Abortion post! A privacy argument, you might not have heard.

I know, it has been so long. First, the good news, the Supreme Court refused to review Arizona’s 20-week abortion ban. So it stands as unconstitutional. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we’re all safe, what it mean this one is good. The Ninth Circuit’s decision said the measure was unconstitutional, and an extreme measure. Of course, other abortion cases are coming: Wednesday, the Court will hear augments in McCullen v. Coakley, on the constitutionality of a Massachusetts reproductive health-care clinic buffer zone law.

However, I really wanted to write about a post I saw last week on Role/Reboot entitled, “I got an abortion and didn’t tell the guy: Did I do the right thing?” by anonymous. The author describes her situation and how she came to the conclusion. Specifically, she knew she couldn’t have a child, and assumed her partner would have been opposed to abortion. Now, she wonders if she did the right thing, not on the level of what is right for her, but instead what is right ethically. It is a personal story, and the read really feels for the author, and I highly recommend reading it.

That said, yes, to answer the author’s question, she did the right thing because it was the right medical procedure for her. See what I did there? In the text, the author doesn’t really talk about how it is a medical procedure. I think that is best way to begin, and then we can get into the other ethics…if they exist at all.

First, the author had a medical procedure to maintain her quality of life. Any other medical procedure, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. For example, if a person had a benign tumor removed to maintain his/her quality of life, we won’t be having this conversation. It wouldn’t be something they would have to discuss with a partner. If there was a discussion it would be a courtesy. Now, I’m not saying people shouldn’t discuss medical procedures with their partners, but if the partner isn’t on the hook financially then *shoulder shrug*.

The author however, appears to have some misgivings about her decision to have an abortion without telling her partner. I have to infer the full reasoning being guilt and the idea the people have a right to their genetic material via privacy. The first, throughout the post, the author spends time trying to convince the reader the abortion was the right decision. After all she and her partner have a casual relationship. Also, women are judged harshly for their decisions to exercise their rights to make medical decisions for themselves. So the expectation that she would have to convince her readers is there, as well as the assumption that her readers wouldn’t be very favorable if she exhibited no remorse at all. After all, aren’t we all supposed to feel bad? The answer to that is no. Many women obtain abortions with no guilt or remorse because it was the appropriate medical decision for that individual.

The second issue is the issue of privacy. Of course, this isn’t a privacy issue because he voluntarily gave his genetic material without a condom to his partner. So there is no expectation of privacy, and the outcome, birth or abortion, he can’t claim he was uninvolved. Now, I know that sounds harsh, right? What about the men who don’t want to have babies, but their partners’ do? Well, that sucks, and ideally we’d all have relationships where communication was open and clear. That said, if you discard your genetic material then it can be used, at least according to the police. This is one of those times when men (usually white heterosexual men) complain to me that women can trap them with children sounds ridiculous to me. You’ve made a decision there were other options: condom, vasectomy, pull out method, etc. These have varying rates of success of course, but I’m just saying. But men aren’t biologically tied to their offspring the way women are so there isn’t really a comparable situation. Of course, this is complicated because of the financial responsibility that the fathers’ have…of course to equate the financial responsibility between both parents when including medical costs over time is a bit ridiculous.

However, let’s look at financial responsibilities we might have issues with, but the government gives zero fucks. Given the weather last week, I witnessed several car accidents that resulted in property damage to other person’s property outside of the driver’s. So if car one hits car two because of black ice because the city salted the roads, but the temperatures were so low the moisture immediately froze, who is responsibility for the damages to car two? Well, car one because you’re supposed to be in control of your car at all times regardless of road conditions. So I can’t really break out a tiny violin for people who want to get out of financial responsibility for a child.

So again, just to return to the beginning, the author of that post did the right thing personally, the right thing legally, and the right thing ethically.

DC Residents 1: Representative Franks 0

Because legislating the reproductive rights of women in his own state wasn't enough, Representative Trent Franks (Az.) proposed a 20-week abortion ban in the District. He then barred DC's pro-choice female delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton from speaking out against the measure. You know, because he's a tool.

DC residents then decided to bring all municipal complaints to Franks, and they've taken to calling him "Mayor." Seriously, rats to potholes to metro issues, DC residents have descended on him instead of DC's government.

This appears to be a joint effort between the Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington DC and a group DC Vote, which wants to secure representation for DC in Congress. Thus far about 50 DC residents have taken to Representative Franks with suggestions on how to make the city a better place.

Franks has yet to admit how ridiculous it is that a man from Arizona is trying to legislate reproductive rights of women in the District. Franks claims it isn't about Arizona, DC, or women, instead, "the pain of the fetus."

District residents 1: Representative Franks 0

Am I pregnant? Maybe in Arizona

I read about this last week and decided there was no possible way this would pass, but I was wrong. Sad face. Tuesday afternoon, Arizona lawmakers passed three anti-abortion bills including one bill that declared pregnancies actually start two weeks before conception. In case there was any doubt this is a Republican controlled House of Representatives.

The bills:

• Prohibits abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy;
• Protects doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about the pregnancy that could cause a women to seek an abortion; and
• A bill to mandate how school curriculum address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.

All the bills were passed the Senate and are headed to Governor Jan Brewer (show us your papers woman). The 18th week bill defines when pregnancy begins, and it gives Arizona the earliest definition of late-term abortion in the country. Most states have a 20 week definition. 

This bill defines gestational age as "calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman." So pregnancy would begin up to two weeks prior to conception. This stems from a doctors inability to determine the exact date of conception, so they use the last menstrual period to gauge the duration of pregnancy.

Let's be clear, they are reducing access to abortions. 

One of the bills that passed is called "wrongful birth, wrongful life." I kind of love this bill's title; it protects doctors against lawsuits when they don't provide information about the fetus' health when it could lead to abortion. The parents can't sue on the child's behalf after birth either. Digest that for a minute. 

The last bill pushes for schools to push for birth and adoption as the acceptable outcomes for unwanted pregnancies. Brewer hasn't commented on the bills yet, but she has a long time commitment to the pro-life cause. 

So yet again unborn babies trump women in the hierarchy of what/who have their rights protected.

Ok, so I've never really knew where I stood on a man's involvement in the abortion process...

I mean I want to involve them. Theoretically, any dude who knocked me up would be progressive enough to have the conversation about abortion without the expectation that I'd have to do what he says.  That being said, I'm not even sure I'd tell him, I mean if I got pregnant tomorrow, I know I can't support a baby or any of that. I also know I'm not a healthy person, so this isn't even a good incubation system.  I'm also not in a relationship. Who wants to make that call, "Hey, I know we hooked up once, but hey I'm preggers. I'm going to have an abortion. Have an opinion?" Why even have that conversation?

However, Arizona Republican Trent Franks wants that conversation.  They passed a bill out of committee called PreNDA, which addresses the problem of sex and race-selective abortion, which doesn't really exist.  But you know Republicans, constantly addressing problems that don't exist.  This law isn't really about protecting the unborn, but rather making sure men have control over women's bodies on a local level opposed to the state and federal level we are looking at in other places around the nation.

Jezebel likens it to a Men's Rights Manifesto, and they're not wrong:

(2) CIVIL ACTION BY RELATIVES- The father of an unborn child who is the subject of an abortion performed or attempted in violation of subsection (a), or a maternal grandparent of the unborn child if the pregnant woman is an unemancipated minor, may in a civil action against any person who engaged in the violation, obtain appropriate relief, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.(3) APPROPRIATE RELIEF- Appropriate relief in a civil action under this subsection includes—(A) objectively verifiable money damages for all injuries, psychological and physical, including loss of companionship and support, occasioned by the violation of this section; and(B) punitive damages.(4) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF-(A) IN GENERAL- A qualified plaintiff may in a civil action obtain injunctive relief to prevent an abortion provider from performing or attempting further abortions in violation of this section.(B) DEFINITION- In this paragraph the term `qualified plaintiff' means—(i) a woman upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted in violation of this section;(ii) any person who is the spouse or parent of a woman upon whom an abortion is performed in violation of this section; or(iii) the Attorney General.

So, partners or the parents of an underage woman could prevent an abortion and force a woman to remain pregnant by charging her with seeking an abortion based on race or sex without any basis in reality. The longer this discussion of whether the woman is trying to abort based on race or sex the more expensive the procedure becomes.  So if the judge doesn't think the woman is aborting because she hates girls or is racist, the woman could be priced out of an abortion or god forbid be in the third-trimester.  Additionally, if a woman obtains an abortion anyway without the court's ruling, she can be sued.  Yes, sued. By the grandparents or partner for depriving them of a child.  

So, to summarize: men are passing laws to allow a man to sue a woman for refusing to carry their child to term, or a woman's parents would be able to file an injunction to keep their teenage daughter pregnant (even an emancipated one). All of this under the guise of "civil rights." So my body, not my choice? Everyone else gets an opinion, but me. This is really crazy.