Listening to the Heart of a Woman

As an abortion provider, I have often felt as Peg Johnston, below, feels.  That is, that the words of the 45 million who have had an abortion are crowded out by the "two sides" arguing back and forth.  But since the murder of Dr Tiller, more women are speaking out.  Many women have told their stories on the website, drtiller.com. Clinic workers, aligning themselves with our slain hero, have created a website, iamdrtiller.com.  Only by women and their partners and families speaking about their own abortions will the dialogue be genuine.  Only then will more Americans come to understand what is truly in the hearts of the women who chose abortion.  Thank you, Peg, for once again writing so eloquently, giving clarity to the issue and encouraging more women to speak up and let their voices be heard too.
Lu

Listening to the Heart of a Woman

By Peg Johnston

July 13, 2009 - 7:00am

Published under: Common Ground | Women’s Rights

If the proverbial Martians were to come to Earth, and specifically to the United States, they would naturally be interested in the dominant conflicts on the planet as the best way to learn about us. When they got to the abortion conflict, they would be perplexed that the most impassioned partisans were not those who personally decided to have or not have an abortion. And there’s a lot to learn about that observation.

What is missing in the abortion debate, including the Common Ground discussion, are the women themselves who have had abortions, or for that matter, who decided to parent or make an adoption plan.  You would expect that patients who identified as pro choice would choose abortion as needed without a lot of conflict. You would think that those women who were against abortion wouldn’t have one. You would be wrong on both counts.

When you sit with women on a daily basis as I, and most abortion care workers, do, you will soon learn that “until you understand the heart of a woman, nothing about abortion makes any sense at all.” Dr. George Tiller taught us that mantra, which is why he was so beloved by our community. A day or two listening to women talk about their decisions will make everything about the public abortion debate seem completely irrelevant.

Take Catherine (not her real name) who wrote on her chart last week: “Yes (it was a difficult decision) because it is wrong.” You might think Catherine was in the wrong place, but what I heard when I listened closely was a complex, thoughtful decision that considered her family and the needs of each of her kids, the financial prospects for her and her husband, and how she might feel about her choice later on, just for starters. I was so impressed with her process that progressed from a simplistic worldview of right/wrong to a more nuanced, ‘what’s right for me and my family?’ I also witnessed her courage in facing down the long held, but unexamined beliefs she had learned from her family. Still, she would not talk to them about her decision, physically recoiling at just the thought of it.

In this she is not alone. “What does it take to silence 45 million women?” many of us have asked. We know that the 30+ year campaign to stigmatize abortion is working remarkably well. It’s what keeps a woman from talking to her best friend, her husband, her doctor, or her minister. It doesn’t change people’s minds; rather, it’s how they are silenced. So, no wonder no one gets to really understand why more than1 million women every year choose to terminate their pregnancies! Imagine if there was only one story about divorce—instead of knowing women who were relieved to move on, traumatized for a long time, or should have gotten a divorce earlier, we only hear about the adulterer.

The problem is that only a few of us hear these incredible stories of people’s real lives. Aside from the mental health implications of stigmatizing a life event that 45 million people share, the silencing of the abortion experience has distorted the debate. Recently conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan acknowledged that women’s stories, written as comments on Dr. Tiller’s murder, changed how he viewed the issue. “Some of these situations are really tragic,” he said. “Duh,” we said in unison.

Even more tragically, there are very few opportunities to hear, really hear, women’s experiences of abortion, or indeed, their experience of unintended pregnancy and decision-making. Abortion care workers (and I include those who help women at abortion funds, family planning clinics, talklines etc) are like priests in a confessional. The public can sometimes listen into the stories they hear at blogs like abortionclinicdays.com or the abortioneers, but there are not many opportunities to hear more than partisan sound bites. A pregnancy decision is so rich with multiple layers of feeling, concerns, and ethics that it is a shame that the public can’t access them. A discourse that embodied these experiences would completely change the abortion debate and would significantly help women who are isolated in their decision-making.

Imagine if women were invited to use existing online public engagement technology so that our deeply conflicted society can try to understand the “heart of a woman.” So that this doesn’t turn into which side can log in faster to a FOX poll, the process would be designed to tease out the most complete story. A scientifically designed survey would invite women who have had an abortion to answer questions as well as to contribute a narrative about the significance of the abortion decision or experience in their lives. These questions would encourage reflection on various aspects of the abortion decision, such as the needs of children, her or her partner’s readiness for parenting, her concerns about the impact of a child on her relationship with partner or family, financial issues, educational goals, religious or spiritual beliefs, support, or lack thereof, for the woman’s moral agency, and societal attitudes toward various pregnancy outcomes (abortion, adoption, single parenthood, etc.)  

A content analysis would identify important themes. This qualitative approach is not a battle of numbers but will allow everyone to understand the range of factors in the decision making process as well as barriers to each option a woman considers. Instead of opinions we will be soliciting experiences.

Those who are making policy about funding, state mandated waiting periods, and other restrictions might just gain perspective from women themselves about what was helpful and what might have been more useful to them in their decision-making. For instance, what kinds of support would have contributed to their emotional health? What information would have been helpful? Were state and federal laws a help or a hindrance? What presentation of risk factors most often leads to negative mental health outcomes? What is the impact of the societal stigma placed on abortion in terms of healthy outcomes? What are the special needs of young women, those experiencing domestic violence, or those with other identified risk factors such as prior emotional conditions?

Just as any visiting Martian can tell you, the solution to the conflict does not come from the partisans on either side. It comes from the truths of the people who are living with the consequences of public policy. When women’s experiences, not just bumper sticker slogans, are part of the debate then—and only then-- will common ground make any sense at all.

This piece first appeared on RHRealityCheck.org

Comments

[tgnotmy]

9Kq65K pehfyunmhydw, [url=http://softqkwtzxnb.com/]softqkwtzxnb[/url], [link=http://vcmhxhhzlnnz.com/]vcmhxhhzlnnz[/link], http://vlvuznwkzlhz.com/

[Дизайн буклета]

If more people knew how the staffs of CPCs lie to pregnant women seeking information and guidance, I think they would also feel the sting of ostracism.

[Печать визиток]

People make mistakes. It is irresponsible to then wave it around literally on a stick at ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE and tell US that we cannot have the choice to make OUR own decisions just because THEY regret the one THEY made!

[Julie]

George, how can you not regret asking such a stupid question?

[George]

How can you not regret murdering your own child?

[Julie]

I'm still waiting for you to come up with sources to back up your claims. Where is the evidence that hospitals don't want to perform abortions, or abortion clinics are "dumps", or 80% of counties don't want abortion providers? If more people knew how the staffs of CPCs lie to pregnant women seeking information and guidance, I think they would also feel the sting of ostracism.

[Pandora]

After 30 plus years of Roe v Wade, abortionists still complain of ostracism. You have failed to make abortion and those who provide it acceptable to the rest of the medical community, heck according to whiny abortionist you can't even get your facility maintained.

The local CPC doesn't have this problem, they just got the place renovated not too long ago.

[Julie]

I ask you to "put up" but you ask me "what's your plan?" Time you admitted you "ain't got nothin'". You've failed, just like the general anti-abortion movement has failed.

[Pandora]

So what's your plan to get abortionists into hospitals where they aren't wanted? What's the plan for them to get their clinics maintained so they don't look like dumps? What's your plan to deal with the 80% plus counties where they are not welcome?

[Julie]

Ya know, hom. Repeating what I say is the mark of someone lacking anything original to say. I can back up what I say with medical and scientific facts. So it's time for you to either put up or shut up. What's it gonna be, sweetie?

[Pandora]

OK you're not a provider, so you just post hearsay and speculation.

If you happen to know of any unemployed abortionists I hear they're short one in Kansas .....

[Julie]

What the blazes are you talking about? OIC, you are under the impression I'm an abortion provider. Man, are you naive, wasting good money on bottled water.

[Pandora]

But my local health care provider can get all the bottled water he wants, whihc seems to be more than you can.

[Julie]

You are a real piece of work,Pandora. Playground taunts are a sign you don't really have a coherent argument.

[Ayaz Ullah]

I think abortion is wrong especially, when it's to late into the pregnancy.

[Pandora]

To Julie,

Whiny Abortionist on another page seems to think not enough women who don't regret their abortion are speaking up. Please send some her way so she'll stop whining.

[Diatryma]

Operation Counterstrike, one of the strengths of the pro-choice movement is that we are not the ones killing women. We aren't the ones insisting little girls die because they have bad fathers. We aren't the ones threatening women.

I am not going to give that up.

If someone calls me a murderer, the way to fight back isn't to kill them.

[Julie]

I'll try this AGAIN:
1) The fetus is NOT a person, like an acorn is not an oak tree.
2) It's called "taking the moral high ground." The public sees pro choicers talking the talk and walking the walk. Then they see the anti abortion activists are - hyprocrites. Polls aren't the most realiable indicators, but they have shown most Americans want abortion to remain legal.
3) I feel public disgust at their actions will be more effective than terror.
4) Exposing them for the miserable hyprocites they are will also be more effective than putting them six feet under. You know how cockroaches run when light is shone on them?
5) a good slap upside the head is, once again, STILL more effective than a bullet to the brain.
6)'Nuff said. Expose them for the fork-tongued hyprocritical idiots they are. People can't learn the error of their ways after they are dead.

[Julie]

Grrr. My other comment got deleted! Webmaster, can you restore it? It was a long reply to operation counterstrike.

[Julie]

Sorry, I meant "polls are NOT exactly the most reliable."

[Julie]

Going by the U.S. Constitution, the fetus is NOT a person. An acorn isn't an oak tree, so a potential person cannot be compared with an already born person, and so on. The woman's choice is justified, but abortion is not homicide, not by any stretch. Saying otherwise is playing the anti-abortion movement's game.
1) It's called "taking the high road". The public sees the violent elements of the anti-abortion movement which hurts that movement's appeal. Polls are exactly the most reliable indicator, but each one has shown the majority of Americans want abortion to remain legal and safe.
2) The continued disgust by the American public is what will convince the anti-abortion movement they must stop coddling the violent segment within their ranks. When the people speak up and say "I would be pro-life, but that movement is so violent", then there will be changes. Public opinion is very important to the anti-abortion movement.
3) I feel exposing them to the public eye and showing what they really are will be more effective than putting the "hit" on them.
4) IMHO: A good metaphorical ear-boxing is more effective than a bullet to the brain. I want them to think really hard about their behavior, and they can't do that if they are dead.
5) See #4 above. Olbermann tongue lashing or a Stewart fun poking is WAY more effective. Only feelings get hurt this way, plus it's funnier. LOL

[OperationCounterstrike]

Dear Julie, you've asked some good questions and here are my answers. But first, I must say I disagree with you--abortion DOES involve TWO people. The fetus is a person but killing it at the mother's request is JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE. You are entitled to kill anything and anyone which is located inside your body.

Now, your points and questions:

You wrote: "asserting the killing of anti-abortion activists as "tit for tat" will be, well, counter productive."

How do you know that? The pro-choice side has been following your strategy--no counterterror, rely on the feds to protect us--going on for two decades now, and what has it produced? A steady pattern of totally one-sided murder and terror. It is time to try a different strategy.

You wrote: "What I want from the anti-abortion movement is more than just mealy-mouthed "condenmations" or worse, excuses for violent people like Roeder."

Me too. And what can we do that will CAUSE right-to-lifers to do more? They will never get serious about condemning and preventing terror until they FEAR terror. All of them. We have to make it just as dangerous to be a public right-to-lifer as it is to be a public abortion-worker. THEN they'll get serious.

You wrote: "The fringe must stop disseminating "wanted" posters of abortion providers, take down websites like "Nuremberg Trials", stop following, harassing, threatening and/or assaultling abortion providers and clinic workers, and cease trying to justify their actions with half-baked quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo."

There's only one sure way to make someone stop doing something: kill them.

You wrote: "Killing anti abortion activists will only give them martyr status and public sympathy."

No, I don't think so, not at this point. The public is aware of the one-sidedness. I think the large majority-reaction to counterterror will be "They've had that coming for a long time".

You wrote: "Plus,what you are saying is probably getting you looked at by the F.B.I."

I've already been interviewed. They just want to be reassured that I myself am not going to do anything violent or illegal. The magic words to make FBI agents go away are "I'm just a writer".

You wrote: "Last of all, why stoop to lower yourself to the level of idiots like Pavane, Stanek and Shannon?"

What I hope to do with regard to those individuals is not as you say, lower myself to their level, but rather, to inspire someone to kill them and their families.

[Julie]

I'm on your side, Operation Counterstrike, and I know you are angry. But, asserting the killing of anti-abortion activists as "tit for tat" will be, well, counter productive. What I want from the anti-abortion movement is more than just mealy-mouthed "condenmations" or worse, excuses for violent people like Roeder. The anti-abortion movement will not gain any credibility until mainstream members stand up to the extremist fringe and tell them, in the strongest possible terms, "Your behavior is unacceptable. Stop this now or you are on your own." That means the fringe must stop disseminating "wanted" posters of abortion providers, take down websites like "Nuremberg Trials", stop following, harassing, threatening and/or assaultling abortion providers and clinic workers, and cease trying to justify their actions with half-baked quasi-religious mumbo-jumbo.
Killing anti abortion activists will only give them martyr status and public sympathy. Plus,what you are saying is probably getting you looked at by the F.B.I. Last of all, why stoop to lower yourself to the level of idiots like Pavane, Stanek and Shannon?

[Julie]

THere is ONE person affected by abortion: the woman. ONE potential person affected: the fetus. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove by demanding I "acknowledge this". Why should I acknowledge something on your terms? The blood types and DNA differences are irrelevent. So abortion wasn't the right decision for some women, that is sad for them but they have NO business trying to deprive other women of the right to decide. I never said I didn't like what they are saying, what I don't like is their implication abortion should be outlawed because they feel regret.

[45 Million Women Project]

I'm tired of hearing MEN telling ME that women regret having abortions and that it means NO ONE should have one.

Most Americans are for Choice. Not all for abortion in any circumstance or in most, but for ALL women having the choice to have one if SHE decides, in consultation with her partner, friend, family, doctor, God, ancestors, whomever she makes her important life decisions with. SHE then gets the final word -- because SHE is the one who is responsible ultimately for either choice! She's going to be responsible for having the most healthy pregnancy possible, for delivery and, no small thing, raising and providing for a Human Life until it is capable of caring for him/herself as an adult. Men, pastors, family members, lovers -- all of YOU can WALK AWAY at any time, and many, many do. But a mother CANNOT. That is why it IS her choice to continue a pregnancy to the creation of a new human being -- or not.

And to those women IN THE MINORITY who say they regret their abortion? THEY MADE THE WRONG CHOICE FOR THEMSELVES. That is a sad thing. But it was THEIR decision, not yours! Not a doctor's! Not a husband or a parent or a church leader's! It was THEIR decision to make. And if they made a bad choice for them, they can join the rest of humanity in being able to say they made a mistake somewhere in their life. Sorry.

People make mistakes. It is irresponsible to then wave it around literally on a stick at ALL WOMEN EVERYWHERE and tell US that we cannot have the choice to make OUR own decisions just because THEY regret the one THEY made!

My arguments are usually written better. But after working so hard to safeguard our rights on top of, like most people, the daily struggle to raise my own family with love and strong values, I am just outraged and EXHAUSTED by these debates. We presented our pro-choice position at Bughouse Square's annual free speech debates last weekend, taking on some frighteningly threatening and abusive male hecklers (one huge man actually grabbed an older woman who asked him to stop drowning me out!) Our presentation drew the biggest crowd of all the debates that day, and we were awarded First Prize Soapbox Champions.

As usual, you so-called pro-life MEN love to promote the women who submit to you and your church. And you HATE those of us who refuse to submit to you. And you'll take it to the Courts and you'll take it to the gun and anything else you can think of to terrorize us into submission.

Too bad so many of us think for ourselves and do not submit to you or your church. We have our own values and beliefs and principles, and we do not need yours -- and we sure won't live OUR lives based on YOUR church!

Don't believe in abortion, huh? By all means, do not have one.