Reproductive rights seems to be one of the most discussed issues of the election amongst women, and it’s not just abortion that’s the topic at hand. Most people seem to think repro rights are all about a woman’s decision not to have a baby via abortion, but there’s more to it than just that. For many women, the issue is about the ability to access birth control as well as the decision to have a baby when they do want to. Surprisingly, having a baby is becoming difficult for some women and it’s not just because of infertility.
Just earlier this year President Bush proposed regulations that would define abortion as any contraceptive that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, which includes many common birth control pills and emergency contraception (the morning after pill) for rape victims. In addition to this, it is currently legal for pharmacists who believe birth control is wrong to deny giving it to women (keep in mind this includes even condoms for some people.) President Bush is also planning to issue an HHS regulation that would make it illegal for pharmacies to discriminate against pharmacists who would do this. It seems the same groups who are opposed to women terminating unplanned pregnancies are doing everything they can to make sure these unplanned pregnancies happen, which is just wrong on so many different levels.
It is estimated that 98% of American women will use some form of birth control at some point in their lives, meaning these laws will have a negative effect on just about every woman. There are plenty of women and teenagers who use birth control pills not as a means of actual birth control, but as a way to ease menstrual cramps and mood swings when regular treatments, such as Midol, just don’t do the trick. With Obama’s appointment of Senator Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, though, it looks like we don’t have to worry about such legislation actually being passed. On November 20, Clinton, along with Senator Patty Murray, introduced legislation that would block Bush’s HHS regulation.
On the other side of the issue, there are also acts that would prevent certain women from being able to have babies. There is a law in Virginia which makes it illagal for any unmarried woman to receive artificial conception treatment. While this law was passed targeting lesbian women who are unable to marry in the state, it also affects straight women who are single for any number of reasons. In Georgia, there was a bill proposed that would make in-vitro fertilization illegal for anyone. On a much, much more terrifying level, there are those who wish to bribe women they find unfit for motherhood into being sterilized. From a party who argues against abortion by saying that quality of life shouldn’t matter in determining whether or not a baby should be born, this idea is not only ridiculous but extremely hypocritical. A better solution would be to take the money and put it towards programs that would help these women make the decisions they need to to either prevent the pregnancy in a way that would not affect the rest of their lives or help them take care of their babies should they choose to have them.
The choice to have a baby is a life altering one, and one that women should be able to make for themselves. What these laws imply is that the writers believe women are not capable of making their own decisions when it comes to their ability to raise a child. A woman’s decision to have a baby should be her own, not that of the government.


10 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 24, 2008 at 9:27 am
Reagan
O_O
Wow. Eugenics.
November 24, 2008 at 9:35 am
Ian
There’s nothing like a little modern eugenics to get the day started off right.
While we’re at it, let’s stop all the lefties from having kids too. I’m sick of seeing left-handed scissors clogging up our shelves.
(I’m actually left handed so this is an issues near and dear to my heart.)
November 24, 2008 at 9:37 am
Ian
Also, does the same offer stand to allow men to get their tubes snipped? Free vasectomies for all!
November 24, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Jesse
do i hear someone asking for individual rights?
hmm. well that’s odd. you don’t have individual rights in a lot of other issues. how do you expect to make much headway without applying the same logic to other issues like, taxes, drugs, running a business, building a home, educating your children, etc.
how can you claim the right to have an abortion if you can’t even keep the money you earn, or smoke a joint?
i don’t see the logic in that.
November 24, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Becca Burley
Also, does the same offer stand to allow men to get their tubes snipped? Free vasectomies for all!
Hahahaha, no. Not that I know of, anyway.
Although now that I think about it, that would make more sense to me. If a woman got sterilized because she needed the money at the time, but then later in life decided she wanted to have a baby, she’d be pretty much screwed. If a man did that and later on he and his wife decided they wanted to have a baby, she could always get artificially inseminated. It’s not the ideal situation, but it makes more sense to me.
November 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Jesse
can you save eggs?
November 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Ian
Also, vasectomies are fairly easily reversed.
And Jesse, these are many reasons why reproductive rights are different than the issues you listed, not the least being that there are existing laws prohibiting those things.
November 25, 2008 at 9:36 am
Jesse
such as Ian? I am so curious how you break down the distinctions.
“The choice to have a baby is a life altering one, and one that women should be able to make for themselves.”
What’s the difference?
November 25, 2008 at 10:18 am
Ian
You are equating choosing to have artificial insemination with the choice to take drugs. There is an existing law prohibiting one and not the other. The two issues are not at all equal. Libertarianism just cannot work, you and I both know it.
November 25, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Jesse
lol
“these laws imply…women are not capable of making their own decisions”