Republican Presidential Candidates Announce a Bold New Plan for American Women: Do-it-Yourself Abortion
Any casual watcher of last night's Republican debate may have come away thinking that women don't have much at stake in this election. After all, of the questions CNN chose, less than a third were even from women. (Sadly even in cutting edge political forums, like The Daily Show, that's typical. In the last year, of the 140 guests of the Jon Stewart Show 13 have been women of which only 4 were not actresses.) The Democrats have Hillary as a candidate this year, which puts women front and center. For the Republicans, though, it's pretty much a choice between graying, gray or bald white men, all of whom seemed to nod in agreement on one breathtaking policy initiative for women that surfaced in last night's debate: the DIY abortion.
The question from the "young lady" was: If abortion is outlawed then who is the criminal, woman, doctor, or both? This has always been the sticky question for the anti-abortion side. Do they intend to start locking up women for murder? Fascinatingly, Fred Thompson, National Right to Life's endorsed candidate, said no. He suggested that some people will be able to perform abortions at any stage of pregnancy with no fear of prosecution: women on themselves. Thompson explained his (and one would figure, National Right to Life's,) bold new plan that would kick in once Roe is overturned: "The question is who get penalized and what should be the penalty. I think it should be fashioned along the same lines it is now. Most states have abortion laws that outlaw abortion after viability and it [the criminal penalty] goes to the doctor performing the abortion not the girl, the young girl, her parents, or whoever it might be. I think that same pattern needs to be followed." So, under this plan, a woman is free to perform abortions on herself, possibly with the help of her parents or "whoever it might be" as long as a physician or healthcare provider who is actually skilled to provide safe abortion care isn't involved. The last time the United States banned abortion -- pre-Roe -- doctors faced only minimal penalties for providing safe care. Apparently Thompson, and every GOP candidate except Giuliani appeared to agree, that was a mistake. The crime of abortion, if (and apparently only if) performed by a doctor, will be murder and extreme penalties will apply. Of course, the details will have to be worked out. Electric chair or lethal injection, that's still up for grabs. But it seems clear that the environment post-Roe will be harsher than pre-Roe. The clandestine network of safe abortion services that sprung up last time might not emerge this time. The risk for physicians would be too great. And so women who can't reach safe care will be much more likely than women before Roe to take matters into their own hands, which apparently the Republicans don't mind.
During last night's debate, there were some anti-abortion ideas dismissed as too preposterous. Will there be a "federal abortion police" force? Candidate Ron Paul seemed to think that would be too difficult. But it's not been too difficult for other "pro-life" wonderlands and so it's probably not exactly off the table as a possibility. In El Salvador, for example, they do use police. Actually they're called "Forensic Gynecologists," and they investigate possible crime scenes (aka: women's bodies) after a miscarriage because, of course, once abortion is illegal every miscarriage is suspect. The immediate past AG of Kansas, Phil Kline, attempted some version of this; seizing abortion patients records in an attempt to find misdeeds on the part of the physician. Given the pro-life movement's attempts to conflate abortion and contraception, with the cooperation of "pro-life" politicians, it's any wonder the scope the GOP has in mind. While Governor of Massachusetts, a bill that would have made emergency contraception (EC) more widely available came to Romney's desk. He vetoed it because, he believes, EC is an "abortive" drug. So, would Romney propose that doctors who dispense EC face the same criminal penalties as those providing what is traditionally known as abortion?
In 2005, Geraldo Flores was a boyfriend of a desperate pregnant teen. Flores' girlfriend, believing she was unable to get a legal abortion in her state of Texas, asked him to strike her in the belly and cause a miscarriage. He did, and succeeded. He's now serving life in prison for doing it. Under the GOP plan, he would have to be a doctor to do that kind of time.
Follow Cristina Page on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cristinapage
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
as iwatched and listened to the GOP candiates.
WHAT'S SUCH A SUPRISE??? WE ALL KNOW THAT MOST OF THE REPUKES, WITH BUSH BEING THE ACE, ARE HYPOCRITES
I believe if we outlaw abortion, we should force men to have vascectomies. It's only fair.
As usual the Repukes ONLY care about the Fetus, or Cells in a Peitri Dish...but once that baby comes out...it's the woman's fault for being a whore, or the mother's problem for getting pregnant,.
I have read your blog twice and I am still in shock horror at the utter callousness towards women of the GOP candidates and their hypocrisy.
Their so-called proposals are criminal. Abortion has been around probably as long as prostitution . . . One of the best things Roe vs Wade did was to take abortion out of the hands of the quaks . .. women who wanted to terminate a pregnancy could do so safely.
We all know that the rich pre-Roe . .. were able to go to Europe -- they could/can always get beyond the law . .. but others cannot. I am sure there were even appropriate euphemisms for their sudden vacations . . .
Abortion has to remain the right of the individual ... it is not a dual standard decision . . . what always really irks me about these anti-choice hypocrites is the fact that they are usually the first ones to point a finger at one parent families and are so anti-welfare . . . they repeatedly show no respect for human life . . . rather they always seem to parade the power that they believe their so-called positions give them . ..they have the will to power . . .but certainly no concept of responsibility nor of simple basic human rights . . . unless those rights pertain to themselves.
With these people it would be "Forward to the Past." Back to the time when women died using coat hangers to abort themselfs. Where back room, basement and garrage abortions in unsanitory conditions took place at a cost of hundreds of dollars for a poor person, while the rich went to "That Spa in Europe for a rest." Go back lok in the papers before Roe vs Wade. Tell me I am wrong.
If Republicans were to outlaw abortion, they'd only have two issues left: Hating gay people and making sure everyone (who wants one) gets a bazooka.
P.S. Dollars to donuts, liberals adopt more.
I am an old woman. I have had abortions when contraception failed me. I have also given birth- twice.I can tell you that in both instances, it is a death-defying feat for a woman. And in any case, the decision must rest only with the woman-it is her body.
That is the point the so-called "pro-lifers" seem to miss,that in this very personal, difficult decision it is a womans prerogative and everyone else should just shut up.
The people who come up with this anti-abortion rhetoric are the most twisted perverts imaginable. Unable to face there own sexual desires, they seek to control the sexuality of others, especially women, who still are struggling to attain equal rights under the law.
As usual, the culprit is organized religions and the gas bag clowns that pontificate from their pulpits.
On the one hand, I agree.
However, if someone (man or woman) is so vehement about not having a baby of theirs coming into the world, why take the risk of having unprotected sex knowing a pregnancy could result? Even using protection, we all know that EVERY method of contraception carries some risk, however minimal, that the method will fail and the woman can get pregnant. (I know 2 women who got pregnant after tubal ligation).
It just seems irresponsible and selfish not to consider, PRIOR to having sex, "what will I / we/ they do if pregnancy results?"
Or maybe I'm wrong, and people do consider that... but they just figure if that happens the answer will be to have an abortion.
I'm not talking about the cases like where the mother's or baby's life or safety are at stake, or rape or incest was involved, or some other dire circumstances exist.
I'm talking about people who think, "hey I don't really have time or energy for a baby right now, but I'll have sex anyway and have an abortion if I get pregnant."
That's the reasoning I find tragic, and I think it is common given that abortion is legal, easily accessible, and often free.
Republicans can support abortion laws because they know they always have an out: go to a more liberal country. Hollywood movies in the 1960s regularly referred to going to Sweden as a an option for the wealthy to "take care of things". Now you can just take a quick trip to Canada.
Unfortunately, the poor young black woman in Mississippi will not have that option, but the last Republican to give a damn about her was Abraham Lincoln.
Why is it that we're willing to argue, challenge, pray, march, campaign, VOTE, and spend mega-bucks on defending or not defending the "right" to have an abortion? Unwanted pregnancies are relatively simple to AVOID! Girls and Boys, Men and Women usually learn about pregnancy prevention before they initiate the act of conception. I'd rather spend my time and tax money on teaching these males and female to KEEP THEIR PANTS ON!
It's really outrageous that the Republicans care about unborn children and yet they do little for them after they're born. They're such hypocrits.
There is no such animal as a "pro-lifer".
One is for legal abortion or one is for illegal abortion; it's just that simple.
The symbol for the so-called "pro-lifer" is that same bent coathanger that has always marked the righteous and the holy who have the money to go out-of-state or, if need be, out of country.
And, by the way, the overwhelming number of abortion-providers pre Roe v Wade, had no connection whatsoever with the medical community.
Those who believe in GOD know that HE was the ONE who made abortion possible. Therefore, women can have spontaneous abortions and God gave humans the ability to engage in the act of performing them.
Appears the religious groups ought to be more caring about the already living than all the eggs, sperms, blobs and fetuses that are washed away by nature or God's intentions.
If life begins at conception, why aren't graveyards full of buried miscarried fetuses?
Surely we must save the miscarriage and give it a decent burial or charge the woman who just miscarried with illegal disposal of a body. To make that work, we would have to question the woman to decide whether or not her abortion was spontaneous. That would mean that a lot of women would not seek medical treatment after a miscarriage.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
