Archive for the 'Abortion' Category

Guess who’s up late…

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 8, 2005
in Abortion, GLBTQ and Politics
. 7 Comments

… and hitting F5 (the "refresh") key on his keyboard every few minutes to check election results?  I’m sipping tea, listening to Cake, Dar Williams, Dolly Parton and Jars of Clay on Itunes…  And though things look fairly good so far for us in the Golden State, I’m still fairly anxious — but heartened by results from the East Coast tonight, especially the gay rights victory in Maine.

So much for going to bed early to get up for an early morning run…

UPDATE:  Still up at 12:15, and the results keep looking better and better.  All of the governor’s initiatives are failing, as is the abortion notification initiative.  Turnout seemed better than anticipated.  Most of the outstanding ballots left to be counted are in liberal counties (Alameda, Los Angeles), and soon I will head to bed — cautiously optimistic.  I’ve been on the losing end of so many elections, it seems too good to be true that the left might have swept here in California tonight.

Elections, churches, and the IRS

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 7, 2005
in Abortion, All Saints Pasadena, Christianity, Politics, Teaching and War
. 13 Comments

Well, it’s a November Monday, and an election eve once again.  I’ve already made my endorsements for tomorrow’s California special election here, with a special note about Proposition 73 here.

Once again, here are my recommendations:

A reflective, prayerful "NO" on Proposition 73, the parental notification law.  A strong and vehement "NO" on Props 74, 75, 76 — the first three of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s "reforms."  A more qualified and hesitant "NO" on Prop 77, the redistricting initiative, a strong "NO" on 78 and half-hearted "YES" endorsements on 79 and 80.

The election, for me, hinges on two propositions: 75 and 76.  The first would make it far more difficult for unions (such as my own California Teachers Association) to effectively challenge huge corporate interests in state government.  The second would give the governor inordinate power to slash budgets, and would likely lead to decreased spending on schools.  If Arnold wins either one of these, he and his allies can claim victory, regardless of how anything else on the ballot fares.

Though the polls show that Arnold’s initiatives are in trouble, I’m not comforted.  In my years of following elections, I’ve been on the losing side far more often than the winning one.  Last year, I had high hopes for a Kerry victory, and the memory of that disappointment continues to linger.  I remember that the polls augured good things for the Democrats, and the polls were proved wrong.  I respect the formidable power of the Republican "Get Out the Vote" machine, and with the chance to increase restrictions on abortion on the ballot, I’m confident my conservative Christian friends will have strong reasons to turn out.  Most will probably support Arnold’s propositions.   Though I hope it doesn’t come to pass, I’m  predicting that Arnold will win three out of four tomorrow (74, 75, and 77), and will narrowly lose Prop 76.   But the dreaded prospect of a clean sweep haunts me.

In other election news, the LA Times reports that an anti-war sermon at All Saints Pasadena given just before last November’s election has attracted the attention of the IRS.

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California’s largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church’s former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.

In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991’s Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."

On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that "a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church … " The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

I was in the pews for that sermon, and was critical of Regas’ remarks.   Here’s my own post on the targeted sermon from November 1, 2004 (another election eve).  I wrote that day:

It was as close to a partisan sermon as one could get without jeopardizing one’s tax-exempt status under the IRS code.

Apparently, the IRS disagrees, and thinks George Regas crossed the line.

The annoying thing is, of course, the stunning selectivity of the IRS.  Today’s paper also includes this story:  Abortion Proposition finds its Forum in the Churches.

…at some evangelical Christian churches, including the Rock in Roseville, a suburb of Sacramento, pastors made time for a two-minute DVD featuring teenage actresses promoting support for the measure.

"The essence of Prop. 73 is to protect young girls from abortion and allow parents to be part of that equation," said Senior Pastor Francis Anfuso at the Rock, where the video rolled on twin screens shown to about 900 weekend churchgoers. "There’s a wonderful simplicity to it, and it’s definitely a message we wanted to spread here."

Okay, so it’s permissible for conservative churches to show a DVD urging a "Yes" vote on Proposition 73, but not okay for a progressive church to ask "How would Jesus vote?"

As I wrote last year, I was angered by what Regas said.  I stand by my words then, words which I would direct to activists in churches across the political spectrum:

I’m stunned at the hubris of anyone, left or right, who claims certainty about how Jesus would view our modern day political landscape! I’ve never been comfortable with fundamentalisms of any sort — and what I got yesterday from the pulpit at All Saints was liberal fundamentalism at its most self-righteous.

But though I was annoyed at the former rector of my church, I am equally annoyed at the IRS for what is, apparently, an obviously selective approach to the enforcement of the rules about churches and partisan politics.  Either hold right and left equally accountable, or leave all who preach in His name — be those names Regas or Robertson — free to say what they will.

Responding to Glenn, and the old “choice for men” business

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 1, 2005
in Abortion, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Politics and Sexual ethics and transformation
. 78 Comments

My good buddy Glenn Sacks has an opinion piece in this morning’s Los Angeles Times:  Alito and the Rights of Men.  Glenn defends Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito’s 1991 vote to uphold a law that required Pennsylvania women to notify their husbands before having an abortion, a law that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. 

Planned Parenthood also wasted no time before blasting the nomination, saying that Alito had shown "callous disregard of battered women."

How did Alito do these terrible things?  Apparently his sin is his 1991 vote to uphold a section of a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands if they intended to have an abortion. That law, according to women’s rights groups, would have put women in harm’s way by subjecting them to the wrath of their angry husbands. (When NOW says "husband" or "father," it’s usually preceded by the word "abusive"; the word "wife" is generally modified by "battered.")

I hate to interrupt the ladies while they’re enjoying a good lynching, but Alito’s defense of the Pennsylvania law is quite defensible, despite their hysterical claims. Alito simply acknowledged the principle that husbands and fathers also have a reasonable interest in their unborn children.

I like Glenn, I really do.  I like him even when he calls the claims of feminist organizations "hysterical", a classic misogynistic slander. (Folks, please look up the origin of the word.  Glenn knows perfectly well where the word comes from, or he ought to.)  And "lynching"?  Is Glenn channeling Clarence Thomas?  Even the most irenic of MRAs can’t seem to resist embracing overwrought victim language to describe the plight of men in contemporary America.

In an ideal world, husbands and wives would always make reproductive decisions together.  Heck, in an ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies, and no babies in utero suffering from debilitating fetal ailments.   But until that happy day arrives,(soon, deo volente), I think it’s reasonable to defend the idea that whether married or not, women ought to enjoy sovereignty over their bodies.

As I’ve written before, pregnancy is a burden carried solely by women.  While conception takes two, and parenting ought to involve an equal commitment from both parties who took part in the earlier conception process, it’s hard to argue that men are as involved as women in the period between conception and birth. And where there is an unequal burden, the law does well to honor the wishes of she who, by herself, bears that burden.  One would hope that most married women would feel safe enough to share the news of an unexpected pregnancy with their husbands; one would like to think that many women would be eager for their husbands’ input.  But ultimately, given the radically unequal nature of pregnancy, the law ought to do nothing to interfere with women’s sovereignty between conception and delivery.

As I’ve written before, men do have reproductive choice.  We have the choice as to whether or not to have sex, and whether or not to use a reliable form of protection when having sex.  Though some MRAs seem to believe that lustful women patrol the land at night like medieval succubae, eager to rob men of their semen, rational folks are aware that very, very few women, if any, are  "stealing" the ejaculate of naive and innocent men.  If we aren’t ready for fatherhood, or aren’t willing to countenance our partner’s decision to terminate a pregnancy, the time to act is before we have sex.  I’ll say it again and again and again:  when a man ejaculates inside of a woman, he is taking responsibility for all of the consequences that may arise: abortion, fatherhood, eighteen years of child support.   If he doesn’t like the consequences, he is free to refuse vaginal intercourse with his wife or partner.

The high court rightly decided the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  I say this as one who longs for the day when there are no more abortions!  But until that happy day when abortions are unnecessary and unthinkable, I’ll defend the right of women — and underage girls — to make this difficult decision as they see fit, with or without the knowledge of parents or partners.

The difficult case of Professor Pluss

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on April 5, 2005
in Abortion, Christianity, Feminism, People, Politics and Teaching
. 21 Comments

From my fellow Cliopatriarchs, I learned yesterday about the rather strange case of Jacques Pluss, who has been dismissed from his adjunct teaching job at Fairleigh Dickinson University.  Professor Pluss, it seems, is a member — indeed a leader — in the American Nazi Party.

Pluss, who holds a Ph.D. in my original field, medieval history, was teaching Western Civilization at FDU when he was abruptly dismissed in the middle of the semester.  The official story is that his dismissal had nothing to do with his politics; rather, he had missed six or seven class meetings this semester and was let go due to these excessive absences.  But whatever the reason for his dismissal, an FDU dean made it clear that his politics alone would bar him from ever receiving a future teaching assignment:

It’s not politics, it’s hate mongering,’’ (Dean John) Snyder said. “It’s just hatred directed at the very students he taught. His position would be untenable on the basis of student welfare. It’s our job to see to it that students are treated with respect and security.”

The problem is, as this article from the FDU newspaper makes clear, Pluss was scrupulous about keeping his Nazi politics hidden from his students, many of whom were African-American or Jewish. One student is quoted as saying

…he never once taught propaganda or expressed his views in class. He came off as being liberal in his thinking. An incident arose in class about racism, and he appeared to be very anti-racist.

There’s been some discussion at Cliopatria in the comments below this post. 

I have to say that I am troubled at Pluss’ dismissal.  On the one hand, I find it hard to believe (and frankly an embarrassment) that a University of Chicago Ph.D. could end up as a flak for a Nazi Party. (I won’t link to their sites, but it’s easy to find the various Nazi parties in this country.  They seem to be like Presbyterians, always going into schism.  No further analogy between Presbys and Nazis intended!)  On the other hand, if he really was successful in keeping his extreme views out of the classroom (and the students suggest he was), then I cannot accept the idea that public institutions ought to bar professors from the classroom on the basis of beliefs they hold outside the classroom, however radical and abhorrent those beliefs may be.  In this sense, I’m a firm liberal.

I’m obviously no Nazi.  But I am an evangelical Christian male teaching women’s studies.  In my private life, I’m staunchly anti-abortion.  Though I’m still in my period of self-imposed silence from blogging on the subject, any visitor to my blog will know this — and obviously, many students visit my blog.  But I do everything I can to be scrupulously fair about the issue in my women’s studies classes.  I allude to having worked with folks on both sides of the issue, but I don’t say where I stand today.   It’s vital that my students feel that the material on such a sensitive subject is being presented impartially.

I have been told more than once by pro-choice feminists that it is problematic for me, a straight white Christian pro-life male, to teach the one class in the entire college that focuses heavily on reproductive rights issues!  I insist, over and over again, that my biology ought not to trump my teaching ability.  It is the worst sort of ghettoizing to suggest that only women can teach women’s history, only blacks teach African-American history, and so forth.  At the same time, those of us who are "outsiders" by virtue of race or sex have an obligation to be especially fair-minded and sensitive, particularly to the concerns of our students, most of whom are likely to be members of the particular group under discussion.

Many students find my blog.  If my students find this blog, they will learn about my love for chinchillas, my upcoming wedding, my passion for sports.  They will learn of my various strange spiritual peregrinations.  They will learn of my commitment to consistent-life politics and theology, and will learn of my particular brand of Christian feminism.  They’ll learn about marathoning and Mennonites, the joys of tenure and tattoos.  In other words, they’ll get a fuller picture of who I am than they will in the classroom.  The same thing is true of Professor Pluss’s students; when they visit his Nazi website, they’ll find  out who he "really is".  I’d imagine his students might be offended, and some of his students of color might be particularly horrified.  But what if a young woman, say one who had recently survived an abortion and is enrolled in my class, discovered my site and was offended?  What if she questioned my ability to continue to teach her, given my (somewhat ambivalent) commitment to the pro-life cause?  How is my case different from that of Professor Pluss? (Besides the fact that I have tenure!) Obviously, I think my own gently evangelical politics are a good deal more congenial than his, but that’s a highly subjective conclusion, isn’t it?

If Pluss was fired for his absences, so be it.  But Dean Snyder’s remarks above chill me a bit, and not because I have even the remotest sympathy for Nazi politics.  They chill me because I know that in some sense, he and I are similar in that our public lives outside the classroom call into question our fitness to teach certain courses.  And that troubles me immensely.

Russell Fox on Terri Schiavo and consistent life

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 21, 2005
in Abortion, People and Politics
. 4 Comments

I haven’t blogged Terri Schiavo, largely because I can’t get my own feelings clear on the issue. Fortunately, fellow blogger Russell Arben Fox has done the work for me in a magnificent post today entitled "Frayed Garment."   Russell and I share, at least in many ways, a commitment to the consistent-life ethic — what is often called the "seamless garment" approach to life issues. 

In his post, Russell relies on John Paul II’s Ecclesia in America (1999).  An excerpt that Russell cites is particularly fine:

Nowadays, in America as elsewhere in the world, a model of society appears to be emerging in which the powerful predominate, setting aside and even eliminating the powerless: I am thinking here of unborn children, helpless victims of abortion; the elderly and incurably ill, subjected at times to euthanasia; and the many other people relegated to the margins of society by consumerism and materialism. Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when other bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons….

I’m with His Holiness on that one.  I want you to read all of Russell’s piece on Schiavo, but this bit stood out.  I can’t remember the last time I read something by a blogging colleague that made me say,"Yes, that’s exactly it."  Russell concludes:

Those teen-agers with the red tape over their mouths, silently shouting "Life!" to those who pass by–I would not critique the purity of their intent for a moment. But when the movement which makes use of their intentions is one which separates concern for the unborn from concern for the born, which disaggregates social policy governing feeding tubes from that which governs food stamps, which rushes to engage the federal government to give Terri Schiavo every therapeutic measure, but provides no therapy for those who already lack such…well, perhaps what we have here isn’t wrongheadedness, isn’t crass manipulation, but defect. Something cultish, engaged in a selective and derivative witnessing, rather than something broad and decent. I defer to no one in my horror of abortion, but to make abortion and abortion alone (or euthanasia and euthanasia alone, or even just this case or that case but not all the sundry–and expensive!–cases in between) the measure of one’s seamless garment of life is to wear something frayed and threadbare.

Jeez, that last sentence alone made me sit up at my desk and cheer.

Choice, and Hugo is a cyborg

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 17, 2005
in Abortion, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Sexual ethics and transformation and Vanity
. 19 Comments

Lots of discussion going on about the upcoming Sacks show and my opposition to Choice For Men.  One thing I’ll say for Glenn, he sends my traffic spiking.  Last time I was on his show in January, I went from under 2000 unique hits a day to just about 5000.  In recent weeks, my hits had fallen back into the low 2000s, but today we’re back above the 4K mark.  The only problem is that I fear Typepad will eventually start charging me more for the extra bandwidth.

Amp has completely changed the look of his blog (it looks terrific and loads more easily). He’s also weighed in on the subject of Choice For Men:

Both men and women should have every reproductive choice biologically possible. For men and women both, that means they should have the choice not to f*ck, if they don’t want to. For men and women both, that means they should have access to every kind of birth control. And for women, that should mean access to abortion.

Cutting either men or women off from their biologically possible options is wrong, in my view. But “abortion” just isn’t one of men’s biologically possible options.

To say “well, if an argument’s valid for women, then it should be valid for men as well” is true most of the time - but it’s not true in a discussion of abortion, because men can’t have abortions. Men and women are not, when it comes to this issue, identically situated; and it’s illogical to act as if they are.

(The bold is in the original, the expletive was altered by me.)

Amp and I agree on most things — except, perhaps for abortion.  I am really worried that we won’t be able to get away from the abortion discussion on Sunday’s show.  It really is not what I want to discuss.  I remain strongly pro-life, but I also remain committed to my self-imposed period of silence on the subject.  It’s not cowardice that keeps me quiet — it’s a profound and painful ambivalence rooted in a viscerally powerful connection to all sides of this immensely complex topic.  If forced, I will say that I do oppose abortion, but am unsure as to whether the state ought to ban the procedure in most instances.  I freely admit to vacillating on this.  Though I haven’t written about it, I have been praying for wisdom and discernment on this subject regularly.

Still, I think it is possible to emphasize the basic point that both men and women ought to approach sex with an awareness of its procreative design and possibilities.  I believe that every conceived child is entitled to be born, and that once born, every child is entitled to the physical and financial support of both parents.  I recognize that male and female differences mean that women will, in our current legal environment, get to make decisions after conception and before birth that men will not get to make.  That is not a function of unfairness, unless you consider biology itself unfair.  I’ll save the rest of my argument for Sunday.

If you’re interested, a reader alerts me that the fellas at Stand Your Ground are on my case; she also informs me that the much farther-out types at Mancoat Forum have, shall we say, an even more extreme take.  I rather liked this bit:

This "Hugo" (whom I suspect isn’t human, but is in reality a cyborg from the future who has been sent-back through a Time-Tunnel to trigger the apocalypse) is an interesting character.

Oh, now I am flattered. 

But before I trigger the apocalypse, I need to pick up my dry-cleaning, hit the gym and the trails of the arroyo, and go home to grade papers in front of the TV (watching the NCAA, of course).  And I’ll make dinner, tend to Matilde, and spend time with my fiancee.   The life of a cyborg is deceptively mundane.

Lucky Charms overdose and an answer to John

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 17, 2005
in Abortion, Christianity, Politics, Vanity, Youth and Youth ministry
. 38 Comments

I’m feeling the effects of a sugar hangover on this St. Pat’s Day morning.  Last night at youth group, we played a fun and silly game with the teens.  In honor of today,we divided them into groups and had them unpack boxes of Lucky Charms cereal, separating out each type of colored marshmallow charm into different bowls.  (For the record, there are now nine types of colored sugar bits in Lucky Charms; in my youth, there were only five. I remember when the ads promised "new blue diamonds".)  Of course, after this game was over, we all ate the little charms, which left me with quite a headache.  We also had a splendid limerick contest, which was — to our considerable relief — quite "clean."  It’s nice to have fun and games every once in a while; our conversations in recent weeks have been quite serious, and we needed a break.  Did I need to eat sugary horseshoes and clovers?  No.  But I did, and am living with the consequences this day.

My inbox is full this morning with missives from folks outraged by my position on Choice For Men.  I’m sorry that I won’t be able to reply to most of them, but I did patiently read through every one, including those that use the most extraordinary epithets.  As tempting as it is to share some of the hatefulness that has arrived in my e-mail, I’m going to refrain.

My dear friend John from New Zealand has a long post up this morning about youth groups and conservatism.  He tells the stories of three young fellows he works with, and how his experiences with them helped shape and galvanize his political beliefs.  Though he drops a few rhetorical bombs, it’s a splendid and challenging post, and I recommend it with enthusiasm.

Of course, I’m sympathetic to some of the tenets of social conservatism myself, particularly those that advocate personal restraint and responsibility.  (Naturally, I don’t see those virtues as the exclusive domain of the right.)  But my Christian socialism and my commitment to youth are not uneasy allies.  I’d like to think my politics and my work with teens inform one another.

Like John, I see the pernicious effects of drugs, divorce, and parental narcissism on my teenagers.  When he writes about the value of fathers and two-parent households, I find little with which to disagree.  I’m happy to say that in the instances of divorce he cites, John does not blame women or the feminist movement, but a man’s selfish "pursuit of novelty" (which seems to me to be the chief, but certainly not the only, culprit in my family break-ups.  Women, of course, can fall victim to the dangerous seduction of everlasting novelty as well.)

Here’s where John and I disagree:

I also see another cancer afflicting my kids, one that John leaves out: materialism.  So many of my teens, regardless of background, are obsessed with things.  They talk about clothes, about I-Pods, about cars.  They gleefully make lists of what they want, and speak with almost bitter envy of their peers who have more "stuff."  Many, not all, but far too many, long to be rich in order to have all of their material desires fulfilled.  Though they are reluctant to admit it, far too many connect personal happiness to possessions.  Most are smart enough to recognize the shallowness of that belief, but it’s what has been ingrained in them by the culture.

My Christian socialism is profoundly troubled by the contemporary uncritical conservative acceptance of the virtue of wealth and the pursuit of things.     A economic structure built on ever-increasing consumer spending and the pursuit of the latest and the hippest does tremendous damage to all of us, both those who are able to afford much and those who are not.  I cannot be a true conservative until the organized right is willing to see the damage that materialism wreaks upon our culture, and willing to take policy steps in order to do something about it. I’m tired of hearing the gospel preached on the sexual issues and having it ignored on the economic ones.  (For what it’s worth, I get tired of hearing the opposite preached in liberal churches).  Conservatives rail — and rightly so — about the culture of human disposability; they worry that abortion and euthanasia allow folks to get rid of the vulnerable because they are inconvenient obstacles on the road to one’s own personal happiness.  Fair enough.  But when conservatives turn a blind eye to cultural forces that teach kids to always want "more, more", they fail to realize how the market itself teaches the young to think of possessions — and lives — as disposable.

I’m not a liberal in the classic sense.  Consistent-life ethic Christian socialism has common touchpoints with liberalism, particularly in a profound concern for social justice.  Like organized conservatism, it advocates restraint and care and a sense of the sacred in matters of the body, particularly around sexuality.  But it refuses to see the pursuit of wealth and physical comfort as virtuous, and it sees crass materialism as being at least as damaging to kids as sexual promiscuity.

Choice 4 Men and the Glenn Sacks show

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 16, 2005
in Abortion, Feminism, Having children, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement and Sexual ethics and transformation
. 316 Comments

Glenn’s promo for this Sunday’s show is up. I’m going to be debating the concept of "Choice 4 Men" with Glenn and columnist Amy Alkon.  Here’s the promo:

Nationally syndicated advice columnist Amy Alkon believes that men, like women, should have reproductive rights. Condemning women who get pregnant intentionally and "turn casual sex into cash flow sex," she notes:

"In no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked…Penelope Leach, in her book Children First, poses an essential question: ‘Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?’…the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood."

The "Choice for Men" movement seeks to give unmarried fathers the right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption.

Feminist Gender Studies professor Dr. Hugo Schwyzer, Ph.D calls Choice for Men "profoundly offensive," noting that it "seeks to give men the right to evade responsibility for the children they help to conceive."

I’ve been very clear on this issue, especially in this post during last summer’s Amy Richards controversy.  I said then, and still believe now, the following:

Every man who ejaculates inside a woman, whether or not contraception is used, is signalling his willingness to become a father. If men are not ready and willing to raise a child conceived through an act of sex, they are morally responsible for refraining from sex…

I’m not familiar with Alkon.  I’ve been reading through the material on her site today, and she seems like a fairly standard "libertarian feminist".  I can’t say we’ll disagree on everything, but on this issue, we will.  This will mean that in some very real sense, I may be taking her on from the right, at least in my insistence that the only real choice that a man deserves in this situation is whether or not to have sex in the first place.  After that decision has been made, I am adamant that he, jointly with the woman with whom he briefly partnered — is morally (and financially) responsible for any and all outcomes from that initial decision.  Even if those outcomes last a lifetime.

Whatever your views, please consider calling into the show on Sunday afternoon.

Linkage and such…

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 13, 2004
in Abortion, Blogging, Christianity, Links and Race
. 5 Comments

Over at Alas, A Blog, Ampersand posts some more thoughts in response to this earlier post of mine on abortion. As tempting as it is to respond to nuggets like this one:

By spreading the lie that it’s laws that make abortion possible, Hugo is being deceptive - except the main person he’s deceiving is himself.

…I’m going to honor my recent pledges to stay off the topic for now. I’m not emotionally up to it, honestly.

I was saddened by Trish Wilson’s post this morning, where she’s announcing that she’s considering taking a break from blogging. Here’s an excerpt:

I’m not sure how I feel about blogging at this point. I’m disappointed in the blogosphere. I guess I had fallen for the blogosphere’s image as being an Internet “utopia” and it is certainly far from it. The last incarnation of that dreadful “woman bloggers” debate was another disappointment that was even more disappointing because it was not unexpected. The same old shit comes up every three months. At least I got new readers out of it.

I know that blogging isn’t any different from the rest of the world, but I expected more from it than the usual nonsense you see everywhere else. Sometimes blogging reminds me of Usenet - the same old trolling, snark, and vitriol, too much time spent nuking porn spam, and an atmosphere akin to junior high school popularity contests. Frankly, life’s too short for that. I’m burned out from it all. I don’t even know how many people, if any, really read my blog. Sometimes I feel as if no one reads my blog. I know that’s my bleak mood talking, but I do wonder sometimes. I know I’m not alone. Plenty of other bloggers feel that way. That makes me feel a little better but not much.

I have certainly felt that way, Trish, and sometimes still do. (And I read your blog).

Corianne, though not planning to give up blogging, has also encountered a nasty troll in the blogosphere; she dealt with him here.

Christy has a lullaby.

Camassia experienced Bel Air Presbyterian Church, and… well, read it.

Annie shares a powerful witnessing memory from the front lines on abortion.

Building on Dr. King, Graham shares some of his recent sermon on racial justice.

Astarte has a terrific post on words and political correctness.

And Jay has a particularly powerful post on “bus ministries” and race.

I read lots and lots of blogs, every day. So many times I visit without commenting, wanting to drop an encouraging note, but feeling as if I have too little to say. I’m going to try and be better about that.

Men’s history and one big fat mea culpa about abortion

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 8, 2004
in Abortion, Feminism and Men and Masculinity
. 20 Comments

From the introduction to Michael Kimmel’s “Manhood in America” (temporarily out of print, darn it, but still in xeroxed form), used in my “Men and Masculinity” class:

The history of American manhood is many histories at once…. (it is) a history of fears, frustration, and failure. At the grandest social level and the most intimate realms of personal life, for individuals and institutions, American men have been haunted by fears that they are not powerful, strong, rich, or successful enough. And many of our actions, on both the public and the private stages, have been efforts to ward off these demons, to silence these fears… there have been certain patterns to these actions: American men try to control themselves; they project their fear on to others, and when feeling too pressured, they attempt an escape. (Bold emphasis is mine).

We’ll be working with the theme of that paragraph today in class — and all semester long.

I like Kimmel’s analysis. Really, I think it’s as good a summation of what bedevils American men as any I’ve read. (To be fair, there is much Kimmel says in praise of American manhood).

I just posted below that I wasn’t going to say anything more about abortion. Well, let me amend that slightly. Just as I was typing out the quotation from Kimmel above, I began to think about how this male focus on control and projection plays a part in the abortion wars. It is almost axiomatic among contemporary feminists that the pro-life movement is interested in more than saving the unborn; many argue that the real agenda of most anti-abortion activists is to control women. Specifically, many feminists have argued that men are profoundly threatened by women’s reproductive autonomy, an autonomy that is historically quite recent. Thus, argue mainstream pro-choice feminists, the pro-life movement reflects the male desire to restore things to an earlier order, when women were of necessity more vulnerable and dependent upon men. And if women are vulnerable and dependent, they are thus less threatening to the angst-ridden, status-obsessed males of which Kimmel writes.

I’ve spent a lot of time this past week on this blog and elsewhere saying “NO! I’m not like that! A desire to outlaw abortion is not the same as wishing to restore women to dependency! I want women to be independent and autonomous actors — just not at the price of what I regard as innocent life.” Basically, that’s what I’ve been saying. And I’ve been getting frustrated because not many folks are buying it.

Perhaps it’s because I haven’t explained things well, but I don’t think that’s at the root of it. When I take a step back and quiet my own emotions, I look at my own syllabus for my course on masculinity and remind myself of what this country’s history of misogyny and chauvinism has really been. Men (especially white men like me) have, over the course of some four centuries, taken their fears and anxieties about themselves and projected them on to others — especially men of color, homosexuals, and all women. We have used reproductive policy not so much to protect tiny babies as to to limit the options for their mothers. (Look at any of the traditional arguments against legalizing contraception, used as late as the 1960s, and that becomes evident). Given that history — a history that I know intellectually like the back of my hand — how can I expect my voice as a man to be heard separate from that history?

I want to protect the unborn because I believe the unborn are as worthy of dignity and protection as any other human being. I oppose abortion for the same reasons that I cling to pacifism (even when it’s hard, like after Beslan) and oppose the death penalty and euthanasia. By using phrases like “consistent life” and “seamless garment”, I’ve tried to link my opposition to abortion to a panoply of other issues. But I realize today that I’m a fool if I think that I can expect my sisters with whom I am engaged in debate to see abortion as “just another issue of non-violence.”

In this climate, a man who argues against abortion rights — as I do — does so in the context of centuries of history. I cannot reasonably expect folks to differentiate between my desire to protect the unborn and a legacy of controlling women’s lives in the names of those very same unborn. I wish that it were otherwise. I wish that my arguments could be heard separate from my sex, separate from my upbringing, separate from my identity. But I’m just good enough of a historian to know better.

I remain committed to ending abortion. Small monthly contributions will continue to flow from my checking account to Feminists for Life. But as I reread Michael Kimmel this morning — and reread some of the thoughtful, impassioned remarks here and at other blogs in response to my posts about abortion — I’ve realized that now is not the time for the likes of me to speak on this issue. There are other battles to be fought.

In writing this week and last on abortion, I made the mistake of forgetting the very history I teach every semester. I am sorry to anyone I have offended by doing so, and I am humbled.

I’m also hungry, and ready for my morning snack.

Okay, now I’ve had my morning snack. And I wonder, given that I teach men’s history and women’s history, why did I come to the conclusion I did today as a result of reading Michael Kimmel, and not a woman? Or am I thinking too much?

Taking a break from one topic

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 8, 2004
in Abortion and Blogging
. 4 Comments

Though I welcome comments here about abortion (and may comment elsewhere on the subject), I’m going to take a break from posting on the topic for a while. The first reason is the obvious one: writing about abortion is emotionally exhausting for me in a way that no other topic can be. The second reason is that I’m still uncertain what purpose it serves to debate other folks in cyberspace. The dialogue that’s taken place here, at Mouse Words, and at Alas, a Blog (among other places) has set a high standard for civility. It’s nice that we can all get along, even when the positions that others take exasperate and bewilder us. But at some point, maintaining cheerful civility becomes very tiring. One option is to resort to hostility, and that’s an option I’m utterly unwilling to take. The other is to take a break, and that’s the direction I’m inclined to head at this time.

Lord knows, there are plenty of other things to write about.

Criminalizing abortion?

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 7, 2004
in Abortion, Aggression and violence and Christianity
. 15 Comments

In the post immediately below, I responded to some aspects of Ampersand’s post about pro-lifers and feminism. I didn’t get a chance to get to what may have been the most difficult part of his post, the aspect with which I have wrestled a great deal: can a pro-life feminist advocate the criminalization of abortion?

Ampersand writes:

Hugo asks, why not embrace both the supply and demand-side methods of reducing abortion, rather than making a choice? Hugo’s position only makes sense if he believes that banning abortion would harm nobody to any significant degree. And if you accept that premise, then Hugo is correct: It makes perfect sense to ban abortion if the ban harms no one and might do some good by preventing some abortions (even if the number of abortions prevented is low).

But how could anyone think that banning abortion does no harm?

It’s clear that banning abortion would do harm. Some women (and their doctors) will have to be thrown in prison to enforce such a law. Some women (most likely poor women) will be hurt or killed by botched illegal abortions. Some working- and middle-class women will be forced to spend their life savings getting a safe, legal abortion in another country. And some women will be forced to give birth against their will, giving up control of their fertility (not just whether or not to have children, but also how many children to have and when in their mother’s life plans they’ll be born) and often being forced to give up life dreams and career plans. All women will have less freedom than before.

There is a substantial price to pay for banning abortion. And even if we accept -for the sake of argument - that reducing abortion is a noble and important goal, all the evidence indicates that banning abortion is a very ineffective way of reducing abortion.

I think this is a bit of a false choice. I can only support a ban if it hurts no one? All restrictions on abortion hurt someone; some women are no doubt discomfited by the lack of availability of third-trimester terminations.

First of all, where is the evidence that if abortion is made illegal, women will be hurt or killed by botched abortions? I’m not saying it won’t happen, but since Ampersand is a stickler for evidence, I’m curious as to where the statistics are to back up these various claims. Arguments from America’s past are not in and of themselves sufficient predictors of the future, as much as it pains me as an historian to say that! What about the possibility that a dramatic reduction in access to abortion will result in more women keeping their babies? Especially if — as leftist pro-lifers insist — anti -abortion legislation be accompanied by considerable aid to help single (and married) women either afford to keep their children or give them up for adoption.

But the best reason to support a ban is the conviction that abortion is the destruction of innocent, vulnerable human life. The fact that murders occur despite the fact that homicide is illegal is a poor argument for legalizing homicide. Closer to the point, the fact that men have always paid women to have sex with them is a poor argument for legalizing prostitution. Laws exist to protect the vulnerable regardless of the difficulty of enforcing them.

We are at an impasse here, albeit one we can discuss politely. If one believes — as almost all pro-lifers do — that life begins at conception, and the life of a child at one week or three months or three years is equally valuable, than one would be hard-pressed to justify not working to overturn the law that made the killing of any of those children possible. If one believes that an embryo in these early stages is just a mass of cells that is merely a potential life, than restrictions on abortion are an absurd and unwarranted intrusion into a woman’s privacy. But I’m at a loss as to how it is that I can be expected to continue to believe that abortion is murder while still insisting that it remain legal. As a strategy, pro-choicers will be better off trying to convince folks like me that an embryo is not deserving of personhood. And that will be an uphill battle, just as it is for me when I engage in dialogue with folks on the other side of the issue.

I don’t think that the primary focus of a pro-life strategy should be the criminalization of abortion. I’m interested in changing hearts and minds and behaviors. I’m interested in voluntary rather than forced conversions. And frankly, criminalizing abortion outside the context of a massive cultural change in attitudes towards life isn’t going to work to end the practice. I don’t write or lobby legislators to enact more abortion restrictions, though I support such restrictions. I’d rather give money to campaigns to change hearts and minds, campaigns like those of Feminists for Life. Yes, that means I will make common cause with Christian right-wingers with whom I share a faith and a common language, but whose troglodytic politics annoy the heck out of me on other issues. So too, I will make common cause with secular left-wing feminists on issues ranging from domestic violence to pay equity to war to Title IX to welfare.

I think I’ve infuriated everyone now. Yikes.

Of course, organizations like Consistent Life get “all the issues right”. But those of us who support the “seamless garment” philosophy of life are so numerically insignificant as to be irrelevant — unless we make common cause with both left and right on an issue-by-issue basis.

This is a hard issue for me to write about. As it does for many people, writing about abortion brings up intense emotion. As I’ve written before, I spent years on the pro-choice side, giving my time and energy to pro-choice causes. I have enormous respect for the goodness and sincerity of folks on the other side of this issue. If I had not “come to Christ”, as it were, my views on abortion would surely be where they were a decade ago. But my politics are built on my theology, as inadequate as both no doubt are, not the other way around.

Still more on pro-life feminism: a response

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 7, 2004
in Abortion and Feminism
. 21 Comments

Ampersand at Alas, a Blog posted an interesting challenge to the whole notion of “pro-life feminism” over the weekend. (Make sure to read the comments section as well).

Ours has been a civil exchange, and that tone has been kept up in the comments section. Still, civility only gets us so far — it enables a dialogue to take place, but it doesn’t guarantee that the dialogue will be constructive. On some basic issues, the gulf between our respective positions is too great to bridge. For example, in the comments section beneath his post, Ampersand wrote:

In my view, a fetus for most of the pregnancy (before it develops an effectively functioning cerebral cortex) has no inherant value of its own. It is like any other mindless object.

However, mindless objects do have value when people project that value onto them. So, for instance, a piece of paper with some black ink on it has no inherant value of its own. But if that piece of paper happens to be the original Walt Kelley drawing that my Aunt Gerry gave me, then I find it very precious.

Presumably, you’d say that a piece of paper is a piece of paper, whether it’s the Kelly drawing or some incoherant ink scribbles I made to see if a pen had ink in it. After all, in both cases it consists of pulped, bleached wood with some black in on it. It’s the same in either case, right?

I disagree. We don’t live in an objective universe; we live in a subjective human society, where the value of most objects is the subjective value placed on them by their owners. So I say a fetus has no inherant value of its own; but when I see that a particular fetus is loved and treasured by its eager parents, then I think that particular fetus does have value.

Of course, pro-lifers see value in all fetuses. However, just because you see value in something, it doesn’t follow that you do (or should) have the legal right to control that something’s destiny.

Well, I appreciate Ampersand’s candor. I’m at a loss as to how to respond. I confess (as he might well suspect) I wince when I see what I regard as living human beings compared to pieces of paper! (I’m fairly certain that the comparison was not intended to be offensive). I’m obviously troubled by the notion that the fact that a child is loved makes him or her more valuable. This seems to be parental narcisissm of a high order: My child has no intrinsic worth; rather, it derives its worth from my perception of it. Jeepers.

Of course, pro-choice feminists make a colossal distinction (one hopes) between a pre-born child and a child out of the womb, living independently. Few such folks (again, one hopes) would argue that a child who has been born still derives his or her value from his or her parents’ affections! But like most pro-life folks, I am convinced that life does begin at conception, and it is at the beginning of life that our value and worth begins. (And of course, this is the position of most pro-lifers).

Most of the commenters at Alas, a Blog seem convinced that a pro-lifer (never mind a male pro-lifer) cannot be a feminist in any meaningful sense of the latter term. Alsis38 made a representative remark:

As far as I’m concerned, there is no such thing as a pro-life feminist. You can be a feminist who hates the concept of abortion and would never want one, for sure. But if you are out there trying to cut off women’s access to legal abortion (as the pro-life movement has been doing with great success for the last twenty-odd years), or applauding those who do, you are not a feminist.

Some things, I don’t have very nuanced feelings about, and that’s one of them.

This is a “small tent” vision of feminism indeed! It’s also an ahistorical vision. Feminism in this country, by even the most conservative definition, has at least a 150-year history (we tend to date it to the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848). It’s only in the last 35 years or so that abortion rights have suddenly (and to my mind disastrously) emerged as the sine qua non of feminism in our culture. As Feminists for Life points out over and over again, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton both opposed abortion. (And not merely out of a desire to protect women from bad doctors, but also to preserve the lives of innocent children).

Pro-life feminists are feminists because they support equal rights for women in the political, economic, cultural, social, and sexual spheres of life. (Obviously, I can’t speak for all pro-life feminists; we are a diverse lot indeed). For all of the accomplishments of the last 100 years, we still have a long way to go. Pay equity is STILL (infuriatingly) an issue. The feminization of poverty is a growing, rather than a declining problem. The sexual exploitation of girls and women worldwide through porn and sex trafficking is also a major threat to women’s health and dignity. I am concerned about major issues like these, and minor ones too (like why my college gives benefits to male football players — like subsidized housing — that are unavailable to my female soccer and softball players.) But apparently, no matter how “correct” my stances may be on every other issue, to oppose abortion (or more precisely, to favor legal restrictions on abortion as one tactic in that struggle) is to lose any chance of being considered a feminist.

Look, I know as a man I need considerable humility here. It’s not my body, after all, that carries children. And I won’t lose access to legal abortion for myself. It’s incumbent on male feminists (especially pro-life ones) to be careful to listen to the anguish, the anger, and the fear that surrounds this issue. It’s imperative that we understand just how important the notions of “autonomy” and “choice” are. Most pro-lifers tend to be dismissive of those words, but I’m not. They are meaningful, immensely so. It is with a deep sense of humility that pro-lifer feminists declare that they favor limits on personal autonomy and choice at the moment that these lead to the destruction of human life.

It’s funny. Many of the same folks who think a Catholic can be pro-choice and still take communion DON”T think a feminist can be pro-life. It’s all well and good for other folks to be forced to have big tents, but hey, we feminists have our standards! That saddens me. Look, I teach the history of the reproductive rights movement every semester. (And I’ll bet I know the life story of Margaret Sanger and the text of the Griswold v. Connecticut decision as well as any of my pro-choice colleagues!) When I teach, I don’t betray my pro-life position — that would be crossing a very dangerous line, especially in a classroom likely to be filled with abortion survivors. Indeed, I’ve had pro-life Christian students come to argue with me because from my lectures, they assume I must be pro-choice!

There are other aspects of Ampersand’s post I need to respond to as well. Folks have also raised issues of race and class that ought to be addressed. But it’s Tuesday morning after a holiday weekend, and I’ve got too much to do.

But let me recommend a helpful link for pro-life women’s issues. Check out the back issues of the now-defunct Journal for Feminism and Nonviolence Studies. I recommend this article in particular: Pro-Life Philosophy and Feminism, by Anne Maloney, a philosophy prof at the College of Saint Catherine.

Supply, demand, and the abortion struggles

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 31, 2004
in Abortion and Politics
. 30 Comments

Before anything else, Lynn alerts us this morning that the “pimp and ho” costumes many of us blogged about last week were a hoax. I am embarrassed to have been taken in so easily, but I’m far more relieved.

Barry at Alas, A Blog dropped me a line, asking if I had had a chance to see this post from April. It’s part of a discussion that I’ve only observed from afar, about the tactics of focusing on demand or supply when it comes to reducing abortion. Here’s an excerpt:

I assume that the primary goal of a sincere pro-lifer is not to punish the guilty, but to reduce abortion as much as possible. So I therefore assume that pro-lifers support pro-life policies - and pro-life politicians like George Bush - because they think pro-life policies will reduce abortion. But there are legitimate reasons to doubt that’s true.

First, how likely is it that abortion will ever be banned in the USA? Reagan couldn’t do it. Bush Sr. couldn’t do it. So far, Bush hasn’t been able to. Face it: the country is divided on abortion. The most pro-lifers could possibly accomplish is throwing abortion to state-by-state restrictions; but some states will never ban abortion, so all that will do is force women to cross state lines.

Even if legal abortion could be entirely banned, it’s unclear that this would actually reduce the real number of abortions by a significant degree. Before the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade ruling, American women had somewhere between 200,000 and 1.2 million abortions a year in the U.S.. Although measuring something as hidden as illegal abortions is always difficult, the best pre-Roe scholarly assessment came to a figure of about a million abortions a year…

There’s more there, so please go and read the whole thing. It ends with a rather stretched but interesting case for John Kerry as the pro-life choice for president.

As my students (and regular readers of this blog) know, I’m not big on “either/or” forced choices. I’m very fond of “both/and” ways of seeing the world. Feminists for Life, the one anti-abortion organization to which I contribute money regularly, uses a “both/and” approach to the abortion issue. FFL lobbies for changes in the law to protect human life in utero, while simultaneously working to raise awareness of alternatives to abortion and to change hearts and minds. Frankly, most pro-life organizations address both “supply” and “demand”, and most spend more money on the latter than on the former. (Pregnancy counseling centers that arrange for adoption cost more, long term, than lobbying Congress!)

I agree with Barry — and with President Bush — that the abortion struggle can only be won through a change in hearts and minds. It can’t be won on the legal front alone. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t worthwhile and noble to expend energy and money on curtailing legal access to abortion — I think it is. But it’s even better to devote time and resources to reaching those women most at risk for abortion, preferably before they conceive a child. That can include abstinence education and information on contraception. One does not preclude the other, nor do I see any reason to believe that teaching both together vitiates the message of either.

Unlike some of my more conservative brethren, I think many forms of artificial contraception are excellent weapons in the war on abortion — condoms, for instance. (The Pill, as most folks know, has abortifacient qualities that render it morally problematic for those who believe life begins at conception.) My goal is to end the destruction of the unborn and to protect and enrich and enhance the lives of the already born — and I am ready to embrace any and all tools in that struggle. So, I rejoiced when President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. I also support the distribution of condoms in high schools. (I’m quite aware that there are relatively few folks who hold those two positions together.) I know full well that condoms don’t always work — but they work a hell of a lot better than nothing at all. If the availability of condoms prevents even one abortion, then I say “hallelujah.”

My problem with most of my fellow pro-lifers is that they often see the abortion issue as simply one part of a larger culture war. (Frankly, the same could be said for the pro-choice movement). Too often, knowing where someone stands on reproductive issues is a highly accurate predicter of a host of other views on issues ranging from guns to gays to the war on terrorism. I don’t think that’s at all helpful. This outlook locks us into ideological boxes that make it impossible to admit that the “other side” might have some excellent and useful ideas. Those of us who care equally about all parties involved in the tragedy of abortion — the child in utero, the mother, the father — must be willing to make coalition with anyone and everyone who can help us in the struggle to save the lives of the unborn and save the psyches of those who terminate them.

In the end, I see no reason not to embrace both a “demand” and “supply” strategy in the struggle to end all abortions, both legal and illegal. I am skeptical about the willingness of politicians of any party to fight this fight on all fronts. Ending abortion is not just about changing the make-up of the court, or re-electing President Bush — it’s about reaching our friends and neighbors, one at a time. It’s about reaching out to those most at risk for choosing an abortion, and proposing alternatives ranging from abstinence to artificial contraception to adoption.

Barry has kindly added me to his blogroll, but placed me in the category of those who are “even further right“, relative to others to whom the editors of Alas link. Given my stance on abortion and a few other select cultural issues, I suppose that’s deserved. But as someone who voted for Socialist Equality Party candidate John C. Burton in the California recall last autumn, I’m tickled to be hangin’ with the righties in anyone’s eyes!

Waterparks. And the T-Shirt.

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on July 27, 2004
in Abortion, Clothing and Fashion and Feminism
. 15 Comments

Am home and tired after a day at the water park. What an extraordinary place a water park is. So much water. So much sun. So many diverse people in various states of undress. I went on one particular ride and ended up with a great deal of water up my nose.

Annika and XRLQ have been blogging today about this Planned Parenthood t-shirt (Candace noted it in the comments below.)

The shirt’s logo is simple: “I Had an Abortion.” The language at PPFA’s site describing the shirt:

Planned Parenthood is proud to offer yet another t-shirt in our new social fashion line: “I Had an Abortion” fitted T-shirts are now available. These soft and comfortable fitted tees assert a powerful message in support of women’s rights.

Though my view of the t-shirt is not all that different from Annika’s or XRLQ’s, I’m going to try and take this in a different direction. And, for the record, let me reassert my reasonably solid pro-life bona fides. (I’m a monthly sustaining contributor to Feminists for Life).

It was about 1997 or 1998 when I began to see the most remarkable slogans showing up on the fitted t-shirts of my female students: “Porn Star“. “Juicy.” “Real American Bitch.” “I Just Slept with your Boyfriend” (I’ve seen gay men where these too, but I see ‘em more often on women; I’ve seen other verbs besides “slept” as well.) “Too Hot to Handle“. “You Know you Wanna Touch.” There are probably others (you can mention them in the comments section) but those have lingered in my memory. I associate all this with the banal and infuriating “girl power” movement; largely a creation of advertisers, it sold young women a message of empowerment through shock and sexuality. Adolescents love to upset adults; this adult initially found it difficult to know how to deal with female students whose t-shirts read “You Know you Wanna Touch”. (I do a splendid job of affecting blindness in such situations nowadays.)

What I disliked about these shirts was not so much their brazenness as their rank commercialism. Nothing genuinely radical, edgy, or dangerous is sold at Abercrombie and Fitch or Urban Outfitters (two known sources of said shirts; no doubt, there are others.) Newsflash, kiddies: The fact that it horrifies your parents doesn’t make it any less a product of the very same corporate America in which your parents are investing. What these places sell is the cleverly marketed opportunity to outrage the older generation while simultaneously offering a superficially feminist message. The message is “Only a bold, strong, brave young woman who doesn’t care about conforming to stereotypes would wear a shirt like this. Thus if you wear this shirt, you bear witness to your fiery, indominatable, wild grrl soul.” Please. What you bear witness to, darlin’, is nothing more than your own socially constructed insecurity, and any sensible person over 25 is abundantly aware of that.

I write all this because this all came to mind the moment I saw this Planned Parenthood shirt. On one level, giving PPFA the benefit of the doubt, the shirt makes sense. A truly effective pro-choice strategy involves breaking the link between guilt and shame on one hand and one’s own abortion on the other. Just as the t-shirts I refer to above advertise the wearer’s sexual confidence, so too does this shirt advertise the wearer’s refusal to feel remorse for what, after all, was an important and empowering choice. (Perhaps I shall start to see the “I Just Slept with Your Boyfriend” shirts in the autumn semester, and then the “I Had an Abortion” shirts in the spring. The wearer could thus keep us all updated, and, helpfully, indicate the all-too-frequent consequence of out-of-wedlock sex.) Planned Parenthood is borrowing from the cynical strategies of good corporate citizens like Abercrombie and Fitch. Just as A&F and other t-shirt manufacturers used an image of bold sexual assertiveness to market clothes, so Planned Parenthood is using a message of unrepentant, unremorseful pride in abortion both to market t-shirts and to trivialize the emotional consequences of terminating an unwanted pregnancy. If the stigma of abortion can be removed, than the pro-choice movement can win a major battle.

As I write this, I am imagining every woman in America who ever had an abortion wearing the shirt on the same day. I am sure Planned Parenthood would love that, hoping that it would send a powerful message about the absolute necessity of defending women’s access to that particular procedure. I’d like to go further, and have other t-shirts printed up for my sex: “I got a woman pregnant, and refused to marry her. She had an abortion.” Or: “I told her I’d pull out in time. She just had an abortion.” What grim fun we could have thinking up still more slogans. By the time we had put t-shirts on every man and woman and teen in this country to whom they could apply, we’d have an awful lot of folks dressed in soft and comfortable fitted tees. But knowing who has had an abortion, and who has been responsible for one, doesn’t change the basic truth of what abortion is.

In Las Vegas on Sunday, while leaving our hotel, I saw a pretty girl of about 15 standing with her parents. She had on a brand-new hot pink tight t-shirt. It read “Real American Bad Girl.” She was looking around the way young teenagers will, trying to affect a sophisticated world-weariness while obviously eager to see who was looking at her. Her outfit proclaimed: I’m hot and bold and devil-may-care. Her stance proclaimed: I just want some attention, please look at me, please like me, please tell me I’m okay. I knew better than to believe the words emblazoned across her chest.

When I see girls like that wearing these shirts with overtly sexual messages, I know damn well that the vast majority of them don’t want random sex; they want validation. And when, some day soon, I see a woman on the street with the new Planned Parenthood t-shirt, I will be absolutely certain down to the core of my being that she too, regardless of her age, is looking for validation that her choice was okay. But that validation is not mine to give.

All of these posts about Amy Richards here and elsewhere have humbled me. I’ve been reminded, yet again, of how different this issue of abortion is from all other issues. Nothing else, not even same-sex marriage, inflames passions and exposes divisions like this one. Add in a hotly contended political season like this one, and it becomes difficult not to give into blustering self-righteousness. In 1992, I walked precincts for NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) on behalf of Bill Clinton and Barbara Boxer. The folks I walked with were good, loving, kind people who had thought long and hard about the abortion issue. In more recent years, I’ve met with and walked with folks from a variety of pro-life groups. Though there were many social and religious differences between the two groups, the sincerity and decency of both sides was very, very clear to me. In this week of the Democratic convention, as we come closer and closer to this pivotal election, and as we write about some fairly emotional stuff, I say again, people, let’s be committed to seeing the best in our opponents, even as we hold strong to what we think we know to be right.

End of rant. Matilde is ready for her dust bath.