|
|
May 19, 2013
|
|
Ellen Goodman: Taking ‘Choice’ Out of Pro-ChoicePosted on Sep 20, 2006BOSTON—Sometimes you have to remember exactly what it means to be pro-choice. Sometimes the word “choice’’ is more than a focus-group label to avoid saying the word “abortion.’’ Sometimes the slick bumper sticker—Who Decides?—actually defines the argument. The reminder now comes from Maine, where a bizarre and sorry family narrative is still unfolding. Nicholas and Lola Kampf are accused of something that sounds linguistically impossible, not to mention criminal: kidnapping their daughter. According to the arrest warrant, the Kampfs grabbed pregnant 19-year-old Katelyn, allegedly tying her feet and hands, and carried her to the car and headed south. The plan, said Katelyn, who escaped in New Hampshire and called the police on a cellphone, was to force her to have an abortion. The headlines—“Daughter Kidnapped to Force Abortion”—repeated this baldly across the news cycle. It was as if distraught parents could really deliver a captive wrapped in rope and duct tape to a doctor who would perform an abortion against the patient’s will. The usual suspects chimed in. Cheryl Sullenger, spokesperson at Operation Rescue, said that forced abortions are “epidemic in scope.” “I have seen sobbing women dragged into abortion clinics by the neck and hair,” she added. She did not, of course, say “who” or “when” or “where,” since drama is best unencumbered by facts. Advertisement Being pro-choice means looking through a long historical lens and understanding that a forced abortion is as much an assault on liberty as a forced pregnancy. Of course, there is another way that Katelyn Kampf becomes a pro-choice case study. This teenager was 19, no longer a minor. Nevertheless, her family seems an unhappy example of a reality that many prefer to ignore: When some pregnant teenagers say they can’t tell their parents, they’re right. In July, the Senate passed a bill that would make it a crime for anyone—no grandparent, no aunt, no older sister, no clergy—to take a minor across state lines for an abortion in order to avoid laws that require parental notification. The White House praised the Child Custody Protection Act because it would “protect the rights of parents” and because parents are “best suited to provide her counsel, guidance and support.” These days, parental involvement laws are the most popular hurdle put before pregnant teenagers. They exist in about 35 states. Both Oregon and California have propositions on the fall ballot. And this week, the Illinois Supreme Court cleared the way for another such law. Most pregnant teens can and do involve their parents. But we keep forgetting. What if those parents provide “counsel, guidance and support’’ with duct tape, rope and a .22-caliber rifle in the car trunk? Not long ago, a conservative from Concerned Women for America proclaimed, “It goes without saying parents should have direct and immediate say over their child seeking an abortion.” What about when the parents seek the abortion? Direct and immediate say? At an arraignment in New Hampshire, the parents’ lawyer called this a family tragedy with “some unfortunate misunderstandings and some overreactions by all the parties.” Talk about understating the “overreactions.” The back story, as assembled by police and reporters, has all the elements of soap opera even in its bare bones. Katelyn, a high school honors student who enrolled in Boston College, had been sent to George Washington University in an attempt by her parents to distance her from her boyfriend. The debacle followed her parents’ discovery that she was back in Maine and pregnant. Katelyn has told authorities that her parents were outraged because her boyfriend is black. Their attitude may have been more shaped by the fact that he is in jail, again. But there is nothing that justifies duct tape or the destination. “They told her she had no choice but to get an abortion,” said the officer in the arrest warrant. But, she did have a choice. In fact, she’s a perfect recruit for the ranks of the pro-choice. In politics, there’s much ado about finding common ground in the abortion debate. John Kerry, grooming this turf for the 2008 race, said this week that “the language both sides use on this subject can be, unfortunately, misleading and unconstructive.” Maybe so. But this chilling family story gives added meaning to “choice.” In the end, a woman’s right to decide is the common ground. Previous item: Molly Ivins: A Tortured Debate Next item: Joe Conason: Torture Opponents Are True Patriots New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By robyn, October 10, 2006 at 10:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
as a former fetus i am basically against abortion. as a mother of eight i understand the need for choice. in my long experience with life i have seen the results of unwanted pregnancies and unwanted babies. its to bad that the economics of being a woman prevents us from really having a choice. we just can’nt have a baby without a man around, can we?
Report thisBy Blueboy1938, October 1, 2006 at 7:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
That’s all very well, Mike, but there are effective contraceptives now that weren’t as widely available when Roe v. Wade was decided. If there’s economic or fatigue factors, then the women affected by them should be doing something proactive about it. Rape and incest are still very good reasons for having access to abortion, because a woman isn’t able to plan for those unfortunate events. Incest is the primary reason that California Ballot Proposition 85 should be defeated, since parental notification is impossible in most of those cases. That being said, the current Supreme Court composition makes it very likely that Roe v. Wade will be further curtailed, if not entirely thrown out. That will leave things up to the states, which will most likely divide on Red State/Blue State lines on the issue: legal in the Blue States; illegal in the Red States. So a lot a women who either forget to take the pill, or who are just totally irresponsible, will be trekking to the Blue States.
Report thisBy Mike, September 30, 2006 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
To me, the whole thing is simple. Many women, pregnant, recognize that their lives and those of their loved ones will become immeasurably more difficult by having a baby. Maybe there are too many babies in the family and the woman’s exhausted. Maybe there’s not enough—and never will be enough—money to raise the child, considering all the obligations that are had with other already born children. Or maybe the mother’s health is too fragile.
The mother has so many commitments in life to others. The fetus does not.
Ergo, the mother’s decision must prevail.
I recognize that there are those who will give up or abort the fetus out of immaturity, that it would just be too much of a bother, etc.
But their attitudes shouldn’t imprison the-very-many more who will have genuine, heart-breaking difficulties.
Report thisBy Blueboy1938, September 28, 2006 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
When the “gay gene” is definitively isolated and identifiable in the unborn, the Red State mamas with the foetuses bearing this “defect” will be charging across borders to Blue States, where abortion will still be legal after Roe v. Wade is overturned, to rid themselves of the vile unborn creatures they are harboring in their wombs. Then you’ll see a campaign led by the husbands of those women for a Constitutional Amendment ensuring choice. I can only wonder whether those now campaigning for unfettered choice will have second thoughts?
Report thisBy MARIAM RUSSELL, September 23, 2006 at 8:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Margaret, Margaret, Margaret, SHE ASKED FOR IT…ACCORDING TO PEOPLE LIKE OUR BIOCHEMZ FRIEND HERE SOME OF WHOM ARE JUDGES WHO MAKE RULINGS LIKE THE ONE I READ ABOUT MADE IN NEW ENGLAND….MAN ON TRIAL FOR HAVING SEX WITH 7 YEAR OLD CHILD…JUDGE ALLOWS THAT THE CHILD CLIMBING INTO BED WITH THIS MAN WAS ASKING FOR IT…....WHERE DO WE GET PEOPLE LIKE THAT….WHO RAISES THEM.
Report thisBy Margaret Currey, September 22, 2006 at 11:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I wonder if anyone has heard the phrase “date rape"and the upshot of that is if the girl does get pregnant the guy usually gets away with it. You are the one whowent out on the date so somethings alwaysfall back to the woman but the men are the ones who push the sex thing and then cop out when they are told their actions resulted in a baby.
M. C. from vancouver Washington
Report thisBy Mad As Hell, September 21, 2006 at 8:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Biochemzz
Did you even READ this story????
The pregnant woman did NOT want an abortion. Her parents were trying to FORCE it on her.
Pro-Choice, means pro CHOICE! The choice to have, or not have a pregnancy continue. It is JUST as much a woman’s right to choose to have her baby as it is to choose NOT to have it. Hers alone.
But you, like so many of the religious right figger if ya have round heels and get knocked up, well that’s YOUR PUNISHMENT and you deserve it!
Oh, really? Do you have any idea how vile that is? Do you know anyone whose parents didn’t want him or her and how awful their life is? To have parents who see you as a burden, a punishment, an albatross around their necks? Can there be anything crueler than causing a child such pain just because they screwed up and picked the wrong parents?
What trully sick and warped view of parenthood you have! I have kids, and like most NORMAL people, I love them, adore them and wouldn’t be without them. NORMAL people have kids because they want them and love them, and if they don’t want them, and can’t love them, they don’t have them!
Being a mom or a dad is for people who want it—it shouldn’t be a lifelong punishment for having sex. Having a small child call me “Da-Da” and curl up in my arms, hugging me, is one of the great joys of my life. I can barely imagine how awful it would be for both of us (the little one and me) if I didn’t love it. Yet that’s what you say is how it should be.
I’ll bet you think AIDS victims deserve their disease, too.
Report thisBy yours truly, September 21, 2006 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks to science a woman today not only has the right to choose but can choose. Wonder why woman’s liberation runs into such fierce resistance. Shouldn’t women be the most respected of us all? That’s the way it is in Central Africa among the few remaining Pygmy tribes who still live as their ancesters did; going way, way back. Theirs is a civilization based upon making do with what a tropical forest has to offer. Turns out that in the Pygmy culture, those who are considered to be the wisest of the wise are the Priestesses. Amazing how everyone gets along, too. Something about male domination that always seems to mess things up. As for whether or not this one’s to be a keeper? Hands-off, this is for the woman to decide.
Report thisBy MARIAM RUSELL, September 21, 2006 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
FRANK, TALK ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, PLEASE.
Report thisBy Biochemmz, September 21, 2006 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What exactly, do you mean by “forced pregnancy”? Unless the woman was a victim of rape or incest, how can consensually climbing into bed with someone and having sex be considered forced? If a woman chooses to have intercourse, and happens to get pregnant, she has already made a choice and must then accept the possible outcomes, one of which may be pregnancy. You shouldn’t get another choice. Life doesn’t come with a reset button when things don’t go exactly how we plan. You’ve already made your choice and must live with the consequences.
Report thisBy Frank, September 21, 2006 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Mariam, how hard is it to type without using CAPS LOCK?
Report thisBy MARIAM RUSSELL, September 21, 2006 at 11:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU SEEN LAWS PASSED TO DO IT TO THEM WITHOUT REMEMBERING THAT THIS SAME LAW CAN DO IT TO YOU OR YOUR FAMILY. HOW HARD IS IT TO REASON OUT THAT IF WE TURN OVER CONTROL OF OUR BODIES AND THEIR FUNCTION TO A GOVERNMENT, THEN THIS CONTROL CAN BE USED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS…..ON BOTH SEXES.
Report thisHOW MANY STEPS FROM LEGALIZING TORTURE IS THROWING DISSENTERS FROM AIRPLANES…....ETC., ETC., ETC., ETC.
By Guitarsandmore, September 21, 2006 at 12:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Yup, fits right in with torture, lies, preemptive strikes, and the general tone and tenor of this administration.
Report this