11 thoughts on “We Are Now a Nation That Will Protect the Rights of Women

  1. She ROCKS!
    I might not like her as a person, but frankly, you don’t want nice people in positions like hers, you want this kind of eagle-eyed sharpness and feline confidence, combined with the obvious powers of mind that she has, which are so obviously human :)

  2. I hate the term “safe, legal and rare” and her tangent about rates of abortion (that’s a sop to anti-choice discourse, IMO, no one would say that about any other health care service), but I guess that’s about as good as it will get in the US, and I should be grateful for small changes?

  3. kuri, i totally agree about the ‘reducing abortion numbers’ bollocks. it’s a concession to the anti-choicers and it’s very highly annoying. but i think in this day and age, it’s exactly right that this is (by leaps and bounds) as good as it will get in the US. i don’t think it’s a small change; even with the reduction bit, i think it’s a huge change.

  4. You know, I’m just not so bothered by that. I also think it’s good to reduce abortion numbers– because it’s far better for women to have access to the contraception and sex education that prevents unwanted pregnancies. My ideal would be no unwanted pregnancies which would really reduce abortion. And I don’t see anything wrong with saying that. Moreover, I don’t think it’s just pandering to put it that way: There *are* anti-choice people who support contraception and sex education because it reduces abortions. And I think it’s very sensible for a politician to try to create more of these people, and to find common ground with them. Of course, many anti-choice people aren’t like that. But I see nothing wrong with finding common ground with those who are. It’s practical and politically useful.

  5. If she’d talked about reducing unwanted pregnancies, I’d have been right with her. I think that’s the phrase we need. But the instance we attach a moral value to the rates of abortion, we’re bolstering the arguments of the anti-choicers. I don’t think that’s practical at all.

  6. kuri, what if we think about it this way (and i’m not saying this is my opinion; my opinion isn’t settled on the matter): appendicitis is bad; we want as few people to suffer it as possible. so we make a goal of reducing the number of appendectomies–not because the procedure itself is bad, but because the need for the procedure is bad. …hmm…but then perhaps we run into the problem that if we’re couching it in terms of reducing the procedure, we might end up with health care professionals who try to reduce the number of appendectomies by failing to perform them when they’re actually needed…hmm….right, so that analogy doesn’t work. but it still doesn’t seem totally clear to me that wanting to reduce a kind of surgical procedure is making a moral judgment about *the procedure*.

  7. That example would work better if appendicitis were actually preventable.

  8. yes that’s very true. but, that’s a small detail. pretend that (say thru diet and exercise) you could. or change it to heart disease or something.

Comments are closed.