I’ve heard a lot of arguments against the need for later-term abortions in cases when a mother’s life isn’t in danger, even from those who support earlier-term abortions. These arguments often center on the false notion that there are very few legitimate reasons why a wanted pregnancy would suddenly become unwanted.
A WOMAN’S RIGHTI’ve heard a lot of arguments against the need for later-term abortions in cases when a mother’s life isn’t in danger, even from those who support earlier-term abortions. These arguments often center on the false notion that there are very few legitimate reasons why a wanted pregnancy would suddenly become unwanted.
I could give you a number of reasons, but in response to these arguments I always point to the increase in abortions after natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. In a situation such as this, a woman in a stable or even ideal situation, who may have planned on carrying a fetus to term, may suddenly, due to circumstances beyond her control, find herself unable to do so for a variety of reasons.
This example highlights the main reason women need options: You can’t truly understand what another person is going through, or her reasons for making a private medical decision. Each reason is as unique as the woman behind it. Universal laws restricting that decision often harm women in situations when they need the freedom to make it the most.
The reproductive health community was spurred into action in response to Hurricane Katrina.
Planned Parenthood affiliates in eight states pledged a variety of family planning and reproductive health care services to refugees; a doctor in Arkansas performed a number of free abortions on survivors, and many health care service providers worked around the clock to provide services to those living with HIV or AIDS who found themselves displaced and without access to treatment in the aftermath of the disaster.
Knowing how crucial this work was for them, and how attacked these services were by anti-choice organizations at the time, I’ve wondered what the response to the need for reproductive health care in the aftermath of Sandy would look like.
It looked the same way as many other disasters, like the Seattle women who still showed up for their abortion appointments after an earthquake despite the fact that half the clinic had been destroyed.
Almost every time a clinic is bombed or a stabbing occurs, that clinic still reopens as soon as possible, and patients still arrive, because women need these services. History tells us that in the era prior to Roe v. Wade and in countries where abortion is illegal, women will still attempt to obtain abortions by whatever means they can—no matter the cost or danger. This underscores how important it is that this procedure remain accessible.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy most women still showed up for their scheduled abortions, despite many obstacles. In Virginia, which has a mandatory 24-hour waiting period, women with access to cars drove (twice!) to the flooded clinic in treacherous weather. The women who didn’t show were those relying on public transportation, which had been shut down. Mandatory waiting periods primarily affect women who can’t afford time off from work to travel and stay overnight near a clinic, or transportation to go to multiple doctors’ appointments.
These waiting periods demean all women, as they assume that a woman seeking an abortion hasn’t put serious thought into the choice she’s making. Since this is a procedure that’s safer the sooner it’s performed (though it’s still almost always safer than giving birth), it’s absurd for legislatures, rather than a woman’s own doctor, to mandate how long a woman needs to wait to have an abortion.
Research shows that, in the long run, natural disasters leave women—especially those in lower income brackets—incredibly vulnerable to increased violence (including a considerable increase in sexual assaults) and greater economic challenges.
In New Orleans, several years after Katrina, women face increased struggles in obtaining employment and a considerable gender wage gap, much higher than prior to the hurricane.
Access to reproductive health care after disasters is often limited, including safe infant care, family planning and appropriate medical response to gender-based violence. While a number of organizations across the world work very hard to ensure reproductive health access and services in the event of emergencies, these organizations can best be helped by societal acceptance of comprehensive reproductive health care as a basic human right—regardless of what motivates its need.
If anything, in the aftermath of a tragedy that affects many, the demand for these services only reveals the need for them, for everyone, at all times.
Individuals face emergency situations or sudden life changes every day, for a whole host of reasons, and ought to be able to make the health care decisions that make the most sense to them, whatever the situation. By making reproductive health care a fundamental and basic human right, we can ensure that women are able to take control of their own health care no matter the circumstances.
I think this article would be better if it explained what is meant by a “basic human right” (or what the specific problem is). Is it saying that no one should interfere with abortions or that all women should be able to get one without paying for it?