The Dreaded Abortion Debate

     "I know this is a very touchy subject with many Americans..." This is how my colleague introduces the topic of his article, and he is certainly right; the issue of abortion provokes extreme emotional responses in almost everyone one way or the other. In his blog, Chase Stewart analyzes the recently reintroduced bill that would require women to view an ultrasound before having an abortion and gives his voice of support to the controversial bill. Stewart, a conservative by his own description, says that "he likes this bill" because it places additional requirements on women seeking an abortion, and he comments that the bill will have fulfilled its purpose if one woman changes her mind. Later in his article, Stewart says that he is fair-minded and proceeds to look at both sides of the story, claiming that the opposition's only argument is the negative effects on women's health, which, according to Stewart, invalidates the opposition argument in its flimsiness.

     Putting aside my knee-jerk reaction to Stewart's opinion on abortion itself, which--though opposite to mine and hard for me to understand--is valid and a common opinion in America, there are several flaws in the reasoning behind his arguments concerning this bill. Surprisingly, I do not disagree with his wanting "another hoop [for women] to jump through." I actually agree with some restrictions being placed on abortion, but only in a situation where women are given easy/free access to and held accountable for taking some other form of birth control, and abortion is used as a last-resort. (A fatal flaw in the logic of conservatives is that they want to reduce the number of abortions, yet they cannot seem to support the very thing that would cut these numbers: i.e. sex education and preventative birth control. They would rather deny human nature and continue to blindly assume that everyone believes in their religion's system of morality and will abstain from sex purely out of guilt a desire to be free from sin.)

     No, my objection to his article lies in his self-professed "fairness" in examining all sides of the argument. Stewart seems to have done little research on the bill if the health aspect is the only counter-argument he sees coming from the pro-choice camp. In actuality, the pro-choice argument has little to do with women's health issues, unless you count indignity and patronization as blows to a woman's health; on the other hand, the pro-life movement has changed tactics in recent years to focus on the (supposed) impact that abortion has on women, using questionable scientific research to back up its claims. But objections to SB 182 are based on the bill's inference about the nature of women. The bill and its patronizing (MALE) authors are implying that women are emotional children who have not fully contemplated the difficult decision to have an abortion, and they rely on guilt and shame to turn women away from this choice. Clearly, this is a heavy decision to make, and I believe that very few women are ignorant of the result of an abortion.

     I don't think Stewart has considered this side of the argument because he is male and might not have attempted to see the issue from a woman's perspective. But women everywhere are offended by this bill, and if it were to pass, women's rights would take a significant step backwards into the past. No one has argued this perspective more eloquently than Laurie Felker Jones, a women's rights advocate and lobbyist for NARAL, who testified before the Senate when this bill was introduced recently. Ms. Felker Jones beautifully and hilariously points out the flaws of the bill and gives the "Top Five reasons why this bill is a bad idea," and few people can hear her statement without understanding a little more about a woman's view on this issue. So to Stewart, I say (as a strong, liberal woman who tries to make a concerted effort to consider ALL arguments from ALL sides of the issue) please take the time to hear our objections. If you still disagree, or if you consider a woman's voice to be irrelevant, I would ask you to put off forming an opinion on the matter until you yourself are pregnant and considering an abortion; then you can tell us if an ultrasound would change your final decision. Until that time, let women handle women's issues in the best way we see fit.

Getting back to our roots

     You've gotta love Southern politicians these days, in particular our own fearless leader. Gearing up for the next election, Governor Perry is in fine form, loudly declaring his disdain for the federal stimulus package, and most recently, throwing in his hat with other conservative leaders in the growing state-sovereignty movement. Texan voters seem to have some sort of fondness for dear Gov. Good Hair, but I'm hoping that this latest shenanigan is the straw that breaks the voters' backs.

     It's not that I have anything against the idea of states' rights; in fact, I think it's a very necessary check of power in our finely-balanced system that seems to be working for the time being. But the merits or shortcomings of federalism aside, it does seem pretty interesting that a search of "Perry" in the Statesman's archives brings up the wire of Perry telling the Feds to mind their own business, immediately followed by a story covering his call for FEMA help with the recent wildfires. Both stories were published on the same day, and the two side by side show Perry's nauseating practice of picking and choosing which parts of the stimulus package suit his and his cronies best interests.

     The endorsement of Rep. Creighton's H.C.R. 50 only highlights his blockheaded-ness and renews my (and my fellow low tax-bracket dwellers') frustration and annoyance, held over from his desire to reject the unemployment aspect of the stimulus package. He is ignoring the fact of rising unemployment in order to seal the deal with far-right-wing voters. Putting politics before people, he is only rejecting assistance for something that we will pay for in the long run anyway. Rep. Jim Dunnam states the problem eloquently: "So the question is, who's gonna have to pay? Is it going to be the federal government helping us pay for it, or are we going to double the tax on employers to pay for it? And that's the choice he's making."

     Furthermore, his insistence that he is protecting voter interest is extremely insulting to our intelligence in light of Texas's dismal social statistics. Refusing stimulus money to avoid future entanglements is one thing; but telling the federal government to stay out of Texas politics because the state knows better is just denying the obvious. Texas has the distinction of ranking among the lowest of the states in areas like money spent on services and percentage of households with checking or savings accounts; yet we hold the top, or near top, spots in categories like percentage of population without health insurance, worst conditions for homeless kids, most teen pregnancies and highest birth rate in general, and highest percentage of population working for minimum wage. If you're thinking that is an overwhelming list, you're exactly right. But Perry chooses to overlook this evidence and actually believes that Texas only has the kind of problems that can "fall through the cracks." (P.S. Pay special attention to the end of the story in that last link. It's a hoot.) If he really thinks that our social problems are that small, he's more deluded than I thought.

     I'd like to think that a majority of Texas voters will agree with me; in reality, I'm not so naive. But we Texans are just as guilty of blissful ignorance as Gov. Perry if we continue to (re)elect politicians of his ilk. If Perry is going to use this recession to play politics and prove how conservative he is while people are struggling, we should put him on the unemployment list in November 2010. Maybe then he'll appreciate the merits of all that stimulus money he so blithely rejected the year before.