As the anti-choice crusaders pile on the hypocrisy and irony of their pro-death crusade, my old pal Milt Shook reposts a must-read from 1997

"Pro-choice is not the same as 'pro-abortion.' Most pro-choicers would agree that it would be a good thing if no one had an abortion. If we could eliminate most or all of the reasons why women have abortions, we could practically eliminate abortion, without having to ban it."

-- Milt Shook, in a 1997 post, "Pro-Choice Is the Essence of
Liberty," that he recently reposted on his "PCTC* Blog"

by Ken

With attention focused on the anti-abortion jihads in Texas and Carolina, writes ThinkProgrss's Tara Culp-Ressler (whose post I read via Nation of Change), in Iowa's Board of Medicine, now stuffed with right-wing zealots, is pushing to outlaw something most of us haven't heard of: "telemedicine abortion." It's a move that may "threaten reproductive health care for the state’s low-income and rural communities," and "could also spark a legal fight with implications for abortion access across the country."

"Telemedicine" is a fancy term for the practice of using video technology to allow doctors to consult with patients remotely. Telemedicine procedures, which were first invented in the 1960s to treat astronauts, are becoming an increasingly standard practice in the medical community. Telemedicine is now used by about 10 million to 12 million Americans every year.

As most of us are aware, there is a serious and growing lack of access in the country to live physicians, notably among Americans in non-urban areas and those who can't afford to make their way to one. One solution has been the increased use of telemedicine. Indeed, tells us, "Iowa's Board of Medicine reviewed and approved the telemedicine program in 2010." Since then, however, "the Board has been stacked with abortion opponents."

Even though "telemedicine abortion programs are not actually very common yet," Tara notes,

abortion opponents are preemptively attacking it anyway, hoping to cut off the possibility of expanding reproductive access to more women. Over the past several years, twelve states have rushed to enact bans on telemedical abortion services even if they’re not currently in place.

One popular trick: "State laws often stipulate that women must be in the presence of a doctor when taking the abortion pill -- even though that's medically unnecessary -- preventing telemedicine programs from even getting off the ground." Another trick is "try[ing] to limit access to the abortion pill by forcing clinics to adhere to outdated methods of administering it."

In June the newly constituted Iowa Board of Medicine, whose ten members have all been replaced by "ardent anti-choice" Republican Gov. Terry Branstad since the board last considered the issue, and even though responsible medical professionals consider the telemedical abortion procedures safe, the abortion foes voted to prevent telemedicine use for abortions. The irony here outstrips even the hypocrisy, which is enormous. The stated ground for concern is the "safety" of the telemedical abortions, when everyone knows that the only goal is to deny women access to safe, legal abortions.

ON ABORTION, MANY OF THE ANTI-CHOICERS
AREN'T "PRO-LIFE" -- THEY'RE PRO-DEATH

There's no question that the goal of a significant portion of the anti-choice movement isn't to reduce the number of abortions, but merely to limit access to safe ones. The portionn of the anti-choicers that isn't made up of morons knows perfectly well two things:

(1) Deep-pocketed purported anti-choicers will always be able to secure medically safe abortions for their women-in-need.

(2) Women who can't afford such access will return to the '50s world of illegal abortions, aka butchery.

Most nauseatingly, we had the recent spectacle of unspeakably loathsome right-wing scumbag Erick Erickson taunt-tweeting "Liberals" with a link to a website selling coathangers. This creature actually thinks it's cute to fantasize about women being slaughtered. He should have been presented with a sword with which to impale his vile carcass.

BY COINCIDENCE, MILT SHOOK HAS RECENTLY
REPOSTED A POST HE FIRST CIRCULATED IN 1997

In reposting the piece, "Pro-Choice Is the Essence of Liberty," my old friend and political mentor explained, "I wrote and posted this in a forum for the first time on April 18, 1997. It's depressing, in a way, that it's even more fitting now than it was when I wrote it.

I hope you'll read the piece as Milt wrote it, but let me try to give you the gist. Milt recalls recalls a childhood friend-of-the-family police officer, Mr. Andy, who "used to love to regale us with stories of the seamier side of life," including the almost-daily incidence of "a call from someone who found a fetus in a dumpster outside a building somewhere in the city."

Mr. Andy and other officers would have to go out, do a search and write a report, although they just about never "caught" anyone. Mr. Andy was also fairly regularly called out to investigate cases in which women, who had either died, or were severely hurt, by trying to give themselves an abortion, or after having one performed by someone who had no business performing a medical procedure. Among the items used to perform these abortions were coat hangers, soda bottles and vacuum cleaners.

"Such barbarism," Milt writes, seemed to have been "transcended" thanks to Roe v. Wade.

But there are some who would take us back to those days, and once again give the government the choice as to whether a woman gets to terminate her pregnancy, and take it away from the woman.

Dominion over her own body is the essence of a woman's liberty, and the essence of a free society, and that is basically why the anti-choice movement is so dangerous at its core.

Now Milt gets to a crucial point: "No one likes abortion."

No one thinks abortion is a desirable outcome. Young girls don't grow up thinking, "I can't wait until I'm old enough to have an abortion." Most women never have them. Most women would never have one. Pro-choice is not the same as "pro-abortion." Most pro-choicers would agree that it would be a good thing if no one had an abortion. If we could eliminate most or all of the reasons why women have abortions, we could practically eliminate abortion, without having to ban it.

But many, who rather facetiously call themselves "pro-life", would rather do the easy thing, and make another law, because they somehow feel that, when you make a law, a problem goes away. You know; like all of those magical drug laws that have served to reduce drug use so much? Like all of those signs along the freeway that keep people driving at such a safe speed? Those have worked so well, say anti-choicers, let's do the same with abortion.

The anti-choice movement, says Milt, brings nothing to the table "self-righteous posturing," with no solutions to reduce abortions except punishment, "as if somehow, the mere specter of punishment would act as a deterrent."

This is ludicrous. On an annual basis, it is estimated that there were just as many abortions in the 1950s as there are in the '90s. Considering the fact that there are nearly 50 million more women, this is a startling figure. But there are reasons why this is the case. For one thing, welfare is much more of a factor now than it was in the '50s. Food Stamps, WIC and AFDC give a woman in a seemingly hopeless situation at least a little hope that she can raise her child after it is born. Also, many of the Victorian taboos that were still in evidence in the '50s have been exploded. Women do not have to quit school, and move to a different city to have a baby these days. Young girls are less likely to be labelled as "sluts" or "whores" by the community at large. Parents and friends of these girls and women, as well as the community at large, have become more tolerant of the situation that used to be the main reason for the sense of desperation that led women to terminate a pregnancy.

All of these factors have served to reduce the number of abortions significantly, in the absence of a law against it.

The anti-choicers, says Milt, insisting that a fetus is a "child," want to overturn a Roe v. Wade, even though, "at the time that more than 95% of all women who have abortions have them, the fetus does not have the ability to live outside the womb, under any circumstances."

Suppose there were a seven-year-old child who needed a kidney, and the government forced you to be hooked up to him for nine months, to keep him alive. Something tells me, most anti-choicers would be outraged at such a breach of their liberty.

Even if you could define what a "viable" fetus is, "you still can't force a woman to carry it to term." He concludes:

Pro-choice is not about pro-abortion. It's about freedom, and the ability to have autonomy over your own body, with no government interference whatsoever. Anti-choice people want to control women, and force them into a morality they themselves feel is the norm. And that's never a good basis for law.

#

For a "Sunday Classics" fix anytime, visit the stand-alone "Sunday Classics with Ken."