I could’ve had an abortion over 14 years ago, but didn’t. My then ex-partner at first pressured me into getting one (we were dirt poor), until I complained to his grandmother and church, and boy did he change his tune in a heartbeat. I should have known better than to allow myself to be in such a situation.
An issue I have is when radical leftists say that “men should not be deciding women’s health”. Not only does it reek of the misandry, but it ostracizes transsexual men like me, especially those of us who are victims of corrective rape. I am a man, transsexual, a trans man—if these radicals carve out an exclusion for trans men to be able to voice our opinion because we have or had vaginas, then that means they don’t see as real men; they dismiss our transitions and our experiences as men, and still see us as “women” at some level—and what if a trans man, regardless if he had children or not, is pro-life? Is he still allowed to say something at the table?
And you know what? Men should be a part of the conversation, because many doctors and other health specialists who help with obstetrics and gynecology are men. Men help pay the (majority) of taxes that subsidize coverage costs. Men’s chances of fatherhood are at stake. Abortions are funded by insurance, which are usuallygroup policies, and the more women use abortions, the more rates go up—and given that men equally pay into them (if not bear a large burden of the costs), and have to pay the same rates so women’s health is subsidized, it makes sense we should have a voice. There are (rich) men who expect a sexual encounter to be purely sexual, only to find out someone had sex with them to have a child and demand “child support”.
The problem with American politics is that politicizes everything, even our medical system. Abortion is a medical option, not a “right”. (I mean elective abortion here.) Most Republicans agree with medically necessary abortion, just not elective abortion, or at least think it’s up to insurance policy holders to decide if they want to cover it or not–many even agree would be allowed an elected abortion in cases of rape. This is unlike Democrats, who think abortion should be covered, with absolutely no restrictions, and don’t even agree with the current standard set by Roe, which is up 23-25 weeks, the date of viability. Abortions are not as simple as taking a few pills and you’re better the next day, it’s a freaking process!
Seems like one party wants to compromise and while many generally disagree with it, are willing to make exceptions; but the other doesn’t want to compromise whatsoever…hmmm…
Using religious arguments to deny access to abortion, however, infringes on separation of church and state, while also prioritizing the views of one religion (or faction of a religion) over those of others. Some religions state personhood only starts at the first breath or quickening (when a woman first feels the fetus in utero), so abortion isn’t murder. Not to mention, some religions do dictate reproductive rights, like the Satanic Temple, Reform Judaism, and many heathen/pagan religions. Doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other medical specialists have no right to enforce their religion upon those they treat; if their religion makes them that selective, they should give up their medical license and preach from pulpits instead!
Insurances, maybe as a suggestion, should allow the option for young people to get vestectomies, hysterectomies, and tubal ligations at the age of 18, instead of somewhere in the mid-30s for someone with no children, as forms of birth control. Some people adamantly know they don’t want children, because they know it’s just too damn expensive anymore; just like with many other standards of care, of course it would require several visits with a specialist just to be sure, .
If you consent to sex, you consent to the consequences; otherwise, men should also have the option to walk away from an unplanned pregnancy, too, in the spirit of “gender equality”. If an unplanned pregnancy happens and a woman wants to keep the child but the father has made clear his intentions he never wanted to have children, he should not be financially responsible. If she can have sex and not have to live with consequences thanks to abortion, he should be allowed the same option. It’s hypocritical and archaic, otherwise, to give women the privilege to abort or even give up children under safe-haven laws, but expect the man she sexed with to still have to foot the bill.
If insurances are covering birth control for women, they should also be covering those same condoms, spermicide, and other options for men. Sure. chemical (aka hormonal) birth control costs more, but there are barrier methods women can buy, but insurance doesn’t cover; if women can have get theirs for free, why can’t men?
However, I am calling out all the “pro-lifers” here who aren’t pushing for higher taxes and a budget to cover the costs of these unplanned pregnancies. For the states trying to make abortion illegal, they damn well better be making available the financial resources to provide for the these kids, especially as they will be coming from impoverished families. So that these kids have housing. That they have clothing. That they have access to food, schooling, medical services, daycare so their parent(s) can work. That they have access to scholarships if they come from poor and disadvantaged families. That they increase funds for adoption and foster agencies if for the people who gave birth but don’t want to raise the kids. That if the children were born with such severe medical issues that a parent may have otherwise aborted because of the financial and daily burdens, that they can get the medical, social, educational care they need to thrive.
The government is overstepping its boundaries in dictating the states, private insurances, and others that they have to cover–or ban!–coverge. It’s understandable to mandate that insurances cover general gynecology, as they cover andrology and no one argues over that; but for specifics, like abortion or contraception, there is no need to get involved. Abortion should not be mandated, nor made illegal. Policy holders should be the ones dictating if it’s standard, if it’s an option one can additionally pay for, or just not cover it—I am sure there are plenty of responsible adults who would like to keep their premiums affordable, rather than go up because a few loose folks can’t keep their legs together, or avoid situations that supposedly lead to rape. Whereas for government-sponsored healthcare programs like Medicaid, CHIP, and Medicare: no, obstetrics (as well as family planning overall) is so niche as opposed to basic coverage, I don’t think it should be covered, because family planning is not essential health; if you’re on Medicaid because you’re impoverished, you’re definitely in no spot to afford kids; Medicare is meant mainly for our elders and permanently disabled, two groups of people who generally aren’t fertile or raising kids; and CHIP should be only covering the kids, not the adults!
What I do agree with is that doctors should be performing medical abortions when the life of the mother is in jeopardy; a doctor’s job is to save lives, not enforce his beliefs onto others.
If women cry rape to try to get their abortion covered, I think it’s totally appropriate that a police report be made. Having no report means no coverage from a policy or law that restricts access; otherwise, such a loophole will definitely be abused.
Every jurisdiction in the US has safe-haven laws to allow women to simply and safely give up custody right after birth, if a woman is unable to afford insurance and/or a rider that covers abortion care.
Women also need to realize that because they have the ability to procreate, they need to take extra steps to prevent unplanned pregnancies; this means they can’t have casual sex like men, unfortunately! This means that they have to be careful not to get into situations that leave them alone with drunk, or aggressive, guys. This means they should dressing in a way to detract attention, not encourage it. That means they should be curtailing on hookup and swinger cultures. This means using protection themselves (which I also don’t think insurances should be mandated to cover!), and making sure their male partners are, too. Making sure they they find and have the insurance that covers abortion, and the funds to travel and get it done—and if work won’t cover it, there’s plenty of healthcare add-ons you can buy online. (Hey, if these “pro-choicers” are organizing like I keep seeing in the news, than that means women will still have the access, regardless.)
I am neither for or against a woman trying to access abortion. If it’s medically necessary—because of miscarriage, encoptic pregranacy, a major health issue that will harm to either the fetus or the mother—it should not be denied, regardless of what a doctor thinks, and should be covered by health insurance. When it’s electively sought—because a woman has been raped, because a couple is too poor to have kids, a couple simply doesn’t want children, gender selection (yes I know it’s technically illegal, but with the right “cover” or “excuse” it still happens)—that should be decided by policy-holders whether to be covered or not.
I don’t think this should be compared to gay marriage; gay marriage is more a legal issue definitively, whereas abortion is a health matter that the government should not enforce nor ban. Contraception is purely a choice, like elective abortion, so the government’s mandate on its coverage should equally be denied.
If you are that much in the ”pro-life” camp, put your money where your mouth is, and make sure your government representatives raise taxes and have the funds available to accommodate all these kids. And above all, if you don’t want kids, keep yourself from getting into such risky behavior and situations that can result in pregnancy.
If the Supreme Court rules, your access to abortion won’t be denied. It just means governments can’t force insurance policies to cover it—or ban it outright.
Yes, this is a reposting of this entry. It has been edited to show my evolving views, as a reaction to the Supreme Court’s verdict, and to focus more on abortion itself without involving trans-specific health issues.