What Do Women Want?

Sarah Palin is on a mission. Her fellow Republicans have signed on. At their convention, Senator Fred Thompson urged that "we need a president who doesn't think the protection of the unborn is above his pay grade." This makes mystifying the (possibly temporary) Palin-inspired 20% shift of white American women from Obama to McCain.

Roe v. Wade was MIA at the Democratic Convention. Other than a vague slap at "right wing judges," Hillary Clinton stayed clear. Barack Obama mentioned abortion almost apologetically. Since Denver, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was castigated for suggesting that Catholics disagree while upcoming Palin debater Joe Biden declared he personally believes life begins at conception.

But beyond the Democrats' mixed message, there is another reason for this apparent shift in women's public opinion: few south of 50 have experienced pregnancy without choice. While Hillary Clinton's supporters are described as "aging feminists," younger women have flocked to Obama. They had better rediscover Roe -- or they will suddenly wake up in "those thrilling days of yesteryear."

In elections past, there were six solid Supreme Court votes for Roe. That number has now dropped to five. President McCain could replace three of those. The pro-choice crowd has been accused of crying wolf in the past but he and his new mate are now at the White House door.

If the coming election is lost, to put the matter bluntly, women will come full circle. Overruling Roe would return choice to the states. (In theory, a radical Court actually could find that "life begins at conception," entitling the fetus to the full panoply of constitutional rights).

There are few threats to people's belief in democracy greater than its usurpation by the exercise of judicial power. Yet, in the words of Justice Jackson, "the very purpose of the Bill of Rights is to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities." On such occasions, those with opposing views rightly feel disempowered - and usually angry. The hard core of today's Democratic Party remains furious over Bush v. Gore - where voters' very ability to choose its president was "withdrawn from the vicissitudes of political controversy." And the hard core of the Republican Party remains equally furious over the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

There are few issues more sensitive, personal and, yes, religious, than "when life begins." American anti-abortion laws were adopted in the 19th century through efforts by religious leaders (and the fledging AMA). Before that, and since colonial times, abortions were lawful before "quickening," the first sign of movement by the fetus as determined by the pregnant woman. Given their sensitive nature, abortion decisions were held subject to a Constitutional right to privacy. Given their religious nature, doing so motivated abortion opponents.

Less than one year after Roe, in 1974 a meeting was convened that included Billy Graham and more than two dozen fundamentalist Christians. The resulting Christian Freedom Foundation sought "to rebuild the foundation of the Republic as it was first founded -- as a Christian Republic."

The rest is history. In the words of The National Right to Life Committee's first director, "the Roe decision mobilized a grassroots campaign the likes of which had never been seen... it awoke the proverbial giant." The "1.5 million babies aborted every year" were in need of protection from Justice Jackson's majority. Opposition to Roe brought together two previously antagonistic religious groups that still provide the Republican base - Catholics and evangelical Protestants.

Roe was not the sole cause of the rise of the religious right. So too were the "excesses" of the 1960s and modern feminism (contrary to Ephesians 22-23's command that "wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord"). But Roe provided the troops for an army that Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin now seeks to lead.

Roe v. Wade has prevented countless back street abortions, unwanted pregnancies and enormous hardship. Without it, the fight for the right to choose would still be being fought out, state by state. Citizens becoming pregnant in "red states" like Missouri, Ohio, and Florida, especially the poor, would still have no alternative -- no choice.

According to a new New York Times poll, while differing on various restrictions, nearly 75% of Americans oppose an abortion ban including 60% of Republicans. The Obama campaign should make choice a central theme -- pledging to enact The National Right to Choice Act. Even if the election goes to McCain, such federal legislation should be pressed, forcing the hand -- and the vote -- of Republican senators who claim to be for women's rights but confirm Hillary's right wing judges.

It's time to let Ms. Roe have her beauty sleep...

Comments

[Itchybiscuit]

Robbing banks is illegal.
Committing murder is illegal.
Drink-driving is illegal.
Cheating on your taxes is illegal.
Lying under oath is illegal.

I could go on and on but the point I'm trying to make is, these are examples of illegality. Does this mean they never ever happen? You can make abortion illegal, take away a woman's right to choose but it won't stop women making that choice - illegal or not.

More power to your elbows, ladies.

[onlyThis]

Next time you meet an anti-abortion person ask them if they are willing to adopt a severley disabled infant. Ask them if they are for the raising of taxes to support all these unwanted children. I am not "for" abortion but if we do have all these pregnancies come to term then we will have to deal with them both with adoptions and more money. I usually find that most anti-abortion people are against both birth control and higher taxes. Their attitude seems to be they want all these children but they don't want to deal with the consequences, in other words let them be born then to hell with them.

[erin2008]

It is more than abortion. I would never support McCain from this issue alone. My family agree and take seriously the horrific threat to overturn Roe vs. Wade by a "stacked" right wing Supreme Court - which McCain is dedicated.

The idea that RETURN TO THE STATES won't change anything accept insignificant geographic areas, misrepresent or are ignorant. The Republican right want to take federal money out of supporting women's reproductive choices- that is a threat to the highest level and makes a 2 tier system for the rich versus everyone else. It is naive to think that the states won't change anything because money will go into states to pick off each state state-by-state taking the freedom away from a large number of women and threaten return to the dark days of illegal abortions.

McCain threatens my right to choose and religious freedom. A country that has a religious faction push onto the rest of us their religious views is a mixture of Church and State and takes away my constitutional freedom. Yes, the number of abortions should be lowered, but that should come from accessible and effective birth control and education provided to all women. Like Bush, McCain has prevented accessible and effective birth control to a vast number of women and have provided the least effective education by preaching their "religion" and uneffective abstinance. They will create more anti-women policies that effect all women. This is not OK.

[lostinNJ1]

Half my post is missing! Here is the rest:

*A total of 839,226 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2004 from 49 reporting areas

2004 last reported year that I could find:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm?s_cid=ss5609a1_e

My concerns for those who want to reverse Roe v Wade:
1. Who will support all of these young, unmarried women who would be forced to have babies? Given their young age, how many can financially afford to find daycare while they work?
2. So, given this, I would suspect more poverty, and significantly more strain on local, state, and federal support programs. Are you willing to provide more taxpayer dollars to help them? Or, simply leave them on their own and let the child bear a bring brunt of the suffering?
3. Why does every health plan cover Viagra-like meds, while many less cover birth control? (as per Biden/Clinton webcast posted on Huffpost yesterday)

[RepublicanBrain]

1.) Why don't they just support themselves? That's what most of us do already. If they don't want to have babies, maybe they should just not have sex. Cheap, quick, efficient solution. As far as decisions are concerned, that woman frittered away her money like a gambler taking a chance, and she lost. She deserves nothing.

2.) Give the child up for adoption if you don't want it. Or just don't have children at all until you're ready.

3.) That's the purview of the health insurance company to decide what they want to cover. If you don't like it, speak to them, not to us.

[lostinNJ1]

Fact: Abortion rates have been declining for the past 20+ years:
*The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 per 1,000 live births in 1973 to 358 per 1,000 in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981.
*The ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline.
*In 2004, the abortion ratio was 238 per 1,000 in 49 reporting areas
*The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were known to be unmarried (80%), white (53%), and aged

[Nexialist]

My 21 year-old daughter's eyes glaze over listening to feminists from the pre-Wade, pre Title IX era. Practically speaking, this issue is about raising money and politicians getting people to vote on social issues so they have free rein to steal from us.

[nikky]

PERHAPS IF YOU SIT DOWN AND EDUCATE YOUR DAUGHTER AS TO THE INJURIES AND (YES) DEATHS TO YOUNG AND VIABLE WOMEN WHEN THERE WAS NO ROE V WADE SHE MIGHT UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THAT NO COURT OR PRESIDENT OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL A WOMAN WHAT TO DO WITH HER BODY THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IT IS TIME THAT WOMEN STOOD UP AND DEMANDED THAT MEN STOP TELLING WOMEN WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THEIR BODY DO YOU HEAR THEM TALK ABOUT THEIR BODIES NO BEC

[Nexialist]

We live in California. Abortion was legal prior to Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court made it a federal issue, and the unintended consequence is that too many people on both sides of the issue are single issue voters. That allows Congress to steal from us, and many voters don't care as long as their representative agrees with them on their single issue. My daughter can't be bothered by this non-issue. She's a senior in college preparing for her future, things that will make a difference in her life, and this silly abortion stuff interests her in the least.

[sandy1938]

The time to think about "Roe vs. Wade" was when Hillary, the competent Democrat, was running for President. The way she was treated by her own party was disgraceful, and shows that Democrats are the party of misogynists. This former HILLSTAR will be voting for McCain.

I am old enough that I no longer need to worry about unwanted pregnancy. The young people who supported the UNELECTABLE Obama can thank themselves when Obama loses to McCain, and they no longer have a choice. Serves them right for throwing Hillary under the bus.

[demandfortruth]

Your logic is amazing. So, because I don't have any children, I shouldn't pay for public schools because they serve no purpose to me right? Your response is super selfish, and you should be ashamed for when your FIXED INCOME is reduced thanks to McCain's budget cuts. That is reason enough to vote against him.

[demandfortruth]

Hillary clinton and her husband were great republicans.

[kellysmalltowngirl]

So generous and magnanimous of you. You assuredly are a republican.

[RepublicanBrain]

Roe needs more then beauty sleep, it needs euthanasia. When it's gone, women will start making more sensible, smarter decisions about their lives. When they make smarter decisions, they become smarter people. And a society benefits from smart women, just as it benefits from smart men.

There's little purpose for Roe, it's just used as an excuse to take a life because it is inconvenience. If a woman does not want to have a child, for whatever reason, why not go with the cheaper, quicker solution. Just don't have sex. I've said it many times: Reproduction is the purpose of sex. We berate people who gamble away their life savings for making a bad move, and this is no different.

[demandfortruth]

Yes you're right. Promiscuous sex started AFTER roe v. wade. If you think people will make smarter decisions about sex with the abolishment of R v W, look no further than your choice's daughter, who agrees that sex feels good. It's not all about reproduction.

[RepublicanBrain]

Why don't I just point out the obvious: Roe is still in effect, thus, looking at it's abolishment as a result of Bristol Palin's pregnancy is just plain incorrect.

Now, I know sex feels good. I agree, my girlfriend agrees, and with all the sexual banter that goes on at my office, I'm sure other people agree. But the purpose of sex is not to feel good, otherwise, it would be our only source of physical pleasure. The pleasurable sensations are a byproduct, a stimulation of muscles and nerves and hormone release. The purpose is not the pleasure, but the reproduction.

If you just want to get physical pleasure, get a couple's massage. Or even better, do one for your partner. Save the sex for babies.

[onlyThis]

Tell that to Palin's daughter.

[RepublicanBrain]

I would only have a right to criticize Palin's daughter if she had an abortion. She didn't make a smart decision, but she kept the pregnancy and will keep the baby. Although the smartest decision would have been to avoid sex, she chose not to kill a baby when she could. That deserves support.

[Indubio]

While I don't disagree with Meyerhoff's thesis or his comments, what I find astonishing is that with the country on the verge of economic collapse, involved in two wars with no exit strategy, a crumbling infrastructure, horrendous balance of trade and deficit figures, global warming, and the possibility that without serious action we may not be able to meet our energy needs in the not to distant future anyone with any common sense would be spending 30 seconds thinking about the abortion issue. I don't mean to denigrate the abortion theme because it does involve serious issues. But in the total scheme of national life, it is simply inconsequential compared to the other immediate and extremely critical issues we have to contend with. Abortion in a nutshell is merely a distraction or a wedge issue if you like. If the GOP wants to raise wedge issues than Democrats should cut their nuts off but not at the expense of remaining focused on what's critical. All of those people heartsick over abortion would i suspect become rather more complacent about the issue if they had to live out of their motor vehicles because they lost their job(s) and homes. So by all means: Let's permit ourselves to get distracted by a conservative social agenda that only 28% of the people in this country support.

[Danigirl65]

In some ways, I agree with you but in others, I don't. Yes, there are serious issues at hand and the candidates stance on these issues is important for voters to know BUT the freedom of choice issue is one of these issues, not "merely a distraction." Honestly, it is an issue that is very near and dear to many women who have faced this decision and were grateful to have more than one choice.

This "wedge" issue needs to be addressed because, believe it or not, it is a very important issue for women. John McCain's stances on the economy are important, yes, but John McCain is not the POTUS so we want to know his views, as well as Palins, on this issue. I have no problem with Joe Biden believing that human life starts at conception, nor do I have a problem with any candidate having that view BUT they need to represent their constituents and, according to the percentages indicated in this blog, those constituents are pro choice.

[jsarets]

If jurisdiction over reproductive rights were returned to the states, then I'd doubt more than 3-4 states would pass an abortion ban. The X-factor is just how hard Corporate America will lobby against these bills.

Big business employs large numbers of employees in red states, most of them living in urban and suburban enclaves such as those in and around Austin, TX or Atlanta, GA, for example. There is reason to believe that pro-choice employees -- who reside in these communities in relatively high concentrations if not in the outlying rural communities -- would threaten to relocate if their state passed an abortion ban, and their employers would have a strong economic incentive to keep those workers where they are.

Remember that, even in the reddest red states, nearly 40% of the electorate votes Democrat. These people are mostly pro-choice and more likely to be employees of big businesses than the Republicans. They're much more likely to live near cities or large towns, more likely to have college degrees, and more likely to be able to find work if they relocate.

I don't expect Texas to become a blue state any time soon. But I know that Texas will never successfully pass and enforce an abortion ban so long as IBM, Dell, AMD, Sun, and Motorola each have major campuses in the Austin area, among many other large corporations that also employ large numbers of highly-educated liberals.

[gisellestwocents]

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, all federal involvement in that aspect of women's health care will be discontinued and the court could ban abortion altogether. It's irrational to say that states should decide the issue. Either women have privacy rights with respect to their bodies or they don't. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why does that question need to be assessed on a "state" level--abortion states / no abortion states?

It's a privacy issue and a religious issue. Many quote Psalm 139:13 as establishing that life begins at conception. That's what the Pope says. My Pastor agrees. But while he is a learned man, he doesn't claim to be omniscient. Neither am I. And I agree with Barack that the answer to that question is an unknown.

Respecting others' interpretation, imo, Psalm 139:13 speaks of the flesh, not the soul; so there is a possibility that the soul enters the body at some later point in development. So I have my questions. But even if I didn't, I just don't think it's my business to tell the next woman what to do with her body or what her family is supposed to look like.

And then Psalm 139:16 says that the number of a person's days on earth are preordained, so God has those souls taken care of anyway. It's the people that make to this side that need some attention.

Such as unwed mothers and their children.

[brainyblond]

I am a woman who was a girl of fifteen in 1968. I had a "back alley" abortion. There was no other option for me. I was raised in a very conservative Mormon family, and telling my parents ws terrifying to me. I have never forgotten the pain and sickness from this, I almost died. I am pro-coice, not pro- abortion. I don't want my neighbor's choice taken away. Who has the right to tell someone what they can do with their body? There has alwaays been abortion available to women of means. It is the poor who suffer the most from no choice. My question to those who want to see Roe overturned is: How many unwanted children will you adopt and care for? Would you put your money where your mouth is? You right wingers have no compassion, as well as being hypocrits. A pox on you all. Or perhaps your daughter (unmarried) or grandaughter will get pregnant -without choice.

[Egalitare]

They may not have to PASS an abortion ban. How many states left laws on this matter UNCHANGED in the wake of Roe? I'm willing to bet at least 15, perhaps as many as 20.

There are lots of laws still on the books (from the relevant to the "no walking alligators on city streets" oddballs) which are simply not enforced for whatever reason. To my knowledge, the Roe decision didn't force anyone to CHANGE any state laws. It simply forced them to recognize that the decision overode state law.

[truesteam]

I am 40. My mother was a single working mother. She left an abusive marriage and took her 3 children with her. Her mother also a single working mother. Both faced and fought discrimination, dismissiveness etc. Both resisted the idea that they were barely citizens due to their gender. They worked very hard ( and made sure I knew it) so that my sister and I and our daughters would not have the same fights. It makes me profoundly sad and ashamed that there is a possibility my daughters will have less rights and freedom than I. If my generation lets this happen, we collectivly will be a disgrace in our country's history.

[Cranbot]

Sorry men, but it is time to step into the 21st century and stop using old religious mythology as an excuse to proclaim yourselves in charge of the world. Consider the old saying: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

[piperflyer]

Go Palin! Rock on!

[Egalitare]

Anyone who thinks it is "okay" to charge victims of sexual assault to pay for the collection of evidence of the crime committed against them has VERY QUESTIONABLE MORALS.

[kbcali]

count me as one of the (female) hillary-now-obama supporters. i've yet to meet a hillary-now-palin supporter, but i hear they're out there. it frightens me to believe they exist. i am a young feminist who is well aware of what choice and abortion means to women and girls and i'm surrounded by hundreds of other young feminists with similar views.

we are here and we are fighting.

[Marnie21]

I am a 21 year old feminist and I plan to spend my life fighting for womens rights. I will not let anyone take my right or yours away.

[piperflyer]

Dear Marnie21,

You are able to fight this fight because someone close to you was pro-life.