Abstract
Rights and rhetoric clash in abortion politics, with Susan Markens, Katrina Kimport, Drew Halfmann, Kimala Price, and Deana A. Rohlinger.
It was most certainly a lark, a political thought experiment, but a poignant one. A shooter at the Colorado Springs office of Planned Parenthood—the largest single provider of reproductive health services, including abortion, in the United States—had just killed a police officer and two civilians and injured nine others. Representative Stacey Newman’s (D-Missouri) responding gambit was to juxtapose the country’s lax gun laws with its strict restrictions on abortion. Her proposed bill, which will not be heard nor passed, would subject gun purchasers to the same regulations placed on those seeking an abortion in her state.
Among other things, it would mandate that gun buyers wait 72 hours before purchase, the same waiting period those who require an abortion must wait in Missouri—a state with only one active abortion clinic. Buyers would need written permission from a doctor testifying to their basic sanity. They would watch a cautionary video about fatal firearm injuries and make a mandatory visit to an emergency trauma center where they would see the visceral impact of gun violence. Lastly, buyers would meet with those who have lost family members and with civic leaders who have performed funerals for victims. The Colorado Springs shooter, it’s important to add, had called himself a “warrior for babies.”
The fledgling bill crystallizes a contradiction at the heart of the conservative movement: heavy-handed, interventionist government for some (namely, women) and laissez-faire autonomy for others (specifically, gun owners). This contradiction pivots on a full-throated defense of White, masculine privilege. Thus the outlandish statements made by Republican politicians in recent years that mix startling ignorance with willful disparagement of women’s bodies and minds.
A sample: Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri) declared that in cases of “legitimate rape,” a woman’s body would block an unwanted pregnancy, meaning there is no need for an allowance for rape and incest victims to access abortions. (The scarcely imaginable implication is that in cases of rape or incest where the victim is impregnated, she is a willing accomplice). Presidential candidate Ben Carson cited “the many stories of people who have led very useful lives who were the result of rape or incest” and said he “would not be in favor of killing a baby because the baby came about in that way.” Former Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, said of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding: “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues.”
This flamboyant rhetoric is accompanied by a serious political strategy to end abortion. In 2015, states passed no less than 57 restrictions on women’s right to choose. Central to these efforts is the assumption that women should not be trusted to control their own bodies and that the rights of the unborn trump those of adult women. In this respect, the Tea Party wave pouring into statehouses since 2011 is less conservative than patriarchal. And patriarchy is a kind of political undead: no matter how many gains feminists and allies make, it reemerges like a zombie to feast on the women and families that are its lifeblood.
When it comes to abortion, political rhetoric often mixes startling ignorance with willful disparagement of women’s bodies and minds.
In this issue’s Viewpoints, Katrina Kimport surveys the dizzying number of abortion restrictions passed in recent years. Some severely curtail access to abortion while others are openly misogynistic. What they share is a view of women as dubious ditherers incapable of making informed and responsible decisions.
For her part, Susan Markens provides an historical perspective on the permutations of anti-abortion discourse, which today focuses less around the moral status of the fetus and more on the moral duty of women to procreate. Abortion, opponents argue, alienates women from their essential nature as mothers and nurturers.
Drew Halfmann examines public attitudes toward abortion over time, finding that opinion has remained stable, generally in favor of abortion provision with some restrictions. But what has changed is the vigor of the Republican Party, its donors, and grassroots supporters. Together, they push for changes that radically outpace any corresponding shift in public opinion.
Kimala Price considers the strangely racialized language of the anti-abortion movement. In some cases, abortion opponents claim that the clamor for reproductive rights is part of a conspiracy to reduce the number of Black babies. The lack of accessible, affordable healthcare is patronizingly repackaged into care for would-be victims of a “Black genocide.”
Finally, Deana Rohlinger explores the politically concocted controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and the ongoing efforts to remove its public funding. As the pro-life right has gotten more and more successful at the state and local levels, it’s becoming harder for candidates to prove their conservative bona fides unless they speak loudly, tread heavily, and act sensationally. Democrats and the media have provided lukewarm resistance and shallow coverage, putting up a pitiful fight for the rights of American women.