Open Letter to Governor Sarah Palin -- How Your Position on Abortion Hurts All Pregnant Women

Dear Governor Sarah Palin:

Many Americans agree with your position regarding abortion -- they do this as a matter of faith, ethics, personal experience and sometimes politics. We are just wondering though, if you have thought about what would happen if you succeeded in getting your position -- that fetuses have a right to life -- established as the law of the land? Did you know that it not only threatens the lives, health and freedom of women who might want or need someday to end their pregnancies, it would also give the government the power to control the lives of women -- like you who -- go to term?

Your last pregnancy, the one that has become the topic of widespread discussion and speculation provides an important opportunity to demonstrate how this could be true.

According to press reports your water broke while you were giving a keynote speech in Texas at the Republican Governors' Energy Conference. You did not immediately go to the hospital -- instead you gave your speech and then waited at least 11 hours to get to a hospital. You evaluated the risks, made a choice, and were able to carry on your life without state interference. Texas Governor Rick Perry worried about your pregnancy but didn't stop you from speaking or take you into custody to protect the rights of the fetus.

After, Ayesha Madyun's water broke, she went to the hospital where she hoped and planned to have a vaginal birth. When she didn't give birth in a time-frame comfortable to her doctors, they argued that she should have a C-section. The doctors asserted that the fetus faced a 50-75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. (Risks of infection are believed by some health care providers to increase with each hour after a woman's water has broken and she hasn't delivered).

The court, believing, like you that fetuses have a right to life, said, "[a]ll that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was put simply, a doctor's scalpel." With that, the court granted the order and the scalpel sliced through Ms. Madyun's flesh, the muscles of her abdominal wall, and her uterus. The core principle justifying an end to legal abortion in the US provided the same grounds used to deprive this pregnant and laboring woman of her rights to due process, bodily integrity, and physical liberty. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.

Story continues below

advertisement

According to the press reports, instead of going straight to a hospital you chose to get on a long airplane flight back to Alaska.

When Pamela Rae Stewart, allegedly, didn't get to the hospital quickly enough on the day of her delivery, she was arrested in California on the theory that she had violated the rights of her fetus

When Laura Pemberton chose to give birth at home in Florida, a Sheriff came to her house. Doctors believed that she was posing a risk to the life of her unborn child by having a vaginal birth after having had a previous c-section. The doctors were in the process of getting a court -- order to force her to have a c-section. The sheriff took Ms. Pemberton into custody during active labor, strapped her legs together and forced her to go to a hospital where an emergency hearing was taking place to determine the rights of her fetus. She was "allowed" to represent herself. A lawyer was appointed for the fetus. This woman, who vehemently opposes abortion, nevertheless believed in her right to evaluate medical risks and benefits to herself and her unborn child. She was forced to have the unnecessary surgery and when she later sued for violations of her civil rights, was told fetal rights outweighed hers.

You chose to continue working throughout your pregnancy -- even during your labor. Until 1991, women who worked in high paying blue color jobs that provided health benefits were being fired based on "fetal rights" policies that claimed if the woman became pregnant she would expose the unborn child to workplace health risks. Eventually, the Supreme Court said employers covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (the PDA) could not do this. But, millions of American women who work part time or for small employers are not covered by the PDA. If your political position on abortion is accepted - all of these women could be forced to give up their jobs because an employer, family member, or state agent believed it necessary to ensure the health and rights of their unborn child.

Governor Palin, you have led an extraordinary life, balancing work and family, public service and private family obligations. We hope you know though that your freedom relies on exactly the same legal principles that guarantee that American women can choose to have an abortion when they need and want one.

Sixty one percent of women who have abortions are already mothers. Eighty-four percent of these women will be mothers by the time they are in forties. As a proud mother of five beautiful children, we hope you will recognize that the issue isn't abortion -- it is ensuring the lives, dignity and freedom of all pregnant women and their families.

Lynn Paltrow
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women

Comments

[vinny]

Look at the structure of the sentence:

"This woman, who vehemently opposes abortion, nevertheless believed in her right to evaluate medical risks and benefits to herself and her unborn child."

The words are used in this manner to describe two individuals. A woman certainly has the right to govern her own body; but there is another individual involved.

Would you sit back and watch a pregnant woman drink or smoke??? Or would you say something??? What if she ignored you, and kept doing it??? Most reasonable people would take action to prevent her from hurting the unborn child.

My point is that after consensual sex, and after conception, a good argument can be made that a woman's rights over her body have to be balanced against the protection of individuals judged by society to be at a disadvantaged.

For all you political scientists, you will immediately recognize this a liberal democratic position, and note how incoherent our public politics on this matter has become. The reason is because of the silly, unprincipled, ego-driven rationalities (see above) that have come to dominate our two party system.

In short, we need to rearticulate a culture of life that respects individual rights but values on life, e.g unborn children, born children, their environment, those in prison, those affected by war, etc.

If you want to be a feminists, I suggest the ecofeminist variety. The radical feminist of the 60s are simply based on the politics of the self.

[LeftRight]

But your "other individual", the disadvantaged does not have the ABILITY to survive until a certain point. Once they REACH that point, then they are individuals, with many of the rights which will be accorded to them upon birth. BEFORE that point they are merely a symbiont draining resources from the woman's body, and therefore HER health and HER choices reign supreme! THAT'S the liberal position! And THAT'S why you will rarely find a liberal opposed to most forms of late term abortions!

[vinny]

i guess you are too old to be so silly... but the point is accepted, that the Left has its share of obstinent folk, who want to hold the Dem Party hostage to an untenable philosophical position that the woman reigns supreme, and a politically ineffective calculus that allows Republicans to use abortion as a wedge that causes a significant number of people to misrecognize their economic and social interests for the sake of their cultural identity...

the main point: if the Dems lose this election, it will be PRECISELY because they cant do the math... that is, when the less than sign is pointing your way, you have to re-imagine the premise of the critical issue... upshot: culture of life has to be redefined...

[LeftRight]

Sorry, I just re-read this. In the last sentence I meant to say "...find a liberal opposed to most late-term abortion bans."

[Pinkie e]

I ask you...how many liberals do you know that actually say they would have an abortion.? Everyone I've ever listened to says "well of course I wouldn't have one I'm just defending women that want thier right to choose... my beliefs are personal etc. Also we hear from so many choice advocates..".we want this to become a rare event, we want to cut down on the abortion rate". Why,If there's nothing wrong with it? For once think for yourselves about abortions ! Deep within you.... "listen to the better angels of your nature" (Abe Lincoln).... carefully listen too them !

[LeftRight]

Because there's a huge emotional scar left with it. My wife, who I didn't meet until she was in her early 30s, and had three kids, STILL feels bad about the miscarriage that she had in high school!!! We want it rare because we don't want these poor girls to suffer. The biggest thing though, is that those who are anti-abortion are ALSO anti-birth control and anti-sex ed, and anti-anything which will REDUCE the number of unplanned pregnancies!!

[jeanrenoir]

If only all those Reagan Democrat, Catholic and Evangelical, working-class women of the rust belt who will determine the winner in November felt like YOU, instead of their new best friend, Palin! The Republicans know that EVERY national election is decided by the Reagan Democrats. You either win them, or you lose. Obviously, their values are often diametrically opposed to those of "normal" liberal Dems. So the normal Dems tend to elect a doomed liberal loser every four years, and then wonder how they got "Swift-boated" in MI, OH, and PA.

[LeftRight]

And since the rights of one person don't outweigh the rights of another (for example you cannot kill me based on your religious rights to human sacrifice) WHY would the rights of an unborn fetus (which may or may not be able to survive outside of the mother!) be more important than the rights of the mother!

[CJsway]

Well said.

She is so blinded by her ambition and need to ensure her support from the radical right she doesn't realize, or care, that she has been able to exercise her freedom of choice. Just what she wants to take away from all women.

[PumaAnn]

I am pro-choice. Her choice is hers. I am more interested in her thinking about the judicial branch and how she compromises with the other party on appointments, etc.

Her personal decisions are none of my business, thank goodness.

[LeftRight]

Except if she gets into power and then FORCES her personal decisions upon you!

[Kenai]

Excellently put. Why can't people see it in these simple terms. I keep waiting for an epiphany and people to slap their foreheads and exclaim, "Oh! I get it now!" Thanks for helping us towards that goal.

[MegInPA]

Great argument!

[grendl]

You do realize the GOP view flattery, and attempts to reason civilly as signs of weakness, don't you.