As I have followed the coverage of the leak of a draft decision of the US Supreme Court with regard to the Roe vs Wade judgement on abortion, a number of thoughts have come to mind.
The first has been about the way in which the relationship between the notion of the rule of law and the exercise of political office is perceived. So for, example, President Biden has very quickly expressed his concerns (or, more honestly, opposition?) to the striking down of Roe vs Wade that the leaked draft seems to foreshadow. And Vice-President Kamala Harris has been even more explicit. It seems legitimate that those in high public office should attack a possible court ruling, rather than indicating their compliance with the rule of law that might result.
The public narrative - and it is there in both President Biden's and Vice-President Harris' remarks - speaks in terms of women having a right to choose, and in their having a right to have control over their bodies. This right to choose is seen as a "women's right" to be defended. There is a literature, from authors on both sides of the debate about legalized abortion, that describes the experiences of women who have had abortions. The examples of this literature on my own bookshelves are not particularly recent, but the themes involved were referenced by a speaker towards the end of BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning, who cited a book she had viewed in a visit to an abortion clinic where women had written their thoughts about their experiences. There are a wide range of reasons that lie behind women deciding to have abortions, some examples being family pressures, financial pressures, unsupportive partners or partners with addictions, effect on education or career prospects; and there can be very different emotional responses arising from those decisions.
In other words, there are multiple narratives, not one single narrative. And in many of those narratives there are one or more constraints being exerted on the woman's freedom in choosing for or against abortion; they are not exercising a right to choose in the real sense of that phrase. Our conversation about abortion, if it is to respect and reflect the real experiences of women, cannot be one about a "right to choose". It has to include the full range of narratives; and, even remaining neutral with regard to the rights and wrongs as such of abortion, that wider conversation could be expected to lead to change in the practice of abortion.
Interestingly, the pro-life speaker in this morning's Today programme interview (Melanie McDonagh) was insistent on our talking about abortion as the "killing of a foetus" rather than using a term like "healthcare procedure", and in recognising that the foetus is a human being in various stages of development. Our conversation needs to reflect that there is this foetus as well as the woman in the situation. From my own reading, the difficult emotional responses that some women experience occur from precisely this recognition.
The full interview from the Today programme can be found here, beginning at 2:22. It will be available for the next 29 days. The BBC news website has a page in which six women from America give their responses to the Supreme Court leak: Roe v Wade: US women divided on leaked abortion ruling. Perhaps Catherine Nix's observation that, whether abortion is legal or not, there will still be women with unexpected pregnancies who need help and support is the most thoughtful response.
A final thought. One of my take away points from the #MeToo movement, and from recent concerns here in the UK about violence against women, has been that the safety of women requires men to take an increased responsibility for the behaviour that they show towards women. And yet the language of a "woman's right to choose" in terms of abortion appears to take an opposite stance, suggesting an autonomy of women from men's behaviours. (As do adverts for the morning after pill, with a strap line "It's my morning after".)
No comments:
Post a Comment