You know, I really didn’t want to have to write this piece.  I really hoped I could just sidestep it and not cover it.  It’s a topic that is covered ad nauseum; it’s a pointless debate to have, to be honest, because it’s so polarizing and so dependent on the initial premises that each individual person accepts that you can’t really reason someone out of it– in order to change their opinion, you have to change some fundamental perceptions.  These are perceptions which aren’t acquired through reasoning processes (on either side), but are themselves a matter of opinion, and you simply cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into.  So, I was just going to avoid it entirely– it wasn’t going to be worth the headache.  Then, yesterday, a friend who I respect greatly made a comment about being opposed to the “Public Option” insurance covering abortions, and then today, this gets dumped on my internet doorstep:  Abortion issue becomes part of health reform debate.

So, now I’ve got to speak on it, because this is kicking it into the field where my rage over things goes way beyond just the exasperated and exhausted, “You really don’t believe that, do you?” and fully into the territory of “OH NO YOU DIDN’T!”.  Oh yeah, they did.  They decided to sidetrack the health care reform debate with abortion.  The sleeping giantess Cassandra has been awoken on this issue and now I must rant.

First, let me say this:  I’m not a big fan of abortion as a procedure.  The idea of it is admittedly really creepy and yeah, I’ve seen my share of aborted fetus pictures.  If I could get pregnant, would I get an abortion if it happened?  No way, unless it was necessary to save my life, and even then I would take pause– it would be the toughest decision I could imagine making, because I’d love to have a child if I could.  Unfortunately, I can’t, and the choice is not mine to make.  That choice rests with the women out there right now who can, and rightly so.

Yes, the aborted fetus pictures are extremely gross and horrific to look at.  You know what else is horrible to look at?  Pictures of the bodies of mangled kids who were blown up when a bomber drops a payload on a war zone.  Kids who were walking and talking and playing and smiling to their mothers, who now have to bury their child.  That’s horrifying to me.  Thing is, people need to defend themselves, and sometimes people do that through collective action as a nation or state– that’s what happens with wars.  It’s not pretty, it’s not easy and I’d prefer it never happen, but sometimes it needs to, for the greater good in the long run.  Likewise with abortion.

I think the problem I have most of the time I try to discuss this topic with anyone is that we aren’t working within the same parameters; that is, that my starting assumptions and basis for argument are completely different from those who find themselves in opposition to me.  So, before I really begin any debate on abortion, I have to lay down a few “basic understandings” or a common ground on which to discuss.  If those can’t be met, then there’s no real reason for us to even talk, because we’re in a situation where we both perceive reality in vastly different terms.  These understandings are:

1)  Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. You might not like it, you might not think it’s a good thing, but it isn’t mystical voodoo or evil magic.  It’s something that doctors go through training to do, because it might be necessary to perform.  While it used to be something performed in back-alleys by shady guys with little or no medical training, that was back in the day– the people who perform these procedures are extremely well-versed in the process and have a great understanding of the weight of their decisions.  Most doctors never perform one, many would refuse to in all but the most dire circumstances, but none of them are idiots and none of them do it without serious consultation.

2)  Women have rights. This one should go without saying, but unfortunately, some disagree with this point, even if they won’t come out and say it.  It’s funny to see the conservatives talk about the evils of putting a government bureaucrat in between a patient and their doctor when it comes to Universal Health Care, but that’s exactly what they hope to do when it comes to abortion.  They want the government sitting in the doctor’s office picking and choosing what procedures women can and can’t have.  Note that they’re not picking on vasectomies or viagra (you can bet THOSE will be covered by any government health plan with absolutely no debate), but on things that effect women.  Why?  Perhaps because they’re not starting with the assumption that women have a right to complete domain over their bodies to the exact same degree as men, and have the exact same right to have medical procedures related to reproductive freedom and function as men do.

3)  Women are human beings. Women are not shrill harpies sitting around all day plotting how best to abort their fetii.  The decision to abort is not taken lightly.  It’s tough, and it’s serious.  I wish folks would stop acting like every woman who has had an abortion did it for the laughs, or that they treat it as casual showing boobs at Mardi Gras.  I’ve never talked to a woman who had an abortion who sounded like, “Oh yeah, I got an abortion.  It was a hoot.  I should pencil another one in for next thursday!  Ain’t nothin’ like getting an abortion!”  Instead, I hear stories told in hushed tones over coffee that grows colder and colder because they can’t even touch it thinking about it; they aren’t happy they had to do it, but they readily admit that they had to do it.

4)  Any statement that starts with “I know a guy/girl who…” is invalid from the get-go. I’m sorry, but anecodal evidence is useful in a casual sense, between friends who are talking about something non-serious.  ”I know a guy who met Michael Jackson and said he was doped out of his brain!” is certainly interesting and useful because it’s about celebrity gossip and we can all agree that it’s far from serious business; no one should make policy based on “I know a guy/girl who…” statements.  Likewise, when we talk about abortion policy, I don’t care if you know a guy who dated a girl who liked to have an abortion every 3 months, or that you know a girl who swears that she went to Planned Parenthood and they tried to talk her into having an abortion for their regular satanic blood orgies.  I really don’t.  Because, in my mind, any time someone uses “I know a guy/girl who…” in a sentence during a policy discussion, I just swap that part for:  ”I totally think you’re stupid, so I’m going to pass off some chain e-mail bullcrap as a tale about someone I know who…”

The problem, though, is that once someone accepts these things, it’s actually kinda hard for them to really play politics with abortion– what kind of human being would try to say that women should be singled out as not having a right to medical confidentiality, or that women should be treated as less than human, or that legitimate medical procedures should be blocked for one person because it makes another person upset?  Imagine if Jehovahs Witnesses attempted to keep the federal funds from going to blood transfusions, because they consider that immoral?  Imagine Scientologists attempting to keep federal funds from going to pay for psychiatric medications?  Imagine if Muslims attempted to keep the federal funds from going to putting in pig valves to keep people with heart conditions alive?  Imagine any number of other things which are considered immoral by any number of religions, and see how ridiculous it is to open the door for everyone to demand their tax dollars not go to these things.

What’s the answer?  Democracy, maybe?  To help keep every tiny religion from picking out things they don’t like?  How is that any better?  It’s still wrong, whether it’s a handful of followers trying to prevent paying for legitimate medical procedures, or if it’s 99% of the country.  A great many of us got to see how horrifying it is when the majority wields its influence without a check or balance during Jim Crow and segregation days, we got to get a refresher this last November when existing rights were taken from gay and lesbian couples in California by the majority there.

The best solution, as I see it, is that if we have a “public option” health insurance, or a single payer system, that we keep our hands off the micromanaging of medical decisions– don’t play political football with the lives of others, but accept that women in consultation with their physician of choice can  make good medical decisions just as easily as men make with their physician of choice.  Don’t open the door to religious meddling in the public option.  Besides negatively affecting the quality of health care in the public option and undermining its effectiveness as an insurance program, it also cedes the question of separation of church and state to the side that wants to impose theocratic rule, and that is simply unacceptable.

The only way I can finish this is to ask you:  If you don’t trust a woman to make an intelligent decision about her own care and treatment, then why would you ever trust her to raise a child, over whom she will have to make decisions constantly about care and treatment?