Moderate Left --
moderateleft.com
July 9, 2007 - 3:53pm
Published under: Access to Abortion |
Contraception | Sexuality Education |
minnesota
Jeff Fecke's blog | Printer-friendly version |
Last week's report from Minnesota on
2006 abortions had a wealth of
significant information in it, but the most
striking for both abortion rights and anti-
abortion advocates was the fact that the overall
number of abortions performed was up. Up 5
percent over 2005, and for minors, up 16 percent.
Now, those numbers sound dramatic, but they aren't
necessarily. For example, in 2006, there were 793
abortions performed on minors in the state. In 2005,
there were 682. That 16 percent jump turns out to be
an increase of 111 procedures total. Not insignificant,
of course, but also a small enough sample that this
year's huge jump could be just a statistical anomaly,
and next year could show a similar drop -- and be no
more significant.
Of course, there are other potential causes for the
increase in abortions. Abstinence-based education
was one potential reason cited by Sarah Stoesz, the
CEO of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North
Dakota, South Dakota. "We have data that show that
abstinence-based education only works to delay the
onset of first intercourse by a few months, but
makes it more likely for women to become pregnant
and get STDs," she said. She also cited the increasing
expense of contraception as a factor. But she noted,
too, that it could be a "statistical blip" and cautioned
that it was important to be cautious and careful in
drawing any conclusions based on one year's
statistics.
Whether you agree with Stoesz's position on
abortion or not, that's a reasonable position to take.
Identify some potential reasons for an increase, also
recognize that the increase may not signify anything
in particular and look for some areas, such as better
access to contraception, that could have a positive
impact.
The anti-abortion movement in Minnesota could
have reacted the same way.
Its leaders didn't.
Instead, the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life
issued a statement attacking Planned Parenthood
for "open[ing] two suburban 'express' mall stores
targeting young women with scented oils, candles
and referrals to its St. Paul abortion center." That
those two centers did not provide abortions but did
provide contraception went unremarked by the anti-
abortion group. They were too busy weaving an
elaborate conspiracy theory in which Planned
Parenthood sucks girls in by giving them access to
contraception and uses that increased access to
contraception (along with a few trinkets) to lure
women in for a fun, exciting abortion. That
contraception, if used, can greatly reduce one's risk
of pregnancy is ignored by the anti-abortion
advocates. After all, like any good conspiracy theory,
you have to recognize that it's all going on at a
deeper level than mere mortals can understand.
Wheels within wheels, my friend. Wheels within
wheels.
It's sad that the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for
Life show such a lack of concern for limiting abortion.
You would think if the organization were concerned
about ending abortion that it would take the time to
actually advance policy arguments aimed at ending
abortion that were more substantive than "Planned
Parenthood is just in it for the lucrative abortion
market." But then, the MCCL would have to address
how its own unwillingness to support increased
access to contraception led to thousands of
abortions in 2006.
The MCCL's biggest legislative accomplishment in
recent years was the Women's Right to Know Act,
which required that women be given a packet of
materials to read through before their abortion that
listed each method of surgical abortion in the most
lurid detail possible. It also lists all of the known
medical complications of abortion (and until recently,
some, like increased breast cancer, that weren't
true).
As the act's name implied, the MCCL was banking that
the act would radically alter the debate, that women
simply were too stupid to realize what abortion is or
that invasive surgery has risk involved. Well, the act
did possibly reduce abortions in 2006: 652 women
received the packet and chose not to have an
abortion. Whether all 652 would have had an
abortion otherwise, of course, is debatable, but let's
take that figure as the most favorable to the MCCL.
Let's say that instead of supporting a packet of at
times misleading information, the MCCL had instead
supported funding access to contraception for all.
In 2006, 65 percent of women seeking abortions had
used contraceptives in the past but were not using
them at the time they conceived. Now, obviously,
some people are going to make mistakes with sex, so
let's say that increased access to contraception
would only reach half of those people. And let's say
that the contraceptives have a 50 percent failure
rate -- far above that in the real world, but I'm trying
to be fair.
Had 25 percent of those abortions been prevented
by increased access to contraception, it would have
reduced the number of abortions performed in 2006
by 2,283.
That's not something anybody on the abortion
rights side would oppose. Contrary to the assertions
of the anti-abortion movement, those of us who
support abortion rights know that abortion is not
particularly fun for the woman involved. We know
that it would be better if there were fewer of them,
because each abortion is a major surgery, and that's
better avoided if it can be.
But while Planned Parenthood is trying to reach
those women who can't afford contraception or
don't have ready access to it, the MCCL is railing
against the very effort, weaving insane conspiracy
theories instead.
This is, of course, perfectly understandable. If the
MCCL really cared about ending abortion, it would be
working right there with Planned Parenthood to get
contraception out to women everywhere. Instead,
the organization has spent its time shaming and
infantilizing women and let thousands of abortions
go unprevented in the meantime. If I were in that
position, I guess I, too, would rather blame a vast
left-wing conspiracy than look in the mirror.
Jeff Fecke's blog | Printer-friendly version |
. . . . .
9 comments
Please login or register to post and rate comments...
Comments are rated by readers on a scale from 1 to
5. Comments with a rating of 2 or less are hidden.
Click on hidden comments to view them.
Anonymous Getting it straight...
July 10, 2007 - 12:48pm
Let me get this straight...According to your
perspective...Not having sex (abstinence) will get me
pregnant and while having sex (PPs way with condoms,
say) will not make me pregnant. Sounds like the same
arguement I heard in the backseat of a Ford in
highschool. I believe that stupid arguement then and
became a teenage mom. BTW, I gotta ask...Is that line
still working for ya? Evidently, it does for PP as they are
the number abortion provider in the country over many
dead bodies.
Jeff Fecke Well...
July 10, 2007 - 4:07pm
95% of Americans have sex before marriage. The odds
are overwhelming that any given person will have sex
before marriage. Yes, abstinence has a 100% efficacy
rate when practiced -- but given that it's only
practiced 5% of the time, it's not going to be the
cornerstone of any sane attempt to reduce abortion.
As I noted, contraception is not perfect, but it's better
than unprotected sex -- and remember, 70% of the
abortions performed in Minnesota were the result of
unprotected sex. Prevent even a quarter of those and
you're stopping thousands of abortions each year in
just one state.
Alas, your argument tends to typify the anti-choice
argument: simply note that if everyone would stop
having sex, there wouldn't be abortions. Well, if
everyone would stop driving there wouldn't be car
accidents either -- I tend to think it's okay that we
decided to install seat belts and air bags instead of
urging people to walk everywhere.
Lcubed You are falling for the
July 11, 2007 - 3:07pm
You are falling for the trick of assuming that
abstinence-only education leads to an increase in
abstinent behavior. It does not. While abstinent
behavior prevents pregnancy when used perfectly,
abstinence-only education does not increase abstinent
behavior. And when these teens do become sexually
active, they aren't prepared with knowledge about
contraception.
Note: Intending to be abstinent and then having sex
without contraception (because you didn't plan ahead
or were ignorant about contraception or for whatever
reasons) has a *high* pregnancy rate.
In reality, teens--whether they are exposed to
abstinence-only ed or comprehensive ed --will start
having sex around the same age. (one exception
noted below). Teens who plan to be abstinent and
then have sex (without contraception) get pregnant
and get STIs. There are several comprehensive sex-ed
programs (like children's aid society-carerra) tht have
been associated with delayed onset of sexual activity
(more abstinent behavior), reduced teen pregnancy,
better use of contraception for sexually active teens,
better use of condoms for sexually active teens.
So, if your goals are abstinent behavior for teens or
reduced teen pregnancy, or better contraeptive and
condom use for teens who are sexually active--you
should support this comprehensive sex-ed program
and oppose all of the abstinence-only ed programs
(none of which have been shown to be effective).
-Lcubed.
Jess P. Webb Sex Education
July 12, 2007 - 10:23am
I grew up in the Bible belt in time when attitudes about
sex were much more conservative than they are now.
The sexiest thing around was the Sears Cataloge. There
was no sex education in the schools, however ministers
preaching abstinence did abound.
The abstinance only logic would assume that as
teenagers we were much less likely to have sex. WRONG
In High School I was a walking, talking, 180 pound
hormone. The primary thoughts that controled my
mind were beer, fast cars, and sex, not necessaraly in
that order. I lost my virginity at age sixteen and most of
my cronies did so around the same age. The names of
doctors and quacks that would perform illigel abortions
were readily available, this was before the pill.
More than one lass in my graduating class were more
than a few months pregnent.
In conclusion sex did occur in the good old days. It is my
conclusion throgh life experience that abstinence only
education is maddness.
In case anyone would question my bonifides to make
such opinions I am a Licensed Clinical Professional
Counselor and a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor.
Anonymous abstinence sex education vs. sex
education
July 12, 2007 - 7:30pm
In the real world of teenagers, impulse behavior is
abundant. Good intentions go to the wayside in the
moment of peer pressure and rampant hormones. It is
beyond me why in this day and age of knowledge that
we have people who think abstinance programs work.
They don't. These people live in a world that does not
exist. I work with teens everyday and I can tell you first
hand that the only way to protect our teens is by
volumns of education through parents,schools and
community. The consequence of impulsive behavior
combined with abstinance programs is these teens are
not properly prepared for the decisions that are made
in the heat of the moment. Thus making them
suseptable to pregnancy or std's. With proper
education from home, schools and the community as
well as being prepared for that moment of impulsive
behavior, we will be able to lower the abortion rate as
well as the transmission of std's. And in many cases,
teens will make the right decision once they are
educated.
Helen Steely abortion is always viewed through a
religious lens
July 13, 2007 - 9:34am
The use of birthcontrol while a right (I think so at least)
is just a chemical means to prevent childbearing. (been
there done that 4 X's) An abortion done early is less
poisonous if you are into natural foods. Using a canola
device that is outlawed in the USA to take care of your
period is a better way to stop the non enviornmentally
safe use of pads, and all the other menstral stuff as well
as a sure fire way to prevent those unwanted
pregnancies. Just a couple of friend sharing a moment
that all women and girls must go through and you have
no male doctors or corporate entities selling waste to
go into the local dump or the ocean off a barge if you
live in NYC. Canolas are small pumps that draw the
blood out of the vagina and were used by women back
in the forties according to one old woman to whom I
mentioned a N.O.W. film about it.
Tyler LePard Another environmentally-friendly
alternative...
July 13, 2007 - 11:14am
...to tampons or pads is The Keeper (or The Moon Cup).
Safe, legal, cost-effective and convenient!
Marysia Abortion opponents: Please don't tar all w/
same brush
July 17, 2007 - 5:58pm
I hope you're not stereotyping all who identify as
prolife rather than prochoice on abortion as necessarily,
by definition, hostile or indifferent to the crying need
for access to contraception, comprehensive sex ed, and
anything else that actually prevents and reduces
abortion.
There is a problem with antiabortion groups being
opposed to such measures, or remaining neutral about
them.
Yet something like 85% of prolifers support
contraception, for one, even though our views are,
frustratingly, not reflected in these organizations, or
are even undermined by them.
But some of us, with whatever resources we have, are
trying to find solutions to this problem. I don't have
much to work with, personally, I wish I had a lot more
money, time, energy, etc.....but I'm trying to do
whatever I can by working with a nonprofit learning,
health care/social service, and activism resource
directory, and action-oriented blog
( www.nonviolentchoice.info) that is devoted to
relieving the root causes of abortion, publicizing both
prolife and prochoice fforts to accomplish this, and
advocating for what we call nonviolent sexual &
reproductive choices (the "other" choices).
Please don't stereotype in this way, it gets in the way
of working together for practical solutions on the many
areas where we *do* agree. Just like the stereotype
that prochoicers regard abortion as "fun" for women.
Thank you.
Marysia Abortion opponents: Please don't tar all w/
same brush
July 17, 2007 - 5:58pm
I hope you're not stereotyping all who identify as
prolife rather than prochoice on abortion as necessarily,
by definition, hostile or indifferent to the crying need
for access to contraception, comprehensive sex ed, and
anything else that actually prevents and reduces
abortion.
There is a problem with antiabortion groups being
opposed to such measures, or remaining neutral about
them.
Yet something like 85% of prolifers support
contraception, for one, even though our views are,
frustratingly, not reflected in these organizations, or
are even undermined by them.
But some of us, with whatever resources we have, are
trying to find solutions to this problem. I don't have
much to work with, personally, I wish I had a lot more
money, time, energy, etc.....but I'm trying to do
whatever I can by working with a nonprofit learning,
health care/social service, and activism resource
directory, and action-oriented blog
( www.nonviolentchoice.info) that is devoted to
relieving the root causes of abortion, publicizing both
prolife and prochoice fforts to accomplish this, and
advocating for what we call nonviolent sexual &
reproductive choices (the "other" choices).
Please don't stereotype in this way, it gets in the way
of working together for practical solutions on the many
areas where we *do* agree. Just like the stereotype
that prochoicers regard abortion as "fun" for women.
Thank you.
0 comments:
Post a Comment