The Times also looks at a post-Roe world, should it be overturned:
Even if the court restricts or eliminates the right to an abortion, the often-raised specter of a return to back-alley abortions is not likely to be realized, said Dr. Beverly Winikoff, president of Gynuity Health Services, a nonprofit group that supports access to abortion. “The conditions that existed before 1973 were much different than what they are in 2005,” she said. “We have better antibiotics now and better surgical treatments.”
But no change is bigger than the advent of an inexpensive drug called misoprostol, which the federal Food and Drug Administration approved for treatment of ulcers in 1988, but which has been used in millions of self-administered abortions worldwide. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, freeing states to ban abortion, this common prescription drug, often known by the brand name Cytotec, could emerge as a cheap, relatively safe alternative to the practices that proliferated before Roe.
“We won’t go back to the days of coat hangers and knitting needles,” said Dr. Jerry Edwards, an abortion provider in Little Rock, Ark. “Rich women will fly to California; poor women will use Cytotec.”
Because it was never intended for use in abortions, it has not been widely tested for safety and effectiveness…
Dr. Jain said researchers still need to learn more about what happens when the drug doesn’t work. Currently, if women fail to terminate a pregnancy using RU-486 and misoprostol, they still have a surgical abortion. But if abortion were illegal, many of these women might carry to term. “Data suggest it causes birth defects, including facial paralysis and limb defects,” Dr. Jain said. “It’s hard to quantify, but yes, there probably is a risk.”
And widespread use of misoprostol could have another unintended consequence, said Mitchell Creinin, director of family planning at the University of Pittsburgh, who has run clinical trials on the drug. In Brazil, if women have problems with the drug, they go to the hospital to be treated for miscarriage. If women in the United States start using misoprostol for abortions, Dr. Creinin said, “someone going through a miscarriage is going to be looked at suspiciously, like, ‘Did you do something?’ ”
Dr. Creinin added that “compared to when abortion was illegal before Roe, misoprostol is still safer.” But as with any illegal drug, there is a period of elevated risk before users discover the proper dosages and protocols. If abortion became illegal, he said, “If I were a woman, I’d rather go to Brazil than Mississippi, because at least there they’ve learned how to do it.”
Read the whole thing.
M.A.
This assumes that the crazy people won’t try to ban abortion, or Cytotec, or the rest of it. The reason liberals want the courts to continue upholding the right to abortion is that there are so many batshit crazy legislators at the state and federal level. And as the Schiavo fiasco proved, not even widespread public approval of something will stop the crazy people from trying to legislate otherwise. And it won’t be a state-by-state thing either, because the crazy people want nothing less than a national validation of their psychotic belief that a human fetus is a full-fledged human being (but that, say, an Iraqi soldier is not).
Maybe a national ban wouldn’t happen. And maybe it would. The right of a woman not to be punished for having sex, and to stop her body from being used as an incubator against her will, is too important to be risked on “maybe.”
ELINOR DICKEY
Why exactly is this belief “psychotic”?
TallDave
No coathangers? I think the real blow here is to Ted Kennedy’s speechwriters.
Seriously, I think it’s unlikely Roe will be overturned in any meaningful way. Even it was overturned, most likely you’d never be more than a few hours’ drive from an abortion.
What we will see, I think, is some rights assigned to third-trimester fetuses. Right now, they arguably have less rights than a family pet. The idea that exit from the mother’s womb suddenly confers full personhood on what moments ago was a total nonperson is disturbingly arbitrary, even capricious.
That said, I think it’s easy to make a case that a first-timester fetus lacks personhood and women should have full access to abortion during that time.
demimondian
It assumes that the actual reversal of _Roe_ wouldn’t lead to an attempt to explicitly enshrine a definition of human into the Constitution. (No, it doesn’t belong there, at least in my opinion.) In the event that _Roe_ is reversed, I give you 80-20 odds that one is introduced, and 50-50 odds that it passes the states within five years.
Paradoxically, the anti-abortion movement has been as protected from public accountability by the court as the right to abortion itself. Because the court put the right to an abortion outside of the political sphere, it’s absolutely free to a politician to “oppose abortion”, since he or she knows that his actions have no power, anyway. As long as the Supreme Courts has the real final say, opposition to abortion will be a meaningless pose for most politicians to take.
Remember what happened when it looked like Justices would overturn _Roe_ in _Casey_. During June of 89, a lot of Republicans reported having “serious discussions with their wives” (or daughters, or nieces, or whatever).
demimondian
Nonsense. _Roe_ explicitly excludes fetuses of more than twenty-four weeks gestational age. Up until that point, the fetus is completely unable to feel, see, or sustain itself outside the womb, because it has none of the fibers that travel back and forth between the cortex and the deeper brain structures.
Under the _Roe_ guidelines, a fetus acquires rights at twenty-four weeks, even though it’s only beginning to have the brain structures necessary. It makes perfect sense neurobiologically, but no sense whatsoever intuitively.
TallDave
demimondian,
No, it’s not nonsense. Partial-birth abortions are still taking place in the third trimester.
TallDave
Paradoxically, the anti-abortion movement has been as protected from public accountability
Now that is nonsense.
ELINOR DICKEY
It is only a matter of time until Roe is overturned. The pro-life movement is akin in many ways to the abolitionist movement of the 1840s and 50s. Clearly, abortion is immoral. The more one learns about the lives of fetuses, the more one is inclined to view them as full-fledged human beings. I fully expect that abortion will be made illegal, except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk, in our lifetimes. The law will be a federal law, just as there are federal laws against many types of murder. For it is a type of murder.
StupidityRules
TallDave wrote:
And the people of New Orleans were also only a few hours’ drive away from safety from Katrina. Yet there was a group that stayed in New Orleans. They had some reason for it. What was it? I think there was a lot of talking about this…
Geoduck
For many poor women who find themselves pregnant, “a few hours’ drive” means that its as far away as the moon. The anti-abortion crowd doesn’t have to officially kill RvW, although its death would speed up the process; they just have to make it prohibitively difficult for anyone but wealthy and well-connected women to get to an abortionist.
jobiuspublius
I’ve never heard that interesting statement. Please explain.
Is this knowledge the fruit of ID?
jobiuspublius
That’s right. 24 weeks, 24 hours, what’s the differance?
TallDave
For many poor women who find themselves pregnant, “a few hours’ drive” means that its as far away as the moon.
Oh please, how many people are so poor they cant afford a few hours drive? That is just beyond ridiculous. I was as poor as anyone when I was 18 and I managed to drive all the way to the West Coast and back. And I didn’t even have any compelling reason, I just thought it would be fun.
ELINOR DICKEY
Jobiuspublius, the abolitionists opposed slavery on the grounds that slaves were human beings. Eventually, the pubic accepted this and slavery was abolished. The same will happned with with fetuses.
Let’s just hope it doesn’t take a civil war this time.
StupidityRules
Elinor Dickey, a civil war being fought over abortion, that’s as probable as a civil war being fought over gay rights.
Cyrus
Whenever I hear this argument, I’m compelled to point out that the argument only works if you assume that black people are identical to fetuses in important ways. Essentially, people making it are saying blacks don’t have functioning brains.
However, a sarcastic barb isn’t an argument, and I know the people making that comparison don’t mean what I said at all, and if I’ve just hijacked this thread into some more Bennett-bashing then I apologize in advance. Seriously though, the debate gets sidetracked easily, due to excesses and stupidity on both sides. But for a lot of people on the anti-abortion side, the important thing is erring on the side of life – if a fetus at week X might be a person, a human being, then we have to act like it is. Human life begins at the earliest possible point. And if they’re honest and consistent about that, I totally respect it. (If not, fuck them. But that’s another story.)
But in case you didn’t know, Elinor, people of good faith can disagree on that. And they don’t want other peoples’ philosophical belief imposed on them via the government. And that’s another reason you can’t honestly make analogies between Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade: with slavery, the government actively got involved and took a side against rights, whereas in this case it’s neutral. It’s up to the woman/family/whatever to decide. If the government ever required abortions, or promoted them or gave incentives for them, only then would slavery be comparable to abortion.
Acres
Has anyone every bothered to count if a majority in Congress is anti-abortion? If Roe is overturned, some Congressman will introduce a national ban the next day. My guess is that it would pass.
KC
It’ll be interesting to see what happens if and when the Supreme Court overturns Roe and legislation is introduced in Congress to make abortion completely illegal. I wonder how many women are going to be upset when something is wrong with their pregnancy, yet terminating it is not an option? We simply assume that any future antiabortion legislation would give exeptions for the lives of mothers or in cases of rape. However, during my fundamentalist years, I read books and saw videos that basically pushed the line God always turned things around for the better, that there was never an excuse to abort because God looked out for Christians.
Krista
Don’t bet any proverbial farms. There is a rather large and vocal contingent out there who think that abortion should be illegal in all cases – rape, incest, or the mother’s health notwithstanding.
For a lot of poor women, it’s not solely a matter of money, but a matter of mobility. If you are already barely making enough to make ends meet and feed the kids that you DO have, you probably don’t have the resources or family support to be able to have someone watch your kids while you drive a few hours each way to prevent having the baby that you genuinely cannot afford. I think for many women, it’s an agonizing choice to have to make — let’s not minimize what they go through.
Honestly, I’d give a whole hell of a lot more respect to the pro-life movement if they screamed just as loudly about how women should have access to affordable, effective contraception.
whatsleft
Let’s not forget about the WAITING period – it’s not like a woman can just hop in her car, drive to “another state”, hop on the table, have the abortion and hop back in her car to drive merrily home. Just ask women in Mississippi.
And, Ms. Dickey, it is not at ALL clear that “abortion is immoral”. IMO forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term regardless of circumstances IS immoral. AND barbaric.
SeesThroughIt
Well spoken. The abortion/racism congruency is a new (and very stupid) one, though.
I also find it sad and funny that so many militant anti-choicers think the mere presence of legalized abortion is tantamount to mandatory abortion. It’s called “choice” for a reason, imbeciles. If you don’t like the choice of having an abortion, then don’t have one. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp?
Krista
And I think that a very big fallacy/myth is that pro-choice = pro-abortion. I can only speak for myself, but I think it must be horrible to have an abortion. I’m sure that it’s heart-wrenching, and I wish no woman would ever need to be in the position to consider one. But I will be damned if I presume to tell another woman what to do with her life and her body.
If people were sensible, then ALL women would have easy access to reliable and inexpensive birth control, and morning-after pills (if needed). That way, a hell of a lot less women would be in a position to HAVE to choose — shouldn’t that be the goal, people?
ELINOR DICKEY
You all sound a lot like the slave owners of the 1850s to me.
I don’t think this stops at fetuses either. I think that one day eating meat will be viewed the way we now view having slaves. You can laugh and I’m sure you will. The same way people laughed at the abolitionists with their claims that black people were full-fledged human beings.
demimondian
There’s one difference: the slaves were human beings. First and second trimester fetuses are not. They are parasites with 46 chromosomes, and nothing more. Their host owes them nothing, as they are unable to be creditors. If she chooses to cut one off, then a non-entity no longer exists.
Mark
“I think that one day eating meat will be viewed the way we now view having slaves.” – ELINOR DICKEY
Hear, hear. There are plenty of good arguements against eating meat. Almost all arguements in favor of it boil down to “meat tastes good” or “it’s traditional to eat meat.”
Sorry if this post distracts from the abortion theme, but I don’t have any strong opinions about that.
glennk
The whole abortion issue is just a smoke screen the religious right hides behind. The real goal is to control women’s and men’s sex lives completely. After Roe they’ll want Griswold over turned and contraception banned for men and women. Then they’ll want laws banning any sexual practices they dislike set in stone again. Gays better hide again because they’ll be targets as well. The anti-abortion crowd has a totalitarian mentality and Abortion is only a small part of their agenda.
the friendly grizzly
Show of hands: how many anti-abortion absolutists out there will sign on to a national registry to adopt the unwanted? The ones the mother cannot afford? The ones diagnosed with some horrible affliction (Taye Sachs comes to mind) that wil result in a short life of agony and high medical bills?
Anybody? Show of hands?
I thought so.
Mike
“demimondian Says:
You all sound a lot like the slave owners of the 1850s to me.
There’s one difference: the slaves were human beings. First and second trimester fetuses are not. They are parasites with 46 chromosomes, and nothing more. Their host owes them nothing, as they are unable to be creditors. If she chooses to cut one off, then a non-entity no longer exists.”
Yes this is exactly what my wife was saying before both our boys were born. “These are just parasites growing inside of me, nothing more.”
SeesThroughIt
That is exactly it. Exactly it. And yet anti-choicers always overlook this truth, perhaps intentionally.
demimondian
Why then you’re very lucky — your wife knew exactly what they were, and nevertheless chose to carry them to their third trimester. I have three wonderful sons — even if they are downstairs bickering right now — and I’m very lucky, too.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to do the disciplinarian part of being lucky. Lucky it’s a school night…I can send them off to bathe or shower.
StupidityRules
What I’m wondering is how many blogs Elinor Dickey checks every day for abortion topics…
M. Scott Eiland
Well spoken. The abortion/racism congruency is a new (and very stupid) one, though.
Actually, one of the arguments posed in the brief filed in early 1973 asking the Roe Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling compared Roe ruling that a fetus is not a human being as the moral equivalent of Chief Justice Roger Taney’s famous statement in his opinion in the notorious Dred Scott case that blacks had no political or civil legal rights that whites were obliged to respect. So–regardless of the merits of the argument–it certainly isn’t a “new” argument.
Beej
KC is quite right. The rabid anti-abortionists will not want to make exceptions for rape, incest, or the mental and physical health of the mother. Google a few anti-abortion websites and it becomes very clear that there is a substantial contingent out there for whom the only “moral” choice is no abortion at all. Period.
On the other wing, there is also a substantial contingent which wants no restrictions on abortion at all, anytime, at any age. Yet poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of the public falls somewhere in between the two. Isn’t it about time that those in the middle take the argument away from the wingnuts? Aren’t you as sick as I am with hearing from only the far left and right fringe? They have co-opted this issue, and if the Court ever does strike down Roe v. Wade, the rest of us are likely to be stuck with one absolute version or the other, because they seem to be the only ones with comprehensive political action plans.
Frankly, I’m tired of listening to both sides, and would love to hear some reasoned debate on this issue.
Mike
“demimondian Says:
I have three wonderful sons—even if they are downstairs bickering right now—and I’m very lucky, too.”
Sounds like your boys are the ones that are lucky.
Somebody decided they weren’t just parasites and to get rid of them.
Lee
I’ve read in other places that one of the big fears of the Republicans is that RvW will be overturned and that a national ban on abortions is mentioned. While the country is about evenly split on abortions in general, a majority do not want it completely outlawed. The Republicans are forced down this path, you could see Democrats making HUGE gains at all levels of government in the backlash.
Shygetz
C’mon, fetuses are not parasites. They don’t fit any definition of parasites, so calling them that just demonstates ignorance. Fetuses are closer to being symbiotes than parasites, but the best title for them is fetus.
And it seems to me that Roe v. Wade struck a pretty tenable middle ground, protecting the right to abortion for only the first two trimesters. But notice that you don’t see a lot of pro-choicers going around saying that Roe v Wade must be abolished so we can have abortions at will. It is the anti-choice people that insist that the sensible middle ground be eliminated and we have an abortion-free nation. Until the sensible middle-grounders start telling politicians that they will face a penalty at the polls for taking any extreme position on abortion, the motivated fringe will dominate the issue.
Lee
Might want to check your definition of parasite.
Pretty close it seems.
Krista
But that’s what nobody seems to be willing to admit. There will always be abortions. Always. As long as people have sex, there will be unintended consequences, such as pregnancy. What most of the sensible pro-choice people are trying to do is to drastically reduce the number of unintended pregnancies that occur in the first place, via contraception.
It just frustrates me to no end that so many pro-life/anti-choice proponents aren’t supportive of this — if they’re so damned determined that nobody abort an unwanted pregnancy, then for chrissakes, work with the pro-choice people to help prevent the unwanted pregnancies in the first place! There IS a common ground here, and a hell of a lot could be accomplished if people were willing to work on that common ground.
Shygetz
First of all, the fetus is the sole method for the organism to reproduce, which is absolutely necessary for life. It provides a benefit that is absolutely necessary for the survival of the species and the projection of genetic material. Also, it is capable during its life cycle of living and reproducing independently, without the need for a host. Perhaps I was wrong to say that it doesn’t fit any definition of parasite; it’s hard to control for incorrect definitions. It does not fit the proper scientific definition of parasite, as it serves a beneficial function and lives and reproduces outside of the host for the majority of its life span.
tzs
Heh. And then what happens when we discover that there’s a medication out there that would allow women to carry deformed fetuses to term that would otherwise have been spontaneously aborted? Are we going to insist that all women take such medication daily?
Welcome back to thalidomide and flipper babies, everyone! (I’ve heard that’s what it actually does.)
Lee
I did not say that a human is ALWAYS a parasite (although it would seem that some could). Just that during the first 3 months of gestation, that it seems to qualify as a parasite.
“…while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.”
Only mentions the host, not the host’s species.
SeesThroughIt
I sure as hell am. And I’m not just talking about RvW.
Shygetz
Lee–Always be careful when getting scientific definitions from popular sources.
A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)
There are several other reasons why classification of fetus as parasite is wrong (the host has evolved mechanisms specifically to protect and nurture the fetus, as opposed to the parasite, there is no invasion event, the fetus is immune-privileged, etc.)
h0mi
Why “parasite”? Why not infection?
carpeicthus
Let’s not let polarization make us stupid.
A) As pointed out above, the mode of reproduction is, ipso facto not parasitic. If you could get rid of all the lampreys, the fish they attach to would be pretty happy. Get rid of ALL the fetuses, though, and … well, I guess the fish would be happy again, but we wouldn’t be around to see it.
B) C’mon TallDave, millions of people would not be a few hours drive away from a legal abortion. Nearly any state that would make abortion illegal would make crossing state lines to get an abortion illegal as well, probably in the same bill.