I've read about Dr. Willie Parker before. There's a lovely profile of him here at Esquire. Rereading that now, it has many of the themes that Dr. ParkI've read about Dr. Willie Parker before. There's a lovely profile of him here at Esquire. Rereading that now, it has many of the themes that Dr. Parker expounds on here. This book is part memoir, tracing Willie Parker's life journey from the depths of poverty to the heights of a prestigious, well-paying career as an ob/gyn; part declaration of faith, as he relates being born again at age fifteen and how he balances his Christianity with his now full-time work as an abortion provider; and a fierce, ethical, and moral argument for the right of women to make this choice.
This is a very frank and refreshingly scientific treatise on the procedure of abortion. Dr. Parker describes it in detail, and busts many pro-lifer myths along the way. Abortion does not cause breast cancer; abortion is safer than childbirth; Planned Parenthood does not sell fetal tissue; and the vast majority of women do not regret their abortions, but rather feel relief, or at most a bittersweet acceptance. (As Dr. Parker says [pg. 98]: "I find that my patients are far more sensible, and far less histrionic, about the realities of this process than their elected representatives are.") He discusses second-trimester abortions and the myriad reasons a woman might have one, summing up his stance with this (pg. 101): "I perform second-trimester abortions, within the legal limits of state and federal law, because women tell me they need them."
For Dr. Willie Parker, this is the only reason he needs. It's the only reason anyone should need.
In chapter 9, "Preaching Truth," he examines several of the anti's objections to abortion, and deconstructs them with a doctor's knowledge, a scientist's precision, and a storyteller's cadence. I'm just going to quote a few paragraphs here, because I could never say it any better.
Most women who seek abortions are healthy and in the prime of their lives. Whatever factored into their decision making, they know what they want to do, or what they need to do by the time they enter my office, and they have gotten the money together. These are the "lucky" ones.
Adults are presumed to be able to look after their own best interests and the best interests of the people who are depending on them. In every case except abortion, society bestows upon individuals this trust, even if those individuals have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to make good decisions. The presumption undergirding abortion decision making is that women who have had sex and are accidentally or unintentionally pregnant can't be trusted to comprehend the consequential weight of their actions. The law requires them, like bad little girls, to "prove" to authorities that they have thought carefully about what they're about to do.
In health care, no other medical condition is treated this way. (pg. 141)
In my conversation with the young anti-abortion activists at the University of Alabama that day, I presented fatal fetal anomalies as clear-cut cases for the necessity of preserving abortion rights up to and beyond twenty weeks. They countered that sometimes miracles happen that allow these fetuses to survive. Yes, I answered, maybe. But most of the time they don't. And the students were forced to concede that, sometimes, maybe, abortion does not equal murder. And then I brought my argument home: If you can agree that certain medical conditions might justify abortion, then how can you exclude social, or personal, or financial conditions? If abortion is permissible in the case of a fatal fetal anomaly, then why not in the case of homicidal, battering partner? Or a dire lack of resources? Or a drug dependency? How can the state adjudicate the circumstances of a woman's life at all? (pg. 153)
This is a wonderful book: concise, compassionate, well argued. I thought before that Willie Parker is a goddamned hero, and this book only reinforces that. He is proud of the work he does, and I'm proud, and grateful, that we have him....more
This little book is a good primer on the state of the pro-choice movement in America. It was written in 2012, long before the recent Supreme Court decThis little book is a good primer on the state of the pro-choice movement in America. It was written in 2012, long before the recent Supreme Court decision striking down HB 2, Texas' terrible abortion law, and thus is somewhat pessimistic about the movement's future. Despite the recent SCOTUS victory, abortion rights are still under siege in many areas of the country, as this book points out.
Topics include "Hands-Off Training," discussing the (lack of) training offered by many medical schools in how to perform abortions; "(Mis)Representations of Reality," pointing out the distorted view of abortions, a common medical procedure (1 in 3 American women has an abortion during her reproductive lifetime), offered on TV and movies; and "I Went to the March for Life, and All I Got Was This Lousy Fear of Choice," the chronicle of the author attending the March for Life and visiting a so-called "Crisis Pregnancy Center." The most interesting part of the latter section is the author's recounting of literature she picked up in said CPC, and how dishonest it is. From page 197:
"I knew going into this CPC that I would not receive any pro-choice information. But I was still shocked at just how factually inaccurate and misleading the abortion information actually was. Just because a clinic is 'faith-based,' as the woman I met with pointed out--to say nothing of not 'abortion-minded'--does not give it the right to provide women and their partners with lies."
Huh. Well, color me shocked (not).
This book is well-written but doesn't tackle its subjects in any great depth, unlike another book I recently read on the topic, Katha Pollitt's Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights. It's certainly worth reading, however. ...more
I'll start out by saying that I am unabashedly in favor of reproductive rights and against forced-birtherism, so naturally this book is right up my alI'll start out by saying that I am unabashedly in favor of reproductive rights and against forced-birtherism, so naturally this book is right up my alley. Women's bodily autonomy and human rights should not even be up for discussion. Unfortunately, due to the 2010/2014 elections, and the spate of laws passed in the states chipping away at the basic constitutional rights established in Roe v. Wade, (usually offered under the disingenuous guise of "protecting women") they are, forty years after this should have been settled.
Most of what Katha Pollitt says here is familiar to me; I use it all the time to argue with people (on the Internet and in real life) who think I should be demoted to a second-class citizen because of a stray sperm. What I think is interesting is how she follows the line of anti-abortion thought to its end, and exposes the mental pretzel-twisting that plagues most people who oppose abortion. To name just a few (the chapters go into far greater detail than this, nailing down every twist of forced-birther illogic): Why should you have rape and incest exceptions at all? No matter how the baby got there, it's still a life, isn't it? Why do you support only prosecuting the people who perform abortions, and not the women who asked for them? For those who believe an abortion is murder, if an elective abortion isn't pre-meditated murder, then what is? How many years in prison should a woman get for an abortion? Also, if you really want to reduce the abortion rate, why don't you support contraception and comprehensive sex education, instead of bleating the usual refrain (and I have seen this so many times I've lost count) of "The slut should have kept her legs closed"? You do realize that makes you sound like an embittered puritan who wants to punish women for participating in a natural everyday human activity instead of protecting "life," don't you?
Throughout the chapters, the author pursues this "logic" to its inevitable end, which would mean reducing women to the status of reproductive chattel. If forced birthers would just show some intellectual honesty and admit it, they would say that they want a law just like Ireland's or El Salvador's. No abortion allowed from conception on, not even in the case of a fatally deformed fetus, and most reluctantly (see: Savita Halappanavar...except that, ooops, she died) to save the woman's life. Along with investigations into every miscarriage, and prison terms for women who have abortions, and lifestyle restrictions on every woman of reproductive age, since after all they might become pregnant at any moment. And also, very likely, restrictions on birth control (no "abortifacients," no matter that there isn't any such thing) and in-vitro fertilization (as every one of those embryos has to find a home somewhere), which would have the desired effect of driving women out of the workforce and back into the kitchen, since you can hardly be a doctor or a lawyer or a Senator or maybe even President if you're having a baby every one or two years.
Hmm. What happened to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? That's for men only, I guess.
Sorry, I'm being facetious. A little. I know many of these people are sincere in their belief that abortion is murder, even if they're quite sincerely wrong. But since it is my Constitutional right, it really doesn't matter what opponents think. (This is why we'll have to keep relying on the courts to strike down these ridiculous laws, TRAP and ultrasound laws and heartbeat bills and so forth.) I appreciate the author's suggestion to reframe abortion as part of women's health care, no more and no less, and not "safe, legal and rare" but right and good if the woman wants it. There isn't, and shouldn't be, anything shameful about having an abortion. It's my right and my life, and we need more books like these to remind people of that fact. ...more
This is the story of Scott Roeder and Dr. George Tiller, and how the two came together in a burst of violence in 2009.
But there's so much more to the This is the story of Scott Roeder and Dr. George Tiller, and how the two came together in a burst of violence in 2009.
But there's so much more to the story than that. The author traces Roeder's life, and how he fell in with extreme anti-abortion groups and became an extremist himself, to the point where he felt it was perfectly justified to murder Dr. Tiller in the name of "saving babies." This is some dark, scary stuff, wonderfully fleshed out by the author.
He also tells how Dr. Tiller fell into the practice of providing abortions almost by accident, and how gratifying it was to him, because of all the women he was helping. The doctor's motto "Trust Women" is highlighted throughout.
(One thing I do wish the author had done, however, was go into greater detail why late-term abortions are needed. In almost all cases, they're due to fatal birth defects and/or dangers to the mother's life. No one gets a late-term abortion just for the sheer fun of it.)
The 2008 Presidential election is also woven into the narrative, and how that triggered so many of these extremist groups (I wonder why...). It's not a major part of the story, but it definitely provides an undercurrent.
The most disturbing thing about the book, however, is how it depicts Scott Roeder as being completely without remorse, and how it's appropriate for him to be a vigilante and shoot someone, just because he doesn't agree with what that person is doing. That is true to this day, as far as I know. Talk about some seriously twisted thinking.
This is a thoughtful, well-researched book. I'll be hunting out the author's other work. ...more
Loading...
