My favorite line from John McCain's long and mostly uninspired speech at the Republican National Convention was buried in the part where he was trying to define what Republicans believe. He proclaimed that: "We believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans. Government that doesn't make your choices for you, but works to make sure you have more choices to make for yourself."
I assume, sadly, that he was talking about all the choices other than a woman's right to choose whether to keep or abort a fetus. I assume that he wants people to have options in every other part of their lives except for this one, the one the affects mostly women, the one that can shatter a woman's life, the one that the Republican Platform wrongly refers to as "a culture of life." I call it the reality of anti- choice.
How can John McCain and his party be so contradictory? They want parents to be able to choose schools for their kids, but they don't want women to be able to choose whether or not to have a child? There is a real conflict here. A real "culture of life" would respect those whose lives might be greatly altered, even ruined, if they bring an unwanted child into the world. Not to mention the life of the child who was not exactly planned for. Have they ever been to places where these kids can end up? Maybe they should see first hand what a real unwanted child looks like - neglected, abused, angry and alone - it is not a cute little greeting card scene, and it is rarely a happy ending.
Now, if you don't think abortion is right for you then don't have one. Preserving each woman's right to choose what works for her is not the same as forcing a woman to have an abortion, while taking away the options does force a woman to bear a child.
Having intercourse (unless rape is involved) is a choice, too. Unless a woman is raped, no one can force her to get pregnant in the first place. Having intercourse without using birth control is yet another choice - and one that we need to examine more closely. Although the choice issue around pregnancy should not be set aside, perhaps the choices made about having sex and getting pregnant in the first place need to be highlighted. As the other presidential candidate, Barak Obama said at his acceptance speech at his party's convention "We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country."
The Republican's don't want to do that, either. They want to take away choices after the woman is pregnant and they want to limit the choices - and the information - that people (especially young people) could have when they decide to become sexually active. They call it "abstinence only education." Well, if Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol is an example of how that works, I would say that we are in trouble. Abstinence only education is a great idea: teach young people not to have sex at all and then there will be no unwanted pregnancies (again, except in the case of rape, and please note that Governor Palin opposes abortion in those cases as well).
However, teen-agers still have sex. Even if they take chastity vows, wear abstinence bracelets, rings or tee-shirts. And the problem with the abstinence only teens having sex is that they are doing it without full knowledge of their birth control options, so they use no birth control, or they use methods with lower efficacy. This can often result in unwanted pregnancies, as I assume is the case with Bristol Palin and her abstinence only education and family.
I wonder if Miss Palin made her choice to have sex with her boyfriend with the full knowledge of the consequences of her actions. I assume that at 17 and still in high school she did not mean to get pregnant. I am imagining it as a Juno moment, with good kids making bad decisions. But what if she had made the choice to have sex and had been educated about birth control? She might still be pregnant, since no method of birth control other than abstinence is 100 percent effective. But she might not.
That brings up another important issue: maybe she couldn't afford birth control. Although I think that she probably can afford a monthly prescription for the pill (and assuming that she would not need her parent's permission for such a prescription since she is a minor), this is a harsh reality for many American women. It is stunning to realize that the insurance companies are not mandated to cover birth control by our government. The congress did vote to force the insurance agencies to cover medication for erectile dysfunction (hmmm and how many members of congress are older men who might need to employ such drugs?), but helping to avoid unwanted pregnancies and therefore lowering the need for abortions was somehow not a priority for them. We are not working to reduce the numbers of abortions if we are not giving all women access to birth control.
John McCain should mean what he said about choice, and his party should take him at his word by pledging to preserve every American's right to have as many choices as possible. Anyone running for the office of President should be ready to defend choice and expand options for all Americans - including the half of our species who can bear children. Choice is not just about abortion, choice is truly about education, accessibility to health care and birth control and allowing each person to make a decision - as the young mom and bride to be Miss Palin did.