Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Where I Stand on Abortion

Central North Carolina will hopefully soon be graced with a training by The Doula Project of NYC.  This is of course pending the go-ahead from one or two hospitals and clinics that would welcome the women of the Spectrum Doula Collective into their doors.  Part of TDP's training for abortion and miscarriage doulas involves a "values clarification workshop."  What could that mean, you might ask, since obviously any abortion doula would be pro-choice.

One thing I've learned in speaking with a variety of people on the ever-controversial topic of "the A word" is that being pro-choice doesn't always carry the kind of in-depth understanding of one's own position.  Pro-choice people come in all types.  I've met folks who are staunchly pro-choice but swear up and down that they would never have an abortion themselves.  I've met people who are pro-choice in that they don't believe it's any of their (or the government's) business what women do with their own bodies; for this reason, they choose to abstain from any political or social action for reproductive rights.

Values are different than stance.  One's political convictions don't always match personal beliefs.  I am pro-choice, but it wasn't until the last year or so when I began turning those beliefs inward to ask what I feel about abortion myself.

I consider myself fortunate to have never experienced an unintended pregnancy.  While I can say with confidence that I probably would have had an abortion had I become pregnant when I was in my late teens/early twenties, today I have no idea what I would do if I found out that I was pregnant.  I am at such a different point in my life, and while financially speaking I'm not in the most comfortable place, I am in a great relationship with someone who loves and respects me, I have a college degree, I own my house, and I'm on track to develop a new career that would be pretty forgiving of a baby suddenly joining the picture.  I wish my position was that of every woman... I understand that the choices women make when faced with an unintended pregnancy are directly influenced by their circumstance, their values, their relationship status, and their goals.  I think there would be a time in almost every woman's life where becoming pregnant would have warranted, at the very least, considering the option of abortion.  With that in mind, being 100% against abortion simply doesn't make sense to me.  All women are different, each has a story, and their feelings are always valid.

I think it comes down to trusting women.  That has become my mantra as of late, since I find it provides a concise argument for keeping all reproductive options accessible.  While I appreciate the unapologetic cries of "Abortion On Demand And Without Apology" from highly political advocates, I find that the pro-choice movement at large could always use one of these values clarification workshops to take ourselves past our concise slogans and get into the real nitty-gritty of what it is we're fighting for on the personal level.  Hasn't that always been the argument, that abortion is a personal decision?  Values surrounding abortion aren't fun to delve into, they don't make good protest signs, and they're not nearly as cut-and-dry as terms like pro-choice/pro-life.  But for the sake of our movement and the thousands of women and families who depend on our continued efforts to keep all options open, processing one's own values is imparative. 

I say I trust women.  What does that mean?  In short, it means I believe people are capable of making their own decisions.  Now obviously we sometimes even have to fight for women to receive accurate information (as is the case with crisis pregnancy center awareness), so there's a political battle even there.  But from a personal standpoint, what does it mean to trust?
  • I trust that, with access to comprehensive and unbiased information, all pregnant people are capable of choosing the best path for themselves.  This includes teenagers who can become pregnant but for some reason often cannot access abortion without a parent's consent.
  • I trust a pregnant person's feelings about abortion.  This includes the desire to not have an abortion even if society dictates that it would be the "correct" or "best" thing to do.  It also includes those who are staunchly against abortion on a political level but have them themselves because they find they have no other option.  A woman who chooses to not have an abortion even though she may be young, unemployed, single, or in a bad relationship is not proving anything about abortion at large; her choice does not make abortion inherently wrong, and her personal life does not have to be co-opted for someone else's political agenda.
  • I trust people's emotions surrounding their abortion: relief, guilt, shame, sadness, joy, ambivilance, anger, empathy, regret, confidence, fear, etc.  I know what the surveys say, about relief being #1.  But that hardly means this is the only emotion that is valid, or even that women don't feel emotions in addition to relief.  We can go all day on whether or not negative feelings about abortion are due to man-made stigma or if women under-report sadness.  What it comes down to is, women experience a range of emotions, usually not all negative or all positive, and each and every one is valid for her situation.  Understanding this is essential to our movement's success in ensuring each woman truly has a choice; it is not the same as "selling out."
  • I know that saying things like "it was just a blob of cells" is the least helpful thing someone can say to a woman experiencing sadness after an abortion (or miscarriage).  Questioning her feelings displays a lack of trust and is not going to make those feelings go away.  Women also do not need to hear your political convictions on abortion if she hasn't asked for them.  It is possible to be pro-choice and at the same time create space for the expression of negative emotions about abortion; in fact, it is required to be truly pro-choice.
  • I know that each woman is unique and that unintended pregnancy is sometimes a lose-lose situation.  It may be that no single reproductive option is 100% right for her, no matter how obvious the right answer may seem to an onlooker.  I trust that women can be confused about what to do about an unintended pregnancy without becoming a case study for the antis.  
  • I trust that every pregnant person will invite her partner/parents/friends/options counselor into her decision if she feels that it will be helpful.  Until she does, it's none of anyone's business what she does.  This goes for teenagers, women whose boyfriends are pushing for the abortion, women who are not terminating a pregnancy conceived from rape or sexual assault, women whose boyfriends are pushing against the abortion, etc.  If she made the choice, it is valid.
  • Lastly, I trust that 99% of people who work at abortion clinics are doing it for the right reasons.  Contrary to what you might have heard, abortion clinics do not usually profit greatly from providing abortions; they usually lose money on the procedure to keep it accessible.  There are some bad eggs out there, I while I believe clinics that do not maintain high standards of care should indeed either improve or be shut down, I believe the real magnitude of the problem lies in the over-worked/under-staffed/under-funded nature of the American abortion clinic, a situation that is a direct result of continued stigma.  
So there it is.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Overheard at Jo-Ann's

I was in line to get some fabric cut today when I overheard a fellow customer ranting about her child's school dress code.  The diatribe went something like this:

"I don't understand the issue.  She's a girl and she has to wear polo shirts?  What are they going to make her into?  [Fabric cutter lady nods uncomfortably.]  I mean, they got this 'standards of dress' thing to cut down on something like peer pressure and 'troublesome behavior.'  I guess that's code for gangs.  But look at my child!  She is not going to join a gang, look at her for crying out loud!  [Fabric cutters and other customers give each other awkward glances.]  If they want to cut down on gangs with dress codes, that's fine, make just the hoodlum kids have a uniform.  That's fine with me.  And there's all this crying about not wanting kids to have clothes that other kids don't have, oh puh-leez!  She's my daughter, I should be able to dress her how ever I want."

So, to recap this lady's position on her daughter's school dress code:
  • Forcing girls into polo shirts will turn them into raving lesbians.
  • White kids don't get into trouble, especially the girls.
  • The school should have a uniform, but only for the black kids.
  • School uniforms are one more way the government is turning us into a socialist nation where people aren't allowed to decide what their kids wear to school.  This is bad, but only if you're a white family ("hoodlum kids" still gotta rock the uniform).
Lovely.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Glenn Beck's rally ignored by major media outlets (except for CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, ABC News, NPR, and Fox)

I've been to a lot of national rallies in DC over the past few years: anti-war, women's rights, LGBT rights, and others. These have ranged in size from 10,000 to over half a million attendees and have been organized by both mainstream and more radical organizations. However, I don't think I've ever been to one that was covered, live, from start to finish, by any major news network.

Must be nice.

I say this because Glenn Beck, host of today's "Restoring Honor" rally, likes to play pretend that he's a grassroots activist who is always ignored by the "liberal media." He began his rally today by joking, "I have just gotten word from the media that there are over 1,000 people here today."  I know this because CNN, MSNBC, CBS News, ABC News, and of course Fox are all streaming the entire day's events on their websites.

Okay, so corporate-sponsored Glenn Beck playing oppressed grassroots activist is not something that's particularly new.  But to take a jibe at the very hand that's feeding your ideology to millions of Americans via every major news outlet... now, that takes some cojones.  But I will agree with Beck on one thing: many large-scale demonstrations don't usually get the full, unspun media attention they deserve.  This hardly applies to anything Beck has ever endorsed or been a leader in himself, but if we have to agree on one thing, that's going to be it. 

What we might not agree on, however, is the role of Fox News in all this.  According to Glenn and his fellow talking heads, Fox News is "fair and balanced."  The people's network, if you will, but not in the icky socialist way.  And true, in the past 12 months Fox News has devoted much more air time to protests than other networks, though let's be fair... some of the only major demonstrations of the past 12 months have been organized by the Fox-supported Tea Party Movement.  But you gotta give it up to them for turning their cameras in the direction of the people, right?

Or do they?  I remember a rally I attended not so long ago: The National Equality March last October.  It was by far one of the largest and most inspiring rallies I've ever been to.  The single demand?  Equal protection under the law regardless of race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, class, etc.  It was huge.  Police and organizers estimate over 200,000 in attendance, though mainstream media outlets (including Fox, ahem) reported numbers around 75,000. 

The mainstream media, however, was definitively absent from the day's events.  As Jon Stewart so wonderfully pointed out, Fox itself used only a small amount footage from the march, footage that was initially taped by ABC News, even though Fox has a Washington bureau that could have easily seen the large crowd from an office window.

The kicker, however, was what Fox chose to report on instead: the same day, a small sidewalk demonstration took place in front of a Burlington, NJ school that had taught students a song celebrating President Obama as part of a Black History Month presentation.  The demonstration attracted crowds in the double digits, and Fox saw fit to send a satellite van out to the site to later show viewers where the crowd had been earlier that day.  The final tally of time the network devoted to either protest?  National Equality March: 3 minutes, 42 seconds.  The anti-Obama sidewalk deal: 8 minutes, 16 seconds.

I'll let Glenn Beck go on and on about his so-called "grassroots movement" spearheaded by one of the largest media corporations in the world.  I'll even let him make a complete ass of himself by holding what is essentially a nouveau-white power rally on the anniversary of (and on the grounds of) MLK's historic "I Have a Dream" speech.  I won't, however, allow his poor oppressed white dude personae pretend he's being censored or just ignored by the media when he is the media and receives abundant coverage from not only his own network, but competitor networks as well.  Mr. Beck, you are either an idiot or an evil genius.  (I believe I know which, and it's frightening.)




P.S. Okay, I won't let him hold his offensive mock-MLK rally unchallenged. I just don't have the energy to go on about that particular issue right now.  There's just too much wrong with what GB does... you gotta choose your battles, right?  The hijacking of the Civil Rights Movement is offensive, and that's all I really have to say about it.

Monday, August 23, 2010

What's with the blog?

Yup, I've started my own blog.  While I love blogging for ChoiceUSA and RH Reality Check, I've been wanting a place I can rant about whatever I want, without watching my grammar too much.  So here it is!  What you can probably expect to find:

- Political rants.  Yeah, we'll get lots of those.
- Fun recipes I've tried and love (inspired by Danielle)
- Things I've sewn, crocheted, or otherwise crafted
- Progress reports on my CD (DONA), new thoughts and outlooks on the IBLCE, and reports from the Spectrum Collective
- Cross-posts for things I've done for ChoiceUSA or RH. 

So there it is!