In our nation's political dictionary "abortion" is a word employed by intolerant people to cast shame on women who choose it. When one of my colleagues on the House floor trivialized a woman's decision to have a second trimester abortion, I stood to correct his mischaracterization by giving my own account of a painful time in my life when the pregnancy my husband and I prayed for was unsuccessful.
The fires of journalistic sensationalism struck quickly. Some news outlets reported: "Congresswoman Admits to Having an Abortion." You admit guilt, but for me there was no guilt, only the pain of a pregnancy that did not work. The fetus had slipped from my uterus into my vagina and could not survive. To stave off a life-threatening infection and to keep the possibility of a future birth alive, I had what's called dilation and evacuation or "d & e." But for people, particularly my colleagues who don't want Planned Parenthood to be funded, I simply had an abortion.
I am saddened and angered by how politicians misuse women's health. For some, describing a procedure like the one I endured is nothing more than talking points. But for millions of women like me, it's much more -- it's something that will always be a part of us.
The day after I spoke on the floor, my district office was flooded with phone calls from women and men in support of what I said. But there was one voicemail from a man who asked, "How does it feel to be a baby killer?" A local television station later reported that I was 17 when I had an abortion -- that would have been a sensational news story if not for that fact that it was untrue. I was in my 17th week of pregnancy and over 40 and married -- not so sensational, but true.
I ask that we collectively inhale, calm down and consider the vital services provided by Planned Parenthood to women. The benefits of family planning and cervical cancer screenings need to continue and I am troubled that the House passed the Pence amendment to defund these efforts. This action threatens to turn back the clock on women's health and reproductive rights. I trust the Senate will defeat the amendment. It is time to stop playing politics with our lives.
The human right for a woman to control her body exists BEFORE she gets pregnant. It existed when they were a child. If you believe human life begins at conceptionÂ, then it began at conceptionÂ.
But they want to take that basic human right away from her as soon as circumstanÂces changes, as soon as she gets pregnant. She had the right to control her body before she was pregnant, will have it after the pregnancy, and should keep it during pregnancy.
Whatever one believes of the rights of the unborn child, we do not destroy the human rights of one individual to secure the life of another. That was the immoral justification of Men.gele and the Tuskegee experiments.
Absolutely! You finally get it. However, for any woman to exercise their basic right to control their own body, they FIRST have to be ALIVE.
Your feeble attempt at "turning the tables" neglects to acknowledge that the MOST basic of all human rights is the right to life. If the most basic right to LIFE is taken away, controlling one's own body is a moot point.
Soooo, if you believe that human life begins at conception, which naturally takes place inside a woman's body and is the basic fact that begins "pregnancy", then a pregnant woman's basic right to control their own body is inseparable from her unborn child's MORE BASIC right to LIFE itself.
Nice try, but it's not the pro-life folks who are missing half the equation. In fact, the whole reason that the Abortion Rights movement has morphed into "pro-choice" or "reproductive rights" is an attempt to obfuscate the basic fact that abortion "kills the life of a baby after it has begun".
As stated in Planned Parenthood's Birth Control FAQ, 1964 -
Q: "Is it (birth control) an abortion?"
A: "Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun..... Birth control merely postpones the beginning of life."
"Whatever one believes of the rights of the unborn child, we do not destroy the human rights of one individual to secure the life of another. That was the immoral justification of Men.gele and the Tuskegee experiments."
--------------
Exactly, the human rights of the unborn cannot be destroyed by the implementation of a mothers human rights. Each individuals rights must be weighed against the others in order to achieve justice. The rights a mother to abort her young, must be weighed against the unborn child’s right to live.
You have not made one post where you did not refer to women in any state of life other than being pregnant. That is a fraction of a woman's life, and may never occur, but taking away her rights follows her through her lifetime. Relationships with women, not in the context of procreation, are important. Try it sometime.
Kind of like, oil and water. They just don't seem to go together very well,
What a sad and painful time for you and your husband. I am so sorry for your loss. Had you been able to have that baby I'm sure he or she would have been beautiful and well loved.
It saddens me that this painful experience you shared was twisted around and turned into lies by those with their own agenda. I thank you for your bravery in sharing your story.
Abortions for medical reasons are rare, and folks who oppose abortion even when the life of the mother and/or baby is at risk do *not* represent those who oppose the "choice" of abortion in "unwanted" pregnancies.
It was Rep. Speier herself who exploited her own painful experience to paint a false impression and fuel intolerance towards those who oppose elective abortions.
Besides, I thought you guys hated big government intrustion. Your hypocracy is nauseating.
Semper fi
The aborition issue is a failure of the church to persuade, yes, (they have even failed to persuade their own faithful) and where they have failed to persuade they have turned to legislation. Legislation that would punish women and force their ideology on others that don't share their beliefs and I say; keep your teachings within the confines of your church and don't push your dogma on us. As an instance --- you have many internal issues with priests that you should be addressing and that are as destructive as abortion!
If someone else has a way to ensure that right (and please don't waste time writing a paragraph explaining how women are to blame for the pregnancies) without making a sacrifice to the rights of the father or fetus, I'm all ears.
As someone who adopted two kids out of the foster system because their biological mothers were simply unequipped to raise them; I'm thrilled to be able to tell my sons that they are in the world because their biological mothers WANTED them, instead of having to tell them that they were FORCED to have them. Forget just the emotional toll of that statement; think also of the message... this is your life too, one where you might not be allowed to control your own body. Not a lot to look forward to in a world like that.
The heart of the abortion debate is about the "human" status of any unborn baby, and it is only by refusing to acknowledge what is now known about human development that abortion can be whitewashed into anything but taking away an unborn child's unalienable right to LIFE.
The whole truth is that your sons are in the world for you to be able to tell them anything at all because their biological mother WANTED to give them a chance instead of CHOOSING to abort them.
Spoken like a man. Thanks. I've got a six-inch scar on my lower abdomen that says it is.
It's not just the trauma at the time-- and if you don't think childbirth is traumatic, then you are.. a man.
Tolerant thinking is compassionate thinking: Care about the living. Get outraged at the attack on women's health care, on childrens' insurance, on better wages for teachers.
BTW - did you wake up today thinking your are King of the World - you're not.
The situation which led to the above article by Representative Speier was the attempt (now successful) to defund Planned Parenthood. To be clear, PP never used federal funds for abortion (which only makes up 3% of their work in the first place). PP used federal funds for several important programs. About 1/3 of PP's work was in contraception. It is this work which has reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies, and as a result has decreased the number of abortions.
However, rather than address the factors that cause unwanted pregnancies or make it easier and cheaper to give a baby up for adoption, or make it easier for an unprepared mother to keep her baby, opponents have instead focused on the things that will not reduce the number of abortions.
PPFA is/was funded with tax dollars and it is Americas Largest abortion provider.
"By law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning."
http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html
Without going into all of the moral angst, I want to know, if all of this is so private and the womans choice, Why does the public have to pay for it?
I won't accept even the rape story. If you are raped and the attacker beats you up, you still have to pay your hospital bill.
I hope someone will make this clear to me.
Thank you,
Ninth
The public doesn't have to pay for it. Federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood does not fund abortion. It funds a myriad of other important services. This includes such things as cancer screenings, STD screenings, prenatal care, contraception, care for menopause, and so on.
Cutting funding to Planned Parenthood will not reduce the number of abortions. It is actually likely to make that number RISE (because a third of PP's efforts are in in the prevention of pregnancy through contraception).
The abortion services offered by PP account for very little of their work (about 3%). That part is funded by completely private funds and is handled by an independent private organization that does not accept taxpayer funds. Just because both use the Planned Parenthood name does not make them the same. A similar situation would be the Catholic Church (which doesn't receive federal money) and Catholic Charities (an organization that receives large sums of federal money).
One thing that is different in your rape example is that if someone is raped and beaten up, taxpayer money (such as Medicaid) can be used to give that person care for their injuries. However, if the rape results in a pregnancy, taxpayer money cannot be used to end the pregnancy.
I greatly appreciate the courage and honesty you have shown throughout this debacle. It is sad--and infuriating--that so little media attention was paid to the circumstances or the context of your experience; no, a sensationalistic headline like "Representative Admits to Having Abortion" was sure to garner more clicks than something like "Representative Shares Painful Surgical Experience".
When, as a native and resident Californian, I feel ashamed of a turn in political events--e.g. the passage of Prop. H8--I take some comfort in knowing that my state is also capable of electing a leader of your high level of integrity.
Thank you again!