"Our autonomy is always limited. Our dignity is not." I've been reflecting on versions of this because I recently met up with one of my best friends from college who is a quadriplegic and uses a motorized wheelchair. I hadn't seen him in several years due to a combination of having babies and COVID, but seeing him recently reminded me of all the recon work that his group of friends used to have to do in order to do simple activities with him. If we wanted to go out to dinner, it wasn't enough to call ahead and tell the restaurant we had a handicapped person in our party - more than once a restaurant that told us they were "handicap accessible" had a step up to the front door or they had put our reserved table up or down a set of steps that he couldn't navigate. Entire sections of our college town didn't have curb cuts on the sidewalks, so he couldn't easily cross the street at crosswalks, we were always jaywalking from one driveway or alley to another. (I realize this dates me but all of this was before Google Street View and Yelp, so our ability to research these things beforehand was limited.) Anyway, I showed up with my kids to meet him at a park a few weeks ago and realized I hadn't done any of the research that used to be second nature; there were no curb cuts and no paved trail from the parking lot to the playground and picnic area, no handicap-accessible bathroom, etc. But what had I researched? That the playground would be shaded in the afternoon sun and that there was a port-a-potty available, both things I thought about in the context of MY children and THEIR needs. How quickly I forgot someone else's needs! I was heartily ashamed of myself. Fortunately we were able to park the van carrying my friend so he could motor up the hill to the playground and picnic area and we all had a lovely time together, but two weeks later I'm still reflecting on it. I think Leah may have meant "thinking less of those who need more" in the way of not valuing them as fully human, but in my case, I literally spent less time thinking about someone whose needs (which I was quite familiar with! I cannot claim ignorance!) were much greater than mine and my children's.
Yes, that's the ongoing challenge, isn't it! It's one thing to choose not to think less of those who need more in an abstract way, and it's so different in moment to moment choices of where to place my attention. We're not alone in facing this challenge.
Oh, this is such an important conversation, and again I have to recommend Raising A Rare Girl to all and sundry, because it's so good at recognizing that disabled peoples' needs aren't completely alien to the human experience, they're just sometimes more visibly intense versions, so dignity can't be something we earn by doing things --- no one, in the long run, would have any at all --- but must be innate. Or present even before birth.
Yes, disability is a gradation, isn't it. Not a category or set of categories. It can come to any of us suddenly, without warning -- via accident or illness or attack -- and can come to any of us gradually as we become less able to "do." We may even become unable to do anything but lie in bed unable to speak, having trouble swallowing or not being able to swallow at all. Yet no disability, hidden or visible, can change a human being's uniqueness, rob the person's accumulated wisdom, or disable a human being's radiation of that unique energy outward -- as long as the heart beats. (Writing that last sentence makes me ponder the controversial abortion "heartbeat" laws in a different light.)
My biggest struggle to not fall into the habit of thinking less of those who need more was when I had postpartum depression. After my first was born, with a chronic illness and very high needs, I used to fantasize about dropping her out of our third-story apartment window. All I could feel towards her was resentment. Thanks be to God, I was treated for depression and she is now a lovely 19yo young lady who manages her illness mostly without my assistance. But my experience points to the importance of meeting our own needs in order to meet those of others. I suspect other new moms struggle with many of the same things I did. We need to honor our own dignity as postpartum mothers, as "the mother’s need creates a just demand on the society around her". My own challenges have helped me see this, and I now, as a mom of four teens, go out of my way to serve new mothers in whatever ways I can. I only wish we were all more comfortable accepting this kind of help.
I'm so sorry you went through that struggle with depression. I don't know if you know this, but moms who have post-partum depression can struggle with those same kinds of images and imaginings, whether their children have particular health challenges or not. I'm glad you got the help you needed.
Thank you, Leah. I read your article last week and also some of the comments. So disheartening. As the mother of a son with autism, it hurts my heart that someone could ever think that he is less worthy.
"If the Supreme Court jettisons the viability standard in Dobbs, it will acknowledge that our dignity, before and after birth, does not depend on our ability to stand on our own."
I think that is an elegant, idealistic read of the outcome of this case. Realistically, I don't know a single pro choice person who is opposed to life saving care for premature babies. And realistically, "pro-life" laws in this country make abortions more dangerous, decrease access to maternal and fetal care, increase maternal and infant mortality and criminalize the poor and marginalized.
Meanwhile, the left is constantly not just acknowledging but *celebrating* people's inherent dignity regardless of their autonomy - whether that's the free food & toy tent at George Floyd square or in the fights for Medicare 4 All and a guaranteed basic income or efforts to stop evictions and house the homeless. People who do this work - perhaps personally pro-life but staunchly opposed to anti-abortion legislation - so often *embody* a love for their neighbor regardless of circumstance, material worth or autonomy.
I have found the opposite is true among many hardcore pro-lifers, the folks shouting at women entering a clinic, driving home in a large SUV to a house that is entered through a private garage door, attending a church that preaches the prosperity gospel and believing anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Of course, that isn't descriptive of all people who support making abortions illegal. I think a good many people on your list love life both inside and outside the womb, supporting politicians and policies that reflect that love for one another. To you and them: I can see why overturning the viability standard looks good on paper - but please dig deeper. We know what results from the bad policies that will go in effect in 19 states if the supreme court jettisons the viability standard, both from historical data and international data sets. It looks an awful lot like premising dignity on wealth, race and zip code.
You and I agree on a lot, Martha. And the wild thing is, I still feel like pro-life activism has a more natural home in the Democratic party than the GOP, for exactly the reasons you cite about care for the vulnerable. I liked the book "Defenders of the Unborn," (https://amzn.to/3qiTEO6) a history of pre-Roe pro-life activism which makes the case that pro-life activism was often a progressive priority, and dovetailed naturally with support for the poor.
One place I wish it were easier to work together to support dignity would be bans on abortion that is specifically sought to eliminate children with Down Syndrome. Those cases are directly about whether a child with a chromosomal difference can be welcomed and valued the same way as a child with no trisomies. I strongly favor more support for parental caregivers to children with disabilities, but it doesn't feel like this kind of restriction + massively beefed up support is a bargain that Democrats would take.
I'm all for programs to help parents of kids with down syndrome, enforce training & ethical standards for care providers (it's abhorrent that many *encourage* parents to terminate). I looove that program that pairs expectant parents with down syndrome with current parents of down syndrome kids. But, I'm still categorically opposed to legislation in this area. Pregnancy is too messy, enforcement is too fraught in a country that is trigger happy around incarceration and punishment.
I agree--though perhaps for slightly different reasons. In the case of abortion, lack of "viability" means more than simply being unable to survive on one's own. It means needing someone to give of their own body to sustain their life. And I just fundamentally cannot get on board with the idea that this is something I should want the state to have the power to compel, regardless of my own opinions.
Yeah, I wish we talked more explicitly about the proper role of the state in the context of abortion debates. It has been framed so consistently around 'think of the cute babies' instead of what it really is - a massive expansion of state power, including surveillance, coercion and violence (incarceration and the threat of it).
My most immediate and very similar fear right now stems from Texas' recently passed SB8. It makes it legal (in September) for anyone inside or outside of Texas to sue that lay counselor for providing or intending to provide emotional support to a woman receiving an abortion after 6 weeks. The fine is $10,000 per case and the defendant cannot recoup legal fees. It's a new and terrifying enforcement mechanism that relies on civil court rather than criminal court to create a culture of fear & financial devastation. Instead of focusing on getting the name of the woman who had the abortion, it makes it so no one feels comfortable providing support in the first place.
Sidenote: zero states ban transplants for folks with down syndrome or other intellectual disabilities. Consensus is it is illegal under the ADA and disability advocates have moved legislation in 26 states to create tailored regulatory requirements and enforcement mechanisms to try and head off discrimination by doctors and private organ transplant centers.
I can't imagine any situation where I'd say dignity depends on autonomy. Yet I struggle with the kind of false pride, myself, of thinking less of myself for needing rides to church, because I've been earning less money than I need to buy and maintain a car.
As for laws and abortion...I don't know what the exact restrictions should be. I do recoil from the extreme position that "my" Democratic party veered to in the last election -- as if getting an abortion should be like a quick trip to get one's teeth cleaned. None of anyone else's business, certainly not the prospective father's business, or the business of the parent of a child -- as if every woman and man is an isolated, totally independent individual with no significant effect on others. I think that's a dangerous illusion.
I don't want the United States to become the only country with no limits at all on abortion -- unlike the other "developed" countries which my research a couple of years ago found to have some legal restrictions. I don't want my country to become a mecca for women in other countries who can -- if they have enough money -- travel here so they can only birth the gender they prefer, or whatever other criteria they have as DNA and other information on a fetus becomes easy to obtain during pregnancy.
Does an unborn baby (or fetus) make a just demand on the woman in whose body it has begun? Or is such a demand inherently unfair to the woman? I am coming to believe that to be born a woman does carry with it the honor -- and the burden -- of this demand, this responsibility -- even when we don't want it. And that women therefore deserve and need extra protection and support, both from the father and from extended family and many others. And I say this as a feminist. Biologically, women are different, and the fact that this has been used as rationalization to abuse us doesn't mean the differences aren't important.
When I began researching abortion, after years of assuming that there should be no legal limits on it, I accepted the idea that far fewer women who choose abortion if their society provided excellent child care, maternal and paternal leave, extra financial support for parents, etc. I was unable to find any evidence for this. I was surprised that countries that do provide all this still had high rates of abortion.
This doesn't matter if we don't care about how many abortions are performed. It does matter to me. I agree with the position of my church (Episcopal Church USA) that abortion should be legal but rare. How to make "rare" attainable?
To me there's a certain parallel with the death penalty. Both the abortion of a fetus or baby, (term depending apparently on that "viability standard") and the death of an executed adult are absolutely final -- at least when it comes to physical life on earth. There's no way to undo it. (I realize there's an "undo" built into the process of chemical abortion, but the death is still final.)
I know women who regret abortions they had. My friends argue that they know only women who don't regret it a bit. I say "wait longer. Sometimes in old age, things one easily rationalized when younger, surface and bite us in the butt!") And I know women who say they'd have chosen abortion had it been legal, whose "not aborted" children turned out to be their greatest joy and comfort in their old age.
Saying that one regretted abortion doesn't matter if most aren't regretted? It's a numbers game? Back to the death penalty. Does the execution of one wrongly convicted man or woman not matter, if most executions are of people who did indeed commit the crime? At least now laws in the United States offer a process of appeals and reviews -- however much that process needs improvement. Who advocates for the fetus? What's the appeal process? What's the lengthy process of reviewing and considering the final decision?
In my research abortion rates *are* significantly lower where there is a stronger safety net. And abortion rates are actually lower in countries with fewer restrictions as well. Guttmacher has done great statistical research in this area, as have many independent researchers.
I just had assumed that if the U.S. improved the safety net for parents to say, the level in Sweden, that this would automatically decrease abortions. So I was shocked to find that the abortion rate per 1,000 people is higher in Sweden than it is in the U.S. Granted that all the research is based on estimates based on estimates and models since the data from different countries has big gaps. It's the best research that can be done, and it's an ever changing data as well. I think it just means that the way to lower abortion rates -- if that's an aim -- has to be multi-faceted. And every choice of ways to lower abortion rates can have unintended consequences that might make things even worse. Punish an attempt to abort by imprisoning the pregnant woman? An obvious no.
I am really enjoying this discussion between you both Martha and Catherine. I so wish the abortion conversation in our politics resembled the well reasoned, compassionate discourse coming out of this substack. I have been very disappointed with the democratic approach to abortion politics recently. Being up close with many in the movement it appears that there is a push to replicate the gay rights playbook. Abortion "parties" and "shout your abortion" marketing strategies seem to be advancing an almost "pride in abortion" narrative. I think this is wrong, misguided and is clearly hurting abortion rights because most people understand that abortion is a very nuanced issue. When a person is pregnant, she is both two and one. When I am pregnant, am I still wholly myself? I think this is the question around which abortion revolves and where moral intuitions flicker. I think it is really interesting that many reasonable pro-life positions such as those voiced in this substack find it "obvious" that we should not punish women for attempting abortions. I understand the moral intuition here but from a legal perspective, if a fetus was enshrined with personhood there would be no way to escape the logic of punishment. I have also seen many pro-life activists on the right actively putting punishment on the table and I don't think this is as a fringe a view as some would think. I think both the left and the right find themselves up against the complexity of the abortion question when they find their moral intuitions clashing with the logical end points of their position. If the left is to truly believe a fetus is not a life then abortion parties should make total sense. And if the right truly believes abortion is murder then punishing those who commit the "murder" makes perfect sense too. However our moral intuitions often leave us deeply uncomfortable with either end of these positions. I have supported many women who have abortions (I was an abortion doula) and I found wisdom that reaches beyond my own human comprehension in the recovery room of an abortion clinic. One woman prayed before her abortion and asked me if I would pray with her (even though I was an agnostic, I obliged) because she felt she would no longer have access to god after her abortion. Most women recognize and struggle with the life of their unborn child during counseling. That doesn't mean they don't make the choices they do. We often make choices that are morally difficult or that leave us with regret. Those are not arguments that support the involvement of the law (as you have mentioned Catherine!). However, I don't think the democratic party and its position on abortion can move forward in this fairytale world where there is a willfully persistent and dishonest refusal to acknowledge what a fetus is.
Thank you for continuing the conversation! I think the mainstream Democratic position is actually a lot more nuanced - after all, even Hillary Clinton recently called for abortions to be 'safe, legal & rare'. But - I think you're not wrong that there has been a *lot* of organized backlash to that language.
I think it's important to dig into where that backlash (and 'shout your abortion' etc.) comes from: pushing back against the culture of fear, shame and silence around abortion. A lot of those 'shout your abortion' posts cover other difficult and taboo topics too - a lack of knowledge about sex & pregnancy, financial insecurity, abusive partners, rape. I see it being a lot less about 'let's pretend fetuses can't become people' and a lot more about 'we, people with uteruses, aren't treated as people *right now*'.
There can be a lot of righteous feminist anger there, and there is a stance among some that the abortion was reclaiming her personhood and her ability to direct her life - that getting the abortion was tinged with joy. Should we say that that feeling isn't justified, given the world we're in?
I do think that there is a valid argument to make that these tactics aren't strategic - that they harden our polarized positions, that they provide a caricature for pro-life activists to exploit, that they don't win people to pro-choice positions, that the marketing & messaging that accompanies them is too peppy and positive. But I also think you can't police all the tactics in a movement, that many many women (1/3 who get abortions, especially), find a lot of solace sharing their stories and having a community to talk about their still-taboo experience with, and that these tactics do mean more women will have the confidence to share their story with someone they trust.
I personally think women having more conversations, and more true/raw/honest conversations, is a good itself. Like the conversations on this thread!
I so appreciate your comments, Catherine! I think they help dig deeper into what a solid abortion discussion should be focusing on, points that are usually missed in the 'ships passing in the night' versions of this debate.
1) If we enter a post-Roe world in the US, some states will look more like Europe while others will look more like Africa. Colorado, for instance, is on track to look more like Denmark - which has the lowest abortion rate in the world (5-10/1000). Meanwhile some states will look to make abortion entirely illegal and criminalize miscarriage. Combined with healthcare (read: contraception) access issues, it's likely they will look more like countries in Africa (35-40/1000).
2) Pre-roe, there were more abortions annually than today - an estimated 1.2 million. Like in countries where abortion is illegal today, those illegal abortions were frequently unsafe and led to higher hospitalization and mortality rates among women of child bearing age. Women get abortions whether it's legal or not. (Sidenote: black market abortions are correlated with increased sex trafficking and other criminal activity that targets vulnerable women.)
3) Authentically looking to decrease the number of abortions *is* a multi-faceted project. And, imo, it's a culture project, not a law & order project.
3a) What we've seen is that shaming girls and women about their bodies and not teaching them (and boys!) basic facts about sex & pregnancy does nothing to decrease sexual activity, teen pregnancy and abortion. Meanwhile, Denmark's comprehensive sex ed curriculum, emphasizing mutual respect and love and safety has done wonders.
3b) Providing contraception freely & easily looks like it makes the biggest impact in decreasing abortion rates - in part because a *lot* of women who get abortions already have children and are lacking the resources to prevent creating more than they can afford.
3c) Which brings us to that third prong of the project - support for parents! High quality schools, daycares, stipends for parents who stay home (plus paid leave!) - all of this changes our culture to welcome families and babies instead of what we currently do: punish procreators.
Given all this - I *do* think it's an intellectually defensible position (definitely not my position tho) to say Roe was a bad decision, the viability standard is flawed and that this should be decided by Congress, not the courts. But given the reality of the situation - the horrific policies and their obvious outcomes that will occur when Roe is overturned - I think advocating Roe being overturned is *only* intellectually defensible if it goes hand in hand with advocacy to at the very least ensure the legality of abortion during the first trimester and at any point for the health of the mother through legislation like the Women’s Health Protection Act.
None of my reservations about abortion mean that I can judge any woman who has had an abortion -- or will in the future -- whatever the reasons for it. Because I need mercy for myself.
I'm glad that you used your article to point out that a viability standard runs into the issue of constantly shifting as medical care for premature infants improves, and that can have some perverse outcomes in terms of pitting pro-choice activists against such medical developments. But I disagree with you that using a viability standard for legal purposes must necessarily mean a devaluation of those who are unable to survive on their own.
While the needs of the more vulnerable do create a just demand for care on those around them, I don't think it should be the place of the law to enforce that demand when it requires that we give of our own bodies to sustain the vulnerable. The existence of, say, a patient in need of kidney donation DOES create a just demand on society to find him a kidney if possible, but nevertheless this demand should not be enforced by law.
That issue, "whether or not a moral demand should be enforced by law" is so thorny, isn't it? It seems to me that much of the political debate centers on this. We have many in our country who are vulnerable, whose needs must be met. So can the law demand and enforce that the needs are met more, by taxing income more? And the law gives parents rights over children, but with many restrictions, because society has a just and moral interest in protecting all children's welfare. (This is another "justice system" that needs much examination and reform.)
Yeah, definitely agree that it's thorny and difficult! To me, it seems like if I want to put organ transplants behind the line of things the state cannot compel, I must also put carrying babies to term behind the same line.
Hmm...I think there's a big difference between a kidney -- unable to live outside anyone's body -- and a fetus or baby -- who does have the potential to live outside my body.
We'd be aghast if the state required a person to donate their kidney because someone else needed one, and even more horrified if they required the donor to pay for the surgery, and/or mandated the donors' lifestyle for years beforehand. Anti-abortion legislation has the real possibility - the reality - of being more dystopic.
Will it be illegal (again) for women of child bearing age to drink, on the off chance they're pregnant? How about going back to restricting the work we can do ("too stressful" "too physical")? Who will be targeted by laws aimed to protect fetusus? Bills have been proposed in multiple states requiring all miscarriages be reported within 24 hours and investigated by police.
The comparison I'm trying to draw is not between the baby and the kidney, but between the baby and the person who needs a kidney. Both need someone else to give from their own body in order to survive, and both needs are just but in my view not a matter for the state.
One thing that makes discussion about abortion and women's rights over our own bodies, is that laws are only stage 4 in Lawrence Kohlberg's 6 stages of the development of moral reasoning -- that is, the process by which a person decides that an action would be right or wrong.
Deciding that something is right if it's legal, is a significant step forward from deciding on the basis of "is it good for my family or my ethnic group or my "tribe" (however broadly definited "tribe" might be.) Because the law in a society like ours balances what's good for one "tribe" with what's good for other "tribes" (even if the majority of the country's residents are in one "tribe) -- the religious beliefs of no one group can be allowed to dominate over differing beliefs of another group.
To move the whole society up a notch to stage 5 -- "what's right is what's most loving in this specific situation" would require a lot of social change -- mainly by asking voters questions that a legal system can't solve. The human potential movement, early civil rights movement, and second wave of feminism embraced this huge step as a big part of the overall aims.
Kohlberg's studies estimated that the majority of adults in the U.S. have reached stage 4. Now it sometimes seems that the U.S. is in danger of sliding back into stage 3 and tribalism. Marketing and politics seem to encourage that.
As for stage 6...Kohlberg believes it exists, and a stage can't be fully defined or understood till one is in it. So he doesn't try. If I try to, I think of it as "the freedom of perfect obedience." So perhaps a few saints at least show a way between "love trumps all" and "complete alignment with whatever God wants" or perhaps what Buddhists call enlightenment.
I do realize that a good feminist critique proposed, based on studies, that girls and boys in the U.S. follow a different timetable. However, as both genders mature, they converge. So that caveat applies more to children and perhaps, teenagers.
It should be noted, also, that in the U.S., teenagers and adults who stay at stage 2 or 3 eventually come up against the legal system, and that unfortunately the stage 4 legal and "justice system" are not set up to help them -- though this is gradually improving at least in some places (e.g. "resource courts" instead of prison.
Kohlberg researchers found that most prisons are at stage 2 -- both the individual prison guards and the way the prison systems are structured. So if we want to reinforce the belief that "abortion is the right thing to do if I can probably do it without getting punished" -- then by all means, let's send pregnant women who abort or try to abort, right into prison. (I hope you realize that I've resorted to sarcasm, a sure sign that I need to shut up.
"Our autonomy is always limited. Our dignity is not." I've been reflecting on versions of this because I recently met up with one of my best friends from college who is a quadriplegic and uses a motorized wheelchair. I hadn't seen him in several years due to a combination of having babies and COVID, but seeing him recently reminded me of all the recon work that his group of friends used to have to do in order to do simple activities with him. If we wanted to go out to dinner, it wasn't enough to call ahead and tell the restaurant we had a handicapped person in our party - more than once a restaurant that told us they were "handicap accessible" had a step up to the front door or they had put our reserved table up or down a set of steps that he couldn't navigate. Entire sections of our college town didn't have curb cuts on the sidewalks, so he couldn't easily cross the street at crosswalks, we were always jaywalking from one driveway or alley to another. (I realize this dates me but all of this was before Google Street View and Yelp, so our ability to research these things beforehand was limited.) Anyway, I showed up with my kids to meet him at a park a few weeks ago and realized I hadn't done any of the research that used to be second nature; there were no curb cuts and no paved trail from the parking lot to the playground and picnic area, no handicap-accessible bathroom, etc. But what had I researched? That the playground would be shaded in the afternoon sun and that there was a port-a-potty available, both things I thought about in the context of MY children and THEIR needs. How quickly I forgot someone else's needs! I was heartily ashamed of myself. Fortunately we were able to park the van carrying my friend so he could motor up the hill to the playground and picnic area and we all had a lovely time together, but two weeks later I'm still reflecting on it. I think Leah may have meant "thinking less of those who need more" in the way of not valuing them as fully human, but in my case, I literally spent less time thinking about someone whose needs (which I was quite familiar with! I cannot claim ignorance!) were much greater than mine and my children's.
Yes, that's the ongoing challenge, isn't it! It's one thing to choose not to think less of those who need more in an abstract way, and it's so different in moment to moment choices of where to place my attention. We're not alone in facing this challenge.
Oh, this is such an important conversation, and again I have to recommend Raising A Rare Girl to all and sundry, because it's so good at recognizing that disabled peoples' needs aren't completely alien to the human experience, they're just sometimes more visibly intense versions, so dignity can't be something we earn by doing things --- no one, in the long run, would have any at all --- but must be innate. Or present even before birth.
Yes, disability is a gradation, isn't it. Not a category or set of categories. It can come to any of us suddenly, without warning -- via accident or illness or attack -- and can come to any of us gradually as we become less able to "do." We may even become unable to do anything but lie in bed unable to speak, having trouble swallowing or not being able to swallow at all. Yet no disability, hidden or visible, can change a human being's uniqueness, rob the person's accumulated wisdom, or disable a human being's radiation of that unique energy outward -- as long as the heart beats. (Writing that last sentence makes me ponder the controversial abortion "heartbeat" laws in a different light.)
My biggest struggle to not fall into the habit of thinking less of those who need more was when I had postpartum depression. After my first was born, with a chronic illness and very high needs, I used to fantasize about dropping her out of our third-story apartment window. All I could feel towards her was resentment. Thanks be to God, I was treated for depression and she is now a lovely 19yo young lady who manages her illness mostly without my assistance. But my experience points to the importance of meeting our own needs in order to meet those of others. I suspect other new moms struggle with many of the same things I did. We need to honor our own dignity as postpartum mothers, as "the mother’s need creates a just demand on the society around her". My own challenges have helped me see this, and I now, as a mom of four teens, go out of my way to serve new mothers in whatever ways I can. I only wish we were all more comfortable accepting this kind of help.
I'm so sorry you went through that struggle with depression. I don't know if you know this, but moms who have post-partum depression can struggle with those same kinds of images and imaginings, whether their children have particular health challenges or not. I'm glad you got the help you needed.
Thank you, Leah. I read your article last week and also some of the comments. So disheartening. As the mother of a son with autism, it hurts my heart that someone could ever think that he is less worthy.
"If the Supreme Court jettisons the viability standard in Dobbs, it will acknowledge that our dignity, before and after birth, does not depend on our ability to stand on our own."
I think that is an elegant, idealistic read of the outcome of this case. Realistically, I don't know a single pro choice person who is opposed to life saving care for premature babies. And realistically, "pro-life" laws in this country make abortions more dangerous, decrease access to maternal and fetal care, increase maternal and infant mortality and criminalize the poor and marginalized.
Meanwhile, the left is constantly not just acknowledging but *celebrating* people's inherent dignity regardless of their autonomy - whether that's the free food & toy tent at George Floyd square or in the fights for Medicare 4 All and a guaranteed basic income or efforts to stop evictions and house the homeless. People who do this work - perhaps personally pro-life but staunchly opposed to anti-abortion legislation - so often *embody* a love for their neighbor regardless of circumstance, material worth or autonomy.
I have found the opposite is true among many hardcore pro-lifers, the folks shouting at women entering a clinic, driving home in a large SUV to a house that is entered through a private garage door, attending a church that preaches the prosperity gospel and believing anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Of course, that isn't descriptive of all people who support making abortions illegal. I think a good many people on your list love life both inside and outside the womb, supporting politicians and policies that reflect that love for one another. To you and them: I can see why overturning the viability standard looks good on paper - but please dig deeper. We know what results from the bad policies that will go in effect in 19 states if the supreme court jettisons the viability standard, both from historical data and international data sets. It looks an awful lot like premising dignity on wealth, race and zip code.
You and I agree on a lot, Martha. And the wild thing is, I still feel like pro-life activism has a more natural home in the Democratic party than the GOP, for exactly the reasons you cite about care for the vulnerable. I liked the book "Defenders of the Unborn," (https://amzn.to/3qiTEO6) a history of pre-Roe pro-life activism which makes the case that pro-life activism was often a progressive priority, and dovetailed naturally with support for the poor.
One place I wish it were easier to work together to support dignity would be bans on abortion that is specifically sought to eliminate children with Down Syndrome. Those cases are directly about whether a child with a chromosomal difference can be welcomed and valued the same way as a child with no trisomies. I strongly favor more support for parental caregivers to children with disabilities, but it doesn't feel like this kind of restriction + massively beefed up support is a bargain that Democrats would take.
I'm all for programs to help parents of kids with down syndrome, enforce training & ethical standards for care providers (it's abhorrent that many *encourage* parents to terminate). I looove that program that pairs expectant parents with down syndrome with current parents of down syndrome kids. But, I'm still categorically opposed to legislation in this area. Pregnancy is too messy, enforcement is too fraught in a country that is trigger happy around incarceration and punishment.
I agree--though perhaps for slightly different reasons. In the case of abortion, lack of "viability" means more than simply being unable to survive on one's own. It means needing someone to give of their own body to sustain their life. And I just fundamentally cannot get on board with the idea that this is something I should want the state to have the power to compel, regardless of my own opinions.
Yeah, I wish we talked more explicitly about the proper role of the state in the context of abortion debates. It has been framed so consistently around 'think of the cute babies' instead of what it really is - a massive expansion of state power, including surveillance, coercion and violence (incarceration and the threat of it).
My most immediate and very similar fear right now stems from Texas' recently passed SB8. It makes it legal (in September) for anyone inside or outside of Texas to sue that lay counselor for providing or intending to provide emotional support to a woman receiving an abortion after 6 weeks. The fine is $10,000 per case and the defendant cannot recoup legal fees. It's a new and terrifying enforcement mechanism that relies on civil court rather than criminal court to create a culture of fear & financial devastation. Instead of focusing on getting the name of the woman who had the abortion, it makes it so no one feels comfortable providing support in the first place.
Sidenote: zero states ban transplants for folks with down syndrome or other intellectual disabilities. Consensus is it is illegal under the ADA and disability advocates have moved legislation in 26 states to create tailored regulatory requirements and enforcement mechanisms to try and head off discrimination by doctors and private organ transplant centers.
Thank you for the thoughtful work you do, Leah. It’s very important.
I can't imagine any situation where I'd say dignity depends on autonomy. Yet I struggle with the kind of false pride, myself, of thinking less of myself for needing rides to church, because I've been earning less money than I need to buy and maintain a car.
As for laws and abortion...I don't know what the exact restrictions should be. I do recoil from the extreme position that "my" Democratic party veered to in the last election -- as if getting an abortion should be like a quick trip to get one's teeth cleaned. None of anyone else's business, certainly not the prospective father's business, or the business of the parent of a child -- as if every woman and man is an isolated, totally independent individual with no significant effect on others. I think that's a dangerous illusion.
I don't want the United States to become the only country with no limits at all on abortion -- unlike the other "developed" countries which my research a couple of years ago found to have some legal restrictions. I don't want my country to become a mecca for women in other countries who can -- if they have enough money -- travel here so they can only birth the gender they prefer, or whatever other criteria they have as DNA and other information on a fetus becomes easy to obtain during pregnancy.
Does an unborn baby (or fetus) make a just demand on the woman in whose body it has begun? Or is such a demand inherently unfair to the woman? I am coming to believe that to be born a woman does carry with it the honor -- and the burden -- of this demand, this responsibility -- even when we don't want it. And that women therefore deserve and need extra protection and support, both from the father and from extended family and many others. And I say this as a feminist. Biologically, women are different, and the fact that this has been used as rationalization to abuse us doesn't mean the differences aren't important.
When I began researching abortion, after years of assuming that there should be no legal limits on it, I accepted the idea that far fewer women who choose abortion if their society provided excellent child care, maternal and paternal leave, extra financial support for parents, etc. I was unable to find any evidence for this. I was surprised that countries that do provide all this still had high rates of abortion.
This doesn't matter if we don't care about how many abortions are performed. It does matter to me. I agree with the position of my church (Episcopal Church USA) that abortion should be legal but rare. How to make "rare" attainable?
To me there's a certain parallel with the death penalty. Both the abortion of a fetus or baby, (term depending apparently on that "viability standard") and the death of an executed adult are absolutely final -- at least when it comes to physical life on earth. There's no way to undo it. (I realize there's an "undo" built into the process of chemical abortion, but the death is still final.)
I know women who regret abortions they had. My friends argue that they know only women who don't regret it a bit. I say "wait longer. Sometimes in old age, things one easily rationalized when younger, surface and bite us in the butt!") And I know women who say they'd have chosen abortion had it been legal, whose "not aborted" children turned out to be their greatest joy and comfort in their old age.
Saying that one regretted abortion doesn't matter if most aren't regretted? It's a numbers game? Back to the death penalty. Does the execution of one wrongly convicted man or woman not matter, if most executions are of people who did indeed commit the crime? At least now laws in the United States offer a process of appeals and reviews -- however much that process needs improvement. Who advocates for the fetus? What's the appeal process? What's the lengthy process of reviewing and considering the final decision?
In my research abortion rates *are* significantly lower where there is a stronger safety net. And abortion rates are actually lower in countries with fewer restrictions as well. Guttmacher has done great statistical research in this area, as have many independent researchers.
Just realized that made me sound like a legit researcher - I'm just a reader of studies, not a bonified scientist.
I just had assumed that if the U.S. improved the safety net for parents to say, the level in Sweden, that this would automatically decrease abortions. So I was shocked to find that the abortion rate per 1,000 people is higher in Sweden than it is in the U.S. Granted that all the research is based on estimates based on estimates and models since the data from different countries has big gaps. It's the best research that can be done, and it's an ever changing data as well. I think it just means that the way to lower abortion rates -- if that's an aim -- has to be multi-faceted. And every choice of ways to lower abortion rates can have unintended consequences that might make things even worse. Punish an attempt to abort by imprisoning the pregnant woman? An obvious no.
I am really enjoying this discussion between you both Martha and Catherine. I so wish the abortion conversation in our politics resembled the well reasoned, compassionate discourse coming out of this substack. I have been very disappointed with the democratic approach to abortion politics recently. Being up close with many in the movement it appears that there is a push to replicate the gay rights playbook. Abortion "parties" and "shout your abortion" marketing strategies seem to be advancing an almost "pride in abortion" narrative. I think this is wrong, misguided and is clearly hurting abortion rights because most people understand that abortion is a very nuanced issue. When a person is pregnant, she is both two and one. When I am pregnant, am I still wholly myself? I think this is the question around which abortion revolves and where moral intuitions flicker. I think it is really interesting that many reasonable pro-life positions such as those voiced in this substack find it "obvious" that we should not punish women for attempting abortions. I understand the moral intuition here but from a legal perspective, if a fetus was enshrined with personhood there would be no way to escape the logic of punishment. I have also seen many pro-life activists on the right actively putting punishment on the table and I don't think this is as a fringe a view as some would think. I think both the left and the right find themselves up against the complexity of the abortion question when they find their moral intuitions clashing with the logical end points of their position. If the left is to truly believe a fetus is not a life then abortion parties should make total sense. And if the right truly believes abortion is murder then punishing those who commit the "murder" makes perfect sense too. However our moral intuitions often leave us deeply uncomfortable with either end of these positions. I have supported many women who have abortions (I was an abortion doula) and I found wisdom that reaches beyond my own human comprehension in the recovery room of an abortion clinic. One woman prayed before her abortion and asked me if I would pray with her (even though I was an agnostic, I obliged) because she felt she would no longer have access to god after her abortion. Most women recognize and struggle with the life of their unborn child during counseling. That doesn't mean they don't make the choices they do. We often make choices that are morally difficult or that leave us with regret. Those are not arguments that support the involvement of the law (as you have mentioned Catherine!). However, I don't think the democratic party and its position on abortion can move forward in this fairytale world where there is a willfully persistent and dishonest refusal to acknowledge what a fetus is.
Thank you for continuing the conversation! I think the mainstream Democratic position is actually a lot more nuanced - after all, even Hillary Clinton recently called for abortions to be 'safe, legal & rare'. But - I think you're not wrong that there has been a *lot* of organized backlash to that language.
I think it's important to dig into where that backlash (and 'shout your abortion' etc.) comes from: pushing back against the culture of fear, shame and silence around abortion. A lot of those 'shout your abortion' posts cover other difficult and taboo topics too - a lack of knowledge about sex & pregnancy, financial insecurity, abusive partners, rape. I see it being a lot less about 'let's pretend fetuses can't become people' and a lot more about 'we, people with uteruses, aren't treated as people *right now*'.
There can be a lot of righteous feminist anger there, and there is a stance among some that the abortion was reclaiming her personhood and her ability to direct her life - that getting the abortion was tinged with joy. Should we say that that feeling isn't justified, given the world we're in?
I do think that there is a valid argument to make that these tactics aren't strategic - that they harden our polarized positions, that they provide a caricature for pro-life activists to exploit, that they don't win people to pro-choice positions, that the marketing & messaging that accompanies them is too peppy and positive. But I also think you can't police all the tactics in a movement, that many many women (1/3 who get abortions, especially), find a lot of solace sharing their stories and having a community to talk about their still-taboo experience with, and that these tactics do mean more women will have the confidence to share their story with someone they trust.
I personally think women having more conversations, and more true/raw/honest conversations, is a good itself. Like the conversations on this thread!
I so appreciate your comments, Catherine! I think they help dig deeper into what a solid abortion discussion should be focusing on, points that are usually missed in the 'ships passing in the night' versions of this debate.
1) If we enter a post-Roe world in the US, some states will look more like Europe while others will look more like Africa. Colorado, for instance, is on track to look more like Denmark - which has the lowest abortion rate in the world (5-10/1000). Meanwhile some states will look to make abortion entirely illegal and criminalize miscarriage. Combined with healthcare (read: contraception) access issues, it's likely they will look more like countries in Africa (35-40/1000).
2) Pre-roe, there were more abortions annually than today - an estimated 1.2 million. Like in countries where abortion is illegal today, those illegal abortions were frequently unsafe and led to higher hospitalization and mortality rates among women of child bearing age. Women get abortions whether it's legal or not. (Sidenote: black market abortions are correlated with increased sex trafficking and other criminal activity that targets vulnerable women.)
3) Authentically looking to decrease the number of abortions *is* a multi-faceted project. And, imo, it's a culture project, not a law & order project.
3a) What we've seen is that shaming girls and women about their bodies and not teaching them (and boys!) basic facts about sex & pregnancy does nothing to decrease sexual activity, teen pregnancy and abortion. Meanwhile, Denmark's comprehensive sex ed curriculum, emphasizing mutual respect and love and safety has done wonders.
3b) Providing contraception freely & easily looks like it makes the biggest impact in decreasing abortion rates - in part because a *lot* of women who get abortions already have children and are lacking the resources to prevent creating more than they can afford.
3c) Which brings us to that third prong of the project - support for parents! High quality schools, daycares, stipends for parents who stay home (plus paid leave!) - all of this changes our culture to welcome families and babies instead of what we currently do: punish procreators.
Given all this - I *do* think it's an intellectually defensible position (definitely not my position tho) to say Roe was a bad decision, the viability standard is flawed and that this should be decided by Congress, not the courts. But given the reality of the situation - the horrific policies and their obvious outcomes that will occur when Roe is overturned - I think advocating Roe being overturned is *only* intellectually defensible if it goes hand in hand with advocacy to at the very least ensure the legality of abortion during the first trimester and at any point for the health of the mother through legislation like the Women’s Health Protection Act.
None of my reservations about abortion mean that I can judge any woman who has had an abortion -- or will in the future -- whatever the reasons for it. Because I need mercy for myself.
I'm glad that you used your article to point out that a viability standard runs into the issue of constantly shifting as medical care for premature infants improves, and that can have some perverse outcomes in terms of pitting pro-choice activists against such medical developments. But I disagree with you that using a viability standard for legal purposes must necessarily mean a devaluation of those who are unable to survive on their own.
While the needs of the more vulnerable do create a just demand for care on those around them, I don't think it should be the place of the law to enforce that demand when it requires that we give of our own bodies to sustain the vulnerable. The existence of, say, a patient in need of kidney donation DOES create a just demand on society to find him a kidney if possible, but nevertheless this demand should not be enforced by law.
That issue, "whether or not a moral demand should be enforced by law" is so thorny, isn't it? It seems to me that much of the political debate centers on this. We have many in our country who are vulnerable, whose needs must be met. So can the law demand and enforce that the needs are met more, by taxing income more? And the law gives parents rights over children, but with many restrictions, because society has a just and moral interest in protecting all children's welfare. (This is another "justice system" that needs much examination and reform.)
Yeah, definitely agree that it's thorny and difficult! To me, it seems like if I want to put organ transplants behind the line of things the state cannot compel, I must also put carrying babies to term behind the same line.
Hmm...I think there's a big difference between a kidney -- unable to live outside anyone's body -- and a fetus or baby -- who does have the potential to live outside my body.
We'd be aghast if the state required a person to donate their kidney because someone else needed one, and even more horrified if they required the donor to pay for the surgery, and/or mandated the donors' lifestyle for years beforehand. Anti-abortion legislation has the real possibility - the reality - of being more dystopic.
Will it be illegal (again) for women of child bearing age to drink, on the off chance they're pregnant? How about going back to restricting the work we can do ("too stressful" "too physical")? Who will be targeted by laws aimed to protect fetusus? Bills have been proposed in multiple states requiring all miscarriages be reported within 24 hours and investigated by police.
I love your passionate, fierce advocacy for women!
The comparison I'm trying to draw is not between the baby and the kidney, but between the baby and the person who needs a kidney. Both need someone else to give from their own body in order to survive, and both needs are just but in my view not a matter for the state.
One thing that makes discussion about abortion and women's rights over our own bodies, is that laws are only stage 4 in Lawrence Kohlberg's 6 stages of the development of moral reasoning -- that is, the process by which a person decides that an action would be right or wrong.
Deciding that something is right if it's legal, is a significant step forward from deciding on the basis of "is it good for my family or my ethnic group or my "tribe" (however broadly definited "tribe" might be.) Because the law in a society like ours balances what's good for one "tribe" with what's good for other "tribes" (even if the majority of the country's residents are in one "tribe) -- the religious beliefs of no one group can be allowed to dominate over differing beliefs of another group.
To move the whole society up a notch to stage 5 -- "what's right is what's most loving in this specific situation" would require a lot of social change -- mainly by asking voters questions that a legal system can't solve. The human potential movement, early civil rights movement, and second wave of feminism embraced this huge step as a big part of the overall aims.
Kohlberg's studies estimated that the majority of adults in the U.S. have reached stage 4. Now it sometimes seems that the U.S. is in danger of sliding back into stage 3 and tribalism. Marketing and politics seem to encourage that.
As for stage 6...Kohlberg believes it exists, and a stage can't be fully defined or understood till one is in it. So he doesn't try. If I try to, I think of it as "the freedom of perfect obedience." So perhaps a few saints at least show a way between "love trumps all" and "complete alignment with whatever God wants" or perhaps what Buddhists call enlightenment.
I do realize that a good feminist critique proposed, based on studies, that girls and boys in the U.S. follow a different timetable. However, as both genders mature, they converge. So that caveat applies more to children and perhaps, teenagers.
It should be noted, also, that in the U.S., teenagers and adults who stay at stage 2 or 3 eventually come up against the legal system, and that unfortunately the stage 4 legal and "justice system" are not set up to help them -- though this is gradually improving at least in some places (e.g. "resource courts" instead of prison.
Kohlberg researchers found that most prisons are at stage 2 -- both the individual prison guards and the way the prison systems are structured. So if we want to reinforce the belief that "abortion is the right thing to do if I can probably do it without getting punished" -- then by all means, let's send pregnant women who abort or try to abort, right into prison. (I hope you realize that I've resorted to sarcasm, a sure sign that I need to shut up.