Reproductive Politics

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...

The results are in, and it is not pretty for the Republican candidates who talked in controversial ways about abortion. Todd Akin, U.S. Senate candidate for Missouri, lost to Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill by about 15 points. McCaskill was considered one of the most vulnerable Senators running for reelection and the focus of Republican attempts to take back the Senate-- until Akin made his claim that women who are raped almost never get pregnant because their bodies shut down the ovulation and conception process. Mitt Romney won the state by almost 10 points. Richard Mourdock, U.S. Senate candidate for Indiana, lost a close race  (within 1% point) to Democratic candidate Joe Donnelly. This is a pick-up for the Democrats; the contest was for a seat left open when Republican incumbent Richard Lugar was defeated in the primary by Mourdock. Donnelly is a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who self-identifies as pro-life but voted, as a House member, for the Affordable Care ...

Are debates over abortion and rape a distraction from important larger questions about abortion, women, and the unborn, or are they an important part of working out how we think and feel about this area of life? As you know, the question of whether a woman should be allowed to obtain an abortion if her pregnancy is the result of rape has been all over the news, thanks to United States Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock . As a result of their statements/gaffes, every other public figure who self-identifies as pro-life is asked to respond to their comments. This has caused heartburn for pro-life advocates who want to avoid looking controversial and a) just want to get elected, thank you very much, or b) want to push for pro-life policies that have been reframed as common-sense, mainstream proposals. An example of the first phenomenon is U.S. House of Representatives candidate John Koster (Washington state), who was taped being asked questions about abortion and rape....

It seems like the news lately has been dominated by stories involving fights over abortion and rape. I think abortion in the case of rape draws so much attention because it forces consideration of what is, really, the primary question of abortion: What is the value or status of the 'unborn' relative to the value or status of pregnant women? Whose interests or status is primary and superior to the other? Many people who self-identify as "pro-life" nonetheless believe that women should be able to have an abortion in cases of rape, despite the fact that the ontological status of the unborn child is same regardless of the circumstances of conception. Put another way, many people who oppose abortion accept a victim of rape obtaining one, even though a fetus is a fetus regardless of how it is conceived. Furthermore, the question of whether a pregnant woman should bear responsibility for the consequences of engaging in sexual behavior is set aside in cases of rape. (Wh...

In Poland, abortion is generally prohibited but the law does allow for them in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. That does not mean that it is easy to have an abortion under an approved exception. In 2008, in Poland, a 14-year-old rape victim encountered tremendous trouble terminating her pregnancy. She was turned away from two hospitals due to pro-life pressure on doctors and administrators, and was even separated from her mother and placed in a shelter by police at one point: I n accordance with the law, she got a certificate from the public prosecutor confirming that her pregnancy was as a result of unlawful sexual intercourse. The girl, named only as "P" went to two different hospitals with her mother in her hometown of Lublin in south-east Poland to try and obtain an abortion. At one, a Roman Catholic priest attempted to convince her to have the child. Hospital management then issued a press release saying they would not perform the...

Pro-choice journalist Amy Sullivan, reviewing Richard Mourdock's statements about rape and abortion law , sees nothing new and wonders about the pro-choice outrage. She does not agree with Mourdock. Instead, "I was just shocked why anyone was shocked." Sullivan, writing in The New Republic  (she also gave an interview to NPR), essentially argues that what Mourdock said has always been a central part of pro-life thinking: God creates life and, if a life exists, then it is not our place to question the circumstances under which it is brought into being.  Therefore, while rape is evil, a life that is conceived of rape is still fully human, intended by God, valued by God, and entitled to life.  What makes Mourdock novel, maybe, is not that he opposes a rape exception, but that he spelled out the reason why clearly: Lots of Republican politicians oppose rape exceptions. Paul Ryan, for one, opposes abortion in the case of rape. Rarely does anyone bother to offer an e...

Question: How many candidates for office can make incendiary remarks about abortion in a single election season? Answer: One more than we expected, apparently. From The Hill : Republican Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday night that pregnancy caused by rape can be "something God intended to happen."    "I struggled with it myself a long time but I came to realize that life is a gift from God, that I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something that God intended to happen," Mourdock said during a debate with Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.).   Mourdock attempted to clarify later: "God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick," he said. Even if one accepts this modification, Mourdock's statement is contemptible. What is Mourdock saying? ...