Subject: [SocialistWorker.org] They care about abortion...every four years
-----
View original article here:
http://socialistworker.org/2012/08/15/they-care-about-abortion-every-four-years
Editorials
======== THEY CARE ABOUT ABORTION...EVERY FOUR YEARS =========================
The Democrats think they can count on the votes of women and men who support
the right to choose--so they take no action to meet their demands.
August 15, 2012
"MITT ROMNEY would definitely drag us back."
The Obama campaign's ads to mobilize women voters were out last week in swing
states for the 2012 election, and the message was hardly a new one. The
Democrats, the argument goes, are the only thing standing in the way of
Republicans decimating women's reproductive rights--so you better vote for
Obama.
The problem with that reasoning, of course, is that the decimation of the
right to choose has been ongoing--including during the last four years when
Barack Obama occupied the White House, and the last six years when Democrats
had majorities in Congress for much of the time. But the party that claims to
be for women's rights didn't do anything to /advance/ those rights and make
up for lost ground when they had the chance.
At best, the Democrats opposed the most extreme anti-abortion measures the
right came up with. At worst, they gave up more ideological ground to the
right--and actually /promoted/ less extreme restrictions--but restrictions
nonetheless--on the right to choose as the "realistic" option.
The Democrats don't feel obliged to say what they will do /for/ women,
because the Republicans have already talked so much about what they will do
/against/ them--and that's all mainstream women's rights organizations seem
to care about. When it comes to reproductive rights, there's no "politics of
hope"--it's more like the fear factor.
It's time for supporters of women's rights to say enough. Enough empty
rhetoric, enough broken promises, enough fear-mongering, enough of Democratic
politicians and the liberal women's fundraising organizations that support
them compromising away our right to choose.
The Democrats aren't stopping women's rights from being taken away. In fact,
they've played a role in making those attacks possible--with their eager
compromises with the right that have shifted the entire debate about abortion
further and further to the right. By using reproductive rights as a
bargaining chip--and a political sound bite to raise only when election-time
comes around--they've demonstrated how little they care about these issues as
a fundamental part of their platform.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AT A Denver campaign stop last week, Obama was introduced by Sandra Fluke,
the woman who tried to testify in Congress about why she needed health
insurance that covered birth control--something required by the Obama health
care law. Fluke was turned away, and instead made her moving speech via
YouTube. She was promptly attacked by Rush Limbaugh, who called her a "slut."
According to Limbaugh, Fluke wanted birth control covered so she could have
lots of sex like a "prostitute."
For people who know how important it is for women to be able to obtain birth
control--something that 99 percent of women who are sexually active with men
use at some point in their lifetimes--the sexist attack on Fluke was a
lightning rod, inspiring protests against Republicans who want to return to
the bad old days of the 1950s.
But for the Obama administration, the decision to highlight Fluke's case and
the issue of birth control was a political calculation--one that's limited to
a campaign photo op.
Almost as soon as Obama said he supported requiring insurers to cover birth
control for women, he also said he was willing to consider an exemption [1]
for all institutions associated with the Catholic Church, including
universities, hospitals and charities.
In other words, discriminating against women by denying them health coverage
mandated by law is okay if you're a Catholic business.
Obama eventually came up with a compromise on the issue, but it didn't
satisfy the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is filing a lawsuit
against the policy, coordinated with dozens of other religious
organizations--which are perhaps emboldened by how quickly they got Obama to
consider an exemption.
Besides, the fact that the Obama administration says it supports birth
control shouldn't really be a huge deal. The "debate" about the importance of
birth control ended decades ago. The result: Women need it, period. This
once-settled issue is only back because of the utterly backward character of
the right's assault on women's reproductive rights.
Ultimately, this is advantageous for Democrats. They can pose as protectors
of women's rights by sticking up for something as non-controversial with most
people as birth control--while ignoring more difficult battles, like federal
funding to cover abortions, that ought to be fought to make reproductive
health care accessible to all women.
On the contrary, the Democrats ran away from that debate. During negotiations
with conservative Democrats about the Affordable Care Act in 2010, Obama
promised to issue an executive order applying the restrictions of the Hyde
Amendment--which bars federal funding to poor women seeking abortions--to the
health care law.
In other words, Obama, who said when he was running for president that he
would work to overturn the Hyde Amendment, used abortion funding for poor
women as a bargaining chip to get his bill past anti-abortion Democrats.
At the time, the Democratic Party wasn't just in charge of the White House
but the majority in both houses of Congress. You'd think it would be a good
time to take some steps to guarantee access to abortion for all women. But
the Democrats demanded less--and got it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THIS SELLOUT on abortion in the health care law is in keeping with the
Democrats approach to women's dwindling abortion rights generally--a lot of
talk, at least around election-time, and no action.
In state after state, access to abortion is under assault. In just the first
half of 2012, state governments have enacted 95 new provisions related to
reproductive health and rights. According to the Guttmacher Institute [2],
the following measures passed in this six-month period:
-- There are 39 new restrictions on access to abortion.
-- Three states have limited access to medication abortion, bringing to eight
the number of states restricting access to the treatment.
-- Three states enacted unconstitutional measures that ban abortion prior to
fetal viability, either at 18 or 20 weeks post-fertilization (the equivalent
of 20 or 22 weeks after the woman's last menstrual period)--bringing the
number of states that have barred abortion at this early point in pregnancy
to nine.
-- Two states adopted measures requiring that a woman listen to the fetal
heartbeat before she can obtain an abortion. Louisiana's heartbeat
requirement necessitates performing a transvaginal ultrasound for abortions
performed in the first eight weeks.
-- Two states adopted measures requiting that women get counseling on the
negative mental health effects of abortion, even though there is no medical
basis for this claim. This makes nine states that require such counseling.
-- Several states implemented waiting periods before women could get an
abortion, bringing the total number with this restriction to 26. In April,
Utah became the first state to impose a 72-hour waiting period on women
before they can terminate a pregnancy.
-- Four states limited coverage of abortion in the health exchanges that will
be established as part of the Affordable Care Act, bringing the number of
states doing so to 20.
According to Guttmacher, 55 percent of U.S. women of reproductive age now
live in one of the 26 states considered hostile to abortion rights.
Democratic politicians may voice concern about the worst offenses of the
right wing, but they've looked the other way as states pass restriction after
restriction on the right to choose. Instead, the approach of "finding common
ground" with abortion opponents has meant that women's reproductive rights
are being compromised away.
Men and women who support a woman's right to abortion--and fundamentally, her
right to make her own decisions about her body--shouldn't be forced to
compromise about what they want just because there's an election campaign
taking place. These are choices that deeply affect the lives of women and
their ability to be equal human beings in society. They must be considered
with the seriousness they deserve.
Anti-abortion Republican politicians are attempting to take away all women's
right to decide with bills about "fetal pain," "personhood," mandatory
ultrasound and counseling. According to them, women need to be told what to
do because they can't possibly make decisions for themselves.
Why would Democratic Party politicians ever want to find "common ground" with
these people?
The Democrats would rather woo voters who support restrictions on abortion
than make the effort to meet the demands of pro-choice women. Why? Because
they know these women will vote for them anyway, because they haven't been
given any other alternative.
In boardrooms of liberal women's groups like the National Organization for
Women and NARAL Pro-Choice America, they're already vowing to pull out all
the stops to re-elect Barack Obama, no matter what--and expecting absolutely
nothing in return. Fear of what a Romney White House might look like might be
enough for these groups, but it shouldn't be for those of us who think women
deserve better.
Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and the other Republican opponents of women's right to
choose are indeed scary, and they have women's reproductive rights in their
sights. But the Democrats clearly aren't up to the job of stopping them. That
will depend on what we do.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Published by the International Socialist Organization. Material on this Web
site is licensed by SocialistWorker.org, under a Creative Commons (by-nc-nd
3.0) license, except for articles that are republished with permission.
Readers are welcome to share and use material belonging to this site for
non-commercial purposes, as long as they are attributed to the author and
SocialistWorker.org.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/us/politics/democrats-urge-obama-to-defend-birth-control-rules.html
[2] http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/2012/statetrends22012.html
