lurkitty: (Default)
A new Harvard study has confirmed that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer. The study used data from the Nurses Health study, an ongoing study established in 1976 involving over 100,000 participants.

Sadly, Texas, Minnesota and Mississippi still require doctors to inform patients of that "risk".

The study also showed that some protection from breast cancer can be gained from bearing children before age 35 and breast-feeding.
lurkitty: (Pogo)
Amber Abreu is waiting for a coroner's report. The medical examiner in Lawrence, MA, has been asked to determine if the fetus she aborted on January 6 was more than 24 weeks old. If so, the 18 year old will be charged with homicide.

Ms. Abreu is already facing charges under an arcane Massachusetts law for "unlawfully procuring a miscarriage. The text of the law is under the cut. )

This is a nineteenth century law that was never stricken from the books when abortion became legal, and has rarely been used in recent years. Nonetheless, prosecutors have used it to confine Ms. Abreu for three days while her impoverished family came up with some $15,000 bail.

Ms. Abreu's story is a familiar one. She is an immigrant from the Dominican Republic, pregnant by a boyfriend who deserted her to return there. She says she has irregular periods and used a home pregnancy test that gave a false negative reading, so did not know she was pregnant until she felt something moving. Her family is poor, and she did not want to ask her mother for the $200 it would cost to have a clinic abortion. So she used Cytotec, and anti-ulcer medication freely available in the Dominican Republic, to self-induce a miscarriage. The fetus, at 1 1/4 pounds was not viable, and lived for four days.

It's not a question of whether Ms. Abreu will be charged with a crime, it's a question of adding manslaughter or homicide charges to the charge she is already facing.

The notable injustice of such anti-abortion laws is that they are, ultimately, sexist. The woman carries the entire burden of the risk of pregnancy. Her sexual partner, who shared in creating the fetus, suffers no such risk. It is a certainty that Ms. Abreu's partner will not be charged, but his departure left Ms. Abreu without the resources to raise a child and contributed to the her need to abort the fetus. Even more fundamentally, had he not participated in the initial sex act, Ms. Abreu would not have been pregnant. There is no provision for the men who impregnate women who have abortions to fall prey to laws against abortion. The woman assumes all the risk, all the blame and all the punishment for a sex act that originally involved two people.

A second problem is that the decision on charges rests on time rather than viability of the infant in question. The fetus was proven not viable. How can it be called homicide, manslaughter or whatever if the fetus is so completely dependent on the mother it cannot survive outside the womb? During pregnancy, the fetus survives at the pleasure of the host. In no other instance do we require, under penalty of felony criminal conviction, that a person allow another organism to feed off of their very life essence. Given that abortion is still safer than full-term pregnancy, when women ask for control of reproductive rights, they are asking for no less than the right to say yes or no to dying so that another person can live. Given appropriate medical, social and financial support, it has been found that most women will take the risk. The drop in abortion rates experienced during the Clinton Administration was due not to lack of access but lack of perceived need. Women felt they have a strong network of support and could raise a potential child.

Finally, it is appalling that, while abortion is still legal, it is not fully accessible to poor women. Amber Abrue stated that she did not have the $200 for a legal abortion, and she was afraid to go to her family for the money. This is a medical procedure, and unless deemed illegal, should be treated as such. There is no justification for withholding federal funding for clinics that provide abortion services. Since that service is available to women who are not poor, it is discrimination, plain and simple, and women are suffering because of it. It is fundamentally unjust to restrict access to abortions for poor women on the one hand, and then arrest them for trying to obtain them by other means.

Every woman deserves the right to decide for herself what happens to her body. Even if you would not choose abortion yourself, please allow others the right to make that choice for themselves.

A great analysis of the case by irishwitch is available at DailyKOS.

See if your state supports a woman's right to choose.
lurkitty: (Default)
I wrote this in November of last year. I am reprising it now because it is very important on this, the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, that we think about what will happen if we eliminate the rights of women to govern their own bodies.

Why I Became A Vegetarian
I used to hunt deer. I used to fish. I used to raise rabbits for food and fur.

I was in my early twenties. I had just broken up from living with man for two years. I was pretty desperate for love.

I was always careful to be humane in my practices, to never let an animal suffer, to honor their spirit.

I was on birth control at the time. Every birth control method has a margin of error. 99.9% means still means that some woman will get pregnant.

In recent years, I had gone to eating only organic, free range meat. I really thought that, because of my allergies, I couldn't be a vegetarian.

My periods had never been on time in my life. I really thought it was just a normal month, then the second one came around without a period.

Over the years, I had heard many arguments for vegetarianism. Most didn't really impress me. Foods don't gross me out, and the chances of getting things like e. coli are as good for certain vegetables as for meats.

I had severe asthma, barely controlled. My pulmonologist had said I could not carry a child to term because it would mean taking me off all meds. That's why I was always careful about birth control. It was hard to believe I was pregnant.

The one argument for vegetarianism that did make sense to me was the amount of resources it takes to raise a cow vs. feed a person on veggies.

A visit to the doctor confirmed it. I was sent for an ultrasound to determine how far along I was. The bright, cheery tech at the Catholic hospital turned the monitor around and said, "look, here's your baby!" I said, "I can't have it." She said nothing else.

One thing I always told myself was that, if I got to a point where I could not kill an animal myself, I would not eat one. I believe in karma. No one else should have to do something I would not.

The Ob/Gyn was more optimistic. He thought I could carry the child, but the pulmonologist thought I would not survive. I believed him. I had a choice. I used it.

I came to that point several months ago. I looked into the eyes of an animal and knew I could no longer eat flesh. I looked at the fish while snorkeling, and could no longer eat them.

I was in the second trimester by the time I had my abortion. It was a difficult choice. The baby had already survived a third of the way. The chances the meds would hurt the fetus increased every day. The chances I would die without the meds were too great. I couldn't take the chance. I had to respect the life I had over the life that may have been. If abortion had been illegal, would I have been able to make the choice for my own life?

Respect for life. I chose to be a vegetarian out of respect for life.

I chose to have an abortion out of respect for life. My own.
Sincerely,
Merri Martin

Profile

lurkitty: (Default)
lurkitty

August 2011

S M T W T F S
 123 456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 08:34 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios