It’s no secret that I’m pro-life.
I’ve blogged about it before, but just to clarify: I believe that life begins at conception, and I believe abortion is morally wrong in all instances, even in the oft-cited exceptional cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Rarely, if ever, is a mother’s life in such immediate danger that a baby must be aborted – delivered prematurely, yes, but not aborted. I understand that the issues are difficult ones. If my daughter were raped, you can bet that I’d be tempted to request the morning after pill for her – I might even feel desperate enough to do it – but that wouldn’t change my belief about whether or not it was morally right. It’s easy to take a stand when the answers are clear cut, but the right thing to do is still the right thing to do, not matter what the circumstances are.
But that’s not what I want to talk about today.
I know that I’m in the minority in this country regarding first trimester abortion. Most people believe that if a baby isn’t viable, then she isn’t yet a person in need of protection. But the Texas abortion bill proposed restrictions only on abortions AFTER 20 weeks gestation. At 20 weeks gestation, women have had the ability to confirm their pregnancy for almost four months. At 20 weeks gestation, women are able to feel their baby’s kicks. At 20 weeks gestation, most women are visibly pregnant. At 20 weeks gestation, women have had ample time to decide if the baby they are carrying is wanted or not. So why is there a need for abortions after 20 weeks?
To kill the babies with Down syndrome.
Whether Ms. Davis and her supporters in Texas have connected the dots is unclear. Most likely some of them have and some of them haven’t. There is no doubt, however, that the USA Today editorial board has done so:
While some genetic conditions, such as Down syndrome, can be detected with amniocentesis at 16 to 22 weeks, even then it can take two weeks to get results. Add specialists, research and time to reflect, and a 20-week ban forces women and couples to make heartrending decisions against a ticking clock.
In some cases, they’d have no opportunity at all. Some of the most serious impairments — the failure of kidneys to materialize, or the development of organs outside the body — aren’t discovered before couples at low-risk for problems have routine ultrasounds, at about 18 to 20 weeks.
The meaning couldn’t be more clear. This editorial board’s view is that 20 weeks is too soon because they want women to have extra time to kill their genetically imperfect children. I wonder if any of the members of the editorial board love a person with Down syndrome? I’d bet the answer is no. Those of us who do have learned that a person can’t – should never! – be reduced to a single aspect of his being. When the stakes are life or death, it’s even more critical to tread carefully. History has shown us that reducing people to a single, immutable characteristic can have disastrous and deadly consequences.
Following Ms. Davis’ filibuster in Texas, much was made over her “rouge red” sneakers (despite some news reports to the contrary, they were red, not pink). They were lauded in mock Amazon.com reviews as “Excellent protection for the foot and the womb!” and “Guaranteed to outrun patriarchy…” and dozens of other #StandWithWendy-themed political statements.
But do you know what I saw when I looked at those red sneakers?
I saw the blood of children like Nathan and Baby Megan. I saw a woman standing up to claim the right to destroy the principal attribute of womanhood that makes us unique from men – the ability to bear children. Ms. Davis chose to wore those red sneakers for her eleven-hour filibuster because she thought they would be more comfortable than the dress shoes she would normally wear for her senate duties. Filibustering is tough, you see – why make it tougher by wearing uncomfortable footwear? Parenthood is tough, too – why make it tougher by having a child with special needs? The parallels are striking.
Ms. Davis’ shoes are a fitting symbol for her position: the blood of innocents trampled in the name of personal comfort.
BRAVO!!!!!! You have the ability to state so clearly what I was feeling!
Andi, even though you can’t see it, I’m giving you a standing ovation right now! As the mother of 3 children, each with chronic diagnoses, most genetically linked, I find it ironic that people like Wendy Davis would laud care of those with disabilities while still promoting the “right” to kill them in utero. I find these protests abhorrent, and I am grateful for others like YOU who are unashamed to say what a travesty it is to applaud the mentality of women like Wendy Davis!
This probably won’t be popular, but I’m going to say it anyway. As someone who worked in an OB office for umpteen years, I can say we saw more women than you’d think who were nearly, at, or beyond 20 weeks and had NO CLUE they were pregnant, most of whom were birth control pill users and just kept having periods and assumed they were just gaining weight, some of whom had even had children before and didn’t notice or recognize what most would think were obvious signs, some of whom thought they were (or had tested as) menopausal and just assumed they were getting their “middle aged spread.” A few were from very rural areas and had trouble getting to a doctor and came simply because they were several months amenorrheic with no clue they were pregnant.
A handful were really, frighteningly clueless teenaged girls.
One was one of my very best friends, at the time a newlywed. She was one of the birth control pill cases.
So not only is it possible to not know, it was sometimes quite shocking or even devastating news. Many women didn’t believe us and made us do a 2nd urine pregnancy test or demand a blood test. And it’s more common than you’d think.
Because of many types of situations of women and girls that I witnessed in that practice, I am and always will be pro-choice. I firmly believe it is up to each woman and her doctor to make the best decision for the situation. Our doctor had a sheet of referrals to clinics should ending the pregnancy be that be the woman’s decision, but right along side of those clinics’ names were those of adoption agencies and local lawyers who helped with adoptions as well as pregnancy support groups so that all options were at the woman’s fingertips (our office did not perform abortions). No one made their decisions lightly, be it to continue or end the pregnancy, but they had a safe space in which to make that decision and receive support and no pressure of any kind no matter what decision they decided was best for their situation. And they were glad to have that and always expressed that. (And most, in case you want to know, did continue their pregnancies.)
Outlawing abortions won’t make them stop; it will just make them more dangerous and make some women more desperate and drive them to making bad decisions, and I would hate to see that happen to anyone. Saying that adoption is always a viable option is not true for everyone (some could lose much-needed jobs– for example, that was the case for a few of our patients who worked as temps), and it often adds to our overburdened foster systems that already can’t place children in adoptive homes as it is (in Ky we currently have 1,774 children waiting for someone to adopt them).
Because of wanting all women to have a choice when they receive news of a surprise pregnancy and to have a chance at a safe, supportive environment, AND to do what’s best for their lives, I stand with Wendy, no matter how unpopular it may be here. It is not my right to have any say-so or sit in judgement of what goes on in anyone else’s life about such a personal issue just as they have no say-so in mine.
I’m not posting to argue, just to share a point of view some may not have considered… the primary one here being the unsuspecting woman who is told she’s in her second trimester… I respect your points of view even if I don’t agree with them, and I hope I don’t get “yelled” at for mine. (And to be honest, I won’t come back to look and see if anyone does that…)
Hi, Wren – for some reason, your comment went to Spam. I approved it because even though I disagree with your position I don’t wish to give the appearance that I’m shutting down honest and open debate.
I don’t doubt that you are correct that some women don’t know that they’re pregnant. There’s a whole documentary series based around women who have babies who didn’t know they were pregnant, and the daughter of a friend of ours had a surprise baby – truly not knowing until the day she delivered the baby full term – last year. I’m hesitant to use the term willful blindness, because I do believe that women truly can NOT KNOW they are pregnant. But there is at least a small amount of willful blindness involved when women of childbearing age have sex and then express bewilderment that they could have become pregnant. At any rate, it’s not the baby’s fault, yet the baby is the one who ends up being punished. As I said above, it’s easy to stand for something when the going is easy – much harder when the circumstances are difficult. Would you also advocate that our friend’s daughter should have been allowed to kill her baby right after it was delivered, since she didn’t have the chance to abort it the day before? If not, why not?
But turning to your point about danger – a lot of people are “standing with Wendy” because they say that all but five abortion providers in Texas would be forced to shut down under the proposed new law. A friend (IRL) posted to my Twitter today that the bill “plans to shut down all but five clinics” – not true. What the bill does do is require abortion providers to meet the same requirements for care that other ambulatory surgery centers in Texas must meet – only if they decline will they be forced to close. Even if we disagree on what the rights of the unborn child should be, why would either side ever be willing to risk sacrificing the women themselves? The pro-choice mantra used to be “safe, legal, and rare” – “safe” and “rare” have been dropped altogether, leaving only “legal” and the aim seems to be to add “anytime, anywhere, for any reason, no matter what.” And don’t encourage me to pursue the logic of the “poor pregnant girl with few options” – abortion has become a hidden genocide of minority children in this country.
I saw babies born as early as 23 weeks gestation and above in the NICU. My own daughter was born smaller and (almost certainly) gestationally younger than at least some of the Gosnell victims. I can’t reconcile those images with a positive view of late term abortion, no matter what the circumstances of conception are.
And in response, I simply give you this piece of awesomeness.
http://feministsonar.com/2013/07/pro-choice-should-not-mean-ableist/
Obviously, there are many points in the abortion debate upon which the poster and I would disagree, but as to the main point – AMEN! 🙂
Thanks for sharing!
Hi – I’m the author. 🙂
Yes, we would disagree on many points, but I really appreciate that you understand where I’m coming from – and why I feel this way about BOTH sides of the aisle.
Thanks for reading my post, even if we disagree.
You said that “I can’t reconcile those images with a positive view of late term abortion, no matter what the circumstances of conception are.” It reminded me of a series of blog posts written by women who’d had late term abortions. I don’t know if you want to read stories of women who’ve had late term abortions, but if you do, you can read them here: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/?s=it%27s+so+personal
Even though you might not agree with the choices most of these women made, I think you might find their stories interesting.
I would probably have found them more interesting had I not found them so familiar. I know you’ve commented before, but I’m not sure how long you’ve been reading, but I’ve been where some of these women were. Before Sarah Kate and Nathan were born, I had a child with triploid syndrome – a rare condition that is, as they say, “Not compatible with life.” It was heartbreaking and difficult, so if anyone knows what they have been through, it is me. One of the stories spoke of a woman’s SIL who chose to carry her baby to term and have it die, which caused the mother much mental anguish – the commenter thought it would have been better for her SIL to have aborted the baby because she was very much changed. It’s easy to think those What Ifs, but I posit from my own experience that her SIL would have been changed no matter what. I know that both Mr. Andi and I were changed and that I suffered a great deal without a full-term baby. My daughter was induced stillborn and we chose not to hold her – it is the single greatest regret of my life.
Just in the last two years, I’ve had one friend and one family member go through similar difficult circumstances with their unborn children. I mention Baby Megan regularly, but here’s a recap: she is the daughter of Mr. Andi’s cousin was diagnosed in utero with the most severe form of brittle bone disease (i.e., “not compatible with life”) and her parents were told that she would die, there was no doubt. They bought nothing for the baby, opting to choose a funeral home and gravesite rather than a nursery before she was born. Not only did she survive birth, but she is healthy and will turn one next month. She does have brittle bone disease, the treatments are time-consuming, and they have transitioned from two incomes to one. But they are grateful to have her with them.
The other case involves the son of some friends of ours – I have written much less about them. He was diagnosed in utero with an extremely rare blood disorder that they were told would kill him in childhood – the best they could hope for was for him to live to be 10 years old, assuming he was aggressively treated for his whole life. They were pressured to abort, but refused. He is a year and a half now and is 100% okay. After he was born, further testing was done and they were told that he had another, unrelated genetic condition that was counter balancing the fatal blood disorder. Many months later, they tested him again and now have decided he doesn’t really have it after all. If they had followed the “advice” of the doctors (they said it was never simple advice – it was intense pressure) to abort they would have been deprived of this beautiful, perfect son.
Parenting is a messy business and it is personal, but in life sometimes “sh!t happens.” No one understands that position better than me. Our society has become so sterilized and so averse to pain that many people swallow whole the assertion “better dead than suffering or disabled” and believe abortion to be a merciful choice. So while I do empathize with people in difficult circumstances, I just can’t support late term abortion, because no matter how you look at it, it’s the violent destruction of an innocent life.
Thank you for your reply. I did know about your child, and I am sorry for her. And, I am glad that Baby Megan is doing well and your friend’s son is fine. And those doctors should not be pressuring people into abortions. But those doctors are not always wrong. Some of those women chose to keep their babies, and their babies died. I think it is a tragedy that women choose to abort their babies because they have special needs. But if a child has a condition that is incompatible with life . . . There are times that the child will survive despite the odds, and there are times the doctors will be wrong. But those times are not that frequent, and though the parents might suffer regardless of what they decide do, I cannot blame them for wanting to abort.
It is difficult, like you said. I have Apert’s Syndrome, and there is a 50% chance my children will have it. Though initially I was afraid of my children having it(long story) I came to realize that my fears were baseless and I would love them regardless of their needs. But if my child had a condition that was incompatible with life, I do not know what I would do. Yes, “sh!t happens,” and yes I could endure losing my child, but I do not want to have to endure that. But maybe we would choose to have our child with us for as long as we could. I don’t know.
Anyway, Just wanted to let you know what I think. Also, I have been reading your blog for a while. I found it through lovethatmax.com, and though i don’t recall when I started reading your blog, it was definitely before Sarah Kate was playing softball.
I’m sorry to hear this from you. I’ve been following this debate very closely, as I am from Texas, and it’s my life they’re legislating.
The 20 week ban is just a talking point. This bill is not about aborting babies with Down Syndrome. This bill is about closing clinics and banning abortion in all cases in this state. You and I may have to agree to disagree on how we feel about that, but the truth of the matter, and a point I truly hope we can agree on, is that these clinics provide family planning services, cancer screening, prenatal care, and sometimes the only medical care a woman receives all year. It’s important that these clinics stay open.
I hate abortion too. I really do. But closing these clinics will not reduce the demand for abortion. Better funding and access to sex education and family planning will reduce the demand for abortion. By closing the clinics, we cut access to those family planning services and the already astronomical rate of unplanned pregnancies in Texas goes up.
The other thing about this bill is that it is not about safety. It’s about money. Rick Perry’s sister is the one who will profit the most from these required clinic upgrades. It’s also about politics. Do you know that the bill supporters have refused to consider a single amendment to this bill? They’ve rejected improving adoption services, instituting sex ed in schools, exceptions for rape/incest, and correcting language to better protect health of the mother.
Parts of this bill are not bad. It’s a good thing to try to make abortion safer and more rare. But overwhelmingly, this bill will not do that. So no matter how you feel about abortion, this bill will do nothing to fix the problems.
(Also, may I ask why you would deny the morning after pill to your daughter? It just prevents ovulation to attempt to prevent a pregnancy. If you’re already pregnant, it doesn’t do anything.)
The editorial board of USA Today would disagree with your assertion about the need for the bill – the commentary that I quoted from (and linked) specifically said as much. I doubt they are the only ones who believe that the bill is, at least in part, necessary so that people can abort non-typical children. I also made clear in the post that I don’t believe all of the pro-abort protesters believe what USA Today asserts.
The bill is, to some extent, intended to close clinics – the ones that don’t provide adequate care. I’ve heard over and over again the talking point that “all but five” of the clinics currently in the state would have to close. If the intent is to close all clinics, how would those five survive? Because they are committed to a higher standard of care than the others. As for the non-abortion services that the clinics at risk of closure provide, they can remain open and continue to provide those services as long as they do one of two things: (1) raise the level of care to that which is required of any other ambulatory surgical center in the state, or (2) eliminate abortions from their menu of services. If those clinics are unwilling to provide what is, in all other areas of ambulatory surgery, the minimum standards of care, one has to wonder why.
You suggested a need to follow the money on the pro-life side. Have you done the same on the abortion side? These clinics don’t want to improve their quality of care because they make a lot of money trading in a commodity of fear and desperation. Abortion is a highly lucrative business. Perhaps you are correct that Mr. Perry’s sister will profit from the required clinic upgrades – I have seen that accusation floating around the blogosphere this week. But if clinic upgrades are the right thing to do for the wellbeing of the patients, is that even a relevant discussion to waste energy on? In an ideal world, abortions would cease. But it’s not an ideal world, so I’d like to see – at a minimum – only one dead emerge from an abortion, not two.
I agree with Wren Andi, my mother had her period for 3 month when she was pregnant with me so she did not know until she was into the 2nd trimester that she was pregnant.
She is not the only one who this happens to. Two coworkers have had this happen to them recently and one was on birth control.
We need to remember that not everyone’s body reacts the same to pregnancy and that some can still bleed enough to let women think they are still having cycles. If that is your first pregnancy and you are not having any other symptoms-how are you supposed to know you are pregnant?
Andi, you know I love you, and I understand your passion on this issue but we need to be open minded and caring towards each other.
Did you read my reply to Wren? I have also known women who didn’t know they were pregnant until well past the 20th week – I cited the specific example of the daughter of one of my husband’s friends who did not know she was pregnant until she went to the emergency room for severe abdominal pain and gave birth to a full term baby a few hours later. I know that it does happen.
So I’ll assume that since your comment attempted to convince me that some women don’t know until late in their pregnancies (despite my previous acknowledgement of that fact), I’ll assume you also didn’t read the question that I posed to Wren and I’ll pose it to you now: Would you advocate that our friend’s daughter should have been allowed to kill her baby right after it was delivered, since she didn’t know she was pregnant and therefore didn’t have the chance to abort it the day before? If not, why not?