Reproductive Politics

Due to work and research commitments, I will not be posting anything new until next year. In the meantime, use the links and the news feeds and still feel free to email me if you want to discuss reproductive politics. Thanks for your continued interest. 

In a column in First Things online, Mark Tooley uses the recent March for Life as an occasion to discuss what he sees as a shift within evangelical Protestantism to pro-life beliefs. Links: Essay in First Things (January 27, 2014): Protestants March for Life

Philosopher Gary Gutting, who always writes something interesting for The Stone column in The New York Times , recently asked if Pope Francis might reconsider the Catholic Church's traditional absolutist opposition to abortion. In doing so, Gutting makes a case for a kind of minimalist justification for abortion-- that is, abortion is immoral in most circumstances but there are a few cases where abortion is justified (in the case of rape, for example).  For that reason, the column makes for informative reading. Still, Gutting puts the cart before the horse: how and why would Pope Francis review the Church's view on abortion before reexamining its even-more-restrictive view of artificial contraception?  Anything can happen, of course, but Pope Francis has not really indicated a willingness to reconsider the doctrine of the Church on sex, conception, and abortion. Everything I have read from and about Francis is that he is advocating for a change of tone and emphas...

I recently wrote a review of The Street Politics of Abortion , by Joshua C. Wilson, for the Law and Politics Book Review.  It can be found here .

Hello, everyone! I have been away from the blog for a while, during a period of great activity regarding reproductive politics. So let's get back to discussing this always-interesting topic.  In reading an essay by Gary Gutting (subject of a separate post), I followed a link to this blog post by philosopher Peter Smith.  He wonders why intentional termination of an early pregnancy is more morally consequential than a spontaneous early miscarriage (which occurs in roughly 30% of conceptions). What he is really doing is calling attention to a perceived hypocrisy by pro-life advocates: If unborn are valuable humans from the moment of conception, why isn't there more of an outcry over the heavy loss of human life by natural miscarriage? If the value of the unborn is equal across all situations, Smith suggests, then this apparent lack of concern over natural miscarriage indicates that opposition to abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is about something else.  ...

The newest front in the legislative war over abortion access is the regulation of "medical abortion" performed in the first eight weeks or so of pregnancy. Pro-life activists express many concerns about medical abortion (questions about its safety, for example). Their true cause for alarm is that medical abortion allows for abortions to occur outside of the clinic structure-- the abortion experience occurs largely at home, and, in some states, family planning doctors are prescribing the drugs remotely (through a kind of Skype-like arrangement). Anti-abortion legislatures have been achieving a measure of success against clinics by passing TRAP laws. In other words, legislatures are restricting abortion access by regulating clinics out of business. Medical abortion rewrites the rules because it allows abortions to be decentralized and privatized, so a pillar of recent American pro-life strategy will be severely undermined with its proliferation. Michelle Goldberg and Emi...

Where do you stand on the Great Squishy Fetus Doll Debate of 2013? This is not one of the most important issues out there, but it is interesting. I recommend all of the linked sources below, if nothing else for the great titles, word choices, and, well, odd pictures of squishy fetus dolls. Links : Article in The Huffington Post (July 26, 2013): Fetus Dolls Are a Thing, Were Given to Kids by Anti-Abortion Group at North Dakota State Fair Blog post by Rob Port on SayAnythingBlog  (July 21, 2013): Dear Pro-Lifers: Can You Stop Being a Bunch of Weirdos?  Article in Jezebel (July 24, 2013): Worst State Fair Ever Has Squishy Fetus Toys for Unsuspecting Kids Page at Heritage House (aka Target for pro-life merchandise) for "The Precious One" 10-12 week fetal model A second page at the Heritage House web site, at which pro-life activist Abby Johnson explains how fetal models help her with her "sidewalk counseling" work

As one might suspect, there has been a rather dramatic decline in the number of abortion clinics nationwide in the past few years. Pro-life activists attribute this decline to three things (the first two, I think, having a real and concrete impact): State legislatures passing "TRAP" laws (targeted regulation of abortion providers) that require unnecessary and expensive changes to abortion clinics, which the clinics cannot afford. TRAP laws also sometimes require clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, which local hospitals refuse to provide.  State legislatures "defunding" family planning clinics (that also perform abortions) by passing laws ensuring that no state money goes to places that perform abortions.  Prayer vigils and other forms of direct action at clinics themselves, like the 40 Days for Life campaign.  Because abortion services in the United States are so heavily dependent on the clinic system, attacking clinics legally ...

There was a fascinating article in The Guardian over the weekend about a surgeon who performs surgery to help restore genital (in particular, clitoral) sexual sensation to women who have undergone female circumcision. The article as a whole is definitely worth reading. The first part of the article is a bit too focused on the background of the people organizing and offering the surgery: the doctor who performs the surgery is transsexual and the activist who has organized the service is a member of a goofy religious sect called the Raelians. It would be hard for any journalist to ignore the background of the people offering the service-- it is just interesting, if nothing else-- and the author of the article has a legitimate concern about the surgery service being a front for evangelization (she concludes it is not). But the author seems to go out of her way to heap disdain on the Raelians, perhaps to ensure the reader that the article is not a product of her being duped by a ...

Many, but it depends. The fact check site PolitiFact did a nice job analyzing the question and, in doing so, providing a clear summary of the major differences between abortion laws among countries. Politicians love to use a certain rhetorical technique when conveying information: They make a statement that draws a narrow frame around just the set of facts that they want the listener to hear. In this case, Carly Fiorina (former CEO and Republican candidate for U.S. Senate) asserted that only four countries in the world "legalize abortion after five months" (about 20 weeks), including the United States. Two of those countries have 'bad' governments-- North Korea and China-- and the other is our 'socialist' neighbor to the north, Canada. If you want to get people fired up over a government policy, comparing us to China and North Korea is the way to do it. (People on the left tend to do the same thing, just on different issues.) At any rate, is Fiorina...

From The Guardian : A plan to make female high school students undergo mandatory virginity tests has been met with outrage from activists, who argue that it discriminates against women and violates their human rights. Education chief Muhammad Rasyid, of Prabumulih district in south Sumatra put forward the idea, describing it as "an accurate way to protect children from prostitution and free sex". He said he would use the city budget to begin tests early next year if MPs approved the proposal. "This is for their own good," Rasyid said. "Every woman has the right to virginity … we expect students not to commit negative acts." The test would require female senior school students aged 16 to 19 to have their hymen examined every year until graduation. Boys, however, would undergo no investigation into whether they had had sex. It always fascinates me how the terms of the debate over various sexual and reproductive issues are so different from countr...

If you missed it, I recommend you read Sarah Terzo's  cri de coeur  about the frustration she faces as someone who is a pro-life atheist. Her experiences confirm that the American pro-life movement is overwhelmingly Christian in orientation. While many non-Christians, atheists, or agnostics likely self-identify as pro-life, my impression is that the activists largely approach reproductive politics as an outgrowth of their Christian faith and theology. Ms. Terzo publishes an absorbing blog, ClinicQuotes , that focuses on the stories and statements of people who have changed from being pro-choice to pro-life. As far as I can tell, her body of work and her methods of activism betray nothing that would make her undesirable as a pro-life ally. Recently Ms. Terzo contacted several 'crisis pregnancy centers' to ask if they would let an atheist volunteer at their center, and they were pretty clear in rejecting her offer of help. I get the impression that she was doing this to...

The New York Times published a story that illustrates the trickiness of managing population growth or, in the case of Germany, decline. Germany's birthrate is well below replacement rate. Still, they are wealthy and, unlike the United States, for example, willing to spend money to help families with day care and enact policies to encourage couples to have children (like legislated family leave). It is not working: So far, though, even while spending $265 billion a year on family subsidies, Germany has proved only how hard it can be. That is in part because the solution lies in remaking values, customs and attitudes in a country that has a troubled history with accepting immigrants and where working women with children are still tagged with the label “raven mothers,” implying neglectfulness. If Germany is to avoid a major labor shortage, experts say, it will have to find ways to keep older workers in their jobs, after decades of pushing them toward early retirement, and it w...

Should we be worried that some Americans and British couples are choosing to go through life without kids? Kathleen Parker, writing in The Washington Post , surveys a bunch of articles and news stories and sees a cultural trend of foregoing parenthood to live a life of high disposable income, full nights of sleep, and  worry-free adulthood. It is, overall, a really great column and worth reading in full, and I agree with her primary thesis, which is that parenthood can be a pain (in the neck, rear end, and in other places and ways), but is worth it: Mysteriously, the inevitable pain, suffering and sacrifice of parenthood are also part of that joy. What is a rose without thorns? Life without death is imponderably meaningless. I would argue that without death, there would be no love. Indeed, what makes parenthood so relentlessly amazing — both the beauty and the beast of it — is the possibility of losing the thing you love more than your own heartbeat. Putting someone else’...

Why not? Doctors are not talking to their patients about it. As reported by The New York Times , the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has concluded the following: The very low vaccination rate for teenage girls against the human papillomavirus — the most common sexually transmitted infection and a principal cause of cervical cancer — did not improve at all from 2011 to 2012, and health officials on Thursday said a survey found that doctors were often failing to bring it up or recommend it when girls came in for other reasons. Only 33 percent of teenage girls had finished the required three doses of the vaccine in 2012, officials said, putting the United States close to the bottom of developed countries in coverage. Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said on a call with reporters that coverage for girls “has not increased at all from one year to the next. Zero.” Coverage rates for new vaccines typically increase b...

In the wake of Ariel Castro being sentenced to prison for the next millennium (literally), James D. Conley (an American Roman Catholic bishop)  wrote a column of the "what does this represent about the culture" variety in First Things.  Conley's thesis: Pornographic addiction is powerful, destructive, and all too typical. Ariel Castro’s addiction is no excuse for his actions, but it points to a deep and sobering reality: Free, anonymous, and ubiquitous access to pornography is quietly transforming American men and American culture. Are Ariel Castro's crimes the direct or indirect result of contemporary American porn culture? Readers posting in the First Things  "comments" section raised a lot of thoughtful and pertinent objections to Conley's analysis. I summarize here and add my own thoughts: Are incidents of sexual assault in fact on the rise, and, if so, in a way that correlates with a rise on the use of pornography? Is it possible that incid...

Many times when I am writing one of these blog posts-- or just watching the news or discussing it with my students-- I wonder, "Why isn't X being made more of? Why can't people see how important X is?" I wonder that a lot when it comes to religious opposition to the ACA "contraceptive mandate." In the face of the many accommodations made by the Obama administration and the HHS, I find the objections of the Catholic Church and other organizations (like Hobby Lobby) to be specious. (To review my various musings on these things, click on the "ACA" label, below.) Encountering a specious argument in politics is, by itself, nothing to get worked up about. That would be like objecting to french fries because they have potatoes in them. What is  galling in the case of the contraceptive mandate is to assert that it's a fundamentally intolerable threat to the conscience rights of Christians and represents sign-of-the-apocolpyse changes in the Americ...

The New York Times published a thoughtful op-ed by doctor who works with severely premature babies. She raises the tricky ethical question of whether and when parents and their doctor should fight to save a severely premature baby. The column is an antidote, to an extent, to the simple "always save every baby, no matter what" thinking about children who are born severely premature (those hovering right at the edges of fetal viability). The author, Dr. April R. Dworetz, suggests that doctors need to do a better job helping parents understand the consequences of engaging in heroic measures to perpetuate the life of some children. She also suggests, in some cases, a bit more: Sometimes, I think we doctors need to do more than inform. On occasion, I’ve offered to make a life-or-death decision for parents. If they agree, they are essentially making the decision, but are shifting the burden to me. It’s harder for parents to say, “I unplugged my baby,” than to let the doctor do...

Salon reporter and analyst Katie McDonough wrote a short and interesting article listing what she labeled the top five  "extreme lawmakers behind some of the most draconian reproductive rights restrictions grabbing headlines in recent months." In 2013, all the glory goes to legislators in states that have been in the vanguard of piecemeal assaults on abortion rights: Texas, Arkansas, North Dakota, Alabama, and Arizona. If one is pro-life, the article naturally has little appeal or value. If one is pro-choice and/or an interested observer of the culture wars, then the article has a "can you believe these crazies?" kind of appeal. I am not taking the article too seriously-- it is what it is. Still, Ms. McDonough raises an interesting question. Are what we consider "extremists" in the United States all that extreme? More to the point, how does one define extremeness, and on what scale? One could measure the extremeness of legislators in two ways: ...

The New York Times has been doing some great reporting on reproductive politics lately. There is a lot of material to work with (!) but the paper has been great at getting behind the surface of events and providing context and analysis. Speaking of which: The NYT published a story today on the pro-life push to use the theory that fetuses feel pain before the point of viability to drive legislative bans on abortions at 20 weeks and beyond. What is accomplished by a 20 week ban based on the theory of fetal pain? This kind of ban largely meshes with public opinion. While these bans tend to not allow abortions that threaten the "health" of the pregnant woman, they do allow for abortions after 20 weeks that threaten the "physical" "life" of the pregnant woman. (The U.S. House version, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act  (PCUCPA) also has a rape and incest exception.) As long as women who have life-threatening pregnancies can have abortions at ...