Amie Newman of RHRealityCheck.org is the latest to bring up one of the latest dividends of the pro-choice “common ground” initiative that tries to find, well, common ground with people who are leery, squishy, or squicked by abortion.
From Feministing:
U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) was removed from the Democrats For Life of America’s advisory board because he supports contraception.
Apparently, DFA was tired of Ryan consistently harping on this crazy idea that the way to prevent unintended pregnancy is by ensuring access to contraception:
“DFLA gave Congressman Ryan ample opportunities to prove he’s committed to protecting life, but he has turned his back on the community at every turn,” said Kristen Day, the Washington, D.C.-based pro-life organization’s executive director.
What does “ample opportunities to prove he’s committed to protecting life” mean to DFLA? It seems clear that “protecting life” is not about preventing unplanned pregnancy and abortion. According to Ryan,ÂÂ
“We’re working in Congress with groups that agree with preventative options while [the DFLA] is getting left behind,” Ryan said. “I can’t figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception. Don’t be mad at me for wanting to solve the problem.”
...
I think [Ryan’s] removal [from the DFLA board] has the potential to shine a very real light on how extremist many of the anti-choice organizations are. In this case, we now have a legislator who says clearly that he is working in Congress with various groups that can agree that access to contraception is critical. This work will continue with Rep. Ryan while DFA and others insist on sacrificing what most Americans want and need in regards to their sexual and reproductive health, pledging allegiance to rhetoric instead.
And just to keep the flying links confusing, here’s a comment I left on a similar post by Jill Filipovic on the same topic at Feministe.
This sort of thing is the biggest dividend of the “common ground” initiative: it drives a huge wedge between the majority of people who just wish there weren’t as many abortions from… the kind of people who want to use abortion to control (heterosexual?) sexual behavior.
And the thing is it’s not just a wedge issue: I don’t know about Rep. Ryan himself but plenty of people like him really are comfortable with increased support for contraception (which includes making it safer, more effective, easier to use, less expensive, more accessible, and more widely available.) And most are willing to let abortions (however uncomfortable it makes them) as long as they think progress is possible in reducing unwanted, unplanned pregnancies in the first place.
Is that sort of pragmatic “common ground” ideal? No. What would be ideal would be unreserved and unconditional support for women’s reproductive self-determination. But in terms of coalition building it’s far, far better to have them on our side than on the anti-choice side. And just making the “common ground” effort, as we see, works two ways. First, it makes us appear sympathetic to waverers. Second, it drags real hard-core anti-choicers like the DFLA, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the U.S. Congress of Bishops into sunlight… where even to erstwhile allies like Rep. Ryan or even, say, shell-shocked-by-conservatism’s Will Saletan, their creepiness is impossible to miss.
So yeah, no way we’ll ever get to common ground with the DFLA. But then we don’t have to. Creating opportunities for them to alienate their nominal supporters is enough. Because, seriously, do you think they’d have kicked Ryan out if someone else hadn’t reached out to him? No.
Three and a half years ago people were telling me no way. But the result that I was looking for back then is slowly percolating into existence.
Megan of Jezebel has a wonderfully tongue-in-cheek post about a seriously wonderful bill before congress: Upstate New York Congresswoman Louise Slaughter’s H.R. 463: The Prevention First Act of 2009
The damnable liberals are seeking to pass a law that requires states give medically accurate information to kids! That acknowledges abstinence! That teaches that men and boys have responsibilities to not pressure women and girls! That encourages parental involvement! That doesn’t promote religion! It’s like they’re trying to destroy the very fabric of our society!
Use this page to email your Congress member about H.R. 463 and this page to email your Senators about Harry Reid’s companion bill, S. 21.
Seriously, read Megan’s whole post, including a rundown of what’s in the bill, here.
My take would be that opponents really do see that as liberals attempting to destroy the very fabric of our society.
When your fabric is woven with the warp of “it is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for women to have (or at least admit to having) sexual desire” and the weft of “it is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for men to be sexually desired” then no matter how hellish the toll in actual human lives it’s simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable to teach otherwise lest that fabric fly apart. Women must either be bribed or forced into sexuality; gay men must be pilloried, sex for women has to be about pregnancy, men must be worthy in order to “earn” sex, parents must only fret about girls and fume about boys, etc., etc.
Never mind that “liberals” want instead to weave a finer, more durable, less costly cloth than coarse plaid of red and white.
Brady Swenson of RHRealityCheck.org nicely summarizes why policies like the Prevention-First Act — intended to help promote the development, distribution, and use of safe (not there yet), effective, reliable, accessible, affordable, and convenient in order to prevent unplanned, unwanted pregnancies — are critical not only to choice and bodily autonomy, and critical not just because it’s a big (wooden) wedge that can be driven between majority fence-sitters and daylight-shunning, blood-drinking anti-contraception/anti-choiceers, but critical for its impact on health, relationship stability, and the economy.
Many Adults Face Unplanned Pregnancies
Iowa newspaper the Quad-City Times features a story on surprisingly common unplanned pregnancies among adults in their 20s and 30s. In Iowa more than half of all births in 2007 were reported as unintended pregnancies. One woman featured in the article successfully planned her first pregnancy when she was 24 but financial turmoil forced her to give up birth control and a second, unplanned, pregnancy took a toll on her marriage:
It’s a reason, incidentally, I don’t believe sex writing has to be in a slump (Or, more accurately, has to be in any more of a slump than the economy at large.) Call me unreasonable but the trick, I think, is to remain relevant to reader’s experience. Right now? For… roughly 60-65% of the sexually expressive audience an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy is as much a credible concern whether it comes about during an elegantly managed and negotiated shibari session or during “it’s Saturday night and the kids are asleep do you wanna” sex between partners both exhausted from working two jobs each.
Amanda [Doh!*] of Sexual Evolution points out an encouraging impending bill before Congress.
On Friday, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) will introduce an Act that would create the first federally funded comprehensive sexuality education. The Responsible Education About Life (or REAL) Act would fund science-based, medically accurate, age appropriate health education in public schools. Considering the fact that $1.4 Billion has been wasted on Abstinence-Only programs with no proven track record, I think it’s about damn time for a change. Don’t you?
Actually I believe Abstinence-Only programs do have a record but the problem is that the outcomes are that
- They do delay the age of first sexual experience but only by a matter of months compared to no sex ed at all
- When they do discontinue abstinence recipients of A-O education are less likely to have protected sex and therefore are more likely to transmit diseases and wind up with unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.
The REAL act instead proposes instead a comprehensive approach that includes articulating the merits of abstinence (which I think is totally fine) but also includes establishing boundaries, discussion and negotiation, and tells people about different forms of contraception, how to use them, and their plusses and minuses.
The REAL Act would fund programs with important characteristics, including:
- Being age-appropriate and medically accurate;
- Not teaching or promoting religion;
- Teaching that abstinence is the only certain way to avoid pregnancy or sexual transmission of diseases;
- Stressing the value of abstinence while not ignoring young people who have had or are having sex;
- Providing accurate information about the health benefits and side effects of all contraceptives and barrier methods as a means to prevent pregnancy;
- Providing information about the health benefits of condoms and other barrier methods as a means to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV;
- Encouraging family communication about sexuality;
- Teaching skills for making responsible decisions about sex, including how to avoid unwanted verbal, physical, and sexual advances and how not to make unwanted verbal, physical, and sexual advances; and
- Teaching that alcohol and drug use can affect the ability to make responsible decisions.
The REAL Act would allocate $206 million a year over five years to allow states to implement comprehensive approaches to sex education in the schools — approaches that include information about both abstinence and also contraception and condoms, from perspectives of both values and public health.
Sounds pretty wonderful to me, a nice plank in the
A B-C D-E F-I J-K L M N-R S T-Z Reference Sites
and Hubman of Hubman's Hangout