I’m not ignoring this story, doing the rounds, I promise, showing that there are no negative mental health effects after abortion. I just feel like with a topic as political as this one, I should read the study before I link to it and have some commentary on what they did or did not do.

I have not yet had the time to do so. But I will say this: This study flies in the face of a great number of other studies indicating precisely the opposite. And I will also add that all those other studies showing abortion does indeed harm a woman’s mental health did not get the press this one is getting.

My beef is with the media for quickly picking up on this story, while concealing other studies that show the opposite outcome. They think they are being “feminist” or woman-friendly by reporting this story, because they are “pro-choice” but in fact what they are doing has quite the opposite effect. Since so many women do indeed suffer after their abortions, this type of press tells them their suffering is unwarranted and that there is something wrong with them for feeling bad.

This is not to say that every woman feels bad after an abortion. Some don’t. But for every one woman who doesn’t, there’s a defensive woman who, quite frankly, hasn’t quite processed what she’s done, and then there are, of course, those who truly do feel bad and suffer suicide, suicide ideation, increased drug and alcohol use, etc.

I’m sure we could get to a point where no woman ever felt bad about her abortion. This is fully possible. But is it desirable? Would this not mean a distancing from our own selves? A truly clinical approach to something so intimate and personal is not the direction we want to go. I’m not asking for women to feel bad, no. I’m asking for them to be empowered enough that they wouldn’t make the decisions that leave them with lousy decisions in the first place.

All of these ideas on what it means to be a truly strong woman, one who is confident, bold, assertive and makes good decisions as a result is whispering into the wind when it comes to the media who are stuck on the notion that apparently there is an “undo” button for sex. Which there isn’t. Sex isn’t a recreational activity–therefore the outcomes of poor choices–babies or killing said babies–aren’t recreational either. A lack of poor mental health after killing your baby is possible, but wholly undesirable. When we truly reach that stage where studies return this outcome based on good research methodology, we’ll have a lot more than abortion to worry about.

Beyond the disappointment of Herman Cain, this insightful little piece uses his example to talk about the kind of decorum that is necessary in order to avoid inappropriate engagements between members of the opposite sex, in government or business:

One congressional wife says emphatically: “Receptions are a danger zone. Members need to quickly learn that attending receptions is optional, and there are very few they actually need to attend. Members need to learn where to buy quick meals and how to use the microwave. Receptions should not be viewed as the place to get dinner. Married Members should avoid alcohol use in public and private conversations with single women. Do not give out or request private contact info. Staff can handle legitimate requests. Talk about the wife and kids to any and all women!”

I have a friend who pointed out to me when I complained to her about the unwanted advances of a (single) man that emails with too much detail can send the wrong signal. I had been emailing a single man with whom I had what I wanted to remain a fully platonic relationship. He did not perceive my emails thus. In any case, I took it as instructive. Merely emailing, forget any personal contact, was quite enough to get things started. I don’t think it’s ridiculous to put rules in place for male/female friendship, if one values one’s marriage, because something small and innocuous can get the ball rolling–and it gets away from people often enough.

Interesting research showing babies are learning to talk in their first year of life:

New research from the University of Notre Dame shows that during the first year of life, when babies spend so much time listening to language, they’re actually tracking word patterns that will support their process of word- learning that occurs between the ages of about 18 months and two years. …Lany’s studies show that babies as young as 12 months can identify “adjacent relationships” in which a phrase or sound like “it’s a” occurs immediately before an object.

A few days ago, I posted about a woman in New York charged with “self-abortion”. Again, this is a rare charge, but I found this article today entitled “Abortion is Legal: So Why is Self-Abortion Care a Crime?“.

…if a woman decides that the best thing for her to do is to self-induce an abortion, she should have access to the best information available on how to do this safely (ie with medicines, NOT herbs) and know where to go in case of a complication.  Criminalizing her choices does not protect her health. If we believe that women have the right to control their fertility, then we must also trust women with the right to choose the methods that make the most sense for them.

A few things spring to mind as to why this is a very bad idea. One is the fact that making abortion drugs available for at-home use might cause a higher rate of coerced abortion. Coerced abortion is still legal in Canada, and sometimes the only person who actually asks if you’re being coerced is medical staff. Remove these middlemen/women, and coercion becomes all the easier.

Since coercion isn’t a crime, what about slipping over-the-counter purchased mifepristone into your partner’s drink? Is that a criminal offense?

I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest to make self-abortion a regularity, given the possible mental health effects, the possible abuses of these kinds of drugs, and the isolation a woman must experience as she self-aborts her child.

Criminalizing this “choice” may in fact protect her health and save the lives of both mother and child.

________________________

Andrea adds: Same article I linked to for a game of Count the Euphemisms, “Self-Abortion Care” being the first one I spotted, in the title.

This could be a fun game: Count the euphemisms in a really strident pro-abortion article. We’d need look no further than RH Reality Check, or, for example, this article from Feministing.

Start with “Abortion care.” It’s like the author and headline writer grew up in an Orwell novel.

This creeped me out and made me laugh at the same time. I have no idea why OB wants to apologize to me, but there ya go, I fell for the gimmick and put in my name. This one’s for women, although a man putting in his name would be pretty funny too.

What am I talking about? Click here.

We create laws because certain acts violate the moral and ethical codes of a society. Abortions based on sex and race violate the moral and ethical code of the majority of people in the US and Canada, so why hasn’t it been banned?

NEW YORK — The practice of sex-selection abortion, usually targeting a female fetus due to parental preference for a son, has few defenders in the United States. Yet a proposed federal ban is drawing vehement opposition from liberal advocacy groups who call it a veiled attempt to undermine broader abortion rights.

The Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., would outlaw abortions done on the basis of gender or race. Women who had such abortions would not be penalized but those who performed them — or pressured a woman into having one — would face up to five years in prison.

I like this picture and slogan, because it’s true. And it’s pretty similar to our People for the Ethical Treatment of People line of t-shirts (Because you wouldn’t treat a dog like this). The environment, trees, animals–all get a higher  level of concern/empathy than the unborn child.

According to this poll by Angus Reid, Canadians (as compared to Britons and Americans) are more in favor of controversial sexual education topics in classrooms and that it should occur at a younger age. Lucky Canada, eh?

This article from CNN is difficult to read, you might even be unable to look at the written words of rape survivor Masika. But what I hope you will see is that the situation in eastern Congo is beyond war-time, it’s beyond temporary, and it’s a humanitarian crisis of horrific proportion. Fiona Lloyd-Davies writes,

Rape has now become generational.

Davies has spent 10 years in this region, and her recount of her time there illustrates just how unimaginable life has become for these women. Women in the west, thankfully, have never walked in these women’s shoes, and our priorities simply do not apply here. In no one’s mind should abortion access be at the forefront after reading this. Abortion will not make the Congolese women “on par” with their male counterparts. Abortion will not promote equality, and it will not save lives. What the women in eastern Congo need is help, whatever we can give them, as much as we can give and as soon as possible.