Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion Rights Not Synonymous With Women's Health ^ | June 28, 2013 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 06/28/2013 4:42:08 AM PDT by Kaslin

When your grandmother gets some bad news, do you tell her: "Well, at least you have your abortion rights"?

Why not? Maybe it's because whatever you think of abortion, the right to have one is not synonymous with a woman's health.

But don't tell that to the liberal group Think Progress. On Twitter, it recently teased some shocking news: "Why 2013 is shaping up to be the worst year for woman's [sic] health in modern history."

When I followed to the linked story, there was nothing about a spike in cervical or breast cancer rates. Nothing about occupational safety for female workers and no mention of female life expectancy either. Instead, the story was about how the ACLU says anti-abortion laws are on the rise across the country.

Of course, this sort of thing is all over the place. Under the headline "Losing the Global Fight for Women's Health," Luisita Lopez Torregrosa, the "Female Factor" columnist for the international edition of the New York Times, writes of the allegedly horrific threat to women's health posed by restrictive abortion laws in places like Africa, Asia and Latin America. She makes no mention of the estimated 160 million women "missing" in Asia alone who were killed in gender-selective abortions.

Even the most ardent pro-life activist readily concedes that there are instances when an abortion is in the interest of the mother's health. But it is bizarre to suggest that women's health and abortion rights are interchangeable. The biggest killer of women is heart disease, followed by cancer, then stroke. I couldn't find "lack of a timely abortion" on the CDC list.

And yet, President Obama -- and nearly every other abortion-rights supporter -- blithely accuses Republicans of wanting to make women's "health care choices" for them.

"You've got a state legislature up here that sometimes acts like it knows better than women when it comes to women's own health care decisions," the president said at a rally in New Hampshire during the last campaign. "You know, my opponent's got the same approach."

How odd from the eponymous father of Obamacare, which will mandate that women (and men) pay for insurance coverage they don't need. It will cause many women (and men) to lose their existing health care plans. It will empower bureaucrats to decide what treatments for women (and men) the government will reimburse and which it won't. Under Obamacare, women who smoke or are overweight can be charged 30 percent to 50 percent more for their health insurance.

These features are defensible from a liberal or statist point of view, but not if you actually believe that women have a special and unique right to make "health care decisions" for themselves wholly unfettered by the government.

Which raises one irony to all this. By any objective measure, liberals are far more eager to use the government to make health care decisions for women, because liberals want to make health care decisions for all Americans -- slightly more than half of whom are female. It's Michelle Obama and Michael Bloomberg -- not Michele Bachmann and Mitch McConnell -- who want to tell women what they should eat and drink and how much they should exercise.

Conservatives want to leave it to women to make their own choices: about what to eat, whether to smoke, how fast they can drive, whether they can own a gun, etc. Many conservatives would also like to see women live long enough for the chance to make those decisions, rather than be snuffed out in utero.

Of course, this argument will be wholly unpersuasive to the folks shouting the loudest about "women's health decisions." Which raises an even greater irony. The basic conservative or pro-life view is that abortion is different than other health care decisions because there's a harmed party other than the mother. This fact, not sexism or traditionalism or theology, is what trumps the general conservative preference for individual freedom. You don't have an unfettered right to harm someone else.

But once you get beyond abortion, conservative public policies treat women like autonomous human beings capable of making their own choices -- about health care or anything else. It's the abortion-rights extremists who boil down the vast range of issues and choices raised by the term "women's health" to a single issue: sexual reproduction, as if women were nothing more than breeders. And yet conservatives are the ones who're called sexists.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: abortion; health; healthcare; prochoice; prolife; rights; usgovernment; womenshealth; womensrights

1 posted on 06/28/2013 4:42:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I wish they would overturn Roe vs Wade and leave it up to the states. That is why I am glad about smaller federal government in regards to gay marriage. Leave it to the states. The founders would be very happy with smaller government. The last three decades we have put too much federal government in our lives. DOMA being overturned and leave it to the states is good because now we will NEVER have 50 states with gay marriage like we do with abortion.

2 posted on 06/28/2013 4:56:51 AM PDT by napscoordinator (Santorum-Bachmann 2016 for the future of the Country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’m still trying to figure out how an abortion improves a woman’s health. Even a hardcore lefty goes into a sputtering rage when asked that question.

3 posted on 06/28/2013 5:07:24 AM PDT by NRA1995 (I'd rather be a living "gun culture" member than a dead anti-gun candy-ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Why could we not say protection of DNA of humans is a sacred right under the constitution.

If a person is on machines to live; they dont breath on their own, need blood transfusion from another, have feeding tube giving nourishment. DNA ties us all together as people.
4 posted on 06/28/2013 5:25:13 AM PDT by Baseballguy (If we knew what we know now in Oct would we do anything different?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The whole "pro-choice", "get the government out women's healthcare decisions" thing is just a ruse. The real agenda behind abortion is "get natural consequences out of liberals' sex lives," except when it's plain old racist eugenics: "them d*mn dirty [minority group] have too many babies!"

Libs are good at finding snappy slogans and catchphrases to conceal the diabolical evil in their hearts.

5 posted on 06/28/2013 5:29:37 AM PDT by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Campion
It's the abortion-rights extremists who boil down the vast range of issues and choices raised by the term "women's health" to a single issue: sexual reproduction, as if women were nothing more than breeders.

You have it right, and Jonah has it wrong. It's all about making women non-reproductive, reducing normal sexual relations to the level of homosexual sodomy.

6 posted on 06/28/2013 5:41:00 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I want shrimp tacos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

The headline is correct.

It is a medical fact, though one the pro abort AMA could do a whole lot better at explaining to people, that pregnancy is the normal and healthy state of the uterus. It is its function.

The disease these people try but fail to treat is self indulgence and addiction, because they fail to see the true condition they want to treat.

Natural law prevails, and they know that abortion is not the answer. Their remedy to facing this is anger and hostility.

But pregnancy is not a disease. The whole thing can and used to be managed at home.

Hospital delivery is the norm in case of emergency, but labor and delivery is done by the child bearer, no one else.

Pregnancy, labor and delivery are normal processes, not a disease.

7 posted on 06/28/2013 6:10:24 AM PDT by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stanne

Yes, the headline is correct.

8 posted on 06/28/2013 6:20:19 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I want shrimp tacos.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Libs are good at finding snappy slogans and catchphrases to conceal the diabolical evil in their hearts.

A great bumpersticker!!! I’d change it a bit and say, “Are you good at finding...” since we all need to take a second look at the way we live day to day.

9 posted on 06/28/2013 6:25:30 AM PDT by YouGoTexasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’ve always thought that the use of the term “health-care decisions” to mean abortion is part of a deliberate effort to ration all health care. Just as the term “women’s rights” to mean abortion is deliberately used to limit rights.

**Are you serious about wanting that tumor removed and getting chemo? Why? You have the right to abortion, what other health care could you possibly want or need? Why are you complaining about government controlling every aspect of your life? You’re free, you can have as many abortions as you want!**

10 posted on 06/28/2013 6:11:25 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson