The Follow-Up Question Charlie Gibson Failed To Ask

What about birth control, Mr. Gibson? After asking Sarah Palin if she opposes abortion, did it occur to you that the logical follow-up would be to ask her about her opposition to birth control? Perhaps not widely known because it is not widely reported, the fact is, the same folks who oppose abortion just as adamantly oppose contraception, the primary means to decrease the rate of abortion.

Too often the media focus has been very narrow, failing to convey the broader picture. Issues are effectively reported using talking points and framing that is developed in right-wing think tanks for the purpose of distortion and distraction. The media thrives on controversy and sensationalism. Approached superficially, the issue of abortion provides both.

The easily sensationalized issue of abortion has been wielded by the political right as diversion from a much broader agenda, which lies below the radar. At root, the political litmus test of abortion serves as code for a broad spectrum of issues. Theirs is a 19th century religio-socioeconomic ideal of U.S. Christian nativism, criminalized contraception and abortion, and disenfranchisement of women and minorities.

It has been noted that many young Catholic women are supporting McCain-Palin, many undoubtedly unaware of history. Not only are contraception and abortion important to women's health and lives, it is significant that the highest abortion rates are reported among Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants, those churches most vocally opposed to contraception. (The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior: The First Broad-Scale Scientific National Survey Since Kinsey, Samuel S. Janus, PhD, Cynthia L. Janus, M.D., 1993)

Truthfully, the media has been remiss, failing to illuminate the history of women's health care in the U.S. As a result, many remain unaware that abortion was not criminalized in the U.S. until 1869, when the nascent medical society moved to make abortion illegal unless the procedure was done by a doctor, in part to eliminate competition from midwives who at the time provided much reproductive health care, including abortion and contraception.

Women's access to reproductive health care was affected by demographic concerns raised in 19th century America within the white Protestant population, as well as among Catholics. Largely unknown is the fact that from the 13th century until 1869, the historic Catholic Church accepted abortion until "quickening" (felt fetal movement) or prior to "ensoulment." The Catholic theory of "ensoulment" traceable to the Middle Ages, also served to reinforce women's subordinate status, holding that a male fetus attained human form, and therefore a soul, about forty days after conception, a process half as long as for a female.

The politicization has so obfuscated the issue of abortion that many are unaware that there is no biblical mention of abortion. Jesuit scholar John Connery wrote of the history of abortion: "If anyone expects to find an explicit condemnation of abortion in the New Testament he will be disappointed. The silence of the New Testament regarding abortion surpasses even that of the Old Testament." Most Biblical scholars agree with Baptist theologian Paul D. Simmons that there is no clear biblical prohibition against abortion, though abortion was common when the Jewish and Christian scriptures were written.

The fact is that abortion has been common throughout history. At the time the Constitution was written, recipe books contained recipes for abortifacients.

The effort to erase the history of women's health care effectively renders women invisible. Plea to the media: could we inject some reality into our political dialogue?

Comments

[WgS]

Morning musings (aka -followuping the followupping): Researching theories can be a tricky thing as what works in the lab isn't always what works on the street. For instance, I can tell you from youthful experience that alcohol usage can indeed increase one's risk for unplanned pregnancies. I mention this because of an interesting piece of research from the streets to the lab...

"Anderson, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University's School of Medicine, and her colleagues found that not only is Coca-Cola a spermicide, but that Diet Coke works best."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-ignobel4-2008oct04,0,5393718.story

I see some potential here for the future because if contraception becomes the equivalent of murder, leaving millions of women to find home remedies, I suspect it will only be a short skip and jump before sales of Diet Coke are deemed matters of conscience.

[Michele Swenson - Huffpost Blogger]

Good points. I don't know where Sarah Palin stands on many issues - she is a cipher, a blank slate on which ultraconservatives can write their will. The Council for National Policy (CNP) vetted her, a secretive group whose membership reads like a who's who on the Dominionist right, including James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Paul Weyrich, Howard Phillips - these folks have the most extreme agenda.

Go back to the first link in my piece (I'm sorry, it was previously broken) and the history of the anti-abortion movement. The fact is that, though the right's opposition to contraception has been largely below the public's radar, it has always been part of their agenda. Nelly Gray expressed this very distinctly as long ago as the '70s. "Contraception is murder," she said, "because it prevents the sperm from meetint the egg."

In the piece "Abortion: Surrogate for Unspoken Issues," I wrote:

...rightists actively promote "conscience clauses" whereby pharmacists and health care providers refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions or provide health care based on individual religious beliefs. They seek the outlaw of birth control - a primary means to eliminate the need for abortion. Motivated in part by demographic fear of declining Christian numbers, Pat Robertson rejects the privacy right to contraception upheld in Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965): "I want to see it abolished."

[officewag]

Interesting point about "quickening", one I'd neveer been made aware of,Michele. Good work.

But note that acc to Time Magazine, Palin " is Christian and pro-life, but also a supporter of birth control: she's a member of Feminists For Life (FFL), an anti-abortion, pro-contraception organization.'

You see , Palin's a former Holy Roller who recently joined a non-denominational evangelical church.
Her stance on these issues is not acc to Vatican doctrine , nor is it cohesive.

Roe vs Wade is crucial. The court decision concerns medical privacy and women's control over their own bodies, I agree.
This decision is under threat if the POW-WOW factor overrides

[Michele Swenson - Huffpost Blogger]

Ultraconservatives love to draw an equivalence between slavery and abortion. Following is a response to that specious comparison, an excerpt from my book:

Nor does depiction of abortion as morally equivalent to slavery acknowledge the history of forced conscription of women"s bodies for reproduction. Black women experienced triple enslavement, forced to submit to the slave master, to give birth to his child and to quietly endure the sale of her child as a commodity in the marketplace. Facile comparisons of abortion with the indignity and injustice of slavery ignores the involuntary servitude of women denied reproductive choices. Refuting Sen. Orrin Hatch"s equation of the 1857 Dred Scott and the 1973 Roe v. Wade decisions, Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarked, "In one case the court was affirming the right of one man to hold another man in bondage, and in the other¦the court is affirming the right of the individual to be free."

[MiddleRoadLiberal]

Slavery has also been common throughout history, including during the time the Constitution was written. I support abortion, but I thought I'd play devil's advocate.

[JBryan]

Michele,

It is the age old problem of who frames the debate, and what makes a good sound bite.

I have often wondered why it is never explained to men that Roe v. Wade is at its core a case about the right to privacy, not abortion. That landmark case effects every citizen regardless of gender but we never hear about that either because of how the debate is framed.

Keep up the good work, the more we speak out the better for the Nation.