>I think some services now under the
>umbrella of medicine do need to be converted to a
>social model, rather than preserve the
>status quo and those services should be fought for as
>the social dems fought for childcare, free
>public education, etc.
I think I agree with you on the above, but as of now, a social model that both of us agree is more desirable than the status quo, in so far as abortion is concerned, is not at all on anybody's (including most women's & reproductive rights orgs') agenda in the USA. The same for much of medical services, in fact. The political choice presented to us seems to be either the medical model or "personal responsibility." The *necessity and desirability of social provisions* of abortion services are by no means agreed upon, not even among "leftists." That's the reality, and where do we go from here? Is your argument that we should "deregulate" reproductive services, so that women's orgs can offer abortion services without medial licensing? Based upon what I know of American social dems' opinion of abortion, they won't fight for the public provision of it. Ask Max if you doubt it.
When the ruling class seriously go after Medicare, Medicaid, etc., they will focus on "waste," "fraud," etc., just as they did in the "welfare reform." In ideology, we're responsible workers and consumers. So, it is in this context that I'm leery of the language that puts down access to any part of health care -- including abortion -- as simply a "personal decision." Yes, reproductive choices should be women's, but choices can't be made when services are not available or accessible to begin with. And on what basis do we make services available? If not as part of health care, then what? The language of health & well-being, I think, can be rethought, and a feminist language of health doesn't have to reinforce the medical professionals' control over women's bodies, does it?
>Some feminists in
>Europe (Maria Mies, silvia Kontos, I would especially
>recommend Theresia Degener's "Female
>Self-Determination between Feminist Claims and
>'Voluntary' eugenics, between 'Rights' and
>Ethics" Issues in Reproductive and Genetic Engineering,
>vol. 3, No. 2, pp 87-99, 1990) ) are
>alarmed by this reality. The power of a woman giving
>birth has been handed over to
>physicians. Women think they are in charge but they
>aren't. Their pregnant bodies have been
>commodified by the medical profession just as disabled
>people's whole lives have been.
I'm aware of the above line of argument, but, regarding abortion, what is to be more worried is the *dwindling supply* of abortion service itself. If abortion is not a legitimate part of medicine, why should doctors be compelled to learn how to do it? In fact, many of them are avoiding it (for understandable reasons, probably, in that by providing this service they are liable to be verbally and physically attacked). So, again, what is to be done? (One can only complain of commodification of X when X is actually commodified.) As for your concern of reproductive engineering, I'd say that the low social value placed on abortion is directly correlated with the high premium placed on reproductive engineering -- motherhood at all costs, voluntary or involuntary.
Yoshie
P.S. There is no mass movement for free child care either. And public education is under attack, and there are a variety of "school choice" programs -- vouchers, charter schools, etc. -- are offered to lure parents into thinking of themselves as "consumers" of education services.