Special Comment

My Mind, My Body, My Choice: Roe v. Wade turns 35

January 22, 2008 · 5 Comments

roe2.jpg

Today marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the groundbreaking Supreme Court ruling that gave women the right to safe, legal abortions if they chose to have them. I have never had an abortion, I have not yet even been truly pregnant (scares, yes, but all test have come back negative, and knock on wood they’ll continue to do so), but I have always been, and always will be, an ardent supporter of Roe v. Wade, and convinced of the idea that whether or not you believe abortion is wrong, is is both a consitutional and human right for women to choose what to do with their own bodies, and bodies contained therein, and that the government must, then, give us safe options to do as we want without putting our own, legally-protected lives in danger.

As a 23-year-old who is facing probably at least one abortion in her future (there are few people I know who wish to be pregnant less than I do), I could write any number of youthful, naive things about abortion. They would ring hollow, and un-researched. So, instead, I will give you a few examples of why I think it is desperately important that a woman’s right to choose is protected. And I will probably follow those up with some commentary, because this is my blog and I can’t help myself.

First, we must remember that abortion did not suddenly start happening because the Supreme Court made it legal, protected. Women have been performing their own abortions from herbal tinctures and purposeful falls down the stairs for centuries. And don’t forget the back-alley, coathanger abortions. ChoiceMatters.org is a great website with many resources for finding information (both clinically researched and anecdotal) about abortion, how it is done, what its effects are, and how to make a well-informed choice about it. In one of their sections, titled “Lest We Forget,” they share with us stories of what it used to be like to get an abortion:

From: “The Bad Old Days” by Polly Rothstein

Barely able to utter “abortion,” we said, “get rid of it,” and saw no alternative. X called acquaintances for “a name,” any name; qualifications were low priority. One referred us to Dr. Robert Spencer in Ashland, Penn, instructing X to complain of a vaginal discharge. We missed the humor of going from Cambridge to coal country for a vaginal discharge. Dr. Spencer told us the procedure would take two visits, what motel to call, and where to park.

Dr. Spencer’s office was weird – walls and ceilings brimming with souvenir plaques from the gift shops in places like Lake George. One was a drawing of a vase that became the silhouette of two people when you stared at it. We avoided eye contact with the others in the waiting room, all of us too scared, unwilling to swap how-I-got-here stories, seek or give solace, or make small talk. X and I whispered to each other.

Dr. Spencer was white-haired and kindly, but couldn’t ease our fear. He packed X’s vagina with something to dilate her cervix and told us to come back in the morning. I have no memory of the evening. In the morning, I was fearful when Dr. Spencer installed me in a tiny room to wait it out and took X with him. The room had a chair, cot, afghan, and a black paperback, Crimes of Passion. I fantasized telling X’s parents where we were, and why, and that she was dead. Eventually, Dr. Spencer came in with X over his shoulder in a fireman’s carry, out cold. He gently unloaded her on the cot, her eyes rolled back so the whites showed. After she came to and had rested, he checked her and gave her post-op instructions and antibiotics. The entire charge was $50.

Dr. Spencer was the beloved town doctor, protected by the police, and a hero to women around the nation. He’s in all the books about illegal abortions, and is the subject of a new documentary, “Dear Dr. Spencer: Abortion in a Small Town.” His file of requests from desperate women and thanks from women he helped (some still put flowers on his grave) is an education in itself. We realized how lucky we were when we heard horror stories: the difficulties amassing the huge fees the butchers charged, being driven around blindfolded so as not to know where the deed was done, forced sex with the abortionist before he’d get to work, the tied hands and the mouth stuffed to muffle the cries of pain from abortions without anesthesia, the soiled equipment, the hemorrhaging, the lies to the hospital emergency room, and the newspaper reports of women who died trying not to become a mother.

From “Susan X”:

A lot of people In those days did abortions. Most were greedy people who didn’t know what they were doing, but some were concerned people with good reputations. Lothringer was there for the money and was totally unconcerned with what happened to his patients.

He charged me $400, which he made me pay up front. We went there in the evening. He wouldn’t let my boyfriend stay.

Lothringer and I proceeded to the operating room. He gave me a shot to put me out. As I was fading, I saw him come into the room, stripped to the waist, with his German shepherd. I always assumed it was to dispose of the evidence, but I have tried not to think about it.

When the anesthetic wore off, I was crying and yelling and he was telling me to shut up. He couldn’t give me any more anesthetic, because I had to be out of there as soon as he was finished. I got up and was not really feeling too terrific and he said, “You have to leave.” My boyfriend had not come back yet, but he showed me the back door and said to go.

He had scraped so much of the lining of my uterus that I didn’t have a period for a year. Very soon afterwards, I read about Lothringer murdering a girl. Knowing how he operated, I Iways assumed he was responsible. He was very strange. Cutting her up and flushing her down the sewer! I remember acing about it and thanking God I got out of there alive.

Note: The doctor in that story, Dr. Harvey Lothringer, was sentenced to 4 years in prison in 1962 after he botched an illegal abortion on a 19-year-old girl, then dismembered her body and flushed it down the toilet (it was discovered within days when his pipes backed up). Seriously.

A statement from Dr. Don, a Colorado physician who practiced in the 1960s:

As for the attitudes of the medical community toward these women who got coat hanger abortions, it’s not that the doctors were judgmental or hostile as much as they were kind of contemptuous. The attitude was “How could these women do anything so stupid as to get a dangerous abortion?” or “Why would any smart person take such a stupid chance?” I don’t recall any discussion about the need to provide women with safer options.

I have no idea how many years it covered, but the pathology department at that municipal hospital had a rather large collection of jars of preserved organs that had been removed for one reason or another. Many of the Organs were uteruses with the abortion instrument still in place. Some of the instruments were knitting needles, and some were coat hangers, and there they were, neatly labeled and lined up, each floating in its jar of formaldehyde.

A statement from Dr. Bert, who was a young physician in the 60’s:

The patient was in a private room. I even remember the room number, 724. That was one of the gold coast rooms. The woman, in her early or mid-thirties, was married to someone really important, with a lot of connections. She came in with severe pelvic sepsis and she died. I remember her so vividly because she was one of the most beautiful women I had ever seen. She was also one of the sickest. She was ashen. When I first saw her, she was still conscious and lucid. I think she suspected she might die. She had kidney failure. Then all her other systems failed as well. She got ecchymosis-red blotches all over her skin. Her blood vessels were just breaking underneath her skin, sort of like what happens when you bruise yourself, but this was happening all over her body without anyone even touching her. It was due to a disturbance of her coagulating mechanism as a result of the overwhelming sepsis. She died two or three days after she was admitted.

[snip]

My political ideas in those days were pretty primitive. Like most medical students, I was just trying to survive it all. However, primitive though I was, she did touch something at some level in me. I was angry that she had died, and I was angry at the system that let her die. As I said, in those days I thought the solution was to jail the abortionist. It took me another twenty years to fully understand that it was the system and not the abortionist who killed her. The system forced her away from the medical community and into the shadowy world of the illegal abortionist.

By the time she got to a doctor, it was too late. The system, and especially the lawmakers who left her with no choice, killed her just as surely as if they had held the catheter or coat hanger or whatever. I’m still angry. It was all so unnecessary.

This is a picture of Gerri Santoro, a woman who died of a back-alley abortion in 1964. Warning: This is a picture of how she was found, dead. It is very, very graphic. It is very, very disturbing. It is worth more than 5,000 words to describe why it is so, so important that women be given a legal, safe place to be given an abortion. We won’t stop just because you tell us it’s illegal. Please, please keep it safe.

Before I give you the final, and probably the most important, link in this post, I want to say something about my views on abortion:

I don’t know if I will ever have an abortion, though I expect I might. I don’t know that, in the moment of realizing I am pregnant, in the moment of walking up to Planned Parenthood, in the moment of actually making that choice, that I will be able to go through with it. I don’t think any woman knows if she will or won’t have an aborition, faced with a situation that may warrant it. But I do know this: It is my choice to make. There is no lawmaker that can tell what to or not to do with my body, no lawmaker who has that kind of moral authority, that kind of ethical omniscience. Every woman who has an abortion goes through her own set of processes to deal with the taking of a life, or a future life, growing within her. But the choice MUST be her own. We are the only people who can understand, truly, what we are going to. No male, for certain, has any idea about what pregnancy entails, as much as they think they might. And women, well women are the only ones who really know.

Roe v. Wade is not about being pro-abortion; it is about being pro-choice. It’s about supporting women as intelligent, congnizent, responsible (at their core) people who are more than capable of making their own decisions about their bodies. It is about realizing that a woman’s body is her own, that the things that grow inside it belong to HER and not to the country, that it is a inherent, natural, human right, just as the right to free speech or free religion, free press or free expression, for a woman to maintain enough privacy to keep her body as her own, private property, and not the property of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Roe v. Wade is not a case about human life, about who should or shouldn’t have the power to determine when life begins; it’s not about religion, dead babies, or anything that the Pro-Life movement would like to make it about. It is about privacy, about the reach of the government not just into our lives but into our bodies as well, and it is about mainting the right of women to be equal to men on all levels, from the ability to vote, to hold office, and to determine — without interference from the government, local, state or national — what to do and not to do with our bodies.

And, on that note, I leave you with the most important link of all. THIS is a link to the full, original text of Roe v. Wade. Read it. Know it. Understand it. Protect it.

Edited To Add:

The comments posted so far have been great, but have reminded me of a point I wanted to make, but then got distracted from. There are many women now joining to pro-life movement under the weight of emotions brought on from regretting their past abortion(s). I feel for them, I really do. To have an abortion is a serious decision, and as I said in that moment of choice I don’t know whether I would or would not go through with it. I won’t know until it happens.

BUT: That you made a bad choice does not, and should not lead to the conclusion that the government should either be stricter about abortion or ban it entirely. What it means is that women who are considering abortions should be given as much educational material as possible to help them understand the risks, the potential physical consequences, and the potential emotional consequenes. Perhaps there should be something like a three day waiting period, so you can be sure (I’m actually kind of uncomfortable with that idea, the forced wait, and I’m under the impression that you rarely get an abortion appointment the same day you go in to make one, so a period of consideration and thought is kind of already built into the process) you are making the “right” decision.

In this day and age, we are losing our ability to have and to keep personal responsibility. It used to be that if you fucked up in life, it was probably your own fault. Drink at lunch and lose your job? Your fault for thinking you could drink on your break. Refuse to tie your shoelaces and trip down an escalator, breaking your legs? Your fault for being a dumbass who holds stupid fashion trends over personal safety. Get turned down for the college of your dreams? Maybe you should’ve gotten better grade and studied harder for the SATs. We used to take responsibility for our own actions, from getting an A on a test to remembering to use a condom during sex. The same goes for abortion — it is a personal choice, a personal responsibility, and the consequences must be dealt with personally. It is no one else’s business but our own; the government’s only responsibility to us is to maintain doctors’ offices that are clean, sterile and safe for us to use should we choose to have such a procedure.

–Sara Tenenbaum

Categories: american · constitution · courts · health · history · politics · religion · sex · women
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

5 responses so far ↓

  • underdog // January 22, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Reply

    Always intriguing to find militiant leftism, which is theoretically based on objective truth and individual liberty, thus clearly in the right – so anxious to engage in inflamatory language and as if some art form, painting with words such graphic demonic pictures of the anti-choice/freedom facists on the right.

    Reclaiming the center? hmmmmm…. a nobel concept.

    Let us try to practice it here a moment.

    All biological life is a functional result of DNA and the building blocks of genetic code within cellular biology. A mouse, a pig, a dog, a human being as a unique member of the species begins the journey of life from a single, incomplete cell. The genetic code for development of a unique lifeform within the species is not complete until conception. It is just simply a scientific fact that at that moment the transformational code of the combined genetic materials now facilitates the growth and development of the organism.

    This biological and scientific fact is a-moral. The now unique lifeform is on the biological path of development within the species, again a dog a cat or a human being. Life is not subjective, it is objective. It is measurable, observable, indisputable.

    The application of moral thought with respect to life is a matter of individual judgement. You may either apply the moral judgements of human life to all stages of development, or you may selectively dismiss them, but it is a choice only with respect to the moral thought, independent of the biological reality.

    Thus society makes moral judements as to the extension of law with respect to the protection of human beings, based not on the science, but based on the subjective needs of the society. So-called “rights” are either applied or withheld. You either have the “right” to choose, or it is denied. The organism either has the “right” to life, or it is denied.
    But the application of a higher moral standard to the “rights” of any group versus another is sociologically subjective. Is the right to “choose” superior to the “right” to life? Or vice versa?

    Returning to the natural, biological facts – the unique individual human life form is either terminated from existance, or continues on with development. It cannot know the moral judements made by OTHER human beings about existance.

    Finally then the issue is whether single cell or multi-cellular, unique individual human beings at any stage of development, are in fact created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights – Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Whether the Constitution of the United States of America extends to this level of human development or not.

    The logical consideration, purely from a Constitutional and foundational legal principle from the cornerstone documents of this Republic suggest that we must resolve these questions in the affirmative for life. Not simply because of the natural, biological and scientific reality – but because of the potential for society to make “other” judgements regarding human life. Already witness the cases of infanticide, doctor assistated suicide, and of course the case of Terri Shaivo.

    I am satisfied with a discussion regarding these issues if all accept that we are talking about the termination of unique human life forms. If society rit large determines that some human beings are not protected by either moral, or legal Constitutional “RIGHTS” – and that the subjective “rights” of society (et. al. the individual within the society) are superior – then please let’s just be honest about it.

    Yes we are talking about CHOICE. But choice in this context is neither living, developing, growing or scientific. It is a personal moral judgement that places the true RIGHTS of one human being, above the RIGHTS of another human being. The individual liberty and freedom of a living human being, to terminate the existance of another.

    Finally, the CENTER of this issue recognized the enourmous complexity of LIFE versus sociological precident. It recognizes the realities that there are cases where saving one life, may require the termination of another. It recognizes the deep emotional impact of violence, rape and fear. It recognizes that patients, and calm debate and conversation are much needed, but often lacking from this issue.

    I will continue to try and understand all aspects and deep complexities therein.

  • stoprobbers // January 22, 2008 at 12:32 pm | Reply

    Sir, I appreciate your comment, but I believe you didn’t read my post thoroughly. A woman has to debate with herself and her partner (assuming he is even interested in her pregnancy) whether she feels she is terminating a human life or not; and if she feels she is, whether she is comfortable enough to follow through with her choice. The government cannot tell us how to think, nor can it tell us what choice to make, regardless of whether or not it agrees on when “life” begins. What it MUST protect, beyond discussion, is our right to live individual lives, with power over our personal, private property, and there is not a thing in the world more PERSONAL and PRIVATE than OUR OWN BODIES.

    If you don’t believe we should have a choice about what to do with our own bodies when we find ourselves in a physical condition we do not wish to have, then I believe women should be able to interfere with the reproductive abilities of men as much as men seem to feel they can meddle with our uteruses.

  • underdog // January 22, 2008 at 12:50 pm | Reply

    Thank you for your relative calm points.

    I fully agree and am aware of the feelings about the personal issues of your own body and desire to control your own destiny.

    This is not disputed.

    The question is whether you, or anyone else, can terminate the life of another human being?

    It’s your body – but inside your body is a developing human entity that is unique and genetically human.

    If we pretend that we can dismiss this reality, and hide it within carefully arranged sophestry regarding personal choice with respect to your own body – then we miss the central concern.

    That being that if we find it acceptable to terminate a human life for a convienince of choice at the earliest stages of biological development, then what are the moral restraints on society regarding the termination of human life elsewhere along the biological journey?

    Infanticide? The physically deformed? The mentilly handicapped? The infirmed? The elderly?

    Can we add cost and economical considerations for choice, to allow the termination of a human life.

    Suddenly we then extend to an entire race of peoples perhaps – the “choice” to exterminate them. Genocide being the final and ultimate end of “choice.” WAR being the ultimate instrument of choice.

    LIFE is such an amazing thing. From such humble beginnings comes the spark of genious, the glory and splendor of art, the wisdom of the sage, and the folly of the fool. We can seek answers to the deep mysteries of the universe… because we are sentient, and can ask the questions.

    Better I say, far better indeed – to excersize the choice of restraint in the moment of passion. To excersise the choice of protection. To excersize the choice of rational thought.

  • stoprobbers // January 22, 2008 at 2:33 pm | Reply

    Yes, life is amazing, but the choice to have or not have an abortion already takes that into account. A mother-to-be that sees her 6-week-old as a living, human thing will *probably* be less inclined to have an abortion. A mother-to-be who does not think that a 6-week-old fetus is really a living, human thing yet may be more inclined to have an abortion. Or it may not matter.

    The thing is, it’s not the government who gets to decide whether a woman can or cannot have an abortion. As it stands, in the LAW, if a fetus is past a certain developmental stage, the stage where it becomes sustainable outside of the womb (even though it would be supremely premature) then an abortion is NOT a legal option; the fetus is recognized as viable, and therefore human, and so it would be murder to kill it in-utero and extract it.

    Before that point, though, it is the mother’s choice, and should remain the mother’s choice. As I’ve said before, the incredibly invasive idea of telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her womb is unconsitutional, plain and simple. The mother’s life takes precedent in terms of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” until that fetus becomes viable. And to interfere with that right is a violation of my, of all our, constitutional rights. Period.

  • Another Year, Another Abortion Protest « Special Comment // January 22, 2009 at 5:29 pm | Reply

    [...] year I wrote a long post about the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, its effect on the nation, and what I believe the law is really about — specifically, about [...]

Leave a Comment