The Nation: Term Limits: Our National Obsession With Late-Term Abortion

[marmar]

Term Limits: Our National Obsession With Late-Term Abortion
comment
By Jessica Arons

July 14, 2008



Once again, a politician has gotten tripped up talking about abortion. Senator Barack Obama's recent comments on late-term abortion have him defending charges from some progressives that he's moving right in order to appeal to swing voters, while fighting off attempts from conservatives to paint him as the "abortion candidate."

Of course, it's no coincidence that politicians are constantly asked about late-term abortion. When, if ever, do we talk about first-trimester abortion, which accounts for almost 90 percent of all abortions in this country? When do we get to talk about much more common reproductive health care needs--like prenatal care, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections? What about breast and cervical cancer?

The answer is "rarely," and there's a reason why. In the 1990s, anti-abortion rights activists identified an extremely effective strategy when they crafted their campaign against what they called " partial-birth abortion." By describing it as if it were being performed on fully developed, viable fetuses, they connected abortion to infanticide in people's minds.

They ignored the fact that the procedure (before Congress banned it) was used primarily around the midpoint of pregnancy, well before a fetus could survive outside the womb, and that no type of abortion is performed in this country after a fetus is viable, unless there is a medical reason.

But by conjuring up the specter of infanticide, opponents of abortion rights have been able to exploit the ambivalent feelings most Americans have about abortion. Americans' support for abortion varies tremendously based on the point in time at which it occurs: the farther a pregnancy progresses, the less comfortable most people are with allowing abortion. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/arons

[Peace Patriot]

1. Thanks for the post! The article makes the excellent point, that needs repeating

time and again, that this issue is about WHO CONTROLS WOMEN'S BODIES, and about nothing else.

The most salient thing to know about the rightwing, anti-abortion fanatics is that they DON'T CARE about Iraqi babies or Afghani babies being incinerated by our bombs; they DON'T CARE about the millions of injured, displaced and poverty-stricken children or their parents in countries where Bush and Exxon Mobil lust for the oil; they DON'T CARE if innocent people are executed by the state; they DON'T CARE if prisoners are tortured; they DON'T CARE if children in this country have a decent life; they DON'T CARE about human life at all, and DON'T consider it sacred, except when it comes to controlling women's bodies.

The state should have NOTHING TO SAY about women's individual health care decisions. It is none of the state's business. It is no more the state's right to force you to carry a child to term than it is to force you to marry, or to pick your spouse for you. And it is an extremely perilous path, indeed, for the state to acquire such a power. The state can already confiscate our children and send them off to fight corporate resource wars. What are we going to do when they start genetically engineering soldiers, and slave laborers, and forcing women to be their breeders. It is only a few steps away, once women have lost control over pregnancy decisions.

And I oppose abortion, in general. That is my personal opinion. But I would never dictate my view to another woman, nor demand that the state enforce my view on others.

This article pinpoints the real issue very well. And it exposes, once again, the fallacy of the rightwing "partial birth abortion" campaign, and its ill intent. Those who are pushing this campaign are liars and hypocrites.