How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Final Entry

Overall, this book intensified my belief that the pro-choice movement has had a positive impact on society as whole while also guaranteeing women the right to their own bodies. Nonetheless, Page's consistently strong and intelligent argument are occasionally marred by her tendency to ignore the nuances of the pro-life movement. It seems that, at times, a more fitting title of the book would have been How the Pro-Life Movement Destroyed America-- Page sometimes seems a little too intent on cruelly bashing her opposition rather than showing why her own position is correct. On more than one occasion, Page allows the reader to believe that every pro-life activist is a devout right-winger who is a strong subscriber to a fundamentalist religion. Clearly this is not true, and by giving the reader the illusion that this fallacy is fact, Page makes her job a bit too easy.

My reservations about her style of argumentation aside, she offers astute and original points that are rarely considered in the arena of abortion. These considerations include the effect abortion has on poverty on both the global and domestic scales, the eradication of abortion leading to dangerous self-abuse, and the effect the opportunity for abortion has had on marriage satisfaction. Above all else, Cristina Page makes sure to reiterate that outlawing abortion does not fulfill pro-life activists' supposed ultimate goal: to decrease the number of abortions.

How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Entry #5

In the closing chapter of the book, entitled "A World Without Roe" Page gives the reader a glimpse into some of the ramifications of a world without the right to abortion. She writes, "The day after Roe is overturned, the right to abortion will be threatened, if not quickly made illegal, in no fewer than twenty-one states" (145). To underscore the massive effect outlawing abortion would have on the nation's women, Page says, "In 2000, approximately 400,000 women from these states has abortions" (146). This particular statistic really resonated with me. When Page had previously brought up abortion as a legitimate means of population control, I was not sure how large of an effect abortion really had on the overall population of a country. However, this statistic showed me how profound the change could be if abortion becomes banned. Several pages later, Page brings up the issue of women who choose to abort the fetus because of risks to the fetus's health. An example that Page gives is the condition anencephaly, in which the fetus develops without a forebrain or cerebellum. Because this horrible birth defect would obviously lead to a severely sub-par and stressful quality of life for both the mother and child, most mother who are told that their fetus has anencephaly choose to terminate the pregnancy. Without Roe, that would be an impossibility.

Furthermore, Page elaborates more on the argument that in the absence of legal abortion, women do not completely abandon the idea but instead choose other, more dangerous methods of aborting the fetus. To illustrate this point, Page tells the the story of a pre-Roe woman who found herself in an unwanted pregnancy. Certain that she could not have the child, she attempted methods of aborting the fetus that included drinking large amounts of Everclear alcohol, squatting in scalding water, and when those methods failed-- beating her abdomen with a meat pulverizer. In this last chapter, Page paints a bleak picture of what the world may look like in the absence of legal abortion: dangerous, unethical, and irresponsible.

How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Entry #4

I was particularly impressed by the discussion Page into which page now enters, which she calls “pro-lifers abroad.” She brings up points that extend beyond the scope of abortion in the United States and similarly privileged nations. She presents her argument on a global stage, showing how the issues of birth control and abortion are not purely moral issues, but economic and cultural ones as well. She opens this section of the book with a powerful statement: “In reality, one of the most pro-life things to do is to give people the means to plan their pregnancies” (122). The simplicity of this statement struck me. If one can put aside the nuances of the abortion debate, it becomes clear that both sides simply desire children to be given the opportunity to live good and healthy lives. I realized that the sides are more alike than I’m sure either of them would like to believe. Also, this statement helped Page’s argument—grounds it in a sense—by reminding the reader that the pro-choice movement is not aimed at haphazardly terminating pregnancy after pregnancy for women who do not and will not ever desire children (in fact, Page mentioned a statistic earlier in the book that declared nearly 61% of all women seeking abortions are already mothers). Instead, its focus can, and should, be painted much sunnier. By putting a pro-life spin on it, Page underscores how the pro-choice movement simply seeks to provide women with the option of being able to have children when they are willing and ready to give the child the best life possible.

Page continues on, speaking of countries where abortion is either unavailable or inaccessible to many and the negative economic impact it has had on the nation. To reinforce this point, Page includes a quote from economist Jeffrey Sachs’ book The Poverty Trap. He says, “One reason for the poverty trap is the demographic trap. When impoverished families have large numbers of children, the families cannot afford to invest in each child…Rapid population growth also puts enormous stresses on farm sizes and environmental resources, thereby exacerbating poverty” (123). Not only does Sachs’ comment show how inapplicable the pro-life argument is to women in third world countries, but it also suggests what might be the fate of any nation that outlaws abortion, An argument frequently used by pro-lifers is that abortion is not the only option for a woman who does not desire a child; adoption is always an alternative. If abortion were to be outlawed, the nation would be facing a potential crisis in population growth, in effect leading to inflation of the poverty crisis. As harsh as it may seem, abortion is a form of population control and this facet of abortion must be carefully considered by its adversaries. 

How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Entry #1

For my outside reading book, I chose to read How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Freedom, Politics, and the War on Sex by Cristina Page. Although I identify as being a supporter of the pro-choice movement, I have been somewhat disappointed by Page's representation of the opposing pro-life movement. Since I am only about sixty pages into the book, I understand that she may continue on to explore more facets of the pro-life argument, but at this point it appears that she has obviously chosen to only share the more archaeic, extreme, and religious views that some pro-lifers hold. The topic of my book convienently coincides with what we are currently discussing in class, so I know that every she is writing in the book is not true. For example, Page writes, "The pro-life movement may, through repetition, hope to convince us that contraception is abortion. Where are the facts? Is there really no difference between abortion and contraception?" (21). After reading articles and watching films in class that discuss viewpoints of the pro-life movement, I know the idea that contraceptives are a form of abortion is a view held by mostly radical pro-life activists. For example, one of the films had interviews with employees at a crisis pregnancy center, a place for women to go who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy and would like to be educated on their options. At these centers, run by less forceful and radical pro-life advocates, the women are educated on forms of birth control as a means to avoid having another unplanned pregnancy. If anti-contraceptive idea was held by all of those who object to abortion, their argument would not have much power. How are they to realistically say that women should not be able to terminate a pregnancy if they also object to all methods aimed at protecting against pregnancy?

Despite her partial misrepresentation of the pro-life movement, Page does make an interesting argument in the second chapter of the book, titled "Love (and Life) American Style." After citing statistics taken in the mid-1950s along with the same statistics taken from the late 1970s- when birth control became legal and available to unmarried individuals- it became apparent that the couples from the 1970s overwhelmingly reported more happiness in their marriage than the couples from the 1950s. Although it is impossible to solely attribute this to the legalization of abortion and birth control, Page brings up a unique argument. She writes, "Part of the reason for unhappiness in fifties marriages was that many couples didn't really want to be married in the first place. They were trapped into marriage by unintended pregnancy. With no sex ed, no birth control, no legal abortion..." I had never heard the point brought up before, and it was refreshing to hear a new argument on a more of a larger, holistic scale.

How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Entry #3

Delving beneath merely abortion itself, at this point in the book Page discusses how the pro-life movement’s attitude toward condom use further hinders their cause. She writes, “For pro-lifers, condom use, like contraception, is anathema. Abstinence is the acceptable form of safe sex. To advance this goal, they’re willing to trounce good science, or make up their own” (84). While she supports many of the claims she makes in this section with plausible research results and evidence, she nonetheless seems to make big assumptions about those who do not support abortion. She touts them as being “religious fundamentalists” who distort all evidence and essentially have no case. While I agree with Page’s basic point that condom use is an effective means to prevent pregnancy and should not be considered a form of abortion, in my opinion she greatly hurts her argument by painting her opposition as unilateral, uneducated religious fanatics.

In this chapter, “The Condom Hoax,” Page offers some very interesting information on some of the worldwide implications of the pro-life movement. For example, she discusses how the Vatican, who she says is “another believer in the condom cover-up,” attempted to halt efforts of condom distribution in African countries ravaged by AIDS, under the premise that it offended pro-life ideals (87). Clearly, an institution as influential as the Vatican spewing anti-contraception ideas will lead, or has already led, to the death of many. I found this argument particularly compelling because Page is not directly discussing the flaws of being against abortion, but rather the illogical ideals held by those who do not support realistic means of pregnancy prevention—the root of the entire abortion debate. It is in sections, sections such as these where she brings a new dimension to the abortion argument, when I believe Page makes up for her often-obnoxious treatment of those who are pro-life. 

How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America: Entry #2

At this point in the book, Page begins to outline what is wrong with the very root of the pro-life movement. However, she first brings up the point that past bans on abortion have not resulted in actually curbing abortion rates. Instead, the abortions were performed illegally. She writes, "To begin with, criminalizing abortion may be a sacred pro-life goal. But in practice, bans have failed to curb the rates of abortions. Many countries that have outlawed abortion have higher abortion rates than countries where abortion is legal"(57-58). I found this evidence to be very interesting. I know the argument of banning abortions leading to more unsafe, "coat hanger" abortions has been used time and again by pro-choice advocates in defense of keeping abortion legal. I think the evidence that Page presents adds another dimension to this argument by showing that not only could outlawing abortion logically lead to an increase in dangerous abortions, but also simply an increase in abortions overall. With this point, Page made me realize how counterproductive some pro-life ideals truly are.

Page continues on to unearth the root of the abortion debate: both sides' approach to sex and sex education. While I understand that some of Page's assertions may be spun to best support her argument and therefore are not a precise representation of the reality of the issue, her words are generally based in fact and are generally truthful. For example, Page gives the impression that all pro-lifers are devoutly religious and believe in abstinence-only programs. While I am sure this is true for a significant portion of pro-life advocates, I myself know of many people who are against abortion yet are not particularly religious or believe in only educating young people by teaching abstinence only. Page points out the major flaws in teaching children and teenagers that abstinence is the only way to prevent unplanned pregnancies. She does this when she says, "Abstinence-only programs offer the worst of both worlds: kids are not convinced about chastity, yet are completely uninformed about protection, which the programs refuse to teach" (67-68). Once again, Page reveals how counterproductive some pro-life ideals are. How are teenagers-- and Page offers a statistic that reveals half of all 15 to 19 year olds are sexually active-- expected to avoid unintended pregnancies, and therefore the dilemma of a potential abortion, if they are not sufficiently educated on various ways to prevent pregnancy? To me, it seems like it would benefit pro-lifers, if their real aim is to eradicate abortion, to embrace the concept of birth control.

A New Kind of Women's Rights

After reading both the pro-life and pro-choice websites, it seems that the pro-choice movement has better arguments than its pro-life counterpart. The arguments presented by the NARAL website are rooted in reality and practicality rather than personal, moral convictions and emotionally charged opinions. The NARAL website presents the information in a "problem- solution" format: They present the issues that are on the table regarding abortion, birth control, sex education, etc. and then continue to show how their cause combats these problems. Furthermore, none of their arguments infringe on the rights of others. They never make any claims such as "all teen pregnancies should be terminated" or "women must take birth control." All of their options are just that-- they are options. Not obligations that everyone must follow. They recognize that not all women feel that abortion is right and therefore advocate for the availability of birth control and abortion for those who find the option appealing. On the National Right to Life website they, unsuccessfully in my opinion, use emotions to try and sway people. When they describe abortion, they go into intense detail about exactly how the fetus is terminated, clearly trying to change people's opinions by inspiring sympathy for the fetus as well as fear surrounding the procedure of abortion. On their "Get the Facts" page, they describe abortion as a decision that will inspire, "a lifetime of potential physical and mental health problems." Although the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not one to be taken lightly, the website does seem to overdramatize the act of abortion. Overall, the pro-choice movement seems to be winning the battle. They present themselves in a less emotional and more pragmatic way than many pro-life advocates. Also, the pro-choice movement in no way hurts those who do not support it. If abortion does not appeal to a woman, she is under no obligation to choose it. The flexibility and accommodating nature of this side of the argument is where it truly surpasses the pro-life movement. 
As a 17 year old who considers herself to be a strong supporter of the pro-choice campaign, I still believe that it is necessary that a parent is notified if his or her daughter is a minor and considering receiving an abortion. I think, to a degree, an abortion must be treated like any other medical procedure, with a parent signature needed for the process to be completed. Even though I think it is a woman's right to choose, the rights of minors are restricted and I think it is only fair that the restrictions apply across the board, including abortion. 
However, the issue of consent is slightly different in the case of notifying the father. Since a child is just as much the mother's as it is the father's, I think that the father should definitely be notified before the abortion takes place because he has the right to know if his child's life is being terminated. Even so, the father of the child has no legal control over the mother (if the mother is a minor or not) and ultimately has no right to control what the mother does to her body. Therefore, I think the father should be notified, but consent in unnecessary. 
I was pleasantly surprised by the Illinois abortion laws. Even though I disagree with some of them such as the spousal consent law and the TRAP law, I thought most of the laws were very reasonable. I also agreed with a few of the laws that fell under the "anti-choice" category, such as the law that prevents taxpayers from paying for abortion. I think this law is very justified because it is unfair to make Illinois taxpayers pay for a procedure that, while very significant in a woman's life, is largely based on personal choice. Furthermore, I think it would detrimental to the pro-choice movement as a whole if it was forcing those who do no believe in abortion to fund abortion.