More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Leah Anthony Libresco

Leah Anthony Libresco

GET UPDATES FROM Leah Anthony Libresco

Women Are Casualties in High Profile Abortion Fight

Posted: 02/ 2/11 05:55 PM ET

The year has gotten off to a bad start for everyone with a stake in the fight over abortion rights. Instead of focusing efforts to repeal Roe v. Wade on political solutions and lobbying, the pro-life movement continues to adopt the tactics of obstruction at all costs, dragging medical professionals into a political minefield and putting patients at risk.

In Pennsylvania, when a grand jury indictment for abortionist Kermit Gosnell went public, the whole country got a reminder of what it looks like when medicine is allowed to fester without oversight. Gosnell was a butcher who for whom medical malpractice was his standard operating procedure. In the process, he was aided and abetted by the state of Pennsylvania and its negligent regulations. His squalid, unsanitary clinic, which was decorated with a macabre assortment of fetal limbs preserved in formaldehyde, could not have passed a safety inspection. And he certainly merited an inspection, since his patients had a tendency to end up in real hospitals requiring emergency services. Gosnell wasn't caught for so long because regulations in Pennsylvania were weak and poorly enforced.

This lax system is a betrayal of the women of Pennsylvania, who expect that medical facilities and doctors are subject to a reasonable level of oversight. Unfortunately, the pro-choice side has not always been a force for strong regulation and enforcement. Many pro-choice activists develop an embattled, suspicious attitude when it comes to proposals to regulate abortion. That's not surprising, since plenty of proposed regulations are deliberately designed to obstruct abortion providers, not protect the health of the woman.

This week, Congress adopted a particularly egregious tactic of this type in the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act." The bill, which John Boehner called a top priority, would change the usual exemption allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest. The new bill would limit the incest proviso to minors only and abortions would be permitted only in case of 'forcible rape.' That means that a woman who was drugged and date-raped would no longer have really been raped since she wasn't threatened with physical violence. A woman who consented to a certain level of physical intimacy and then asked her partner to stop wouldn't really be raped unless her partner hit her.

Medical professionals are supposed to be able to put the health of the patient first, not be hampered by political tricks. The actions of Boehner and Congressional Republicans put women at medical and legal risk by diminishing the definition of rape. Activists with no background in medicine may not understand the consequences of their critiques or challenges.

In a 'sting' video filmed surreptitiously at a Planned Parenthood in New Jersey and released yesterday, two pro-life activists representing themselves as a pimp and a prostitute, asked a clinic worker for advice. The pro-life group has castigated Planned Parenthood for colluding with and 'offering business advice to a pimp.' This accusation is based on the clinic worker's advice that, if any of the prostitutes had an abortion, they should abstain from all sexual activity for a minimum of two weeks. When the faux-pimp asked if they could do anything else for money during that period, the Planned Parenthood employee clarified that they could only do anything from the waist up.

Conservative ire quickly built up online, but, in this instance, the clinic worker was doing her medical duty. She had no contact with the pimp's prostitutes and no guarantee that she would see them in the future, so she gave pertinent, essential medical advice to the pimp, the only person she had access to. Her first duty was to the patients, and she couldn't afford to reprimand the pimp in the office for fear he might deny his escorts their shot at life-saving medical care. (Planned Parenthood did report the fake pimp to the FBI after he left, since he had implied he was trafficking minors, but they did not confront him in the video). The clinic behaved mostly ethically, assuming their goal was to make sure the girls would have access to treatment, if the police didn't catch the pimp, but their ethics are a question for a formal regulatory board or investigation, not inflammatory activists borrowing a trick from provocateur Andrew Breitbart.

People who have a principled opposition to abortion have every right to work to see it outlawed, but the battle over abortion access can't be fought using regulations as weapons. Both sides need to declare a truce and accept that, while abortion is legal, it should be regulated according to the same standards as any analogous medical procedure. Writing medical regulations requires medical expertise and isn't a project for congresswomen or activists who don't understand the duties of doctors. Perhaps it would be best to appoint a non-partisan commission of doctors at the state or federal level, to recommend regulations that are designed for the safety of the patient, not as an end-run around the law. I suspect even that solution would end up politicized, so here's an easier one: simply pick the regulations/inspection schedule for a roughly analogous medical procedure and implement those.

When medical regulation becomes a political battlefield, the patients are sure losers.

 

Follow Leah Anthony Libresco on Twitter: www.twitter.com/leahlibresco

The year has gotten off to a bad start for everyone with a stake in the fight over abortion rights. Instead of focusing efforts to repeal Roe v. Wade on political solutions and lobbying, the pro-life...
The year has gotten off to a bad start for everyone with a stake in the fight over abortion rights. Instead of focusing efforts to repeal Roe v. Wade on political solutions and lobbying, the pro-life...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 154
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
08:44 PM on 02/10/2011
The pro-choice side is directly to blame for this. I actually support abortion, but many abortion rights advocates have taken the privacy angle in Roe v. Wade too far. Numerous abortion providers allow victims of crimes to remain nameless and suspects go unprosecuted in the name of women's rights.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KDMac
It's called sarcasm, Genius.
11:29 AM on 02/03/2011
What is needed is the technology to remove the fetus intact, freeze it, and re-implant it in a woman who is willing to carry it to term. I can't believe we're that far from having that technology, if it hasn't been achieved already.

Then all the pro-life women can put their money where their mouths are and have these babies themselves.
photo
Inkosi
The gods themselves rage aginst stupidity
12:37 PM on 02/03/2011
Already fanned so I faved. Great Idea!
itolduso
lateral thinker
02:19 PM on 02/03/2011
what....we don't already have enough people on this planet?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KDMac
It's called sarcasm, Genius.
02:24 PM on 02/03/2011
Like you'll really find pro-life people who want to have these babies? They'll sit in cold storage with the leftover fetuses from all the would-be octomoms out there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
inorbit
10:53 AM on 02/03/2011
Here in Ohio legislation has been introduced to ban all abortions after 20 weeks if the fetus is "viable." So, does that mean if a fetus is viable, but the continuation of the pregnancy could kill the mother, the mother dies??? So a fetus is more important to a Republican than the life of a woman. But, we already knew that, didn't we?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
KDMac
It's called sarcasm, Genius.
11:25 AM on 02/03/2011
If it's viable, they should just remove it, and if it lives, adopt it out.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cool Bam
12:06 PM on 02/03/2011
One of several exceptions to Ohio Bill 7 that you refer to.
(b) The abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
noaxe397
09:51 AM on 02/03/2011
For 40 years the anti choice crowd has held the national attention with its violent and theatrical rhetoric and actions.
 
And the pro choice crowd has been missing in action.
 
Result?  Today, many states have no abortion providers.  There are about 850 abortion clinics in the country and 4000 anti choice "pregnancy crisis centers." (according to HBO documentary.)
 
The anti choice crowd has so manipulated the debate and the very language of this issue that now they feel it is OK to manipulate the language of the law as it pertains to CRIMINAL acts (incest, rape.) in pursuit of a social agenda.
 
Where are all the constituional conservatives who say the USC means exactly what it says it means but are silent when it comes to intepreting criminal law?
 
And where is the pro choice crowd confronting conservative legislators with the same tactics as their anti choice opponents?
 
Want the media to pay attention to the plight of womens' reproductive health access in this country?
 
Follow Bohner and Cantor and McConnell and Pence around with signs that say:
 
"No Means No"
or
"Don't rape me twice."
 
Pro choice supporters need to forget the noble idea that the law will protect them because as we see in this article, the law is what the anti choice crowd says it is.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cool Bam
12:15 PM on 02/03/2011
The bill has no possible ramifications for criminal law. Federal funding for abortion is the issue. To this point the two co-sponsors or the bill that are on record have stated it was not even their intention to "change the definition" in it's application to Federal funding and that they are happy to change the wording to be inline with the current laws. We don't really need to debate whether that is true as we will see if that is the case in just a few short days.

What the GOP is trying to do is make permanent the temporary ban of use of Federal funds for abortions that currently must be periodically renewed. While I encourage anyone who does not want that to happen to act, blog, take whatever steps are necessary; recognize the firestorm about "massive new restrictions" is being purposely overblown to political ends. Cheers ;)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UncleSmrgol
pro-life Catholic
04:11 PM on 02/04/2011
If it's a private right, then why do you want to use public funds? I have freedom of the press and freedom of assembly and even freedom of religion, but that doesn't mean that the Federal Government is obligated to provide me a press, or a car, or even a church. I must exert myself privately to obtain those rights. The moment you reach into my pocketbook to fund your "right" -- in that moment your "right" becomes a matter for the republic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gleitz05
Old people are allowed to be cranky.
09:35 AM on 02/03/2011
I completely disagree that "people who have a principled opposition to abortion have every right to work to see it outlawed". If you're against abortion, you don't have to have one. Nobody is trying to make laws forcing a person to get an abortion for any reason. Why then work for laws to force other women to do as you feel is morally right? And this bull about "not wanting any taxpayer funded abortions" is totally hypocritical. We all pay taxes for certain things we don't like. Do we get to choose where our taxes go? Can I say that since I don't have kids, I don't want any of my taxes used for schools? Or wars? Or welfare? Or for the healthcare of our Senators? How about I say we make laws to force every male over the age of eighteen get a vasectomy. Let them donate sperm to a sperm bank until that age so they can have children only after they're married. That would certainly cut down on unwanted pregnancies, right? Does anyone think that any man would allow a law like that? Of course not. That would be interfering with their rights to control their own bodies. Let it work both ways.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CHMB
What's long and brown and sticky? A Stick.
10:17 AM on 02/03/2011
Fanned and fave'd!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gleitz05
Old people are allowed to be cranky.
11:57 AM on 02/03/2011
Thanks and fanned back!
10:22 AM on 02/03/2011
Considering the fact that people who oppose abortion do so because they believe that it amounts to murder, you asking them to look the other way isn't really realistic. I mean I wouldn't look the other way if a husband was beating his wife and/or kids.

You seem to be against biology in other parts of your post. Women have control of their bodies without abortion. To say otherwise is pretty insulting to women if you stop and think about it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
10:51 AM on 02/03/2011
AustinG....just because someone thinks a fertilized egg is a child, doesn't make it one and does not give them the right to impose their sanctimonious opinions on someone else. Until the foetus is viable outside the womb, it is not a baby, so no-one is being "killed". You must be unusual if you say you wouldn't look the other way if a man was beating his family...it happens all the time, and it's extremely rare for anyone to step in.
I don't like abortion, and I chose not to have one when pressured, but that was my choice. I had a choice, and I think all women should have the choice. If not, perhaps, as gleitz05 suggests, men should be subject to mandatory vasectomy. After all, no woman gets pregnant on her own.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gleitz05
Old people are allowed to be cranky.
11:03 AM on 02/03/2011
Has abortion ever been legally defined as murder? The fact that anti-abortionists consider it murder doesn't make it so. That is strictly their opinion based on their own religious code. I'm not asking them to look the other way, I'm telling them to mind their own business. What isn't realistic is some person telling me I have to remain pregnant because of their moral beliefs. How on earth can you even begin to compare a wife and child beater to someone terminating a pregnancy? That's completely illogical. Besides that ridiculous comparison, you might take note that abortion is legal whereas beating your wife and kids is not.
I also can't figure out how you think I am against biology. Women have control of our bodies without abortion? The point is we should have control with abortion as well. The only thing insulting to women here is your post. Perhaps you should stop and think about it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JasonTromm
#Vote2012 for the RIGHT kind of CHANGE
09:13 AM on 02/03/2011
If you don't want the government interfering between patient and doctor, then don't ask the government to pay for healthcare of any kind. We won't have to argue over whether or not the government funds abortions.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
noaxe397
09:35 AM on 02/03/2011
That would be to deny some americans due process and equal protection.  I support MY tax dollars paying for abortions.  You don't like it?  Don't have an abortion and and encourage all whom you know to not have one either.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UncleSmrgol
pro-life Catholic
04:24 PM on 02/04/2011
But I don't, and as part of the electorate, I am allowed to have my voice be heard and my vote counted. I am working to outlaw abortions, or, barring that, to make them a completely private matter. The mere fact that such procedures are funded by our government (cwebster is wrong in stating it's just in cases of rape -- mental health can be used as a reason in all but four states) gives me a say.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JasonTromm
#Vote2012 for the RIGHT kind of CHANGE
09:21 AM on 02/24/2011
Fine. If you do want to pay for abortions, make a private donation to Planned Parenthood. Don't take my tax dollars and give them to PP.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
10:53 AM on 02/03/2011
The government does not currently fund abortion except for rape. Why should a woman have to suffer any more? That would be heartless.

Any other kind of abortion is paid for by the woman, and is no one's business, under any circumstances.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
06:51 AM on 02/03/2011
In dogma/faith/superstition-based medicine everyone loses out.

It might have more effect on women, but everyone's the poorer for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mommadona
I paint. I blog. Therefore, I am.
02:34 AM on 02/03/2011
Ladies, it is time to stop the idiotic 'political correctness' with the #gop and get down and dirty into the trenches.

WE are now the MAJORITY of voters in this country. WE demand EQUAL REPRESENTATION. WE demand #gop men STOP ATTACKING THEIR MOTHERS AND WOMBS IN GENERAL.

WE demand #gop & #dem #DLCSUCKS MEN CONTROL EVERY SPERM THEIR BODIES PRODUCE. Let's see how far THAT goes
photo
Inkosi
The gods themselves rage aginst stupidity
11:30 AM on 02/03/2011
F&F. So men - keep your pants zipped.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
02:28 AM on 02/03/2011
I disagree that anyone who has a "principled objection to abortion" has 'every right to see it outlawed". They may have the ability, they may succeed...but they don't have the right. No one has the right to make that decision for another person.
Note to all anti-choice people ( you are not pro-life, just as people who are pro-choice are not anti-life): if you succeed in outlawing abortion, you simply put women's rights back 40 years...and women will once against resort to knitting needles, abortifacients, drug overdoses and back alley abortionists. You won't have saved any foetuses, you will simply have the blood of more women on your hands. Women who would have been alive, until some self-righteous so-called "pro-lifer" interfered in their personal business.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Leah Libresco
03:18 AM on 02/03/2011
I said "every right to work to see it outlawed" for a reason. I (obviously) am pro-choice, but I do feel sympathy for people on the other side. For them, the status quo is profoundly terrifying and bloody. If I believed abortion was murder, I'd be on their side fighting.

People who want to outlaw abortion should try to come up with plans to minimize harm done to women, which is another reason to work within the legal system instead of bringing the fight into the hospitals.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
03:33 AM on 02/03/2011
I missed the "work to" part.
They can onject all they want, but it still comes down to:
her body, her choice.

No one else's business.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
03:34 AM on 02/03/2011
object
(darn typos)
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
goleafsgo
A Lie stands on one leg, Truth on two.
05:28 PM on 02/08/2011
Thanks for this, cwebster!
I already fanned you but it doesn't to have taken so I will fan you again!    And fave!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:12 PM on 02/02/2011
I have a difficult time believing that the law is written in such a manner that a woman who has been drugged and raped would have her rape considered "not forcible."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lisalulu
I stand for Planned Parenthood.
11:38 PM on 02/02/2011
I have a difficult time believing such a law is necessary; unless you want to be punative to women.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vikingdave
When vikings were just little.
08:28 PM on 02/03/2011
No it's not, and yes they do.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Leah Libresco
01:13 AM on 02/03/2011
Historically, it was only considered 'rape' if the woman was judged to have fought back with every fiber of her being. So if a woman stopped yelling, or stopped hitting, or decided resistance was futile, it could be judged as 'not-rape' since she hadn't resisted enough to be convincing. See here: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/01/hr3_abortion_rape
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mommadona
I paint. I blog. Therefore, I am.
05:07 AM on 02/03/2011
That's HIStory~not HERS
08:59 PM on 02/02/2011
This author needs to read the comments on the article highlighting Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's position on this issue.

If she does the research, she will realize that there are two issues at hand.

The first is abortion.

The second is redefining rape in order to facilitate a religious agenda in a political arena.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lisalulu
I stand for Planned Parenthood.
11:34 PM on 02/02/2011
Exactly! F/F
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Denalidog
02:48 AM on 02/03/2011
and the 3rd issue is why should the taxpayers have to pay for some bum's fun? IF YOU KNOW WHO GOT YOU PREGNANT, SEND THE BILL TO HIM!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
03:31 AM on 02/03/2011
Taxpayers don't pay for abortion unless it was rape or incest, so don't get your knickers in a knot.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rimser
07:25 AM on 02/03/2011
And if you were drugged and don't know the bum's name? What then genius? Oh wait --- if you were drugged, Boehner says you weren't raped. Even though you had no ability to consent. Apparently the new default position is that unless you fight back forcibly you have consented. Sorry ... not buying it. Women get to define rape. No means no. Not maybe. And if you can't consent, you didn't consent. By definition, that's rape. If the police fail to protect you from a rapist, can you send the bill to them?
08:40 PM on 02/02/2011
The right will continue to use any weapon it can to get abortion outlawed. In repub eyes it has become a case of where the ends justify the means. It really doesn't matter who gets hurt along the way. The more contentious and troublesome they can make it, the more people and providers will avoid it, just what the right wants.

The real question is still why is the right so anti-abortion? The premise of the value of life fails as they tend to put less value on the mother's life/health and also tend to be pro-war, pro-death penalty and for limiting access to health care. To the right the value of that life plummets as soon as it leaves the womb. If they truly want to eliminate the need for and use of the procedure, then why are they so against birth control and sex education?
10:31 PM on 02/02/2011
Think about it.

The conservative religious right doesn't care about the health of the woman, disabled kids who have a hard time getting treatment, OR starving kids and adults overseas.

Why do they get so bent out of shape on abortion?

Easy answer. To control women's bodies is to control women. It makes women at the mercy of men and makes them "pay" for daring to have sex, even in marriage. Only (young fertile) women who forgo all sex are safe.

Religions are patriarchal and what better way to keep women in their place than to make sure they have fewer rights over their bodies? Never mind the religions that get all upset over most birth control.

Women can NOT become men's equals. Uh, uh, they MUST be kept in their place one way or another.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Denalidog
02:52 AM on 02/03/2011
women don't want to have abortions, they want men to step up and accept responsibility. Conservatives don't want to "control" women they want to whip men into shape.
There seems to be a scarcity of real men these days. all we have are a lot of worthless bums who won't man up.
Conservatives, the real social conservatives, don't want anyone having sex until they're married. Unfortunately for a lot of men, that would require behaving like adults, and they don't want to do that. Men want to have sex without consequences. That means they want women to have free abortions.
sorry kids, you want chicks to have abortions, YOU pay for them yourself.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Progressive2
10:35 PM on 02/02/2011
This is an easy question to answer. The issue is so easy to get people emotional about. Those people will respond with campaign donations and work in the the belief that they are doing some moral good. They are responding to the jingos and simple rhetoric that eliminate the logic, ethics, medical rational that pregnancy control and pregnancy termination should remain decisions of women and their care givers.
11:47 PM on 02/02/2011
Okay, this is the continuation of my response. The case of rape or incest is more difficult. In that case, the woman carrying the child should be able to get counseling and decide whether or not carrying the child would be psychologically too much to deal with. A baby from a rape is much different from a baby from consensual sex. I just believe life starts at conception and we believe every person deserves a right to life.
The death penalty, in my eyes, is much different. A person in that situation has proved they cannot be in society without presenting danger to those around them, or the crime may be so heinous that they must be punished. I feel a long life in jail is much more punishment. These criminals can no longer be productive citizens and must pay for what they did. The criminals were born and given life. Most on death row have taken the lives of others, so they took away choice from someone. I believe the death penalty is fair for the action.

I don't believe in a woman's right to "choose." I am a woman. I don't understand the talk of reproductive rights. I don't believe I can choose whether someone can live or die. Just because the fetus is in my body doesn't give me the power to decide whether he or she can live or die. OKay, I ran out of space again. I guess that's it.
photo
Jimtoday
Son. Brother. Hell's Kitchen Progressive.
08:26 PM on 02/02/2011
I am beginning to be of the opinion that in all these cases against a woman's right to choose, that if women themselves do not get out there and vote for their own interests, I will no longer really care about all their bellyaching at the lousy results. Women are the majority of voters in the US, and if they do not care enough about their own freedoms, why do we all have to be hostages to these wingnuts at every election cycle? Women! Use your power or lose your power, but let's make it snappy!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mommadona
I paint. I blog. Therefore, I am.
02:36 AM on 02/03/2011
Yeah, YOU TELL EM, MISTER ~ just shut up, m'k?
photo
Jimtoday
Son. Brother. Hell's Kitchen Progressive.
12:02 AM on 02/05/2011
m'no! I'm not asking anyone to share my opinion, it's a free country. No need to show us your awful manners. I hope as a mom, you find a little "impulse control". It's an essential part of good parenting.
photo
Inkosi
The gods themselves rage aginst stupidity
12:01 PM on 02/03/2011
Unfortunately there are still some "old guard" women out there, not to mention those who vote the party rather than the issues.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cheryl tobin
Alpha Dog with my pack!
08:24 PM on 02/02/2011
Regulating standards for Doctors has nothing to do with whether a certain medical procedure is allowed by the government. Women are the experts on whether they want a medical procedure, like an abortion, and no one else.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Denalidog
03:07 AM on 02/03/2011
that's why the majority of women showing up at abortion clinics are hauled in their by their fathers, husbands, boyfriends and pimps, right? Whose choice is this, anyway? We've got women who now tell of being forced to have abortions, how the clinic staff held them down against their will! Sometime back, there was a woman rescued from the trunk of her parents' car at a gas station. they were taking her to an abortion clinic, and she managed to cry out for help. WAKE UP! Women who don't want to get pregnant don't get pregnant!
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
05:11 AM on 02/03/2011
What alternative universe do you live in......women are more likely to be forced to have the pregnancy, look at that incest case in Germany.....

Women can use all the birth control they want, the fact is that there is a significant failure rate with all birtch control methods......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
10:44 AM on 02/03/2011
Maybe you should wake up. Women who don't want to get pregnant, do get pregnant- and in an ironic twist of fate, some women who desperately want to get pregnant, cannot.
Women have been seeking abortions for millenia. Accidents happen.