban has led to a decline in OBGYN residency applications–a decline likely to worsen the already alarming shortage of maternal care providers. A patient in Northern Indiana died last year from an ectopic pregnancy because there was no ob-gyn to treat her.
None of which seems to bother the “pro life” Micah Beckwiths of the world.
Now, it turns out that the medical consequences of these bans–their very negative effect on actual lives–extends far beyond reproductive medicine. According to the Indiana Capital Chronicle, the bans are also interfering with the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. In the wake of Dobbs and state bans, finding a local provider for breast screenings has become far more difficult. Planned Parenthood clinics that used to provide those screenings have closed and staff shortages at other sites have increased as medical personnel leave states with bans. The remaining health care providers are overwhelmed.
One in 3 oncology fellows surveyed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology says abortion restrictions hurt cancer care, and more than half of fellows said they are likely to consider the impact of abortion restrictions on care when deciding where to practice. Although many states like Indiana allow exceptions when the termination of a pregnancy is necessary to protect the life of the pregnant patient, the rules on how to apply these exceptions are unclear. In Ohio, two cancer patients were denied treatment until terminating their pregnancies under the state’s 6-week ban, forcing them to seek care out of state. As these bans persist, more Hoosiers will face similar situations—many of which may go unseen.
Early detection through routine screenings plays a critical role in improving survival rates, as 1 in 8 women in the U.S. will develop breast cancer in their lifetime. But when health centers are forced to close, those lifesaving screenings disappear too.
How “pro life” are the pious ideologues who talk endlessly about the “pre-born” but refuse to acknowledge the profoundly negative outcomes of these bans for the lives of already-born women?
Excuse my cynicism, but I remain convinced that the real motive for these bans is the patriarchal belief that women should be returned to a submissive social status. Increasing efforts by GOP politicians to restrict access to birth control give the game away.
With the advent of the pill, women were–for the first time– able to manage their fertility and plan their families. Women were able to enter the workforce, able to participate with men in the broader civic and political society. As Morton Marcus and I documented in From Property to Partner, reproductive choice has been far and away the most important element of women’s liberation.
Initially, perhaps some people were convinced that the “pro life” movement really was about keeping wicked and “ungodly” women from “killing babies.” Now that we have irrefutable evidence that, thanks to these bans, more babies and more women are dying, it will be interesting to see how many of those people revise their opinions.
I’m not holding my breath, because for the great majority of those “pro life” warriors, it was never about life. It was about male dominance and faux religion.
Sheila this column hits the nail squarely on the head. It is all about the patriarchs and male dominance and ignoring women and prenatal health care. Making Indiana and the rest of the country resemble the Middle Ages again is terribly ignorant.
Thank You for all the work you do shining a light on what has become a very dark time.
As I said yesterday, I think the “pro-life movement” and all their hypocritical concern for babies is a mask for racism, like most other subjects in this country.
Not only does it mask the stances of the Republican Party, it also masks the pro-abortion stances of the Democratic Party.
It’s standard knowledge that black and Hispanic women are the two leading categories of abortion rates in the US, and this has been the case for quite some time. While the MAGATs hide behind their religion, the Democrats take their stance for votes.
Sure, there is a science element about the zygote living outside the mother, but the two different stances of the political parties are appealing to their voting bases. This is where our federal government should take a stance and end this debate once and for all, but they won’t. Why is that?
If you check with the AMA (a traditional supporter of the GOP), they support abortions and access to procedures in each state. They even want their doctors to be trained to administer abortions. Why would the GOP break from the medical profession? VOTES. The politicians may agree with the doctors but don’t admit that to their voting base. 😉
The GOP base wants to stick it to the Democratic voting base, which they perceive as black and Hispanic. What would happen if Democrats and Republicans got together with the AMA and codified abortion at the federal level?
They won’t do it for the same reason the GOP refused to fix the immigration problem – Trump Fascists wanted to use immigration as an election topic, and boy, have they!!
Even though I don’t have a say in this topic because I’m a white male who’s unable to spread his seed, abortions won’t get fixed because it’s part of the “divide and conquer” strategy against the electorate for the reasons stated above.
I had a Tea Party MAGAT ask me once, and he let it slip out, “Why do you want to help those people by voting for Democrats? You’re one of us!”
#Racism
#PoliticalGames
What is interesting is that when I ask these concern-trolls if they would also support legislation making *posthumous* organ donation *mandatory*, they all (a) say “of course not,” (b) have no explanation as to why (c) fail to acknowledge that their position is logically untenable.
To be clear: if a person *dies* under circumstances that would make it possible for their organs to be transplanted posthumously, the potential medical harm to that person is zero, because they are dead anyhow. And their donation will very likely *save* the lives (or, for things like corneas, enrich the lives) of *multiple* very real and unambiguously living legal persons.
This is a pretty straight up a fortiori argument. Yet everyone I have presented it to has failed to accept that they *are* making the donation of organs mandatory if it is the reproductive organs of a pregnant person on behalf of a dead or clearly dying or perhaps never actually living in the first place (even if we were to concede the personhood of the embryo or fetus, which is not the current state of the law, for very good reason), despite the serious risk of harm to the real living person. They’re totally fine with denying women the right to make choices to protect their own health, and yet also repulsed by the idea that a dead person should have the right to bodily autonomy even though their choice means the death of other persons.
Yeah, I call shenanigans. Pass it on.
(And to be clear, I *also* do not support legislation making posthumous organ donation mandatory. Despite the fact that I think the choice to not be a donor is morally reprehensible (which position is solidly rooted in *my* religious tradition), I support the right of dying people and their grieving families to make their own medical choices, and I do not support the enslavement of one person by the state on behalf of another.)
https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/story/mitzvah-organ-donation
Thank you, Sheila. I would go even further and say the word “ban” is a mischaracterization of the abortion statute in Indiana. When a book is banned, publishers can still publish it, book stores can still sell it, adults can still buy it and even read it with their children if they choose. Compare that to Indiana’s abortion statute.
IC 16-34-2-1 says, “Abortion shall in all instances be a criminal act, except…” Doctors who perform an abortion for any reason are presumed felons and have the burden of proving an exception under the law. Best medical practice is not one of the exceptions.
Even if a woman has the right not to die, what good is that if there is no one who will save her? In addition to the criminalization of medical best practices driving qualified providers out of the state, no one in the state is ever actually required to provide this life-saving care. The procedure may now only be performed in hospitals and most Indiana hospitals (all private and religious hospitals) can refuse to allow abortions altogether (IC 16-34-1-3). And no medical provider in Indiana can be required to perform the lifesaving procedure (IC 16-34-1-4) or even be trained to perform the lifesaving procedure (IC 16-34-1-5).
Tell me one best practice medical procedure for men that’s a crime? Show me one man who presents at the emergency room and is told that he must wait in the waiting room or parking lot until he’s close enough to death to receive treatment.
Don’t believe anyone who tells you women in Indiana have equality. The criminalization of women’s health care only serves to perpetuate the patriarchy.
Religion is a control mechanism for peasants. At a time of no public education it made some sense. It is, today, preferred by those who seek control over their financial and educational inferiors, those whom they exploit.
I suspect the “pro-life” crowd, beside the attachment to simplistic, moralistic self ritious superiority, are at base railing against women having recreational sex. They think sex is “dirty” and want to punish women and children for the sin of having non procreative sex. Already have all the kids you can afford? No sex for you. Want an education or a career? No sex for you. Caring for a sick spouse, child or parent? No sex for you. Sick yourself, single, or with an unsuitable for parenting partner, no sex for you. I think they are really railing against sex for pleasure for women (whores), plain and simple.
^^^ Michele nailed it. Sexual inhibition is key to the control mechanism of religion. And yes, those behind all this want to control women, but I would also add that they want to control women because women are the key to controlling men, and controlling men means an abundance of wage slaves and soldiers.
I have been an organ donor for many, many years, but do not think it ought to be mandatory.
The “Pro-Life” stance has been BS from the get go, just as the “Pro-Family” one has been. And the”Law and Order” people? Oh, they are the ones who are supporting a life-time grifter, and convicted felon for POTUS, as well as the ones who pop up voting more than once! The old GOP was good at little other than finding nice sounding euphemisms for their toxic agenda.
In the recent debate between Indiana’s candidates for governor Braun defended his support of the Indiana abortion ban by stating that the ban was the will of the majority of the citizens…. because the majority was represented by the Republican majority of the state legislature. Clever how the word “gerrymandered” simply got left out of the equation.
The two positions have been incorrectly labeled. On the right, we have the pro birth side, while on the left we have the pro choice side. Note the difference. Pro choice is actually more pro life than today’s right wing. Calling the left pro abortion is a simply wrong. Many of them wouldn’t have an abortion, but they believe that women should have the biggest share of the say on what happens to their own bodies.
Sheila, Once again, thank you for your steadfast reports. I have only one statement that silences “Right to Lifers” every time. Feel free to use it. I’ve never heard anyone else pointing this out. It is simply this “If the Government (federal or state or otherwise) has the power to tell you that you can not have an abortion, it also has the power to tell you that you MUST have an abortion.”
Kate–I used to point that out every time I spoke. China is an excellent example. The issue has never been what is chosen, it is who has the power to make the choice.
I agree with Peggy that pro-choice is actually more pro-life than the right wing. Responsible family planning according to ones means makes for healthier family dynamics for all involved. Out of control pro life agenda can make for a child resentment system due to stress on the parents, and the health of the mother. Too bad the State doesn’t stand up for women and push back on the archaic prescience Church teaching and the sacerdotal judgmental government officials adopting Church attitudes. It’s a control issue and officials need to back off!
Over it:
may i use your todays quote for a T shirt. im attending a trade show in the near future, 99% of the arrentendees fall into this religious scam..
would be a best bumper sticker for a reality check.
I saw a preacher discussing that we need to treat our neighbors the way we would treat ourselves. So if my neighbor needs an abortion then I will support that choice. If she doesn’t I will support that choice too. I don’t feel that it is my place to tell her what to do when faced with such a devasting decision because I wouldn’t want someone telling me what I should or shouldn’t do when they aren’t even a professional doctor who understands the risks involved. I agree with Tim Walz that some people need to mind their own business and let the doctors do their jobs and let the women make their own healthcare decisions.
Sheila! I knew you were awesome!