WICHITA, Kan. - I don't know who first used this phrase in relationship to abortion, but I do remember the first person I heard say it. It was Bill Clinton who, in 1992, said he wanted to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare." He even went so far as to call abortion a "tragedy." (How he would know this is a mystery, having never experienced the procedure himself. He should visit the web site I'm Not Sorry.com to find out how real women feel about this issue.) Since then many nominal pro-choice, mainly male, mainly Democratic candidates for public office, including Pres. Obama, have use this mantra to deal with the scary issue of women's reproductive rights.
The mantra popped up again recently in a local Democratic candidate's talking points document. This candidate will do an excellent job in the office for which he's running and of all the candidates I'm supporting, he's the one who has the best chance of winning against whoever ends up being his Republican opponent. However, I have the same problem with his abortion mantra as I had the first time I heard Pres. Clinton utter it in a speech.
Some may ask why I have a problem with abortion being "safe, legal, and rare." I have absolutely no problem with abortion being legal and therefore safe. I also believe women should have access to affordable reproductive services in the same area where they live. Right now, unfortunately, that is not the case. A majority of the counties in the United States don't have abortion providers, so women who seek abortion services have to travel great distances to find a provider. This adds to the cost of an already costly procedure, as these women have to take days off work to travel to the provider and often they have to find overnight accommodations before they head back home.
What about the "rare"? It would be a good thing to decrease the necessity for abortions. Given that the average woman spends at least forty years of her life either being pregnant or avoiding being pregnant, though, it's no surprise that one in two women have had an abortion by the time their childbearing years are over.
Here is the most maddening thing about those mostly male candidates who have adopted this mantra as their answer to the abortion issue. These men rarely if ever say that we should provide easy and affordable education about and access to birth control for all women. Nor do they say men should do their part to make abortion rare. No. The male participant in the pregnancy generally gets a pass when it comes to making unwanted pregnancies rare.
I almost have more respect for the right-wing Republicans who spout as part of their conservative credentials that they are "pro-life," which, of course, means they are anti-choice and would deprive women of their right to control their own bodies without government interference. Of course, once again it's difficult to know if these guys are just spouting a position on the issue to further their political ambitions or whether they really have convictions against abortion. If you go back far enough, you will find that George H.W. Bush was so pro-choice that he was on the Planned Parenthood board, that is, until the religious right took over his party and it became politically expedient for him to disavow Planned Parenthood and all it stood for.
Why women's reproductive rights should be such a problem for those running for political office is beyond me. I have yet to hear a man say that hysterectomies, breast implants, prostate surgery, or appendectomies should be rare. Maybe the dispensing of Viagra should also be rare. Maybe those men who want to take Viagra should be questioned by a panel of doctors and other community leaders to ensure that they will use a condom every time they have an erection.
In the meantime, Democratic candidates should pay attention to what the party platform says and to who is giving money and support to the party. It's not the anti-choicers, that's for sure. It is often pro-choice women who believe that abortion rights should be intact and women should be able to make their own decisions about this issue. In the meantime, those candidates should join Pres. Clinton in perusing the web site I'm Not Sorry to read about how real women feel about their abortion experiences.
You have a point, but it's overstated. I think your point is that the "safe, legal, rare" formula carries a whiff of right-wing anti-abortion/anti-sex stigmatization. At the same time, I remain convinced that for most women unintended pregnancy followed by abortion constitutes two aversive experiences (though the degree of aversion differs radically across women). "I'm not sorry" means that women are not sorry they had an abortion, given that they had an unintended pregnancy. It is not an endorsement of unintended pregnancy. Unintended pregnancy followed by abortion is an experience nearly everyone would prefer to avoid.
At the same time there are data showing that the most effective way to reduce abortion rates isn't criminalization. Instead it's reducing unintended pregnancy by means of proactive, nonjudgmental family planning services subsidized by government. In terms of mainstream values that's an obviously good thing to do for women. The radical religious right opposes this program for three reasons: they are sexual counterrevolutionaries who oppose contraception; they are fiscal reactionaries opposed to all nonviolent government programs; and they basically like punitive approaches for controlling sin by means of police violence and stigmatization. The "safe, legal, rare" formula is mainly a valid effort to frame and expose this contradiction.
Here's the problem: what is your alternative slogan that gets at the same point equally effectively? I don't know of one. And hot button political programs can't be sold without slogans.
David Burress
Ad Astra Institute
Lawrence KS
"—yet to hear a man say that hysterectomies, breast implants, prostate surgery, or appendectomies should be rare." Diane, I'm one who thinks any alteration of the human body should be rare, whether it be by knife, needle, or chemical. I do agree with you that the male contributor to pregnancy has just as much fault in unwanted or unintended pregnancies as the female. Education won't eliminate the problem; it helps but sex education does not instil moral and ethical controls to our passions and desires.
David, I like your comments. Especially, the indication that unintended pregnancies create stress and, sometimes, chaos in lives and relationships. Society needs to step up with better support for individuals caught in such dillemas. The religious community is woefully lacking in this area. Condemnation and forcing women or couples to alter their lives forever because of indescrations or carelessness is not an honest reflection of Jesus teachings.
David and Ken--These are thoughful comments and I appreciate that. Yes, I did overstate the case, but I've discovered that hyperbole is often the only way to get people's attention. What I dislike is that people feel free to meddle in women's sexual affairs, while they back away from getting into men's business.
No woman wants an unintended pregnancy, even though it's likely that most of us of have some fine children because of unintended pregnancies. However, if a woman isn't ready to have a kid, the problem of the unintended pregnancy is compounded if she doesn't have access to legal abortion.
And, Ken, you're correct to say that condemnation is not part of Jesus's teachings. We once had a chapter of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice in Kansas, but it died for lack of interest, I'm sad to say. On the national level, it has successfully countered the Religious Right's take on abortion for years.
As for slogans, when I was doing clinic support, we had a few: "Keep it zipped" and "Put a condom on it" were popular when we dealt with the mostly male sidewalk harassers. I've seen this one: "What do they call people who don't use birth control? Parents." Of course, there's always the risk of disease when people have unprotected sex.
What I would like to hear politicians say is that they stand for reproductive rights without equivocation under the precepts of Roe v.Wade. Most politicians will never do that.
Diane: I thought that your piece was well-written and dead on the money.
Thanks, Amber. Diane