Sara Robinson has a thought-provoking post up at The Group News Blog about the shift from surgical to medical abortions, and how anti-choice activists/terrorists are likely to respond. Read the whole thing, but here are some excerpts:
But, while most of the country was looking the other way, the entire abortion battlefield quietly, slowly, and irrevocably changed. Over the past seven years, medical technology has been gradually shifting the supply lines through which abortion is delivered. The change crept in so silently that, for a long time, very few people noticed. But suddenly, according to an article this week in the Washington Post, that one subtle change — in the form of mifepristone, aka RU-486 — is starting to make a fundamental difference in the way abortion happens — and is talked about — in this country.
According to the Post’s Rob Stein:
“At a time when the overall number of abortions has been steadily declining, a new survey reported that RU-486-induced abortions have been rising by 22 percent a year and now account for 14 percent of the total – and more than 1 in 5 of early abortions performed by the ninth week of pregnancy.”
It’s not the actual numbers that are interesting here; it’s the trendline. RU-486 has been available in the US since 2000; and its use has been increasing at a slow but steady rate ever since. What’s new is that it’s finally approaching critical mass, gaining acceptance with the vast numbers of doctors who’ve wanted to offer their patients the option of a safe early abortion, but simply couldn’t take on the daunting social, financial, or physical risks of performing the operation themselves. Increasingly, year by year, drug has allowed more and more of these doctors and their patients to do a complete end-run around the crazies at the clinic door. And this has gone on long enough now that it’s starting to change the way we approach the whole issue, on several fronts.
Assuming every woman who went through the doors at a Planned Parenthood clinic was there for an abortion was always the same flavor of stupid as assuming that that everyone who goes into Safeway must be buying beer. Even so: as RU-486 becomes The Way It’s Done, those women aren’t easy pickings any more. You can’t just hang out in front of the clinic on Tuesdays and Thursdays and assume everyone coming up the sidewalk is a slutty, bamboozled, innocent, callous-hearted baby-killing bitch who just doesn’t understand that it’s a baaayyybbeee, that she has Options, and how much Jesus loves her.
That era, as I said, is coming to an end. Increasingly, those women are bypassing the clinic entirely. Instead, they’re showing up for regular appointments, on all days of the week, at doctors’ offices all over town. Which makes it hard on the berzerkers: after all, there’s no legitimate way of knowing which doctors are in the abortion business now, or why any individual woman is seeing any given doctor on any given day. Our culture has strong, long-standing customs protecting discussions between doctors and patients; and as abortion increasingly slips behind that shady wall, that decision is finally ending up exactly where we’ve always argued it should be — as a private matter between a woman and her doctor.
Over the long haul, making early pregnancy termination a common piece of most doctors’ everyday medical practice will be the final step in normalizing abortion, removing its stigma, and ensuring that it will eventually be accepted as an unquestioned and relatively uncontroversial right.
What’s likely to happen — because it’s what usually happens when radical groups are driven to the fringes — is that the moderate members who make up the bulk of the movement let go and move on, leaving a much smaller fanatical core to carry on. Without that moderate influence to provide a constant, tempering reality check, the craziness level heats up and becomes concentrated. The remaining True Believers have wrapped up their lives and careers and (in some sad cases) their entire reason for being in the fight. For these professional warriors, losing control of the battlefield — in this case, losing control of women, and the presumed male prerogative to control women’s fertility — may prove to be a fate too shattering to contemplate.
When this kind of defeat and isolation happens, we’re usually wise to expect trouble. As abortion moves from the public battlefield to the privacy of homes and offices over the next decade or so, the sheer frustration over losing so much ground could very well drive an angry remnant of fanatics toward a final frenzy of unprecedented and spectacular terrorist violence.
But in medical abortion, the agent of termination is not surgical instruments in the hands of the doctor in an office, but drugs in the hands of the patient at home. That fact literally puts the event far more directly under women’s control — a shift that may finally force them to fully reckon with the fact that women are ultimately the responsible moral agents in every abortion decision. And if they do make this leap, we can expect it to get very nasty indeed as the personal becomes political on a whole new level. Our increased privacy will be met with overwhelming publicity: websites, public flyers, picketing in front of our houses, harassing phone calls to employers and family members. The more private the choice becomes, the harder they will fight back by trying to make it as public as possible.
From there, it’s easy to step off into truly frightening images culled from The Handmaid’s Tale. That’s one possible outcome to be aware of; but it’s far from the most likely one. More likely, public revulsion at these outrageous privacy invasions and violent tactics will be their undoing — putting the anti-choice movement in such bad odor that it will lose all of its credibility, and most of its cultural support. We’ll know we’re getting close when the conventional wisdom accepts that “anti-abortionists” are out to do to our families what they did to Terry Schiavo’s; that “pro-life” is exactly equivalent with “pro- snooping- in- your- family’s- business”; that “saving babies” is usually a self-righteous bully’s excuse for harassing and assaulting women; and that “anti-abortion violence” is, precisely, the modern definition of “domestic terrorism.”
We’ll know we’re getting close when the conventional wisdom accepts that “anti-abortionists” are out to do to our families what they did to Terry Schiavo’s
Characteristic of the writer’s tenuous grasp of reality. The Schiavo case involved a dispute between the Terry’s parents and her husband. So the state didn’t “snoop” into a private family matter . . . it was forced to arbitrate because there were factual questions regarding Terry’s wishes that she was not in a position to answer. What was the state supposed to do — sit back and let the family wrestle over the plug?
I think Ms. Robinson is overestimating the creativity and intelligence of the true hard core of the anti-choice movement. I doubt that many women obtaining medical abortions will have their homes picketed.
I do think that Robinson’s prognosis is correct in general, however. But the increasing use of terrorist tactics will, I suspect, not shift its focus. Rather, the hard core will simply ratchett up their attacks on their traditional targets, and focus on the later term abortions that can’t be handled medically. I suspect we will not see widespread picketing of women suspected of taking RU-486, but rather increased employment of arson, explosives, and other overt violence against Planned Parenthood and other providers of surgical abortion.
Not, of course, that the fanatics won’t picket, or murder, women they suspect of using RU-486, but I think they won’t be able to identify many such women and will therefore have difficulty finding targets beyond their traditional ones.
This probably stems from the stories of the anti-choicer bigots stalking clinic workers – like secretaries – and even people indirectly involved with a clinic – like the friggin contractor who built it. In addition to “ratting” them out to neighbors, employers, etc. Parking in front of their homes in vehicles with those infamous pictures on the sides.
It’s not so out of joint to think they would go as far as to picket invidiual homes- they already do.
It’s not only reasonable that the hard core of the anti-choice crowd would picket homes, but that they would bomb them or burn them as well. With the clearness of the choice shifting from the doctor to the patient, it’s easy to see that the fanatical edge would see it as their duty to “set examples” of some of the women who use medical abortions.
Someone doesnt’ have a good grasp of reality, and it’s not Sara Robinson.
Clearly, you’ve decided to just ignore whole chunks of the political posturing in the Schiavo matter. What should have been a private medical decision turned into a court fight because Terri Schiavo’s parents couldn’t accept that Michael Schiavo, and not them, was Terri’s legal guardian and had the power to make medical decisions on her behalf. And the courts ruled against them every single time the case was heard — because there are established channels for handling these matters, and there are established rules for determining who is the next of kin.
But where you really lose your grip on reality is when you deny that there was any sort of governmental interference in a private matter. The parents lost in court, and that should have been the end of it. But instead, Jeb Bush and the US Congress decided to get involved to overturn the decisions of the courts. Don’t you remember Bill Frist diagnosing Terri’s condition via videotape on the floor of the Senate?
That’s what Sara is talking about.
Not to mention Dumbya returning flying back to DC from his ‘ranch’ to sign special legislation? Something he didn’t bother to do after receipt of the pre-9/11 intel memo, or during Katrina.
Priorities, dontcha know. /snark
See, I don’t see them picketing individual homes of women who may have taken RU-486.
Rather I see it as a platform for them to harass OB/GYNs at large. All they need is one staff member of a doctor to have opposing views to reproductive choice/privacy and the harassment ensues. Dr. X carries RU-486 in his/her office and dispenses it at will to those who ask for it. Nurse Ratchett informs her local pro-force compadres and voila – harassment, intimidation and picketing of said MD and his patients outside of the office.
~or~
As what many anti-choice thugs do (as in making fake appointments at clinics to block time out from women who really do intend to show up and have an abortion), send in a “fake” patient who asks for the drug. If she gets what she asks for – voila – harassment, intimidation and picketing of said MD and his patients outside of his office.
Plenty of ways to detect these doctors and start protesting outside of their offices before any individual patient’s home be beseiged with pro-force terrorists.
I remeber back in the 1980′s when doctors performed abortions at their offices. I remember them for the protests that happened outside. Nowadays the physician’s office is deemed off-limits because abortions aren’t performed there. But once the AC thugs catch wind of the doctors who will/do dispense this drug bet the farm that not only clinics will be targeted, so will individual practices.
It will again be very difficult for a MD then to find office space for nobody wants protesters outside of their business. MD’s who dispense this drug could be marginalized just like the ones who do the surgical abortions.
There’s some situations, like euthanasia, where the decision should be based on more than just what the next of kin wants. And that was the situation with the Schiavo case. The courts weren’t deciding who was her next of kin, they were deciding what she most likely would have wanted to happen. Though you’re right that it should have been the end of it, and what Jeb and Congress did was crazy and embarrassing.
Marle, I never said that it was a simple next-of-kin issue; I was simplifying the issue because RA, as is his wont, was determined to ignore some very basic facts in order to try to appear superior to Sara. When I said that there were established procedures to handle these matters, it was shorthand for the kinds of proofs and procedures that someone seeking to terminate life support has to make. But IIRC, the parents were trying to push Michael aside from the get-go, long before it was determined that her situation was hopeless. That’s where the next-of-kin rules come in; since he was her next of kin under the law, he was the one who could make medical decisions. These issues are very important when it comes to end-of-life care, and they’re particularly important to gay couples, who can’t legally marry and often find themselves barred from hospital rooms in favor of legal next-of-kin.
As to the picketing/bombing of private houses — I wouldn’t put anything past these people, particularly if the more moderate ones leave and the lunatics are running the asylum. All they need to know is who you are, and they’ll harass you. Sara mentioned Phill Kline, who tried very, very hard when he was AG of Kansas to find out who was having abortions by suing a variety of abortion providers and seeking records of anyone who’d had abortions. He justified this by saying that the providers had to report any sexual abuse of minors, but he wound up getting booted from office by the voters for his efforts (still up to his old tricks as a county DA, though).
I mean, look at how often people get harassed and threatened and stalked when they’re outed online, or when they’ve just written something someone (*cough*BillDonohue*cough*) doesn’t like. All you’d need is some anti-choice website posting your name and address once they get hold of a list of women who’ve had medical abortions, and you can expect threatening calls and emails, and probably visits from the flying monkeys. Just look what happened to that family from Baltimore who spoke about what SCHIP did for them after their kids were hurt.
I’m sure they’ll attack the callousness of killing a baby “just by swallowing a pill”.
What should have been a private medical decision turned into a court fight because Terri Schiavo’s parents couldn’t accept that Michael Schiavo, and not them, was Terri’s legal guardian and had the power to make medical decisions on her behalf.
There was a lengthy trial to determine what Terri’s wishes would have been. Because she didn’t make a living will, there was testimony from both the husband’s side and the parents’ regarding whether she would have desired to have her life prolonged. If the court had found that Terri had wished to live, it could have directed feeding to continue regardless of the husband’s guardianship. So if what you meant by “private medical decision” was a decision made by a husband regarding his wife’s life, that wasn’t the issue.
In any event, Robinson didn’t refer to a “private medical decision.” She suggested that “anti-abortionists are out to do to our families what they did to Terry Schiavo’s.” But Terri’s parents were as much a part of Terri’s “family” as was her husband. No matter what the government did (and whether it was acting on a pro-choice or anti-choice agenda) it would have been “doing” something to a family member in any situation where the family members disagreed on what was to be done.
If the govermental interference that Robinson was complaining about was the brief Congressional action in the last two weeks of the controversy — rather than the five years of intra-family litigation — I don’t still don’t see how it was interference in a “family” or “private” matter. Perhaps it was an improper exercise of legislative power over the judiciary, but that’s an intra-governmental dispute rather than a governmental inference with a “family” or “private” matter. But I agree that Congress’ action was hypocritical insofar it it attempted to transfer jurisdiction in a “life” matter to the federal courts, when most pro-lifers (at least recently) argue that it is something that should be left to the states.
RA, you might want to read up on the case a little before you start pooh-poohing the extent of governmental interference as being simply “brief Congressional action.” The Florida Legislature inserted itself into the matter mere days after the parents’ last allowable state appeal was dismissed — in 2003, by passing “Terri’s Law,” which gave Jeb! the authority to order the feeding tube reinserted, which he did.
If that’s not an example of governmental interference with a private matter — one determined after the parents had every opportunity to argue their case before the Florida courts — I don’t know what is. But I suppose you’ll maintain that it wasn’t ever really a private matter because of the courts’ involvement.
When my mother was dying, we didn’t have to go to a court to have life support withdrawn from her. The situation was medically hopeless, and she couldn’t live without a respirator and a heart/lung machine. We made the decision to withdraw support as a family. And that was difficult enough — I can’t imagine not only having to fight it out in court, but then have the state legislature and then Congress swoop in to overturn the result just because the governor and the president wanted to throw a little red meat to the base.
This is seriously one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. You don’t see how getting Congress to pick sides between two groups of family members is interfering in a family matter?
odanu and Betty Boondoggle I’m not saying that the fanatics won’t go after individual women. I’m saying that given the likely difficulty of finding targets of that nature I don’t think individual women will be *frequently* targeted.
PP and the doctors providing surgical abortions (which will remain necessary even as RU-486 and other medical abortions become more common) are big, easy to find, obvious targets, and I suspect they will continue to bear the brunt of the increasing violence Ms. Robinson predicts.
When and as the fanatics can find individual women who have used medical abortificants, I’m sure they will harrass, threaten, and attempt murder. But I don’t see that becoming their primary activity, not due to any lack of desire to attack individual women on the part of the fanatics, but simply due to the difficulty in identifying individual women.
As I type that, I also suspect we’ll see a genuine witch hunt mentality developing, such that any woman the fanatics take umberage with will be, accurately or no, branded a “baby killer” and lynched on those grounds.
Still, I think the sheer difficulty of finding women using medical abortificants will keep the fanatics *mostly* focused on PP and other surgical abortion clinics.
We don’t have to fight over the Schiavo situation, both sides are right. RA is right about why it went to court, everyone else is right about how Congress and Jeb sucked. Ok?
Actually, RA *isn’t* right about why it went to court, or about why it stayed in court so long, which is why I provided the wikipedia link.
How is RA wrong about why it went to court? He says it went to the courts to determine what she would have wished, and I’ve read the court documents and that’s true. Your wikipedia link also says “Given the lack of a living will, a trial was held during the week of January 24, 2000, to determine what Schiavo’s wishes would have been regarding life-prolonging procedures.”
RA is grossly understating the problems with what Congress and Jeb did, but what he’s saying about the courts is factual.
It required just as many trips to the clinic (2) as a surgical abortion, and all the counseling and the presence of the doctor when I took the first pills. I don’t know if that was legal requirements or clinic policies.
I don’t think fanatics will have any problem tracking people down, and I’m sure they’re not afraid of picketing, outing people, or harrassing people even when they aren’t sure what you were doing. Bombing and shooting are harder to coordinate but if they’ll track down doctors at home, they’ll track down women.
“He says it went to the courts to determine what she would have wished, and I’ve read the court documents and that’s true.”
I disagree. Judge Greer upheld the Browning decision in this case, of which “what she would have wished” is only one part of a three-pronged test. Have a look; pages 7 through 10 are most informative.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
Essentially, the judge said that in this case, the Browning decision applied, thereby permitting Mr. Schiavo to make medical decisions in his wife’s stead.
And from the appeal itself, which affirmed the lower court’s decision:
“Since the resolution of the malpractice lawsuit, both Michael and the Schindlers have become suspicious that the other party is assessing Theresa’s wishes based upon their own monetary self-interest. The trial court discounted this concern, and we see no evidence in this record that either Michael or the Schindlers seek monetary gain from their actions. Michael and the Schindlers simply cannot agree on what decision Theresa would make today if she were able to assess her own condition and make her own decision.”
From my reading, the appeal court said ‘Shrug. Husband comes before parents in the Browning standard’ — which is essentially what Judge Greer said. That pretty clearly doesn’t concern itself with what Mrs. Schiavo might have expressed prior to falling ill.
[...] Hat tip to Feministe. [...]