South Dakota abortion ban
Mar. 25th, 2006 07:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dreamer_easyNot everyone will care to wade through the Christian- and Republican-bashing at www.fucksouthdakota.com. However, the satirical essay there links to some important facts, so as a public service, here's a summary of them, with my comments.
Firstly, the simple fact: banning abortion does not work. Wealthy women will pay for comparatively safe illegal abortions; poor and minority women will try self-induced procedures or risk back-alley abortions. Prior to Roe v Wade, there were hundreds of thousands of abortions annually in the US.
Unsafe abortions killed hundreds or thousands of American women each year; they continue to kill thousands of women in Latin America. It's difficult to grasp numbers like that, but a personal story from a grieving mother brings it home, hard.
An essay from Common Dreams challenges the claim that women have abortions merely for "convenience". If this were so, millions of women worldwide would not risk their lives each year in unsafe abortions. Another challenge to this claim comes from the anecotal reports of anti-choice people, including committed activists, seeking abortions for themselves or their daughters; surely they were motivated by much more than "convenience".
How then to reduce the number of abortions? Comprehensive sex education and access to sexual health services, including the Pill and the Morning After Pill, are essential to preventing unwanted pregnancies. Anti-rape education for both sexes, and access to the Morning After Pill for rape survivors, is also crucial to prevent thousands of abortions each year. The South Dakota ban tackles the problem from the wrong end.
For a quick and eye-opening rundown on US statistics, see Women Who Have Abortions.
Firstly, the simple fact: banning abortion does not work. Wealthy women will pay for comparatively safe illegal abortions; poor and minority women will try self-induced procedures or risk back-alley abortions. Prior to Roe v Wade, there were hundreds of thousands of abortions annually in the US.
Unsafe abortions killed hundreds or thousands of American women each year; they continue to kill thousands of women in Latin America. It's difficult to grasp numbers like that, but a personal story from a grieving mother brings it home, hard.
An essay from Common Dreams challenges the claim that women have abortions merely for "convenience". If this were so, millions of women worldwide would not risk their lives each year in unsafe abortions. Another challenge to this claim comes from the anecotal reports of anti-choice people, including committed activists, seeking abortions for themselves or their daughters; surely they were motivated by much more than "convenience".
How then to reduce the number of abortions? Comprehensive sex education and access to sexual health services, including the Pill and the Morning After Pill, are essential to preventing unwanted pregnancies. Anti-rape education for both sexes, and access to the Morning After Pill for rape survivors, is also crucial to prevent thousands of abortions each year. The South Dakota ban tackles the problem from the wrong end.
For a quick and eye-opening rundown on US statistics, see Women Who Have Abortions.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-25 08:59 am (UTC)Don't know if you've seen it or not, but the Good Weekend magazine in The Age and SMH has a story on the doctor who first stood up to the backyard abortions in Victoria. The statistic that really got to me was that pre-antibiotics there was a death from post-abortion complications per week at the Royal Women's Hospital and the hospital had an entire ward devoted to post-abortion cases.
I really, really hope that we never go back to backyard abortions.