According to an article in today's NYtimes, Hillary Clinton reaffirmed her belief in legalized abortion but also urged both those who are for abortion rights and against abortion to unite in order to prevent pregnancies in the first place. I'd like to say that I wholeheartedly agree. More education and better role models are needed (education both of the abstinence is good type and of the here's how you don't get pregnant type).
What ticks me off is the response to her speech (as quoted from the article):
Leading anti-abortion campaigners, in both New York and nationwide, pounced on Mrs. Clinton as a suspect spokeswoman for compromise and common ground.
"I think she's trying to adopt a values-oriented language, but it lacks substance, at least if you compare it to her record," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington. "If you look at Senator Clinton's voting record on this issue, it's like Planned Parenthood's condoms - it's defective."
Really, what's wrong with what she said? In fact, this is what she said:
"We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," Mrs. Clinton told the annual conference of the Family Planning Advocates of New York State. "The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place."
She is saying exactly what anti-abortion folks say . . . abortions should not be performed. Just because someone is pro-choice does not mean that the person is also pro-abortion. The reason I support pro-choice legislation is because there will always be situations in which women try to abort fetuses . . . and I would rather those abortions were performed medically and safely instead of in unlicensed, unsafe clinics (or spare rooms, or alleyways, or whathave). I'm not a fan of abortions, and I doubt I would ever have one myself; thankfully, I've been spared that choice. However, there are some people who do have to make the choice.
What Clinton is saying, and what I wish anti-abortion groups would hear, is that our energies should be focused on preventing kids from having sex, and, barring that, preventing kids from getting pregnant. This doesn't just include sex education; any education will help people make better choices. Instead of shoveling money into outlawing abortion, why not put it into after-school programs? If teenagers went to after school programs instead of being unsupervised for hours a day, perhaps they'd be having less sex (note: my money is where my mouth is. I lead an after-school girl's science club that meets once a week). Maybe if we put money back into sports, or music, or art, or anything, teenagers would spend their time developing their minds, bodies, and self-esteem. I honestly think that a school-district which began emphasizing personal achievements for each student, and which tried to find a field for each student to excel in, would find a drop in pregnancy rates within five years.
Anyway, I digress. My thoughts on this issue are still half-formed. I'm just writing this to say that I agree with Clinton when she says that we should focus on preventing pregnancy instead of squabbling over abortion rights. I hope she runs in 2008; she's got my vote.
Recent Comments