That time isn’t history to me. I remember it. The assumption then was that it was women’s business. The illegality of abortion was just a hurdle, like the difficulty of finding liquor during Prohibition. Breaking either law was seen as having zero to do with right or wrong or moral worth. (Full disclosure: this was in Boston. I don’t speak for those white places on the map marked “Here be Dragons.”)
That was before thirty years of shrieking about “baybeez” and the gradual transformation of assumptions. Now women have no business. They’re assumed to be incubators.
The doctor’s insight and perspective is interesting. Could it be possible that returning the abortion question to the states would increase availability? In those states where a vocal majority is pro-choice the doctor and patient might be safer. Yes, it reintroduces the class lines in abortion availability. But if you are honest about this, we have already abdicated on the question of availability to the poor.
That time isn’t history to me. I remember it. The assumption then was that it was women’s business. The illegality of abortion was just a hurdle, like the difficulty of finding liquor during Prohibition. Breaking either law was seen as having zero to do with right or wrong or moral worth. (Full disclosure: this was in Boston. I don’t speak for those white places on the map marked “Here be Dragons.”)
That was before thirty years of shrieking about “baybeez” and the gradual transformation of assumptions. Now women have no business. They’re assumed to be incubators.
The doctor’s insight and perspective is interesting. Could it be possible that returning the abortion question to the states would increase availability? In those states where a vocal majority is pro-choice the doctor and patient might be safer. Yes, it reintroduces the class lines in abortion availability. But if you are honest about this, we have already abdicated on the question of availability to the poor.