[Fwd: Re: Abortion and the Death Penalty (was Re: abortion litmus test)]

[Katha Pollitt]

Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> 
> At 04:08 PM 6/1/98 -0500, Katha Pollitt wrote:
> >
> >
> >  I don't think this issue would even come up if abortion rights, and
> >women's rights generally, were not seen as unimportant, a distraction.
> 
> I do not see a connection here.  Abortion is distraction not because it
> pertains to women's rights, but because it is revisiting of an old battle
> (won in the Roe v. Wade decision), in the time when the economic spoils are
> being divided by the corporate elites.  As far as I can tell, the prolifers
> do not voice an anti-womens' rights agenda, on the contrary, they often
> portary themselves as protectors of those rights against the medical
> business that benefits from abortion.  I can see that such rhetoric can
> easily resonate with working class, for whom "choice" is but upper class
> abstraction.  These folks have little choice in their lives to begin with,
> as they are usually bossed around by those who talk about "choice."
> 
> I think the ability of the Right to capture the attention of these folks
> and place it under the rubric 'pro-life" is a perfect diversion - otherwise
> these people might be demanding comprehensive economic reforms that would
> make life of multi-child families (usually working poor) easier.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Wojtek Sokolowski

Wojtek, I wonder how familiar you are with the anti-choice movement, as
opposed to  ordinary people who "have reservations" about abortion. As a
Movement, the anti-choicers are mostly connected with the religious
right, which is very explicitly opposed to women's equality in marriage
and in the workplace, wants to make divorce hard to get, opposes sex ed,
rights for gays and lesbians, opposes the ERA etc etc. Anti-choicers
connected with the Catholic church come (mostly) from that church;'s
conservative wing -- so they oppose birth control, sex ed, and modern
roles for women generally, like the Pope.  It is true they all SAY they
support women -- but the example you cite, of "protecting' women from
doctors and their fees shows how cynical they are: they don't oppose
doctors making money for child birth, do they?  Or cancer treatment? 
This business about the "big business" of abortion is such garbage. An
abortion costs maybe 300 dollars; child birth costs thousands.  It is in
fact the cheapness of abortion that has helped make abortion providers
low men on the medical totem pole.

  Again, I really think the people on this list who imagine that but for
abortion, anti-choicers would be progressives are not speaking from
sound knowledge of who these people are and what they want.

   I also think to regard abortion as a non-issue because Roe v Wade
setttled it, as Woytek does is to ignore what's really going on in this
country. Roe v Wade may be settled law, but what it MEANS is up for
grabs. If, as I suspect, it will turn out to mean abortion is legal but
hard to get, expensive, and subject to all sorts of delays and
difficulties, then the "abortion is safe because of Roe' position will
turn out to be the elitist one: urban, adult women with money will be
able to find abortions; young, poor and rural ones won't.

   Legal abortion IS a class issue.  But in the opposite of the way you
argue: legal abortion, and access to it, matter most of all for working
class women. By the l960s, almost all the women who died from illegal
abortion were working class, most of them black and Hispanic.

  What about them?
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>
Subject: Re: Abortion and the Death Penalty (was Re: abortion litmus test)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 16:59:58 -0400
Size: 3170
URL: <../attachments/19980601/317a0ee0/attachment.eml>